I am affected: half of my PGE class is missing and our TKE chapter lost 8 members. Let's just leave it at that so there isn't an argument at who is affected more.

My friends overseas will receive my support through emails and letters and care packages when possible. They know that I stand behind them in their actions and that I admire their convictions.

I can do all of this while still thinking George Bush is making the wrong decision, because I think he is. I can stand by my friends and disagree with him every time he opens his mouth, and I probably will. Why? It's my God-given right, and America has chosen to make it a national right too. If people didn't speak out against their government a couple hundred years ago, there wouldn't be this great country.

If you don't like the fact that I am supporting my friends while maintaining their "commander" is making the wrong decision, too bad. It's America, and I GET TO. If you don't like it, move to France. That's what those of us who support free speech and cultural differences are still calling it these days. ;)

Re: Why I will never support Bush
 

If "eloquent" is considered a condescending attack, this guy is no better than Rush Limbaugh and his daily attack on all the "Libs."


How can you condemn the role of one brutal totalitarian Arab regime in fostering terrorism but ignore the more obvious role of another such regime? Saudi Arabia's historic relationship to Islamist terrorism is far more clear-cut than Iraq's. Families of 9/11 victims have filed suit against the Saudis based on long and deep ties with terrorists, yet these ties don't seem to rouse you to indignation, much less corrective military action. Do you not find it noteworthy that 15 of 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis? Can you assure us that strong Bush family business ties to Saudi Arabia don't have anything to do with this willful blindness? [/QUOTE]

First off, if anyone thinks this war is about Bush and Cheney's business partnerships or a personal vendetta to get the men that tried to kill Bush's father, take a minute and honestly ask yourself if Congress, the House, Colin Powell, Karl Rove, Condaleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Tom Ridge and the Office of Homeland Security, the CIA, FBI, and any and all other people and organizations this has gone through who know more about this than we do, would have stopped this? Would Colin Powell honestly go toe to toe with the UN so Dick Cheney can keep his business interests in tact?

Why do you challenge "axis of evil" countries that constitute weak threats while accommodating the strong ones? North Korea has long been a grave danger to its neighbors. Yet you work to avoid antagonizing that country's leadership, while hastening to war against Iraq. Could this be because you believe that you can attack Iraq with some hope of success but are afraid of the consequences if you take on North Korea? What does this say about your ability to defend our country and our friends around the world against real threats to our security? [/QUOTE]

How many times should our country change gears and focus on a new problem? Look how long it's taken to build up momentum to achieve military action against Iraq. Should we simply just walk away and start all over with North Korea? I will agree that North Korea is a threat, but to keep leap-frogging between Iraq and North Korea not only kills the momentum of this action, it also kills the American's resolve to accomplish the task at hand.

How can you decry the threat of Iraq to our energy supply, yet advocate domestic policies that threaten that same energy supply? Your administration encourages waste of fuel on a scale unequaled in human history. Americans make up about 4.5 percent of world population, but use 25 percent of the world's energy. Despite the availability of a wide range of more efficient, cleaner burning technologies, the U.S. accounts for about 25 percent of carbon dioxide emissions causing global warming. At the same time, the United States refuses to sign treaties adopted by most other major nations to counteract global warming. You even oppose sensible steps to improve the gas mileage of the cars Americans drive, including monstrously gas-guzzling SUVs. [/QUOTE]

The finger should be pointed to every president over the past twenty years for this one. I don't defend Bush and his abscence of pushing alternative fuels. But I don't feel it's fair to blame him solely when there has been hardly any movement in the field in a national scale under any other president.

How can you insist that your goal is to introduce democracy into the lives of Iraqis while you move steadily to erode democracy in the United States? Even some conservative Republican legislators now consider your Patriot Act a terrible and dangerous mistake. Broadly expanded wiretap and surveillance provisions and a new proposal to check the criminal record and credit histories of passengers before they board planes don't sound very democratic. [/QUOTE]

I would be interested to see his stance on the Homeland Security Act a year ago when the fear was new and the images of the attack were still fresh in everyone's mind.

How can you criticize Iraq for its weaponry without explaining the role of the United States as one of that country's chief arms suppliers and ardent associate in its war with Iran? This make-and-break cycle is surely good for the defense industry, but what is the cost for the rest of us?

Why does the United States move to punish only some violators of U.N. resolutions? You cite Iraqi noncompliance as cause for war, yet you do nothing about the main violators of U.N. resolutions -- Morocco, Israel and Turkey, all of which are our close strategic allies. [/QUOTE]

How many fronts in a war are we expected to fight at once? Let us not forget the ongoing War Against Terror which is in need of American military support and now the numerous forces facing a deadline in Iraq.

Good, cause I'm not selling anything. :)

Hypothetical (but not far-fetched) situation:
A young man lives in an inner city neighbourhood. His grandfather moved north because there were lots of manufacturing jobs at automobile plants in the 1940s and 1950s. His father worked in the same plants, but around the 1980s and 1990s, the plants started laying off workers -- including his father --because they were moving their operations to other countries. Other high paying labour jobs have done the same thing, or have relocated to the suburbs where there is no access to public transportation (the working poor are the greatest users of public transportation in the United States).

The young man has hopes for college, and studies hard, but doesn't quite qualify for scholarships. Because his father lost his job with the plant, they can't afford for him to go to college. There are no jobs in the inner city that would pay him enough money to finance his education.

He goes to a movie with friends and sees ads from the US Military that talk about giving him money for college. They use phrases like "the toughest job you'll ever love" and "The few, the proud, the Marines" or "An Army of One". They show lots of shiny and cool technological equipment. They don't talk about post-traumatic stress disorder, or having your limbs blown off when you step on a land mine in a jungle or some desert battlefield.

He's sold - here is a way for him to finance his education without having to take out student loans (that will put him and his family into an even deeper financial hole). He can sign up for four years and then he can go to college. He signs up during a time of relative peace -- thinking that the worst thing he'll ever have to see is Columbus, GA -- all because of his limited access to educational and financial resources.

(Now flip the script and change it from a young man in the inner city to a young man in the rural Midwest who has seen the collapse of the farm economy. Same problem -- different demographic.)

I sure hope he comes home mentally and physically sound. I'd hate to think you'd be this callous if he didn't.


I never said it was an easy way out. After all - they do say it's "the toughest job you'll ever love". What's to love about bombing innocent citizens from thousands of miles away? What's to love about sticking a bayonet in someone's chest? What's to love about seeing your best buddy from down the block lying on the ground with his guts spilling out?

What's to love about giving your blood, sweat, tears and mental health for a job that pays so poorly that you might end up living on welfare (this happened to a friend of mine who was married to a regular joe in the Army). Oh yeah - you'll get a free college education, but your family is on food stamps! Gee, thank you Mr. Army Guy for protecting our liberty -- we're sorry your family is on the dole.

My father-in-law was a POW in a German war camp in WWII. He very nearly gave his life for his country, and to this day is one of the biggest critics of the military and military action. I'd much rather listen to his take on what war does to people than to some President-select who never served a day in his life.

I was thinking that probably sounded harsher than intended. Of course I feel for any woman who has to be away from her children - but if she didn't want to run the risk of him being in war she should have made those objections known before he signed up. Yes it sucks that he had to go, but I'm still laying that decision at his feet.

I agree that the military's recruiting tactics play to the desperate - but guess what, they are succeeding in winning recruits so I doubt they will stop soon. Caveat emptor!! We'd say the same thing to someone who went to Bob Jones U and was upset that they couldn't pierce their privates and play Marilyn Manson records in the middle of the quad.

Oh, and NOT EVERYONE needs to go to college, there are trade schools and vo-tech programs in high school that are probably far better suited to some students. fuzzie and I are originally from the same area, and I'm sure she will agree that there are people who went to our Vo-Tech and are making MUCH MUCH MUCH MORE MONEY than a lot of the college grads from their school. I blame a lot of this on the dumbass high school guidance counselors who make kids feel like college is the ultimate goal, to be achieved at any cost (even risking your life) and you're somehow lower if you want/have a job where you get your hands dirty - but that is another thread.

I'd also like to point out that not everyone who is in the military is attempting to get out of a bad situation, although I do agree with those of you who state that some people are. My family has a long line of military involvement, with my father and grandfather (who fought in 4 wars between the two of them) joining the military in order to better their lives. However, my uncle, who fought during Desert Storm and is currently stationed at the Pentagon, did not NEED to join the army to have a good life. He did it out of a sense of patriotism. My sister, who is currently in the Middle East, received a degree in engineering from Vanderbilt University. Yes, she was on a ROTC scholarship, so was required to serve for four years, but she could easily now get another job with her degree and work experience. She has now been in for about 6 years I think, and within the last month, signed on to extend her requirement for another 3 years. So, there are people in our military who do join and stay in because of patriotism. When she decided to join ROTC, my dad had a long talk with her about the real possibilities of war, and she fully understood. These kind of talks do need to happen before people sign up for the reserves. I know several people in college who are being called up and are upset about it. Nervous... scared... I completely understand, but when you agree to have the military pay for college, you know that this is a possibility. So I do agree with whoever said people need to take more responsibilities for their actions when making a life altering decision such as joining the military.

The military is a career choice for many people especially when there is a family history of service. I understand 33girl's and curlyag's points.

I had planned to write something else, but I am listening to a NYC Security Briefing.

Tom Ridge just raised the threat level to orange, and NYC is increasing patrols of the harbor and bridges and the air. Quite frankly I am scared. I don't know who is right or wrong. Saddam Hussein is a bad man and a threat to world security. There are other threats out there in the world. I am afraid that this situation has the potential to escalate to a Viet Nam type war.

So the Mayor of NYC just said that we shouldn't be scared and shouldn't change our plans or the terrorists will win. I am scared. I don't have any plans, but I certainly won't be traveling in the next few weeks.

The war seems to be inevitable. I just hope that all of your friends and family will be safe. I hope the same for our men and women in the military. God Bless.

If we do not so something about Hussain then we will have another epsiode of 9-11. I support Bush and his decisions, he is our presdient and we voted him in!

Not all of us voted for him ,don't forget. Thanks to Florida Bush won. Gore won the popular vote. But that is old news.

more fuel for the fire
 

Credibility Bomb


Doug Ireland is a New York-based media critic and commentator.


The "powerful odor of mendacity" (to borrow Tennessee Williams’ phrase) hung over George Bush’s primetime virtual declaration of war Monday night.

When Bush proclaimed that "The Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised," that was a lie. What are the "most lethal weapons ever devised?" Why, nuclear weapons, of course. That Iraq possesses nukes, or is even close to making them, is something for which Bush has been unable to provide any evidence that would withstand scrutiny. The United Nations’ inspectors have found none. And that which the administration has produced turned out to be fraudulent -- like the centerpiece documents about Nigerian uranium shipments to Iraq, which were childish forgeries.

Bush asserted that Iraq "has aided, trained, and harbored terrorists, including operatives of Al Qaeda." The last part of that was a lie. Pieces of the crucial document of U.S. "proof" that Saddam Hussein has aided his ideological enemy Al Qaeda -- a cut-and-paste British report assembled by Tony Blair’s public relations strategist, and recommended heartily as the fundament for this assertion by Colin Powell in his prosecutor’s brief at the United Nations -- turned out to have been plagiarized from a paper by a graduate student, based on data a decade old, and augmented by more plagiarizing from press cuttings.

Senior officials of both the British and U.S. intelligence services have told the press of their convictions that assertions of a Saddam/Al Qaeda connection are errant nonsense. For example, a British Defence Intelligence Staff (DIS) report -- leaked to newspapers in the wake of Powell’s speech by senior spooks appalled at the way their work was being distorted by their political masters -- concluded there were no such links, and added that "We believe that Bin Laden views the Ba’ath as an apostate regime; his aim of restoration of an Islamic caliphate, whose capital was Baghdad, is in ideological conflict with present-day Iraq."

In a reflection of the chimerical nature of Bush’s "proofs," his speech did not even mention 9/11. And the day before the president spoke, the Baltimore Sun published a lengthy report showing that Bush’s obsession with toppling Saddam preceded 9/11 by nearly a year: at the very first meeting of his National Security Council, the Sun reported (on testimony from participants) that Bush ordered plans to be drawn up "for both clandestine and military action to topple the regime."

Saddam has, of course, sent money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers; but so has our "ally" Saudi Arabia -- and we’re not making war on the House of Saud.

Bush’s assertion in the speech that, when we bring "democracy" to Iraq at gunpoint, this "will set an example to all the Middle East" has been proclaimed as "not credible" in a secret State Department report ("Iraq, the Middle East, and Change: No Dominoes") leaked to the Los Angeles Times and published on March 14. The report noted that "Electoral democracy, were it to emerge, could well be subject to exploitation by anti-American elements." Where democratic elections have been tried in the region‘s Muslim countries, the results have been victories for Islamist parties in Algeria (a result abrogated by a military coup) and in Turkey, and a strong showing by Islamists in Morocco.

This is not an argument against democracy, but a reminder that international politics is not checkers, but chess: one has to think eight or 10 moves ahead. Bush is no chess-player. His war on Iraq is a gift to the Bin Ladens of this world and to the extremist theocrats; it will fuel the fiery preachments of the Islamist mullahs, facilitating recruitment by Islamist parties everywhere, and creating a climate in which the creation of new generations of terrorists will take a quantum leap.

"War criminals will be punished," Bush intoned, "and it will be no defense to say I was just following orders." This from a president who, in his first year in office, used the U.S. veto power at the United Nations to reject the International Criminal Court set up to prosecute war crimes (while asserting the U.S. military’s right to be exempt from prosecution under international law).

Bush tried to blame France for causing the war by threatening to use its veto. What hypocrisy: since the United Nations creation, the United States has used its veto 76 times, and 41 of those vetoes in the last three decades concerned attempts by the United Nations to call Israel to account for its violations of multiple U.N. resolutions. Not just the Muslim world but many outside it find this record shockingly one-sided.

By asserting the United States' right to invade whomever it likes whenever it likes, Bush’s speech brought the world to the most dangerous moment in its history since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. A first-strike on Iraq, unprovoked by any aggressive act on Saddam’s part, will start a new nuclear arms race by countries that have nothing further to lose by creating a nuclear deterrent to the unchecked imperial power of Washington.

A first-strike on Iraq turns the United States into an aggressive power as a matter of policy, shreds the fragile framework of nascent international law and takes the global diplomacy back 70 years by making the United Nations as irrelevant as the League of Nations was in its ability to stop aggression.

Supreme Court Justice Robert L. Jackson, who was this country’s representative to the International Conference on Military Trials in August 1945 and the chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg war crimes trials, told his colleagues then that "we must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy."

Bush’s Monday speech definitively threw that American principle into the trashcan of history. And that is ultimately more dangerous on a planetary scale than any depradation which Saddam has the means to accomplish.

Also old news, Hussein was not responsible for 9/11.

Actually, I do support the President.
 

I wouldn't be so fast to consign the Army to a bunch of poor downtrodden people who joined because they were seduced by money for education and other benefits. My troopers are a good cross section of the citizenry who saw the Army as both an opportunity for personal improvement and a chance to do something positive for our country. We are a mix of regulars and reservists who have no illusions about the possible dangers we might encounter and no sympathy for those who complain that they really did not expect to have to do what they signed up to do.
My troopers are here because they are soldiers who believe that obligations are to be honored. My regulars are sharp, professional, and damned impressive. My reservists are a well motivated group of soldiers who are a mix of business people, professionals, skilled labor, and even law students like the CO. None of us are the poor disenfranchised who were seduced by promises of a free ride. This is a Combat Arms outfit, not some rear eschalon safe billet, yet these guys do not seek the easy ride. They are the finest men with whom I have been priveleged to serve.
Hold whatever opinion you choose, it is after all your right as Americans, But please spare us the condescention of viewing us as the hopeless who were exploited by slick ad campaigns to lure in the desperate.
Here where we are a bit closer to the reality of confrontation it seems pretty clear to us that that Saddam runs a supermarket to supply money, training, and nasty stuff to many terrorist groups. I see a very direct benefit to closing down the terrorist supply store. I see a direct connection to choking off the terrorist cowards who attacked New York and Washington by cutting off one of their principal supply sources.
I think its about damned time we took action to stop this terrorist business and I think the immediate campaign is just one of a continuing series of actions that may take years. No body ever said it was going to be quick and easy, but I think it needs to be done. I am an American soldier and that is my opinion, an opinion which will be respected just as much as I respect the contrary opinions discussed here.
dekeguy
Captain, USAR
Forward Deployed

Thank you for your post, I hold a lot of respect for you and your men. I would like to thank you for the job you do, and let you know that there are people who support not only Bush but what you are doing!!!

Yep. We heard all this before Desert Storm / Shield. Who here doesnt rememebr the left's threats and promises of "If we do this, our boys will be comign hoem by the tens of thousands in bodybags." oh and "Ooohh, Iraq has the 5th largest standing army in the world, we dont have a chance." Iraquis were surrenderign just for an MRE. The war was over in what, like 15 minutes? More people died in the plane crash in Souix City, Iowa in '89 than US service memebrs killed in the Gulf War. (not exact, but the us casualty list was around 200. + or - a few). The liberal left said the same thing even post 9/11, "oohh, no army has ever conqured Afghanistan." THe russians couldnt do it, and they tried for 10 years." We had a new govmt in there in like 10 days. :rolleyes:

Also, I really dont care what the rest of the world thinks of us. We have the soviergn right to defend ourselves. I like the motto : oderint dum metuant (Let them hate so long as they fear)

I am not going to debate the politics of the post now, because I am at work, but wanted to post this much.

And, in fairness, many support you without being particularly happy with the President's decision. That goes for those who did and didn't vote for him.

nuclear weapons can come as small as a briefcase, russia had many left over from the old soviet days, and they pack a big punch. and now they cant account for all of them, so yes, a nuclear weapon is an easy thing to hide.


i dont care if some of you are anti war, thats your right, but here's what will really piss me off if this happens. you protest the war now, but lets say we decided not to go to war, and 5 or 10 years down the road, iraq attacks the us with a weapon of mass destruction. will yall be the first people to bitch about how we shouldve done something about it earlier and how the president blew it. b/c if you are one of those hypocritical people, then stop wasting my time and quit posting, but if you wont do that, then thats fine.

I dont understand why people are against this war, diplomacy has failed, you tell me what else can be done? THERES BEEN 12 YEARS OF DIPLOMACY!!!!! if you think all of a sudden somethings going to happen, then youre pretty naive. we need to protect ourselves, and if that means going to war, then so be it. people need to stop being so uptight about going to war. saddam and iraq are a threat that needs to be eliminated, thats all there is to it.

and one last thing, some people are so mad and fed up with a military conlict, then you can leave, no one is forcing you to stay, but it comes off in the way that you like to use your freedoms, but when we have to fight to preserve them or let others get a taste of it, youre totally against it. why dont all those people go try living in iraq, iran, and others like it, then you come back and tell me if its worth it. and if youre still anti war, then you can stay and get introduced to the moab, or "the mother", choice is yours.

Just my opinion.........
 

I'm sorry but why do people always resort to saying "if you dont like it then leave?" the same thing was said when African Americans protested for civil rights back in the day...if you don't like it go back to Africa!" This is my country, we and yes I mean we, have a right to protest the hypocrisy of this war and we have a right to voice our public outrage with the idiot that calls himself president. We don't have to go ANYWHERE!


Firstly: Its all about his father and the Gulf War, its all about oil. Plain and simple...no beating around the bush (pardon the pun.) :p There are other countries that have nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction, N. Korea for instance, but are we waging war against them, no.... we're not. Why? Ask yourself that question.

Secondly: Is this part of that so-called war against terroism that he calls himself fighting? Because if I remember correctly, Saddam Hussein was not behind that, Osama Bin Laden was, or have we all forgotten about him because the president certainly seems to forgotten about him. That's the bad guy, remember that. What a joke. :mad: What have we done lately to make the US and the world a safer place, have we captured Bin Laden...can we get back to that.

Thirdly: My mom always used to say "take care of your own backyard before you start messing in someone elses." We have problems here in the US: unemployment, homelessness, education, the economy. Let's trying getting a few things straight here before we run out and try to save the world. He doesn't even care about whats going on here, since it doesn't directly affect him or his family, why should he care.

I cannot wait until 2004, he's had four free years on us, as a country we are in worse shape now than we've been in a decade. If we sit back and allow this man to be re-elected, we deserve everything we get.

Don't get me wrong, I support our troops.... I have family and friends who are fighting and supporting our country but I DO NOT agree with what THAT man is doing in the name of so-called democracy.

hahahahaha, that's such a tired stereotypical response, "just get out if you don't like it." Nah, I'll stay JUST to piss people like you off. If I don't like it I won't leave, I'll work to change it. It's not my right to leave, it's my right to STAY and argue for that change.

Just as an addition to what dekeguy posted. Unless i am mistaken, if you enlist in the Army you are allowed to choose your own MOS or branch of service. This means that yes, if you join for college money and have no desire to die for this country, then you can choose a combat service support branch, such as Ajuditant(can't spell) General, or Medical Service Coprs or other branches that do not put you directly in harm's way. I am in no way belittling the jobs of those branches, i'm the son of two MSC officers and was headed that way myself until my plans were derailed.

The North Korea argument is a Red Herring. First of all, one of the countries that has the most to fear from N. Korea's weaponry is China. I believe if Kim Jong Il(or whatever his name is) starts murdering, gassing, and torturing his own people(like Saddam) and it gets to a point of real threat, the Chinese will be more than ready to step in and stop him.

Secondly, if Bush had bypassed Iraq and instead set his sights on Korea, the anti-war rhetoric would be parallel statements with N. Korea substituted for Iraq and vice versa.

The saudi people may harbor anti-American beliefs but at the end of the day, their ruling party knows what's best for them. They are our allies and don't sponsor the killing of innocent Americans. The argument about the 9/11 hijackers being from SA and therefore we should "take care of" SA is about as relevant as the argument that we should wage war on upstate New Yorkers after what Timothy McVeigh did in Oklahoma City. (OKC bombing)

Lastly, the "we've got problems here" issue is also invalid. As much as Americans don't like it, i believe the fact that we are the last superpower obligates us to not play the role of global policemen per se, but at least the role of global watchdog. Things left to the UN to work out end up with thousands of innocents dying.(see Rwanda) Yes, innocents may be killed in Iraq, but if they are, it is MORE Saddam's doing than ours. It will be due to his practice of using them as human shields and not to the overzealousness of our troops or grave errors.

To our soliders and our president:

Gig 'em. I'm behind y'all. Come back safe and soon.

Kitso
KS 361 times i look forward to the liberation of Iraq when the truth about the Hussein regime is revealed and a bunch of anti-war protestors have to eat crow.

Re: Just my opinion.........
 

it sounds like your blaming bush for the economy, unemployment and the rest of the problems we have. remember, the economy started going in the tank when clinton was still in office, and instead of trying to fix it, he was out campaigning for democrats in 2000. if anything, blame clinton for playing politics by allowing bush to take over a souring economy for political reasons. also, hes tried to make the economy better, however, who has stood in the way of progress??? education has and is being worked on, and homelessness is just a false issue. there is no way this will ever be solved, and its not a national issue, its a local issue b/c every city is different and will have to deal with that issue differently.

also, bush hasnt forgotten about bin laden at all. lets look at this from a common sense standpoint. its more efficient to wage another war and look for a wanted man than to put all your resources in finding one man. their hunt for him hasnt stopped, its just not all over the news anymore b/c there are other issues that are covered, and honestly, in a world of 6+ billion, you think its going to be easy to find one man?

if you think this is purely about oil, then you are naive. yes, oil is an issue, but think about it, going in there, changing things for the better and not touching any oil is dumb. he starts a war, its all about oil, he doesnt take it, people bitch about gas prices and how he didnt capitalize on the opportunity to take some. iraq is a threat, and here is my question to everyone, do you want to wait until one of your loved ones is dead b/c of iraq to see they are a threat? do you want to take the chance of losing someone you love just to let a dictator do his own thing? thats what happened on 9/11, people thought bin laden could be contained in the middle east, and look what happened, thousands of americans dead b/c he was allowed to do his own thing. i was told by my chapter president one time, he said this is what his dad told him, learn from your mistakes, and never try to make the same mistake twice, i know that applies here. you talk about how bin laden is the bad guy and you think saddam is not. remember, this is a guy who gassed his own people, and will kill his own people for no reason whatsoever, and thats not bad? you think that leaving iraq alone will make the world a safer place, this is what the war is about, trying to make this world and country safer. as far as n korea is concerned, trust me, if the powers in that region cant set them straight, then believe me, theyre next.

not trying to attack or offend anyone, but im racking my brain trying to figure out why my point of view is so hard to understand.

one last note, the economy here always improves after a war, so if someone starts talking about the cost, remember, that is a political issue and the money will come back in the economy after the war, it always does.

And another thing... don't make the mistake I did when enlisting in the Air Force (eighteen years ago) -- DON'T sign up in an 'open' General, Mechanical or Administrative category -- this lets the service place you in a career field they're hurting for people in. Open General - most likely you'll be trained as a cook or a cop; Open Mechanical - probably a crew chief; Open Administrative - supply or admin clerk. I signed Open General and wound up being a cook. Luckily I was sent to cook's school before being sent out to my first duty station. (I hung up my chef hat and apron soon after I got out; the only time I cook is for myself or to entertain friends and family.)



Ya got the Kimster's name right. :) The North Koreans are derisively known in some circles as DANKs (Dumb-A** North Koreans; referring to the ruling Commie leadership, not the people.) The Russians and the Chinese got him cornered anyway for the time being.

Couldn't have said it any better myself. BTW the Saudis have a huge royal family running things, not a political party.

Quote:

To our soliders and our president: Gig 'em. I'm behind y'all. Come back safe and soon. Kitso KS 361 times i look forward to the liberation of Iraq when the truth about the Hussein regime is revealed and a bunch of anti-war protestors have to eat crow.

Whoop! :D My sentiments exactly!

As a general comment regarding assignment to a skill specialty (MOS) or a Unit or type of unit, the Army will try to accomodate the soldiers wishes but there are some clear and carefully explained guidelines. First and foremost comes "the needs of the service". Then, there are many specialties that require certain skills, aptitudes, and testing results before the Army will assign you to that specific specialty. If you wish to enlist for a certain unit or type of unit there must be vacancies available to be filled. If you want to join the 77th Transportation Battalion but they are at full strength you might have to be assigned to the 93rd Trans Bn. If you want to be a target acquisition radar repairer but don't demonstrate the skill level and aptitude you might have to be trained as a telephone communication technician if that is where your skills lie.
In my experience (Armored Cavalry) we have a number of skill requirements ranging from the less technically demanding to the area of serious wirehead aptitude. As we are a combat arms type of unit you might expect that it might be harder to attract volunteers to this relatively dangerous type of organization. Actually, we have never had trouble filling our ranks with lots of highly motivated people who represent a broad cross section of society. We are proud of being Cavalry Troopers and would rather be in this outfit than anything else.
So, its not all about only you choosing where you want to go, its more like a mutual selection of where you best fit. Gee, that sounds sort of familiar, doesn't it? Could being a soldier assigned to an appropriate skill specialty be like a prospective new member finding where he fits in and the Chapter offering him a bid through mutual selection! What a thought!

Re: Re: Just my opinion.........
 

hmm.. Great Depression?

I hate to disagree with a brother... but Bush and more specifically his administration (except maybe Powell) is very pro-hawk. There has been a consistent drive for hostile action (well even more hostile than bombing Iraq about once a week for ten years), since Bush came to office.... remember pre 9/11 there was arguements made in the administration for action against Saddam. If anything 9/11 derailed these plans slightly.... what most people disagree with is the fact that the US acting without UN support. Even more bothersome was/is the attitude of the President's Administration and the US media... all this crap about France and Germany.... blah, blah, blah.... maybe if Rumsfeld(?) wasn't such a jackass in his comments, and maybe if the US media hadn't jumped on every chance to deride or insult those people who's view disagreed with Bush or the US. The action that the US is pushing through with is not making any support or friends abroad....

For example following the speach, at this pub I was in, some guy got up on his chair and started to sing "America the Beautiful" while waving a little American flag. First the pub (of about 300 people) went dead silent; maybe we couldn't believe someone was actually doing this..... then the bottles and pint glasses went flying along with the insults.... if it wasn't for the fact that me and some of my old buddies from the army (Canadian) grabbed him and dragged him out, he probably would have been severely injured. The worst part was that he thought we did this because we were pro-American... we just didn't want to see him killed.... to tell the truth I think Smitty's bottle was the first to actually hit him.

What I'm worried about is future consequences that I doubt the adminstration have throughly consider. Even if they have gotten a resolution, the credibility of the security council was gone. Reform of the UN is 2 decade is the waiting. Security Council itself is very undemocratic as permenant five, not elected, can decide what is going on, while the other over 100 nations can do nothing about it. Then there is a pre-emptive strike, which is highly illegal and could result in very bad precedence in the future. India and Pakistan, though I highly doubt it, could easily use the same argument the Bush administration used and attacked each other.

Then there is the legality of this conflict. This legality is very well questioned as Bush and his supporter say 1441 authorized the use of force. This is where the argument arise, which is why an international court is needed to settle this. Some might say that is infringing on sovereignty issue, this argument is also used by dictators and despot who argue that no country has the right to criticize their human rights situation due to sovereignty. Read the "Asian Value" argument in the early to mid 90s by Lee Kuan yew and Mahatir Muhammed (sp?).

Aside from the legality, I've only herd Bush and Blair giving propoganda speech about what come after the conflict. Yet, they both have not give us detailed information on the post-saddam Iraq. Right now, I've just been called by a friend at the UN in Indonesia who asked me if I want to go there for a contract at the impending rush of refugee toward Australia through Indonesia. Giving Australia's recent disgrace treatment of refugees, i shutter to think how they will treat the Iraq's refugee now. Also, no doubt there will be intense fluctuation of refugees toward the neighboring countries and European also. I have no doubt that many will also end up in the Eastern seaboard of the States.

The reconstruction of Iraq will be very expensive. The fall out to the economies of the world will depend on the length of the conflict. If this war gets bogged down, then the recession that we are still currently in will get worst. If its quick, who knows. As you can see, I have lots of question that is non-military that bush or blair has not answer. And this what scares me the most, the unknown. But I guess Blair won't be able to find a dissertation to plagerised when it come to post-Saddam iraq.

Anyone see this site they were talking about on cnn.com??

http://www.bretzelforbush.com/

You obviously didn't read my post correctly and yes you should still leave. You aren't working to change anything, you are merely whinning like a child on here. I said change the system (if you could ever get the support), stop whinning, or leave. I stand by those instructions as well. And as far as this war claiming a lot of our soldiers lives.... let's put it this way, just this week soldiers from Iraq have already attempted to surrender. They had to be turned back, with the reason being we haven't even started this "war" and it was to early to except their surrender. Cloud I really tried to respect your right to speak your mind, but instead of stating facts you just ramble off your opinion. Empirical evidence will always defeat you arguments. Don't post someone elses articles post your own statements and base them on fact. And here's my opinion after listening to what you have said, I find you to be a leech on America....:rolleyes:


edited for spelling

Another paraphrase of, "America, Love it or Leave it." In my humble and aged opinion, that is one of the single most Un-American thoughts you can harbor.

That's not the attitude the country was founded on.

HAHA
 

Some comments here are so funny.

Blood for oil. haha.

Why don't we go after N. Korea? haha

Iraqi civilians that are going to die? hahahaha

Bush not voted in. hahaha

The US just providing Iraq's weapons. haha

This being "Bush's war" and someone clearly not understand the War Powers Act and saying Bush is being a tyrant. haha

And posting opinion pieces by writers rather than experts as evidence. hahaha

And just to be fair and correct the pro-war people, war is not good for the economy. That's just 5th grade social studies dribble taught by idiot teachers.

This is just too funny. I thought about correcting some of you. Instead I will just tell you all that I am WAY smart.

-Rudey
--And no, none of you are entitled to your opinions because I am smart and I say so. Praise my ego!

holy crapolla batman, rudey where have you been? did you fell of the earth? been quiet without you here.

Oooooooh, the dreaded EYE ROLL!!! Damn, that is harsh, I'm in trouble NOW! Now someone tell me where I stated that whatever I post is research-worthy matter and must be treated as fact. An event occurs, I have a reaction to it, and I express my reaction, hence my post.

Look people, I don't try to pretend that Iraq is a fabulous place of fun and Saddam is a misunderstood man. I just don't think this is the way to go about dealing with him. If you want to post links or refer me to information that will prove me wrong, that would be great, I have strong opinions but I'm not entirely stubborn about them. But telling people like me to leave just makes us even more eager to stay and pester people like you.

No my statement wasn't "america: love it or leave it", you obviously have failed to read my post so for the third time I will explain it. I will go into more detail this time to perhaps take care of any scraps of confusion still floating around. I said 1) change the system.... if you don't like how our country works then do something to change it. Don't just bitch and moan, if you won't take action you have no right to whine. 2) like I just said stop whinning and bitching, if you refuse to do something to change the way things are you have no right to speak against them "angry apathy"??? 3) If you refuse to change the system, you refuse to stop bitching, then finally you have option 3 leave the damn country. People who leech off this country, who enjoy the privledges of living here and then disrespect this country don't deserve to be here. Note I didn't say anything about Bush. You are disrepspecting your country by being apathetic.... that to me is un-american.....:rolleyes:

refer to my last post....

I wasn't even expressing my opinion about the war, I was telling you to freaking do something to change what you have a problem with or quit bitching. I think my last post was fair. I don't bitch about stuff and then not take action about it.

And for the third time you seem not to understand me, I will be making the choices of what I will or will not do, and there is no way that I should be obligated to leave. And I am involved, person who does not know me outside of posts you read. This is just another way that I am involved, to encourage questioning and discussion. In discussion people hit walls, follow thoughts to dead ends, change opinions, and even make incorrect statements. The point is to continue that questioning, and not to just accept whatever you are given by either side of the issue. Apparently you have nothing interesting to say, so it's time to disregard you from now on.

Maybe if you would have metioned how you were involved I would have been inclined to have respect.....oh wait no. I have yet to see you in a nuetral respectful way start a thought provoking discussion. Present your standpoints, views, and facts, with some non bias and you know what I would look at your side. I have on previous pages typed the reasons I feel the way I do.....

.................................................. .................................................. ....

(disregarding)

Other posters who disagree with me(or agree) - I encourage you to point me to sources that may influence or change my view. I always want to add more to my understanding of any situation.

I will not stoop to such childish means. I invite any including cloud9 who disagree with me to show me some facts that support your standpoint. I would love to see your side of things, but only if they are backed with fact and not just blind opinion.

http://www.billoreilly.com/currentarticle

here's a good article with some things to consider, form your opinion as you will....:D

Oh, ok, I'll just go fill out my papers to run for President...oh wait, I'm under 35. Senate? Nope, still too young. Man, I'm even too young for the House! I think a lot of us don't write about everything we do on GreekChat. I'm a lot more politically involved than I talk about on here, quite frankly because it BORES most people who don't have a similar involvement, and I bet the same is true of most GCers on both sides of the spectrum. As for the "People who are apathetic are disrespectful" argument, look out for the Wisconsin National Guard troops that got deployed, because the ones I know don't give two hoots about politics or our system. Are they still un-American? I bet you wouldn't think so.

Okay, so I wasn't about to read all these long posts that seem to be over-heated. Yes, everyone has a right to state their opinions, but really, do you think you'll change someone else's?

Boys and girls, didn't your mama ever teach you not to argue religion and politics??

Re: HAHA
 

Preach on brohter man!

I'm sorry, but I stand by my statement. You are never to young to get politically involved so don't give me that crap. If you are as "involved" as you say you are you would know that. From the time you are young you can be a page, at 18 you can vote and run for local offices. Between being a page and being able to run and vote you can lend your support to local politicians. You can be mad at me cuz my opinions are different...it's really ok. A lot of people here despite hard fact not just opinion still don't support Bush or this war and thats fine. And yes I do think I can change opinion, just like I except that if hard enough evidence is provided mine can be changed as well. So I'm sorry that you are so offended by my comments but I stand by them..... 12 years is 12 years and you know what Bush is looking out for the people of Iraq more than his father did and more than Saddam ever has.....

And you can tip toe around it but Apathy is Un-american.... that statment isn't wrong, os if you are involved great but that statement stands