No. The have a mission to accomplish and they are doing that. It isn't about oil. 85% of Iraqi oil is under contract to a French firm (Compagnie Petrol De Francais). It has precious little to do with WMDS present in Iraq or not. Too many people confuse our playing the "WMD card" at the UN to get a security Council Resolution which would hold Iraq in violation of oter resolutions with the Congressional Authorization for offensive military operations in Iraq passed in 2002. The reasons listed in that authorization are almost identical to those contained in the Iraq Liberation Act passed in 1998.
It has something to do with casualty rates. As of 10 AM Washington time on October 5th we had 3,105 active duty deaths in the Iraqi Theater of Operations from combat causes. But, we have also lost 701 from non-combat causes. That's almost one in five deaths which were not related to combat.
And we have had wounded and injured personnel as well. Still, through December 1st of last year, 81% of those personnel medically evacuated from Iraq and Afghanistan were evacuated to be treated for non-combat illnesses and injuries.
I find that you can't turn on any news show dealing with the wounded without seeing an amputee on screen. That's remarkable, considering that less than 600 wounded personnel have lost a limb.
I list these statistics not to diminish death or being a casualty of war. I only do it to bring some perspective to the issue and show that raw emotion over those figures has led to some media sources distorting them. I have had a bellyful of elected officials jumping on the bandwagon to express concern for our troops, when I know damned well that most of them would not have given any of those men and women in uniform the time of day on September 10,2001. I have a letter in my file wherein the senior Senator from Navada and current Senate Majority Leader of the Senate considered military people to be "government employees" fifteen years ago.
As a retired Navy officer I am weary of both sides of the aisle trying to use those fine men and women as pawns in some macabre game of one-upmanship in the arena of partisan politics. I have more love and respect for the young Marine Corporal in Al Anbar Province who is trying to help civilian Iraqis in the rebuilding of their communities than all of the diseased egos masquerading as leaders in Washington, D.C. Let the troops do their job. The progress they have made is remarkable. Let them make the transition into being the trading cadre of the new Iraqi Army and be slowly withdrawn in compliance with sound military doctrine.
2007-10-06 15:25:46
·
answer #1
·
answered by desertviking_00 7
·
4⤊
1⤋
No, supporting our military doesn't mean withdrawing them, but neither does it mean sending them into a police action that will gain nothing but death and destruction for innocent citizens and the death of thousands of our young military.Ther should be a specific strategy and a foreseeable end of a mission and accomplishment of meaningful objective. I can see none of that in Iraq. In the meantime the men and women in uniform in combat in Afghanistan where the enemy is located and Osama Bin Laden is supporting Taliban and Al Quada there is a lack of military combat equipment and combat troops to overcome the offensive.
There's no reason now and never was a reason to be operating on the offensive in Iraq.
We should draw down while protecting innocent civilians in Iraq and concentrate on the terrorists in Afghnistan.
Thanks
2007-10-06 18:20:03
·
answer #2
·
answered by telwidit 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
Well I do support the troops everyday of my life. I don't have to support the war and don't have to agree with any of it but I can still send all my love and respect to the men and women that have left families behind for strangers like me. Soldiers have kept this country strong and have kept us safe they deserve anything and everything we can do to show them we appreciate what they are doing and have done.
2007-10-06 21:45:03
·
answer #3
·
answered by ncgirl 6
·
3⤊
0⤋
We are Americans. How can we fight an unknown enemy and call it a "War on Terrorism?" It doesn't make sense. Think about it, the "oil" is the subject matter here. The majority of the people who live in these countries, "have absolutely nothing." Yet, when our troops come in from America and the "coalition," we are all met with "major war equipment." None of this war equipment is "CHEAP." Yet, as poor as these countries are, they continue to "maim and kill" us, and very successfully too. Don't you know that some major countries, are supporting this war? One of them might be America. Everytime I look up, our "young" men and women must go out and "fight" for freedom. I know that the "very few" people in the countries where the "wars are," have the wealthy pockets. The rest of the "citizens" are dirt poor. Now we as Americans, have lost nearly 400,000 folk while fighting an "invisible enemy." We continue to acquire more enemies as some of our soldiers have "murdered and even raped" the innocent men, women and children of these countries. Yes, I support the troops and sadly, most of them, don't have a clue. The authority figures here in America have "lied" to them. No one can do the "impossible" and fight the "invisible." I wish all of the troops my love and compassion. Remember this, What shall we then say to these things? If GOD be for us, WHO can be against us? - Romans 8:31. The Lord daily loadeth us with BENEFITS, even the God of our salvation. Selah. - Psalm 68:19. Peace, Love and God Bless.
2007-10-06 17:42:33
·
answer #4
·
answered by In God We Trust 7
·
3⤊
3⤋
You cannot support the troops with one side of your mouth while subverting them from the other.
The troops should know that we are behind them and the enemy should know that we have not lost our resolve.
A veteran.
2007-10-06 21:06:34
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
0⤋
No. It means u support the troops for their cause. Meaning ur supporting them for fighting the War on Terrorism. It does not mean withdrawling them.
2007-10-06 17:48:33
·
answer #6
·
answered by silver_ice_dragon03 3
·
5⤊
1⤋
Supporting our troops means give them what ever it takes to win.
Being there for them in our minds and hearts and letting them know it.
Withdrawing isn't part of the definition.
A person could say, "Not letting them fight a war we already finished." If you believe this.
President Bush doesn't.
The first two no one should argue.
2007-10-06 17:44:42
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
Depends on which side of the political fence you reside...lol
I believe you can be supportive of the troops, and still oppose the war and support withdrawal.
2007-10-06 18:51:17
·
answer #8
·
answered by sage seeker 7
·
5⤊
0⤋
No, they're doing their job until it's done. Support them by not belittling the progress they've made and honoring the sacrifices (sometimes ultimate) they've given. Maybe send a care package to let them know you have pride in them and appreciate their unselfish patriotism.
2007-10-06 20:49:55
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋
Yes
2007-10-06 21:01:18
·
answer #10
·
answered by yoga guy 4
·
1⤊
1⤋