It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

It is time for our soldiers to leave Iraq

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Well I was watching CNN tonight, Wolf Blitzer in the Situation Room when he was getting the latest report from Baghdad. The report was on the increasing amount of attacks going on with several more American soldiers killed. It was the typical report that you would normally hear, until they started to talk about a new offensive to go after the death squads that are running around and they are finding hundreds of people that have been killed. That was news to me, but not that surprising. It was when the reporter mentioned that the intelligence of the operation was not being given first to members of the Iraqi government, because they were suspecting that intelligence of military operations was being leaked to the insurgents. I’m sorry I don’t have a link, I have not been able to find anything on it yet.

I was absolutely appalled when I heard that. First I hear the Iraqi and Iran presidents are meeting and are becoming cozy, then I hear this. They suspect intelligence leaks because recently the insurgents will move out of an area just before troops move in, and when the troops leave they come back. Has anyone else heard of this?

If that is true, I can’t believe that members of the Iraqi government would be undermining operations and putting the lives of American and Iraqi soldiers in danger. For cristsake, they wouldn’t even be in office if those soldiers were not there to help them. If that turned out to be true, we should pull out forces out immediately, and let them sleep in the bed they made.

I have been against the Iraq war since it was conceived, but fully supported the war in Afghanistan. That is where the real terrorists are that attacked us on 9/11, and that is where we should be fighting. Recently the Taliban have been reemerging, the opium industry is back in full swing, all because there are not enough troops on the ground. Even the UN cannot find any other country willing to bring in more troops.

It is time to leave Iraq, go over to Afghanistan, and finish what we started. If Iraq turns into a quagmire like most suspect that it will, we can offer assistance if they ask us to come back. It sounds to me like they are in a civil war and out troops are stuck in the middle and in harms way.

More than 100 bodies -- most with signs of torture -- have been dumped across the Iraqi capital with gunshot wounds in the past three days.
Iraqi police found 49 bodies Thursday after discovering 60 of them Tuesday and another four Wednesday.
The bodies found are thought to be victims of Sunni-Shiite sectarian violence. Most of the dumped bodies have been shot execution-style and frequently show signs of torture.

Iraq suicide blast kills 2 U.S. soldiers at Army outpost

With this going on while our troops are over there and they are unable to stop it, then they are not accomplishing what they are there for. When the insurgents are being given intelligence better than our troops have, how can they be defeated? We cannot help them anymore, and we should leave. If you truly supported our troops, you would agree it is time to leave and go hunt down the real terrorists. I guess this report was just the last straw for me. Thanks for listening.

Related articles:
Opium Crop Rises Record 60 percent in Afghanistan
Iran offers Iraq 'full support'




posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 11:18 PM
link   
i agree, the US shouldn't have a military presence in iraq anymore. havent we proved whatever we needed to prove from 9/11. we have proved we can sustain killing and chaos for as long as we want and our military is not weak as many people think.

what people dont relize is occupying 1 country dosen't mean you are getting terrorists or helping the region. this war is going on for a long time. a full presidential term is a long time to wage a war for this country. iraq may not end until it gets to 6, 7 years at the rate it is going now. maybe more, and that is a scary thought.

the alarming thing is, the government hasnt even announced a type of plan, or even seem to be considering removing military. has any people noticed that the media doesnt cover iraq like they used to in 02, 03. It's getting pushed to the side by iran and other issues..

i dont know what's worse, the fact that most citizens genuinley dont care how their government handles it's political affairs, or the fact that if a lot did, they wouldnt be able to force a political decision, or law change anyway.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Without the US peacekeeping forces, how would the Australian forces and the Japanese forces that are training the Iraqi defence force and rebuilding the infrastructure accomplish their mission? Which is undeniably benefiting the Iraqi people?

Its very easy to buy into the "troops out of Iraq" propaganda but the bottom line is - Iraq is a mess that needs to be sorted out. Packing up and running is NOT going to help the situation. America and its allies have a responsibility now to make sure that the country is left in the best possible position to grow and stablilise.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 12:33 AM
link   
This war is not on terrorism. That, I believe, is an intentional distraction that enables the execution of the real agenda.

Ever played the board game, RISK? The U.S. player has recently obtained Iraq's and Afghanistan’s pieces, and are planning on acquiring more adjacent ones. Big strategic moves towards winning the game. Human nature... survival of the fittest and all that
Although there is a lot more serious risk involved in this version of the game.

Does anyone foresee the U.S. leaving Iraq and/or the region anytime in the next 6 years... we only have until 2012 anyway
But, in any case, I hope for a reasonable outcome. It won't be pretty... too far past that point already
But I hope we can all move forward.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 01:38 AM
link   
I really hope I never come to this site and find people reasoning on the stance of pulling out and letting them fix the mess we have created.

Everyones was so defiant that we had a RIGHT to go in , it was LEGAL and rah rah rah..

now after it as fallen in a heap, we are going to leave because we have
'' proven our point ''

Wasnt our point to free the people and create a STABLE iraq?

Just because insurgents are finding ways to chip at our credibility, kill citizens, and kill troops we should high tail and run?

Sorry guys,

your government totally ruined this country, and im confident your president is atleast smart enough to realise he cant leave.

You leave, Sept11 will mean nothing in the years and decades ahead.
Because you better belife that is a bee hive of terrorists now, all of whom are seeking revenge on the us because of the murder of there sister, brother, mother, father or what ever.

Id like to say typical, but i know there are a lot of USA citizens who steadfastly agree that staying the course is primary.

But I cant believe the USA has sunk so low, that its citizens now believe pulling out and abandoning Iraq is a better option.,



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

Id like to say typical, but i know there are a lot of USA citizens who steadfastly agree that staying the course is primary.


I'm not exactly sure what you mean with that prose, but I agree with you overall, that the U.S. needs to stay in the region to clean up the mess that has been made. Iraq was a pawn taken for a larger cause. The U.S. apparently had no idea how deeply divided the country was. The civil war is much larger than the W.O.T at this point.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 02:58 AM
link   
Cut and run? You bet. (shameless quote)
They don't want us there.

The leaking of information to insurgents is nothing new; the only difference is now the Iraq administration is the one doing it, before it was their soldiers.

Our 'point' for going to war is a strangely evolving one. It began as "Saddam Hussein is stockpiling WMD, we have proof that he is going to use them soon, on us and our allies". Then, after a lack of WMD turned up, the reason shifted to "We're here to liberate the Iraqi people." Then, "Saddam Hussein supported al-Quada". And it evolved again just recently: "al-Quada is all over Iraq, we have to bring them to justice or the war will have been for nothing".

The administration now admits it was wrong in its intelligence; Netanyahu, the former Israeli PM, said during an interview with Wolf Blitzer that "Iraq's WMD was a bad guess". Now there is talk of hearings regarding suppressed evidence which clearly showed there were no WMD in Iraq. gether.

They don't want us there, and we sure as hell don't wanna be there ("we" being the soldiers that actually went, not the politicians that ride a desk). Our military achievement is done and over.

If we leave, September 11 means the same as it on 9/11/01: the day America lost over 3000 citizens to terrorism.

Come 2008, whoever takes the presidency will be running with "Bring Them Home". And most likely it won't be a Republican.

Many say "bring them home" is an easy propoganda; please define for me "stay the course". The longer we stay, the more the insurgency grows, the more radicals are imported from other middle eastern regions. Rebuild Iraq? Why, so they can blow it all back up, along with a few more soldiers, every day, every week, month, year?

"Stay the course", at this point, is propoganda. It was necessary to stay until we found Saddam, necessary until the elections, necessary until the Iraq government was ready to take control.

It's no longer necessary. It's time to bring my brothers and sisters back home.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 04:36 AM
link   
Id like to know exactly how the US envisoned this quest?
Did they think theyd find wmd's, remove government, replce it and leave with little fuss?
How exactly are they going to get all those troops, all that machinery and material down to kuwaitt and loaded onto ships?
They cant even drive around the cities without getting blown up...
long lines of tanks, apcs, carriers, troops is going to be a turkey shoot for anyone wanted to rub salt into the US wounds.

How exactly do we pull out?
IRaqis dont want us there, because we destroyed there country.
The world warned us before we went in.
Now we are in a postion where we have to leave.. because we clearly have failed.
But if we leave we now they won, and the USA will never allow its self to be beaten, by a bunch of terrorists.

The US Would rather sacrifice its citizens, its economy and its way of life to ensure there not beaten.



[edit on 15-9-2006 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 06:28 AM
link   
[edit on 15-9-2006 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Those are all good points for staying the course, and up till now I have believed that once we started this mess, it was better to finish the job. The problem, at least in Baghdad, is the longer we stay the more the insurgency grows. For every insurgent, terrorist, enemy combatant, or whatever you want to call them, that is killed, two more take their place. Most of the killing is due to secular violence, which we obviously can't stop. And when the very people we are there to protect are leaking vital intelligence to the enemy, it will continue.

I know the PTB will not pullout any troops for some time because as mentioned before, it is a strategic location, and I believe they are building military bases over there. We aren't going anywhere. But I certainly hope it is made clear to new Iraqi government that they had better step up to the plate and get control of their country.

Furthermore, the PTB had better get some support for our people in Afghanistan.

Thanks for the replies.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   
US withdrawal from Iraq doesn't have to mean "cut and run." Imo, we need to hand the place over to the international community, and support the rebuilding effort financially, not with troops. Our troops have achieved their mission in Iraq, and we need to get them out of there as soon as possible. They have become targets for all the diverse warring factions.

Staying the course is only going to exacerbate the situation, imo. In the face of the continuing violence and loss of US troops, troops tasked to do police work rather than soldiering, I have to suspect a hidden agenda such as regional hegemony. Is that in the best long term interests of the US? Is it attainable, or even feasible?



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astygia
Cut and run? You bet. (shameless quote)
They don't want us there.


I disagree, the senator that I (until very recently) worked for made numerous trips to Iraq to inspect the work that our soldiers were doing in training and rebuilding infrastructure. The local Iraqi people love having us there and are ecstatic that we are providing them with the training and infrastructure to help their country develop.



Our 'point' for going to war is a strangely evolving one. It began as "Saddam Hussein is stockpiling WMD, we have proof that he is going to use them soon, on us and our allies". Then, after a lack of WMD turned up, the reason shifted to "We're here to liberate the Iraqi people." Then, "Saddam Hussein supported al-Quada". And it evolved again just recently: "al-Quada is all over Iraq, we have to bring them to justice or the war will have been for nothing".


Yes the reason for going to war has changed, it was a balls up from the start.



They don't want us there, and we sure as hell don't wanna be there ("we" being the soldiers that actually went, not the politicians that ride a desk). Our military achievement is done and over.



Not trying to be cheeky, but are you actually a soldier in Iraq at the moment? Ive seen and heard a lot of reports that a significant number of soldiers feel very proud of the work they are doing in Iraq. One even posted on this website a few days ago!



Many say "bring them home" is an easy propoganda; please define for me "stay the course". The longer we stay, the more the insurgency grows, the more radicals are imported from other middle eastern regions.


Stay the course because the fighting is not the important part of the mission now - that part is over. The important part of our troops being in Iraq is the training and building that is being undertaken. Without it, the Iraqis stand no chance of getting their country back together.



Rebuild Iraq? Why, so they can blow it all back up, along with a few more soldiers, every day, every week, month, year?


So we just cut and run? With no thought for the innocents in Iraq? We started this - not them. And How about because rebuilding Iraq is the right thing to do? You cant just go in, tear up the place the bugger off and leave it a shambles.



"Stay the course", at this point, is propoganda. It was necessary to stay until we found Saddam, necessary until the elections, necessary until the Iraq government was ready to take control.

It's no longer necessary. It's time to bring my brothers and sisters back home.


You have just answered your own question there - neccessary until the Iraq government was ready to take control. They arent ready. Neither is their military. Thats why we have to stay.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ezekiel

I disagree, the senator that I (until very recently) worked for made numerous trips to Iraq to inspect the work that our soldiers were doing in training and rebuilding infrastructure. The local Iraqi people love having us there and are ecstatic that we are providing them with the training and infrastructure to help their country develop.


Where'd he tour at, Green Baghdad? Shoulda gone to Tekrit or Mosul, or let him see what the Marines think about Fallujah.

The ratio of Iraqis that love us to Iraqis that hate us are not in our favor.



Yes the reason for going to war has changed, it was a balls up from the start.


If this means it was BS from the start, I agree.



Not trying to be cheeky, but are you actually a soldier in Iraq at the moment? Ive seen and heard a lot of reports that a significant number of soldiers feel very proud of the work they are doing in Iraq. One even posted on this website a few days ago!


I think 26 months spread in al-Anbar have given me a better idea of what happens there than what a senator thinks.
Regarding Cpl. Hunter, (Dark_Seraph), some idiots ran his thread into the ground, so now we've briefly compared our experiences in the sandbox via email.



Stay the course because the fighting is not the important part of the mission now - that part is over. The important part of our troops being in Iraq is the training and building that is being undertaken. Without it, the Iraqis stand no chance of getting their country back together.


This is a noble answer, but it's not realistic. The Iraqi administration has bluntly told our administration: the insurgency will not stop until you leave.

I'm not saying there is nothing to be proud of; our forces are doing the best they can, and we're doing good things. But the majority of Iraqis do not want us there, do not want to be seen associating with Americans, or even supporting the Americans in discussion amongst themselves, because it makes them targets.



So we just cut and run? With no thought for the innocents in Iraq? We started this - not them. And How about because rebuilding Iraq is the right thing to do? You cant just go in, tear up the place the bugger off and leave it a shambles.


Yeah we can. If these people really wanted us to help them rebuild, they wouldn't guide insurgents to a strike point. Iraqi officials wouldn't leak raid schedules to insurgents.

And call me heartless, but I care more about one American troop than one Iraqi innocent.



You have just answered your own question there - neccessary until the Iraq government was ready to take control. They arent ready. Neither is their military. Thats why we have to stay.


According to them, we have done all we can. Strangely, coalition commanders are in quiet agreement with this. But it never seems to make a dent in the administration.


EDIT: If I seem like there's a stick up my butt about this, that's because there is. I don't mean to come off as rude to you, you're entitled to your opinion. But you'll understand if I have a hard time letting desk jockeys tell me what war is like from across the globe.

[edit on 15-9-2006 by Astygia]



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Apparently there is some progress being made with regard to handing over responsibility to the Iraqis, but not without incident. They can't even seem to be able to agree on a new flag for Iraq.

Iraq to take control of armed forces

I like the idea of handing over responsibility, but they had better plug up those intelligence leaks. I don’t know if this is a good thing or not.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Our country has really put itself between a rock and a hard place, or should I say, a nuke and a chemical weapon.

It pains me to hear about US soldiers lives being lost over this pointless war. Honestly, the USA needs to swallow its pride, round up everyone over there, and bring everyome home. WE all know it was wrong to go into Iraq. WE have seen the consequences, as well as the Iraqi people. WE know what is right.

But the US has never lost a war.... right?


This war was lost before it started.

Edit:
Astygia

Much respect man. And good reasoning. Wish I had a WATS left for ya


[edit on 15/9/06 by Mouth]



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astygia
Where'd he tour at, Green Baghdad? Shoulda gone to Tekrit or Mosul, or let him see what the Marines think about Fallujah.


I dont know the specifics of where he went to, all I know for sure is that he spent the majority of his time with our (Aussie) troops.



If this means it was BS from the start, I agree.


Yeah thats basically what I mean




I think 26 months spread in al-Anbar have given me a better idea of what happens there than what a senator thinks.
Regarding Cpl. Hunter, (Dark_Seraph), some idiots ran his thread into the ground, so now we've briefly compared our experiences in the sandbox via email.


Ah ok I couldnt tell from your previous post if you were in Iraq speaking from experience or had family there etc.

And yes Im sure you have a much better idea of whats happening there, no argument from me on that one.



This is a noble answer, but it's not realistic. The Iraqi administration has bluntly told our administration: the insurgency will not stop until you leave.


I thought their administration wanted our troops to stay? From all reports I've seen they are happy with us there?



I'm not saying there is nothing to be proud of; our forces are doing the best they can, and we're doing good things. But the majority of Iraqis do not want us there, do not want to be seen associating with Americans, or even supporting the Americans in discussion amongst themselves, because it makes them targets.


I think the thing that stands out most from your observation is that the Iraqis arent so much against Americans, they are scared of what the insurgents will do to them for supporting the Americans. Maybe if they felt safer from retribution for supporting America there would be more support for you guys being there.



Yeah we can. If these people really wanted us to help them rebuild, they wouldn't guide insurgents to a strike point. Iraqi officials wouldn't leak raid schedules to insurgents.


Has that been confirmed or is it still a suspicion?
Either way you should go and knock a few Iraqi administration heads together, that might stop them helping the insurgents.
That really pisses me off to hear that.Some people are so ungrateful




And call me heartless, but I care more about one American troop than one Iraqi innocent.


The only problem I have with your comment, is that people who join the military do so knowing that they will be in dangerous and potentially life threatening situations. Ordinary civilians dont have that choice.

Now, Im not saying that our troops should just have to put up with being shot at in a war that was a balls up fromt he start because it was their choice - just explaining my line of thinking a bit to you.

Plus its only natural to care about people you share a common bond with, wether it be nationality or even same football team!



According to them, we have done all we can. Strangely, coalition commanders are in quiet agreement with this. But it never seems to make a dent in the administration.


Again, I hadn't heard/read this sentiment expressed in any of the reports Ive seen - though Im not saying its not true
Just that I didnt know that was the case.



EDIT: If I seem like there's a stick up my butt about this, that's because there is. I don't mean to come off as rude to you, you're entitled to your opinion. But you'll understand if I have a hard time letting desk jockeys tell me what war is like from across the globe.


Yeah unfortunately the desk jockeys are the ones who make all the decisions to go to war and to come home. Im sure as someone in the thick of it you have a much different perspective to someone who is reading reports printed on A4 glossy paper with a coffee in one hand and a donut in the other. Makes it hard, but as a soldier thats part of the job - taking orders from people who dont really know what its like on the ground that are making decision based on the political and economical factors.

But then if all of the worlds leaders knew what war was like up close and personal I dont think there would be all that many wars in the first place.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ezekiel
I dont know the specifics of where he went to, all I know for sure is that he spent the majority of his time with our (Aussie) troops.


Nothing wrong with that. What I was getting at here is that there are happy Iraqis in certain relatively safe areas, but reports from these areas are misleading since appreciation is not the norm.



Ah ok I couldnt tell from your previous post if you were in Iraq speaking from experience or had family there etc. And yes Im sure you have a much better idea of whats happening there, no argument from me on that one.


No harm done. I'm not saying I've got a good political understanding of things; simply, I know what the situation is (or was) like on the ground.



I thought their administration wanted our troops to stay? From all reports I've seen they are happy with us there?


They want coalition protection, but they want the body of the U.S. forces out. This was echoed by Iraqi officials to coalition commanders, and earned a few minutes of primetime MSM coverage. Frankly, I'm surprised this isn't being used as political ammo at this point.



I think the thing that stands out most from your observation is that the Iraqis arent so much against Americans, they are scared of what the insurgents will do to them for supporting the Americans. Maybe if they felt safer from retribution for supporting America there would be more support for you guys being there.


This is a good observation, and is obviously true, since they (Iraqi admin) want some coaltion forces to remain, but specifically state that the U.S. is the main target of the insurgency.



Has that been confirmed or is it still a suspicion?
Either way you should go and knock a few Iraqi administration heads together, that might stop them helping the insurgents.
That really pisses me off to hear that.Some people are so ungrateful


At this point it's still suspicion, I shouldn't have assumed it as fact. But it wouldn't surprise me; again, one of our biggest problems before were the soldiers themselves either defecting or acting as informants; I never experienced this personally, as I was never involved in training their new security forces, but it was a widespread problem.



The only problem I have with your comment, is that people who join the military do so knowing that they will be in dangerous and potentially life threatening situations. Ordinary civilians dont have that choice.
Now, Im not saying that our troops should just have to put up with being shot at in a war that was a balls up fromt he start because it was their choice - just explaining my line of thinking a bit to you.


I understand. However, I enlisted to defend America, not to further the agenda of a man whose deviousness is exceeded only by his ambition. My line of thinking is not exactly popular among soldiers today, but it's not rare either.



Again, I hadn't heard/read this sentiment expressed in any of the reports Ive seen - though Im not saying its not true
Just that I didnt know that was the case.


I was misleading here, didn't mean to be. There is always something else they will need. They don't want us there, but they need this. Then, they really think we should go, but they really need that. And our administration does the same thing; we'll go when this is done; oh wait, we can't leave until we do that, and it'll just keep on going while the insurgency grows and more soldiers get killed. It's a cycle to which only select few seem to know the ultimate goal.



Yeah unfortunately the desk jockeys are the ones who make all the decisions to go to war and to come home. Im sure as someone in the thick of it you have a much different perspective to someone who is reading reports printed on A4 glossy paper with a coffee in one hand and a donut in the other. Makes it hard, but as a soldier thats part of the job - taking orders from people who dont really know what its like on the ground that are making decision based on the political and economical factors.


Just FYI, I wasn't insinuating you are a desk jockey; I was really referring to politicians, or other people who make policy about things without really knowing what the hell they're doing. I'm a desk jockey now, anyway.


But then if all of the worlds leaders knew what war was like up close and personal I dont think there would be all that many wars in the first place.


On this we agree.

Mouth-
Thanks.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000
With this going on while our troops are over there and they are unable to stop it, then they are not accomplishing what they are there for. When the insurgents are being given intelligence better than our troops have, how can they be defeated? We cannot help them anymore, and we should leave. If you truly supported our troops, you would agree it is time to leave and go hunt down the real terrorists. I guess this report was just the last straw for me. Thanks for listening.

Great idea.

Leave another shattered nation to simmer in chaos after the US destroyed it's infastructure, robbed it's treasury, and plunder it's oil. Leave the people at the mercy of whoever has the most guns and desire to use them.

Then in 3 years you'll no doubt be mystified as to why there's suddenly a whole bunch more Terrorists blowin stuff up.

This is exactly the wrong thing to do. If the US pulls out of Iraq before the job of rebuilding is finished, the country will become a true breeding ground for real terrorists. The people will hate you and they'll have good reason.

The US commited to "Liberating the People of Iraq".
Finish the damned job.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mouth
Honestly, the USA needs to swallow its pride, round up everyone over there, and bring everyome home.


Morally that would be the best option, though politically it wouldn't, it would be the US death sentence.

Insurgents would experience the withdrawal of American/coalition forces from Iraq as a major psychological victory, as it would show that the US can be beaten, which would inevitably lead to a growing support among certain groups of people of Muslim radicals, and thus to an increase of 9/11 attacks.

As Agit8dchop mentioned, prepare for the worst, 9/11 will be nothing compared with what will happen in such a scenario. Withdrawing the troops is not an option to consider, human lives unfortunately need to be sacrificed to protect a bigger group of civilians.

Besides, an attack on Iran is very likely, Iraq would be a location of strategic interest soldiers over there can rather get prepared for a much worse and bloodier war to come.

Though, in my opinion a much more interesting factor is whom should be held responsible for the growth of terrorism and anti-western sentiments. I mean, defending a war such as that against Lebanon, where thousands of innocent people died, really won't be beneficial.

In my opinion the US is rapidly losing power in all aspects, economically, politically and militarily, and it will be a tough job to restore relations.

The Iraq war has proven that a warmongering strategy is not one to be considered anymore, in order to solve global issues. Consensus and talks were and are still the key to solve problems, no matter how long it takes, the use of military force should be considered as last option only.



Astigia, have you watched the video of a war veteran who fought in Fallujah?

'What we are doing is immorally wrong'' / Iraqi War Veteran video

I'd like to know your opinion, as veteran, on what he says.

[edit on 16-9-2006 by Mdv2]



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 10:45 AM
link   
I hadn't seen that video.

Though the complete validity of what he says he saw is an unknown, for the most part Marines get the brutal end of the stick and I have no doubt he saw some civilian casualties. We all did.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join