Marines Sound Off About The Iraq War Options

[flydangler]

Exactly how I previously described these stories, raw bits and pieces assembled to suggest that this is the way things should be: propaganda.

Geez Louise, now ABC News ain't good enough? 'Tis certainly not part of the GOP propaganda machine, methinks definitely not part of PAO for the Corps, eh? What sources are you inclined to accept?

[heart]

Let's find some military personnel that are not part of your propaganda story and see what they have to say too okay? Is that acceptable? You know, marketplace of ideas...otherwise known as a significant portion of the concept of "democracy".

The Boston Globe is at it again. This piece describes a mother's fear and discouragement of her son joining the military.

I don't want to be here. Duty is why I am here. I know that is a foreign concept to some people. You support your nation. Especially in times like these.

I really miss my family. But they understand why I am here. Have you ever had to explain to a five year old boy that you are going away and may never come back? Have you had to put it in words that he would understand? Take out WMDs, Take out global politics. It boils down to this:

“Daddy has to go to a place called Iraq. It is very far away. There are bad people there. Daddy is going to kill them, and they are trying to kill me. Daddy is one of the good guys, and the good guys fight the bad guys. Sometimes the good guys win, and sometimes the good guys get killed. But daddy doesn't want the bad guys to come here and hurt you and mommy and Adelle. I love you too much to let that happen. Even if it means that I may die.”

So discourage your son. Tell him there are other ways to "serve." Tell him to carry a sign, protest, do whatever he wants, but stay at home and be safe. Be a sheep, because other men will take it upon themselves to be sheepdogs and protect you from the wolves.

Feel free to question their methods and motives. Feel free to burn the flag they wear on their uniforms. Feel free to do what you want to do with your life, because they have bled, they have sacrificed; they have given more to you than you will ever give to them.

Just don't ever look them in the eye and call them brother.

Don't ever consider that you are a peer of these men and women. Because they know what sacrifice means. They know what freedom is, and what it costs. They know what it feels like to be scared to their very souls and continue to fight.

I would like to talk to her son. I would not glorify or even try to otherwise recruit him. I would simply tell him that in a couple of years, he will have the option to join. He will be able to make that decision of his own free will, which, in and of itself is a freedom that was guaranteed by the blood of so many others like me. He will not be pressed into service; he will not be forced to serve. He is able to make the choice, like so many others, to do what he wants to do. To do what he thinks is right.

If able to serve, do so. If not, support those who do. Protesting doesn’t support the nation any more than not voting supports a candidate. Simply, I don’t like what you are doing so I am going to protest it to show that I don’t support what you are doing. Because I live in a free country, where I can say/do what I want, I will protest, which shows my support for my rights, and in turn, the country. If you represent my county, and I don’t support you, I still support you by protesting you, because my protesting shows how much freedom I have.

I’m sorry if that doesn’t make sense. I can’t make it make sense no matter how many times I write it.


There’s a rant in here somewhere. I’ll make it very brief, as I have a meeting to get to.

Stay at home and protest all you want. Don’t support me, or my government. I would be here regardless of who was in office, if not here, then elsewhere doing the same thing. Be safe, be happy, live your life. But don’t ever think that I will consider you equal, because without me, you wouldn’t be able to do any of it.

“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

John Stuart Mill
English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)

Chuck
http://tcoverride.blogspot.com/

[real_democrat]

Propaganda, you include the DailyKOS, Counterpunch, and Al Jazeera under that heading also, don't you?  I was wondering because that is where a good deal of the supporting evidence I see being post by the "ever increasing majority" on this board.

I am not referring to those on this board. I am referring to the majority of your fellow citiczens, 60% of whom oppose the war. Your posts almost all come from the same source, and contain no factual information, except for unconfirmed anecdotes, and the repeating of lies and delusions long ago exposed. I doubt that Congressman Freedom Fries is wondering if he was lied to and decieved from his extensive time spent on al-jazeera or the dailyKOS. When you are not pasting the work of US military public relations department, you are either ridiculing those who disagree with you, or changing the subject. These are the tactics of someone who has embraced a position the overwhelimg evidence does not support.


Need more sources....
http://www.davidcorn.com/

A March 8, 2002, options paper prepared by Blair's national security aides noted that Iraq's nuclear weapons program was "effectively frozen," its missile program "severely restricted," and its chemical and biological weapons programs "hindered." Saddam Hussein, it reported, "has not succeeded in seriously threatening his neighbors." This paper also said the intelligence on Iraq's supposed WMD program was "poor."

The detroit free press...
http://www.freep.com/voices/editorials/eco...7e_20050617.htm

The Sunday Times of London also has reported on an eight-page briefing paper prepared for Blair that concludes the U.S. military gave "little thought" to the aftermath of a war in Iraq. The briefing paper of July 21, 2002, says that a postwar occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise and that "as already made clear, the U.S. military plans are virtually silent on this point."

That memo appears prescient, given the unfolding of events since the toppling of the Hussein regime and the continuing casualties among U.S. forces and Iraqis.

From Blomberg...
U.S. Lawmakers Unveil Bill to Force Troop Withdrawals From Iraq
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=100...=top_world_news

The Wall street Journal
Republican Strains Emerge Over Iraq
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB....html?mod=blogs

Members of Congress appear unsettled by the difficulties on the ground in Iraq and the international criticism of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, but also are likely reading polls showing doubts among voters. A Gallup poll taken this month shows that six in 10 Americans want the U.S. to withdraw some or all of the 140,000 troops currently stationed in Iraq. A survey this month by the Pew Research Center found that 46% of U.S. adults supported an immediate withdrawal of all troops, up from 36% last October.

[heart]

Friday, June 17, 2005
Balls instead of Bombs

Some of the soldiers in our unit get together with some of the local villagers for a weekly game of soccer. Soccer in this part of the world (they call it football) is like football in the U.S. They are very passionate about the sport, begin playing at a young age, and follow their favorite teams. Personally, running up and down a field chasing after a ball in 100+ degree weather looks a little like "work" to me so I haven't actually played yet. Not to mention the Iraqis are really good at this sport so we usually take a schlacking (They even loaned us some guys in order to even the odds). However, I did take some photos at the last game in order to show you some more good stories you won't see on the evening news.

They even beat us playing bare-footed. Since most of these guys grew up without any shoes they can tolerate just about anything. It wouldn't surprise me a bit to see one of them walk over a bed of hot coals.



http://www.uppermansblog.blogspot.com/

[real_democrat]

Let's find some military personnel that are not part of your propaganda story and see what they have to say too okay?  Is that acceptable? You know, marketplace of ideas...otherwise known as a significant portion of the concept of "democracy".

The Boston Globe is at it again. This piece describes a mother's fear and discouragement of her son joining the military.

I don't want to be here. Duty is why I am here. I know that is a foreign concept to some people. You support your nation. Especially in times like these.

I really miss my family. But they understand why I am here. Have you ever had to explain to a five year old boy that you are going away and may never come back? Have you had to put it in words that he would understand? Take out WMDs, Take out global politics. It boils down to this:

“Daddy has to go to a place called Iraq. It is very far away. There are bad people there. Daddy is going to kill them, and they are trying to kill me. Daddy is one of the good guys, and the good guys fight the bad guys. Sometimes the good guys win, and sometimes the good guys get killed. But daddy doesn't want the bad guys to come here and hurt you and mommy and Adelle. I love you too much to let that happen. Even if it means that I may die.”

So discourage your son. Tell him there are other ways to "serve." Tell him to carry a sign, protest, do whatever he wants, but stay at home and be safe. Be a sheep, because other men will take it upon themselves to be sheepdogs and protect you from the wolves.

Feel free to question their methods and motives. Feel free to burn the flag they wear on their uniforms. Feel free to do what you want to do with your life, because they have bled, they have sacrificed; they have given more to you than you will ever give to them.

Just don't ever look them in the eye and call them brother.

Don't ever consider that you are a peer of these men and women. Because they know what sacrifice means. They know what freedom is, and what it costs. They know what it feels like to be scared to their very souls and continue to fight.

I would like to talk to her son. I would not glorify or even try to otherwise recruit him. I would simply tell him that in a couple of years, he will have the option to join. He will be able to make that decision of his own free will, which, in and of itself is a freedom that was guaranteed by the blood of so many others like me. He will not be pressed into service; he will not be forced to serve. He is able to make the choice, like so many others, to do what he wants to do. To do what he thinks is right.

If able to serve, do so. If not, support those who do. Protesting doesn’t support the nation any more than not voting supports a candidate. Simply, I don’t like what you are doing so I am going to protest it to show that I don’t support what you are doing. Because I live in a free country, where I can say/do what I want, I will protest, which shows my support for my rights, and in turn, the country. If you represent my county, and I don’t support you, I still support you by protesting you, because my protesting shows how much freedom I have.

I’m sorry if that doesn’t make sense. I can’t make it make sense no matter how many times I write it.
There’s a rant in here somewhere. I’ll make it very brief, as I have a meeting to get to.

Stay at home and protest all you want. Don’t support me, or my government. I would be here regardless of who was in office, if not here, then elsewhere doing the same thing. Be safe, be happy, live your life. But don’t ever think that I will consider you equal, because without me, you wouldn’t be able to do any of it.

“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

John Stuart Mill
English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)

Chuck
http://tcoverride.blogspot.com/

Nice try. It tugs at the heartstrings, but it does not address why we send such dedicated folks off to fight a nation that posed no threat to us. Sorry, but if the writer was not in Iraq, we would still be able to do what we want, since they are not protecting you and I from anything. They are fighting the wars of clueless old men, as it has always been. They are fighting for the few, the powerful, the wealthy.

Encourage your children not serve these liars? Hell yes.

[heart]

I am not referring to those on this board. I am referring to the majority of your fellow citiczens, 60% of whom oppose the war. Your posts almost all come from the same source, and contain no factual information, except for unconfirmed anecdotes, and the repeating of lies and delusions long ago exposed. I doubt that Congressman Freedom Fries is wondering if he was lied to and decieved from his extensive time spent on al-jazeera or the dailyKOS. When you are not pasting the work of US military public relations department, you are either ridiculing those who disagree with you, or changing the subject. These are the tactics of someone who has embraced a position the overwhelimg evidence does not support.
Need more sources....
http://www.davidcorn.com/
The detroit free press...
http://www.freep.com/voices/editorials/eco...7e_20050617.htm
From Blomberg...
U.S. Lawmakers Unveil Bill to Force Troop Withdrawals From Iraq
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=100...=top_world_news
The Wall street Journal
Republican Strains Emerge Over Iraq
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB....html?mod=blogs

Ah...yes of course, but you do understand don't you rd: "Dissent is the HIGHEST form of Patriotism!" Therefore, I am dissenting against your "majority" who have no real idea of what they want to do about Iraq, but they know they want to do something! That's fine. There's a foreign policy section to discuss it. This is the active duty military section...and there is no more appropriate place to discuss the "NEWS FROM THE SOLDIERS". ANECDOTAL PROOF....AHH YES...AND YOUR SOURCES ABOUT HOW THE SOLDIERS FEEL ABOUT THE IRAQ WAR ARE??? Nothing more, nothing less, than what THEY, as INDIVIDUALS (that would be anecdotal in case you don't make the connection) SAY about the war, and about their military service. If you want to discuss policy, that's fine, but there is a section for that. If you want to insert that topic here, that's fine too, but some posters do not feel that this is the section to have THAT discussion...however, I"m sure other's will agree with you, and will respond. When others do NOT respond, assume FIRST that it's because that is not how they, as individuals, view this subsection of the forum....not because they could not have the discussion with you if they chose to have it.

This post has been edited by heart: Jun 17 2005, 05:19 PM

[heart]

Nice try. It tugs at the heartstrings, but it does not address why we send such dedicated folks off to fight a nation that posed no threat to us. Sorry, but if the writer  was not in Iraq, we would still be able to do what we want, since they are not protecting you and I from anything. They are fighting the wars of clueless old men, as it has always been. They are fighting for the few, the powerful, the wealthy.

Encourage your children not serve these liars? Hell yes.

That is of course your opinion. You are entitled to it. The complaint was that all of these stories about our service men and women were coming from PR sites, and so I decided to find some other sources....there is a comments section there if you would like to register your opinion about his service if you want, but I am trying to give soldiers a SAY, on the "U.S. MILITARY ISSUES" forum, not the foreign policy section. However, I'm quite certain that if this had lambasted the Bush administration and the war, you would have profered no complaint. I'm sorry that I will not oblige YOUR desire to read only those opinons that reinforce your pre-conceived notions.

I will encourage my son to serve his country...one in the military, because that's what he wants to do, and the other in the Peace Corp...because that's the way HE wants to serve his country. In any event, I have always encouraged my kids to serve their country in any way they feel suits their personalities. I discourage them from thinking only of themselves. It is to me, the American way; and so is your way....but your way is no better, no different, no more morally superior, than mine of this soldier, who sacrificed himself so you can parade around with your protest signs...hey...that's America. You wouldn't want to change that would you?

[piccadilly]

Well if Lies and Embezzlements are your concern why don't we see anything from you condemning Al Jazeera, the DailyKOS, Dahr Jamail, or Counterpunch?  All pure propaganda but we never hear a peep from you that those sources might well be unabashed horse "expletive deleted".

You turn it as if this anonymous poster by the handle of Picadilly Duck has any authority. But if you want a public statement of the Duck's ratings on the sources you list above, to catch up on all that I failed to comment, I'll be happy to oblige.

Duck Rating from 0 to 3, where 0 is small/local/low/inexistant

Al Jazeera:
factual scope: 3
factual accuracy: 2
analysis scope: 1
analysis bias: 2
opinion bias: 2
deliberate bias: 2
ingenous bias: 0

DailyKos:
factual scope: 3
factual accuracy: 2
analysis scope: 2
analysis bias: 1
opinion bias: 1
deliberate bias: 2
ingenous bias: 1

Dahr Jamail:
factual scope: 0
factual accuracy: 3
analysis scope: 1
analysis bias: 1
opinion bias: 1
deliberate bias: 0
ingenous bias: 2

Counterpunch:
factual scope: 2
factual accuracy: 1
analysis scope: 1
analysis bias: 2
opinion bias: 2
deliberate bias: 2
ingenous bias: 2

Summary
-----------
Counterpunch: highly and frequently propagandist, frequently inaccurate, poor analysis, high bias
Al Jazeera: moderately but frequently propagandist, occasionally inaccurate, limited analysis scope, medium bias
Dahr Jamail: moderately but rarely propagandist, limited factual scope, rarely inaccurate, fair analysis scope, light bias
DailyKos: lightly but frequently propagandist, rarely inaccurate, large analysis scope, light analysis bias

I never quote Counterpunch or Al Jazeera for analysis or opinion, although it might happen that I reference a third source's article published on either site.
I may eventually quote Al Jazeera for the report of some facts,
I may quote Dahr Jamail for testimony, eventually for some limited analysis or opinion with a limited scope.
I may quote DailyKos for an editor's analysis or opinion.

So now you have it, I consider:
- Counterpunch and Al Jazeera mostly as propaganda.
- Dahr Jamail as ingenously biased
- DailyKos as slightly biased.

Oh, I get it, my propaganda is bad, your propaganda is good?  My propaganda should be attacked , your propaganda is immune to criticism?  Can we say "in a pig's eye"?

No, you don't get it. Just don't sell propaganda as some kind of testimony.
As for criticizing my own opinions, I post them hear for precisely that purpose.

[heart]

Hey Duck, where did the stats come from? That would really come in handy when evaluating sites.

Oh, and yes, I have to add that Picadilly is good about sourcing....others are not so good. But, still, what Marine is posting is very typical of the stories I hear and read concerning the soldiers, so I can't say that it's "propaganda". All I can say, is the opinions of our soldiers DO MATTER, no matter what! Whether they agree with us or not. In fact, it would be really something if we, in our haste, started an anti-war movement totally unsupported by any of the men and women serving. Then I would say we were serving "ourselves" and not our soldiers at all. Hey...it's a strong possibility!

This post has been edited by heart: Jun 17 2005, 06:12 PM

[piccadilly]

You assert that "Dissent (disagreeing) with the government is the highest form of patriotism and therefore it follows that its converse would be the antithesis of patriotism or "it's lowest form"?  If this is correct, then it logically follows that anything the government does, by definition, you oppose?  Therefore, when the government decides it will pull our troops from Iraq, your dissent will be needed as it will be the "highest form of patriotism".

Heart, there has been litterally thousands of essays which have been written about this Thomas Paine quote.

It is "dissent" as the expression of disagreement and the engagement in a political confrontation as commitment to that disagreement, opposed to disagreeing but going in hiding, escaping precisely that confrontation.

This post has been edited by picadilly: Jun 17 2005, 06:11 PM

[piccadilly]

Hey Duck, where did the stats come from?  That would really come in handy when evaluating sites.

Laid them on the spot as those factors that I use to appreciate the credit I give to sources.
Eventually, you should be able to find something similar in some journalism and intelligence chapter.

This post has been edited by picadilly: Jun 17 2005, 06:16 PM

[heart]

It wasn't the quote I had a problem with....it's the accusation that failure to "dissent", does not equal lack of patriotism. This is what you implied, whether you meant to or not, when you offered this comment in your ire:

"If "Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism", it shouldn't be too hard for you to figure out it's lowest form."

Clearly, you were not thinking when you wrote that, for it does imply that the converse of dissent is "lowest form of patriotism" and if that's not what you meant to say, then I just chalk it up to anger. I realize that dissent is difficult, but I also realize that dissent from "prevailing opinion" is also difficult.

[amy]

If the military vote was 67% for Bush, I seriously doubt the vote was for "lower taxs, against abortion, and against Gay marriage.  When you are in the military you know you enlisted to fight wars.  If you are voting for the guy that put us at war, then it stands to reason that you are in favor of that war.

If there should ever come a day, when say....Bush declares himself the dictator for life of the USA (it could happen, you never know)...or some other nut-case...then I do not want the military to be on his side. 

When Alexander Hague was talking to Nixon about his options before resigning he said "Well Mr. President you have the military".  If Nixon had chosen that option and the military were all Republicans then I wonder if he could have pulled that off?  It is just plain idiotic to me to set a course that leads to the military of this country being in favor of one Party due to the opposition Party's outright belittlement of those soldiers that believe in the mission they are performing.

Yes, I guess military enlistees would be in favor of any war they were involved in...Well, maybe not necessarily be in favor of a war, but unquestioning about their duty to serve. Okay, that makes sense.
When Hague told Nixon "you have the military" what exactly do you think Nixon would have/ could have done with our military to improve his situation?

[piccadilly]

All I can say, is the opinions of our soldiers DO MATTER, no matter what!  Whether they agree with us or not.

Their opinion matters as the opinion of citizens, certainly not soldiers.
It is the military at the service of the people, not the other way around.

  In fact, it would be really something if we, in our haste, started an anti-war movement totally unsupported by any of the men and women serving.

It is actually to prevent war that democratic societies establish military institutions.

Only non-democratic nations establish and feed their military institutions as some routine instruments of foreign policy, threatening the use of force to gain whatever advantage diplomacy fails to achieve.

[heart]

I really do wish there was some "agreed upon" method of evaluating sources, but alas there isn't. The scope of opinions and interpretation of facts is a tough business, and bias is certainly inherent in every human evalution. Unless you are running something like open source software standards, or the wikipedia, it's difficult to get a large enough sample of truly informed people to correct or modify any piece of writing.

I still value the MSM because a failure on their part to present factual information can lead to serious concequences in the financial and reputational departments. They hire fact checkers at least. Everything else is just someone's (sometimes informed) opinion. All I am saying about that, is that we should not give weight to opinions disproportionately just because we agree with it...and failing that...expect to have those who disagree with the opinion call it such.

The idea of limiting the spectrum of opinion coming from the military, from the wives, mothers, sons, daughters ect...either serving or recently served in the arena of war...strikes me as narrow minded. Until and unless, there is some method of assessing the true feelings and thoughts of ALL our military personnel, we have only their stories, which are admittedly anecdotal to go by. Yet, the best journalism is anecdotal or I would not have spent so many years reading first hand tourist accounts, historical letters, or Studs Terkel writing. Reading enough of it, from a variety of sources, establishes a mid-way point where one can arrive at an approximate truth, and this may not be easily achieved if you are only reading one particular paper, even with fact checkers. The important point is to read a wide variety...otherwise you do not do the subject justice.

[heart]

When Hague told Nixon "you have the military" what exactly do you think Nixon would have/ could have done with our military to improve his situation?

God only knows what he could have, or would have, done had he listened to Hague. I don't know what Hague had in mind, but if you think about military coup's around the world there is nothing to say that Nixon couldn't have stayed in office with a strong military presence. All I know is that the comment was quite chilling to me when I first heard it. Democracy is difficult to keep. That's what I presume most of us are trying to ensure....I just do not want there to come a time when "if it's not my way, then it's not democracy". There are authoritarian Leftist dogmas' just as frightful as any that come from the Right.

This post has been edited by heart: Jun 17 2005, 06:52 PM

[amy]

If the military vote was 67% for Bush, I seriously doubt the vote was for "lower taxs, against abortion, and against Gay marriage.  When you are in the military you know you enlisted to fight wars.  If you are voting for the guy that put us at war, then it stands to reason that you are in favor of that war.

If there should ever come a day, when say....Bush declares himself the dictator for life of the USA (it could happen, you never know)...or some other nut-case...then I do not want the military to be on his side. 

When Alexander Hague was talking to Nixon about his options before resigning he said "Well Mr. President you have the military".  If Nixon had chosen that option and the military were all Republicans then I wonder if he could have pulled that off?  It is just plain idiotic to me to set a course that leads to the military of this country being in favor of one Party due to the opposition Party's outright belittlement of those soldiers that believe in the mission they are performing.

Heart,
My experiences are quite different form yours concerning why some young people enlist in the military. Though I do not question the fact that when people sign up they know that they may be fighting wars, the young people I know who have enlisted did so because they needed the discipline of the military training and they were seeking educational opportunities. Although they knew they could end up fighting in a war, not ONE person I know chose to enlist because they were enthusiastic about going to war .
Now, young people who are graduates of our elite military schools: West Point, the U.S.Naval Academy, the U.S. Air Force Academy, etc are interested in becoming military career professionals and they have made a committment to dedicate their professional lives to the military. This group I assume would have the kind of committment of which you speak-a desire to be involved in our armed forces no matter where that committment might lead-even to the battlefield and the graveyard.
Also, I think it is highly probable that some military personnel vote for the Commander-in Chief even if they would prefer the other candidate. Why? Go along with the crowd mentality, you vote for your "boss" not against him, etc. Quite frankly, the fact that only 67% of the miltary voted for Bush in a time of war surprises me-I would think it would be somewhere in the range of at least 90%.

[Acebass]

Their opinion matters as the opinion of citizens, certainly not soldiers.
It is the military at the service of the people, not the other way around.

It is actually to prevent war that democratic societies establish military institutions.

Only non-democratic nations establish and feed their military institutions as some routine instruments of foreign policy, threatening the use of force to gain whatever advantage diplomacy fails to achieve.

Thats why our founding fathers wrote a citizens militia into the constitution.

[heart]

Yes Amy, there are a lot of good reasons to join the military. I joined for all of the reasons you mentioned, and more. I joined because I felt I owed it to the United States...to defend, to honor, to protect. I joined to see more foreign places, to employ my previously acquired skills and see how they matched up against the US military expectations. I joined so that I would have training in warfare tactics and procedures dispensed by the best military in the world. I joined because this nation has saved so many people all over the world from oppression, and even when they did not succeed, they tried as hard as possible. I joined because the Soviets were a threat, they were oppressing people, and I was damn sure going to be the person who stood up, trained and ready, against them if I was called to do so. Wars of liberation were fine by me. If it had to be done, then I was going to do it. I could not go into combat, but I did what I could do best, and fully expected to go to combat if I was called. It was my honor to enlist...to take that oath...and to uphold my end of the bargain as a citizen. It did not matter to me if the war was something I agreed with, or disagreed with, it mattered that it was "one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all"...and if this government of ELECTED representatives voted to go to war, and if the commander in chief sent the country to war...it never occured to me that it was only "some" wars, or only if "some" presidents sent me there, it only mattered to me that I went when called.

[real_democrat]

I'm quite certain that if this had lambasted the Bush administration and the war, you would have profered no complaint. 

No, I have no complaint with people who agree with me, this is normal.

I'm sorry that I will not oblige YOUR desire to read only those opinons that reinforce your pre-conceived notions.

I suggested no such thing. Perhaps you are reading words I did not write, but I can never know. I have said that Marine or anyone else can post what they want, and like wise, others can post their POV.

I will encourage my son to serve his country...one in the military, because that's what he wants to do, and the other in the Peace Corp...because that's the way HE wants to serve his country.  In any event, I have always encouraged my kids to serve their country in any way they feel suits their personalities.  I discourage them from thinking only of themselves.  It is to me, the American way; and so is your way....but your way is no better, no different, no more morally superior, than mine of this soldier, who sacrificed himself so you can parade around with your protest signs...hey...that's America.  You wouldn't want to change that would you?

No I would not want to change that, but I sure do believe I can express my opinion that the Military rarely serves the people living in America, but in fact serves those in power whose main interest is increasing that power. As far as serving your country goes, you are free to believe this has some noble purpose, and I am free to believe under the current conditions, it's nonsense.