So if the troops are feeling like this do you think they will re enlist?
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/i...2ndBrigade.html

From the article:

Why don't some of the über-patriots on the list go over to Iraq and spell these poor, demoralized soldiers? Waving flags over here and spouting whatever biased nonsense Faux News features isn't going to make things better over there.

"Bring 'em on."

Well first off I didn't hear the anti-war crowd volunteering to be UN weapons inspectors when they wanted the UN to control everything. I didn't hear yall volunteering to go live in Iraq with the Iraqi people under the Saddam Hussein regime when you wanted to keep him in power.

Moreover this whole idea that any American who supports any military action anywhere should join the military or shut up is just bizarre, but is in a way flattering to the pro-war cause. Anti-war people know they're taking the easy way out, that what they're saying is indicative of cowardice and laziness. That's why they never suggest it would be somehow challenging to put serious action behind their words, they just talk on and on and on. What would the challenge be? "Hey, if you really oppose the war, why don't you go hang out at a protest rally all day where the odds of being arrested or intimidated are statistically zero, and just bitch about everything for awhile?" Ummm, okay.

Also - are you honestly suggesting that if I, a thirty year old with no prior military service and bad hearing in my left ear, just walked into an Army recruiting office and said, "Hey, I want to go fight in Iraq!" I would somehow be on the next plane over, while a soldier over there now could pack his bags and come home? Of course not. Yours is not a serious argument, but then so few arguments against this war have been serious, I'm really not all that surprised.

[ July 16, 2003, 09:57 AM: Message edited by: William1865 ]

Come on, these guys are pissed NOT because they over there... but because they have been told 3or 10 different times they are coming home then not. I'd be pissed too.

Sort of like going out with a tease... you think you're gettin some... then not... by the time the 15th date happens, you wanna scream.

Yours is not a serious argument, but then no argument against this war has been serious, so I'm really not all that surprised.
William, WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
None of the arguements have been serious? Sorry all of my agruments have been serious, just because you do not agree with them makes them invalid?
I have said
1) I did not think that Iraq was a clear and present danger
2) The UN arms inspectors needed to be beefed up.
3) The timing of the war meant our troops would be there during the hotest part of the year
4) Going to war without the UN and in a preemptive manner would create more people willing to kill themselfs if it meant killing Americans
5) The cost of the war and occupying Iraq was an unknow.
To me it is you, CITT and Phillyfan who hacve not been serious. When no WMD were found , you guys blasted us for wanting to keep Sadam in power, as each of the stated goals of the war have been disproved you guys have changed the reason we should have gone.
I posted the names of the KIA I did not see any of you guys post there. In fact Phillyfan said he did not need to read their names!
Get off your soap box buddy

Fair enough, I changed my original post. My point is that most political opposition to this war has not been serious. Moral or strategic arguments carry more weight, but I think most war opponents just hate President Bush.

[ July 16, 2003, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: William1865 ]

How is it even proper to turn that thread into something more than what it was P2? Not even i am that rude.

And sorry, but opposition to this war is nothing more than political. The same ones screaming now, were the same war hawks in 98, when sadaam was a threat.

Then to come in and criticize the rebuilding of a nation because it's not 100% perfect in one week, is also absurd.

the only reason anyone bitches is because they dont like bush, no more no less. Bush could cure cancer and aids... and one of you guys would find something to bitch about...

Hmmmm that never happened to me when I was dating. Maybe you shouldnt mention that you're a republican when you go on dates.

Im sure all of those troops were glad to hear
"mission accomplished." Maybe the commander-in-chimp just get dressed up again in his lil' flight suit and explain whats going on.

Phillyfan, that is what you said, I remember it well because it pissed me off to no end.
AGAIN I dont giving a fly F who is in the White House IMO there was no plan on how to deal with the wars aftermath. One needs to look no father than unsecured nuclear reactor's to see that. WE blew it.
I am opposed to the war because I love this nation, and think what we did flys in the face of everything we stand for. Also we I talk to my partner, who is a decorated vet from Gluf war one it tends to put things in to a perspective I do not think you have

So according to you, only people who have served are qualified to discuss these things? That takes you out of the mix also.

This is really just splitting hairs.

I also had friends who were in desert storm, just because your partners perspective of the war is different than theirs.... does not make anyone's opinion any better or more justified.

The constant bitching about the rebuilding of Iraq.. well, it's sort of like the war... anything that has gone wrong has made it a disaster. Sort of like the art at the museum that most of you guys were bitching about... you know only like 5 pieces wound up missing? You guys simply move on to the next item... much like where the fighting of the capital was going to be long... much like 50,000 soliers would die.. and so on. oops that didnt happen, move on.

For what it's worth I think the armies of one who went on TV to bitch and whine should in fact be sent home and discharged. They're obviously not cut out for it.

Phillfan, of course not any one can and should discuss the situation, I have read my post again and I do not know how you came you with that statement, I was pointing out a perspective that I did not think you had access too.
I have not bitched as you say about the efforts at rebuilding I have pointed out areas I am concerned about. These concerns have been the same since the start, unlike your stated reasons for support.....

William, regarding the army of one comment, I think it points out the danger of the overall reduction in the size of the standing army ( and no this is not any one person or parties fault) with a growing burden on the national guard. We have fewer troops to cycle in and out.
This brings me to the point I try to make that if we are at war, then we can not afford the tax cuts. We on the home front have to share in the suffering as do the troops

Once again the record needs correcting.

Actually,

And that number is expected to go even higher as stated in the article. This info comes from a June 21 Washington Post article. The low numbers you cite were from a rash of misleading stories, played up by the right.

edited for spelling

[ July 16, 2003, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: shawnq ]

Well...you've got to admit that those who have "been there" or who served with those who do, have a different, perhaps better informed perspective.

Maybe you and PhillyFan could take there place.
Oh, wait, I forgot, PF is "a lover, not a fighter", guess it's good not all the war cheerleaders feel that way, otherwise we would really be up shit creek.

Keeps ya up at night dont it buddy?

You can read my response to this argument in the third post of this thread. Thanks for the compliment, Raze.

I am more concerned that morale has gotten so low that they are even willing to express such thoughts - although we have no way of knowing how many troops feel the same way. It took years of bad planning and bad military strategy in VietNam for morale to sink that low, and if the same thing has happened in a few weeks our army is in trouble.

We clearly did not have a plan for dealing with the reconstruction of Iraq after the war, and that was a huge oversight. Saddam was a tyrant, but if you remained on his side politically and you lived in Bhagdad, you had electricity and a decent standard of living. People want to be free to think and say what they want, but first they need the basics of life.

Oh here we go again... now the morale is bad..

Enron- bush will be connected.... no, move on.

We can't invade iraq, 50,000 will die.. no... move on.

We are slowing down for a day to wait for supplies.... this war is poorly planned, how could they not see it... 24 hours later, in the capital... move on...

Now, the morale is horrible. All this from one story of a division who's obviously been there longer than the rest. They are mad because they have been told they are going home, then not.... I'm waiting for the "move on" part.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...18/MN248299.DTL

Looks like these boys need to keep their mouths shut when the press is around....

Surely your remarks retire the award for \"most illogical statements made at Outsports.\"

And, as we discussed the last time you wanted the troops sent somewhere, not everyone in the Army is in the infantry. In fact, not everyone in the military is in the Army. Go ahead; ask the recruiter. He or she will tell you.

From http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...18/MN248299.DTL :

So, how are the listers at Free Republic stumbling over themselves in an attempt to put a nice, shiny finish on that?

[ July 18, 2003, 09:46 PM: Message edited by: twin58 ]

I have some good friends in that brigade and ive been keeping n touch with them via email and letters. These guys are just ready to come home and strong feelings are coming out. I regret for their sake that they went on tv and expressed those feelings, im sure the punishment will be severe. but more to the root of the problem these guys have been over there a long time with a big target painted all over them, the bush administration obviously had no plan on what to do with iraq after the war. these guys have been through hell and im praying from them every day.
ive been deployed before and understand what they are thinking. im sure the reenlistment rate is going to drop big time an I think the people in the military are starting find out that bush is not as good a friend to the military as thought
the danger pay is reduced and the administration are lowering the family separation pay and other benefits to the military.

Republicans are quick to tout their love of "Military Spending", but fail to mention the BIG bucks that goes to their good buddies/$$$ donating CONTRACTORS and not to the troops and their families. :mad:

I feel bad for those guys over there being jerked around. They need more troops over there to get the job done and sooner, but that option does not bode well politically for the Whitehouse. frown

[ July 18, 2003, 09:07 PM: Message edited by: HornFan ]

As usual, the administration is more than willing to make commitments that appear to be politically gainful, but are unwilling to back up the decisions they make with proper planning and resources. It is a shame that the officials involved are choosing to punish soldiers who have risked their lives at the administration's discretion, and just need to vent their frustration. It is always convenient to pull out the "you are not allowed to be a real person and be publicly upset about this" card. Just more of the same from the White House -- silence anyone who is bold enough to challenge you.

I just don't understand the argument that "we're stretched too thin" and so we have to keep Guardsmen in for extended periods of time, etc.

Since we have thousands of troops in Germany, Japan etc., why not rotate them in? Even presuming that we have to keep troops in Germany [VERY dubious] I'm sure that the troops stuck in Iraq now would think that Germany would be heaven in comparison.

How are we prepared to fight major conflicts in 3 different theaters [there goes the military stealing gay terms again!] and yet we have to have the reserve called up constantly just to handle one 2nd rate country. What the hell would we do if we had a real war on our hands like with North Korea?? Never mind China, or the old Soviet Union....

And on the face of it, how would 1000 troops going to Liberia stretch us too thin then we have 1.4 million on active duty, or whatever the number is? Maybe a few more boots, and a few less desk jockeys back home manipulating the intelligence data.....

I heard today that a couple of soldiers in Iraq were reprimanded for publicly criticizing Donald Rumsfeld to the press. Would it have been these soldiers?

probably so sport, im sure they are in some major trouble. have some friends over there in that division and the way they talk the you know what is hitting the fan

I was active duty Army from '92 to '98, and I can honestly tell you that those soldiers(I have friends currently in Iraq as well) are more upset at the reduction in their danger pay, and pay for their families benefits, than almost anything else.

How the govt. can continue to allow a 4 billion a month bill to pile up to pay contractors(Bush's constituents, I should say), instead of supporting the people who are actually protecting all of our freedom, is unacceptable!! :mad:

From a prior serviceman's(myself) perspective, I can tell you there will be several hearings on Capitol Hill regarding this matter when someone I know very well, gets home and is honorably discharged!! He is a go-getter, who is highly intelligent, has political contacts, and will ensure that the soldiers'(several feeling the same way the reprimanded soldiers do, but are just not speaking out about it) voices and concerns are heard!! They deserve a significant raise, not a reduction in pay!! :confused:

[ July 20, 2003, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: SmoothRon ]

I agree on the raise Ron but to be honest i dont see it happening. 3 more troops killed today its really pissing me off thats its so evident that bush had no plan at all on what to do in iraq after the fall of saddam.