adroomi:

"I'm sorry about your cancer and your stitches. However I doubt that that is what stopped

you from joining the service as a kid."

What "stopped" me from going into the service was the hunk of flesh they cut out of my

a** to remove a rather nasty polinidal cyst that decided to show up at the tender age of

18. It was a wound that took three years to heal all on its own. Not long after, cancer

struck.

If you saw the scar that runs down from the bottom of my chest, to the top of my crotch,

you'd understand why I am in poor physical condition to join the military.

"Now..my point about you not speaking for the military, is that you are trying to say that

those that are against the war are bad guys, and that all servicemembers are for it."

I never said "all service members." I said that for every 1 service member you find that

dislikes the war, I can find 2 that support it. There were a lot of people in WWII that

hated the war, but kept fighting anyways because they inherently knew the consequences of

retreating in front of the Japanese and the Germans. Secondly, as far as wars go, this

current conflict pales in comparison, by far, then either WWII, WWI, the Civil War, the

Korean War, or any other war you can think of. We have nowhere taken the amount of

casualties that were racked up on any of these other conflicts. Yet, if you listen to

the war's detractors, this is THE most appalling conflict, ever. We're fighting this

with both hands tied behind our backs, hopping on one foot, blindfolded.

"I say BS. That is exactly what DrPeps point is. You're trying to paint a picture of

anti-Iraq war folks as anti-military. It don't work that way."

Some aren't anti-military, and maybe you're not, but a large number of these anti-war

people are radically anti-military and anti-America.

Saying you support the troops, but don't support the war is akin to saying "I support the

workers at Toyota, but I refuse to buy they cars." Workers at Toyota need for people to

buy cars in order for them to be gainfully employed. Secondly, the troops over there are

doing a job that they voluenteered to do, and it's been proven now, time and time again,

that NOT supporting a war where US troops are deployed is tantamount to helping the enemy.

One prime reason why Lee invaded the north during the Civil War was to force the North to

sue for peace. It was well known by the military of the Confederacy that there was no

way the South would be able to win a protracted war against the north. Additionally,

there were many in the Northern states that were pushing the Lincoln administration for

armistance – in fact, armistance was the platform of the Democratic party during that

period of time. Thus, it was thought that if the war was brought to the north, that the

vocal pacifists there would scream even louder for a seccessation of hostilities. Thus,

the thriving anti-war movement of the North emboldened the enemy to attack. And this is

just one of many examples where "I support the troops, but I don't support the war"

brought about an escalation of hostilities. There are more…many more.

"In regards to me saying that as a young teen in the military I was clueless, how does

that make me look bad?"

Your Post:

"Most of them, under the rank of buck sergeant, in regards to world affairs, are in fact

quite dim-witted."

Somehow, unless you're multiple people, "them" does not qualify as "me".

I'm not apt to calling someone who walks around with a fully-loaded saw, and making split-

second life-and-death decisions "dim witted". And I think that there are many on this

board, who already have a woody when it comes to jumping on you, who would LOVE to take

umberage with your comments. I'll let it pass.

"It wasn't until I was much older that I realized what was really going on. Those bad

guys weren't screaming 'down with America' when they gurgled for air during their last

breaths...they were screaming for their mothers."

Boo hoo. I wonder what the Kurds screamed when they were being gassed? Or what they were

screaming when people flung themselves from the Twin Towers on 9/11? You're not getting

any sympathy here.

"You try to portray folks that are against war as bad guys, yet you've never high-fived

your buddies, threw up the 'devil horns' salute and cheered in glee at a mission gone

great...as they try not to let their friends see them fighting back sobs of fear after a

firefight than you do? I think so."

This is going to sound a little cold, but bear with me. I had the same thing thrown at

me by one of my friends (who is still a friend, I might add) who was a front-liner in

Gulf War I.

I'm only going to write about this once.

I didn't voulenteer for cancer. I didn't ask to have cancer given to me. They don't

know what causes cancer, and if you ask a good doctor, he'll basically say that while

they know quite a bit about it, they have no definite definition as to what causes cancer

in the first place. And while you hear lots of news stories about things that prevent

it, there is no general way of avoiding this deadly little plague. People who've never

smoked a day in their lives die of lung cancer. People who eat healthy get stomach cancer.

So, when you’re visited by the cancer fairy, odds are you haven't a clue as to how you've

gotten it.

Unlike the flu, where you can outlive the sickening effects, you get cancer, and it's a

pretty sure bet that if left untreated, you’re gonna die. Even if you do treat it, you

may die anyways – that's the breaks sometimes. I've frankly been through stuff that

would curl your toenails. I've done my 30 seconds of sobbing and bleating out "why me",

then I sucked it up from that moment on, showed a little testicular fortitude, and acted

like a man. I've done my fair share of puking, pissing blood, getting fried like pizza

in a microwave, and having parts of my body removed. I've had needles poked into my

bones, meythelene blue dye shot up into the webs of my toes, and other lovely procedures

that I no longer care to remember. I did this all for the sake of saving my life, and I

humble myself by remembering that there are others who have gone through this ordeal

who've had worse. And while my cancer was "easily" treatable (and I say that with some

amusement as they dragged me through hell doing it), it's still a little source of

trepidation to know that the odds of being cured are similar to that of playing Russian

Roulette with a ten-chambered pistol.

And now that I've defeated cancer, I can put this all behind me, right?

Wrong.

No, there's a chance that they very cure for my cancer may give me cancer down the road.

In addition to that, I've got scarring on my heart and lungs, scarring in my esophagus,

problems with my digestive tract, and a thyroid that is slowly dying. I'm at higher risk

for hernia due to the surgeries, scarring around all of my lymph nodes that makes

recovering from the flu or a cold a singular sort of hell, and I have an increased chance

of having a heart attack, stroke, and so on, and so on, and so on. I never know if that

odd lump on my body is the thing that's going to eventually kill me – and I've had a number

of those scares over the years. There's also the pure paranoia of lumps I can’t see, and

therefore can’t find until it's already too late. Since my mid-twenties, I (and my wife)

have been planning our future and finances with an eye out for me not being around in the

upcoming year. I live with the ever-present realization of my mortality day-after-day,

year-after-year, and will continue to do so for the rest of my life.

In short, I live with the stink of the Grim Reaper's breath firmly impregnated in my

nostrils. Most cancer survivors will probably say the same thing.

When a war ends, and a person survives said war, for the most part they can leave that

war behind them. Wounds heal, for the most part (and for a few, they live in my little

world where the physical wounds never really heal). I not so much of a fool to realize

that people coming home from a war are haunted by the memories of that event. I too am

haunted by the memories of my little war, but I get the added bonus of knowing that for

me, the war never really ends. If it shows up again, I can't run to Canada to escape it,

I can ask for a deferment, I can’t file to be a consciensus objector…no there's nothing I

can do to escape it. If follows me wherever I go. So I sit here, day after day, waiting

for that other shoe to fall. It's been like that for many years now, and will probably be

like that until the day I die.

Do I complain about it? No.

I've come to the realization that we all have out little burdens we need to bear in life.

I don't spend my life pissing and moaning that this happened to me, and I try to empathize

with others that are in the same predicament as I. I know that war is indeed hell, and

with a few of my military friends, listen to them talk so that they can get a lot of their

issues off their chest. Not that this makes me a "swell" guy by any means (not do I choose

to portray myself in such a light), or that I'm someone that want's to "feel the pain" of

another. I'm well aware that there are people out there who, by no fault of their own,

are worse off then I, and I try to help when I can. But in the end, we ALL bear a load:

some heavier then others, and some remarkably light.

So, you'll have to excuse me if I get a tad annoyed when someone tries the pluck the heart-

strings of my sympathy.

As far as sobbing after a firefight, my response is: suck it up, and act like a man. If

you're a first-timer, it's understandable. If you're doing it again, get a pair of stones.

Anyone who thinks that you can negotiate with people that find gassing woman and children

acceptable, and like to fly planes into buildings, needs to have their head examined. Yes,

war is terrible. Yes, people die in war. People die from cancer too. People die in car

wrecks. They also die in terrorist attacks. If you think that by NOT fighting over in

Iraq, that this whole 9/11 thing is going to go away, you're wrong again. We weren't in

Iraq when they hit the Khobar towers, and we weren't in Iraq on 9/11/2001. But the enemy

was there then, he's there now, and if we don't succeed they'll be able to take all of

that financing that guys like Osama bin Laden are throwing at the "insurgency" and start

throwing at things like shooting up shooping malls in hometown USA.

So, be "for the troops, but against the war" all you’d like. In the years to come, when

more stuff starts blowing up in America, and more civilians start dying on out home soil,

you can be confident that you took the right stance.

I find it interesting people think that certain things can exist in a vacuum to which no possible negative consequences can exist due to the “nobility” of the idea. I am speaking about the “I can support the troops but not the War and it won’t affect anything” idea of thinking.

Quick test: An Insurgent/AQ Fighter hears that the US will not be sending more troops. What will the reaction of the Insurgent/AQ Fighter be? What will Insurgent/AQ Fighter leaders think?

Quick test: The Insurgent/AQ Leadership notices an ever growing division in the US on the war? There is talk of “redeployment” or “timetables for withdraw”. What is the reaction of the Insurgent/AQ Leadership?

Quick test: As an Insurgent/AQ Fighter which comment would make you feel better and more confident about your situation in Iraq? Hearing US citizens saying “I support the troops and the War” or “I support the Troops but not the War”?

The above relates to a couple of things which can help determine the outcome of the war in Iraq, the first of which is morale. Anything that boosts or improves the enemy’s morale makes the enemy much harder to fight. It encourages them and provides the will to continue in the face of defeat (and they are loosing mind you). Anyone who knows what a “second wind” is can fully understand morale in this context. If I was an Insurgent/AQ Fighter I would be thrilled with people who did not support the war, and could care less about the “I support the troops” part. From an Insurgent/AQ Fighter point of view you are “supporting them all the way home”, and out of Iraq, which is what I would want if I am an Insurgent/AQ Fighter.

The second is if half of my enemy’s country does not support the war they are in, they may just leave, and we win. If the enemy presents a timetable, I wait it out. If the enemy is susceptible to negative media, I provide it in spades. True or not doesn’t matter, it gets reported. A lesson learned early by the Insurgent/AQ Leadership and exploited to perfection. Your average Joe on the street thinks we are loosing this war, and if you listened to the media you would be right. How far from the truth that really is depends on which side of the question you are on. The bed we are in now is testament to the fact that showing weakness to the Insurgent/AQ fighters makes them stronger and emboldens their actions. This war is ours to win or loose. To chose defeat for political ideology is suicide.

VK in Iraq

Excellent Thoughts shared by the silent majority.

The silent minority perhaps.

Claiming the deposed ex-Ba'athists are fighting to

regain their position in Iraqi society contingent on

American opinion polls is insensible hyperbole.

The insurgents will keep fighting regardless of what CNN polls in America spit out, as their fight is not

one of choice.

The majority of Americans see the Bush administration

continuing to follow a failed strategy based on failed

policy. If they began implementing better policy at

home and following better strategy in Iraq, people

at home and elsewhere might begin to feel different.

By now we ought to know better though, not gonna

happen.

You didn’t read my post apparently. I was talking about “Insurgent/AQ Fighters”. You march out “ex-Ba’athiests” and some outdated plan to recoup power from 2003. Sneaky.

Relegating the basis of my argument to the stupidity of polls is slick and quick thinking on your part. However, I am not talking about polls. Which you base your opinion of the war on from post 87, least anyone forget what you wrote here it is below.

“Why are the majority of Americans against this war?

If this poll is any indication [http://tinyurl.com/5xbu],

it's because folks do not think progress is

being made in efforts to establish security and democracy in Iraq, nor do they believe the conflict

in Iraq is even part of the war on terror. They see US

troops used as policing a civil war. People aren't

stupid.”

Stupid polls mean little if anything. But when you have Senators and Congressmen, to include about 60% of our media, saying we are losing and should get out, that does mean something. And you don’t think the people we are fighting in Iraq care what goes on in the halls of congress, and the front pages of our papers? How stupid is that.

So to reiterate:

We should listen to our polls and media and take something from that, but Insurgents/AQ Fighters won’t. So when we pull out of Iraq, the Insurgents/AQ Fighters will just have to be surprised I guess.

Gee, that seems logical…..

My shift has been over for almost an hour so I will waist no more time tonight on this. Time to walk my a** down to the PX and buy a freaking near-bear to go with my cigar. Hoping it don’t rain on me of course.

Ta-Ta from Iraq, where public opinion means things.

Perhaps you're right. This may in fact be one lovely

f*cking war we're having now, and I'm just too

blockheaded to see it.

In any event, enjoy your stogie.

Jpotts: "Saying you support the troops, but don't support the war is akin to saying "I support the workers at Toyota, but I refuse to buy they cars."

I'm retired military and not only do I not support this war and never have, I don't support this president either and never have. I don't think he was doing a good job before 9/11 and he certainly hasn't improved. The question is not is he the worst president in my lifetime but how close to "ever" is he gonna get.

Other leaders have dealt with poor intel and either figured out what was needed to fix the problem (see FDR) or were man enough to admit they were wrong (see JFK). With this one we get a signing statement saying he doesn't have to tell us. But I digress.

3 years ago I was saying, on this board, that mid level commanders weren't happy with how things were being done. While my brothers have respect for the office there is not very much for the man in it, I would bet that Nixon was better thought of.. Of course, I can't prove that but I'm fine if you don't believe me.

It is entirely possible to support the troops and not the cause they are forced to fight in, it's not like they have a choice.

I told myself I wouldn't, but I guess I'll join the fray here and put in my $0.02.

Two very clear points that I would like to make here that are, obviously (and hopefully) open to debate:

1. The war in Iraq has made us less safe.

Like it or not, this war has sapped our ability to make America less susceptible to domestic terror attacks. The committment of troops and the enormous amount of money spent in this campaign could have been, in my opinion, much more efficiently used to safeguard the homeland. Saddam was a bad dude, but was his stated goal to destroy the U.S.? No....he was a secular ruler content to enjoy the spoils of his dictatorship, kill his own people, and occasionally menace his neighbors. No direct threat was posed to the United States by the existence of his regime - or at least no threat more dire than that posed by Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il, or whoever happens to be in control of the Sudan at this minute. These folks all possess the attributes ascribed above to Mr. Hussein. None of them were deemed to be an immediate threat.

Remember the Taliban? Well, they're back - they control a sizable portion of the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan that now is a no-go region for EVERYONE. It was just this type of no-man's land that spawned bin Laden's army of followers. We could have much better used our troops and our money to get it right in Afghanistan, to secure our ports, to get bin Laden and to try to take AQ out from the top down, and maybe even to secure the stockpiles of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons currently for sale to the highest bidder in the former Soviet Union. We might even have been able to use some of that money and manpower to rebuild New Orleans, which now festers as a moldy national disgrace (its outstanding football team notwithstanding).

Regardless, given the amount of money and military capital we have used in this venture, and the amount that will be required to complete the mission (whatever that entails now), I think that in terms of making America safer our resources could have been used much more efficiently.

2. The lack of terror attacks within the U.S. means that we are "winning" the "War on Terror" and, by extension, justifies recent and current policy.

I would challenge proponents of this viewpoint to consider this: If your goal was truly the destruction and decline of the United States as a global superpower, do you really think you could achieve it by flying commercial airplanes into buildings in all U.S. cities and bombing shopping malls? bin Laden is a bad guy, but he is also highly intelligent - and probably very pleased with the fallout from the 9/11 attacks. After a month or so of national unity in the fall of 2001, the nation has devolved into a screaming match over who can protect America and who is "with the terrorists". We are bogged down in a situation in Iraq that has sapped our military and economic strength and has substantially reduced our standing in the international community, as have many of out antiterrorism tactics (Gitmo?!?). In short, the 9/11 attacks provided the spark for America to self-immolate. bin Laden just watches from his cave, happy with the discord he has managed to sow in our country.

Just my opinion, of course. Cheers and happy Saturday to all.

Chris, the annoying newbie

War, international relations, global free trade, etc.,

are very complex, inter-related, and serious. And

credible arguments can be made from a variety of view

points.

However, claiming that being against this war is

tantamount to not supporting the troops is just not

tenable.

While it is possible that an individual might oppose

this war, AND hold military personnel in contempt

simultaneously, it is not automatic by any means.

I certainly support the US military because they're

the defenders of my and my family's nation; it's a

no brainer. Others may have different opinions.

However, I do not support this war specifically because

of the way it's being managed, or mismanaged, as it

were.

The reality is we are deeply involved in Iraq now, like

it or not. Watching the continuing mismanagement, I'm

talking years now, is painful and repugnant. While I

realize institutional inertia is difficult to overcome,

it is not impossible to overcome.

I won't recap all the strategic pros and cons of this

debate, but some creative and constructive changes

in foreign policy and war strategy is just too glaring

to gloss over and be fake-optimistic about.

The very nature of our national laws and social habits

dictate that folks can and will express their hopes

and/or doubts about leadership vociferously.

America is the world's super-power, but that doesn't

mean we are the world's absolute moral authority, or

that we exist in a vacuum.

I absolutely support the existence of our nation's

military forces, and hold genuine respect and concern

for the well being of those who practice the art of

arms on behalf of America. But I do not support the

motivations, execution, or continued mismanagement of the neocons.

I hold these positions because my conscious and reason

insists I do, as I'm know others who differ with me do

as well. Let the dialogues and debates continue.

old man balls

Stay the course.

It's one thing to have balls. Balls are good.

It's quite another to have balls AND brains.

Still another to have balls, brains, and natural

good looks.

When it really gets serious is when you have balls,

brains, good looks, and money.

Of course all of that gets checked by age, eventually.

AVB:

“Other leaders have dealt with poor intel and either

figured out what was needed to fix the problem (see

FDR) or were man enough to admit they were wrong (see

JFK). With this one we get a signing statement saying

he doesn't have to tell us. But I digress.”

Intelligence is more art then science, and our nation

has been hamstrung by nearly two decades of illogical,

leftist notions that you don’t “do business” with

shady characters in the intelligence community. So,

with that roadblock put up, we’ve relied primarially

on technology, which is not all-encompassing. Human

intelligence sources take time to setup and put into

place before you get start getting concrete info.

Secondly, it’s pretty clear – with the number of leaks

being reported in publications like the New York

Times – that organizations like the CIA have their own

little political agenda going on. You take a look at

the facts about Joe Wilson’s trip to Africa (he was

sent by his wife, yet lied on an Op Ed saying that

Chaney sent him), and the supposed “outing” of Valarie

Plame (Wilson actually “outed” her in early 2000 in

a “Who’s Who” website), and you begin to see that

there are some in that organization what will

undermine and sabotage the Executive branch so as to

forward a specific political end.

Third, you and I only hear what certain people want us

to hear when it comes to errant intelligence or

intelligence successes. Whether you like the current

occupant of the White House or not, it’s a fact that

since 9/11, we’ve had no major terrorist attacks on US

soil. The number of attacks overseas (such as

embassies and so on) have been virtually non-existent

since 2003. So, while you may consider Bush a dolt

(and believe you me, I agree with you in much of that

assessment), he’s a dolt that’s been doing the job in

this particular area.

“3 years ago I was saying, on this board, that mid

level commanders weren't happy with how things were

being done. While my brothers have respect for the

office there is not very much for the man in it,”

I’m sure that allowing terrorists to take unanswered

pot-shots from mosques at our troops doesn’t make

people all that happy. My opinion is that if you let

one of these scum in your house, the house is rubble.

We didn’t take that kind of action early on. Bush’s

fault? Maybe.

Then again, consider that if we killed one kid during

a raid on a terrorist hide out – the lest in this

country would be calling Bush a war criminal. So, I’m

sure the political calculation was to fight

a “sensitive” campaign against the enemy to deflect

that kind of criticism. This is the part where

the “dolt” label applies because only a moron would

think that if you cow-tow to the rabid leftists in

this nation they’ll somehow join together with you for

a common purpose. And, as predicted, they’re calling

him a war criminal regardless.

So, the less on to be learned from the Bush

presidency: don’t make friends with your enemies…wipe

them out. It worked for Patton.

“I would bet that Nixon was better thought of.. Of course, I can't prove that but I'm fine if you don't believe me.”

No, I’d actually have to agree with you. After 4+

years of Johnson’s micromanagement of the war, and

limiting targets, Nixon taking the gloves off was

probably a breath of fresh air.

Yet the resultant pullout from Vietnam – and basically

leaving most of our allies like the Mung to rot in

Vietnam I’m sure gave a number of potential allies

pause before asking aid from the United States. We

can’t keep running into wars and then pulling out when

it becomes “unfashionable.”

There were a dozen or so reasons why we went into this

war. Everyone LOVE to focus on WMDs (which we've been

finding, by the way) as the excuse. No one bothers to

consider that they voilated the 1991 cease-fire agreement

some fifteen ways from Sunday. No one bothers to

consider that Saddam was harboring terrorists inside

Iraq (namely Abu Nidal, who was #1 on the most wanted

list for terrorists until ole Osama came wandering in,

and Abu Abbas), and that an Al Qaeda offshoot was

given free reign to work inside Iraq (as well as other

ties to this organization existing).

BTW, ever notice that after Iraq collapsed, the suicide

bombings in Israel suddenly dropped off to nothing?

“It is entirely possible to support the troops and not

the cause they are forced to fight in, it's not like

they have a choice.”

A lot of guys in WWII didn’t have a choice either:

they were drafted. My point is with that is that we’re

in a war, we need to win the war, and you have a

chance every 4 years to remove the current “dolt”

residing in the Oval Office.

Again, this really isn’t about Iraq, though Iraq is a

pretty big piece of the puzzle. It’s about draining

terrorist financing so that they can’t use that money

to finance attacks on US soil.

Still so true..