A Soldier returning from Iraq, disappointed with the media and the public.

[Mighty Thor]

I got a chance to speak to a soldier that just got back from Iraq about 3 weeks ago or so.

He could not believe how the media negatively portrayed their efforts over there. He said that they have done much good and the people of Iraq are very appreciative of what they have done. The majority of the Iraqis supports the US effort and wonders why that is not being mentioned.

He said sure there were violence and terrorist activities but it is few. It is only happening in small places. The majority of the people live peacefully now with better pay, better education for their kids and better everything else.

As far as WMD is concern. They did stumbled into chem. labs and chem. suits for Saddams soldiers. So they know something is going on.

Well to make a long story short, he basically just said that the people here needs to chill. "It's not as bad as the media or Kerry would like you to think. We are doing our job and we are doing it well." To the US soldiers [img]graemlins/rock.gif[/img] Rock ON.

[95fbirdkid]

I myself am sickend by the number of people who speak negitivly towards our soldiers in Iraq. They're doing their job. If your not going to serve your country in the military, atleast support those that do. :thumbsup:<--- we need that smilely back

[Skapimp]

I respect and honor the soldiers...

**** the people who put them there... they get no respect.

[token sebring]

Originally posted by Skapimp:
I respect and honor the soldiers...

**** the people who put them there... they get no respect.

I'm with him... exactly how I feel...

[Merlin]

[img]graemlins/rock.gif[/img]

[Machiavelli]

Last time I checked not liking the war and thinking the war is a disgrace says nothing negative about the soldiers who are doing their job and following orders.

[Merlin]

Originally posted by Machiavelli:
Last time I checked not liking the war and thinking the war is a disgrace says nothing negative about the soldiers who are doing their job and following orders.

That's like rooting for the Raiders but not wanting them to play or win. It is liberal hypocrisy to cover their a$$es, because most of the public DOES support our troops. However remember in Vietnam our troops according to them were "baby killers".

[98v6]

That's like rooting for the Raiders but not wanting them to play or win. It is liberal hypocrisy to cover their a$$es, because most of the public DOES support our troops. However remember in Vietnam our troops according to them were "baby killers".

Wow. Both, a political label AND a football analogy. Look dude, first of all liberal is a meaningless word when used as a noun. Second of all, how does it cover anybody's ***? Honestly, what do "liberals" have to gain from not liking the war but still wanting our kids to come home OK? To complete your ridiculous analogy logically, why don't you say that it's like rooting for the raiders but hating the owner of the team?

[Merlin]

Originally posted by 98v6:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />That's like rooting for the Raiders but not wanting them to play or win. It is liberal hypocrisy to cover their a$$es, because most of the public DOES support our troops. However remember in Vietnam our troops according to them were "baby killers".

Wow. Both, a political label AND a football analogy. Look dude, first of all liberal is a meaningless word when used as a noun. Second of all, how does it cover anybody's ***? Honestly, what do "liberals" have to gain from not liking the war but still wanting our kids to come home OK? To complete your ridiculous analogy logically, why don't you say that it's like rooting for the raiders but hating the owner of the team? </font>[/QUOTE]WOW are you all really this dumb? First of all you made NO point at all. Let's analyize that genius post of yours.

Honestly, what do "liberals" have to gain from not liking the war but still wanting our kids to come home OK?

I mean, WOW, I don't know why dont you tell me. You are one.

NOW, let me try to explain something in simple words for you to understand. If liberal pansies like you and Mr. Kerry criticize the troops YOU LOSE the elections. Thats why you criticize the war and NOT the troops. You get it now, even a blind moron like you should be able to.

[95fbirdkid]

hey 98v6

[Skapimp]

Originally posted by Merlin:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by 98v6:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />That's like rooting for the Raiders but not wanting them to play or win. It is liberal hypocrisy to cover their a$$es, because most of the public DOES support our troops. However remember in Vietnam our troops according to them were "baby killers".

Wow. Both, a political label AND a football analogy. Look dude, first of all liberal is a meaningless word when used as a noun. Second of all, how does it cover anybody's ***? Honestly, what do "liberals" have to gain from not liking the war but still wanting our kids to come home OK? To complete your ridiculous analogy logically, why don't you say that it's like rooting for the raiders but hating the owner of the team? </font>[/QUOTE]WOW are you all really this dumb? First of all you made NO point at all. Let's analyize that genius post of yours.

Honestly, what do "liberals" have to gain from not liking the war but still wanting our kids to come home OK?

I mean, WOW, I don't know why dont you tell me. You are one.

NOW, let me try to explain something in simple words for you to understand. If liberal pansies like you and Mr. Kerry criticize the troops YOU LOSE the elections. Thats why you criticize the war and NOT the troops. You get it now, even a blind moron like you should be able to. </font>[/QUOTE]Hahaha, first off, stop using the word liberal like it's AIDS or something.

2nd... the reason why people anti-war talk down about the war is becuase, well.. ANTI-war. We can look beyond the soldiers fighting and know it isn't their choice to fight, they are given orders. It's called a chain of command. We are angry at the people that force our soldier's to fight, that put them in harms way, when themselves will never fight.

I remember looking back through photo galleries online and I saw George W on the battlefield... oh wait... I forgot, he dodged the war.

How about this.. if the ****er won't fight himself, then he shouldn't be able to send others. Talk about being hypocritical.

[98v6]

If liberal pansies like you and Mr. Kerry criticize the troops YOU LOSE the elections. Thats why you criticize the war and NOT the troops. You get it now, even a blind moron like you should be able to.

Well, first of all, look: I am not a pansy. I fully support the operation in Afghanistan. There is no cause for us to be in Iraq when we should be getting ready to face N. Korea. What if there was actually a problem with the reason the war was being fought? You surely didn't overlook this eventuality. Second of all, I am not blind and I don't appreciate your personal attacks.

[BirdOfPrey01]

Skapimp, were not our soldiers forced to fight in WW1 and WW2? Atleast our people supported those wars. Did japan not attack us?

Hey Ska, remember 9/11. Or did you forget that day already? Maybe I should link you to some pictures of burned body parts and people jumping to their death?

The middle east is flooded with terrorists that are supported by the leaders of the countries.

To say this war is pointless is to say you are unamerican and IMO you should be deported or executed.

Mighty Thor you are 100% correct. And people that dont support this war are just misinformed. Too many damn sympathizers.

People need to stop the btchning about "This war is meaning less". Because its not. I think bush is being too light. Ssaddam is gone right? Terrorist continue to attack.

The US has a weakness, we have morals and sympathy for lives. Terrorist have no morals or sympathy for life at all.

Bush should invade all of thoughs countries over there. We should kill anyone who opposes us or our allies. do not stop invading until the terrorists and opposing groups are wiped out. I know it sounds immoral but it has to be done.

If you habor a terrorist, you give him a safe place to be, and he kills other people for you. Is that not a WMD. The terrorist himself is a weapon for these countries. These arab nations do just about nothing to stop them, or they do lazy attempts to stop them. So I think its time we go into these countries, kill anything that is hostile, and seperate the good people from the dangerous people.

[mjparme]

Merlin, you debate in the classic Ad Hominem style. So your posts are worthless unless you debate the issues rather than the person:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-hominem.html

Furthermore, our reason for being in Iraq is a circular argument. It is claimed that we are there because the terrorists attacked us; however, terrorists only attack us because we stick our nose in everyone's (other country's) business, take sides, and the people on the side we don't take hate us.

If we would stop sticking our nose in everyone's business they wouldn't attack us.

It is irrelevant whether the Iraqi people are better off now than they were. It wasn't our job to stick our nose in Iraq's business and make their life better. Nor do I like my tax money being spent liberating Iraq. I would rather have that money in my pocket. If the Iraqi people wanted freedom they were free to pick up arms and liberate themselves. Since they never did I guess they didn't want freedom to bad.

Feel free to call me a liberal pansy if you like although you would probably be better off debating the merits of my argument. Plus I am not a liberal I am a Libertarian (http://www.lp.org) and although the first five letters are the same the definition of the two are quite distinct.

BTW, I served four years in the Army so if you call me a pansy it won't be true anyway.

[ June 03, 2004, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: mjparme ]

[hawgs]

Originally posted by Skapimp:
Hahaha, first off, stop using the word liberal like it's AIDS or something.

2nd... the reason why people anti-war talk down about the war is becuase, well.. ANTI-war. We can look beyond the soldiers fighting and know it isn't their choice to fight, they are given orders. It's called a chain of command. We are angry at the people that force our soldier's to fight, that put them in harms way, when themselves will never fight.

I remember looking back through photo galleries online and I saw George W on the battlefield... oh wait... I forgot, he dodged the war.

How about this.. if the ****er won't fight himself, then he shouldn't be able to send others. Talk about being hypocritical.

It isnt the soliders choice to fight? When did the Government institute the draft and force people to go into the military? I did sleep last night so maybe I missed it... please enlighten me. Every single person serving in the Military signed up for it out of their own will. Lets not live in the liberal foo-foo fantasy world and pretend everything is peachy and perfect.

You bring up Bush's military past... you should not for three reasons:

1. Your bestest buddy Clinton dodged the draft
2. Your other buddy Kerry defended Clinton and said that a persons military background should not be a reflection on their ability to run the country.
3. Kerry used his minor injuries to get him out of the war. He missed 2 days of service for his injuries on the 3 purple hearts he "earned" because of a scratch that resembled a fingernail scratch that were all fixed by a bandaid.

I am not trying to portray W as a great war hero, because he is anything but that. He did serve in the National Guard, whether thats a cop out for being in the war or not can be debated just like Kerry's scheme to get out of the war. I don't think we can totally condemn GWB. Sure he comes across as a partying guy who might have skipped the war but there are an equal number of Dems who did the same thing.

Frankly it's tacky to question anyone's military service.