Georgians@War

By Tracey

April 5, 2007 6:55 PM | Link to this

You always hear politicians saying we support the soldiers but not the war,but really how can they support one without the other. Apparently they dont since they are trying to cut off the funding. My brother is there, Sgt. Eschete Co H 2nd Platoon, and I would hate to know that he wasnt getting the equipment or supplies that he needed because the money was cut off from the same government that voted and sent him there. But lets not forget elections are coming up and thats all these people care about, making sure they get into office. Rest assured when the insurgency starts happening here(and it will) they`ll start changing their tune. Meanwhile they should all take a pay cut, that would help with funding since all of their meetings and sessions rarely accomplish anything anyway. They are too busy fighting amongst themselves. God bless Co H and all our other soldiers. May they all return home safely. They are our real heroes anyway!

By Troop Support 24/7

April 6, 2007 10:21 AM | Link to this

Tracey,

You are exactly right. How can the same congress/politicians try to take away funding from the same people they sent to fight for them? Its all political as you stated. They just hate Bush and everything about the right. The right supports the war so they do not. The american people are so blind. My favorite part is the actual people that vote these politicians in office. (sarcastic) If you were to ask them who Britney Spears is everyone would know, but if you were to ask them who Nancy Pelosi is they would not even know the name or recognize her picture even though they elected her. Its rediculous. The news media is all left and that is all the citizens ever see and hear, with respect to Fox News. (who is actually pretty fair and balanced by the way)

Its fine to have disagreements with one another, but you cannot jeapordize the life of people who were sent out to fight to protect America. I cannot stand the stance that “we would not have ever sent the troops if we had known the truth”. What truth? The truth is you did send them. So how can you sit there and go o.k. all of these american soldiers are dying so wee need to pull out. Oh… I have a great idea… Lets not give them the weapons and supplies they need to protect themselves and actually kill “our own troops” in the process before we demand a pull. These people are sooooo stupid. Put your political beliefs aside and see the big picture. You should be supporting the same people you want to bring home (to supposedly protect them and the budget) and not trying to kill them by cutting off the supply line.

By DaughterofaMarine

April 6, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this

My father was an officer in the Marines during the Korean War. He thinks that this war is the stupidest thing since Vietnam. His heart aches for the soldiers that are over there now and the ones that did not make it home alive or whole.

If there were not Americans speaking out against this war now, we would be allowing Bush and Co. free reign and I shudder to think where we would be at now if that were the case.

By Michael

April 6, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this

Given the soldier’s mission, who can expect very many of them to step forward and criticize the war? The military isn’t a democratic institution; it’s hard to see how it could be. Soldiers are living a supremely difficult reality, and by virtue of that difficulty, their leadership gives them little latitude for dissent. Give soldiers a chance to comment anonymously and see how their comments stack up.

As for myself, I oppose the Iraq military action unequivocably, and I support an immediate retreat from this wretched disaster. I haven’t read anything that changes my mind about that. Bush’s adventure in Iraq is not worth a continued loss of American life. The Iraq campaign was built on lies, it has been administered by incompetent scoundrels, and it is leading towards no good end, no matter how you look at it.

By quantavious

April 6, 2007 11:03 AM | Link to this

Where are all the comments from the poor, black soldiers who werer conned into serving ??? I thought the entire army was made up of disadvantaged African Americans.

By retired vet

April 6, 2007 11:14 AM | Link to this

Politically polarizing this issue is not supporting the troops. FYI, I voted those politician like Nancy Pelosi into office. I can distiguish her from Brittney Spears, but only because I don’t watch FOX news. The Fair and Balanced news network devotes endless coverage to such informative subjects as Anna Nicole Smith ‘s train wreck of a life.

I don’t hate Bush. I do think he needlessly started a war without thinking it through or considering the long-term consequences. Our troops will pay the price. So will millions of Iraqis and God only knows who else.

I do hate right-wing knee jerk responders who ignore and dismiss anyone who doesn’t guzzle their cup of Kool-aid.

By Lola

April 6, 2007 11:14 AM | Link to this

@ Michael -

America isn’t a Democratic institution either. It’s a Republic, which means that instead of majority rule, we let the people who actually HAVE all the details about what’s going on (rather than the general public who only knows what the leftist media tells them), make the decisions on what is best for protecting America and her citizens.

I don’t agree with everything that’s been done with this war, but I certainly don’t have any illusions of thinking that we in the general public have even a clue of what the real situation is over there. So without having that knowledge personally, I trust that our commander-in-chief will do what is necessary to ensure our continued freedom. I think the soldiers know the bulk of the details as well, without the media spin on them, and when they say we need to stay and finish the war, then we need to stay and finish the war.

By Sgt

April 6, 2007 11:48 AM | Link to this

Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Viet Nam, etc. It makes little difference to those doing the duty and little difference to those of us now too old but previously well trained.

What does matter is that our president declared the mission complete(the war over), and in so doing, hamstrung his troops. Declare a war; allow the troops to KILL our enemy without having their hands tied behind their back.

As a Marine I know only too well how to kill an enemy combatant and also am well trained to avoid unnecessary bloodshed, injury, or death to civilians.

I also know that when we are in a hostile environment but are allowed restricted use of force there are too many of our men and women killed or injured because the commitment by our political leaders is to their party or finance partners, not to our fighting force.

Don’t think the last statement is true? Examine the reasons a presidential candidate would spend 20-30 million dollars to get elected to a job that pays $400,000 per year.

If we allow our Commander-in-Chief to be a citizen soldier with no combat experience, or a citizen with absolutely no military training or combat experience we are condemning every Soldier, Sailor, Flyer and Marine to the liberal thought du Jour.

Citizens of America: Stand behind and encourage our fighting force, our military. Endorse or condemn the war in Iraq but never condemn our trooops. If a combatant makes a mistake, consider the circumstances surrounding that action and offer unbridled support for the action. War is HELL, people die. If a civilian in a combat zone is injured or killed by our military machine, that’s just one of the costs of war. Better them than our sons, fathers, neighbors, loved ones. .

By KWS

April 6, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this

In this conflict, or the one in Veitnam, the democrats stood behind the soldiers. It was the safest place to be when you panic and run!

By In Memory

April 6, 2007 11:56 AM | Link to this

Freedom is not FREE. The price is BLOOD. Semper fi

By Thogwummpy

April 6, 2007 12:00 PM | Link to this

Anti-war = Pro-Saddam anyway. History isn’t going to indulge these pundits that try and ride the fence—-you can’t be against Saddam because of his atrocities, but functionally SUPPORTING the idea of his perpetuated reign…especially when the guy demands an end to all remaining vestiges of “containment”; and punctuates this by shooting down American aircraft and firing THOUSANDS of missiles at them. Thousands! That’s commitment; to open hostility with America. Saddam was already at war with us. (He probably thought like many, that 9/11 signaled the beginning of the Great Jihad; and that all of Islam would would sweep Saddam heroically forward if he challenged the United States.)

By Sean

April 6, 2007 12:00 PM | Link to this

The profound lack of logic and critical thinking being displayed here (by the commentors, not the soldiers; they made some rather intelligent points - especially Capt. KENNETH HUTNICK from Alpharetta) is appalling. Let’s look at the first two comments, which essentially defend one another using nothing but emotional and overly-simplistic arguments. So, let’s briefly examine “Tracey” and “Troop Support 24/7“‘s arguments. They claim that you cannot, at the same time, support the troops and NOT support the war. The underlying assumption here (of which neither of these folks are probably consciously aware) is that the president of the U.S. (regardless of who that may be) is absolutely infallible, i.e. they can never be wrong. Let me state that again, because that’s a pretty heavy statement, and the logic it shows is obviously flawed… and quite possibly the musings of a complete idiot: Whoever the president may be at any given point in history, that person can NEVER BE WRONG - THEY ARE ALWAYS 100% OF THE TIME, RIGHT AND JUST IN ALL WAYS. I’d like to also say now, that if you’re wondering what the word ‘infallible’ means, you should A. go and look it up, and B. Not bother arguing with anyone about anything as important as the concept of war. Go read some books (not a magazine, and not the sports page) and then maybe you’ll have some basis with which to make a real argument. Now, if the pres. were actually infallible, I would agree with what these two have stated. But, obviously, we can point to many instances where a standing president has made bad choices, has been WRONG, and has negatively affected our country and the world. Nobody’s perfect, right? I’m not, you’re not, and poor “Tracey” and “Troop Support 24/7” are probably a much farther cry from perfection than any of you reading this now. Back to my point though; All of us can agree that president’s can make mistakes, right? Ok, good. All of us love our country (well, most of us), and have the highest regard for our soldiers, right? Ok, good. Now, what happens to someone’s thinking when their president has (in their mind) led them astray, made poor choices, and generally bungled something as important as an invasion/war/occupation? Whether or not you agree with someone that the war is a ‘good’ or a ‘bad’ endeavor is irrelevant at this point. You can’t blame the players for having a bad coach. You can’t blame the guy working in the mail room for the company going bankrupt. You can’t blame the guys on the ground for the poor choices of their leaders. So, yes, “Tracey” and “Troop Support 24/7”, if you had any sort of brain left in that FOX news echo chamber you call a brain, you’d realize that you can, and SHOULD support the troops and NOT support the war at the same time. It’s about as American as it gets. Bush is the worst president of all time… possibly only seconded by Nixon, and I really wish people would get off their high-horses about the respect due to the office and how we should blindly comply with the direction he’s leading us. That, my friends, is completely and shamelessly UNAMERICAN. And if there’s one thing I am, it’s AMERICAN.

By RetiredLTC

April 6, 2007 12:02 PM | Link to this

By retired vet

April 6, 2007 11:14 AM

I do hate right-wing knee jerk responders who ignore and dismiss anyone who doesn’t guzzle their cup of Kool-aid.

Amen, vet. Were this country being led by more honest and able men, we probably would not even be having this discourse, now would we?

By Sean

April 6, 2007 12:03 PM | Link to this

The profound lack of logic and critical thinking being displayed here (by the commentors, not the soldiers; they made some rather intelligent points - especially Capt. KENNETH HUTNICK from Alpharetta) is appalling. Let’s look at the first two comments, which essentially defend one another using nothing but emotional and overly-simplistic arguments. So, let’s briefly examine “Tracey” and “Troop Support 24/7“‘s arguments. They claim that you cannot, at the same time, support the troops and NOT support the war. The underlying assumption here (of which neither of these folks are probably consciously aware) is that the president of the U.S. (regardless of who that may be) is absolutely infallible, i.e. they can never be wrong. Let me state that again, because that’s a pretty heavy statement, and the logic it shows is obviously flawed… and quite possibly the musings of a complete idiot: Whoever the president may be at any given point in history, that person can NEVER BE WRONG - THEY ARE ALWAYS 100% OF THE TIME, RIGHT AND JUST IN ALL WAYS. I’d like to also say now, that if you’re wondering what the word ‘infallible’ means, you should A. go and look it up, and B. Not bother arguing with anyone about anything as important as the concept of war. Go read some books (not a magazine, and not the sports page) and then maybe you’ll have some basis with which to make a real argument. Now, if the pres. were actually infallible, I would agree with what these two have stated. But, obviously, we can point to many instances where a standing president has made bad choices, has been WRONG, and has negatively affected our country and the world. Nobody’s perfect, right? I’m not, you’re not, and poor “Tracey” and “Troop Support 24/7” are probably a much farther cry from perfection than any of you reading this now. Back to my point though; All of us can agree that president’s can make mistakes, right? Ok, good. All of us love our country (well, most of us), and have the highest regard for our soldiers, right? Ok, good. Now, what happens to someone’s thinking when their president has (in their mind) led them astray, made poor choices, and generally bungled something as important as an invasion/war/occupation? Whether or not you agree with someone that the war is a ‘good’ or a ‘bad’ endeavor is irrelevant at this point. You can’t blame the players for having a bad coach. You can’t blame the guy working in the mail room for the company going bankrupt. You can’t blame the guys on the ground for the poor choices of their leaders. So, yes, “Tracey” and “Troop Support 24/7”, if you had any sort of brain left in that FOX news echo chamber you call a brain, you’d realize that you can, and SHOULD support the troops and NOT support the war at the same time. It’s about as American as it gets. Bush is the worst president of all time… possibly only seconded by Nixon, and I really wish people would get off their high-horses about the respect due to the office and how we should blindly comply with the direction he’s leading us. That, my friends, is completely and shamelessly UNAMERICAN. And if there’s one thing I am, it’s AMERICAN.

By Jackie

April 6, 2007 12:26 PM | Link to this

The war being waged by our military will be fought well because of the skill, courage and devotion to duty. Those who started this war are in it for pure profit and greed at the expense of those of us that do believe in our civic duty to country. Nearly 5 years of combat has given us a nearly broken Army, $500 billion dollar war cost, deficit spending while borrow the money from China and a gap between the rich/poor the grows wider daily. As a Viet Nam vet, Iraq is just a replay - verse, chapter and book - of the big lie fed to us at that time. What would it be like if there were a modern-day draft?

By Titothebear

April 6, 2007 1:04 PM | Link to this

This war, in Iraq, was planned long before the attacks of September 11, 2001. 9-11 became a justification but there’s no evidence that Saddam had any connection to what transpired on that day. Evidence of Saddam’s possession of, and attempts to procure more, weapons of mass destruction was concocted. Our troops rolled across the sands and arrived in Baghdad pretty much unscathed. A few weeks after the war began, the President of the United States stood before a ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner, on an aircraft carrier, and declared the war near an end. That was four years ago. Since Bush declared victory, more than 3100 American troops have died, with thousands more being wounded and maimed. Many thousands of Iraqis have died as a result of the instability our presence has caused. Fractious factions have arisen, indulging old hatreds and expressing those feelings in the form of secterian murder. The United States forces have, well documented, tortured prisoners and many have died in custody, some while being ‘interrogated.” The war, though hazardous to our troops, and deadly to the Iraqis, is of benefit to someone. Haliburton, and it’s stock holders, keeps getting paid big bucks to aid and abet this criminal undertaking. It’s time to cut the funding, bring our troops home and bring to justice those who manufactured and undertook this despicable plan to invade, occupy and wreck a nation that had done nothing to the United States of America!

By here we go again

April 6, 2007 2:38 PM | Link to this

@sean

I know what infallible means. I have a question do you know paragraph means?

I stand behind Bush because finally we have someone in office that isn’t scared to handle his business.

How quickly people forget it was a MAJORITY vote that brought us into this war.

By bluemoon

April 6, 2007 2:46 PM | Link to this

TO SEAN- Those who say that you can’t support one without supporting the other are “generaly” talking about not wanting our soldiers to die for nothing.

Not supporting the war to many people (including many, many soldiers) means they are fighting and dying for nothing.

Not putting you down, but you, like most people in America now just fail to see both sides of the picture and relate to things that don’t fall within their own thinking. Personally, I don’t care too much for the whole “left and right” political thinking. If we had a party of moderates I’d be in it and while I hate that we are at war I fully support it and our troops because if we fail in this we will find ourselves back in only a few years.

By bluemoon

April 6, 2007 2:53 PM | Link to this

TO TITOTHEBEAR-

You really need to do some more research on this matter. Again, not trying to be combative or put you down but you’re missing some very big facts here.

One, yes, there are reports from the pentagon that say Iraq had nothing to do with Al Quaeda. But for every one that says they didn’t there are 1000 more that say they did.

Two, Saddam had been attacking US troops for years. Let’s not forget that he had been under UN sanctions for close to 13 years and never did he go a year, a month or even a day meeting those sanctions. Remember one of the things listed as a cause for the sanctions? Oh yeah, he was gassing his own people.

Something I will agree with you on, corporate business has no business in the forefront of our government. I say we induce term limits (3), no more lobbies and no more pork barrel spending. That’ll cure a lot of what ails us in our government now.

By green tea

April 6, 2007 3:02 PM | Link to this

Sean you are a complete moron. Go preach to someone who cares. Like Tito maybe, he cares about you and you babling.

By DD

April 6, 2007 3:03 PM | Link to this

Yeah you got a job to do. Like stealing resources from the Iraqis. And your doing it on our grandkids dime.

By Military Wife

April 6, 2007 3:13 PM | Link to this

As a military wife, I HATE war. I love my husband and I an an ardent supporter of the troops. I understand my husband’s job and I understood what I signed up for when we married. But that doesn’t mean I think our leaders should go “making up” wars for us to fight and putting my husband in harm’s way for all the wrong reasons.

By Johnny Prescott

April 6, 2007 3:43 PM | Link to this

Michael,

You haven’t read anything positive about the war, because all you likely read or view is left-wing propoganda. The troops will continue to sacrifice for your freedom, so you can express your opinion in the greatest nation on the face of the earth.

By michelle

April 6, 2007 4:00 PM | Link to this

LOL @ Tracey… “when the insurgency starts happening here (and it will)….”

do you think the iraqi insurgents are gonna come here to fight for america? an insurgency derives from home honey, not from people coming over here to fight US.

By michelle

April 6, 2007 4:08 PM | Link to this

johnny prescott:

can you point to the part in the UCMJ that explicitly outlines the freedoms the military is granting me? because i thought all that was covered in the US constitution.

By Michael

April 6, 2007 4:42 PM | Link to this

@Lola: your “distinction” between a republican and a democratic state is spurious. And your assertion that our republican government is led by people who know what they’re doing is breathtakingly, demonstrably, patently false.

@Johnny Prescott:

you have no idea what I read; your assertion that I get my news from any source at all is completely unfounded. In this case, it happens also to be utterly untrue.

I think it’s pretty clear that positive large-scale change (e.g., fall of the Soviet Union) comes when internal pressure causes a nation to first fall apart and rebuild itself. Military regime change—especially when it’s forced from without—is a relic of the past. Bush is leading us bravely into the 19th Century. Luckily, some of the rest of the world is going in a different direction.

By Troop Support 24/7

April 6, 2007 4:45 PM | Link to this

@ Sean and everyone else who decided to bash my comments!!!!

Let me clarify something for you. I am not some stupid right winged blinded kool-aid drinking wannabe conservative. Do I align myself with one side? Yes. As most people do. Everyone that is attacking the 1st 2 comments is actually missing the point.

You want to talk about how you can support the troops and not the war right? How can that be when you know darn well we are not going to pull out early (Bush Veto Power — Kool-aid for ya)? My point was, other than complaining about stupid idiots such as Sean, is that because we are over in Iraq, which both left and right sides of the isle voted on (regardless of bad intelligence or supposed propaganda) we need to support our troops with proper gear, weapons, etc. WE ARE NOT LEAVING IRAQ UNTIL THE COUNTRY IS IN A MORE STABLE CONDITION. If you read my actual point you would see that. The answer is yes. You can undermine troops because when we are not going to pull out and you still support cutting funds then that hurts them.

I have nothing but respect for the women and men of the military including the ones that left comments here. I had all kinds of family members in both of the World Wars, Vietnam, Korean, and etc. I do not pretend, like some others on this blog, that I know what it is like to be a soldier because I am not one. I do, however, know the difference between stubbornness and practicality. The bottom line is we all want the same thing. Troops that stick up for our freedoms and that are supported by us back home. I really do not care if you agree with the war or not, hell I do not agree with illegal immigration but it is here. Support the troops and stop your BS political bantering on right kool-aid or whatever.

My whole point was that the majority of the people (such as Sean) that watch nothing but Fox News and laugh at how right winged it is do not ever see the big picture. Trying to make others look stupid on the blog based on words you use, what was it Fallible, just makes you look even worse. Wow! That was colloquial of me. See what I mean. Using big words does not make you know more about the issue.

Right, Left, Middle, who cares! Just support our troops so they can support us. Stop the hatred toward the parties. Politics are just politics. War is Hell as one vet so accurately proclaimed. Stuff happens. Truth be told all politicians are dirty and conniving. There is nothing we can ever do about that. This strategy (thinking) of retreat and run/screw Bush/kool-aid drinking yuppies and blah blah blah. Get over yourself. There are men and woman over there fighting for us who need your support. I for one am giving it to them.

By yellabelly

April 6, 2007 4:49 PM | Link to this

Appease, appease, appease. You can say the Prez lied to get us in this war all the while ignoring the fact that Saddam was giving the world the one finger salute for 13 years. The problem with this reasoning is that it only emboldens the wackos out there when we don’t enforce the very sanctions that the all mighty UN is so adept at creating. And Michelle, sweatheart, noone is claiming that the insurgents in Iraq are going to board a plane and announce their arrival. This is a big country with porous borders. Many terrorists may and probably are already in the country.

People who appease and cut and run put this country at risk. I for one am tired of it. Stop being spoon fed from the liberal media and become a free thinker. Just cause your momma and diddy were liberal demos doesn’t mean you have to follow suit. And for those who are comparing Iraq to Vietnam, go read up on history and see how many young men and women we were losing by the day/hour in Vietnam compared to what we have lost in four years in Iraq. Never good when a soldier dies but the comparison doesn’t hold weight.

By Titothebear

April 6, 2007 4:52 PM | Link to this

Richard Clarke has been an advisor to four presidents, beginning with Reagan in 1973 and ending with George W. Bush in 2003. He is recognized as an expert on terrorism and it was as an expert on terrorism that he served Presidents Clinto and G. W. bush. Here’s what he says happened in the aftermath of 9-11: After the president returned to the White House on Sept. 11, he and his top advisers, including Clarke, began holding meetings about how to respond and retaliate. As Clarke writes in his book, he expected the administration to focus its military response on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. He says he was surprised that the talk quickly turned to Iraq.

“Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq.” “And we all said … no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren’t any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, ‘Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.

“Initially, I thought when he said, ‘There aren’t enough targets in— in Afghanistan,’ I thought he was joking.

“I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection, but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying we’ve looked at this issue for years. For years we’ve looked and there’s just no connection.”

Clarke says he and CIA Director George Tenet told that to Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Clarke then talks of being pressured by Mr. Bush.

“The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, ‘I want you to find whether Iraq did this.’ Now he never said, ‘Make it up.’ But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.

“I said, ‘Mr. President. We’ve done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There’s no connection.’

“He came back at me and said, “Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there’s a connection.’ And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report.”

Not a shred of evidence has been forthcoming that would link Iraq to the attacks upon American soil. In fact, all available evidence has served to exculpate Iraq. It’s a well-known, documented fact that evidence used to stampede this country into brutalizing Iraq was manufactured. The author of the faked documents is the same person who used those bogus materials to justify the insane folly we’ve been engaged in for more than four years. That person is George W. Bush and he should be brought to justice for his many crimes against humanity!

By yellabelly

April 6, 2007 4:57 PM | Link to this

@Titothebear, you gonna read us the whole book? Consider the source. Clarke didn’t get the promotion he thought he deserved and started throwing bombs at his former employer. Happens every day in every walk of life. Its called sour grapes.

By GaVet

April 6, 2007 4:59 PM | Link to this

My view as a veteran of the first gulf war, and also an ex-Guardsman, is that I can’t stand the emotional rhetoric coming from both sides of this argument.

Just to let you know my stand: I don’t like this administration, although I did vote for them in 2000. I had my doubts about this war when it kicked off and saw how few units were involved. I said to myself, they’ll be in Baghdad in two weeks, but how the hell will they lock it down? I wasn’t too far off the mark.

What I’ve seen since has been the most half-hearted “commitment” I’ve ever seen. G*******, why didn’t we commit what it took to make it work? Why haven’t we made the hard changes necessary in the last four years? Why didn’t we work with the international community harder to get more people on board? Colin Powell is one of my heroes. His doctrine—which was disregarded here—has proven to be a sound one. I wish like HELL he was president. This whole thing should’ve been resolved in 1991. It’s a f*** tragedy, no matter whether it’s good or not.

I’ve argued this with my friends still in service, and some agree with me, some don’t. I damn sure wouldn’t email them my doubts and fears while they’re stuck in a s** situation. They’ve got enough on their plate.

I had one of my flaky friends send me an antiwar missive when I was in Saudi Arabia before the first gulf war. Honestly, It didn’t affect me one bit. All the b****** back home is so far away, that it might as well be on Mars.

About reporters, I don’t care if they’re from Fox, Al Jazira, or the AJC: if they want to cover events, fine. I won’t get in the way. But if you want to come asking soldiers what you “feel”—Get F***. All of ya.

Sorry to be so cynical. If you’re actually reading this crap while you’re in Iraq, then ignore me, give ‘em hell, and I wish you peace.

By Titothebear

April 6, 2007 5:06 PM | Link to this

I have a question for you brave Hawks. Why not go enlist? Show your patriotism in the most useful way. Go and become the cannonfodder that is needed so badly in Iraq. Don’t just sit there, cheering on those risking their lives. Go enlist, go to Iraq and help secure the glorious victory for the fatherland. Most, if not all, of you chickenhawks are very brave and unafraid when others are risking their lives but you won’t risk yours. Get up, enlist and give something back to this country. All you’ve ever done is take and, truthfully, that’s all you’re going to do now. I’ve served my country, in an unpopular and disastrous war, and I’ve earned the right to say what I want. Most of you right wing, ultra patriots have never served anything other than lunch!

By yellabelly

April 6, 2007 5:12 PM | Link to this

Oh please Titothebear. And I guess your opinion is the only one that matters. The fact that you are getting so fired up and reverting to name-calling displays your true colors. Always the last resort for a liberal…..manic name-calling. Do us all a favor and get off your high horse.

By retired vet

April 6, 2007 5:17 PM | Link to this

@troop support

Fallible is a big word? Some people don’t use the word fallible to impress anyone, they use it because it’s the best word to get their point across. It’s not that big a word to some of us.

And as for missing the point…you’re the one doing that. You can’t have any discussion around the war in Iraq without blathering about who watches FOX news, complaining about Nancy Pelosi, or injecting politics into the discussion. You said “they just hate Bush and everything about the right”. Your whole mindset is in that one statement. Think we shouldn’t be in/shouldn’t have gotten into Iraq? Then you are a surrender monkey tyrant loving troop bashing unAmerican cut and runner. Sorry, but when you start referring to someone like Pat Tillman’s brother as such, you need to shut your pie hole or go join the military to support the war effort. If we had as much actual support in the real world as we did in blogs or the bumpers of SUV’s maybe our troops wouldn’t be doing endless and insane rotations. How about a little support in that area, huh?

Yellow Ribbon Warriors are the modern-day versions of McCarthyites. Don’t agree? You’re a Communist! At last, people are starting to ask, “have you no decency sir?” That’s not Unamerican. It’s just using your brain and not acting like paranoid isolationists, a la George Bush.

By Titothebear

April 6, 2007 5:19 PM | Link to this

Richard Clarke’s comments have the ring of authenticity. The fact that the documents, Bush quoted, to alarm and inflame the Congress and populace gives further credence to Clarke’s when none was really necessary. Richard Clarke is known for integrity and for being apolitical. He served under three Republican presidents and one Democrat. it is Bush whose credibility is questionable. He’s sworn to uphold the Constitution and to lead and protect this nation. He’s done a terrible job of it!

By Titothebear

April 6, 2007 5:25 PM | Link to this

I notice you didn’t give an answer as to whether you’re going to enlist and volunteer for Iraq. Don’t try to divert attention. Answer the question! Will you join the armed forces, go to Iraq and risk your life? Answer the question! Don’t just support the troops. Become one of them!

By Potbelly

April 6, 2007 5:29 PM | Link to this

So,

The US is the UN’s enforcer of sanctions…funny how they are selective which of those they choose to enforce.

If the terrorists are not coming over on planes but across our borders, shouldn’t we be protecting our borders and not fighting to protect other’s borders?

Fox News = Fair and Balanced Potbelly = Tall, Dark and Handsome

The actual death toll is closer to 700,000, many are women and children.

The US is not in Iraq to protect our freedoms. See AIPAC. See oil.

By Jim Chapman

April 6, 2007 6:34 PM | Link to this

Some of the soldiers with Georgia’s Army National Guard soldiers have commented that we must “finish the job,” and that if we don’t “finish the job we’ll be back in 10 years.” Some have commented that “It doesn’t affect me at all. What’s going on at home doesn’t come into play here.” Such comments as these are clear evidence that some of these soldiers are misinformed by Armed Forces radio TV and print propaganda,don’t understand what’s at stake, or just simply don’t care. It’s also easy to make such comments when anti-war sentiment thousands of miles away. The anti-war sentiment is not only building at home, but it is also building in countries that neigbor Iraq. These countries aren’t thousands of miles of away like we are. Even leaders of our closest “ally” Saudi Arabia are speaking out in critical rebuke of U.S. presence in Iraq. King Abdullah called the occupation “illegitimate.” If we must stay to complete this nebulous mission in Iraq, what will be the costs to United States in terms of foreign policy and the ballooning U.S. deficeit in order to finance this war?

By Fiction

April 6, 2007 7:31 PM | Link to this

I like the “Yellow Ribbon Warriors” name for these worthless chickenhawk cheerleaders.

Hey, GOP warlovers - either get your arse to Iraq, or take that ribbon, unravel it, and put it down the middle of your backs.

I am so tired of you loud-mouthed chestbeating lily-livered COWARDS.

By GaVet

April 6, 2007 7:46 PM | Link to this

Jim Chapman—

You just don’t get it—soldiers say things like “finish the job”, because that’s what you tell yourself to get through the mission. Whether or not you feel good about it, you have to whatever you can to accomplish the task given to you. And yes, things here at home might as well be a million miles away. It really isn’t much of your world. If you haven’t been there, you just can’t know what I’m talking about. It’s a Army thing—you just wouldn’t understand. This world does not exist when you’re in that one. It seems trivial and stupid. Just like this thread, when I read it with soldier’s eyes instead of the civilian I’ve tried to recreate myself as.

Soldiers are not “misinformed” by the “propaganda” of AFR. They just don’t f*** care! Let me tell you something—when you enlist, you are giving yourself up as a servant of the people, of the state, to the constitution. That’s a hell of a trust, and YES, when incompetent, greedy b******* are using these forces for a screwed up purpose, speak out here. YOU speak out here! Loud! But nobody’s being shaped into fascist little Republicans by military service.

F*** this thread. F*** the war. F*** the forces of Limbaugh. F*** the self righteous f*** on the left. This war is wrong. But I’m tired of talking about it here. Out.

By JP

April 6, 2007 7:53 PM | Link to this

All I know is, let’s not get into another one. http://ga4.org/wespac/advocacy/souldrift-483333

By My opinion

April 6, 2007 7:58 PM | Link to this

I believe we should not have entered Irag; however, our troops are there and they must be supported until the job is done. They deserve the best of everything. Do I want them to come home now? Sure, of course. Do I want them to have to return there later - of course not. These feelings are because I want them safe. That is from my heart. My intelligence tells me that can’t be done now. They must stay the course and be successful. It is better to stem the tide of terrorism there than on our soil. I pray that they will succeed SOON and return home. I pray for our military and their families. May God bless each and keep them as safe as possible so they can come home soon - not in defeat but in victory - honorable, permanent victory.

Our countrymen and the government should support these troops to the fullest.

Thank you each member of the US Military and our allies who are there to effectively stem the spread of terrorism. God bless you and bring you home soom.

By Titothebear

April 6, 2007 9:35 PM | Link to this

A good place to begin to stem the tide of terrorism would be to remove Bush from office and to take our troops out of Iraq. We are the oppressor in that nation. We are the terrorists! The Iraqis have done nothing to us but we’ve done plenty to them!

By BouncingBetty

April 6, 2007 10:43 PM | Link to this

I told some people before this war started it was a bad idea and George Bush senior left Saddam in power as a buffer, and was cussed out for not being patriotic. Now the same democratic party that hailed the quick ouster of Saddam has turned their back on our troops for political cause as the public grows tired of this war. American’s want everything microwaved (quick) and the world doesn’t work that way. I knew this would happen, the politicians would turn on the grunts just like vietnam and give in to public sements. This only proves a point to non-Americans, we go to war and when we get tired of it just quit.
Radical Islam isn’t going to stop now. 9/11 proved that, and they are going to kill, and kill, kill as many USA citizens they can until our politicians
quit playing politics with GI’s lives. Saddam violated every UN resolutions there was,every one. If people are too stupid or hate George Bush that bad congress authorize this and they saw more evidence that you are I about Saddams weapons programs. Kerry, Bill Clinton all said Saddam had WMD’s. France, German, UN security counsel said he had WMD. The problem with America is we think we are the center of the universe. You women better hope we win this war because if radical Islam does, you either submit to their will or die……………

By Doty Wells

April 6, 2007 11:02 PM | Link to this

I am really upset by some of the comments on this thread! My brother is serving in Co H and is sacrificing his life for our civil liberties and freedom. No one is crazy about this war; however, our soilders have a mission to complete the task mandated by our President. Everyone has an opinion, plain and simple. We as Americans tend to sit back and gripe about this war and do not truly realized how blessed we are. Co H is not only fighting this war like other units, they (like many other military personnel) are performing humanitarian services to the less fortunate over in Iraq. We should be proud of our service men and women. Our duty is not complete until then our soliders should hold fast and complete this mission. The individuals on this thread obviously do not have a loved making a sacrifice. Please be mindful that the soilders to read this thread and a little support from the home front goes a long way!

By Titothebear

April 6, 2007 11:06 PM | Link to this

As it turns out, it appears that Saddam was in compliance but was uncooperative in allowing inspectors verify that fact. The weapons programs had been discontinued years before the United States launched its naked aggression against Iraq.

I don’t believe many people had reservations about attacking bin Laden’s forces in Afghanistan. I know I didn’t!
The attack upon Iraq, however, is something different. Osama had a terrorist training school in Afghanistan. our misadventure in Iraq has provided a PHD program for every thug and psychopath who wants to serve Allah by becoming a killer of American troops and innocent Iraqis. The war in not something the United States can win totally and absolutely. Our investment of people, time and money is all for naught. It’s time to admit that and to stop dreaming victory will eventuate. It won’t!

By Titothebear

April 6, 2007 11:42 PM | Link to this

I appreciate the sacrifice your brother is making. As a younger man, I found myself in a similar circumstance. My brother’s son served three tours in Iraq. He was slated for a fourth but is now in a psychiatric facility, trying to reunite with reality. I do not support what we are doing in Iraq and I look forward to the day when our troops are withdrawn from that country. I wish safety and serenity for you and your brother.

By Iraq War

April 7, 2007 12:09 AM | Link to this

I don’t understand how people in the military or right wing republicans say that we’ll be attacked here if we don’t finish in Iraq. We were attacked here before Iraq and Iraq had nothing to with 9/11. Even Dubya admitted that. Using this thinking we will be there forever, because “foreign terrorists” keep coming in to attack us. It gives us an excuse to stay and steal oil and affect what happens in OPEC. This is ridiculous. The military and the soldiers do not decide how long we stay or if we attack. The public is supposed to have a big say, so listen up Dumbya and get us out of Iraq. If they have a civil war, too bad too sad. The U.S. had a civil war with hardly any intervention and tons of people died. What would have happened if England had stepped in and said we want to occupy forever to prevent bloodshed? We would have attacked them non-stop. Get a hint right wingers? We are fueling the hatred with unjustified occupation. Someone will always attack us with an occupation going on.

By Eaton

April 7, 2007 12:46 AM | Link to this

The last war in which our freedoms were truly defended was World War II. No other war since has involved defending the United States against an aggressor. I feel great sympathy for all those whose friends and family are in the line of fire, and I pray daily that all of them come back alive and well, but that is the simple truth. Believe the platitudes that fall from the lips of an untrustworthy administration that, frankly, has done more to damage our civil liberties that Saddam ever dreamed if you will - you only hurt yourself.

Iraq was invaded because it represented a strategic position from which to launch a foreign policy initiative that had been touted by the influential neo-conservatives who make up Bush’s main advisors YEARS before he took office. There is overwhelming evidence that shows that the primary focus of the administration from Day 1 of taking power was to find a way to invade Iraq. Sadly, 9/11 was the perfect excuse to do such, and our true mission in Afghanistan was let fall by the wayside.

Saddam was a bad man. There is no disputing that, and there is no one, I suspect, who is sorry to see him gone. However, that simply does not fly as a justification for war (which justification are we on now? I lose count). There are MANY “bad men” in power around the world, some of them much worse, much more brutal than Saddam, yet the Bush administration has never mentioned them. Historically, the US has been in league with more than one of them.

In fact, China, the #1 holder of US debt, and the nation with the largest stockpile of US currency outside of our borders, commits as many, if not more, basic human rights violations in one year than Saddam ever dreamed of committing. Yet, there is no outrage against China - in fact, they enjoy “Most Favored Nation” trading status.

Sadly, many honest, determined, hard-working American millitary men and women have been sent overseas to participate in a sham of awar, one which has not only destabilized what was a relatively stable nation amongst decidedly unstable neighbors, but which has provided training grounds for anti-American forces to hone their skills. Anti-American forces, I might add, which did not have a foothold in that country prior to our invasion.

Finally - remember that two budgets proposed by both House and Senate include full funding for the current military strategy, and even include funding for Bush’s highly controversial “Surge” plan. Neither budget threatens to cut funding for troops in the field. The one person threatening to veto these budgets and place your family, friends and loved ones in danger is George W. Bush. Why? Because they contain non-binding language that sets a timetable for withdrawal beginning next year. That’s non-binding language, which means that it does not have to be acted on, merely that it represents the will of the House and Senate.

Think about that before you rant and rave about evil liberals and Democrats cutting off the flow of money to the troops.

By Potbelly

April 7, 2007 12:55 AM | Link to this

“sacrificing his life for our civil liberties and freedom”

you mean the ones that have been trampled all over by the president and the warmongers

“our soldiers have a mission to complete the task mandated by our President”

what mission? there were no WMDs, Saddam is dead…why are you still there? don’t think you have a mission any more, unless it really wasn’t about WMD

Americans and their other bully friend the Brits see war from bombers and behind guns, that’s what the news shows…try putting yourself in the position of someone on the receiving end of the bombings, because innocent people are killed (ie. women and children)

it’s an illegal war, Iraq never threatened the US

why the hypocrisy? the 911 attackers came from Saudi Arabia, why not attack them? Pakistan? Iran?

bet there is good money in war, makes some people rich

By Billy

April 7, 2007 1:41 AM | Link to this

bluemoon — They are dying for nothing. For nothing positive, anyway. We are not benefitting in the least from this clusterfuck. We are destabilizing the region. We are generating ill will toward the U.S. We are making the world less safe. Our troops are dying for nothing.

I know no one wants to hear that, but someone needs to say it. And if you’re going to accuse me of hating Bush…then you’re right! I don’t wish him any illness or injury or anything. I just disagree with everything he says and does. And I’ve been right about every single thing so far. This war is no different.

By Gloria-Ruth

April 10, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this

Andrew I am so very proud of everything that you do!