Quote:
Originally posted by GPhiBLtColonel
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?
|
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.