67 replies to this topic

[Nick]

Gina, on Sep 11 2004, 03:41 PM, said:

Isn't it the soldiers right to join the military? I'm pretty sure there hasn't been a draft (that I know of) so this young man would have had to join of his own free will, right?

^Joining the military is entirely voluntary in the United States.  Although, leaving the military isn't until you've fulfilled your obligations.  Soldiers can't be shipped to Iraq and decide to resign.  Doesn't work that way.  At best you can get a medical discharge, or you go to jail or get dishonorably discharged (which basically ruins your life).

Not to say that our men and women over there aren't proud of what they're doing or they're doing this against their will--but I'm sure there's more than a few soldiers who would *really* much rather be home.

That's one of the big reasons why I'll always have the utmost respect for our military.  I may (and often do) disagree with the policies they're enacting and the way they're doing things.  But a soldier's job isn't to make policy or question orders.  And they're risking and losing their lives to follow those policies and orders.  And they can't go home and call it a day until they're told to go home and call it a day.  And they could be called right back at a moment's notice.

Yeah, lots of respect for those guys and gals.  Also a lot of the reason why there's no way in hell I'd sign up for military service.

-Nick

[Ogami]

Rhea wrote:

Actually, no, Congress did *not* see accurate intelligence. There are a number of people on both sides of the fence who say they would have voted NO on the war had they seen accurate intelligence and been fully aware that there were likely no WMD's in Iraq.

But isn't wishing for perfect godlike military intelligence an absurd expectation?

Many people forget, all Saddam had to do to stay in power was to cooperate fully with inspectors and show he didn't have these things. Bush's demand was that Saddam let us increase our valid, accurate intelligence, Rhea. Saddam refused.

Since Saddam stonewalled our inspectors, we had to go on the intelligence we had, which was understandably sparse from a police state. The choice was Saddam's.

-Ogami

Edited by Ogami, 11 September 2004 - 03:22 PM.

[Bouree57]

Rhea, on Sep 11 2004, 03:00 PM, said:

Bouree57, on Sep 6 2004, 04:49 PM, said:

Congress saw and agreed.

-- B

Actually, no, Congress did *not* see accurate intelligence. There are a number of people on both sides of the fence who say they would have voted NO on the war had they seen accurate intelligence and been fully aware that there were likely no WMD's in Iraq.

So Congress didn't see what GWB saw? Didn't they both see the same intellegence? And what about Tony Blair and Great Britian, what did they see?

Anyone can say that if they had the "whole" story, they would have voted differently. But Bush would have had a different approach as well had he been given the whole story. Maybe we still would have gone to war in Iraq because there is more than just one reason we went. WMD was but one reason Bush gave in his speech to the nation.

-- B

[Delvo]

Bouree57, on Sep 11 2004, 04:04 PM, said:

So Congress didn't see what GWB saw? Didn't they both see the same intellegence?

Many on the anti-Bush side claim exactly that, and that it's because Bush's operatives gave them filtered reports. But every article I've seen about it doesn't specify anything that was supposed to be missing from any version and can only describe differences of format and arrangement of the information. Apparently people who said "Show me all of the information" got something with the information laid out and organized differently from the reports given to people who said "Show me your arguments, make your case, for going to Iraq"

[Bouree57]

Delvo, on Sep 11 2004, 06:23 PM, said:

Bouree57, on Sep 11 2004, 04:04 PM, said:

So Congress didn't see what GWB saw? Didn't they both see the same intellegence?

Many on the anti-Bush side claim exactly that, and that it's because Bush's operatives gave them filtered reports. But every article I've seen about it doesn't specify anything that was supposed to be missing from any version and can only describe differences of format and arrangement of the information. Apparently people who said "Show me all of the information" got something with the information laid out and organized differently from the reports given to people who said "Show me your arguments, make your case, for going to Iraq"

That certainly fits with what I've read. All the news reports talk about the "intellegence" as though it was one big black box. Nowhere does it say that GWB got one version and Congress got something else. The intellegence was what they knew at that time.

I've yet to hear anyone in Congress say that they didn't get the same information that GWB got. Maybe they are waiting till the day before the election to drop that bomb on us.

-- B

[Cheile]

G1223, on Sep 8 2004, 07:24 AM, said:

I am sorry the soldier is dead.   I simply do not agree with his or his sister's opinion. I keep thinking that folks who want peace want it be appeasing guys like Saddam.

i'm a little late on this--and while i too feel sorry for the soldier's family, i'd have a question of my own for them and the people who only hate Bush to get some satisfaction out of hating Bush.  doesn't that little Iraqi girl in the photo with the soldier deserve the same freedoms American girls have??

because she sure as hell wouldn't get it under a regime like Saddam's was.  she'd have been oppressed, abused and sold off to suit her father in "marriage" and likely die of further types of abuse i won't name.  and oh yea--probly be forced to birth a few kids to continue the disgusting cycle.

now, at least, she might have a chance.  only time will tell.

[edit: for the record i'm NOT a Bush supporter--he's disappointed me so he's not getting my vote this time--Kerry is.  but i get tired of ppl who hate Bush just to hate and without valid reasons.]

Edited by Cheile, 11 September 2004 - 10:34 PM.

[Nonny]

Nick, on Sep 11 2004, 08:08 PM, said:

^Joining the military is entirely voluntary in the United States.  Although, leaving the military isn't until you've fulfilled your obligations.

True, it is voluntary, has been since 1973.  No longer true that you can leave upon fulfilling your obligations.  Not only can you get stop-lossed, but you can be called back to active duty within five years of retirement.  How many Americans in the private sector would put up with that?      

Nonny

[Nonny]

nutmeg, on Sep 9 2004, 04:02 PM, said:

Simply put, our leaders can be wrong, have their own agendas, and  it is not patriotism to march behind their flag. That behavior,  IMHO,  is to support wrongful action  to the ultimate detriment of our country. As citizens of our country and of the world, it is our duty to hold our elected leaders accountable for what is done supposedly in our name - not in the name or  financial gain of a select few. Our world standing and over-all policy interests at home and the world dictate that we hold our leaders accountable for actions. Obviously, our country is divided (for many reasons) on who is to lead this country and what goals we should be working for - now and in terms of what we are leaving to future generations.

I reread this post, nutmeg, to quote this.  You said it well.  

Sgt Campbell was not only disillusioned with the leadership, he was in Iraq past his scheduled return date.  He was killed while on involuntarily extended duty.  

I'd like to see Bush held responsible.  I'd like to see the voters fire him for a job done badly.  

Nonny