I know I sound offensive in my tone. But after losing my brother and feeling the pain day after day that this war takes more American lives, and Iraqi lives too. I am just so ashamed at the blind supporters of his illegal war. The troops need to come home alive that is sporting the troops.
I found this in the NY times. Written by several soldeirs, seeargents and staff seartegns in Iraq. I'm sure it will bring a lot of boos from bush supporters. But maybe it will open some of their eyes to the soldeirs perspective and the truth. Maybe some of the faithful bush spportesrs will see thoguh the lies as I did and wake up. I could only pray for that. The soldeirs must come home safe and alive.
-------
the authors Buddhika Jayamaha is an Army specialist. Wesley D. Smith is a sergeant. Jeremy Roebuck is a sergeant. Omar Mora is a sergeant. Edward Sandmeier is a sergeant. Yance T. Gray is a staff sergeant. Jeremy A. Murphy is a staff sergeant.
The excerpt follows:
2007-08-21
06:21:54
·
19 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Other - Politics & Government
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=382d41dce944e5b2&ex=1345176000&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
2007-08-21
06:23:28 ·
update #1
In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal.
Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.
2007-08-21
06:23:42 ·
update #2
I appreciate your candor and honesty righty.I know it comes from the heart.You are right .The answer to your question is the troops are smart and they know what's up.The bush supporters are in denial and they are too blind to realize they need to wake up.I still don't understand why he even has any supporters left.Everyone else is jumping from this sinking ship including his advisors like Tony Snow.
2007-08-21 22:37:19
·
answer #1
·
answered by kenn d 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
War is justifiable if you are defending yourself (in this case - your country) so the real question comes down to - are we defending america - the real answer is - NO
That being said - lets recognize the quagmire for what it is now - we are there - we are fightiing - and we have people dying there - what do we do about it? It doesnt matter who supports whom at this point or what the root cause of it is - the fact that it exist and needs to be addressed is what counts - so how do we address it??
The solution - bring them home where they belong - the longer we stay there the worse it gets - the more our people will die - the more the outside world will hate us - the more we get entangled with the things going on over the - just bring them home and all those problems disappear
Jeeper-Creeper: Congress passed a resolution but did NOT follow the constitution - so - in effect we broke our laws - Cngress, according to the constitution, is the ONLY group who has the authority to declare war on another countyr AND that was NOT done going into Afganistan or Iraq - regardless of what resolution they passed WAR was never declared
As for anyone else stupid enough to believe the war is justified - all bush did was replace the "cold war" with the "war on terror".
If this "war on terror" was a real war
1. what country are we at war with?
2. how do we know when we win the war?
3. how do we know when the war is over?
You can see how it is an open ended war - if you cant you need to get some mental glasses - there is no way to win - by declaring a "war on terror" we have basically set ourselves up to be the "world police" - if you dont see the inherent dangers in this you guys are much worse off then I thought.
2007-08-22 00:44:41
·
answer #2
·
answered by jimkearney746 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I listened to Rush that day and heard him today. He was talking to a caller who referred to soldiers who support the war as "real soldiers". The caller was talking about the habit of the press to find only soldiers that are against the war. Rush referred to a man who called himself a Ranger and Green Beret as a phony soldier and the few others like him that have lied to the press. The man was kicked out of the Army before he left recruit training. He was none of the above. For more information check out "The Winter Soldier" by the John Kerry group. There is a "soldier" wearing what could be described as a drum major uniform that looks something like a marine uniform. In one picture he has no legs and is an wheel chair, in another picture this same man is striding up the stairs to the capital building with healthy legs!!! No aids, no cane, no crutches! The left has created phony soldiers to further their agenda now and in the 70s. To end; Rush Limbaugh has not called anyone but the frauds phony soldiers. Excite I don't think you understand the meaning of that word fascists.
2016-04-01 09:48:16
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because the support has never been about the troops and has always been about the president. You see the troops are all suppose to be republicans and to a certain extent it's true. But they also have a good idea about the decision process and that they're nothing but pawns in this.
The troops were used for the political gains of one party over the other. This can never happen again!
Maybe we can't leave Iraq as it is right now . We probably need to re-institute the draft but that will be left for the next president.-
2007-08-21 07:56:39
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Funny how Cons (see some examples above), who are always yelling about how much they supposedly support the troops, get all huffy and try to negate the opinions of these sergeants who have actually seen what is going on over there.
These guys have stated that members of the Iraqi Army and Police, entities that we have expended buckets of blood and billions of dollars in creating, are actively murdering US troops.
But (according to the Cons) above, guess they must be lying or don't know what they've seen with their own eyes because they're not generals.
Elitist conservative scum, anyone?
2007-08-21 07:39:44
·
answer #5
·
answered by celticexpress 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
The main reason Bush and his CIA led contigency wont pander those questions is because they are in cohoots with Israel to create a middle eastern roadmap. Since 1953 the conservatives have made it a practice to confound nations like Iran by meddling into their governments. The latter has caused resentment and it plays into the hands of the Republican run military strategist. At one point Iraq was supported by the United States in a war against Iran. They knew it was wrong as the Iranians, through a company called
Conoco, wanted to share its reserves with the U.S., as well as imitate democracy but the arrogance of the leaders like John Mccain only cared about typifing earnest supplications for communication as anti israeli rhetoric. This has affected Iran/European relations. The iraqis and Iranians did not want Saddam Hussein and that has been accomplished. The military did a quick and effective job of removing him from office. However Dick Cheney and his prior involvement with dummy corporations within Iran is the drive for prolonging this war and waging more doubt against Iranians who seek nuclear aspirations much like Pakistan and Israel did in violation of non proliferation treaties. You see if Iran is independent of oil or natural gas and grows as a european or oriental commerce trade partner than the United States loses out on all aspirations of safely pipelining AFrican oil through Iraq and the Suez to Europe.
2007-08-22 10:27:59
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
People, who support Bush, do not care unless it is their friend, relative, or family member who gets killed. Therefore, that is why Bush's daughters have not served in Iraq.
When John McCain's son VOLUNTARILY joined the military, he would receive treatment as a king and never witness any front line duties. Also, Prince William or Henry knew, as a young adult, what he was getting into within the British military. However, he did not have to report for duty or he owuld have been treated "royally" if sent to Iraq. These two examples get treated based upon their surname and who they are in life.
Is not every man created equal. I believe this was stated by a REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT, Abraham Lincoln. Therefore, why the hypocrisy now from the Bush Administration. Obviously, no respect for any son or daughter.
If there shall be a military draft into the Republican Iraq War, where no weapons of mass destruction were found, will see how many hypocrite Bush supporters 18-25 make mad dashes to the borders for escape. Send them first, they got us into this Iraq War on false accussations and will get the rest of U.S. residents out who do not support Bush.
Beer-Hall Putsch on the Bush Administration anyone?
2007-08-21 06:32:26
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
1⤋
ok the point you have to remember is there are all kinds of religions and all kinds of political beliefs in our military..yes some soldiers speak out that they don't like the way the war is going.. they have that right to do that.. with that said soldiers also have the right to speak up for the war..does it make either side right .. hhmm no..i have read lots of comments on here but this is the best i know how t put it... we went to war with a goal of stopping terrorism.. this was in Afghanistan .. it was found out that Iraq was supporting terrorism..pls remember they were paying families money if they're kids would blow them selves up in Israel..they were also supporting various groups of terrorists across the world..i hate that we have lost any lives in a war..with that said go look how many we lost at Normandy..the soldiers that have paid the ultimate price for us is small when considering what we lost in only one battle..am i pro military .. yep..does desert storm and shield ring a bell ? 9 and a half months in the sand.. how many lives were saved then.. think of how many lives are being saved now..yes you might not agree with my points but think of the soldiers that have given their lives so that the Iraqi people may live like us..if you was in their shoes would you want us to stay or go back to the killing rooms ?
2007-08-21 10:23:33
·
answer #8
·
answered by leh..llc 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
I AM a Bush supporter. I grieve for the deaths of ALL on both sides who have died.
I agree, our staying there may make things worse IF THEY ARE HOSTILE TOWARDS US. Please consider what happened in Japan, Germany and Italy AFTER WWII. They had a complete turn around. Germany and Japan became world leaders; their economies the envy of the world.
It is up to the Iraquis; to change, or to keep on keeping on.
They have been killing each other for thousands of years...The Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Summerians and oh, so many others, have spilled blood on those sands.
Killing, raping, plundering is in their blood, their DNA.
Again, would you rather we fight them there...or here?
2007-08-21 09:57:30
·
answer #9
·
answered by Nothingusefullearnedinschool 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Typical con responses. "fight over here or there" "get behind the troops". etc.
The only way to support the troops s for them to live and not die in vain as your brother did. They don't seem to care about teh troops or they would want them to live. Dying for Bush's war is worse than anything I can imagine.
2007-08-21 11:30:20
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋