Military and Veterens only

First of all idiot, I did not graduate in 1975.  The 75 in my name has nothing to do with the year that I graduated. Just another one of your ignorant assumptions.  As for cowardly, I am retired military. I served my country for 20 years and I am proud of my service and will not justify anything to the likes of you. I was not in college or shirking any responsibilities, just for your information.

I get the sense that you are ignorant and may be exhibiting some sort of inferiority complex.

I can assure you that I am not a hypocrit and I am not a coward. I can also say that I have the record to back up my claims, unlike you, apparently.

Talk about some disjointed, ignorant, and lame arguments. Is that the best you can come up with? You are obviously anti-military and anti-government. That's alright, since even the mentally challenged have a place in our society.

By the way, even if our government decided to take some unilateral action in the Sudan, you would undoubtedly be someone who immediately started protesting against the action. Especially once the first civilian woman or child is killed, which would be inevitable.  It would give you another reason to bash the actions of our Country. Good for you if it makes you feel better.  How about enlightening us to your history of military service. Tell us a little about yourself. Since you came on this thread, you must have been or are in the military, right? Otherwise, you are just here to mouth off and obviously can't be taken seriously.

 They are the product of men with large egos, that set behind desks. Do you think for a second that we would have invaded Iraq if GWB really had to be the commander in chief and lead the troops into battle like Washington?

I'd be willing to bet that he would. You have no reason to assume that he wouldn't. Btw... Washington was a General, then President. He never lead soldiers as "commander-in-chief".

WVU -  You are entitled to your opinion and I respect you for expressing it in the way that you do.  I get the feeling that you are sincere in what you are saying. My disagreement with you is also sincere. We all have to look for our own answers.

I can see that you are blaming our Country for various injustices in world?  I happen to think that we do more good than any other country in the world, but that is my opinion. Exactly what injustices are you referring to?  The world is not ever going to be free of conflict and there will always be enemies that resent our freedom and way of life and would like nothing better than to destroy us. Defending our interests is essential to maintaining our Freedom.  Insofar as war goes, it will always be started by our elected representatives, sitting behind desks, who see a threat or potential threat to our Country and it's interests. It is the call of the people as to whether they support those conclusions. That is why we have elected officials.

I spent 4 years in the Marines and am not a "liberal" and yes I support the troops.  I do not support the war because I don't think it was the "right" war to get into, IMHO Afghanistan was.  I think there is a lot of bravado about walking in lockstep with the war or being a liberal and that is not what this country is about.  I think a lot of people buy a "I support the troops" magnet for there car and consider themselves patriotic.....IMHO you could support the troops better by sending a care package, donating to the USO, or visiting vetereans in our horribly under funded veterans hospitals.  When people stop polarizing the issue and stop saying "you're either with us or against us" then maybe a useful dialogue can occur and energy and money can go into truly supporting the troops over there and the ones returning who need our help.

Semper Fi - Jeff 

hunkerdown,

I think your comparison is a little off IMO.  A lot of debate here and basis for this thread is done by "gross" genralizations.  You think Democrat then you automatically think Liberal.  You think Liberal and you think peace loving, war protesting hippies.  I hate to break it to you, but that doesn't describe a good amount of Democrats.  With that said, I personally don't support the war in Iraq but I do agree with the war in Afghanistan.  I  most certainly support our troops, and to do otherwise or think the Dems want the troops to fail or ultimately die is just ridiculous.  And since these threads are mostly likely related to the presidential elections, have you heard any Dem candidate saying they want to pull out of Afghanistan?

Somoene used a teacher comparison earlier and a free speach comparison also.  Saying its like saying you support this, but not with their right to do so.  But how is it wrong to agree with free speach but not agree with everything that is said? (that is fundamental concept of these threads, we all agree that others have opinions but we don't have to agree with them)  And for the teacher comparison, I don't bash the religious right for not supporting teachers as a whole when they disagree with some teaching evolution.

   savautiger   To start with I am not a Veteran but my son is in Iraq now serving with the Marines. I do wholeheartedly support the troops but to call it a "war" is B.S. ! ! !

   When the U.S. went in to Iraq to fight in the "war" we whipped ass real quick. Now, my son and thousands more are over there they are trainees to the Police departments.

    My son turned 20 while being there in January, and his platoon was almost blown up on his Birthday. He drives the Hummer for his platoon when a roadside bomb was detonated just a second to soon. The Hummer had just slight front end damage to it, but thank GOD no one was injured (besides their underwear) but it was too close.

   The fools over there can't fight a real battle, their main weapon is to incite fear and uncertainty of what to expect next.

You make some good points PurpleReign. You are absolutely right that a Democrat is not necessarily a liberal, just like a Republican is not necessarily a conservative. With that said, the only way to determine something is by what they say and what they do. It is up to the individual as to whether they support or don't support the actions of our Country. That is the purpose of elections.

I think what the other poster was saying was that some people who say they don't support the mission, but support the troops are being disingenuous. It is alright to say what you believe in, but actions speak louder than words. Demonstrating at the funerals of fallen soldiers, threatening to withhold funding, and doing anything to undermine the mission is counter-productive to our interests. Maybe some do these things in order to justify their position and not for the noblest of motives. I want everyone to exercise the rights that I fought for. It is my right to exercise mine as well.

UFDON raises a good point.  I am not sure if my 9 years of service were tougher on me or on my family.   UFDON I know it was your son's choice to serve in the military and not your own. The sacrifice is still there. Sometimes I think about my own kin having to go off to war and I think it was easier to do it myself.  Watching family step up and take the torch will be tough.  My hat is off to ya. 

My sincerest thanks to you and your son.

PollHater -  How exactly is it the Administration at fault here?  Nobody in the executive branch writes any checks out. That is the responsibility of the legislative branch. That branch is currently controlled by the Democrats, most of whom are suddenly opposed to the war, even those that voted to authorize it in the first place

First it is the President who submits a budget proposal, and it was this administration that called for the tax cuts.  Second, there was a Republican congress when the tax cuts were implemented.

Also, there is a difference between voting to give the President authority to go to war and voting to go to war.  I know many think this is just a matter of semantics, and this is why they say Hillary Clinton (who I can't stand) and others voted for the war.   That is not what they voted for.  What they voted for was to give the President authority to go to war if it was necessary, after all diplomatic efforts and attempts at sanctions failed.  It does not mean they wanted to go to war at the time, it meant they didn't want the President's hands to be tied if and when war became the only option.  They gave Bush a stick to use while trying to force Sadaam to comply with our demands through other means.  Bush didn't wait to see if other means would work.  Hillary Clinton hasn't appologized for her vote to authorize the war, because she believed that the President needed that power.  She just believes Bush abused the power he was given.  Even though I am very anti-Hillary, I can see her stance on this issue.

As for the oil thing, I don't think we went to war strictly over oil.  However, if there were no oil in Iraq or if it were not in a strategic position, I doubt we would have invaded.  There are brutal dictators in many parts of the world.  There are countries throughout Africa where terrorists camps are set up in unstable countries with brutal fighting.  Somalia is just one example.  Why aren't we there?  Also, has everyone forgotten the claims by Rumsfeld and others in the Bush administration that the war would "pay for itself?"

The original thought was we would go in, overthrow Sadaam, secure the oil fields then a grateful new Iraqi government would contract out control of the oil fields to American companies.  Once again, I don't think this was why we went to war, but there was hope this would be a by product of it.  The thing is Oil Companies were in a win - win.  If everything would have worked as planned, US Oil companies get access to more oil and their profits increase.  If as happened Iraq oil supply is cut in 1/2, the global supply of oil is cut and oil and gas prices increase upping their profits.  The only way they lose is if control of Iraqi oil fields were secure but control was held by Russian or Chinese oil companies.

Once we realized we were going to be in Iraq a long time, which was within the first year, we should have started ramping up the military at that time.   If success in Iraq is key to our security and freedom, then the President should come out and say that security and freedom does not come without sacrifice.  He should have said we need to repeal the tax cuts to gain the revenue needed to support the war.  He needed to have the courage to say this war is going to hurt our economy, but we must be willing to make economic sacrifices to secure a safe America.

By 2003 we should have been trying to ramp the size of the Army up to about 700,000 troops and the Marines to 250,000.  But nothing was done then.  Instead we now have about 500,000 in the army and 180,000 Marines.   Any gains made in those services over the past 4 years has been met with a decrease in the number of Sailors and Airmen.  There were over 600,000 in 1990.  Now a lot of those cuts came before 2000, but there were still over 400,000 sailors by 2000.  It is now down to 330,000 with plans to cut it down to 320,000.

The 15 month tours Soldiers are having to perform because of lack of planning is disgusting.   Sailors having to do a 1 year IA tour then come back and deploy on Ship 2 or 3 months later is unacceptable.