Personal Committment to Iraq War

Iraq is very similar to Viet Nam in that it will end in a civil war. In fact, it is already a civil war but we being told it is "sectarian violence." Which is doublespeak for civil war.

 

I would not send a son or a daughter to Iraq if it were my choice, I would however go myself if it were possible to serve in someone elses place.
Iraq is not like Viet Nam, it is worse.

 

The US committment in Iraq is about the same size as
the Organized Crime committes to the war for turf in
Chicago. Well, the deaths are about the same.

 

I would not send, or go myself to fight in Iraq. I don't believe in this war, I think we should have spent our time and resources finding the people behind our attack.



Jamie

 

"Sectarian Violence" vs. "Civil War"

=

A distinction without a difference

 

Yes to both.

The Iraq invasion removed a dictator and his heirs who were a threat to the security of the region and the US. Saddam had committed to aggression against neighbors twice and many times against minorities in his own country. A debate is not required over whether he would acquire and employ WMD's. He already had. He had also expressed ambitions to see WMD terrorism against the US.

This question is very much akin to "If you could go back to the 30's knowing what we know, would you volunteer or send your child to disarm Hitler in his early days of violating Germany's disarmament?"

Your argument might be "But Saddam wasn't Hitler". My response is "He never will be nor will Usay or Qusay."

As tragic as each lost life is, they are probably saving thousands if not millions by dealing with the acorn rather than the full grown tree.

 

The US Revolution was largely a civil war between rebels and loyalists. Were the ideals being fought for worthwhile then? If then, why not now?

 

I will be willing to go and die in Iraq, or send my sons and daughters to go.
That was my answer.
But only because this country, thru those who govern it, sends me or my sons and daughters.
Until somebody is up there in the saddle with guts enough to break away, then I am compelled to do so, and compelled to have my sons and daughters go.
Call it old fashioned, but, I feel bound by the word Duty.
Personally, I no longer have any flame for that war. I think we are wasting money, time, and precious blood on idiotic, warlike, factious people who would rather be ruled by tyrants that I think of them to be like pigs who would go back and wallow in the mud as soon as they are let out because that is what they are by nature, pigs.

 

No way would I go to Iraq to fight in Bush's war. Canada would be my choice if I were drafted.

 

Australia is warmer ..

 

If that is really how you feel Terry why not go now? If you would be unwilling to follow the laws of this country and honor you duties to it then please leave. It is not Bush’s war, it is our war, we elected Bush remember. If you throw out the laws of our nation and our system of elected government just because you disagree with the current elected officials then I think you should go to Canada.

I have been to Iraq. I would go again if asked, I would be proud if my sons or daughter were to serve. Of course I don’t want them to die, but I know what honor and duty are and so do they.

Iraq is nothing like Vietnam. Iraq posed a real threat to the region around them. They still have untapped wealth in their oil reserves, and through the terrorists they supported they posed a real threat to civilians even in the United States. If we are successful in establishing a real democracy in that part of the world the dividends could pay for generations.

I am not willing to say that Vietnam was a mistake. Certainly there were many mistakes about the way we fought that war. We should have never pulled out and left our friends to die. The idea that the United States of America is willing to fight for freedom anywhere in the world is good and I wish it were more true. Fighting the Vietnam war was not the mistake, loosing it was. And the people who lost it were not the soldiers but the politicians and protesters.

 

Nobody sends their kids off to be killed.

If one of your children became a police officer, you'd likely be proud of them, even knowing that some police do get killed.

When I was in the service I went where I was told. My son is in the service and he goes where he's told. And I am proud of him.

 

Bush is responsible for it. He was pushing for it, when smarter people were advising caution. History will judge it as Bush's war, regardless of the way it comes out.

You think North Vietnam didn't? Saddam's military was a pitiful remnant of his former forces, unable to challenge anyone.

Bingo. Remember when "oil from Iraq would pay for the war?"

If we could just outlaw hailstorms, it would also be a great thing.

If the American people are not behind the war, we won't win. And they aren't. This is the way a democracy works. Or is supposed to.

 

Thousands of self centered cowards made the same choice during Vietnam.

 

I think the Iraq war is different from Viet Nam because of the draft. That is why I don't think there will ever be the groundswell opposition to it that happened with the Viet Nam War.

 

One thing we should have learned from Vietnam is that the military can win all the battles while politicians and the media make sure they lose the war.

Sound familiar?

 

Problem with that idea is it's not true at all. It sounds really good and serves the purposes of those in power that wish to gain control of the resources of other countries and bring their people under the total control of the "international community" and it's private central bankers, public private partnerships and hightech militarized and federalized (international integrated) police, big brother warrantless surveilence state like we are now alright, but It does nothing to free anyone or defend this country it does just the opposite making us weaker as a nation and brings us all that much closer to being slaves. We're being conditioned like dogs to trust and even love our new global masters. You can't defend America by selling out it's soul (founding principles, constitution) and giving unaccountable globalist elites the power to over rule and dictate to our government and the people it's supposed to represent.

You say you believe in freedom yet you are willing to go fight on the side of the international community that is not only stealing your freedom away but telling you and your children that dying for "the cause" is an honor and duty? That's crazy! You want to defend your honor and do your duty to this country? Then defend it against those willing to sacrifice it all on the altar of globalism. Globalism is their cause, not mine and not your's if you are an American that really cares for this country and all it once stood for. Imho.

 

That's ambiguous - worse in what way?

 

I think you could use the terms civil war, sectarian violence, rebellion, and probably some others to refer to the American Revolution.

My point is that there is no real difference in saying "sectarian violence" or "civil war"--it's a game of semantics. The government uses "sectarian violence" because "civil war" would reflect too negatively on the policy. I, not being in politics, prefer to call a spade a spade. Iraq is in civil war.

As far as the ideals go, if these Iraqi factions were actually interested in an free government, I might have a different view. The Revolutionary Americans could not be compared to these Iraqi factions with any depth. They were both rebelling against the government...and that's about it.