Hope this isn't controversial...

Online Users: 1,354 guest(s), 2 user(s). Replies: 90


sweetie01494 Posts : 73 Registered: 2/17/08
Re: Hope this isn't controversial...
Posted: Apr 11, 2008 10:07 PM Go to message in response to: MissyF

I am impressed and glad to see that there has been quite some informative discussion on this since yesterday! DCTex- WONDERFUL info.

Here's the deal folks. It's all well and good for us to judge now, but as someone else said, hindsight is 20/20. It 's quite another thing to be the one making such a massive choice for this country and holding it's citizens lives in your hands. Massive decision with massive repercussions and I find it hard to believe that any one human made the choice to go to war lightly or with just a thought as to what it might gain "him". It's very easy to judge our President's choice to go to war, but let's think...how well is your thought process say now? four days from tax deadline, arguing with your husband, your two year old throwing a temper tantrum, and infant needing attention and you still have ten "other" things on your to do list? Is your head always clear? There are pressures in our lives that we think are overwhelming. Imagine what they must be/have been when this came about...having to make a decision like this. No ONE could have forseen the path this war would take, but we are in it.

Weapons of mass destruction...I'm not so concerned about the bombs blowing me up. More concerned about the chemical and Microbial weapons of mass destruction. How about smallpox? It's spread in a respiratory manner...God help us if terrorists get their hands on that and figure out how to dispurse it. Google it and tell me you are more afraid of a bomb! (Yes smallpox has been "eradicated" as of 1989-I believe- but there are still two known samples as of 1993 that were not destroyed...)


DaisypathWedding Ticker

Reply


KPM Posts : 577 Registered: 1/20/08
Re: Hope this isn't controversial...
Posted: Apr 12, 2008 12:53 AM Go to message in response to: MissyF

 

Many have already stated a lot of what I know and believe. 

To answer the original question...  Yes, You can support the troops, and not support the war. 

I know personally.  My son just returned from 15 months in Iraq.  Did I want him there? - NO  Did I support him to the best of my ability? - YES

To me there are may political issues surrounding this war.  It is no longer just about political issues for me - it's personal!  In the end.... it does affect our freedom.  Would we want 9/11 happening again? NO!! 

As a Senior Ride Captian in the Patriot Guard Riders I have stood tall, silent and proud to honor young men and women who have given the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom.  I have held the hands and wiped the tears of parents, siblings, and wives of soldiers who are HEROS.  I have stood between those very families and those who protest at soldiers funerals.  Each and every one of those families have touched my heart.  I can tell you the 40 names of the soldiers I have stood for - including 2 men who stood side by side as brothers in arms next to my son.  For the grace of God - will I have to call on my brothers and sisters to stand for my family.

Do soldiers get "automatic hero status"?  Not necessarily - but there are those of us who remember what is was like when soldiers came home and were spit on for serving thier country.  As one of the patches I have on my vest that I wear states "If you can't stand behind our troops, try standing in front of them"

Puddles

Sr Ride Captain - SE Texas Patriot Guard Riders

Blue Star Mom

 

DEFINITION OF A VETERAN:

A Veteran - whether active duty, retired, national guard, or reserve - is someone who at one point in thier life, wrote a blank check made payable to "The United States of America" for an amount of "up to and including my life"

Author Unknown


Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, cheesecake in one hand, rum in the other, body totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!

Reply


77ChevyGirl Posts : 272 Registered: 1/6/08
Re: Hope this isn't controversial...
Posted: Apr 12, 2008 1:46 AM Go to message in response to: BirdLover

Bird,

all I have to say is AMEN!  I think back to Vietnam.  Those soldiers did NOT want to be there, and yet they were spat on!  That just makes me sick. 


~ Lauren - The Future Mrs. Harvey

 

Reply


77ChevyGirl Posts : 272 Registered: 1/6/08
Re: Hope this isn't controversial...
Posted: Apr 12, 2008 1:49 AM Go to message in response to: sweetie01494

Hey sweetie!

I know what you mean about those people who DO take their freedoms for granted, and I agree with you 100% on that.

My FH's brother was in Vietnam, and I know someone who was killed in it.  FH's brother is in VA housing.  He's on a boatload of meds, both psych & physical (pain meds, especially).  He's a complete recluse & can fly off the handle for any reason.  Never married...Never even dated!  It is SO sad.  Not all of that can completely be contributed to Vietnam, but most of it can.  It's just terrible to think of how lives like his were completely destroyed because of war... 


~ Lauren - The Future Mrs. Harvey

 

Reply

PLysak Posts : 288 Registered: 7/8/07
Re: Hope this isn't controversial...
Posted: Apr 12, 2008 10:50 AM Go to message in response to: 77ChevyGirl

Yes, you can support the troops and not the war (although I support our reasons at the time to go into Iraq, and I support the troops as well).  I think that if you do choose to protest the war, there are ways to do it that will not harm the morale of the troops.  Like instead of colleges banning recruiters and harassing the military prescense there, why don't those college kids protest at their US Congressman's or Senator's offices?  They're the ones (along with the President) who got us into this war; talk to them about getting us out if you feel that way.  I think that that would be more productive than harassing soldiers.  Just my 2 cents.

Priscilla & John

Crazy for each other, since 1995.

**Had to edit for spelling reasons.  It's still early for me!


Message was edited by: PLysak

Reply


sweetie01494 Posts : 73 Registered: 2/17/08
Re: Hope this isn't controversial...
Posted: Apr 12, 2008 9:13 PM Go to message in response to: KPM

KPM-Glad to hear that your son is home and safe. We just joined the Patriot Guard and cannot wait to go on our first mission when FH is home. In fact, in lieu of favors for our wedding we decided to donate to a charity that means something important of us. The more we talk, the more it seems it will be Patriot Guard. It is an incredible organization with incredible people.
DaisypathWedding Ticker

Reply


auntofthebride Posts : 9,354 Registered: 4/2/06
Re: Hope this isn't controversial...
Posted: Apr 13, 2008 1:10 AM Go to message in response to: BirdLover

Ladies,

I've read most of the message in this thread.

I remember, very well, the Vietnam Era. I turned 18 in 1972 when the war was, finally, at long last, starting to wind down. My own husband was 18 in 1967, and was at prime draft age. (The only reason he was not drafted was because he was very nearsighted.)

During the Vietnam Era, the military was bloated with draftees. Draftees had no reason to want to be there, no incentive to apply themselves to training, except to prevent their own butts being shot off.

People who opposed the Vietnam War, including myself, were of the opinion that the war kept on going BECAUSE young men (no reason here to use gender neutral language) allowed themselves to be drafted. If the draftees would refuse to go, we reasoned incorrectly, the war would stop for lack of warm bodies to throw in front of bullets.

Of course, evading the draft was a path also fraught with peril. Yes, some men ended up in jail. Some went to Canada. Some fathered children that otherwise would not have been born. Some claimed CO status that affected their careers for the indefinite future.

By contrast, today we have an all-volunteer military. The people in the military now are folks who have chosen the career of a soldier, sailor or Marine. When one joins the military, one takes an oath to obey the Commander in Chief. Don't want to obey? Don't join.

But once that career path is chosen, the person's path is determined by the Commander in Chief and other elected officials. This goes on until they have fulfilled whatever obligation they agreed to.

(A trivial corollary would be a person choosing a career of first grade teacher. Working with 6 year old kids is part of the territory. Don't want to work with 6 year olds? Don't get a job as a first grade teacher. Yeah, I know, stupid example. But it illustrates my point. With certain jobs come certain responsibilites.)

Thus the professional military officer or enlisted man or woman is obliged to obey the Commander in Chief.

No matter how stupid, stubborn, inept and misguided that CinC might be.

****

The thing that makes me so sad about the current situation is that we did not learn a very important lesson from the Vietnam War. That is: Sure, Americans can go into a small country with tremendous military might. They will prevail. But... eventually the Americans have to go home. The people in that country will never leave to "go home" because HOME IS THERE. Decades after the last American left Saigon, the Vietnamese are STILL THERE.

Big, huge question: What do the common people and rational leaders in that country want? Do they want Americans to liberate them from an oppressive dictator? (eg: Germany under Hitler) If so, will the American occupation be welcome by the common people?

Instead, will the American occupation be perceived as worse than whatever Evil Dictator is there? "Yep, Mr Big might be an Evil Dictator, but he's our Evil Dictator." Would that unite various political factions in the county into the single cause of ejecting the Americans?

As for Saddam's possession of WMD and his tyranny, I submit there are plenty of other pariah nations with WMD capability who are ruled by tyrannical dictators. North Korea comes immediately to mind. We do not have the capability of invading all these countries and toppling all the tyrants of the world.

My personal opinion is that the invasion of Afghanistan was justified. The invasion of Iraq was not. Had GWB concentrated his efforts on Afghanistan, we would have nabbed Bin Laden by now, and the whole area would have been in much better shape.

Reply

newsjunkie Posts : 3,417 Registered: 3/30/06
Re: Hope this isn't controversial...
Posted: Apr 13, 2008 11:07 AM Go to message in response to: sweetie01494

Sweetie, re: your comment, "I find it amusing that no poster has yet to stand up and say, Hey my FH is over there...".  First off, I JUST wrote that my own brother was over in Iraq and secondly, what does it matter?  You can still have an opinion on the war without having a close relative there.  (And why is it "amusing"?")

And I do not believe the troops are fighting for our freedoms.  How on earth would they be doing that?  Bush sent us into a war that, as I mentioned before, HE started (because the terrorist events of 9/11 have NOTHING TO DO with the war in Iraq) and the troops are following their orders.  They are fighting for the idiocies of the Bush presidency- I feel sorry for them.  Honestly, if I were a soldier who signed up pre-Iraq I would rather go to jail than fight in a country that we invaded for NO reason.  I don't blame those who went over there, of course, because, as I said, they are following orders and doing their jobs.  I DO support the troops (because my brother was one) but don't support this stupid mess of a war.

Reply


MsDenuninani Posts : 3,962 Registered: 3/16/07
Re: Hope this isn't controversial...
Posted: Apr 13, 2008 6:45 PM Go to message in response to: newsjunkie

Look, I'll be honest.  I find the phrase "support our troops" to be a very empty sentiment. 

Who, really, does not support our troops?  What does it mean to not support our troops?  What does it mean to support our troops?

Someone said earlier that it is entirely possible to support the troops and not support the war because you could support a homosexual while not supporting their lifestyle.

You see, here's the thing.  I don't think it's possible to support a gay person without supporting their actually being gay. . .engaging in the activity that makes them gay.   If I were gay, and someone said I support you, but I don't support your lifestyle, I gotta say, their "support" would feel pretty empty to me.

Thus, I don't know if it is possible for me to say, honestly, that I support a troop in Iraq who is engaging in activitiy that I feel is detrimental to the United States in the long term.  Do I want them to survive?  Of course.  Do I want them to recieve proper equipment and have the unconditional love of their friends and family?  Definately. Do they have my respect?  Absolutely. But in their day to day activities, can I honestly say that they have my support?  I honestly don't know.

At the same time, I believe that it is essential for a person in Iraq to feel good about the job that they are doing.  It seems to me that when separated from their loved ones and the day to day normalcy of American life, that they would need to feel that we support them.  And the fact that I have any reservations at all pains me, although I would never tell a military person that I had such reservations because that's just wrong to me. 

Meanwhile, I get so angry that a meaningful, honest debate in this country about military intervention, and the costs and benefits of the decision to go to war, and how and under what circumstances it is right and just to declare war gets obscured by a meaningless, utterly annoying superficial debate about whether or not we "support the troops" or attacks on a person's patriotism.  It just bugs, and our politicians owe the American people a better conversation, an honest conversation.  And we so seldom get that. 

Alright, rant over.  


_______________________________________________________
“We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them”    - Albert Einstein

 Vote!  http://www.barackobama.com/index.php

Reply


BirdLover Posts : 2,834 Registered: 3/30/06
Re: Hope this isn't controversial...
Posted: Apr 13, 2008 11:05 PM Go to message in response to: MsDenuninani

"Would we want 9/11 happening again? NO!!  "

But Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11

Aunt, for your comments about how, because the army is 100% voluntary now, people go know what they are up against.  Okay, I get that.  BUT...a construction worker knows that when he is hired, he must obey his boss.  But, if his boss tries to force him to work without providing him a hard hat, he can very well say "no".  Is it really that different?

I agree that we learned nothing from Vietnam.  I just hope that Bush doesn't one day think that our CN tower is somehow being converted in a WOMD :P  Kidding, of course.

In addition, I notice that a lot of people have said things like "we don't really know the situation".  I agree.  But does that tick anyone else off?  If your husbands, sons, daughters, etc are over there fighting, I damn well think you have a right to know what's going on!!!

Is that just me?

Reply


auntofthebride Posts : 9,354 Registered: 4/2/06
Re: Hope this isn't controversial...
Posted: Apr 14, 2008 1:49 AM Go to message in response to: BirdLover

Dear BL,

"But, if his boss tries to force him to work without providing him a hard hat, he can very well say "no".  Is it really that different?"

Analogies are weird things. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't.

In this one, the construction worker can just say "No", give notice and walk off the job. Military personnel are under contracts.

Since I've never been in the military, I have absolutely no expertise in this, but from what I've gathered, the recruit signs a contract for a certain period of time, then can reinlist when the contract expires.

If the person breaks the contract, he/she can be arrested and prosecuted for the crime of desertion.

I'm way out on a limb, here, as I have only a vague idea under what terms a military service person enlists, and for how long.

Reply


77ChevyGirl Posts : 272 Registered: 1/6/08
Re: Hope this isn't controversial...
Posted: Apr 15, 2008 11:28 PM Go to message in response to: MsDenuninani

Mrs. Denuninani,

When I think of people not supporting the troops, I think of the Vietnam vets being spat on when they returned home.  Since the majority were draftees, they didn't want to be there...They hated the war just as much as the rest of us.

Again, I have known many soldiers, and when my loved ones come home from this war, I certainly won't spit on them.  And I'd probably beat the crap out of any one who did!  BUT, by no means do I think that being in Iraq & fighting this crap is right.  Everything aside, the reason why America is one of the most hated countries is simply because the fact that we feel the need to invade all these countries & force them to live like we do.   Obviously in cases where people's lives are in danger (i.e., concentration camps), that's one thing.  But to be lied to by our "commander in chief" and to be led into wars that may not necessarily have the same justification as WWII, I have a problem supporting that war.  But again, I would NEVER show a soldier disrespect.  That, to me, is how you support the troops but not the war.

I agree with you 100% on the "supporting gays" comment - I personally do not feel that someone can compare supporting gays but not gay marriage to supporting troops & not a war.  That's just me.

I agree that we deserve a better and honest conversation.  I agree that we seldom get that.  That absolutely needs to change.  My rhetorical question is, in order for us to get that better, honest conversation, don't we need to get everyone out of politics & start over?  Personally, I believe the corruption in politics is what has led us to receive this false information from the government.


~ Lauren - The Future Mrs. Harvey

 

Reply


KPM Posts : 577 Registered: 1/20/08
Re: Hope this isn't controversial...
Posted: May 13, 2008 12:25 PM Go to message in response to: BirdLover

 

FYI.................

 

9/11 Co-Conspirators Charges Referred

 

                The Defense Department announced today that charges against five of the six detainees who are alleged to be responsible for the planning and execution of the attacks upon the United States of America on September 11, 2001 have been referred to trial by military commission. Those attacks resulted in the death of 2,973 people, including 8 children. The referred charges detail 169 overt acts allegedly committed in furtherance of the 9/11 events. The accused will face trial in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
                In accordance with the Military Commissions Act of 2006, the Convening Authority has the sole discretion to determine what charges will be referred to trial. In exercising her independent judgment, the Convening Authority, Ms. Susan Crawford, has referred to trial charges against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin 'Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi. The five accused will be tried jointly, and the cases are referred as capital for each defendant, meaning they face the possibility of being sentenced to death.
                The Convening Authority has dismissed without prejudice the sworn charges against Mohamed al Kahtani. Because the charges were dismissed without prejudice, the government has the option of charging Kahtani separately, but he will not be tried with the other accused in this case. 
                The charges allege a long-term, highly-sophisticated, organized plan by al Qaeda to attack the United States. Each of the accused is charged with conspiracy, murder in violation of the law of war, attacking civilians, attacking civilian objects, intentionally causing serious bodily injury, destruction of property in violation of the law of war, terrorism and providing material support for terrorism.
                Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin 'Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, and Ali Abdul Aziz Ali are also charged with hijacking aircraft.
                The charges allege that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks by proposing the operational concept to Usama bin Laden as early as 1996, obtaining approval and funding from Usama bin Laden for the attacks, overseeing the entire operation, and training the hijackers in all aspects of the operation in Afghanistan and Pakistan
                Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin 'Attash is alleged to have administered an al Qaeda training camp in Logar, Afghanistan where two of the September 11th hijackers were trained. He is also alleged to have traveled to Malaysia in 1999 to observe airport security by US air carriers in order to assist in formulating the hijacking plan.
                Ramzi Binalshibh is alleged to have lived with the Hamburg, Germany al Qaeda cell where three of the 9/11 hijackers resided. It is alleged that Binalshibh was originally selected by Usama bin Laden to be one of the 9/11 hijackers and that he made a "martyr video" in preparation for the operation. He was unable to obtain a US visa and, therefore, could not enter the United States as the other hijackers did. In light of this, it is alleged that Binalshibh assisted in finding flight schools for the hijackers in the United States, and continued to assist the conspiracy by engaging in numerous financial transactions in support of the 9/11 operation.
                Ali Abdul Aziz Ali's role is alleged to have included sending approximately $120,000 to the hijackers for their expenses and flight training, and facilitating travel to the United States for nine of the hijackers.
Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi is alleged to have assisted and prepared the hijackers with money, western clothing, traveler's checks and credit cards. He is also alleged to have facilitated the transfer of thousands of dollars between the accounts of alleged 9/11 hijackers and himself on September 11, 2001.
                The military commissions provide the following protections for the accused: to elect not to testify at trial and to have no adverse inference drawn from it; to be represented by detailed military counsel, as well as civilian counsel of his own selection and at no expense to the government; to examine all evidence presented to a jury by the prosecution; to obtain evidence and to call witnesses on his own behalf including expert witnesses; to confront and cross-examine every witness called by the prosecution; to be present during the presentation of evidence; to have no statements obtained by torture admitted; to have a military commission panel (jury) of at least five military members (12 in a capital case) determine guilt or innocence by a two-thirds majority, or in the case of a capital offense, at least 12 members must unanimously decide to impose a sentence of death; and the right to an appeal to the Court of Military Commission Review, then through the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to the U. S. Supreme Court.
                These protections are guaranteed to the defendant under the Military Commissions Act, and are specifically designed to ensure that every defendant receives a fair trial, consistent with American and international standards of justice and the rule of law.
                The charges are only allegations that each accused has committed a war crime under the Military Commissions Act. The accused are presumed innocent of any criminal charges unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt at a military commission.

Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, cheesecake in one hand, rum in the other, body totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!

Reply

chris42005 Posts : 89 Registered: 4/6/10
Re: Hope this isn't controversial...
Posted: May 4, 2010 4:32 PM Go to message in response to: BirdLover

Dear Bird lover, This is a year later, but I hope you read this. During this thread, my husband spent lots of time in Iraq. In fact about half of our married life he has spent away doing various military duties. Do I know all of what he is doing? No. And I don't rate that knowledge. I think I do. But the government does not think I do for security reasons. Alot of what he does is classified. Why because the enemy does read/watch our news. All you have to do is listen to thier news or thier leaders to know that. My sister in law thinks our government should not have any secrets but her company can(she works for Oracle). I think it is a double standard. I think the phrase "support the troops" is over used, I would like to see more action. I am tired of hearing it is all about Bush's ego and 9/11 had nothing to do with it. Can you support the troops and not the war? Yes, but put some action behind it. Please remember words hurt. You may not support or agree with the war. Which fine. But the words you use to voice that can hurt those who have to go and hurt those families who have to live waiting to hear from loved ones there. Not to be mean, but you and no one else on this thread knows what it is like to have your husband to serve in a combat zone, unless you had a loved one there. My whole point Birdlover is this thread was exposed you to whole lot of views, but until you can walk a mile in my shoes you will not fully understand. I will not fully understand your point of view until I walk a mile in your shoes. I thank you for asking a very hard question.

Reply

Kimberly212 Posts : 972 Registered: 9/12/12
Re: Hope this isn't controversial...
Posted: Sep 27, 2012 7:20 PM Go to message in response to: BirdLover

Sweetheart Neckline Strapless Cathedral Train Taffeta Wedding Dress Style Monalisa Royale
Save up to 32% off on New Trend Wedding Dress,the price is just $258.95, It's the cheapest,bug gorgeous dress.

http://www.juliebridalshop.com/sweetheart-neckline-strapless-cathedral-train-taffeta-wedding-dress-style-monalisa-royale-p-33708.html

Reply
RSS

Thank You
for Signing Up!

Check your e-mail inbox for the latest updates from brides.com

Give a Subscription to Brides Magazine as a Gift
Subscribe to Brides magazine