U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% want to get the hell outta there

[asim99]

now that's what they call low morale

http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075


An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and nearly one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows.

[d_jedi]

Not surprising. Would you want to be over there, or back at home? Hmm.. tough choice ...

[poedua]

Not surprising

74% of the soldiers responding were either on their 2nd or 3rd tour of duty...once would be enough for me .....or most people I'd think
....if anyone asked them in an interview if they should get out within a year I'd expect 100% of these 2nd or 3rd tour guys to say yes :)

Also seems it is the guys who shouldn't be there in the first place who really want out ( 89% of reserves and 82% of those in the National Guard said the U.S. should leave Iraq within a year , 58% of Marines think so.)

[i6s1]

Most want the mission to be over so they can go home. But since the mission isn't over, most sign up for another tour. Of course they want to go home, but that's not the same thing as low morale.

Or do 72% think that the mission will be over in a year?


I wonder what the exact wording of the question is.

If it really was do you want "to get the hell outta" here? (To borrow Asim99's wording) I think that it would be more then then 72% saying yes.

Would you rather be here or at home with your family? 100% would answer "home", 0% would answer "here"

[poedua]

Most want the mission to be over so they can go home. But since the mission isn't over, most sign up for another tour. Of course they want to go home, but that's not the same thing as low morale.

Or do 72% think that the mission will be over in a year?



I wonder what the exact wording of the question is.

Good point...i don't think I saw the word "morale" noted anywhere in the article.

Also, wonder what % of respondants were soldiers, what % were officers

[i6s1]

Good point...i don't think I saw the word "morale" noted anywhere in the article.

Also, wonder what % of respondants were soldiers, what % were officers

It also seemed like a lot of women were surveyed, it says 3 in 4 questioned were men. I don't think that this is representitive, I thought women would be fewer then 1 in 4 soldiers in Iraq.

[simplyno]

shocking. I definately would want to stay in a place where theres a good chance everyday that I could be blown up by a suicide bomber or a roadside bomb.

[FastFokker]

It also seemed like a lot of women were surveyed, it says 3 in 4 questioned were men. I don't think that this is representitive, I thought women would be fewer then 1 in 4 soldiers in Iraq.
Really? I would have thought it'd be much higher than 1 out of 4. There are a lot of women in the military, unfortunately (or not) there's a lot of a positions in the US Military for which females are excluded.

Perhaps the lack of females in specific roles is what leads to the perception of so few. I'll try and dig up some stats, it would be interesting.

As for this topic, seems like everyone wants the US out of Iraq. Iraqis want them out, US Soldiers want to get out, US Citizens want their country out, Other nations want them out.. yet they remain.

This has turned into a major lose-lose proposition. Stay, you lose. Leave, you lose. American has truly fudged this operation up and should stop exercising it's authority on the world.

YOU'RE GROUNDED FOR THE NEXT 2 DECADES!

[FastFokker]

http://www.armyg1.army.mil/hr/demographics/FY03ArmyProfileWebVs.pdf

http://img459.imageshack.us/img459/687/gender9bl.gif

[blackhawk]

the OP has an agenda and a side hence his personal comments implying that "low morale" and "get the hell outta there" was anywhere in the survey

unsurprising results and actually thought the troops must be fairly well motivated after many being extended and the fact there are a lot of national guards there (generally part time and have families)

[asim99]

when a soldier is crying to go to mommy, rather than finishing the mission at hand (a mission that was wrong to start with, and is getting worse everyday), it tells me what kind of morale he has, what kind of trust he has in his leadership, or how coward he is

they are in the middle of a mess they created, and now they want to bail...sounds like horribly cowardly to me

[insanity]

They should do a poll to see how many US citizens want to get out of the US :lol:

[i6s1]

http://www.armyg1.army.mil/hr/demographics/FY03ArmyProfileWebVs.pdf

http://img459.imageshack.us/img459/687/gender9bl.gif

1 in 5.5 soldiers is male... does this extend to the Iraqi theater? I'd have to assume so, women are excluded from front line combat, so I don't see any reason that the ratio should be lower in Iraq, the ratio is likely the same or higher.

[65505201]

when a soldier is crying to go to mommy, rather than finishing the mission at hand (a mission that was wrong to start with, and is getting worse everyday), it tells me what kind of morale he has, what kind of trust he has in his leadership, or how coward he is

they are in the middle of a mess they created, and now they want to bail...sounds like horribly cowardly to me

I think you're just trying to find any excuse to bash the States and its army.

Many soldiers want to go home. Are you calling them cowards because they're afraid of random roadside bombings and deadly attacks? Getting shell-shocked and being shot at isn't exactly my idea of fun. There's an another thread in OT about "why do you get up to go to work every morning." Are you really that surprised that these soldiers find it a tad harder to get to 'work' everyday?

Now, knowing the deadly implications of service in Iraq, these solders are still leaving their families behind to serve their country. A REAL coward would've taken a train to Canada and skipped duty. So far, I haven't heard of any major stories of soldiers skipping duty.

As for the mess they started, keep in mind that it was the politicians, not the soldiers that started this war. If you want to bash somebody, bash the person that was actually responsible, i.e. GW.

O wait. Nevermind. You already take every opportunity to bash the States.

EDIT: I'm sure you're going to comment on how these soldiers are all there voluntarily. Many didn't anticipate serving extending tours when they signed up for the education/experience packages that the forces offered.

[poedua]

when a soldier is crying to go to mommy, rather than finishing the mission at hand (a mission that was wrong to start with, and is getting worse everyday), it tells me what kind of morale he has, what kind of trust he has in his leadership, or how coward he is

they are in the middle of a mess they created, me what kind of morale he has

You've looked the the objective data and drawn a subjective and erroneous conclusion IMO ......."a soldier is crying to go to mommy " ( your spin only ) ....... "tells me what kind of morale he has " ( a spurious conclusion )

As I said before, 74% of the soldiers responding were either on their 2nd or 3rd tour of duty....these guys already HAVE dnoe their part for the mission at hand....of course they want to go home in year....it's morale and nothing to do with morale or "mommy ". And again, only 58% of Marines agreed that less than 1 year is the way to go...almot 80% of the part-time force wants to get the hell out of there...this deployment scenatio was not of the scenario when they signed up in the Guard.

" they are in the middle of a mess they created, and now they want to bail...sounds like horribly cowardly to me "...Americancan't win...they decide to stay and they're called invading terrorists...the muse about leaving
and they're called " cowardly " ... "coward he is "

Americans are many things ...and i don't agree with the rationale for this invasion...but the Americans are anything but cowards.......terrorists who purposely target civilans.....bombing civiilans in buses, markets, restaurants, hotels and schools...killing innocent infants, women and elderly...that is cowardly IMO.

[poedua]

I think you're just trying to find any excuse to bash the States and its army.

Many soldiers want to go home. Are you calling them cowards because they're afraid of random roadside bombings and deadly attacks? Getting shell-shocked and being shot at isn't exactly my idea of fun. There's an another thread in OT about "why do you get up to go to work every morning." Are you really that surprised that these soldiers find it a tad harder to get to 'work' everyday?

Now, knowing the deadly implications of service in Iraq, these solders are still leaving their families behind to serve their country. A REAL coward would've taken a train to Canada and skipped duty. So far, I haven't heard of any major stories of soldiers skipping duty.

As for the mess they started, keep in mind that it was the politicians, not the soldiers that started this war. If you want to bash somebody, bash the person that was actually responsible, i.e. GW.

O wait. Nevermind. You already take every opportunity to bash the States.

EDIT: I'm sure you're going to comment on how these soldiers are all there voluntarily. Many didn't anticipate serving extending tours when they signed up for the education/experience packages that the forces offered.

Well said

[FastFokker]

Americans are many things ...and i don't agree with the rationale for this invasion...but the Americans are anything but cowards.......terrorists who purposely target civilans.....bombing civiilans in buses, markets, restaurants, hotels and schools...killing innocent infants, women and elderly...that is cowardly IMO.Not that I'm justifying the acts you described, but what exactly do you recommend they do?

They're doing all they can with what they have.

Again, I'm not giving an excuse or justification, but I wouldn't call them cowardly. Strapping yourself with bombs and blowing up yourself and others is pretty crazy, but not cowardly.

[vladislav]

when a soldier is crying to go to mommy, rather than finishing the mission at hand (a mission that was wrong to start with, and is getting worse everyday), it tells me what kind of morale he has, what kind of trust he has in his leadership, or how coward he is

they are in the middle of a mess they created, and now they want to bail...sounds like horribly cowardly to me

Others said it well, you just have your own agenda and fail to even look at the situation with untainted eyes. This poll is pretty obvious and doesn't say anything of what you are trying to imply. Wake up, I think you are the only one here who stirs s@#t up and then swims in it because nobody else sees it the way you want them to.

[FastFokker]

How about the recent poll of Canadians asked about whether we should be in Afghanistan?

Wasn't it something like 3/4 of those polled said Canada should get out of Afghanistan?

Quite shocking and interesting. I never did like polls though.

(Edit) Google result on the topic:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/weinreb030106.htm


The pollster questioned 1,000 Canadian adults between February 16 and 19 and the margin of error was determined to be 3.1 per cent. In answer to the question, "If you were an MP would you vote in favour of sending troops to Afghanistan?" only 27 per cent of respondents said "yes". Sixty two per cent replied that they would vote against sending the troops despite the fact that Canada has 2,300 troops currently on the ground in Afghanistan.

[poedua]

Not that I'm justifying the acts you described, but what exactly do you recommend they do?

They're doing all they can with what they have.

Again, I'm not giving an excuse or justification, but I wouldn't call them cowardly. Strapping yourself with bombs and blowing up yourself and others is pretty crazy, but not cowardly.

Good points.

I didn't agree with the timing of the invasion of the circumstances that led to it - not to say it wouldn't of happened at some point in the future.

But the US is there,......it is what it is.......that's the reality. They clearly need to outline the speicific objectives that need to be met before a pull-out is considered an option i.e what " stability " in Iraq actually means. Timelines should fall from there....determine the clear objectives, determine the resources required to meet and stay till they are met ....if it means 1 year, 2 years, 5 year or even 10 years...so ne be it, whatever it takes. I personlly think they'll be there another 10 years is some way shape or form.

[poedua]

Others said it well, you just have your own agenda and fail to even look at the situation with untainted eyes. This poll is pretty obvious and doesn't say anything of what you are trying to imply. Wake up, I think you are the only one here who stirs s@#t up and then swims in it because nobody else sees it the way you want them to.

It think you're right...some of the interpretations of the poll data seem to be a bit of " leap " :)

I do wonder what the response would have been, if they'd been asked if another 2/3 years was an option ...if in return...i.e another 2/3 years the probability of the lives of Iraqi's would have been significantly improved.

Sometimes it's the questions that aren't asked that may be relvant to deciding the validity of a poll

[asim99]

dropping not-so-smart bombs from the comfort of thousands of feet above in the sky is pretty cowardly, especially knowing that innocents are very likely to get killed

looks like all the high tech gear, and specially fitted vehicles are not enough to console these cowardly souls

the talk of stirring and swimming in one's own s@#t storm, pretty much describes american position in iraq

[frugalman]

looking at those stats, there should be some hottie girl asian officers in the corp

[asim99]

Again, I'm not giving an excuse or justification, but I wouldn't call them cowardly. Strapping yourself with bombs and blowing up yourself and others is pretty crazy, but not cowardly.
yup...it is insane, crazy, terrorizing...but cowardly? hell, no

[klai]

now that's what they call low morale

http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

Aww... the kids got tired of playing soldier. Now send them home for some breast feeding.

[danfromwaterloo]

now that's what they call low morale

http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

Yeah, next thing you'll tell me is that 81% of soldiers don't like being shot at, 74% don't like the idea of being beheaded, and 12% think Iraq isn't that hot.

Lets face it, nobody wants the troops to be in Iraq except American politicians. Fact is, the WORST thing they can do though is pull out, because the void left will become a complete breeding ground for chaos. Its situations like this that result in Talaban-esque governments from taking power.

[asim99]

Lets face it, nobody wants the troops to be in Iraq except American politicians. Fact is, the WORST thing they can do though is pull out, because the void left will become a complete breeding ground for chaos. Its situations like this that result in Talaban-esque governments from taking power.
yes, and yes

the only problem is that it did not have to be this way

btw: in case you did not know, taliban are still quite influential in parts of afghanistan, and karzai rule is very limited outside the confines of kabul...i wish afghanistan issue was paid more serious attention to

[poedua]

dropping not-so-smart bombs from the comfort of thousands of feet above in the sky is pretty cowardly, especially knowing that innocents are very likely to get killed

looks like all the high tech gear, and specially fitted vehicles are not enough to console these cowardly souls

the talk of stirring and swimming in one's own s@#t storm, pretty much describes american position in iraq

I would say that dropping bombs deliberately / intentionally on civilan targets is an act of terror..and cowardly.

Look at the Americans and Hiroshima. Clearly, the aim of dropping the bombs on Hiroshima/ Nagasaki was to coerce or influence the policy of the Japanese Government into unconditional surrender by attacking and intimidating the civilian population. The message was to provide the Japanese government a very clear public demonstration that any further resistance by them would result in unimaginable levels of civilian (and military) slaughter and destruction. On that basis.....the actions of the US ( by dropping Atomic bombs on civilians ) could be seen to be acts of terror.

By your defintion, you now admit that the insurgents...are "cowardly, especially knowing that innocents are very likely to get killed "...thanks ! Finally we agree. !

But, the US bombing now in Iraq on specific military/ insurgent targets is with surgical strikes with NO INTENTION of targetting civilians. Can civilians die when a bomb drops. Yes. Do the Americans target these civilans with bombs. No. Do they try and minimize civilans causualties. Yes. Do the insurgents tryu and minimize civilans causualties with their bombs. No.

Now, if on the other hand you have some evidence that the US intentionally targets civilans...present it and we can debate it.

[asim99]

while on this topic, joel stein's column (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-stein24jan24,0,1789435,print.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions) in l.a.times is an usual brave act of dissent in american mainstream media


Warriors and wusses
Joel Stein

January 24, 2006

I DON'T SUPPORT our troops. This is a particularly difficult opinion to have, especially if you are the kind of person who likes to put bumper stickers on his car. Supporting the troops is a position that even Calvin is unwilling to urinate on.

I'm sure I'd like the troops. They seem gutsy, young and up for anything. If you're wandering into a recruiter's office and signing up for eight years of unknown danger, I want to hang with you in Vegas.

And I've got no problem with other people — the ones who were for the Iraq war — supporting the troops. If you think invading Iraq was a good idea, then by all means, support away. Load up on those patriotic magnets and bracelets and other trinkets the Chinese are making money off of.

But I'm not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken — and they're wussy by definition. It's as if the one lesson they took away from Vietnam wasn't to avoid foreign conflicts with no pressing national interest but to remember to throw a parade afterward.

Blindly lending support to our soldiers, I fear, will keep them overseas longer by giving soft acquiescence to the hawks who sent them there — and who might one day want to send them somewhere else. Trust me, a guy who thought 50.7% was a mandate isn't going to pick up on the subtleties of a parade for just service in an unjust war. He's going to be looking for funnel cake.

Besides, those little yellow ribbons aren't really for the troops. They need body armor, shorter stays and a USO show by the cast of "Laguna Beach."

The real purpose of those ribbons is to ease some of the guilt we feel for voting to send them to war and then making absolutely no sacrifices other than enduring two Wolf Blitzer shows a day. Though there should be a ribbon for that.

I understand the guilt. We know we're sending recruits to do our dirty work, and we want to seem grateful.

After we've decided that we made a mistake, we don't want to blame the soldiers who were ordered to fight. Or even our representatives, who were deceived by false intelligence. And certainly not ourselves, who failed to object to a war we barely understood.

But blaming the president is a little too easy. The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they're following orders or not. An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying. An army of people ignoring their morality, by the way, is also Jack Abramoff's pet name for the House of Representatives.

I do sympathize with people who joined up to protect our country, especially after 9/11, and were tricked into fighting in Iraq. I get mad when I'm tricked into clicking on a pop-up ad, so I can only imagine how they feel.

But when you volunteer for the U.S. military, you pretty much know you're not going to be fending off invasions from Mexico and Canada. So you're willingly signing up to be a fighting tool of American imperialism, for better or worse. Sometimes you get lucky and get to fight ethnic genocide in Kosovo, but other times it's Vietnam.

And sometimes, for reasons I don't understand, you get to just hang out in Germany.

I know this is all easy to say for a guy who grew up with money, did well in school and hasn't so much as served on jury duty for his country. But it's really not that easy to say because anyone remotely affiliated with the military could easily beat me up, and I'm listed in the phone book.

I'm not advocating that we spit on returning veterans like they did after the Vietnam War, but we shouldn't be celebrating people for doing something we don't think was a good idea. All I'm asking is that we give our returning soldiers what they need: hospitals, pensions, mental health and a safe, immediate return. But, please, no parades.

Seriously, the traffic is insufferable.

[Byrns]

when a soldier is crying to go to mommy

What a chicken **** comment. :mad:

Until you've picked up a rifle and walked the line in a war zone you have no right to comment on any soldier's cowardice or morale. I wonder how many soldiers in WW2 "wanted to go home" after seeing their buddy's blown to bits?

My respect for you just dropped.

[klai]

What a chicken **** comment. :mad:

Until you've picked up a rifle and walked the line in a war zone you have no right to comment on any soldier's cowardice or morale. I wonder how many soldiers in WW2 "wanted to go home" after seeing their buddy's blown to bits?

My respect for you just dropped.
I think he has scorn for these US soldiers who went in with their head held high, thinking like the god designated saviour of IRAQ, but now when things get tough, they start whinning and wanna back out...

Don't take it too personally, you might be an old guy who fought in WWII or know someone who did, but I'm certain in many people's eyes...these Americans are the Nazi of our generation...and who would give credit to the bravery of the Nazi soldiers anyways?

[Nemodigital]

I think he has scorn for these US soldiers who went in with their head held high, thinking like the god designated saviour of IRAQ, but now when things get tough, they start whinning and wanna back out...

Don't take it too personally, you might be an old guy who fought in WWII or know someone who did, but I'm certain in many people's eyes...these Americans are the Nazi of our generation...and who would give credit to the bravery of the Nazi soldiers anyways?
So far I dont see too much whinning and asking to back out. I do think the faulty intelligence on Iraq should be investigated into and someone should be held accountable. The troops are doing what they signed up to do, serve their country.

[klai]

So far I dont see too much whinning and asking to back out. I do think the faulty intelligence on Iraq should be investigated into and someone should be held accountable. The troops are doing what they signed up to do, serve their country.
obviously, they're not feeling very gung ho about this war now. Whether they're serving their country or mother theresa, it makes no difference. They're serving a cause that most of the world oppose for a country that's not mine....I don't see people defending Nazi soldiers who were just serving their country.
so really, no sympathy, only scorn for them.

[ichpen]

yes, and yes

the only problem is that it did not have to be this way

btw: in case you did not know, taliban are still quite influential in parts of afghanistan, and karzai rule is very limited outside the confines of kabul...i wish afghanistan issue was paid more serious attention to

Of course not, but as was said earlier it is what it is so accept it. Having said that other than the usual array of US bashing I don't see anything constructive that this poll has achieved.

Do soldiers want to go home? Sure they do, take any war at any time and find me a stat that states soldiers were happy in times of war.

[asim99]

Do soldiers want to go home? Sure they do, take any war at any time and find me a stat that states soldiers were happy in times of war.
doesn't matter if they are happy or sad...they should stop whining and serve the people of iraq by repairing what they broke, and undoing the terror they have leashed on them directly or indirectly by making it a breeding ground of terrorism

their personal wants are irrelevant...at least until they openly refuse to be a tool of american imperialism

[poedua]

doesn't matter if they are happy or sad...they should stop whining and serve the people of iraq by repairing what they broke, and undoing the terror they have leashed on them directly or indirectly by making it a breeding ground of terrorism

their personal wants are irrelevant...at least until they openly refuse to be a tool of american imperialism

No one is " whining ".......they responded to a poll


"undoing the terror they have leashed on them"

"making it a breeding ground of terrorism"

"be a tool of american imperialism"

Those comments above remind me of those choice quotes we were accustomed to hearing from Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf :)

[FastFokker]

I personally am against the "war" in Iraq and the "war" on terrorism very much, but hold absolutely nothing against the military service men and women who are merely doing the dirty work they signed up for in order to better their lives.

It's not rich and well off people who are joining the military, these wars are being carried on the backs of the poor.

I wish them all safe keeping and hope as many as possible go back to their families in good physical and mental form.

They are not to blame or be made fun of just because they wish to come back home to their families and their country. I'm sure I would feel the same way if my government sent me on such a sick endeavor.

[asim99]

I personally am against the "war" in Iraq and the "war" on terrorism very much, but hold absolutely nothing against the military service men and women who are merely doing the dirty work they signed up for in order to better their lives.

It's not rich and well off people who are joining the military, these wars are being carried on the backs of the poor.

I wish them all safe keeping and hope as many as possible go back to their families in good physical and mental form.

They are not to blame or be made fun of just because they wish to come back home to their families and their country. I'm sure I would feel the same way if my government sent me on such a sick endeavor.
if it was not a voluntary army, i'd be more sympathetic to what you said

[FastFokker]

if it was not a voluntary army, i'd be more sympathetic to what you saidOne could argue that it's not truly a volunteer army considering the poverty in the US and the huge offers Military uses to swindle youngsters in.

When you're desperate and there aren't a lot of options for you, the military seems like a great way to get somewhere.

Unfortunately enlistment is down, obviously because Americans no longer trust their government and do not wish to be sent off into unsafe places with unsafe numbers and unsafe equipment doing something they don't even believe in.

That's sad.

My heart actually goes out to those service people and their families.

[poedua]

I personally am against the "war" in Iraq and the "war" on terrorism very much, but hold absolutely nothing against the military service men and women who are merely doing the dirty work they signed up for in order to better their lives.

It's not rich and well off people who are joining the military, these wars are being carried on the backs of the poor.

I wish them all safe keeping and hope as many as possible go back to their families in good physical and mental form.

They are not to blame or be made fun of just because they wish to come back home to their families and their country. I'm sure I would feel the same way if my government sent me on such a sick endeavor.

Gee FastFokker...are we starting to agree more ????? :)

"It's not rich and well off people who are joining the military, these wars are being carried on the backs of the poor. "- i agree, not unlike the dispropportinate number of poor that served in Vietnam.

I don't blame the soldiers either......I think most of them are simply doing their duty...though i also think most of them would have a hate on for any dictator like Saddam......so, they may ( who knows ) think they are actually doing something that be of long term benefit to the people of iraq...by removing a sadistic dictator. From the link...


in the minds of 68% of the troops, the real mission became to remove Saddam Hussein

And I think they really want to rid the country of these terrorist insurgents....


A majority of troops (53%) said the U.S. should double both the number of troops and bombing missions in order to control the insurgency.

[asim99]

One could argue that it's not truly a volunteer army considering the poverty in the US and the huge offers Military uses to swindle youngsters in.

When you're desperate and there aren't a lot of options for you, the military seems like a great way to get somewhere.

Unfortunately enlistment is down, obviously because Americans no longer trust their government and do not wish to be sent off into unsafe places with unsafe numbers and unsafe equipment doing something they don't even believe in.

That's sad.

My heart actually goes out to those service people and their families.
i'd recommend watching "why we fight" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0436971/) that includes discussion on american military-industrial complex, and see how an average american will never learn the truth about war

[superizzy]

now that's what they call low morale

http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

The other 28% are either crazy, stupid or both

[FastFokker]

i'd recommend watching "why we fight" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0436971/) that includes discussion on american military-industrial complex, and see how an average american will never learn the truth about warSounds interesting.. I'll watch it this week.

I sure do love documentaries! I probably watch 10-15/week.

[asim99]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/28/AR2006022801712_pf.html


More than one in three soldiers and Marines who have served in Iraq later sought help for mental health problems, according to a comprehensive snapshot by Army experts of the psyches of men and women returning from the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places.

The accounts of more than 300,000 soldiers and Marines returning from several theaters paint an unusually detailed picture of the psychological impact of the various conflicts. Those returning from Iraq consistently reported more psychic distress than those returning from Afghanistan and other conflicts, such as those in Bosnia or Kosovo.

Iraq veterans are far more likely to have witnessed people getting wounded or killed, to have experienced combat, and to have had aggressive or suicidal thoughts, the Army report said. Nearly twice as many of those returning from Iraq reported having a mental health problem -- or were hospitalized for a psychiatric disorder -- compared with troops returning from Afghanistan.

In questionnaires filled out after their deployment, more than half of all soldiers and Marines returning from Iraq reported that they had "felt in great danger of being killed" there, and 2,411 reported having thoughts of killing themselves, the report said. It did not have comparable data from earlier conflicts.

Earlier research has suggested that 12 to 20 percent of combat veterans develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which produces flashbacks, nightmares, and intrusive thoughts that disrupt work and home life. The new study found that Iraq veterans have mental disorders diagnosed at the rate of 12 percent per year.

[FastFokker]

You can post something like that and still claim you have no sympathy?

[asim99]

You can post something like that and still claim you have no sympathy?
sympathy for these indoctrinated soldiers will be akin to having sympathy for the indoctrinated suicide bombers...both are wrong, and tools serving the whims of arrogant leaders

[gman]

Not surprising. Would you want to be over there, or back at home? Hmm.. tough choice ...

I am totally suprised. I expect something close to 100%.

[poedua]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/28/AR2006022801712_pf.html

Interesting......


"Earlier research has suggested that 12 to 20 percent of combat veterans develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which produces flashbacks, nightmares, and intrusive thoughts that disrupt work and home life. The new study found that Iraq veterans have mental disorders diagnosed at the rate of 12 percent per year."

...they seem to be well below the 20% that was at the high end of the scale from an earlier study , but now come in at the bottom end at 12%...interesting.

Still in all, quite a difference from Vietnam, where 50% or so of Vietnam vets had PTSD symptoms.....Vietnam was quite a different war though...i could see it being 50%

[poedua]

sympathy for these indoctrinated soldiers will be akin to having sympathy for the indoctrinated suicide bombers...both are wrong, and tools serving the whims of arrogant leaders

I don't know of any military fighting force in history that wasn't "indoctrinated ".

All soldiers are " indoctrinated "

[ichpen]

sympathy for these indoctrinated soldiers will be akin to having sympathy for the indoctrinated suicide bombers...both are wrong, and tools serving the whims of arrogant leaders

What on earth are you talking about??? ALL soldiers are indoctrinated. You're supposed to break people and mould them to serve you. That's the whole point of an organized army. Otherwise you'd have next to nothing and dissent would be more rife than a bill on same sex marriage or something equally contentious.

The job of a soldier is to be a FOLLOWER. Your performance is judged on how well you follow orders.

[danfromwaterloo]

What a chicken **** comment. :mad:

Until you've picked up a rifle and walked the line in a war zone you have no right to comment on any soldier's cowardice or morale. I wonder how many soldiers in WW2 "wanted to go home" after seeing their buddy's blown to bits?

My respect for you just dropped.

Indeed, how in the world are we, as privledged Canadian citizens with a comfortable life ever supposed to imagine the depths of a soldier's life overseas. Imagine having to wipe the brains of your best friend off your jacket, or putting five bullets in the head of an elderly woman accidentally because you thought she had a gun. What about the constant fear that you could, at any time, be attacked with an RPG or some other form of weaponry? Or worse, the fear that instead of you dying, you get hit with a bullet and it shatters your spine, or you lose a limb?

What about the feeling of being stuck in a place you absolutely loathe, with your family on the other side of the world, in a place that doesn't want you there, with people who don't want you there - and are intent on killing you - for measely pay, fighting a war that doesn't need to be fought by you?

I may hate the war greatly, but each one of those soldiers, I respect and admire greatly, because they are doing what I would not be able to do - and to those who think that THEY can, they've played too much Quake.

[poedua]

Indeed, how in the world are we, as privledged Canadian citizens with a comfortable life ever supposed to imagine the depths of a soldier's life overseas. Imagine having to wipe the brains of your best friend off your jacket, or putting five bullets in the head of an elderly woman accidentally because you thought she had a gun. What about the constant fear that you could, at any time, be attacked with an RPG or some other form of weaponry? Or worse, the fear that instead of you dying, you get hit with a bullet and it shatters your spine, or you lose a limb?

What about the feeling of being stuck in a place you absolutely loathe, with your family on the other side of the world, in a place that doesn't want you there, with people who don't want you there - and are intent on killing you - for measely pay, fighting a war that doesn't need to be fought by you?

I may hate the war greatly, but each one of those soldiers, I respect and admire greatly, because they are doing what I would not be able to do - and to those who think that THEY can, they've played too much Quake.

Good post. I agree with you whole heartedly.

I'd add that when you look at the " guts "it took for Canadians to stom the beaches on D-Day or the massacre of Americans at Iwo Jima and the guts it took to storm Iwo Jima or even the unspeakable hardships the German army endured in the Russian campaign ( Stalingrad ) ...you can't help but " respect and admire greatly " these men and women for their courage and sacrifice.

In our family, we have a relative who was in his late teens when he was killed fighting the Germans near Ortona Itlay in 1944 ( he is buried there ) .....he'd volunteered to join the fight against Hitler. His older brother ( now in is 80's ) helps us keep his memory alive each Rememberance Day.

Given our family's link to WW2, I'm sure you can appreciate it is very gratifying for me to see others such as yourself, recognizing the sacrifices soldiers make....."how in the world are we, as privledged Canadian citizens with a comfortable life ever supposed to imagine the depths of a soldier's life overseas."

Thanks. Well said.

[asim99]

Indeed, how in the world are we, as privledged Canadian citizens with a comfortable life ever supposed to imagine the depths of a soldier's life overseas. Imagine having to wipe the brains of your best friend off your jacket, or putting five bullets in the head of an elderly woman accidentally because you thought she had a gun. What about the constant fear that you could, at any time, be attacked with an RPG or some other form of weaponry? Or worse, the fear that instead of you dying, you get hit with a bullet and it shatters your spine, or you lose a limb?

What about the feeling of being stuck in a place you absolutely loathe, with your family on the other side of the world, in a place that doesn't want you there, with people who don't want you there - and are intent on killing you - for measely pay, fighting a war that doesn't need to be fought by you?

I may hate the war greatly, but each one of those soldiers, I respect and admire greatly, because they are doing what I would not be able to do - and to those who think that THEY can, they've played too much Quake.
quite a melodramatic post...but not convincing enough to make me support american troops in iraq

i am sure al-qaeda people will have a similar shpeel to get my sympathy vote...now you don't expect me to sympathize with suicide bombers' terrible actions based on that rant, i hope!

i will support canadian troops based on what my conscience tells me, and not based on some silly notion of blind patriotism

[FastFokker]

Anyone watch the documentary "Army of One" that was on recently? I just watched it last night, after PVRing it.

http://www.documentarychannel.ca/docs/listing.asp?StartLetter=Army%20of%20One&id=891
:arrowu: Says it's airing again on March 7, 8pmET.

It was extremely fascinating..

This is also a new generation of soldiers whom were especially sold a false cause. Seemed most/all of the recruits post-911 signed up for just that, to fight back against terrorism after seeing their country attacked and their fellow people killed. They felt compelled to stand up against that which is wrong, only to later realize they joined that which is wrong.

Unfortunately they were lured and sold into (I mean volunteered w/great sign on bonuses) the Military service only to wind up fighting Iraq... something most of them knew better of. I was honestly surprised to see how well versed and the comprehension of world events and the questioning they had of their country's leadership.

Anyway.. I can ramble on about it all, either way, watch it.. immensely informative and entertaining.

The biggest thing I walked away with is reinforcement that this is not truly a volunteer army, they are duped and sold into something that is not transparent until the dotted line is signed.

Once you're in, YOU CAN'T GET OUT, you are THEIRS.. my sympathy goes out to all of those who are in a living hell.

[FastFokker]

Why We Fight - The United States of Amnesia

Interesting so far! (9mins in)

Americans ask "Why do they hate us?", but how can they not know? Are foreign policies and information being withheld from Americans? How could millions of people come about to hate a country, while the country has no comprehension of why anyone could possibly hate them.

Immediately after 9/11, the entire world was in mourning for America and backed them.. everyone was behind the country. Yet, within a matter of months to years, the entire world is angered by the nation and outright hate begins again.

So quick was the turn-around.. how could that possibly be? ;)

..watching some more.

[danfromwaterloo]

quite a melodramatic post...but not convincing enough to make me support american troops in iraq

i am sure al-qaeda people will have a similar shpeel to get my sympathy vote...now you don't expect me to sympathize with suicide bombers' terrible actions based on that rant, i hope!

i will support canadian troops based on what my conscience tells me, and not based on some silly notion of blind patriotism

Did you at some point miss what the hell I was saying?

Melodramatic? I doubt you could even survive basic training, let alone actually do some of the things these guys do. I'm not going to act all macho and believe that I could - in fact, I'd probably be one of the first people dead, even if I could pass BT. Instead of assuming that you know even the first thing about military life, why don't you ASK a soldier. A real one - not one of your friends that plays CS all day. One who's actually killed someone. One that's seen a friend killed in battle.

My grandfather faught in WWII - he was a strong man. I never saw him cry in my life, but he could never tell his war stories without pausing and wiping some tears from his eye. About the time his good friend was killed from a piece of shrapnel hitting him in the eye, or the German he shot in the head, and he watched the chunk of his skull fly out the back of his head. The perpetual bombings flying overhead. Never knowing when you could die.

You can sit back in your comfortable chair and snipe at these guys who VOLUNTEER to put their lives on the line to protect our country, and countries like us. That's your perrogative. It just illustrates your hypocracy and cowardace.

Disagree with the war - that's fine. After all, the catalyst of the war in Iraq is a lie. But the men and women who are there are brave people who we owe our respect.

[asim99]

Did you at some point miss what the hell I was saying?

Melodramatic? I doubt you could even survive basic training, let alone actually do some of the things these guys do. I'm not going to act all macho and believe that I could - in fact, I'd probably be one of the first people dead, even if I could pass BT. Instead of assuming that you know even the first thing about military life, why don't you ASK a soldier. A real one - not one of your friends that plays CS all day. One who's actually killed someone. One that's seen a friend killed in battle.

My grandfather faught in WWII - he was a strong man. I never saw him cry in my life, but he could never tell his war stories without pausing and wiping some tears from his eye. About the time his good friend was killed from a piece of shrapnel hitting him in the eye, or the German he shot in the head, and he watched the chunk of his skull fly out the back of his head. The perpetual bombings flying overhead. Never knowing when you could die.

You can sit back in your comfortable chair and snipe at these guys who VOLUNTEER to put their lives on the line to protect our country, and countries like us. That's your perrogative. It just illustrates your hypocracy and cowardace.

Disagree with the war - that's fine. After all, the catalyst of the war in Iraq is a lie. But the men and women who are there are brave people who we owe our respect.
sorry man, you don't really make sense when you expect me to be cheer leader of the american troops in iraq (that's the conflict this thread is about) that are nothing but a tool of american imperialism

i wish there were more respectable soldiers like jeremy hinzman, who said no to the war in the beginning, rather than whining now as they are
http://www.notinourname.net/graphics/hinzman.jpg

[FastFokker]

sorry man, you don't really make sense when you expect me to be cheer leader of the american troops in iraq (that's the conflict this thread is about) that are nothing but a tool of american imperialismI think you two are arguing with each other based on some other issues you seem to disagree with.

Yes troops are a tool of military imperialism... but to their credit, their government has deceived them.

I am strongly against many actions of the United States of Amnesia, but I still hold strong respect to the troops with their boots on the ground carrying out the actions they likely do not agree with, but are forced to do.

If the volunteer army was really volunteer, and if there was full disclosure between the government and it's people, then yes I would hold little to no sympathy for them. But this is not the case.

Soldiers sign up because of the great benefits (good wage, sign up cash, free education, health coverage...etc), and their leaders without critical information from it's citizens.

Truly sad.

[FastFokker]

Between 2002 and 2003, the Pentagon spent $1.2 billion on advertising intended to increase recruitment.

How would anyone be surprised when such huge dollars are spent to convince (propoganda/thought control) people into joining a bogus cause, that later they realize such and want out.

Volunteer Army or Purchased Army?

I say the latter.

[Nemodigital]

sorry man, you don't really make sense when you expect me to be cheer leader of the american troops in iraq (that's the conflict this thread is about) that are nothing but a tool of american imperialism

i wish there were more respectable soldiers like jeremy hinzman, who said no to the war in the beginning, rather than whining now as they are
http://www.notinourname.net/graphics/hinzman.jpg
A respectable soldier that deserts his country? Sounds like an oxymoron to me. If he didnt have full confidence in the American leadership he should have never signed up. I hope they give the coward a boot back to the US.

[FastFokker]

A respectable soldier that deserts his country? Sounds like an oxymoron to me. If he didnt have full confidence in the American leadership he should have never signed up. I hope they give the coward a boot back to the US.Yes exactly, this is the great fundamental *gotcha* with the American Army.. it is a "VOLUNTEER" army.

As soon as the draft occurred, Vietnam ended.. know why? Because too many middle class and upper class kids were dying, and people who matter actually started asking questions and demanding answers.

As long as the "VOLUNTEER" army is around and lures those in need to join, you can justifiably throw back in their face later "tough $hit, you joined, we didn't force you". So there really is no system for questioning or even tolerance of questioning.

A soldiers is not theirs to question, they do as they are told.

And that system works flipping fantastic so long as the army is "VOLUNTEER".. with the ambitions American think-tanks have set forth, good luck maintaining that "VOLUNTEER" army. And when a draft occurs, prepare for the blowback to be harsh.

[Nemodigital]

Yes exactly, this is the great fundamental *gotcha* with the American Army.. it is a "VOLUNTEER" army.

As soon as the draft occurred, Vietnam ended.. know why? Because too many middle class and upper class kids were dying, and people who matter actually started asking questions and demanding answers.

As long as the "VOLUNTEER" army is around and lures those in need to join, you can justifiably throw back in their face later "tough $hit, you joined, we didn't force you". So there really is no system for questioning or even tolerance of questioning.

A soldiers is not theirs to question, they do as they are told.

And that system works flipping fantastic so long as the army is "VOLUNTEER".. with the ambitions American think-tanks have set forth, good luck maintaining that "VOLUNTEER" army. And when a draft occurs, prepare for the blowback to be harsh.


Umm.. the draft in Vietnam started in 1964 and the Vietnam war ended in 1975.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

[FastFokker]

Umm.. the draft in Vietnam started in 1964 and the Vietnam war ended in 1975.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_WarExcellent! I love your questioning of the information.. more people must follow suit.

Interesting enough, I don't believe war was actually ever declared by the United States, but I would consider it as much a "war" as the Iraq "war" is.

Anyway, I typed up a much longer post, but I chopped it all out..

Dec.1969 First Lottery Draft (Based on birthdate I believe)
Apr.1970 President Nixon publicly announces the start of troop withdrawal

Worth noting, by 1972 something like 70,000 draft evaders were living in Canada. :eek:

The draft is great if the cause is noble and true.. otherwise, you must rely on the "volunteer" army, to prevent blowback and major public opposition.

[Nemodigital]

Excellent! I love your questioning of the information.. more people must follow suit.

Interesting enough, I don't believe war was actually ever declared by the United States, but I would consider it as much a "war" as the Iraq "war" is.

Anyway, I typed up a much longer post, but I chopped it all out..

Dec.1969 First Lottery Draft (Based on birthdate I believe)
Apr.1970 President Nixon publicly announces the start of troop withdrawal

Worth noting, by 1972 something like 70,000 draft evaders were living in Canada. :eek:

The draft is great if the cause is noble and true.. otherwise, you must rely on the "volunteer" army, to prevent blowback and major public opposition.
Agreed at this point in the conflict a draft would completely tear the US apart.

[65505201]

sorry man, you don't really make sense when you expect me to be cheer leader of the american troops in iraq (that's the conflict this thread is about) that are nothing but a tool of american imperialism

i wish there were more respectable soldiers like jeremy hinzman, who said no to the war in the beginning, rather than whining now as they are
http://www.notinourname.net/graphics/hinzman.jpg

O yea. *Great* example.

http://www.jeremyhinzman.net/background.html



2001 - Jeremy and Nga are married
2001 - Jeremy enlists in the army, after his training, he is posted to Fort Bragg
2002 - Nga and Jeremy begin to attend Quaker meetings
2002 - Jeremy asks to be transferred to non-combat duties; his application is lost
2002 - Jeremy files for conscientious objector status again
2002 - Jeremy is deployed to Afghanistan where he participates in 18 parachute jumps before transferring to non-combative duties
2002 - Liam is born
2003 - Jeremy conscientious objector hearing is held; he is denied
2003 - Jeremy is told he is going to be deployed to Iraq
2004 - Jeremy and Nga leave the US for Canada



I see this as:

2001 - Marries and enlists in the Army
2002 - Realizes his life is more important to his marriage than his $$
2002 - Doesn't want to die, files for conscientious objector status
2002 - Baby is born
2003 - Again, doesn't want to die, but application denied
2004 - Chicken***** deserts his duty and leaves for Canada

Apparently, you think someone that deserts their county is a great example. If he really was a conscientious objector, stay in the States, go to jail, and make your story known to the media. His argument is that he doesn't want to miss the formative years of his son. Well, tough ****. What about everyone else that are missing important time with their loved ones?

I hope he gets sent back.

[65505201]

I have another question for you Asim.

Say that in a peacekeeping mission, 75% of the Canadian Army decides that they no longer want to be there. Will you hold them in the same contempt that you have for the American soldiers now?

One point you have to keep in mind is that many didn't sign up to fight a war in Iraq. They signed up to defend their country after 9/11. The ultimate blame for this false war lies on the feet of the GW, not the soldiers.

[65505201]

Here's another article for you.

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Worthington_Peter/2005/06/24/1102064.html

I especially love this part:



Of course there are those among us who welcome and exploit deserters -- use them for ideological, anti-military or anti-American purposes. Deserters here make speeches attacking America and are lionized by those who'd resent them if they still wore their country's uniform.


Cough. Asim?

[poedua]

Did you at some point miss what the hell I was saying?

Melodramatic? I doubt you could even survive basic training, let alone actually do some of the things these guys do. I'm not going to act all macho and believe that I could - in fact, I'd probably be one of the first people dead, even if I could pass BT. Instead of assuming that you know even the first thing about military life, why don't you ASK a soldier. A real one - not one of your friends that plays CS all day. One who's actually killed someone. One that's seen a friend killed in battle.

My grandfather faught in WWII - he was a strong man. I never saw him cry in my life, but he could never tell his war stories without pausing and wiping some tears from his eye. About the time his good friend was killed from a piece of shrapnel hitting him in the eye, or the German he shot in the head, and he watched the chunk of his skull fly out the back of his head. The perpetual bombings flying overhead. Never knowing when you could die.

You can sit back in your comfortable chair and snipe at these guys who VOLUNTEER to put their lives on the line to protect our country, and countries like us. That's your perrogative. It just illustrates your hypocracy and cowardace.

Disagree with the war - that's fine. After all, the catalyst of the war in Iraq is a lie. But the men and women who are there are brave people who we owe our respect.

Well said.

On crying. In the case of my relative, whose younger brother was killed by the Germans in 1944, each Remembrance Day is still very difficult. His surviving brother is very frail now but still has a sharp memory, and on Nov 11 we the usually try to drop by and see him -as he spends a good part of the day crying looking through old photos of his brother and letters from him.


It's over 60 years later.......and he cries as though it happened yesterday.
I think you said it best...."'But the men and women who are there are brave people who we owe our respect"...I just don't think Asim99 gets it.

I wonder if Asim99 would have volunteered in 1939 to fight Hitler as others did to "put their lives on the line to protect our country" as our forefathers did.

[asim99]

Here's another article for you.
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Worthington_Peter/2005/06/24/1102064.html
I especially love this part:
Cough. Asim?
hey look what i found....you want me to trust the opinion of some one who snitched against a fellow canadian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Worthington

Worthington was criticized when it was revealed that he had informed to the American Federal Bureau of Investigation about the suspected political sympathies of a number of his friends including June Callwood.
his son-in-law, david frum, authored the phrase "axis of evil"...i consider this guy a disgrace to canada

on hinzman, i couldnt care less for his private life...however, he is a brave man to have decided not to become a tool of american imperialism...he has earned my respect...

[asim99]

I have another question for you Asim.

Say that in a peacekeeping mission, 75% of the Canadian Army decides that they no longer want to be there. Will you hold them in the same contempt that you have for the American soldiers now?

One point you have to keep in mind is that many didn't sign up to fight a war in Iraq. They signed up to defend their country after 9/11. The ultimate blame for this false war lies on the feet of the GW, not the soldiers.
i consider the mission in afghanistan justified, however the reports of prisoner abuse makes me worried

i blame american government and its forces their failure to finish the mission in afghanistan, and simply outsourcing it to other nations

[65505201]

i consider the mission in afghanistan justified, however the reports of prisoner abuse makes me worried

i blame american government and its forces their failure to finish the mission in afghanistan, and simply outsourcing it to other nations

You didn't answer my question, so I'll ask it again:

Say that in a peacekeeping mission, 75% of the Canadian Army decides that they no longer want to be there. Will you hold them in the same contempt that you have for the American soldiers now?

[65505201]

hey look what i found....you want me to trust the opinion of some one who snitched against a fellow canadian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Worthington

his son-in-law, david frum, authored the phrase "axis of evil"...i consider this guy a disgrace to canada

on hinzman, i couldnt care less for his private life...however, he is a brave man to have decided not to become a tool of american imperialism...he has earned my respect...

No one's asking you to take opinions in blindly, but rather to keep an open ear and hear what others are saying. However, your last comment just made me laugh. Remember the quote I included?



Of course there are those among us who welcome and exploit deserters -- use them for ideological, anti-military or anti-American purposes. Deserters here make speeches attacking America and are lionized by those who'd resent them if they still wore their country's uniform.


*Shakes head* It's just like the crazy muslim fundamentalists bombing **** while decrying their depiction in cartoons as violent people.

[Oni-kun]

Not that i'm endorsing Hiroshima but get your facts straight. Hiroshima was a manufacturing sector.


I would say that dropping bombs deliberately / intentionally on civilan targets is an act of terror..and cowardly.

Look at the Americans and Hiroshima. Clearly, the aim of dropping the bombs on Hiroshima/ Nagasaki was to coerce or influence the policy of the Japanese Government into unconditional surrender by attacking and intimidating the civilian population. The message was to provide the Japanese government a very clear public demonstration that any further resistance by them would result in unimaginable levels of civilian (and military) slaughter and destruction. On that basis.....the actions of the US ( by dropping Atomic bombs on civilians ) could be seen to be acts of terror.

By your defintion, you now admit that the insurgents...are "cowardly, especially knowing that innocents are very likely to get killed "...thanks ! Finally we agree. !

But, the US bombing now in Iraq on specific military/ insurgent targets is with surgical strikes with NO INTENTION of targetting civilians. Can civilians die when a bomb drops. Yes. Do the Americans target these civilans with bombs. No. Do they try and minimize civilans causualties. Yes. Do the insurgents tryu and minimize civilans causualties with their bombs. No.

Now, if on the other hand you have some evidence that the US intentionally targets civilans...present it and we can debate it.

[Sgt_Strider]

Well said.

On crying. In the case of my relative, whose younger brother was killed by the Germans in 1944, each Remembrance Day is still very difficult. His surviving brother is very frail now but still has a sharp memory, and on Nov 11 we the usually try to drop by and see him -as he spends a good part of the day crying looking through old photos of his brother and letters from him.


It's over 60 years later.......and he cries as though it happened yesterday.
I think you said it best...."'But the men and women who are there are brave people who we owe our respect"...I just don't think Asim99 gets it.

I wonder if Asim99 would have volunteered in 1939 to fight Hitler as others did to "put their lives on the line to protect our country" as our forefathers did.

I think he's ignoring you. However it doesn't take a genius to know who he is.

[KevC]

WTF, who would *WANT* to be at war?

[poedua]

Not that i'm endorsing Hiroshima but get your facts straight. Hiroshima was a manufacturing sector.

I did get my facts straight.

[65505201]

WTF, who would *WANT* to be at war?

According to Asim, the imperialistic US government and it's mindless cowardly soldiers.

[Txiasaeia]

Soldiers fighting overseas miss home.

In other news: Dogs still bark - story at eleven.

[FastFokker]

Not that i'm endorsing Hiroshima but get your facts straight. Hiroshima was a manufacturing sector.I think at that point in time, most cities were manufacturing something for the war, be it Japan, USA or even Canada. It's still wrong (IMO) to knowingly bomb civilian targets.. be it by American atomic bombs, German bombings of London or British bombings of Berlin (or all the other random bomb droppings).

It's just still especially sad that the atomic bombs were dropped, due to the scale of destruction and especially when they truly needn't be. Apparently the Japanese had been trying to surrender for months, but Truman didn't want to accept their surrender. Truman wanted to drop the atomic bombs supposedly as a warning to Stalin that America holds the power and for Russia and any other nation not to dare come up against their might.

All those lives in Japan and the future generations were ruined, so unjustly. Of course, history is whatever is written by those who record it.. so obviously, this concept won't be popular by you kids fresh out of history class.. unless you had a good professor.

Anyway, to relate this to current events.. it's ironic that Pre-Emptive strikes are all the rage by American Leadership (today), and that any retribution is unacceptable.. when couldn't this be a considered a repeat of history? Japan pre-emptively struck America, only to fall victim to 2 atomic bombings.

Could it not be said that with this precedent, that it would be justifiable for a another nation to use WMD's against America as retribution for their current policy on pre-emptive attacking? America has taken up the position of "We must attack them now and destroy them before they get too powerful that they can hurt us." and people are swallowing that crap up like it's icecream.

Yummy.

[poedua]

I think at that point in time, most cities were manufacturing something for the war, be it Japan, USA or even Canada. It's still wrong (IMO) to knowingly bomb civilian targets.. be it by American atomic bombs, German bombings of London or British bombings of Berlin (or all the other random bomb droppings).

It's just still especially sad that the atomic bombs were dropped, due to the scale of destruction and especially when they truly needn't be. Apparently the Japanese had been trying to surrender for months, but Truman didn't want to accept their surrender. Truman wanted to drop the atomic bombs supposedly as a warning to Stalin that America holds the power and for Russia and any other nation not to dare come up against their might.

All those lives in Japan and the future generations were ruined, so unjustly. Of course, history is whatever is written by those who record it.. so obviously, this concept won't be popular by you kids fresh out of history class.. unless you had a good professor.

Anyway, to relate this to current events.. it's ironic that Pre-Emptive strikes are all the rage by American Leadership (today), and that any retribution is unacceptable.. when couldn't this be a considered a repeat of history? Japan pre-emptively struck America, only to fall victim to 2 atomic bombings.

Could it not be said that with this precedent, that it would be justifiable for a another nation to use WMD's against America as retribution for their current policy on pre-emptive attacking? America has taken up the position of "We must attack them now and destroy them before they get too powerful that they can hurt us." and people are swallowing that crap up like it's icecream.

Yummy.

The fact is, Hiroshima was nominal military target at best. They ( troops/ manufacturing ) could have easily been taken out with conventional weapons.

[Sgt_Strider]

I think at that point in time, most cities were manufacturing something for the war, be it Japan, USA or even Canada. It's still wrong (IMO) to knowingly bomb civilian targets.. be it by American atomic bombs, German bombings of London or British bombings of Berlin (or all the other random bomb droppings).

It's total war man. Countries have to mobilize their population and manufacturing capacities to improve their chances of winning.


It's just still especially sad that the atomic bombs were dropped, due to the scale of destruction and especially when they truly needn't be. Apparently the Japanese had been trying to surrender for months, but Truman didn't want to accept their surrender. Truman wanted to drop the atomic bombs supposedly as a warning to Stalin that America holds the power and for Russia and any other nation not to dare come up against their might.

I'm very skeptical of your claims. What I have learned from my history classes is that Truman wanted nothing but an unconditional surrender, something that the Japanese rejected prior to the use of the atomic bombs. Some government officials wanted Japan to surrender, but with certain restrictions. Obviously the more radical and nationalists like Tojo wanted Japan to fight to the last man. Eventually though, they did surrender w/o any conditions.

Yes, I've heard of claim about sending a message to the Soviets. However, last I heard it's not proven and it's just pure speculation.


All those lives in Japan and the future generations were ruined, so unjustly. Of course, history is whatever is written by those who record it.. so obviously, this concept won't be popular by you kids fresh out of history class.. unless you had a good professor.

Oh really? Hmm...Japan have the second largest economy in the world and their standards of living is quite high.


Anyway, to relate this to current events.. it's ironic that Pre-Emptive strikes are all the rage by American Leadership (today), and that any retribution is unacceptable.. when couldn't this be a considered a repeat of history? Japan pre-emptively struck America, only to fall victim to 2 atomic bombings.

There is a difference though. America was a "neutral" nation at the time. The United States made it clear that they were going to invade Iraq if Saddam Hussein didn't leave Iraq within 48 hours.


Could it not be said that with this precedent, that it would be justifiable for a another nation to use WMD's against America as retribution for their current policy on pre-emptive attacking? America has taken up the position of "We must attack them now and destroy them before they get too powerful that they can hurt us." and people are swallowing that crap up like it's icecream.

Yummy.

Using WMD's would violate the Geneva conventions though if they didn't sign it, they aren't obligated to abide by the protocols. However, they will face a massive retaliation from the United States. Whether it's nuclear or biological, I don't know. It's in the interest of any nations that wish to fight the United States not to use WMD's or else they will be destroyed.