Iraq and it has come down to this. Amazing.

[LeatherneckPA]

People, I have several very good friends, and two relatives, over there right now. And from EVERYTHING that I get from them, those troops believe in what they are doing. They believe it is necessary. They believe it has value. They believe they are making a difference in the lives of the Iraqi people.

If the ones who are there putting their lives on the line feel that strongly about it, who are we, a bunch of arm chair politicians who are being spoon-fed sensationalist swill by a completely out of touch with reality liberal media, to question them? since I haven't been there myself, I think I'll trust the ones who are there, as opposed to Dan Rather or some other overpaid talking head who has NEVER risked his life for anyone or anything but his career.

 

[eridanus]

People, I have several very good friends, and two relatives, over there right now. And from EVERYTHING that I get from them, those troops believe in what they are doing. They believe it is necessary. They believe it has value. They believe they are making a difference in the lives of the Iraqi people.

The people I know over there think it's a crock of ****.

 

[samclem]

Imagine that! Apparently we all know different people! For the record, I know a lot of folks who've served, and continue to serve, in both Iraq and Afghanistan. They all believe in the cause and that we are making progress. Still, this is not a scientific sample, since they are not from a cross-section of all US personnel over there. Chances are, the guys driving trucks are not as enthusiastic as the infrantrymen or the troops in special operations. I would like to meet some of the civil affairs folks, as they probably have an interesting take on how things are going in the most important fight.

 

[bosco]

People, I have several very good friends, and two relatives, over there right now. And from EVERYTHING that I get from them, those troops believe in what they are doing. They believe it is necessary. They believe it has value. They believe they are making a difference in the lives of the Iraqi people.

it is totally irrelevent whether the troops over there support or are against the war. It is not their decision to make, and their opinion has the weight of a voting US citizen like any other US citizen, not more and not less. Fortunately. That's democracy. We don't live in Sparta. The argument that the US should remain in a no-win war and continue to senselessly squander lives because troops do or don't believe in the cause is a total red herring, and is neither a reason to support, nor oppose the war, IMO.

 

[samclem]

it is totally irrelevent whether the troops over there support or are against the war. It is not their decision to make, and their opinion has the weight of a voting US citizen like any other US citizen, not more and not less.

Of course the troops only get one vote (and maybe not even that if some electoral boards try again to disregard their absentee ballots). Still, the opinions of those who have been there are worth soemthing. think you'd be in total agreement, if their opinions supported yours. Again, I see an unrepresentative sample, but the servicemembers I know support what they (and their nation) is doing in Iraq.

 

[JohnEyles]

... but the servicemembers I know support what they (and their nation) is doing in Iraq.

What about all the former generals and servicemen of note who definitely do
NOT support what we're doing in Iraq ? People like John Kerry, John Murtha,
and the parade of recently retired generals who are speaking out ?

Oh, I forgot, those guys are all traitors.

If I were one of the scumbags who call Kerry, Murtha, etc "traitor" (I'm
not saying you are Sam, but we know a lot of people ARE saying this),
I would be VERY interested in trying to figure out how Al Qaeda etc are
managing to turn formerly loyal soldiers, who served their country bravely,
into traitors. Seems to me this is a much more sinister threat than whatever
may happen in Iraq if we leave !

 

[eridanus]

I would be VERY interested in trying to figure out how Al Qaeda etc are
managing to turn formerly loyal soldiers, who served their country bravely,
into traitors. Seems to me this is a much more sinister threat than whatever
may happen in Iraq if we leave !

It's probably the fluoride in the water.

 

[dumpster56]

Imagine that! Apparently we all know different people! For the record, I know a lot of folks who've served, and continue to serve, in both Iraq and Afghanistan. They all believe in the cause and that we are making progress. Still, this is not a scientific sample, since they are not from a cross-section of all US personnel over there. Chances are, the guys driving trucks are not as enthusiastic as the infrantrymen or the troops in special operations. I would like to meet some of the civil affairs folks, as they probably have an interesting take on how things are going in the most important fight.

Yes that would be correct. remember the guys who join this mans american army are trained by the best in the world. That said they are now american soldiers and yes they WOULD believe in what they are doing. There is a mindset. WE TRAIN WARRIORS! and thank god for that! But to put our warriors in a no win situation is well Wrong and president Bush is wrong and scary that he knows so darn little about that part of the world.

 

[samclem]

What about all the former generals and servicemen of note who definitely do
NOT support what we're doing in Iraq ? People like John Kerry, John Murtha,
and the parade of recently retired generals who are speaking out ?

Some former service personnel are critical of our involvement in Iraq. However, I wonder how large the number really is? If a retired three star calls NPR and tells them he's against the war, he'll be on the air that night. If a retired three star calls and says he thinks we've turned the corner and that the stakes are too high to just walk away, they'll thank him for the call. Also, when I've heard grumbling from retired officers, it has often been about how we got into the war, the pre-war planning, and the way the campaign has been fought ("not enough troops/resources, went in too slowly" seems to be the most frequent criticism). All that is a long way from saying we should walk away.
Don't forget that there was significant resistance to US involvement in WW II, including oppositiion from former military personnel --but I think most people would now agree that the US did the right thing in that case.

 

[FinanceDude]

What about all the former generals and servicemen of note who definitely do
NOT support what we're doing in Iraq ? People like John Kerry, John Murtha,
and the parade of recently retired generals who are speaking out ?

There are plenty of questions surrounding John Kerry's "heroics"

Wasn't Murtha indicted by a grand jury "back in the day"

And you gotta love those "CBS special military analyst General XXXX".............those guys have ALL the answers AFTER the fact, they're no better than us "armchair quarterbacks".................

 

[Rustic23]

Should it surprise us that there are difference of opinions in the military? Does anyone believe that there are no Republicans or Democrats that have their own best interest in mind rather than the countries? Do you believe there would be Generals and Admirals willing to take large sums of money to get on TV nightly and bash their former bosses that failed to promote them?

As was pointed out to me ‘every member of the military will be turned down for promotion, unless he becomes Commander and Chief’. Some of these hold a grudge.


I think what retiredbop comments were meant to infer was not that we should do what the troops want just because they fight the war, but, that they may have a better hand on what is going on in Iraq than those of us that depend on the sound bites of a bias press.

 

[FinanceDude]

Should it surprise us that there are difference of opinions in the military? Does anyone believe that there are no Republicans or Democrats that have their own best interest in mind rather than the countries? Do you believe there would be Generals and Admirals willing to take large sums of money to get on TV nightly and bash their former bosses that failed to promote them?

As was pointed out to me ‘every member of the military will be turned down for promotion, unless he becomes Commander and Chief’. Some of these hold a grudge.


I think what retiredbop comments were meant to infer was not that we should do what the troops want just because they fight the war, but, that they may have a better hand on what is going on in Iraq than those of us that depend on the sound bites of a bias press.

Good news doesn't sell, bad news does.....and that hasn't changed...............

 

[bosco]

Of course the troops only get one vote (and maybe not even that if some electoral boards try again to disregard their absentee ballots). Still, the opinions of those who have been there are worth soemthing. think you'd be in total agreement, if their opinions supported yours. Again, I see an unrepresentative sample, but the servicemembers I know support what they (and their nation) is doing in Iraq.

actually, not. I don't listen to investment advisors that are too young, even if they feel the market is headed the same direction as I do. I'd prefer someone that's been through a couple of bears. I don't particularly think the world-views of 20-24 year olds are the basis of good public policy regarding war. Let's wait until the brains are mature and a sense of mortality discovered. This is not my prejudice--this is neurological fact. This is not to say that they do not deserve support and understanding for the predicament they have (with Bush's help) gotten themselves into.

I will grant you this much, however--the generals and experienced officers' opinions are worth considering when sorting out policy. Although with this administration, they don't seem to be forthright with their opinions until they have been relieved of duty...

 

[lets-retire]

I will grant you this much, however--the generals and experienced officers' opinions are worth considering when sorting out policy. Although with this administration, they don't seem to be forthright with their opinions until they have been relieved of duty...

I agree. We should never listen to the young troops who are in the muck everyday. We should listen to the experienced leaders (uh some would say managers) who see it through the filters of those who are trying to be put in cushy jobs. The first thing every GOOD officer learns is listen to your NCO's. It says nothing about age in that comment. You do realize that a 24 year old enlisted is over 1/4 of the way through a career and in some branches can be one of the "experienced" enlisteds in the trench, right. :

 

[JohnEyles]

There are plenty of questions surrounding John Kerry's "heroics"

Wow, even George W Bush repudiated the character assassinations
of those "swift boat veterans for truth" scum.

I think the military was supposed to be all about "honor". Do these guys
even have a clue what that concept is, when they tell lies about someone
who served bravely because they don't like their politics ? What a joke.

 

[FinanceDude]

Wow, even George W Bush repudiated the character assassinations
of those "swift boat veterans for truth" scum.

I think the military was supposed to be all about "honor". Do these guys
even have a clue what that concept is, when they tell lies about someone
who served bravely because they don't like their politics ? What a joke.

So.....you were enthralled with Dan Rather's "tintillating commentary" on George W. Bush's reserve record, even though Kerry refused to open his record? I find that interesting that an incumbent President has to open his war records, and the guy that questions them (Kerry) doesn't have to do likewise...........what does he have to hide??

 

[FlogBlogger]

Is it just me, or does anyone else see the irony in yellow ribbon decals used to express "support" for our troops...on gas-guzzling SUVs?

 

[dumpster56]

Is it just me, or does anyone else see the irony in yellow ribbon decals used to express "support" for our troops...on gas-guzzling SUVs?

When did americans get so darn stupid?

When I hear a person tell me they NEED the suv because they have 3 kids and a dog I get a laugh. I mean come on these people never sat on a gasoline line back in the 70s. It stunk. It was stupid, we decided back then to never be in a big gasoline waste vehicle again. even when the price was low after I never wasted gas.

Now I keep listening to our useless politicians, Bottom line an awful lot of oil is underground in places that hate us. what we are doing is making these idiots rich and able to put the screws to us. Sorry but americans must get out of the SUV out of the big wasteful habits, OR we will need a draft and a 5 million man army to TAKE the oil fields in that part of the world.

How bout Nuclear energy? How about mass transit, like fix the railroads in america? a new manhattan project to get off middle eastern oil?

 

[LeatherneckPA]

I think what retiredbop comments were meant to infer was not that we should do what the troops want just because they fight the war, but, that they may have a better hand on what is going on in Iraq than those of us that depend on the sound bites of a bias press.

BINGO!! Give that man a cee-gah!! (Bubble gum, of course, since smoking is bad for your health)

I was starting to think that perhaps I was not clear in what I was saying. The people THERE know a lot more about the action and the results than WE do. And I don't have ANY faith in the self-serving, bleeding-heart liberal media. They will take whatever stand appears will give them the best ratings or sell the most papers. There is no such thing as integrity in reporting.

 

[dumpster56]

BINGO!! Give that man a cee-gah!! (Bubble gum, of course, since smoking is bad for your health)

I was starting to think that perhaps I was not clear in what I was saying. The people THERE know a lot more about the action and the results than WE do. And I don't have ANY faith in the self-serving, bleeding-heart liberal media. They will take whatever stand appears will give them the best ratings or sell the most papers. There is no such thing as integrity in reporting.

Liberal media sure, BUT there are dead american soldiers everyday. Uh things are not going well in Iraq. Please do not drink the Kool Aid from either side. Look at the israeli and palistinian situation. they have been killing each other for 50 + years and still are. As long as we stay in iraq the same thing will happen.

It was a mistake to go to Iraq. Bin laden is still free.

The saudis? Iran? look these people hate what we are, look at their societies and look at ours they want nothing of our decadence.

That said if we could stop buying their oil we could leave the entire area.

Think about it.

 

[FinanceDude]

That said if we could stop buying their oil we could leave the entire area.

Think about it.

But we can't stop buying their oil until we find a way to fuel all the vehicles and semis in the US.

I have read it is STILL cheaper to buy oil in the Middle East and supertanker it here than for us to drill it out of our own ground or the Gulf of Mexico..........why would that be?

Also, the Alaskan Pipeline is only operating at 50-60% capacity, and MUCH of that oil is sold to other countries like Canada............

There is no answer, until they can mass poduce a fuel cell car that goes 300-400 miles before you have to plug it in.............

 

[Rustic23]

Liberal media sure, BUT there are dead american soldiers everyday. Uh things are not going well in Iraq.

First, if the dead American or Iraqi is someone you know, then it is a tragedy. But there is something occurring in the American Media that is not healthy. That is the conditioning of the American people not to accept casualties. In war people are going to be injured and they are going to die. It is a cold hard fact. From a Military point of view, I would think most Generals would consider the casualty rate for a War of this duration, to be far less than expected.

This web page will give you some idea of previous wars. http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/other/stats/warcost.htm

WW II over 400,000, Korean War over 33,000, Viet Nam over 57,000, and that is only those killed. The unusual low casualty rate of the Gulf war, 300 has led us to believe that the casualty rate in the current war is unacceptable.
There is no acceptable casualty rate in war if they can be avoided. Having said that, however, the casualty rate of this war is far below what would be expected on the modern battlefield. The very fact the enemy can not inflect more casualties than it does is a sign of things going well not things getting worse.

My purpose in writing this was not to voice support or oppose the current conflict, but, to try and put the current casualty rate in perspective. If oppose President Bush, which many do, my guess you believe the casualty rate unacceptable. If you support the President, than you may think otherwise. The truth is the casualty rate of the current war is being hyped for political gain and it should not be. If it is excessive than so be it no matter what side you are on. I believe that when placed in historical context, it is not.


By the way just for information purposes, Russia lost between 19,000,000 and 20,000,000 people in WW II.

 

[dumpster56]

First, if the dead American or Iraqi is someone you know, then it is a tragedy. But there is something occurring in the American Media that is not healthy. That is the conditioning of the American people not to accept casualties. In war people are going to be injured and they are going to die. It is a cold hard fact. From a Military point of view, I would think most Generals would consider the casualty rate for a War of this duration, to be far less than expected.

This web page will give you some idea of previous wars. http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/other/stats/warcost.htm

WW II over 400,000, Korean War over 33,000, Viet Nam over 57,000, and that is only those killed. The unusual low casualty rate of the Gulf war, 300 has led us to believe that the casualty rate in the current war is unacceptable.
There is no acceptable casualty rate in war if they can be avoided. Having said that, however, the casualty rate of this war is far below what would be expected on the modern battlefield. The very fact the enemy can not inflect more casualties than it does is a sign of things going well not things getting worse.

My purpose in writing this was not to voice support or oppose the current conflict, but, to try and put the current casualty rate in perspective. If oppose President Bush, which many do, my guess you believe the casualty rate unacceptable. If you support the President, than you may think otherwise. The truth is the casualty rate of the current war is being hyped for political gain and it should not be. If it is excessive than so be it no matter what side you are on. I believe that when placed in historical context, it is not.


By the way just for information purposes, Russia lost between 19,000,000 and 20,000,000 people in WW II.

Do you call this a war? think about it, if we really are at war you destroy the enemy. Did we not do that in WWII?

Sorry we ran into Iraq and let the guys go home with their guns and bombs. we never secured the ammo depots. Why are we still accepting the game here?

Bin Laden is free. We are still sending billions of petro dollars to people who dislike us and that is speaking nice.

where is the draft? where is the 5 million man army? We are going to extend the tours of duty now. Please something really does stink in washington.

 

[lets-retire]

So we now have a simmering civil war, and we keep hearing look at the big picture what would happen if we leave. If we leave there will be a lot of killing. We are gonna leave someday. Or are we going to stay 50 years?

It looks like you call it a war too. : The draft is something liberals started throwing around to try to have Bush defeated. Obviously it didn't work. Obviously it is not as needed as some would suggest.

I do agree that we need to become energy independent.