Lets kill off the rest of our young people, we still have plenty left!

Its a sad day indeed. I do think the Bush lovers will reconsider, since it COULD BE THEIR OWN CHILDREN we're now going to send to the war.

How about the Bush twins?? Will they be guaranteed a cushey job in a nice cushey safe haven in some priviledged branch of the service??? YOU BET THEY WILL...

I cant wait to talk to my REPUBLICAN relatives in Florida, whos daughters and sons are all within this age range, I cant wait to ask who they'll be voting for now....

Perhaps this one will be the last drop for families that are undecided about for who to vote to take notice and value their young over the insanity of this president and prefer to vote to keep their children alive.

How many times I have to remind people that the invasion was unnecessary and our children don't have to die in Iraq.

Originally posted by belowthemoon
I may be throwing myslelf out to the wolves on this one, but i don't care. Personally I disagree with many of you. First of all, being a woman in this day and age is no different than a man in war. We can both fight.

Secondly, I agree with the war in Iraq. Whether or not there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Bush was only relaying information that he had recieved from trusted sources. Say there were weapons and they were just moved to Syria, why couldn't that be the case. We cannot be one hundred percent positive that there were no weapons of mass destruciton.

Speak to a soldier who has come back from Iraq and ask him if what the media relays to us about the people despising our presence is truth.They definitely outnumber us, and if they didn't want us there they would surely try and fight us away. If they are willing to decapitate and blow others up, why wouldn't they as a group have an uprising?

Our presence there has been very beneficial to the people. schools are being built, bridges rebuilt, women are regaining the self-worth and respect they deserve. If we were to leave now, there would be utter chaos, and those who want to terrorize our nation would indefinitely take Iraq under their control.

Our soldiers were not drafted into the military. If they joined, then they knew the risk. War happens, and that is what their training is all about.

I want to ask other women,

If your whole life you were treated as though you weren't even worth being alive, and that all you can do is be a slave to men, and bear children that will never have a chance to learn and make something of themselves. When another country comes in, takes out the dictator that is causing more and more poverty every year, safeguards your streets from militants, helps to build schools and bridges so that your quality of life can be better, giving you some sense of self worth... would you want them to just up and leave you with the work half done, so that it all just went back to hell, and the hope you had gained was shattered?

Right now, nothing is being built--the country is still very unstable and most of the money is going toward security. The future is a big questionmark--a lot of rhetoric has been put forth about schools, bridges, and infrastructure, but the insurgency has to be put down first and that is a long way off if that is even possible. If you've read recent news, Bush has begun diverting the money marked towards rebuilding towards security to attempt to build up the Iraqi police force, which is way behind schedule.

As far as the evidence of WMDs prior to the war, the quality of the intelligence was always in question. Colin Powell threw most of it out when he made his speech before the U.N. because he felt that it was not credible. Obviously, his presentation didn't contain enough evidence gain U.N. support. The weapons were not found--and even if there was a plan to build weapons, it did not pose an imminent threat. This is not enough to go to war.

The insurgency we are fighting now did not exist before the war. There were no terrorists in Iraq prior to our invasion. Deposing Saddam opened the door to terrorists and created the insurgency.

Unfortunately, I don't think that the situation will become much better for women in Iraq because the situation is a long way from being stable. I also think that it is a catch-22 when it comes to changing religious law. Having a government that supports women's rights is one thing, but many women will adhere to sharia because it is their family tradition, as well as "street law."

Obviously, I did not support Bush's decision to go to war nor the way that he misled the public regarding his "war on terror." Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda destroyed a big part of my world when they attacked my city on 9/11. I expected justice when the president said that he was going to get the people responsible.

I was dismayed and felt lied to when he claimed that the "war on terror" was our number one priority, then made a token effort in Afghanistan and in Tora Bora, he left the job of capturing Osama bin Laden, the world's number one terrorist, to a foreign army that had been fighting against us just weeks prior. When he issued orders thwarting plans to capture other Al Qaeda terrorists in the coming months in favor of planning to invade Iraq, I felt that he had betrayed those that had been affected by 9/11.

Bush had been warned about the lack of an exit plan in Iraq and those warnings have come to fruition in the worst possible way. I am sick of hearing the rhetoric he spews about spreading democracy and protecting the world from terrorism when he has made the situation much worse. I was sickened that he would use 9/11 for political gain--to lie about the situation to get reelected when he has not prosecuted anyone responsible. Removing Saddam should not have taken precedence over punishing the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11.

humm....Well, first off i am male But i think you all should know this.....

What vote do you think Kerry gave to the Patriot Act? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't Nay....

Another question...knowing that Kerry changes his mind every 10 minutes or so, do you think he would stand by any issue at all? Would he make clear what he stands for, what he really believes and stick with it? Do you think he would vote against or for the military draft, if it is reinstated? IMO, he will do what he always does, just vote no, and then say yes, and then say no, and then say yes....

That first.... Second...do you think women do not start wars?.... Nana, I am not sure about your reasons to starting this, but you know history, and women have started wars, one very famous lady was called Boadicea, a Celt, who conquered 4 Roman cities, if i remember correctly including Rome, throughout the ages, women, and children have been part of wars and there have been women who have started them. Boadicea started the war because her husband was killed, she along with her two daughters were raped and she started a resistance which almost destroyed Rome completely.

[edit on 23-9-2004 by Muaddib]

I am a middle aged woman and I hate this war. It has nothing to do with my politics or political views. My hatred of this war goes way beyond mere politics. We rushed into a situation with no plan for what we would do when Saddam was gone. (Not to mention the whole reasoning for the war was flawed). Over one year ago, President Bush declared the end of hostilites. Look how many of our children have died since that day? Iraq has become a refuge for terrorists and is on the brink of civil war. How can they have free elections in January? How can the US leave the region now? Meanwhile, day by day, bit by bit, we lose more of our young people to this war.
I was in my late teens and early 20s during Viet Nam. I hated that war too. After all these years, I still carry the memory of someone I lost in that war and wonder why in the hell he had to die.
So, I guess I'm answering with my visceral,gut feelings rather than with hard cold logic.
I would sooner have to fight the fight than let my child die in this war. I can't see any good outcome to the situation in Iraq. We are in a mess and there is no way out. Meanwhile, North Korea is flexing it's muscles, Putin is centralizing power in the Russian republics and social needs are going unmet at home.
I'm very sad and I'm also very angry.
joey (short for joanna)

Joey, my son best friend's name is Joey so I would never have imagined it could be short for Joanna.

I agree with you, for some reason the entire US focus is in the Middle East is like its life depends on it, some times it borders in insanity.

None of our issues here at home are talk about and top priority, but Iraq and Afghanistan well-being is.

Can we really as a nation of the people can make our government officials stop the madness? Can we ever take our goverment back again?

Originally posted by belowthemoon
I want to ask other women,

If your whole life you were treated as though you weren't even worth being alive, and that all you can do is be a slave to men, and bear children that will never have a chance to learn and make something of themselves. When another country comes in, takes out the dictator that is causing more and more poverty every year, safeguards your streets from militants, helps to build schools and bridges so that your quality of life can be better, giving you some sense of self worth... would you want them to just up and leave you with the work half done, so that it all just went back to hell, and the hope you had gained was shattered?

You grew up post 1960, right?

The conditions you described existed in the United States for most women and in particular for non-white women until the 1960's.

And if Bush HAD done all that, he might be seen as a hero... maybe. Instead, look at his legacy from THEIR viewpoint: More than 30,000 of their men have been killed, including their relatives and their neighbors. There are a lot fewer jobs now and resentment against women who take them is very high. The streets are MUCH more dangerous now -- we hear daily reports of car bombings and other attacks on Iraqui citizens and the daily death toll is mounting higher.

There wasn't that kind of danger under Saddam.

In addition, they now have foreigners coming into the country, trying to convert them to a foreign religion (Christianity.)

Saddam was small potatoes and could have been dealt with otherwise. Bush deciding that he was a bigger threat than Osama bin Ladin is just plain ridiculous and the unrest he has caused in Iraq (so that HE could look like a Hero President) has spilled over to cause more problems for the rest of the world.

Bush hasn't been fighting a war on terrorism, because he hasn't gone after the big targets. He's been fighting a War To Be Seen As A Big Macho Guy... ignoring social issues and killing our kids and the kids of Iraqui mothers.

This November, he's gone!

Originally posted by Muaddib
That first.... Second...do you think women do not start wars?.... Nana, I am not sure about your reasons to starting this, but you know history, and women have started wars, one very famous lady was called Boadicea, a Celt, who conquered 4 Roman cities... Boadicea started the war because her husband was killed, she along with her two daughters were raped and she started a resistance which almost destroyed Rome completely.

She didn't start the war.

She did, however, finish it.

byrd, you are right.

Also sometimes the way people get their information and the way they interpret them is amazing.

No body wants to listen of the cry of women in Iraq now, like you said Sadam was a dictator and his sons were crazy.

But women had jobs, Christians were able to worship, and he kept the clerics leaders that were to powerful control. And children went to school.

Now Job's for women are not available and they are afraid to leave their homes,
Because of Islamic radicals that wants women under control some are force in to wearing veil so as not to be targeted in the streets.

Christians are afraid to worship for the danger of being targeted and parents are afraid to send children to school because the bombings and shooting going on in the cities, by the insurgents.

Yeah Iraq is a better place to live all right.



[edit on 23-9-2004 by marg6043]

[edit on 23-9-2004 by marg6043]

I hate war...I hate killing...but there are things worth fighting for. Oil is not one of them. I do not believe in all the ridiculous protesting that has happened....it sends the wrong message to our men over there risking their lives and protesting is not going to stop the war....it's a completely pointless act accomplishing nothing. Do I support Bush? NO....didn't and won't. DO I support the war? I'm no sure anymore, but I support our troops! I too have sons that are of draft age. It concerns me. If they have to go fight, I want to be for something worth risking your life over, freedom, not revenge, not oil, not for personal agenda.....is the war worth all of this? I'm not sure. I don't think it's a war we can win and I think perhaps there needs to be another way. What that way would be, I have no idea but something is terribly wrong here.

quote: Originally posted by belowthemoon

I may be throwing myslelf out to the wolves on this one, but i don't care. Personally I disagree with many of you. First of all, being a woman in this day and age is no different than a man in war. We can both fight.

Yes, women can fight, just like men...in Vietnam we killed women fighting us bedause their guns killed just as efficiently as mens. But the onus then is on you..do you wnat to die for a great nothing, for a senseless cause...your family and children to mourn forever, trying to make sense of your sacrifice for a nothing?

Secondly, I agree with the war in Iraq. Whether or not there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Bush was only relaying information that he had recieved from trusted sources. Say there were weapons and they were just moved to Syria, why couldn't that be the case. We cannot be one hundred percent positive that there were no weapons of mass destruciton.

You agree with the war!!! How naive are you? You say Bush was only relaying information he received from trusted sources...a responsible president then would have waited for varifying sources like the UN Weapons inspectors who begged him to wait just a bit more until they completed their investigations. Hans Blich, the head of the weapn's inspectors, said he had told Bush to wait, but that thus far he had seen no incication that there were WMD's present. Patience is a virtue in a leader, not a preemptive rush to judgment with spotty intel, before you know the facts.
Why couldn't he have mnoved WMD's to Syria, you ask? On that same vein, why couldn't he burind them all in a great. bog gp[her hole...or why couldn't he have removed them to the moon? These aren't any more ludicrous than your question...because the fact is, if he moved something with that bulk, we would have detected the movement.

Speak to a soldier who has come back from Iraq and ask him if what the media relays to us about the people despising our presence is truth.They definitely outnumber us, and if they didn't want us there they would surely try and fight us away. If they are willing to decapitate and blow others up, why wouldn't they as a group have an uprising?

I have done just that, dear lady...asked soldiers over there...and of those who actually did the fighting outside of the green zone, there is an overwhelming response that they are suffering over there...dying over there...and it's getting harder and harder. The Iraqis are about 80 percent militantly against us. Oh sure, we are helping a few to live better lives, but at what cost? So far the war has cost us over 200 billion dollars and 4,000 live of Americans killed or seriously wounded, plus many thousands of others will be adversely affected for the rest of their lives by the image of the man they killed, or the bloody mass of humanity of their buddies dying in their arms. Have you ever seen a dead body killed in war? It's not clean and antiseptic like you see in the movies. There are just pieces...a foot here, an arm...you try to plug them together like when the arms or head fall of a barbie...but it doesn't work. I know, I've tried. Modern war weapons make the body a mass of bloody laundry...and nothing can prepare you for that.

Are you for real? Don't you read the papers...it's on every new channel, yahoo, msnbc, CBS, Fox...they don't want us there, and they are fighting us en masse, they are decapitating more and more of us, and growing bolder and more efficient, killing more Americans and innocents daily, each day more than the day before. And they are banding together as groups, and armis to fight us...haven't you heard of Muqtada Al Sadr and his army...haven't you heard of the unrest and violence being done bagainst us by both Sunni and Shiite Muslims? We are very close to a civil war, and close to a World War because they hate us so much.

And when they kill Americans, like those four contractors, or those men in the Bradley fighting machine the other day, have you seen the footage, when the camera pans up and down the street, everybody on the street is celebrating the death of Americans, the shop owners, the man on the street, not just the ones who ambushed the vehicle, and killed the men...everybody!!!!!!!!

Our presence there has been very beneficial to the people. schools are being built, bridges rebuilt, women are regaining the self-worth and respect they deserve. If we were to leave now, there would be utter chaos, and those who want to terrorize our nation would indefinitely take Iraq under their control.

Our soldiers were not drafted into the military. If they joined, then they knew the risk. War happens, and that is what their training is all about.

I want to ask other women,

If your whole life you were treated as though you weren't even worth being alive, and that all you can do is be a slave to men, and bear children that will never have a chance to learn and make something of themselves. When another country comes in, takes out the dictator that is causing more and more poverty every year, safeguards your streets from militants, helps to build schools and bridges so that your quality of life can be better, giving you some sense of self worth... would you want them to just up and leave you with the work half done, so that it all just went back to hell, and the hope you had gained was shattered?

Do you know that the US and coalition forces have killed more innocent Iraqis than Saddam did during his entire reign. And you said something about safeguarding the streets from militants...what???? Again don't you read the papers? There are thousands of unlawful militants roaming the streets more than there was in Saddam's day...they are everywhere. Our troops cannot go anywhere without being shot at. And just like in Vietnam, the people of the streets may smile at us as we pass, and say all the proper things...but as soon as our back is turned we are shot at from them. War is hell, lady...and senseless war, is, well, senseless hell. If you are going to fight and die for something, you want it to be something that means something. Vietnam didn't, and neither does Iraq. And I, Like General Clarke said, "I am not attacking our president for attacking terrorists, I am attacking him for not attacking terrorists."

Battles are won by killing the enemy, so military leaders should strive to produce the most efficient killers. The problem, however, is that soldiers who kill reflexively in combat will likely one day reconsider their actions reflectively. If they are unable to justify to themselves the fact that they killed another human being, they will likely--and understandably--suffer enormous guilt. This guilt manifests itself as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and it has damaged the lives of thousands of men who performed their duty in combat. CPT Pete Kilner, Instructor, U.S. Military Academy

Originally posted by LadyV
I hate war...I hate killing...but there are things worth fighting for. Oil is not one of them. I do not believe in all the ridiculous protesting that has happened....it sends the wrong message to our men over there risking their lives and protesting is not going to stop the war....it's a completely pointless act accomplishing nothing. Do I support Bush? NO....didn't and won't. DO I support the war? I'm no sure anymore, but I support our troops! I too have sons that are of draft age. It concerns me. If they have to go fight, I want to be for something worth risking your life over, freedom, not revenge, not oil, not for personal agenda.....is the war worth all of this? I'm not sure. I don't think it's a war we can win and I think perhaps there needs to be another way. What that way would be, I have no idea but something is terribly wrong here.

Actually fighting for oil is ok, but this war is not for oil anyway. If a country needs resources it can invade another country. Its been going on for thousands of years and will continue to do so. If a country is weak it will get trampled on, its common sense to keep your military strong otherwise you will be invaded. Most importantly this is a war on terrorism. Maybe we should start beheading terrorists and put it on for all to view.

[edit on 24-9-2004 by IBM]

Originally posted by Byrd

She didn't start the war.

She did, however, finish it.

She started the rebellion Byrd, there was no war until she joined the clans of the Celts to fight the romans... and she did not finish it because she committed suicide byrd, by poisoning herself, as i remember they lost a big battle, she survived the battle but she decided to take her life. (althou experts say there could have been other reasons why she did it, we will never know the true reason)

Anyways....you said she didn't start it huh?.....just like we didn't start it.... Ironic isn't it, some roman soldiers were sent to her home where they raped her daughters, i can't remember is she was raped too, anyway, they were under roman rule and the romans were taxing the Celts heavily. What I mean by heavily is that they were taxed to the extent the celts didn't have any money, so Boadicea united her people who had been fighting each other in clan wars...the Celts fought each other a lot, mostly to steal each other's herds....celts measured wealth not by the money they had, but by the amound of herd the clans had, usually their clan wars were fought because of this.

Originally posted by 1stcavgrunt

Do you know that the US and coalition forces have killed more innocent Iraqis than Saddam did during his entire reign.

err...where exactly do you get these numbers? Saddam had killed from 300,000 to 500,000 or probably even more, so you are wrong. not only that but the peaceful sanctions that were put by the UN and which Clinton agreed with killed 500,000 iraqi children under the age of 5. The loss of life no matter how many is always bad, but compared to Saddam and sanctions put by the UN the war has killed less people and has liberated many more. Also, you hear about the places were there is fighting, because that makes news, but you don't hear from those places that are secured. There are only a few places were the insurgents have bunkered down, and we are fighting terrorists in their own turf, and yes it is their turf.

Ok ladies...time to hit it on the head here.

1: female
2: combat medic
3: been to iraq
4: 21yrs old

War is war...people die...people whine and moan about the state of affairs around the whole damn thing.

We have a right to defend our country as any males do...

Do not judge a woman in combat unless you have seen her...

Take the hint...suck it up...were here in the forces and were at war. We didnt want to be here....but we have no choice to keep everyone safe.

Deal with it or just accept the fact that dispite our reproductive organs are on the inside and not the outside...it dont matter cause we have bigger balls in some cases than men!