Sure is...just remember who is giving them their orders and who they have to have 100% faith and trust in in order to get the job done. It's impossible to support a soldier but at the same time criticize why he is over there.

Look I when I served I had 100% faith in trust in my fellow soldiers, and that was and is critical. However I also know that political motivated orders are the most dangerous ones...... So I will no longer place 100% trust on politcal orders (civilian or military), but judge them on their merit and feasiblity.

You and I will just have to differ on the last part because I believe it is possible to seperate the soldier and the mission.

Unfortunately, when I enter active duty, I won't have the option of deciding what orders are political and what are not. Because I will have to obey ALL orders the same, regardless of where they came from. If not, I will be subject to Court Martial under Article 92 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice - which specifically reads

“Any person subject to this chapter who—

(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;

(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or

(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

and carries the maximum sentence of a Dishonerable Discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and two years confinement.


It's easy for a civilian to judge if an order is a politically motivated one or not, but when a soldier in the field recieves an order, it's motivation is the least of his worries. He has to carry it out just the same, and his life depends on his faith in that order.

I completely agree with you on this... A stong chain of command and discipline is abosolutely important to both your survival but also of your buddies. I'm just saying that it is possible to question/think about the motivations or reasons behind a mission (overall mission staement or goal), but at the same time perform to best of your ability as a soldier.....

I'm not saying you sit there with a thumb up your ass wondering if every command in the field is political or not (though you should consider lawful/un-lawful). Orders in the field should be followed through on a near-instinict level, because delay means death. What I meant was the "big picture", the Why? I disagreed with the original reasoning behind the war, that doesn't mean I disagree with the current mission to help the Iraqis nor the people taking on this mission. I believe a stable and free Iraq is vital to the security of the region, just as a stable and free Afghanistan is..... that is why I support the men and women stuggling to make it happen.

This retired military officer's opinion: Oppose The War = no clue --Just go to Iraq and live in their shoes and THEN say you oppose the war -- what a crock! So then what do you Propose instead??? Leaving Saddam alone?/ Well hey, when he was in power, he gassed children and tortured adults??? Remember those pictures of the bloated dead bodies of children and adults laying all over the streets? That is REAL NICE!!!! That is what opposing the war means -- Saddam stays in power. Okay -- that's not what you had in mind instead of going to war -- well then, what ARE you thinking about? Talking & negotiations were not working -- sanctions were not working -- nothing was working to get Saddam out of power -- but hey WAR did the trick. Children in Iraq will not get gassed anymore, people will not get tortured. Just tell the Iraqis TO THEIR FACES that you oppose the war that rid them of Saddam. Hmmmmm. Wonder how they'd react?

That is VERY well said, GPhiB! I think many people forget what was going on in the first place. Also, as I mentioned before, not everything is what it seems on TELEVISION people! When I get to talk to my husband, once a week if I'm lucky, his first words are, "You would not believe it over here." Everywhere he goes there are smiling faces, thanking him for what we are doing.

Thank you so much, docetboy, for bringing up the point that soldiers are NOT permitted the extreme luxury of questioning their orders. Now, for support, how do y'all think it would've sounded if as my husband was getting on the bus to go to his C5 I said, "Take care of yourself, honey, and screw Bush!" I just don't see that going over well...sure not everyone agrees with their boss, but give me a break!

Now many of you say you have friends that are over there fighting, which is fabulous, and I'm sure you support them completely. Do you write them letters and tell them that if the administration wouldn't have been so 'quick to judge' then they'd be home right now? NO! Because that's the LAST thing they want or need to hear. (And, I'm sorry, but that ('having a friend') ain't close enough to the fire for me. Come walk a day in my shoes!)

Finally, while it sucks that he's there, we both feel that he's there for a reason. For those of you who "Support the troops, but don't support the war." Get over yourself, and pick a freaking side! There is a war going on right now, whether you support it or not! Why not make some productive use of your energy, and whole-heartedly support the troops. If not, I hear that Susan Sarandon's and Martin Sheet are great company.

aj

it doesn't matter - we went to war, Saddam is gone and hopefully for good. I still want to know why these Iraq's who were "so happy" we ousted Saddam are now killing our soldiers? Last "poll" I saw on CNN (yes news I know) only 30% or some low number like that, of Iraqis wanted us there. Hmmmm.

Also, Just because I live in America and vote, doesn't mean I have to support the President we elected. I will admit, I liked Bush when he was Governer here, but now that he is President, I do not agree with his policies - isn't that OK? I mean, he has a domestic policy - the only problem is that its for IRAQ!


Like I said before, I'm glad we have people still willling to defend this country, inspite of the idiot in the White House. I also know that these men and women don't have a choice - they go when and where they are told and then do what they are told to do. Thanks to these men and women, like both my grandfathers and my uncle, I can question my government. Thank You

EDITED to say -

This war effects everyone. I would be devestated if my friend were killed - just anyone else that lost a loved one. I won't pick a side because I don't agree with either one - Saddam was a murderer and Bush is an idiot. My opinion, thats all it is.

I also don't write them letters saying any of this - I usually say things like I love you or I miss you or Noah is walking now......I would truly be full of it if I was if I was to write with all my feelings about government, wouldn't I?

Just because some people have different opinions on something doesn't make them idiotic. We as a country have the duty to question our government! Especially one that has been lying to us (I know not the first gov't to do so, but we questioned them too).

I can tell all of you that war is not fun, and anybody that fully support a war are crazy. War is a neccesery evil, however, war must be engaged only if its according to international norm and regulations. Belived it or not, war is an expression of international relations.

This is from personal experience. I've seen too many death and destruction to realized that people that are gung ho about war do not know what they are talking about.

I hope this is not a hijack. The thread seems to have taken a turn that makes this article fit. Our soldiers, etc, are being screwed in Iraq, but not by our government and certainly not by the president. According to this Democratic U.S. Congressman, the American media is screwing them.

Democrat Congressman: Media's Bias 'Is Killing Our Troops' - Monday, Sept. 22, 2003 - News Max

"U.S. Rep. Jim Marshall, D-Ga., went to Iraq to check out the war for himself. What he saw has him angry ... at America's media establishment.


"The Iraq war has predictably evolved into a guerrilla conflict similar to Vietnam. Our currently stated objectives are to establish reasonable security and foster the creation of a secular, representative government with a stable market economy that provides broad opportunity throughout Iraqi society. Attaining these objectives in Iraq would inevitably transform the Arab world and immeasurably increase our future national security," he writes in today's Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

"These are goals worthy of a fight, of sacrifice, of more lives lost now to save thousands, perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands in the future. In Mosul last Monday, a colonel in the 101st Airborne put it to me quite simply: 'Sir, this is worth doing.' No one I spoke with said anything different. And I spoke with all ranks.

"But there will be more Blumbergs killed in action, many more. So it is worth doing only if we have a reasonable chance of success. And we do, but I'm afraid the news media are hurting our chances. They are dwelling upon the mistakes, the ambushes, the soldiers killed, the wounded, the Blumbergs. Fair enough. But it is not balancing this bad news with 'the rest of the story,' the progress made daily, the good news. The falsely bleak picture weakens our national resolve, discourages Iraqi cooperation and emboldens our enemy. ...


"Throughout Iraq, American soldiers with their typical 'can do' attitude and ingenuity are engaging in thousands upon thousands of small reconstruction projects, working with Iraqi contractors and citizens. Through decentralized decision-making by unit commanders, the 101st Airborne Division alone has spent nearly $23 million in just the past few months. This sum goes a very long way in Iraq. Hundreds upon hundreds of schools are being renovated, repainted, replumbed and reroofed. Imagine the effect that has on children and their parents.


"Zogby International recently released the results of an August poll showing hope and progress. My own unscientific surveys told me the same thing. With virtually no exceptions, hundreds of Iraqis enthusiastically waved back at me as I sat in the open door of a helicopter traveling between Babylon and Baghdad. And I received a similar reception as I worked my way alone, shaking hands through a large crowd of refinery workers just to see their reaction.

"We may need a few credible Baghdad Bobs to undo the harm done by our media. I'm afraid it is killing our troops," concludes Marshall, who shows that Sen. Zell Miller isn't the only decent Democrat in Georgia (call them the antidotes to Sen. Patty "Osama Mama" Murray, Rep. "Baghdad" Jim McDermott and Rep. Marcy Kaptur).

Yes, Iraq certainly is becoming like Vietnam ... in the astonishing bias shown by Big Media."

I don't know if I can take any news organizatons that used attack such as:

too seriously.

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.