It's on him now.

[anonemouse 1]

How can we be 'supporting our troops' while dissing what they are doing?

How can we be 'supporting our troops' by wishing that they stay in harm's way? How can we be 'supporting our troops' by continuing to fight an unwinnable war? How can we be 'supporting our troops' when we continue to support a President and administration that knowingly underfunded and under-manned the troops? How can we be 'supporting our troops' when we support an administration that sends them back for multiple tours? How can we be 'supporting our troops' when we support an administration that mislead the public and congress and put those troops in danger in the first place?

I support our troops because I know that they are just doing what they are told to do, following orders. I know they are doing the best they can with what they have. I don't support this administration. There is a difference between the two, even if you refuse to see it.

[Carlene 12]

Yes, Jack, we do have a different perspective regarding the war in Iraq. Maybe I'm older than you, but this is very much like a movie I've seen before. When I was a child, the government had us scared to death of the "Red Menace" (Russia). We had atomic bomb drills (file out into the hallway, sit down on the floor, put your head between your knees, and kiss your ass goodbye), and air raid shelters and people were encouraged to have a "meet up" point, in case the invasion came while Mom was at home, Dad was at work, and the kids were in school. We believed that every day was potentially the end of the world as we knew it.

Then came Vietnam, and the whole "liberation" argument.....and talk similar to today's about victory and honor, etc. Sixteen years of American blood running thru the streets of Hanoi, and now there's a KFC there. My brother served three tours in Vietnam. He was not the same person when he came home. He was a machine - a cold, self-serving machine. And what did we gain? NOTHING. The same thing we will gain if we stay in Iraq for another 10 or 12 years.

Next, it was the Chinese. We have to watch out for Communist China. And now, George Bush wants us to believe that the Muslims might take over the world, if we don't put them in their place.

The Muslim women who refused to remove their burkas for DL photos in Florida were not terrorists. They were simply honoring their religious beliefs. To forcibly rip off their veils and reveal their faces would be comparable to forcing a Catholic woman to undergo an abortion. It's a HUGE issue to them....terribly invasive.

The US is very cozy with certain Muslims, like the Saudis. And no country is more religiously militant than Saudi Arabia. Our service women stationed in Saudi are forbidden to drive or show their arms off base, per the US government. So as not to offend the locals. Why do we put up with this crap?

From the US State Dept web site...

Women considering relocating to Saudi Arabia should be keenly aware that women and children residing in Saudi Arabia as members of a Saudi household (including adult American-citizen women married to Saudi men, adult American-citizen women who are the unmarried daughters of Saudi fathers, and American-citizen boys under the age of 21 who are the sons of Saudi fathers) are considered household property and require the permission of the Saudi male head of their household to leave the country.

From the American Forces Press Services...

WASHINGTON, Jan. 23, 2002 -- U.S. Central Command has relaxed the requirement that female service members wear the Muslim abaya when off-base in civilian clothes.

About 1,000 American service women are affected by the change. The command still "strongly advises" female service members to wear the abaya, a black cloak that Muslim women are required to wear by the Koran.

Central Command officials said the requirement was put in place as a force protection measure. Saudi Arabia is a conservative Islamic country and the home of Mecca and Medina, two of the holiest sites in Islam. The officials said the country adheres to a strict interpretation of Islamic religious law as put down in the Koran, the Muslim holy book.

The abaya in Saudi Arabia is a long black robe that covers the head and body. In other areas of the world, the abaya is a simple headscarf. Officials said that wearing the abaya allows American women to blend in with the population better and shows American cultural sensitivity. It also helps women avoid the attention of the Saudi "religious police."

[Carlene 12]

how do we feel about abortion?

Nobody likes abortion. Enough said.

[faithmd 14]

...The Muslim women who refused to remove their burkas for DL photos in Florida were not terrorists. They were simply honoring their religious beliefs. To forcibly rip off their veils and reveal their faces would be comparable to forcing a Catholic woman to undergo an abortion. It's a HUGE issue to them....terribly invasive...

So here it appears you are saying that you agree they should not have to remove thier hijab/abaya/burka/burqa/veils?

The US is very cozy with certain Muslims, like the Saudis. And no country is more religiously militant than Saudi Arabia. Our service women stationed in Saudi are forbidden to drive or show their arms off base, per the US government. So as not to offend the locals. Why do we put up with this crap?

Yet here it appears you are saying that when we are in their country, we shouldn't have to abide by their laws.

...From the American Forces Press Services...

WASHINGTON, Jan. 23, 2002 -- U.S. Central Command has relaxed the requirement that female service members wear the Muslim abaya when off-base in civilian clothes.

About 1,000 American service women are affected by the change. The command still "strongly advises" female service members to wear the abaya, a black cloak that Muslim women are required to wear by the Koran.

Central Command officials said the requirement was put in place as a force protection measure. Saudi Arabia is a conservative Islamic country and the home of Mecca and Medina, two of the holiest sites in Islam. The officials said the country adheres to a strict interpretation of Islamic religious law as put down in the Koran, the Muslim holy book.

The abaya in Saudi Arabia is a long black robe that covers the head and body. In other areas of the world, the abaya is a simple headscarf. Officials said that wearing the abaya allows American women to blend in with the population better and shows American cultural sensitivity. It also helps women avoid the attention of the Saudi "religious police."

And here it looks like you are making the point that in their country, we are asked to abide (or told to abide) by their acceptable and usual laws and customs, even if they are not our own.

So go back to the Muslim women who would not remove their face piece for ther DL photos, and the woman in Michigan who is suing a judge because he threw her small claims case out of court for refusing to remove her veil so he could see her face to ascertain if she was telling the truth or not:

Aren't these women IN OUR COUNTRY? And if we were in their country, wouldn't we be compelled to follow their cultural and societal norms? So why is it then okay for them to NOT follow ours???????

[faithmd 14]

Pointless depends on what you see as the point. If "changing someone's mind" (as indicated) is the point, then probably it's pointless. If voicing your opinion, sharing perspective or information, or even participating just for the sake of killing some time is the "point", then these conversations are never pointless.

Yep, I did in fact mean that in the case of attempting to change someone's mind it is fruitless (not pointless).

"...It's fruitless, one is not likely to change the other's mind. And that's okay. Differences is what makes the world go 'round."

I agree with you completely, I think it is good to exercise our minds, like you said, even if just killing some time :clap2:

[Carlene 12]

So go back to the Muslim women who would not remove their face piece for ther DL photos, and the woman in Michigan who is suing a judge because he threw her small claims case out of court for refusing to remove her veil so he could see her face to ascertain if she was telling the truth or not:

Aren't these women IN OUR COUNTRY? And if we were in their country, wouldn't we be compelled to follow their cultural and societal norms? So why is it then okay for them to NOT follow ours???????

If Muslim women want to drive in the state of Florida, they should have their photos taken like everyone else. I was responding to Jack's post that implied something more sinister than religion in their motives.

Since when are judges able to ascertain the truth by looking at someone's face?

[mousecrazy 2]

You know, I must disagree with the characterization of the military that appears to be popular with some: unthinking robots who are following orders. I believe that to be simplistic at best, and most likely insulting to about 98% of the troops.

The troops I have some acquaintance with made a choice to serve their country, believe they live in the greatest country in the world, and respect this President far more than they did the previous one. They are brilliant and capable men and women who could be out in the "real" world making great money, but want their lives to be meaningful, and want to serve their county. Just because it is not something you can imagine, doesn't mean it isn't true. Supporting the troops in the way described...taking them out of harm's way...is just like supporting your football team (to use a recent analogy) by taking them off the field so they A.) won't have to compete against a team they might not win against, or B.) tell their opponents you are going to take them off the field during the middle of the 4th quarter. Either way, it's stupid, stupid strategy in football, and critically misguided in matters of war.

Soldiers are warriors. They do not WANT to be saved from their missions.

[Carlene 12]

The Associated Press

PHOENIX -- Actor Alec Bladwin was so moved by the story of an 18-year-old Army soldier who is scheduled to serve in Iraq, he's going to help pay for her college education after she leaves the military.

Baldwin was so moved by a March 4 New York Times story about Pvt. Resha Kane's last day with family and friends before going for training to prepare for serving in Iraq that he — not his people — tracked down Kane's mother at a discount store where she works to offer his assistance, his spokesman said.

"I didn't know what to say," Kane said. "And then I asked him if he could send me his autograph. I've never met a star, let alone talked to one on the phone."

Baldwin's spokesman, Matthew Hiltzik, said when Baldwin read the Times article, it made him think of his own daughter, 11-year-old Ireland.

Hiltzik said the actor would meet the Kane family in Mohave Valley and give them a check, which will be in addition to the $37,000 the Army will give Kane for college. A date for the meeting will be decided next week, he said.

Although Baldwin, 48, has been a vocal critic against the war in Iraq, Hiltzik said supporting the troops who are fighting there is important to the actor.

"He himself tried to find the family, and he was very happy he was able to connect with them," Hiltzik said. "It's a great example that people of different backgrounds can agree on the importance of supporting our troops."

Patricia Kane said when she heard Baldwin's voice on the other line, she didn't know what to think.

"I said, 'No way. You're lying.' I was just blown away," she said. "I am totally shocked and awed this has happened."

Resha Kane said she was just as dumbfounded when her mother told her the news.

"It's very generous," she said from Fort Hood in Texas, where she is undergoing further training before her unit is deployed to Iraq in September.

[gailannr 1]

I'm missing where I said Iraq was going to invade us, in my earlier post I think I mentioned the fundamentalists (you know, the insurgents-not Iraqi civilians). I certainly do not think the Iraqi civilians will be coming over and starting a war with us. What WILL happen is the slow and insidious infiltration of terrorists into society (either ours or anywhere else deemed not to be living the way of fundamental Islam) and when you least expect it, there will be a dirty bomb or another terror strike like 9/11 (yep, I mentioned 9/11) or the London Bombings or the first WTC, or the USS Cole, or the Marine barracks in Beirut, the discotheque in Berlin, the bombings on Fiji, the cruiseliner that was hijacked in the Mediterranean, the bombing in Manila...

Excuse me, but I never said Iraq had ANYTHING to do with 9/11 You quoted me, as stated now for a third time:"Us being over there trying to get the situation stabilized (which is sadly become fruitless because I fully believe our enemy was not only underestimated, but largely unknown) is largely the reason we haven't had another 9/11. That and our improved intelligence."

I sort of miss where I said Iraq or Saddam perpetrated 9/11? What I said was that our attempting to stabilize the situation (and perhaps I'm globalizing our troops in the Middle East, as opposed to in Iraq only) and our improved intelligence (I believe) has helped to prevent another occurence like 9/11. I suppose I could have said London Bombings instead of 9/11, interchangeable really.

Sure, we could have done nothing and maybe we should have. Maybe he would have just continued along happily pillaging his people and by now he would have just been a washed up dictator, but consider the possibility that he could easily have been (and very likely was) planning to take over the world by any means necessary. (Kuwait was just a first stop for him in 1990-91.) There have been many comparisons to Hitler made, and I don't think they are too far off. But we'll never know, will we? So those who oppose the war (let me clarify, in Iraq) and those who do not (I would never say I think it's great we are there, and do NOT think I'm a Bush lover, because I am NOT) will be able to spin the possibilites any way they want to. But then again, I am not at all convinced Saddam is dead, anyway. But that's another thread altogether.

That just doesn't make any sense. If the thought is that Bush is an idiot, then what you are suggesting is that he is an absolute genious to come up with a way to tell his advisers what they are to then tell back to him, and then he somehow single-handedly was able to convince Congress to declare war, all based on his own personal agenda? He made all this up and somehow created all the intelligence reports, too? He fed them himself to his advisors? What, is he a hyponotist, or did he use some kind of Jedi mind trick on his Cabinet, the Joint Chiefs, and Congress? He convinced all these people? People can't have it both ways, he can't be so smart as to be able to do all that, yet be as stupid as some folks believe.

What propaganda? Bush is not keeping us informed enough to create any propaganda. (Which is one of my many beefs with this administration.) The only propaganda I've been hearing is from the enemy and supporters of the enemy. Lots of stuff from former anti-Western clerics, former Iraqi officials (many of whom are now supposedly dead) and insurgents (Al-jazeera anyone?).

The fighting is not with Iraqi's, it is with insurgents, they will go anywhere to defeat us. They tried to bring that fight to our soil on September 11, 2001, and to Britain's soil on July 7, 2005. That's just to name a few.

The way our troops protect us here is by being over there. It is illegal for them to perform policing action in the States. That is the function and purpose of our police forces, Homeland Security and National and Coast Guard troops.

First of all, Pearl Harbor was not "the war," it was a sneak attack that drew us into the war (US declared war on Japan on 12/8/1941-on Monday, Pearl Harbor was 12/7/1941-a Sunday, why? Because the politicians did not want to come in on a Sunday, they had to wait until the work week to declare war). And by the way, it did not occur on American soil, Hawaii was not a state until 1959, Hawaii at the time had a monarchy and its own King, we were there as a guest of Hawaii. The last war on American soil with a foreign enemy (for the record) was the Mexican-American War from 1846-1848.

No one touched on what I brought up earlier and I have to believe that is because it doesn't help the case of those who want us out: The fact is that this conflict, though sad because even one life has been lost, is statistically (for the length of time in the conflict, and for the amount of firepower expended and territory covered) the least in troop causalties than any other conflict in the history of mankind. Again I bring up: Nearly 4,500 Allied and American troops lost their lives in mere hours on the 6th of June, 1944 alone.

There have been 3,503 coalition deaths in the war in Iraq as of March 29, 2007, according to a CNN count.

WWII, which was from 1939 (but the US wasn't in it immediately) to 1945, resulted in a loss of 407,000 US troops.

During the first two days of Iwo Jima 3,650 soldiers were killed and that was taking an island so tiny it barely held an airstrip. Iwo Jima was invaded after 74 days of continuous naval and air bombardment, and STILL when we arrived, there was a loss of more lives in the first two days than have been lost in the entire Iraq war.

We are not protecting every nation from themselves, we are protecting our nation from those who want to destroy us and our way of life. Those people are and/or were based in that region (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc...). People tend to forget that us going in this time was round 2 with Saddam Hussein. Lest we forget that at the time of the first war he had the number four military in the world and was invading other countries (sound familiar, Hitler anyone?). We went in because he was again saber-rattling. He did it once, there was no reason to believe he was bluffing this time. He was even defiant to all inspections after Desert Storm. We knew that at one time, he had a shitload of weapons and believed he was working on nuclear capability. That was the intelligence we had during the Clinton administration. Remember weapons inspectors and Iraq?

It is being made into another Vietnam by folks who protest the war just like they did then. The men and women who came home from Vietnam were spat on, we are metaphorically spitting on our troops with every protest and outcry against what they are there doing. Sure we have free speech, and I'm not saying we shouldn't be able to express our opinion about the war, but I also have to believe that our protests are not helpful to our troops. During WWII, American people did not protest the war, they supported the troops by not protesting the war. By protesting the war, you are comforting and aiding the enemy. You are encouraging those who want to kill us. DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND? The fundamentalists will NOT stop until everyone on earth conforms to their view of Islam. Everyone must follow their laws and think the way they want us to think. And those of us who were not born of Islam will be enslaved. Yes, as in slaves. It doesn't matter if it's Iraq or Afghanistan or Israel or Syria or anywhere, the fundamentalists want everyone who does not believe as they do, DEAD. Iraq is just perfect for them. It has divided our nation and played right into their hands. We are giving them exactly what they want. They are using a millenia old, very effective tactic: infiltrate, divide, confuse and conquer. We're already well into the confused part, way past divide. They are frighteningly close to conquering us. But if choose to not believe that, then I do wish you luck.

Oh yes, and we supported Hitler (Hitler's great Hindenberg was in the US when it blew up) and Noriega, too. But that, like our support of Saddam, was before we knew exactly what atrocities they were capable of. When we knew, we took them out. We also supported the Soviet Union all during WWII, until they turned on us. You know, just because someone is once your ally, doesn't mean they will always be your ally. So your argument about us supporting Saddam at one time is pointless.

One last thought: Like it or not, we are in the situation. If we pull out without a victory, do you realize that everyone who has died there, and who will die, will have died in vain? Our troops and the civilians. All for nothing...

The fact is that we are a world power and there are responsibilities and consequences that go with it. One of those is to stay a world power.

Now I really am done. I have to go to bed. And I wore I would never get into one of these discussions. It's fruitless, one is not likely to change the other's mind. And that's okay. Differences is what makes the world go 'round.

faithmd,

You didn't have to change my mind but after reading this, you certainly made me yell "Hoo YA!!!! Sadly, probably the only thing that will ever change "their" minds is a terrible terrible catastrophe. Sadly again, I think of my children and grandchildren and yes, great-grandchildren and whether they will have a life here on earth as we know it.

[faithmd 14]

You know, I must disagree with the characterization of the military that appears to be popular with some: unthinking robots who are following orders. I believe that to be simplistic at best, and most likely insulting to about 98% of the troops.

The troops I have some acquaintance with made a choice to serve their country, believe they live in the greatest country in the world, and respect this President far more than they did the previous one. They are brilliant and capable men and women who could be out in the "real" world making great money, but want their lives to be meaningful, and want to serve their county. Just because it is not something you can imagine, doesn't mean it isn't true. Supporting the troops in the way described...taking them out of harm's way...is just like supporting your football team (to use a recent analogy) by taking them off the field so they A.) won't have to compete against a team they might not win against, or B.) tell their opponents you are going to take them off the field during the middle of the 4th quarter. Either way, it's stupid, stupid strategy in football, and critically misguided in matters of war.

Soldiers are warriors. They do not WANT to be saved from their missions.

:clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2:

My former military (11 years) husband (who spent time shaking Iraqi soil out of his boots in 1990-91, and some before that) and I completely concur.

You summed it up VERY well.

[anonemouse 1]

But that, like our support of Saddam, was before we knew exactly what atrocities they were capable of. When we knew, we took them out.

That's bull. You think we didn't know what Saddam was capable of when we helped him into power? Of course we knew. That's WHY we wanted him in power.

The only reason we joined WWII was because we were attacked. We knew exactly what Hitler was doing. We knew when boatloads of Jews tried to come to the US for refuge and we turned them away. We just didn't care until we were the ones dying.

All this crap about us taking out the bad guys is just that, crap. If we were so humanitarian-minded, we would be occupying the Sudan right now, or heck, even China. The real truth is that we don't give a crap unless it is Americans and American interests being affected. The real truth is that we don't care how bad the bad guy is, as long as he caters to our interests.

That just doesn't make any sense. If the thought is that Bush is an idiot, then what you are suggesting is that he is an absolute genious to come up with a way to tell his advisers what they are to then tell back to him, and then he somehow single-handedly was able to convince Congress to declare war, all based on his own personal agenda? He made all this up and somehow created all the intelligence reports, too? He fed them himself to his advisors? What, is he a hyponotist, or did he use some kind of Jedi mind trick on his Cabinet, the Joint Chiefs, and Congress? He convinced all these people? People can't have it both ways, he can't be so smart as to be able to do all that, yet be as stupid as some folks believe.

Come on, even his former advisers have said that he basically told them what he wanted to hear about Iraq and didn't accept their analyses until they told him exactly that to keep their jobs. Even the people that made the intelligence reports have admitted that they were incorrect or misleading. He wanted to go after Iraq and Saddam. It was stated when he first came into office that that was what he wanted. He saw 9/11 and took advantage of it to get what he wanted.

[faithmd 14]

That's bull. You think we didn't know what Saddam was capable of when we helped him into power? Of course we knew. That's WHY we wanted him in power.

So what you're saying is that the US wanted Saddam in power in order for him to commit mass murder and genocide and steal money from his people? We wanted him in power because we knew he was capable of attempting to dominate the world, one country at a time? Because you say we knew all this, you think that's "WHY" we wanted him power? Sorry, don't buy it. We believed he was the lesser of two evils at the time, and he made certain promises. We f*ked up, we trusted him, and so we made the choice to help install him. That situation was rectified in 1990, and again we chose to go the diplomatic route (as touted by so many of you) and believe him again. Look where that got us and his people.

The only reason we joined WWII was because we were attacked. We knew exactly what Hitler was doing. We knew when boatloads of Jews tried to come to the US for refuge and we turned them away. We just didn't care until we were the ones dying.

First, we did not ONLY join WW II because we were attacked by Japan. We were actively supporting Great Britain from early on. Had we not supplied money, pilots, aircraft, ships and supplies to GB, they would have lost the slim toehold they had and we would all be speaking German or Japanese right now. To be technical, we declared war on JAPAN after they attacked us, Germany then declared war on us, three days later because of our declaration on Japan. Why do you think Japan attacked us in the first place? We weren't just sitting on our hands, we were involved already, just not with ground troops and personnel (other than American pilots who volunteered to fly for the RAF).

Roosevelt pretty much was going it alone supporting GB, Congress didn't want to be involved, the political infighting game was going on. In the meantime, Europe was falling fast to Hitler. Roosevelt had to go it essentially alone, against what Congress wanted to do and because of that, we were able to defeat the Axis powers. If we had ignored it all, GB would certainly have fallen, and we would have been fighting (more than the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor) on our soil.

Deja Vu??

Now, I'm NOT saying Bush is ANYWHERE in the same league as FDR, I am merely drawing some loose parallels between Hitler and Saddam. Both madmen who would stop at nothing to take over the world.

So if we should have stuck our nose in and helped the Jews (and we admit that we made a big mistake by not helping), why shouldn't the innocent civilians in the Middle East, and those of us who do not believe as the extremists do, deserve help? Hitler was killing his own countrymen, declaring war on his own people, which basically is a civil war. Saddam was commiting genocide as Hitler was. We turned away Jews who were fleeing from Hitler, should we have repeated the mistake that our grandparents made and ignored the plight of the Iraqi's?

All this crap about us taking out the bad guys is just that, crap. If we were so humanitarian-minded, we would be occupying the Sudan right now, or heck, even China. The real truth is that we don't give a crap unless it is Americans and American interests being affected. The real truth is that we don't care how bad the bad guy is, as long as he caters to our interests.

So you're saying we should be the world's police? I thought the liberal view was that we can't keep being the world's police forces. At any rate, no matter what you think or believe to be true: Yep, wecome to politics. Certainly you can't look at the world with such rosy glasses as to think we can all sit at one metaphoric table and break bread. Just as we on LBT can't agree on this (and that's fine, it's what makes this interesting), can you really imagine that world powers and those wanting to be world powers can come to an accord? How about extremists who want everyone to conform to their views? Can we extend the olive branch and by leaving, will they stop killing those who do not believe as they do? If we leave, they'll behead someone else.

Come on, even his former advisers have said that he basically told them what he wanted to hear about Iraq and didn't accept their analyses until they told him exactly that to keep their jobs. Even the people that made the intelligence reports have admitted that they were incorrect or misleading. He wanted to go after Iraq and Saddam. It was stated when he first came into office that that was what he wanted. He saw 9/11 and took advantage of it to get what he wanted.

I'm very willing to read anything about this that you can find. I cannot say enough that I am NOT a Bush lover, and I would be very interested in reading the statements you mention: "It was stated when he first came into office that that was what he wanted. He saw 9/11 and took advantage of it to get what he wanted"

Who stated it? It was stated, but stated by who and what did they say? I will accept that his whole impetus was to go in if you can find where GWB actually stated it. Just because somebody said he said it, isn't good enough for me.

[2bthinagn 3]

Who said we can't win it? My brother is in Iraq, and as a soldier and an American, he believes that the US military CAN win in Iraq.

http://www.flashdemo.net/gallery/wake/index.htm

[Carlene 12]

By Robert Hodierne, Military Times

WASHINGTON — The American military, once a staunch supporter of President Bush and the Iraq war, has grown increasingly pessimistic about chances for victory.

For the first time, more troops disapprove of the president's handling of the war than approve of it, according to the 2006 Military Times Poll.

When the military was feeling most optimistic about the war — in 2004 — 83% of poll respondents thought success in Iraq was likely. This year, that number has shrunk to 50%.

Only 35% of the military members polled this year said they approve of the way Bush is handling the war, and 42% said they disapprove. While approval of the president's war leadership has slumped, his overall approval remains high among the military.

Just as telling, in this year's poll only 41% of the military said the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place, down from 65% in 2003. That closely reflects the beliefs of the general population — 45% agreed in a recent USA TODAY-Gallup poll.

Source: USA Today

[mousecrazy 2]

What relevance does the USA Today survey have to the issues being discussed? It is interesting, but survey's don't really mean anything; certainly not something to base policy on.