Forum - How I see the war in Iraq

O.K. first rule: you can say any thing you want about politicians, tactics, deployment any thing. EXCEPT: bad mouthing the troops. 2nd I will answer all questions and replys by adding my reply to this orgional post by edits.

I believe that this war is really a continuation of the war of the Persian Empire against the Greeks. Was that war really about being ruled by Xeres (?) the Persian ruler who only required them to kneel and acept him as god. Or was it democracy against a God-King? Or, was it about the difference and beliefs of each society in their own God's. The Greeks had many and now they were being told it would be a God-King.

Why did Xeres really want to invade Greece? For the Wealth! Money and Power, the reason foolish men go to war. Xeres had already conqured the "sub-asian" continent, the world at that time, so where's he going to get the gold to keep paying for all that war. War costs a hell of a lot of money. So warfare is basically ecconomic. Some one has something you want or need and taking it is the easiest way. Really fear. Fear of not getting what you need to keep your empire alive. Fear of not being on top, of being not being feared of anything that threatens your way of life and or beliefs.

So what I'm saying is this war started at the begining of the birth of Western Civilization and the clash of the Perisan Empire. The Birth of an new one and the stagnation of the other. This war has been going on before the birth of Jesus or Mohammed! Hey, the easiest way to start a fight is to say some one is different than we are, xenophobic is a genitic imprint which occurs for survival but it doesn't have to be continued after you're what 6 months. Hell who knows how a human learns the differences in colors of skin. Babies don't know and don't care if you're familiar to them, you can really talk to them and say any thing you want. I changed baby diapers telling my nieces how nasty smelling and rotten they were for doing That to me. But as long as you say it in the funny high pitched squeaky baby talking to voice, we all have, the baby is just happy to hear your voice and know that it has your attention.

So does it go to racism? Who the fuck knows but I' m saying it been going on and it's going to keep going on.

I really don't believe that the Governments of the "Western World" have taken this into consideraton that two different societies developed at the same time, one got beat and he's still pissed off. Look at the number of different tribes, sects and every one else who lost out in that war, they had one common enemy: the westren civilization. Lot of people to stay pissed off for a long time.

O.K. the religion question comes up. Hey, I don't care what you call it or how you worship IT is there. So what's the problem? A name? A difference in customs, what?

It's ecconomic, political and sectarial. Political controls the ecconomy and is part of the state's religious institutions. The church and state are the same political direction and that is something that Westren Civilization is not prepared for. Most European countries have some seperation of church and state and we are not prepare to face an enemy that has religious, politicial and ecconimical beliefs being directed in one direction.

That direction is one of the same that it has always been in this world. The men in power will always control the flow of the wealth. How do corrupt men stay honest? They only confer with other corrupt men. This is about who's going to control the wealth and is it really going to start to make an impact on the every day life of a person. I don't think so.

I'm just getting started.

Re: addisonxp

No. You're not thinking big enough. This war is a continuation of the Crusades. How many years did those wars last? A hundred, more?

America supported the establishment of Israel in 1948 (?). America has been seen as the force behind the enemy in the Moslem world for years so you can not blame it on one, dim witted, man.

If you remember the first terrorist attacks occured under Clinton. He didn't do anything about them. Why? Because he didn't know shit about world politics. Most politicians are like this. They get elected on what they are going to do for the country but thier job includes the responsibility of what they do in the world arena as well.

Jimmy Carter was president of the U.S. when the Shaw of Iran was overthrown. He didn't do shit. Now Iran is one of the chief state sponsors of terrorism. Regan scared the shit out of everyone.

This war is about who is going to control the natural resources of the region, the wealth, the money, and the power.

What is the diffrence between a corrupt dictator and a corrupt government? None. The people in power are the ones who control the wealth of a nation. Do you believe that the world be in this situtation if it weren't for greed. Hell, oil runs the world. Oil is wealth.

So what is the difference. The every day person will not see their lives improve if the money from oil stays in hands of a small group of people. It will be a continuation of the way life is today. Ther royal families control the money and the working people suffer. It is the same all over the world. Even here in America.

Governments and industry complain about illegal immigration but without it many industries would fail. And that is a problem.

Companies, like MicroSoft and others, regularly out source their jobs to other countries. They get their work done cheaper, paying less for labor and not having to pay American workers the wages they deserve. The companies have less expenses but continue to make more profit thereby lowering the standard of living that the people here have. It happens world wide.

There has to be a shift in the way world ecconomics are viewed. Do you want immigrants to do your job here or do you want them do do their job there?

Really, do a little research on the real reason the Soviet Union collapased. We bankrupted them. They went broke trying to keep up with the military and ignored the rest of their econommy and collapsed.

Here's another point.

"Moslem Extremists" are in many countries around the world. At least that's what their governments call them.

These are the pirates of the Burma Straights and the surrounding seas, the rebles in many fo these countries are lable as being Muslum but, are they really? In the days of Facist dictators they were called communist rebels or pirates. Even the gureilla war in the Philipines is now being refered to as "Muslum Extremists", weren't these people always thought of being communists? What has changed?

If they are Moslem people than I am sure that their interptation of their beliefs does not match the beliefs of their fellow Muslims in the world or even their area.

The point is this is a world wide issue that is being ignored. If this is truly a "Holy War" than it is a world war. Are the marxist gurs in South America going to be called "Muslum Exremists" next? I doubt it, they work for the drug cartels, now. They've even become "capatalist". Selling their services for money.

So, who is who and where is what?

This is a question I don't have an answer for and I doubt many people do. If you read Science Fiction and have read Heinline, Bradbury, Clarke and Hurbert you are aware that these people based their societies on many beliefs but the Moslem belilefs were the underlying foundation for many.

Yes, War is economics but it also a form of civil unrest of a global scale. A survey has shown that only 13% of the American people believe they live "The American Dream". The working class is being destroyed by the wealthy.

I'm not a communist or socalist but I do see the, every day, inequality of life. Those who have the money want to keep it and keep their life styles. The working class is being used by the wealthy. Has been, always will be so how do the Working Class change it? VOTE.

its very simple bush is stupid

You are not thinking big enough or looking at the total picture.

Since the fall of Sadam and his cronies more Iraqi people have died at the hands of their own country men that by the war.

This is a war about who will control the wealth of a nation not some stupid political bull shit. This war has been going on since the Crusades.

I got a chance to watch an interview on "Lou Dobbs" on CNN when he interviewed a woman journalist from Iraq and she showed pictures and stories that the American and World Press has completly ignored.

I edited my orgional post to answer your first post but, you deserve a correct reply.

War is a economic category.

This is due to the lack of moral and the lack of pay. Congress pays themselves $175,000 a year and an enlisted man only earns, depending on rank, $12,000 to $24,000. Why should they risk their lives for peanuts?

Army desertion rate up 80 pct. since '03 By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer
Sat Nov 17, 5:32 AM ET



Soldiers strained by six years at war are deserting their posts at the highest rate since 1980, with the number of Army deserters this year showing an 80 percent increase since the United States invaded Iraq in 2003.

While the totals are still far lower than they were during the Vietnam War, when the draft was in effect, they show a steady increase over the past four years and a 42 percent jump since last year.

"We're asking a lot of soldiers these days," said Roy Wallace, director of plans and resources for Army personnel. "They're humans. They have all sorts of issues back home and other places like that. So, I'm sure it has to do with the stress of being a soldier."

The Army defines a deserter as someone who has been absent without leave for longer than 30 days. The soldier is then discharged as a deserter.

According to the Army, about nine in every 1,000 soldiers deserted in fiscal year 2007, which ended Sept. 30, compared to nearly seven per 1,000 a year earlier. Overall, 4,698 soldiers deserted this year, compared to 3,301 last year.

The increase comes as the Army continues to bear the brunt of the war demands with many soldiers serving repeated, lengthy tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Military leaders — including Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey — have acknowledged that the Army has been stretched nearly to the breaking point by the combat. Efforts are under way to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps to lessen the burden and give troops more time off between deployments.

"We have been concentrating on this," said Wallace. "The Army can't afford to throw away good people. We have got to work with those individuals and try to help them become good soldiers."

Still, he noted that "the military is not for everybody, not everybody can be a soldier." And those who want to leave the service will find a way to do it, he said.

While the Army does not have an up-to-date profile of deserters, more than 75 percent of them are soldiers in their first term of enlistment. And most are male.

Soldiers can sign on initially for two to six years. Wallace said he did not know whether deserters were more likely to be those who enlisted for a short or long tour.

At the same time, he said that even as desertions have increased, the Army has seen some overall success in keeping first-term soldiers in the service.

There are four main ways that soldiers can leave the Army before their first enlistment contract is up:

_They are determined unable to meet physical fitness requirements.

_They are found to be unable to adapt to the military.

_They say they are gay and are required to leave under the so-called "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

_They go AWOL.

According to Wallace, in the summer of 2005, more than 18 percent of the soldiers in their first six months of service left under one of those four provisions. In June 2007, that number had dropped to about 7 percent.

The decline, he said, is largely due to a drop in the number of soldiers who leave due to physical fitness or health reasons.

Army desertion rates have fluctuated since the Vietnam War — when they peaked at 5 percent. In the 1970s they hovered between 1 and 3 percent, which is up to three out of every 100 soldiers. Those rates plunged in the 1980s and early 1990s to between 2 and 3 out of every 1,000 soldiers.

Desertions began to creep up in the late 1990s into the turn of the century, when the U.S. conducted an air war in Kosovo and later sent peacekeeping troops there.

The numbers declined in 2003 and 2004, in the early years of the Iraq war, but then began to increase steadily.

In contrast, the Navy has seen a steady decline in deserters since 2001, going from 3,665 that year to 1,129 in 2007.

The Marine Corps, meanwhile, has seen the number of deserters stay fairly stable over that timeframe — with about 1,000 deserters a year. During 2003 and 2004 — the first two years of the Iraq war — the number of deserters fell to 877 and 744, respectively.

The Air Force can tout the fewest number of deserters — with no more than 56 bolting in each of the past five years. The low was in fiscal 2007, with just 16 deserters.

Despite the continued increase in Army desertions, however, an Associated Press examination of Pentagon figures earlier this year showed that the military does little to find those who bolt, and rarely prosecutes the ones they find. Some are allowed to simply return to their units, while most are given less-than-honorable discharges.

"My personal opinion is the only way to stop desertions is to change the climate ... how they are living and doing what they need to do," said Wallace, adding that good officers and more attention from Army leaders could "go a long way to stemming desertions."

Unlike those in the Vietnam era, deserters from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars may not find Canada a safe haven.

Just this week, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the appeals of two Army deserters who sought refugee status to avoid the war in Iraq. The ruling left them without a legal basis to stay in Canada and dealt a blow to other Americans in similar circumstances.

The court, as is usual, did not provide a reason for the decision.

___

On the Net:

U.S. Army: http://www.us.army.mil

U.S. Navy: http://www.navy.mil

U.S. Air Force: http://www.af.mil

U.S. Marines: http://www.usmc.mil



Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or

Another way Congress fucks our soldiers. Much of this money was designated to providing our troops with bullet proof, personal body armmor designed to stop a .50 cal bullet. It has been shown on Mail Call, on the History Channel and on the Learning Channel.
An enlisted person, depending on their rank, earns $12,000 to $24,000 a year yet Congress earns $175,000 a year. If it were not for the soldiers of our country there would be not Congress or Freedom.
Congress treat their lives like the war is a political football while our soldiers die.

Democrats unable to bring troops home By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
Sat Nov 17, 5:32 AM ET



Nearly a year after anti-war voters put them in power, congressional Democrats remain unable to pass legislation ordering troops home from Iraq. Frustrated by Republican roadblocks, Democrats now plan to sit on President Bush's $196 billion request for war spending until next year — pushing the Pentagon toward an accounting nightmare and deepening their conflict with the White House on the war.

"We're going to continue to do the right thing for the American people by having limited accountability for the president and not a blank check," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Senate Republicans on Friday blocked a $50 billion bill by Democrats that would have paid for several months of combat but also would have ordered troop withdrawals from Iraq to begin within 30 days. The measure, narrowly passed this week by the House, also would have set a goal of ending combat in December 2008.

The 53-45 vote was seven votes short of the 60 needed to advance. It came minutes after the Senate rejected a Republican proposal to pay for the Iraq war with no strings attached.

Now, Democratic leaders say they won't send President Bush a war spending bill this year. They calculate the military has enough money to run through mid-February.

Responding to the congressional blockage, Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Friday signed a memo ordering the Army to begin planning for a series of expected cutbacks, including the layoffs of as many as 100,000 civilian employees and another 100,000 civilian contractors, starting as early as January, Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said.

"The memo reflects the urgency of the situation we find ourselves in — we are in a real crisis," Morrell said, noting that layoff notices to some civilian employees would have to be sent as early as mid-December. He decried Congress' refusal thus far to provide the money needed to continue fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, accusing lawmakers of "holding hostage the well-being of our men and women in uniform, and our national security."

The delay will satisfy a Democratic support base that is fiercely anti-war. But it also will give Republicans and the White House ample time to hammer Democrats for leaving for the holidays without funding the troops.

"We ought to get the troops the funding they need to finish the mission without restrictions and without a surrender date," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

At the White House on Friday, deputy press secretary Tony Fratto said the spending gap is unjustified.

"We'd rather see the Department of Defense, the military planners and our troops focusing on military maneuvers rather than accounting maneuvers as they carry out their mission in the field," Fratto said.

Since taking the reins of Congress in January, Democrats have struggled to pass any significant anti-war legislation. Measures that passed along party lines in the House repeatedly sank in the Senate, where Democrats hold a much narrower majority and 60 votes are routinely needed to overcome procedural hurdles.

In May, Republicans agreed not to stand in the way of a $95 billion bill that would have set a timetable for troop withdrawals. Bush rejected the measure and Democrats lacked the two-thirds majority needed to override the veto, as Republicans anticipated.

Democrats eventually stripped the timetable from the bill and sent Bush the money without restrictions on force levels. The move was an unpopular one with many Democratic voters who say Congress should cut off money for the war.

As the year progressed, Democrats hoped for Republican defections. But a drop in violence this fall in Iraq helped to shore up GOP support for the war.

On Friday, only four Republicans joined Democrats in voting for the Iraq measure: Sens. Gordon Smith of Oregon, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Susan Collins of Maine and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.

Sen. Christopher Dodd was the lone Democrat opposing it because he said it did not go far enough to end the war. Other Democrats, including Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, said they too opposed the bill as too soft but that they supported advancing debate.

"The only way to end the war is with a firm deadline that is enforceable through funding," said Dodd, D-Conn.

Democrats acknowledge recent progress made by the military in Iraq but contend the security will be short-lived unless the Iraqi government reaches a political settlement.

"We need to do more than say to the Iraqis that our patience has run out and that they need to seize the opportunity that has been given them," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. "Their dawdling will only end when they have no choice."

Republicans on Friday tried to counter with an alternative proposal that would have paid $70 billion toward the war without restrictions. That measure failed by a vote of 45-53, falling 15 short of the 60 needed to advance.

Republicans said there were appalled by Sen. Chuck Schumer's comment, reported by The Associated Press on Thursday, that the Bush administration wouldn't get a "free lunch."

Schumer, D-N.Y., had told reporters that unless Bush accepted the restrictions, the Defense Department would have to eat into its core budget.

"The days of a free lunch are over," he said.

Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan said Schumer's comments were "unbelievable," and Rep. Heather Wilson said the senator should apologize to the troops.

"Sen. Schumer only wants to fund pay, body armor and chow for the troops if he can put conditions on the money so that they cannot do the mission they have been ordered to do," said Wilson, R-N.M.

The Pentagon confirms the military will not run out of money until mid February, after which all Army bases would cease operations.

___

AP Military Writer Robert Burns contributed to this report.

___

On the Net:

Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov

Pentagon: http://www.defenselink.mil/

Here's some more shit about the military and Congress. Congress wants to stop the budget for the war but wants to spend more money on equiptment. Who is fucking Whom?

Marines to cut armored vehicle orders By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer
57 minutes ago



The Marines plan to buy fewer bomb-resistant vehicles than planned despite pressure from lawmakers who are determined to spend billions of dollars on the vehicles.

The Marine Corps' requirement for mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles would drop from the planned 3,700 to about 2,400, The Associated Press has learned. The Marines would not comment on the decision, but defense officials confirmed the cut. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision has not been announced.

About a month ago, Marine Commandant Gen. T. James Conway signaled the possibility of a new examination of the commitment to the vehicles, saying he was concerned his force was getting too heavy. "I'm a little bit concerned about us keeping our expeditionary flavor," he said.

At the same time, an independent study by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington questioned whether the Pentagon was buying too many of the pricey vehicles, which can cost as much as $1 million each. The study found that in some cases, the heavily armored vehicles, with their bomb-deflecting V-shaped hulls, might not be the answer that many believe they are.

Military officials and other experts have said that while the vehicles, known as MRAPs, are lifesavers in Iraq and Afghanistan, they are not as useful or mobile in some terrain.

The Marine Corps was criticized this year for not responding quickly enough to urgent requests for the vehicles from troops in Iraq. In May, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the vehicles were the military's highest priority acquisition program.

In his comments last month, Conway said the Marine Corps has emerged as a "second land Army," assigned to secure Iraq, and must buy heavy equipment, including the mine-resistant vehicles, for protection against roadside bombs.

"Can I give a satisfactory answer to what we're going to be doing with those things in five or 10 years? Probably not," Conway said at an event sponsored by the Center for a New American Security. "Wrap them in shrink wrap and put them in asphalt somewhere is about the best thing that we can describe at this point. And as expensive as they are, that is probably not a good use of the taxpayers money."

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill, buoyed by the vehicle's solid record — to date no troops have died in one — have consistently said the military must buy more and must buy them faster.

___

On the Net:

Defense Department background on the vehicles: http://tinyurl.com/yv45f9

I've read that some Americans like to walk in T-shirts labeled with "Bush F**ng Cowboy" or something like this. Is it true?

I don't know I haven't seen one or heard of it. I know we Vietnam vets used to have a T-shirt that said "Viet Vets eat in the Bush" and "Viet Vets eat American Pie."
Deffinetly a referal to DATY.

:D))
And did it have any effect?

A few times I got some good results :) a few times comments about being rude. My best T-shirt was: Caution: Vietvet, Contents under Pressure May Detonate Upon Contact!

Back to Story - Help
Torture chamber found in Iraq By BRADLEY BROOKS, Associated Press Writer
Fri Dec 21, 12:57 PM ET



Blood-splotches on walls, chains hanging from a ceiling and swords on the killing floor — the artifacts left a disturbing tale of brutalities inside a suspected al-Qaida in Iraq torture chamber. But there was yet another chilling fact outside the dirt-floor dungeon. Villagers say they knew about the torment but were too intimidated by extremists to tell authorities until now.

Stories such as these — claims of insurgent abuses and the silence of frightened Iraqis — have emerged with increasing frequency and clarity recently as U.S.-led forces push deeper into former extremist fiefdoms and forge alliances with tribes seeking to reclaim their regions.

The reports and tips now pouring in build a harrowing portrait of rule under al-Qaida and its backers: mass graves, ruthless punishments, self-styled Islamic courts ordering summary executions.

Such a lead brought soldiers earlier this month to the hidden room in Muqdadiyah, about 60 miles north of Baghdad, the U.S. military said Thursday. Graffiti on the building proclaimed "Long Live the Islamic State" — a reference to the Islamic governance, or caliphate, sought in Iraq by Sunni extremist groups that include al-Qaida.

Scrawled in white paint above a bed in the torture area was a Quranic phrase in Arabic normally used to welcome a guest. But the context suggested only sadistic mockery: "Come in, you are safe."

The floor was littered with food wrappers, plastic soda bottles and electric cables that snaked to a metal bed frame, presumably where detainees were shocked, according to the U.S. account of the discovery during a Dec. 8-11 mission.

The rooms "had chains, a bed — an iron bed that was still connected to a battery — knives and swords that were still covered in blood," said U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Mark P. Hertling, the top U.S. commander in northern Iraq.

Nearby were nine mass graves containing the remains of 26 people, he said.

Villagers knew about the torture site, but did not tell authorities as they were afraid of reprisals from the militants, a local policeman told The Associated Press. He spoke on condition of anonymity as he was still afraid of being targeted by extremists.

He said he thought the chamber had been used for a year.

It was not the first such torture chamber discovered in Iraq. But it serves as a reminder of the extremist grip in parts of Iraq despite growing optimism as violence continues to fall.

And Diyala province — where the grisly discovery was made — remains one of the most volatile regions as U.S. and Iraqi forces struggle to match the clear advances against extremists made in Baghdad and the western desert of Anbar.

The province is mixed between Sunnis and Shiites — often called a "little Iraq" and a remnant of Iraq before sectarian bloodletting partitioned many parts of the country along religious lines. Diyala's capital, Baqouba, also is the self-proclaimed seat of the insurgents' caliphate.

"I think that is why al-Qaida wants that province so very much, because it is 'a little Iraq,'" Hertling said. "It gives them access to Baghdad and it also ... is considered their caliphate capital."

American commanders say they are a long way from declaring victory in Diyala.

The weapons caches found during the Muqdadiyah raids included a surface-to-air missile launcher, sniper rifles, and 130 pounds of homemade explosives, Hertling said.

"You know, there's going to be continued spectacular attacks," he said. "Are we confident we can protect it? As soon as I say, 'Yeah, we're confident,' it's going to blow tomorrow."

It was not the first apparent torture site found after U.S. forces moved into former extremist strongholds.

In March, U.S. troops discovered a similar site in the village of Karmah just west of Baghdad that was used by Sunni insurgents for torture and summary executions. They rescued two Iraqi captives, who apparently had been spared immediate execution because the militants' video camera broke and they wanted to film the killing.

The captives told U.S. soldiers they had been sentenced to death by an insurgent court and had the choice of either beheading or a fatal gunshot.

Both Sunni insurgents and Shiite militia death squads regularly torture their captives before killing them — sometimes with power drills. Most of the hundreds of bodies that have turned up in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq show signs of torture.



Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.


Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Inc. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Send Feedback | Help

Awful.
Whatever to say, war is the most devilish and cursed kind of business nowadays.

I just wanted to quote the person who started this column in one area and then speak my mind on this.



I totally agree with this. Bush pushed out saddam because he was opressing the people. now bush is forcing his ways down their throat what is the difference? Should he be tried for being the exact same way? Bush is dumb the honest to god truth is that if you watch him speak in any of his TV addresses he seems like he belongs in special ed. It is my opinion that someone else has to be pulling his strings. Though I am not saying he is not just as guilty as that person though I doubt that person will never be named or drawn to the forfront for the things they are influencing bush to do.

There were no wepons of mass distruction though bush used that to get the peoples approval to go there. I don't think saddam had any ties to the terrorists that planned 911 though that was said as well. Saddam was his own person creating his own oppression. He seemed to be a leader not a follower of the 911 bombers. At least that is my opinion. from the very start I was against us going there personally. However, with the country still licking its wounds from 911 and because there were so many sopposed threats happening and high alerts ect. many people wanted to believe that the bush would not exploit our faith in him. So they gave their vote and their trust.

Supprisingly enough when sadam was caught the people of Iraq were actually happy it seemed. Up to that point there were not many troops dying over there. The overall happyness of the people I watched on TV as they together took down a statue of their oppressor made me feel like although there were no wepons of mass distruction and I was upset bush put the troops in danger for something that had no relivence to our nation and obviously had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks, maybe something good came out of it afterall. Maybe we helped a nation that needed help.

However, that feeling quickly faded for me when I realized that bush was not content on helping the people there. although he wanted it to look like a humanitarian effort after it was found that they had no wepons of mass distruction, it became more and more obvious with each passing day that he wanted something out of Iraq. Not just to help the people. The iraqi people started hurting and killing the troops more than before when we came into the country and we had a clear enemy then sopposedly it was saddams regime. It is so obvious that the people there were happy at the beginning but now want us to leave. Its pathetic and why shouldn't we. we would have made a friend if we would have left when we should have and perhaps even gotten better deals on oil and other importaint things. However, even if we pull out now we have damaged that relationship we could have had with them and we have damaged our reputation to the world. We look like a bully now that exploits other countries weeknesses just so we can come in help and then list our demands. If we want them to be free.... then why not let them make the decision on weather they want help and what kind of help they want.
Maybe I just don't get it but to me it looks like we are sending alot of good people over seas that are putting their lives at risk for a foolish presedents dream of taking up where his daddy left off

to me it seems more like he is playing the role of a concorer but trying to pretend it is just to help them get on their feet.

How many soldures have to die before bush understands that we are not wanted there? I think if he is so committed he should grab a gun and go fight and risk his life for his war as well.

On a final note about the war, I have known alot of people who have gone to afganastan and to Iraq. I even thought of joining the airforce at one point right when the war started in afganistan (so they could help me pay for college when I got out of it) my father was a soldure who volunteered for the draft during the vietnam war. he volunteered cause he knew he would be drafted regularly anyways and I guess there is some sort of benifit for them if they volunteered instead of waiting for the draft at eather rate he was part of the 101 airborne. So I am not anti soldure. I am just anti bush....lol

and with that I end my long winded speach about that there was one other thing I wanted to touch on though. I agree that there have always been wars fought over not so noble causes like this one. I liked what you wrote it really made me thing about alot of things.

I would lastly like to appologize for my awful spelling. I am not too educated. I went and got my GED and hope to go to tech college eventually. but there is no spell check on here and I cannot live without my spell check....lol

:(
I know that many people are sure that bush pushed out saddam just because of the oil fields that are very profitable in Iraq. Anyway I am sure that human rights are just the cause and nothing more!