Support your Troops

IMO It is not just the fact they are in the military or 'gun ho'.
Concentration levels have dipped since MTV started up, all those years ago.
People want a fast fix and an easy reward.

I understood what you meant .

Yes.

I'm not sure, but a lot of the people that seem disenfranchised are in their mid twenties on-wards. They must have been in the services for atleast 4 years. Maybe when they joined they could see the light at the end of the tunnel, but know can't. But, I don't know. I appreciate you probably have a better perspective than me. Is it not a soldiers job to complain (regardless of time spent in a situation)?

On the whole, neither do I to be honest. I am far to reasonable to think they all are like that. But, the high profile people that want out of the military and use "this war is illegal" etc etc etc, have never really convinced me that they are being honest. With us or themselves.

 

i think this ties into what i have said about the frustration from the iraqi people not stepping up. dont you?

 

I don't think that makes sense. It did not make sense to me, anyway.
You may need to re-word it so I can understand what you mean. Sorry.

I can't remember you speaking of "frustration from the iraqi people"
That, to me, does not seem connected to "not stepping up".

I maybe being slightly thick here.

 

the soldiers frustration,,at the iraqi people not stepping up....

 

Right, yes. I understand. Thanks.

 

I find this odd.

"The Iraq invasion needed to be done to rid them of a tyrant who murdered his own people and I was proud to be a part of the invasion."


The tyrant you speak of, although definitely a bastard that needed to go, didn't just appear out of thin air one day. He was made... He was made, in part, through the efforts of the US government.

From wiki

and

To claim the invasion of Iraq was in order to remove a tyrant is the biggest pile of bullshit about all of this. There are many tyrants around the world that do much worse to their people then he ever did, and yet not only have they not been invaded and toppled, in some cases, they have become 'valued allies' and trading partners.

I wish I could understand what the point of the war actually was. I would hate to think it was solely so he could finish what his father started, but I suspect that may indeed have been a large factor. The fact that the top officials in the current administration are all deeply connected in financial terms to companies who have just exploded in terms of value probably factors in a lot as well. I think the biggest factor in it had to have been a complete misunderstanding of the results would be. But, on that, I really have no clue beyond conjecture, and I highly doubt anyone but a few of bush's cohorts will ever really know what the point was...

But it most definitely was NOT to topple a tyrant because he was killing his own people.

 

Your wiki (and I am assuming you read The daily Kos article about this?http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/24/32349/4815/830/249370) entry talks of activities 40 years ago.
Before he slipped in to the despotic man he ended up being.
You can't accuse the US or anybody else for 'making' him that way.
At the time, he was not the person he ended up being.
For all the hypocrisy that is evident over the last 40 years.
Accusing them of turning him into a the man he ended up being, is unfair.
If it is fair, why is it fair?
You say 'through efforts' - what 'efforts' would the be then?

Governments have said a lot about him and his regime.
I thought the actual reason was defiance of Res. 1441.

 

Is this what you call democracy and freedom http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=1434

 

I wonder what I meant when I said "He was made, in part, through the efforts of the US government."

 

You cant listen to propaganda from people against the war. The reality is you are going to have collateral damage in war. That is just the way it is. We were given a job to do and that was to liberate the Iraqi people and they are now liberated with freedom to create there own democracy thru free elections thanks to the US and coalition forces. They are better off today than they were under Saddam Hussein.

 

I did say:

US or anybody else

Accusing them



Ignoring that -
Sorry for not including it in my response.
I'll try again.
How (in part) did the US turn him into the man he ended up being?

 

thats not propaganda, take a while and look at the entire real news site, it is one of the few news sources that does not feed you lies, they have no need to, do to the fact they have no corporate influence.

 

They assisted him in becoming the leader of the country. I don't understand what your issue is with what I said.

I at no point in time said they made him become a tyrant or kill his own people, I didn't say they were responsible for his actions. I pointed out that they had a hand in putting him there in the first place.

As for it being 40 years ago, how does the passage of time change what was done?

 

These are people who want one thing, the truth

 

Er why should we "support our troops"?

I certainly wont support the British ones.
Wasting MY taxes , making ME a target for "terrorist" revenges.
Murdering getting on a million Arab civillians in an illegal war of genocide.
Putting billions in the back pockets of Bxsh and his oil cronies and the Neo-Hitlers that back him.

I think the "we were only obeying orders" crap died out at Nuremberg.
I'd set up one big Guantanamo Bay in Arabia - full of British and American gimps of CHeney.

Youre an imbecile.Altho thats being disrespectful to imbeciles.

 

I don't know what you are driving at, that is my issue.
If they did assist him to become leader, why does it not follow they can as easily wish to take him out.

Alright, fair enough. It is when you say things like this:The tyrant you speak of, although definitely a bastard that needed to go, didn't just appear out of thin air one day. He was made... He was made, in part, through the efforts of the US government.

Instead of, Saddam Hussein was assisted into power by the CIA

So, so what if (in part) they did have a hand in putting him where he was.
In effect bringing up how he came to be where he was, is irrelevant.
What are you saying?

A, If the CIA did not put him where he was (not knowing how he would end up being) none of this would be happening.
B, In a round about way it is all their fault.
C, Something completely different.

Maybe I am reading too much into your post - IMO you are certainly intimating somebody aside from him is ultimately responsible, or just you are saying why would the US take out somebody that was (inpart) put in by them.

Now. nothing. As you may see, I am somewhat confused what you are driving at in your initial post. Its meaning does not seem to jump out at me. Sorry. My fault I imagine. If anybody else (or you) can explain, in more simplistic terms, it would be appreciated.

 

So we agree it is okay not to support all of the troops, all of their actions, all of the time. The only thing we don't agree upon is where in the gray area we draw our lines.

 

I suspect we would agree pretty much on all the postive and negative actions that troops do. But, I don't know yet. Give me 3 or 4 e.gs of both and we shall see.

 

In what way? Do they have full electrical service? Do they have freedom of movement in their country? Fuel and food shortages? What about the unemployment figures then versus now? Sanitation? Potable water? health care?

 

You cant listen to propaganda from people against the war. The reality

The reality is that your daddy's president didn't do his job, and about four thousand New Yorkers died a horrible death. Propaganda my ass. It happened. Then after botching Afghanistan to the point of international embarrassment, bombing Canadians but letting Bin-Laden get away, he lied us into a "hey everyone look that way!!" war with a country that was no threat at all to us (okay, sure, they could have swam across the ocean on innertubes to throw beach stones or to wave their pricks at us), and it resulted in about 650,000 deaths by 2006 (documented in one of the world's most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journals, no less). And people are making BILLIONS on this war. HUNDREDS of billions. Ching!

And now the goal of the mission is to just keep the mission going. Forever. McCain has promised "a one million year" occupation, and he wasn't even joking. It's not that we're a bloodthirsty people. It's that there's just so damned much money to be made on this war, and they've gotten a good taste of profane amounts of cash.

Meanwhile our brothers and sisters continue to pay, deployment after deployment, with their blood, their tears, their arms, legs, eyes, breasts, dicks, marriages, and sanity. And that son of a bitch traitor McCain, voting against the vets to keep 'em from getting a fair shake. That's reality. That's fact. And it's a goddamned shame.

Dude, if you really did serve, I thank you for your service. But you sound a bit too cheerleaderish to me.