Read the words of the congressman. I think we can take him seriously.

Why is it that everyone assumes that because someone did support the war that they wanted to leave Saddam in power.... thats bullshit..... the guy was a grade a madman of the west's creation (US, Britain, France, hell even Canada too). The guy had to be taken out... but LEGALLY, ie. with the worlds (UN) support. I served with the UN for 7 horrible months in Bosnia, and terrible as it may have seemed I did support the Ideal of the international community trying to set things right (it does always work, but at least they try). What I was opposed to was the fact that the US & UK decided that they were better than the UN and could go it alone in Iraq.

The UN is like the referee in any sports game, some times the call goes against you..... you suck it up and keep playing, you don't through a tantrum and quit playing the game if you want the other players to respect you. People will argue that yes France was going to veto the vote; most likely, just as the US has consitently vetoed France's resolutions regarding Israel and Palestine. Yes the initial vote would have been vetoed and it would have taken a second resolustion and another three to six months..... which is exactly what a lot of the world wanted, more time for proof of the WMD to come to light. It wouldn't have happened on the schedule that Bush wanted but it would have happened, and with more international support.

If the UN had voted to use force to remove Saddam then I would have had no problem going there. As a Canadian I have always believed the sanctity and rule of law, and as such I could not support any vigilante action such as undertaken by the US in Iraq. Am I happy Saddam is gone? Damn right I am! Would I have gone under a UN flag? Damn right! Do I feel for the troops over there? Damn right! Did I protest this? Damn right! Would I turn my back on my friends being sent to Iraq? Hell No! They recieved orders and they are following them.... while they or I may disagree with them, they are not unlawful and therefore must be followed. That is the way the military works.

But I cannot support the Bush administrations reasons and actions that initiated the conflict. The world knew it had do be done, but it had to be done on their terms as a whole.

*(Incedentally when he gassed the Kurds it was brought up in the UN as grounds for sevre sanctions or force to remove him, but it was shotdown by the security council because he was then a US ally against Iran and Russia. This is a great example of what I meant by politics screwing everything up)

***************
Now back to the originally scheduled post
***************

Does anyone know why the wounded were being charged for meals? Is this standard in the US Forces? Have they been compensated for this?

Because if not my chapter will probably put together a collection to help out two of the guys we know that were wounded.

Whoa, I can't believe I'm actually agreeing with you, Arya. NOBODY likes a war. And, I enjoyed your diplomatic perspective on it!

aj

One of the allowances that soldiers recieve is called B.A.S. - Basic Allowance for Substinence. This equals to around $8.10 a day and is meant to help the soldier eat. When the soldier is in the hospital, he is recieving government meals. So the hospital charged the soldier $8.10 per day to prevent 'double-dipping' into the food account.

I don't know about you, but I have to question any poll that says it talks for all Iraqis.

How was the poll conducted? Did CNN call up 1,200 random Iraqis in every different part of the country? Oh wait, not everyone has phones. Oh wait, not everyone has electricity!

Did CNN go up to people on the street and ask them? Were they biased by the way the questions were asked? Did they only ask people in specific areas of the country where there was a very strong pro-saddam holdout, such as Tikrit???

Hell, the only polls that I listen to in the United States are the ones where the polling companies release exactly how the poll was conducted, the questions that were asked 'word for word' with the answers given.

I guarantee you that I can create a poll to tell you anything you want to hear.

ok I also don't give much to the polls they put up - ie: Bush's approval rating. I put that on there for the few people on this board that require statistics to back up opinions. Besides, if you turned on CNN once in awhile - the reason I quoted that particular poll was it was the FIRST one conducted post-Saddam regime. The poll takers actually went into Baghdad, going door to door for these results. It took them 3 months or so I think. I would have more concrete evidence about it but at the time I saw it I wasn't thinking I was ever going to have quote it somewhere.

Well, for your convenience, I did some research into this. And since you like polls done by CNN, this is what i've found:

September 24, 2003: 2/3 of Baghdad residents glad Saddam is gone and think Iraq will be better off in 5 years, however, there is a split on whether RIGHT NOW the country is better then it was
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/....iraq.poll.ap/

The poll was done by Gallup, a very highly respected polling organization, and describes how the poll was conducted.