Here's the fifth anniversary poll...

[HS in NZ]

I am an American living in a different country. It's nice here. However, I'd love to live in America again but not because it's the best. I just miss a lot of things that I'd prefer that are not here and/or are different.

 

I'd like to add... living in a different country can give one a different perspective like there ARE other nice places in the world and that the U.S. isn't the best at everything. You also hear what other people think of the U.S. and sadly it's not always nice....

[Peek a Boo]

I am against this war and this administration' date=' and it enrages me that just today, when it was pointed out to Cheney that 2/3 of Americans oppose this war, he replied, "So?"

 

Like a petulent twelve year old.[/quote']

 

i guess that depends on what your definition of the word "so" is.

:snicker:

 

but as far as whether our military strategy is dependent on a popularity contest? talk about acting like a petulant twelve year old!

 

The United States Military is NOT to be bandied about by a popularity contest of tug and war.

 

so: often used to belittle a point under discussion.

 

ZING.

 

you're mad cuz he answered the question and the question's intent with ONE WORD. You call it undignified --I call it brevity :) You think it was flippant --I think it was one the best thought out answers I've heard from a politician in years. That little word packs quite a punch. Talk about opening the door for analyzation! But you gotta think above a twelve year old's level to realize there's more to it than "just a petty reply." Call Me Ishmael :)

 

Lincoln's Gettysberg Address was "flippant" compared to the long drawn out speech that preceded him. yet, like Clinton's "is", it has gone down in the annals of speechdom. {{annals of speechdom? where the heck is that??!!lol}}

 

in other news-

I'd like to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and say that his "16 months" timeframe is more like "w/in sixteen months we will have the full details of a plan that will end up withdrawing all forces from Iraq." I'd *like* to, but find it very difficult.

 

Eliana-- I think it is America's true freedom that i like the most. At least, as true as it used to be :-)

If you can't totally fail, you're not totally free.

How many safety nets are there in other countries? Developing in our own country? That makes a nicely equipped cage w/ plenty of perks and amenities, but that's not *freedom*. Maya can sing, but I want OUT.

Yes, many other countries offer nice amenities, but amenities aren't what i want out of life. At least, not amenities handed to me at someone else's involuntary expense.

[Peek a Boo]

I am against this war and this administration' date=' and it enrages me that just today, when it was pointed out to Cheney that 2/3 of Americans oppose this war, he replied, "So?"

 

Like a petulent twelve year old.[/quote']

 

wait a sec, I missed an obvious problem here:

 

Saddam Hussein tortures, rapes, kidnaps, murders, evades sanctions, witholds food and medicine from his people, invades, and makes anyone's top ten worst dictators in the world list {and he's just "a JERK"},

 

BUT Cheney answers "SO" to a question and you're enraged????

 

????????????????????????????????????

 

where's that icon.......

 

 

:banghead:

[Peek a Boo]

I see the issue of safety nets from a completely different angle - which comes, I think, from my faith's emphasis on communal responsibility to care for all and my deep belief that my resources don't belong to me... okay, skip that, I'm not managing brief at all! Anyway, I see safety nets as something we have an obligation to provide for our fellow citizens (imho, from my faith, a religious, moral, and civic duty.)

 

How fascinating to think about, though, as an abridgment of liberty to have a safety net provided for you!

 

See, now I agree that faith expects ME to help others, but I'm not clear on where faith expects me to take from others by force to provide for others. stealing, coveting, all wrapped in "civic duty." Where does it end??

 

I'm all for voluntary programs, but the very definition of liberty involves *choice*. And as you mentioned, this IS a very extensive topic that really deserves its own thread. For the sake of saving everyone a lot of back and forth discussion, I tend to hearken to a more Ayn Rand capitalistic form of gvt.

[Colleen]

Whew! I've just read through the entire thread (as of late Wednesday night/early Thursday morning) and am grateful for the thoughtful discussion that's taken place. I know everyone may not consider the war in Iraq appropriate subject matter for this board, but I believe conversing about the "hard" issues alongside the many light-hearted topics is worth our while. I also want to assure you that it was not my intent to merely "hit and run", e.g. post the poll and allow others to engage without honestly expressing my own opinion. After posting the poll, I was away from home all day. I checked in a couple of times from the library to see the poll figures but was not able to formulate a thoughtful reply.

 

I'm not sure I'm able, even now, to formulate a thoughtful reply. I did cast my vote for "Get out yesterday". I felt that best represented my position as I did not support our intervention from the onset. But the reality is that we did get involved, we are involved, we weren't out yesterday, nor will we be out tomorrow or the next day or next year. I asbolutely understand the position of those who feel we have a commitment to finish what we started. I do feel an idealistic sense of responsibility in that regard. But what we started is so complex, how we started it is not justifiable, and any semblance of a "finish" so unattainable (imo) that the notion of "finishing what we started" is, for me, pie in the sky.

 

On the other hand, as I said, the reality is that it's not simply a matter of packing our bags and leaving on a jet plane. But I want to see an increased drawdown (hmm...bit of an oxymoron there...); no question, I want to see us exit the arena militarily. The insightful documentary No End in Sight underscores the tension between political ideology and military & diplomatic expertise that has permeated this so-called war.

 

Thank you again for the brain food!

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

I really, really, really am bothered by the idea that the Iraqi's don't desire to live in a free country. Now, obviously, it won't be a replica of the good old U.S. of A. but a country where you aren't killed for disagreeing with the leadership, or for being of a certain ethnic/religious background. Are Iraqis less human than we are? Is it an Arabic trait to desire living under a dictator? We throw it around that they aren't "ready" for freedom.....well, how do you get ready? How long did it take America to live together as a nation? We've always refered to the Civil War as when America really had to grow up. That was 90 years after the start of our nation. We expect them to have a perfectly organized nation in 5 years?

 

 

 

*Of course they want to be free. Free to do things *their way.* Their concept of freedom is different than ours. We have a self-created government. They are being "guided" by forces outside their control.

 

* How do you get ready for freedom? The educated class of your society concieves it, preaches it, encourages it, and finances it. That is what happened here.

 

*As for Civil War, history has shown that without outside intervention, most civil wars last approximately 10 years. With outside intervention, a civil war is only postponed until the intruders leave, then it is continued for about the same time frame. Remember, we did not have representatives of another nation in our country after the Civil War telling us how to get along with each other. We had to work it out for ourselves. And yes it took time. How would we have reacted if another nation who thought they knew better came here and tried to teach us how to get along?

 

*We did not go to Iraq originally to "Free Iraq." We went in to "guarantee our own freedom from terror." There are countries now where conditions are just as bad, or worse, than those in Iraq under Saddam. Why are we not freeing them too?

[Elaine]

i guess that depends on what your definition of the word "so" is.

:snicker:

 

but as far as whether our military strategy is dependent on a popularity contest? talk about acting like a petulant twelve year old!

 

The United States Military is NOT to be bandied about by a popularity contest of tug and war.

 

so: often used to belittle a point under discussion.

 

ZING.

 

you're mad cuz he answered the question and the question's intent with ONE WORD. You call it undignified --I call it brevity :) You think it was flippant --I think it was one the best thought out answers I've heard from a politician in years. That little word packs quite a punch. Talk about opening the door for analyzation! But you gotta think above a twelve year old's level to realize there's more to it than "just a petty reply." Call Me Ishmael :)

 

 

 

:lol: At the "is" sentence!

 

:iagree:

[TXMomof4]

Michael Yon: Gates of Fire

 

has anyone seen this *content warning* good coverage from on the ground in Iraq-

 

and polls- I've seen so many poll questions that do not mean what they at first seem to mean:tongue_smilie:- except of course this poll:D

 

 

This is the best website. He was embedded with my brother's unit in 2005. Amazing coverage. Scary, but at least I felt like I was getting a true picture of the situation.

[TXMomof4]

*Of course they want to be free. Free to do things *their way.* Their concept of freedom is different than ours. We have a self-created government. They are being "guided" by forces outside their control.

 

 

 

If you look at the government that is being put in place, it isn't a copy of an American government. Look at the text of the Iraqi Constitution. The similarities are there, but there are glaring differences also. It is a religious government. Islam is the official religion of the government. Do you think that would fly in America? If we want it to be just like America, they should not be allowed to impose their religious beliefs through the law of the land. But they are doing just that. Is that wrong? I don't think so. It is their country. I know our model of government isn't perfect, but it works relatively well. I can't think of another framework that they could build on that would work better.

 

 

There is also the point that again, we are referring to these Iraqis as something different than us. Yes, they have different history, culture, lifestyle. But saying they are 'different' than us, they don't want freedom like we have (had), is demeaning and belittling to them. I will grant that their idea of freedom may not be as far reaching as ours simply because they haven't experienced it. But that they don't have the desire for that freedom, and that they can't live with freedom because they haven't experienced it is absurd. Right now, their freedom may equate being able to worship as a Shiite, Sunni, or Kurd without fear of persecution. Tomorrow, it may be the freedom to be educated equally, regardless of ethic background or gender. It will grow with their experiences. I don't believe we are 'forcing' our experiences on them. Just giving them the opportunity for their own experiences.

 

There are so many different aspects to this war, political, humanitarian, mercenary that there will never be an answer for all aspects of it. But again, the facts remain that we are there, we have created a situation that will only erode if we pull back immediately, we have a responsibility to do leave something better than we left it.

[Tutor]

I'm not trying to argue the issue itself, but this line made me think about the differences between the social and political climate then versus now.

 

I think Mrs Mungo made a good point about the differences caused by volunteer army vs drafted army, but I think the differences run far deeper.

 

There was a belief then that protest could actually change something, a faith in the possibility of transformative change which my generation has never had. My father says he saw that faith and hope die with the assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK...

 

I think there is also a general "why bother" attitude and apathy. Also, with the internet, people who want to "get something off their chest" post to a message board or blog and feel better. Very little sits and stews long enough to compel them into action. I have to continually remind myself that venting here and to dh (you all are so patient with me :D) does not count as doing something and being involved. :001_smile:

[shell in SC]

I got home from work last night and DH best friend called. . .he's in the military. Been to Iraq twice now. Well guess what. . .he just found out that he's going AGAIN!!!!!! This really stinks! I love this guy like a brother and I am very sad today b/c of this! I won't step onto my soapbox, cause that wasn't the original intent of this thread and besides, I didn't sleep much last night thinking about this so I"m to tired to expend the energy. Just pray that God will protect him over there and that he comes home safe to us.

 

Thanks!

shell

[ArwenA]

I don't want to get snarky or rude but there is a difference between being opposed to war and wanting to loose the war. I too doubt that 2/3 of Americans want to loose the war but 2/3 of Americans wanting the war to be over doesn't seem unrealistic.

 

What do you consider a good war to be? Could you please think for a moment about the innocent Iraqis. I know that some Iraqis have hurt you but certainly not all. Yes, 9/11 was a major tragedy but the entire population of Iraq didn't decided to hijack planes. What would it be like to be mother in Iraq? Each day you would pray that your children were not attacked, that they would grow up and be able to live good lives. Their chance for a good life is much smaller than that of my children or yours.

 

I don't follow the Iraq war closely but I follow it enough to feel I've made the right choice in not supporting the war.

 

 

AHHHHH!!!

Okay, I need to clarify this. I did not write this!! I have a feeling it was my 15yo nephew who is here for Easter. He can get very annoyed, emotional and out of control. He also has a tendency to pretend to be other people, hence being me. Is there a screaming smilie I can use?

 

I did write the first part about opposing war vs. wanting to loose the war. Then, got distracted getting kids ready for bed. I forgot about it all until now and I see the above. Urgh.

 

I sincerely hope none of you we're offended by him. I'm sure he did not mean to hurt anyone, he just has a few disabilities.

 

My apologies, I will not leave the computer without finishing posting from now on.

[Antonia]

well, as far as I'm concerned, I don't feel strongly either way -- whether we stay there another "100 years" like McCain wants or never went in.

 

I would think you *would* care, Peek, esp. having boys. I care very much that, if we stay for any length of time whether it's ten years or 100, it is a very real possibility that this country will resort to a draft to provide soldiers for this war. It is already being discussed. I have a 12yo, and I would rather poke his eye out with a stick than have him die for no reason in a region that has never known and probably will never know peace.

[Peek a Boo]

I would think you *would* care, Peek, esp. having boys. I care very much that, if we stay for any length of time whether it's ten years or 100, it is a very real possibility that this country will resort to a draft to provide soldiers for this war. It is already being discussed. I have a 12yo, and I would rather poke his eye out with a stick than have him die for no reason in a region that has never known and probably will never know peace.

 

I do care very much whether my boys enter a career that includes the purposeful killing of another human being as a job description and training requirement.

 

Whether we pull out of this war or not doesn't guarantee that my boys will or will not be drafted in 10-20 years. Iraq may be "old news" by then.

 

So whether our military advisers decide it is best *for the country, in their expertise* to stay a bit longer or get out now doesn't really concern me as much as it does other people.

 

I take great comfort in the fact that no matter what my boys are drafted to do, they have the gift of peace in Christ and can act confidently either to refuse an order they feel to be unGodly or to act w/in their understanding of Right and seek shelter in the Lord.

 

And I find it very very untrue that people "die for nothing" --too often the reasons are simply unknown to us at the time. Or because it doesn't affect *us* directly that it didn't mean anything to someone else. :)

[Peek a Boo]

...DH best friend called. . .he's in the military. Been to Iraq twice now. ... . .he just found out that he's going AGAIN!!!!!! This really stinks! I love this guy like a brother and I am very sad today b/c of this! I....Just pray that God will protect him over there and that he comes home safe to us.

 

as I mentioned previously, my own li'l bro has been to Afg. once and Iraq twice. He will be a Marine Corps officer shortly, and he expects [and wants] to go again. prayers all around :-)

[Colleen]

He's looking forward to it. Such is the nature of some young guys, I suppose.

[Peek a Boo]

I'm uncomfortable with this, but I'm not quite sure why. I agree that nothing happens in vain, but Hitler, to take an extreme example, threw away millions of lives in the gas chambers. There have been, and, G-d help us all, will continue to be, pointless, wasteful military conflicts... ones which serve no valuable purpose either now or later, to 'us' or anyone else....

 

and that's just it --I'm not saying that the deaths aren't tragic, but I *refuse* to see NO benefit in another's death: their death should at least be as meaningful as their lives, and if it isn't, we should make it so.

 

whether that death results in these deeper discussions of 'why did these people die" or "should those other people have died" --just the discussion alone is a valuable *purpose*.

 

There is a lot to learn from death.

Horror. Purpose. Causes. Salvation. Survival. Love. Grief.

 

but to write off a death as "meaningless" makes ME uncomfortable.

 

look at what you just stated was learned by the hopeless Israeli occupation of Lebanon! those deaths may have been awful, but they sure weren't meaningless.

 

It doesn't mean a death was "right" --only that it can, does, and should absolutely serve a meaningful purpose to someone, at sometime, whether we realize it or not.

 

"I believe very strongly that we should 'spend' their lives -and their trust - very carefully indeed."

 

I would not hand my hard earned money over to some investor who only studied some financial investing part time and had no track record of investing success. That would be stupid.

 

I wouldn't invest my money in a place 'just because' 2/3 of the city was doing it. That would be stupid.

 

i wouldn't send my kids to an institution just because a HUGE majority of the public sector is doing it. That would be stupid.

 

I would consider it absolute stupidity to hand the lives of hundreds of thousands of soldiers over to someone who simply do NOT have the extensive knowledge in dealing w/ the many variables at play in a war.

 

That would be "spending" their lives very carelessly indeed.

 

They deserve the knowledge that people w/ decades of military experience, strategy, and history have.

 

They Deserve knowing that their leaders will not waffle just because "most" of the citizenry disagrees w/ the plan.

 

They DESERVE to not be the target of a popularity contest. their lives are worth MUCH more than that.

 

Again: The United States Military is NOT to be pulled back and forth based on a popularity contest. Their lives deserve the expert and varied counsel of people who are in the trenches w/ this every day. When those people decide it is best for our soldiers to pull out. So be it. If those experts decide that pulling out will cost soldiers a lot, then they can stay. Do experts make mistakes? You betcha. But I'd rather those mistakes be on the hands of the leaders than the unaccountable American public.

 

No matter how much we read on the internet, or how many things we choose to assume, there's always more to the story.

 

have a great weekend Eliana :-)

[Antonia]

So whether our military advisers decide it is best *for the country, in their expertise* to stay a bit longer or get out now doesn't really concern me as much as it does other people.

 

I take great comfort in the fact that no matter what my boys are drafted to do, they have the gift of peace in Christ and can act confidently either to refuse an order they feel to be unGodly or to act w/in their understanding of Right and seek shelter in the Lord.

 

And I find it very very untrue that people "die for nothing" --too often the reasons are simply unknown to us at the time. Or because it doesn't affect *us* directly that it didn't mean anything to someone else. :)

 

You have a lot more faith in our [military] leaders than I. I don't believe for a moment that the reason we are there is as noble as winning a people's freedom. Maybe then I'd say the dying would be for something. As it is, I think it has more to do with an old grudge and the determination to control the region and its resources (read OIL). That, for me, equals dying for nothing. I'm glad you have a source of such great comfort, though. For me, there would be NO comfort in knowing my beautiful son had been blown to bits in some roadside bombing, or had his head hacked off by a rusty blade and his body dragged through the streets. Nothing, I repeat, *nothing* is worth that.

[RebeccaC]

I'm not trying to argue the issue itself, but this line made me think about the differences between the social and political climate then versus now.

 

I think Mrs Mungo made a good point about the differences caused by volunteer army vs drafted army, but I think the differences run far deeper.

 

There was a belief then that protest could actually change something, a faith in the possibility of transformative change which my generation has never had. My father says he saw that faith and hope die with the assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK...

 

 

Well I remember when Mlk and Rfk died :001_huh: ewwe I am getting old and vaguely remember JFK dying. This is what I saw at the time and that was MLK carried a mantel..... anointing.... that neither JFK or RFK carried. JFk and RFK carried a mantel similar to what Obama now carries but what MLK had was light years above that. I think the reason King stood above was that he had a life style of prayer and fasting that allowed him to go above politics and into things like forgiveness and loving your enemy. I was incredibly by King and my folks followed all of the above they were forward thinking and took us through Watts about a year after the riots as an object lesson. The year King and RFK died was a year that despair hung heavy in the atmosphere and I felt it as a kid. It cause immense fear in my life and drew me to G-d. I began to dwell as a child in the peace of G-d and he was my lifesaver during that time. My mother was pg and had a severe pre-partum depression and spent most of the summer and fall locked in her closet crying it was at that time that I took over the care of my 3 younger siblings, one a year old, and the house. She was not the only adult that fell apart as these men passed. It was not a good time to be a kid with you parents really followed the above men.

 

What America needs now is a man who carries what MLK carried. The opposition to this war is really about what happened in the 2000 election. There was the perception that the election was stolen and bitterness took root and went deep dividing a this country. A deep hatred of Bush began to grow and take root. Now Just for the record this is what I see sense. If there had not been the bitterness from the election and the Democrats decision to use that bitterness to shore up their power I doubt that the opposition would be so great. At this point most liberal can not follow even simple logic when it comes to the war. They have bought the spin from those who seek power through bitterness.

 

Now what scares the living daylights out of me is that the man who is the knight in shining amour for the Democrats is a man with similar charisma of hope of JFK and RFK but who is rooted not in the value of forgiveness that MLK preach and lived but in but in the values of Black bitterness. If any man had the right to be bitter it was King who tasted the fists and physical beatings of racism yet he fasted to forgive. If such a man came on the political horizon I would not care what party he was with I would follow.

[RebeccaC]

You've made me curious! What do you feel makes this the best country?

 

I know I see some qualities and conditions I feel are amazing and wonderful and which represent the best that our country has to offer to the world, but I also see different, but equally wonderful qualities and conditions in other countries... I have trouble believing that there is one best country.

 

I do believe that there can be a country which is the best match for a particular person, the best balance of advantages and drawbacks for that person's needs and/or values...

 

But how does one rate countries? It seems like comparing apples and airplanes...

 

[You can't hear it, but the above is meant in a friendly, inquiring way...almost a philosophical playing with ideas. I don't want to sound as if I am challenging the validity of your feelings of pride and loyalty!]

 

 

Well first the only other place where I would live other than the US as a citizen would be Israel. That is because that is the one place you can feel what my mil called the Holiness of G-d but what I sensed as not the Holiness but the actual presence of the Most High. If I had my choice I would live in Jerusalem and spend part of everyday praying at the wall for the peace of Jerusalem and the planet. Do you know this passage in scripture, Isaiah 6:1 In the year that king Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and his train filled the temple. That is the closest I can come to describing the wall. There is no other place on earth like that. Where the presence of G-d is so real, so tangible, so....... filling of the entire atmosphere.

 

However I am a gentile and a Christian and while I was treated wonderfully when I lived in Jerusalem I did not find a place in society. The Israeli Arabs thought I was a Jew and there is nothing wrong with that :) The Jews thought I was a Jew and there were no Christians other than Orthodox and Catholic there at the time. I was lonelier than I have ever been in my entire life. Before I was done I craved to just be touch by another human.

 

All that said I look at a place and I sense what is in the atmosphere and I look for the heart of G-d. He of course is everywhere but He does not manifest like he does in Israel. So I ask myself would I be willing to die for the belief system held here? I could for the US as it stands with its Judeo-Christian belief system that allows for freedom and I think I could for Israel because of the place she holds in G-d's heart but I have never found another place where I would be willing to. There are lots of beautiful nice places in the world filled with nice people but is their belief system worth dying for.

 

So I guess the best place on earth for me is the wall in Jerusalem. The next best place is here. Hope that made sense.

[Mrs Mungo]

You have a lot more faith in our [military] leaders than I. I don't believe for a moment that the reason we are there is as noble as winning a people's freedom. Maybe then I'd say the dying would be for something. As it is, I think it has more to do with an old grudge and the determination to control the region and its resources (read OIL). That, for me, equals dying for nothing. I'm glad you have a source of such great comfort, though. For me, there would be NO comfort in knowing my beautiful son had been blown to bits in some roadside bombing, or had his head hacked off by a rusty blade and his body dragged through the streets. Nothing, I repeat, *nothing* is worth that.

 

Let's get something clear. The military *does not* decide where we fight or why we fight. Not *ever*. Our elected leaders do that. There have been several documentaries on how the administration repeatedly *ignored* advice from the military and military plans that had been in place for years.

 

As I said earlier in the thread, in my opinion we're there to give us a battlefield that is not the US. That is not unsuspecting warships in Yemen. That is is not our embassies overseas. That is not our military bases with military families overseas. That is not New York City.

[pixelroper]

it would be interesting if Thomas Sowell ran for office- at least he has an economic background-

[astrid]

Thank you!

 

:iagree:

[Antonia]

Let's get something clear. The military *does not* decide where we fight or why we fight. Not *ever*. Our elected leaders do that. There have been several documentaries on how the administration repeatedly *ignored* advice from the military and military plans that had been in place for years.

 

 

 

Can't tell if you're agreeing with me or reaming me out:), but that's why I put it in brackets. I was quoting Peek-a-boo, but speaking to the unilateral behavior of our leaders in Washington. I completely agree that the military are pawns in this wargame, whether one believes in the "cause" or not.

[TXMomof4]

Let's get something clear. The military *does not* decide where we fight or why we fight. Not *ever*. Our elected leaders do that. There have been several documentaries on how the administration repeatedly *ignored* advice from the military and military plans that had been in place for years.

 

As I said earlier in the thread, in my opinion we're there to give us a battlefield that is not the US. That is not unsuspecting warships in Yemen. That is is not our embassies overseas. That is not our military bases with military families overseas. That is not New York City.

 

 

I totally agree. And the biggest problem I have is that after the politicians decide to fight, they refuse to get out of the way and let the military do their job. Someone said earlier that they don't think the President needs to be an expert in military matters. I agree. BUT, the politicians, once committed to combat, need to allow the military to finish the job, not yank them back (or talk of yanking them back) the minute their poll numbers drop.

 

This isn't a situation where we can just change our mind in the middle. We have to finish our job there, i.e. a stable Iraq, or all of this would have been in vain. THAT would be a waste of the last five years.

[Mrs Mungo]

Can't tell if you're agreeing with me or reaming me out:), but that's why I put it in brackets. I was quoting Peek-a-boo, but speaking to the unilateral behavior of our leaders in Washington. I completely agree that the military are pawns in this wargame, whether one believes in the "cause" or not.

 

Err..neither? LOL.

 

I hear things often that are inaccurate when it comes to the military. I just want to point out the military doesn't decide when or where we fight, they sometimes don't even get to decide how (Anyone else read Wesley Clark's book? Wow. And that was the Dems.). If it had been something about military spending I would have pointed out that much of that is mandated by Congress. I just try to clear up misconceptions where I see them and the conception some people have that the military makes these decisions is just wrong.

[RebeccaC]

When soldiers die in military conflict sometimes they are dying for a specific 'cause' - to defend their homes, to avenge a wrong (real or perceived), to put their leader in power, etc; but more often they are dying for a more abstract cause. They are dying 'for their country' in a more general sense. They signed up to serve with a trust in their government and military leaders that when they were given an order it was for the benefit of the country, and, even if it ended up not being, that when they followed it with faith they were preserving a system and a structure which would benefit their country in the bigger picture.

 

This is well written and as close to explaining of why as I have ever read.

 

I believe very strongly that we should 'spend' their lives -and their trust - very carefully indeed. ...and that those who are giving this service and trust are owed an honest explanation of what they are dying for... and to be valued enough that if it is realized that the objectives were false or invalid that pride will not prevent pulling them out.

 

 

 

This however is tricky due in part to politcal spin. One party wants power so they spin one way twisting words to look false and the other does the same. They are equally guilty. What is needed is a fresh infusion of intergity in the spoken word word and action of politcal leaders and the ability to truely forgive no matter what the party.

[RebeccaC]

I guess the only other thing that I would add to the subject of death and other sacrifices that soldiers make is that not only do their deaths have meaning but that what they sacrifice should not be thrown away. Last year if we had left Iraq because it looked dark we would have in my opinion dishonored every drop of blood spilled and every sacrifice made by our men and women and by the Iraqis fighting with us. Not to mention dishonoring promises we made to the Iraqi people.

[Mrs Mungo]

I guess the only other thing that I would add to the subject of death and other sacrifices that soldiers make is that not only do their deaths have meaning but that what they sacrifice should not be thrown away. Last year if we had left Iraq because it looked dark we would have in my opinion dishonored every drop of blood spilled and every sacrifice made by our men and women and by the Iraqis fighting with us. Not to mention dishonoring promises we made to the Iraqi people

 

I agree and I think *many* military people feel this way.

[Antonia]

I just try to clear up misconceptions where I see them and the conception some people have that the military makes these decisions is just wrong.

 

Thanks for clarifying. I hate fighting with people when we're both on the same side! I, too, have family in the military - two cousins in the Navy, another a Marine in the first gulf war, and another an Air Force pilot who flew missions over Baghdad for two tours in this war, so I understand your concern and frustration. I pray constantly that all will come home safe and soon.

[LaMere Academy]

I voted reduce gradually

[Peek a Boo]

If in your first point you're alluding to a choice of president, then I disagree with you... (if you are talking about choices for the direct control of a military operation, then we are in agreement)

 

No, i am not talking about a single person. That's why i mentioned "people" in my post:

 

"They deserve the knowledge that people w/ decades of military experience, strategy, and history have."

 

I'm talking about a variety of experienced people figuring out the best way to accomplish a mission -including the President. Civilian advisors, gvt advisors, and military advisors. they all have experience that will help take hundreds of variables into account.

 

and you said "But, there are times when leaders make mistakes, and they should be prepared to acknowledge that and to change course (and make amends). "

THAT is where the Big Discussion is: WERE there mistakes made?? Some say no, others say Yes. Just because some people feel that mistakes were made doesn't mean there WERE mistakes made. Just because there might have been SOME mistakes doesn't mean the whole THING was a mistake.

 

The rightness of a situation is not determined by popular opinion. One person's decision to look at your argument and deem it unsuitable or not convincing enough doesn't mean that you or they are automatically wallowing in wrongness. It's a subjective thing.

 

 

Antonia, i don't have much faith in our leaders, but I have more faith in *them* than i do in the "majority of popular opinion."

 

And yes--as Mrs. Mungo mentioned, the military doesn't decide what to do: they just look at what they are s'posed to accomplish and figure out the best way to DO it. There's a difference between those who advise on military operations and The Military itself :)

I do agree that we should be ready to let the military do their job if we decide to use them. I hear a lot about that from my brother too, lol.

[Laura in VA]

:)

[Mrs Mungo]

and you said "But, there are times when leaders make mistakes, and they should be prepared to acknowledge that and to change course (and make amends). "

THAT is where the Big Discussion is: WERE there mistakes made?? Some say no, others say Yes. Just because some people feel that mistakes were made doesn't mean there WERE mistakes made. Just because there might have been SOME mistakes doesn't mean the whole THING was a mistake.

 

I agree with this. I'm not sure I think even now that the whole thing was a mistake. Certain decisions (such as breaking up the Iraqi military) were mistakes and led to the spot we're in now.

 

I do agree that we should be ready to let the military do their job if we decide to use them. I hear a lot about that from my brother too, lol.

 

I bet! LOL I know how much *I* hear about it. Seriously, people, you should read Wesley Clark's book. It's very dry though, I'm warning you.

[Colleen]

I mentioned "No End in Sight" in my other post, but I replied so late to my own poll, I'm not sure if anyone read what I had to say. This documentary is worth watching, regardless of your stance on the issue.