...Moreover, 60% of the post 9-11 vets take their political marching orders from Ron Paul, and state that our country has no business occupying and dictating in foreign lands. Amazing that over the years, the "liberal media" never, ever talks about the horrors of these two wars. It's so...well...unAmerican to do so.

They also claim that average Joe American is clueless regarding the daily lives of our fighting servicemen. Well of course we don't. We are too busy with our portfolio growth, or else ruffling through our fanne packs at the mall.

http://news.yahoo.com/poll-1-3-vets-sees-iraq-afghan-wars-040253311.html

As a veteran of the Iraq occupation, I am surprised that 1/3 of vets believe it was worth it. That is much higher than I would expect. However, I have different feelings on Afghanistan. I feel Afghanistan is where we should have focused all of our efforts. IMO, destablizing Iraq has led to a stronger Iran. Saddam kept Iran in check when they believed he still had WMDs.

dwccrew;923554 wrote:As a veteran of the Iraq occupation, I am surprised that 1/3 of vets believe it was worth it. That is much higher than I would expect. However, I have different feelings on Afghanistan. I feel Afghanistan is where we should have focused all of our efforts. IMO, destablizing Iraq has led to a stronger Iran. Saddam kept Iran in check when they believed he still had WMDs.

Just goes to show that Reagan was right. We really don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics, and the more we try to 'help', the more damage we do.

It cracks me up that people are surprised that military vets automatically think that military action is good by default. I can think of maybe one veteran who still defends the decision to enter Iraq, and honestly, I don't know THAT many who even think the full-scale mobilization into Afghanistan was productive either, though many do agree that SOME military action was necessary.

Why do so many people see war as a good thing?

O-Trap;923794 wrote:Why do so many people see war as a good thing?

They are probably the ones who don't have to go.

FatHobbit;923807 wrote:They are probably the ones who don't have to go.

They must not have loved ones who go either.

O-Trap;923794 wrote: I can think of maybe one veteran who still defends the decision to enter Iraq, and honestly, I don't know THAT many who even think the full-scale mobilization into Afghanistan was productive either, though many do agree that SOME military action was necessary.

Why do so many people see war as a good thing?

i believe it was a good decision to enter iraq.

Glory Days;923914 wrote:i believe it was a good decision to enter iraq.

Assuming you're a vet, that makes 2 who I've heard say as much.

From those whom I've heard that support both missions, their main complaints are:

1) we began nation-building before we were done defeating the hostile forces/terrorists who gave aid & comfort to (or were outright involved with) people who killed US civilians. We rebuilt Germany and Japan after WWII only after they had been thoroughly defeated and demoralized.

2) some ridiculous rules of engagement, particularly more recently in Afghanistan

Needless to say, in both missions, there was incredible naivete as to how the presence of our troops would be perceived by the native populations.

jhay78;923946 wrote:From those whom I've heard that support both missions, their main complaints are:

1) we began nation-building before we were done defeating the hostile forces/terrorists who gave aid & comfort to (or were outright involved with) people who killed US civilians. We rebuilt Germany and Japan after WWII only after they had been thoroughly defeated and demoralized.

2) some ridiculous rules of engagement, particularly more recently in Afghanistan

Needless to say, in both missions, there was incredible naivete as to how the presence of our troops would be perceived by the native populations.

You would think that we would have learned these lessons from Korea and Vietnam but................

O-Trap;923932 wrote:Assuming you're a vet, that makes 2 who I've heard say as much.

I am.

jhay78;923946 wrote:From those whom I've heard that support both missions, their main complaints are:

1) we began nation-building before we were done defeating the hostile forces/terrorists who gave aid & comfort to (or were outright involved with) people who killed US civilians. We rebuilt Germany and Japan after WWII only after they had been thoroughly defeated and demoralized.

2) some ridiculous rules of engagement, particularly more recently in Afghanistan

Needless to say, in both missions, there was incredible naivete as to how the presence of our troops would be perceived by the native populations.

This.

I have buddy who did 2 tours in Iraq and agreed with us being there for the most part.

dwccrew and Glory Days: I don't know you, and haven't followed you on the Chatter enough to know how much we agree or disagree. And quite frankly, it would alter my next sentence... On behalf of a grateful family living just outside Columbus... thank you. For your sacrifice and service. If you have families, let them know the same. You guys are heroes (or heroines) in my book. Once again, thank you.

As for the topic at hand... the thing that gets me the most is that leading up to his time in office, President Obama said/(pledge?/promised?/ran on?) the idea that we'd be out. When then-President Bush was asked (something to the effect of), "How come he'll be able to and you can't?" G-Dub's answer: "He won't. If and when he gets here, he'll know more and we'll stay."

Guess what... We're still there. And I haven't seen the troop withdrawal that was spoken of earlier. Makes me wonder how I would answer given the intel the higher ups have.

Also, concerning war... As long as there are evil forces in the world, war is a necessary good that counterbalances those that would wish to do harm to others. The second point I'd offer, as the man once said, "War is hell." I often think what I'd say if I were president and folks in the media were touting war as an option. Evidence better be clear for it, and therefore, a jjust war, and if we are going to fight, we are going to fight to win.

Anywho... just thinking.

cruiser_96;924216 wrote:dwccrew and Glory Days: I don't know you, and haven't followed you on the Chatter enough to know how much we agree or disagree. And quite frankly, it would alter my next sentence... On behalf of a grateful family living just outside Columbus... thank you. For your sacrifice and service. If you have families, let them know the same. You guys are heroes (or heroines) in my book. Once again, thank you.

I can't speak for Glory Days, but speaking for myself, I never know how to respond to this kind of statement. First off, I am flattered. Secondly, I don't consider myself a hero. I enlisted before 9-11, so I didn't ever consider going to war. Thirdly, I always felt that I was fulfilling my duty. I never thought anything I was doing was heroic.

cruiser_96;924216 wrote:As for the topic at hand... the thing that gets me the most is that leading up to his time in office, President Obama said/(pledge?/promised?/ran on?) the idea that we'd be out. When then-President Bush was asked (something to the effect of), "How come he'll be able to and you can't?" G-Dub's answer: "He won't. If and when he gets here, he'll know more and we'll stay."

Guess what... We're still there. And I haven't seen the troop withdrawal that was spoken of earlier. Makes me wonder how I would answer given the intel the higher ups have.

Also, concerning war... As long as there are evil forces in the world, war is a necessary good that counterbalances those that would wish to do harm to others. The second point I'd offer, as the man once said, "War is hell." I often think what I'd say if I were president and folks in the media were touting war as an option. Evidence better be clear for it, and therefore, a jjust war, and if we are going to fight, we are going to fight to win.

Anywho... just thinking.

I don't think any of this is relevant or important. Even if Obama feels that going into Afghanistan or Iraq was wrong, he can't just pull out (that's what she said). He was naive into saying he thought he could when he was campaigning. If I were elected president tomorrow, even though I consider both conflicts wrong, I know that I couldn't just remove all forces.

The fact that you don't consider yourself a hero is one reason we love you guys! You put yourselves in harms way for me and my family, and why? From your own admission, "Because I was just trying to do my part." And I for one am grateful.

The price of freedom never goes down. Thanks again.

As to your second section, I guess that is true based on the question of right and wrong, at this point. I guss my point was that those with a fuller understanding of the military engagements would have a better assessment as to our worthiness of being there. Who knows, if I had more info, I might be more compelled to believe one way or the other.

cruiser_96;924216 wrote:dwccrew and Glory Days: I don't know you, and haven't followed you on the Chatter enough to know how much we agree or disagree. And quite frankly, it would alter my next sentence... On behalf of a grateful family living just outside Columbus... thank you. For your sacrifice and service. If you have families, let them know the same. You guys are heroes (or heroines) in my book. Once again, thank you.

i joined after 9/11. kinda like dwccrew said i never know how to respond either. in real life i just shrug it off and say its really nothing and move along. not that i am not proud of what i did, i just dont go around bring attention to myself for it, other people did more than i did over there who deserve it. my friends always have to force to me stand at sporting events or whatever if they try to recognize veterans. and hell, i got paid to command tanks and blow up shit, what kid doesnt want to do that? and with the whole heroes thing. my 19 year old tank driver that never got the chance to grow up and live a full life was the hero.

cruiser_96;924216 wrote:Also, concerning war... As long as there are evil forces in the world, war is a necessary good that counterbalances those that would wish to do harm to others. The second point I'd offer, as the man once said, "War is hell." I often think what I'd say if I were president and folks in the media were touting war as an option. Evidence better be clear for it, and therefore, a jjust war, and if we are going to fight, we are going to fight to win.

Anywho... just thinking.

that is mostly my reason for not minding going into iraq. simply put, the way i see it, there were(are) evil people there. i want to do what i can to try help out the good people there.

Glory Days;925254 wrote:that is mostly my reason for not minding going into iraq. simply put, the way i see it, there were(are) evil people there. i want to do what i can to try help out the good people there.

So the United States has the right to invade any country that we think there are evil people in?

I Wear Pants;925287 wrote:So the United States has the right to invade any country that we think there are evil people in?

until the world stops wanting us to step in and help them out everytime the shit hits the fan because we are THE super power in the world, yes.

however, i dont think it should be the united states soley doing the "invading". would be nice if the other advanced countries pulled their share of the weight.

Glory Days;925339 wrote:until the world stops wanting us to step in and help them out everytime the shit hits the fan because we are THE super power in the world, yes.

however, i dont think it should be the united states soley doing the "invading". would be nice if the other advanced countries pulled their share of the weight.

I give the Brits some credit but not much.

Glory Days;925251 wrote:i joined after 9/11. kinda like dwccrew said i never know how to respond either in really life i just shrug it off and say its really nothing and move along.

Exactly. What should we say? You're welcome? It just sounds odd in my head. I shrug it off as you said.

Glory Days;925251 wrote:not that i am not proud of what i did, i just dont go around bring attention to myself for it, other people did more than i did over there who deserve it.

You mean you don't wear your Class A's out to the bars?

Glory Days;925339 wrote:until the world stops wanting us to step in and help them out everytime the shit hits the fan because we are THE super power in the world, yes.

however, i dont think it should be the united states soley doing the "invading". would be nice if the other advanced countries pulled their share of the weight.

So you don't believe in sovereignty?

I Wear Pants;925287 wrote:So the United States has the right to invade any country that we think there are evil people in?

we dont have to think. morals tell who is evil and who isnt, correct?

I Wear Pants;925893 wrote:So you don't believe in sovereignty?

i am no expert. but not in the 21st century. the world is a much smaller place.

dwccrew;925863 wrote:You mean you don't wear your Class A's out to the bars?

Only to get laid, per AR 6-9.

Glory Days;925899 wrote:we dont have to think. morals tell who is evil and who isnt, correct?



i am no expert. but not in the 21st century. the world is a much smaller place.

So you would support invading a large swath of countries in Africa (Somalia, et al), Iran, North Korea, Syria, etc because there are evil people in those places and oppressing good people?

It isn't practical for me to go around trying to beat up all the people I think are morally reprehensible nor is it practical for us as a country to try to enforce our moral standards via military activity upon the rest of the world. And it's not right.

Glory Days;925901 wrote:Only to get laid, per AR 6-9.

lol As I recall that's really AR 69.