I have a question for the war supporters..

Status
Not open for further replies.
The answer is George Bush is stupid! I don't mean that as sarcastically as it sounds, I just mean it as the real reason we are in this war. I am a Republican and I did vote for Bush his first term. Yes, that makes me pretty dumb also, but I am not the President....he should be smarter than me...not dumber. If Bush had cracked one history book in his life he might have understood that the Iraq war is a religious war and we are the outsiders.

I served in the military and I find seeing the death toll of our soldiers on the news each day is almost too painful to read. Then to add insult to injury Bush uses our soldiers to secure the Iraq border while our border remains basically open to any terrorist that wants to come here. When Bush stood on that aircraft carrier and declared "mission accomplished" I cringed and thought no one can be that dumb. Never under-estimate dumbness!
 
madmag said:
The answer is George Bush is stupid! I don't mean that as sarcastically as it sounds, I just mean it as the real reason we are in this war. I am a Republican and I did vote for Bush his first term. Yes, that makes me pretty dumb also, but I am not the President....he should be smarter than me...not dumber.
Click to expand...
Sadly, I must admit that I voted for Bush in his first term as well. :( But after that, I resolved to never, ever vote against the Constitution again. That means no Republicans or Democrats (except Ron Paul or any future equivalents).

Then to add insult to injury Bush uses our soldiers to secure the Iraq border while our border remains basically open to any terrorist that wants to come here.
Click to expand...
I just read that, too. Unbelievable! :mad:
 
I resolved to never, ever vote against the Constitution again.
Click to expand...

Yes, I use to think if you voted for someone that seemed to have little chance to win then you were wasting a vote. Then I wasted a vote for a guy I wish had not won. I am kinda old to be learning these kinds of lessons.
 
You are correct, Danzig, in that only commisioned officers are specifically forbidden from 'contemptuous words' towards civilian officials. However, everyone is subject to the catch-all General Article 134:
"GENERAL ARTICLE
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court."

That does not, of course, mean you can't disagree, so long as it is not 'prejudical to good order and discipline". And I have seen soldiers prosecuted under that article. Not for what they said or believed, but HOW they went about it.

All that aside, we must know different groups of soldiers. The majority, though not all, of the ones I know do support the mission in Iraq. As do I. Before you suggest that I pick up a rifle and act on my beliefs, I already did. And lost a good soldier and an eye to an IED. And I still support the mission. Not because I believe it is our job to bring freedom to the Iraqis, but because I believe it IS our job to make it a losing proposition for nations to support terrorists. I also happen to think that if we CAN in fact foster a democracy in Iraq, this will improve our position in the middle east.

1SG (ret)
 
No ahenry..it's a very legitimate question...3400+ have died so far. If the death toll reaches 10,000 do you think it's worth it to continue the fight? Would you give up the whole of the American population so that the Iraq could be stabilized? What if every last American is dead..and Iraq is still a war zone..will the sacrifice have been worth it?
Click to expand...
Negative.

If we have decided that a mission is worth the investment of a single life*, then 3400 or 10,000 lives don’t change anything. The mission remains vital*



*Determining what is a vital national security need, is the prerogative of the president. In this case, he has decided that Iraq is a vital national security issue.
 
If we have decided that a mission is worth the investment of a single life, then 3400 or 10,000 lives don’t change anything. The mission remains vital.
Click to expand...

Left out your starred portion, because it's not pertinent to the question...and this isn't necessarily directed directly to you.

Is it possible that, at some point mid-mission, the cost:benefit ratio can change such that while the first lives were deemed to be worth it (because the full cost wasn't known) future lives would no longer be? That an increased cost or reduced prospective benefit might fundamentally alter the equation?

Also one thing I've noted from many war supporters is a complete failure to acknowledge the possibility of...well, failure. Do some people here really not believe that there may be tasks that even the US cannot necessarily accomplish? That no matter how many lives and how much money is spent, somethings simply aren't necessarily possible? Even more so once you've spent so long screwing up the task by the numbers?
 
George W Bush will not be in History books as the President who brought Democracy to the Middle East. He gave it his "best" shot, but thousands of years of history is hard to change. Whether we are there for one or ten more years, all hell will break loose once we leave.
 
Danzig...get out at the end of this current enlistment. Then, pitch a fit if you want to. Armies (and all armed forces) are to kill people and break things. It is not for everyone. Get out, and feel better about not supporting the CIC. Your privilege to do so. THANKS for your prior service, men that have served in combat (I never did) are my heroes.
 
my problem is ppl who support this war always bring up the large number of ppl who suffered under saddam..it reminds me of how the anti gunners bring up the large numbers of ppl killed by firearms in the united states

in reality the numbers arent so large when compared to other things...yes 10 thousand or so deaths related to firearms in the us..you know what..big whoop.. how many 100's of thousands due to other causes like car accidents or cardiac disease that could be prevented.

so saddam was brutal and he killed 10's of thousands of ppl. what makes those 10's of thousands more important that the millions dying in africa under brutal dictators and ppl that are just starving, that the US seemingly ignores. hmm you figure it out.

you know if ppl would just take a step back and prioritize the problems from biggest to smallest and throw as much money as we have into the iraq war at them one at time. the US would truly take its place back as number one across the board and not in just military strength.
 
Danzig
You're an NCO, I hope you're not showing your troops the same attitude you're showing here. You keep saying you didn't join for this, you didn't join for that, but the truth is you didn't join to be a policy-maker. If you can't follow the policies set by your superiors then you're in the wrong job. You also said Bush is not your President, and that doesn't match up too well with your oath to support and defend the Constitution. If you support it, that means you support the method of election and you support the results of the election. There's no reason you have to ever agree with a single thing Bush does, but you can't deny that he's your President and still be true to your oath.
I don't have a problem with anything else you said in this thread, even if I disagree with some of it, but I hope you give some serious thought to those two things I brought up.
 
What do you guys think about people in the military who speak out against what they feel are unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful orders? The lawfulness of the Iraq war was dubious at best. Here's a list of the laws that may have been broken:

http://www.westpointgradsagainstthewar.org/laws_and_treatıes_violated_by_pr.htm

Since military personnel have no duty to obey unlawful orders, I see no reason why Danzig should leave the military just because he disagrees with the Iraq war. Of course that's his call, and I respect his decision either way, but my point is that even soldiers who are normally expected to obey without question should not be held to a standard set by lawbreakers like Bush. If it's between loyalty to Bush and loyalty to the Constitution, why shouldn't a soldier pick the latter?
 
SteelCore:

Unfortunately when it comes to issues of international policy I don't think it's the duties of individual soldiers to determine what is lawful/constitutional. Really for anything above low-level decisions regarding the legality of their individual actions or individual orders given to them (abuse of POWs, firing on civilians, etc.) I think soldiers have to defer to those who will (or rather, should) ultimately be held responsible for the consequences of those actions. The overall legality of going to war in the first place is not for a PFC, or even a CPT, to decide.

EDIT: Though you do bring up something that was brought up in another semi-recent thread; the oath soldiers take is to support/defent the Constitution, and to follow the orders of the President/officers above them. It's as though whoever wrote the oath didn't acknowledge that those two may at some point be mutually exclusive.
 
I served under Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush.

I personally hated Carter. IMO, he was the most worthless president we ever had. But, I served my time and did my duty even though I knew I had no support from my CIC.

I think Clinton ran a close second as the worst president we ever had. His lack of support for the military and his draft-dodging was a slap in the face to those of us that served. On my part, I swore I’d resign if he got elected, I wouldn’t/couldn’t serve under a toad like that. But, I didn’t and I sucked it up and marched on. I regret that decision to this day because I really think I compromised my integrity by doing so.

But… I didn’t serve the man, I served the country. I don’t have to like the CIC. I have to believe I serve my country. The day a soldier believes they are not serving their country is the day they need to seek new employment. If their gripe is with their CIC, they need to decide which is more important- their desire to serve or their dislike for a person.
 
Draft dodger? Wow, I thought I'd heard the last of that one. We have the draft dodger administration now. Big war hawks who never risked anything.

1. The president is a draft dodger.
2. The vice president is a draft dodger and a former CEO of a defense contractor.
3. The secretary of state didn't serve - but was a board member of Chevron.
4. The attorney general didn't serve and fascilitated torture. Wonder what's happening to our guys who get captured?

If you had to dream up a scenario where the price of oil went up and we had to spend more money on defense contractors without disrupting the consumer economy, you couldn't think of a better war than this one.

Here's something to think about - we have a dozen aircraft carriers, 9,400 nuclear war heads - we spend more money on a percentage basis for our military than any other country - 50% of our discretionary budget.

What's the biggest potential military threat? Some would say China - but China owns $300 billion in t-bills. If they dumped them on the market, it would destroy our economy.

We spend money on consumable military gear. They get interest on their projection of power.

I was out of the IRR before everyone got called up, if ordered, I would have gone and done the best job I could. But if I died, I would have considered my death a complete waste. I am very sorry for every service member who is killed or wounded/disabled in this war. It was a completely wasted sacrifice perpetrated by people with cynical motivations.
 
Danzig,
I just passed my 20th year in the military and will probably do one more, I support our efforts, though I don't always agree with them. You say you have 10 years in which means you enlisted under Clinton. We were the worlds police force under Clinton, so it should be of no surprise to you that under him we lost men and women for less than trying to bring freedom to a nation. I didn't agree with Clinton, but he was still my president. I find your attitude repulsive and unforgiving. You are not a policy maker you are a policy follower, enabler and enforcer. If you don't like it or can't live with it get out. Become a policy maker. There is no draft or compulsory service. I as well as many have respect for those who man up and say it's not for them. There's no shame in admitting you don't have the stomach for it, or lost your stomach for it, but there is much shame in undermining the effort and dedication of your fellow servicemen from within.

You mentioned your disgust with a guy who supports the war because it was going to pay the down payment on his house. I don't agree with his financial planning, but I see nothing wrong with wanting to better his situation through honest work. Guess what, because you undermine his efforts to better himself, IMO you're worse for taking money for something you don't support and choose to undermine.
 
Let's blame the President for EVERYTHING! It seems to be the current "trend"!

Let's look at Hitler's "Third Reich". I guess that FDR should have been "blamed" for getting us into the war in Europe, since our fleet at Pearl Harbor wasn't attacked by "Stuka" dive bombers!

Believe it or not, but there was "insurgency" terror in Germany for almost 6 years AFTER the war in Europe ended! The last Japanese soldier to surrender didn't do so until 1970....a full 24 years AFTER his country had surrendered!

Before this invasion of Iraq took place, there wasn't much anti-war activity. As a matter of FACT, the majority of Americans kept on wondering "Why hasn't Bush started the war?". And, as I recall, President Bush had about a 93% favorable rating, overall, at the start of this invasion!

The leftist/anti-war folks "warned" that "hundreds of thousands of body bags" would be filled with American troops if we went to war against Saddam. To me, that sounds like even THOSE idiots believed that Saddam had WMD's and would use them!

Bill Clinton, while still in office, declared that Saddam was a "threat", and that he had WMD's. Even Al Gore, while he was VP, sounded like he would invade Iraq if he was given the chance to be the President! And, since John Kerry "voted FOR the war before voting AGAINST it"....what kind of CRAP talk is that?

Danzig, you're a STAFF SERGEANT? Kind of hard to believe, but I guess that I'll go along with it! I just hope that you're not a part of the "problem" that seems to be causing dissension and low morale within our military personnel!
 
Because he is in the military does not mean that he must agree with the CIC, he just has to obey his orders.

The stated reasons for the war have turned out to be false. The excuse that we must provide freedom for Iraqis at the expense of our servicemen makes as much sense as the Dems shouting that we must provide welfare money at our expense.

Bush is wrecking the Republican party and any chance that it had to keep control and make some real changes. We are using up our future, and for what? I DO NOT care if Iraqi's die- let them fight their sectarian war for power- the President's job is to secure AMERICAN lives and freedom- not Iraq's.

Bush lost congress for us, and he will soon lose the Whitehouse as well. You can thank Bush and his ill-conceived war for handing the Whitehouse back to the Clintons.
 
Before this invasion of Iraq took place, there wasn't much anti-war activity. As a matter of FACT, the majority of Americans kept on wondering "Why hasn't Bush started the war?". And, as I recall, President Bush had about a 93% favorable rating, overall, at the start of this invasion!
Click to expand...

Guess I was in the 7%. And while I wasn't part of the later-mentioned "hundreds of thousands of bodybags" group (or the "no blood for oil" folks), I was very much against the war before it ever started.

You'll see me here a few years from now, making a thread entitled "I Told You So."

Danzig, you're a STAFF SERGEANT? Kind of hard to believe, but I guess that I'll go along with it! I just hope that you're not a part of the "problem" that seems to be causing dissension and low morale within our military personnel!
Click to expand...

That dissension and low morale actually goes above the rank of SSG, so I doubt he's the cause. As for the lower enlisted men, they hardly need any help from their superiors to end up with a case of the "FTA" nowadays...high optempo coupled with little progress will do that all on its own.

Because he is in the military does not mean that he must agree with the CIC, he just has to obey his orders.
Click to expand...

Well, it goes a little farther than that. Disagreeing in front of his men would be a no-no, seeing as how it would have a negative impact on good order and discipline. Also publicly disagreeing as a soldier is frowned upon as well, and he could also get hammered under Article 134. So for instance identifying himself here as a soldier while calling Bush a half-retarded chimp would be no good at all, nor would attending any anti-war protest (or any political rally, I believe) in uniform.

I, on the other hand, am merely a reservist now...so there's only one weekend a month (and two weeks a year) that I'm not allowed to publicly call our president all kinds of fun names that would be frowned upon here, or say this entire war was a mistake from the start.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top