[JamesP]

What does it mean to "Support the Troops"?

Does supporting the troops mean telling the truth about the war? It should.

The staggering human costs of the war, measured now in the over 1,000,000 Iraqis estimated to have died under its auspices, according to the latest estimations by British pollsters Opinion Research Business (ORB), represent a historic crime against humanity.

- 78 percent of Iraqis oppose the presence of U.S. and coalition troops in their country, as reported in a recent ABC News-USA Today poll. No wonder nearly half of all Iraqis support attacks on American troops.

"The violence in Iraq is overshadowing a humanitarian crisis, with eight million Iraqis-nearly one in three-in need of emergency aid," concludes a July report from Oxfam International and a network of aid organizations working in Iraq.

- Currently, 70 percent of Iraqis are without adequate water supplies
- Twenty-eight percent of children are malnourished
- Fifteen percent of the population regularly cannot buy enough food.
- Fifty percent unemployment continues to stalk many areas of the country.

- U.S. troops the casualties now number over 3,800 dead and 29,000 wounded.
- More than 185,000 returning US veterans have sought medical and disability assistance for post-traumatic stress and other injuries.

- A Le Moyne College/Zogby Poll taken in 2006, found 72 percent of U.S. troops serving in Iraq supported an exit from the country within a year.
- Only one in five favored the President's "stay the course" rhetoric.

"In public life today, paying homage to those in uniform has become obligatory and the one unforgivable sin is to be found guilty of failing to 'support the troops,'" writes Boston University professor Andrew J. Bacevich in his 2005 book, "The New American Militarism." the United States under its current leaders is on a path that "invites endless war and the ever-deepening militarization of U.S. policy," warns the former career military officer from Normal, Illinois.

It's a path that for the first time openly embraces the option of "preventive war" as policy. With this has come a revival of the mystifying nonsense that every troop deployment is driven by the goal of "protecting our freedom" as Americans. What better way to justify a war that don't deserve justification than to elevate "the troops" onto some sanctified stage where critical thinking is sacrificed to a cartoon version of patriotism engineered by desperate, violent men.

As usual, it's the rank and file soldiers who are the pawns in this deadly game.

[ababof]

Hi James, you quoted that earlier
As there is a humanitarian crisis with every conflict and elsewhere too, there would be at least some good if war improved the life of the civilians. This has rarely be seen yet, but it would be good that some official take their responsibilities at last. When I think that Iraq had -for a time-a better health care that you have in the USA, that would almost make me laugh, if there wasn't something to cry about.

[ababof]

And what are the next steps ? Preventive wars in Iran (here you will have frenchies little support), Pakistan; north Corea, and perhaps others if there is oil...What about Syria, Leban? What about Israel, always imitating you? Will you stop supporting them when they have eradicated the Palestinians, will that be going too far ? Or is it just protecting the freedom to colonize of your jewish diaspora? If the Usa can quietly direspect the UN, why then should you ask the others not to do the same ? Just because the reason of the strongest is always the best ? I thought the freedom of the ones should stop where the freedom of the other started, but it's true, your part of shollow minded citizens know no limit to their freedom, except perhaps the limits prescribed by those they gave the powers to.
Guess what? a CON in french is the old slang for female genitals... so that, like in every other language, one "con" is the most common insult meaning stupid, prick, you'd say asshole...I know that's silly, but I find it fun that when you say neo-con, I always hear neo-stupid...and see the image of a cartoon bush

[cat's meow]

Support the troops...bring them home.

[Thelonious]

"Support the troops" actually has two meanings. The first and most common is an exclaimation, a battle cry, "Support the troops!!!". It is used to distract. Any criticism of Dubya (at a time of war (said with a very serious face)) gets the rebuttal "Why can't you just support the troops??" because if you support the troops you must support moral and questioning the infinite wisdom of the COMMANDER IN CHIEF definitely degrades moral. "the troops" here have become a mythical sacred entity which will tolerate no blasphemy, the embodiment of these sacred troops is of course Dubya, Rove, or maybe Tony Snow. The democrats say "Stop the war" and the Wacko Right says "see they don't support our troops" (there is usually a tragic sniffle here, because it is soooo sad that Amercans would turn against their country at a time of war)

The second meaning of "Support the troops" actually has something to do with soldiers. When an American soldier, let's call him Mike, is patrolling in Tal Afar and not wearing body armour, because Bush-Chenney-Rumsfeld had enough cash for a huge tax cut to the rich, but not enough for body armour.... this soldier needs support. About a year ago on Al Franken on Air America I heard an interview with some real people raising real money to buy real body armour and send it to real soldiers in Iraq.
Our soldier Mike, could also use a little armour on his Humvee, IEDs kill and wound a lot of American guys... Why couldn't Bush-Chenney-Rumsfeld put the proper armour on his Humvee??? Mike could really use a little time off between deployments.. to rest and regroup… Why can’t Bush-Chenney-Rumsfeld give him that time off??? Oh, yes, because they started a bigger war than their military could handle…Yes, yes, Bush-Chenney-Rumsfeld transformed our military into a small quick effective force. Remember shock-and-awe. Yeah, shock-and-awe has been great against the Sunni Guerrillas, hasn’t it? Maybe Mike could get replaced for a time by soldiers from other countries. Nope Bush-Chenney-Rumsfeld pissed off nearly every country in the world and basically said, We’re gonna do this on our own. Bangladesh, for example has a HUGE army. They are all dirt poor too. And Muslims to boot. Not only that they have a history of contributing troops to UN missions. Pay them a couple billion and you’ve instantly got tens of thousand of new soldiers to patrol Bagdad…. NOPE, Bush-Chenney-Rumsfeld didn’t do the diplomacy right… so Mike is stuck. And the list of ignorant incompetent absurd and insane decisions made by Bush-Chenney-Rumsfeld is so long that I will stop here before I hit 50,000 pages.
Mike and thousands of American Soldiers like him are suffering. They have been suffering for years now in a war that Bush-Chenney-Rumsfeld were well able to start and are now completely unable to stop. Mike and thousands of American Soldiers are suffering as a direct result of the Appalling Incompetence of Bush-Chenney-Rumsfeld and their cronies. The best way to support our troops is to impeach Bush and Chenney, and get some folks with common sense running the executive.

[Wafflepudding]

Oh, yes, because they started a bigger war than their military could handle…Yes, yes, Bush-Chenney-Rumsfeld transformed our military into a small quick effective force. Remember shock-and-awe. Yeah, shock-and-awe has been great against the Sunni Guerrillas, hasn’t it?

Nothing wrong with shock and awe, it is a sound concept, the 21st century evolution of blitzkrieg. Instead of breaking through by concentrating armor and artillery trying to overwhelm the enemy by ground force concentration and tactical superiority, you destroy their lines of communications, kill their commanders, and basically break their fighting spirit by making it seem as if it's useless to resist and no help is coming.

It's designed to collapse a regular military though, a military that has clear supply lines and a command, communications and control structure, not irregular forces like suicide bombers and guerrillas. It's a strategy that emphasizes mobility and surgical strikes, Iraq is an occupation and as such it's basically a war of attrition, first side to get sick of the casualties or runs out of cash loses. In other words it's like showing scissors against rock and pretending it's paper.

It's also meant to terrorize and demoralize the enemy by making him, her or they feel helpless and isolated. This will obviously NOT work with Islamic militants thinking they fight and die in the name of god. The worst you could possibly do is bomb them, and we've all seen how afraid they are of perishing in explosions (that is, not at all).

Also, just so you know, the original "Shock and awe" plan for Iraq involved, basically, turning the country into smoldering rubble with extensive use of airstrikes, but this was deemed too unpalatable. Or maybe the air force just didn't have enough bombs in stock, who knows.


Mike and thousands of American Soldiers like him are suffering. They have been suffering for years now in a war that Bush-Chenney-Rumsfeld were well able to start and are now completely unable to stop. Mike and thousands of American Soldiers are suffering as a direct result of the Appalling Incompetence of Bush-Chenney-Rumsfeld and their cronies. The best way to support our troops is to impeach Bush and Chenney, and get some folks with common sense running the executive.


Unable or unwilling? Amen to the rest of that.

[jr2007sc]

Can I add some facts to this diatribe?

Hey James P....I certainly wouldn't dispute an ABC News/USA Today poll (yeah right), but you say that the poll's results showed that 78% of Iraqis oppose the presence of US troops in Iraq. All I can tell you is that my brother who is on his 2nd combat tour in Iraq told me that hands down, all the Iraqi civilians he's dealt with love the Americans. They DON'T want them to leave.

And Thelonius...I know you're just repeating the constant Democratic drumbeat that there is not enough body armour for our troops. That's BS. Again, my brother, both times, was NOT PERMITTED to leave Kuwait en route to Iraq without body armour. He was issued NEW body armour each tour.

Oh.. and by the way, "support the troops" really only means that you want them to WIN. (But I haven't heard that one..why???) Supporting them...and their mission. To Win.

[JamesP]

All I can tell you is that my brother who is on his 2nd combat tour in Iraq told me that hands down, all the Iraqi civilians he's dealt with love the Americans. They DON'T want them to leave.


JR:

"All the Iraqis he's dealt with love the Americans!?"

Maybe this is just a tad bit too much of a "statement of fact", my friend.
It flies in the face of so much contrary evidence from so many different sources that it reduces your credibility instantly to zero.

Not a good beginning.


Oh.. and by the way, "support the troops" really only means that you want them to WIN. (But I haven't heard that one..why???) Supporting them...and their mission. To Win.

2nd blow to your credibility: Your priority is not for your brother to be safe and return to his family whole... to live out the rest of his life.
For you, it's more important that we "win" (whatever that means)!

Oh and by the way, we've already won! There are "no weapons of mass destruction" there to hurt us and we've successfully implemented "regime change".
What more do you want your brother to achieve there? What's worth his losing his life or coming back crippled or disfigured to you?

It's not nice to enter here and lie, my friend.

Thelonious: Excellent post!
The Bush administration has failed our service men & women in so, so many ways, it is a national disgrace... and cause for rage to anyone who truly loves this country and "supports our troops". Only those that "support themselves" at "the expense of our troops" could possibly think otherwise.

[Wafflepudding]

And Thelonius...I know you're just repeating the constant Democratic drumbeat that there is not enough body armour for our troops. That's BS. Again, my brother, both times, was NOT PERMITTED to leave Kuwait en route to Iraq without body armour. He was issued NEW body armour each tour.

The body armor complain goes back to 2003. Now there are enough Interceptor vests for most troops that are in action but this wasn't always the case. Early on troops were issued PASGT armor, which stops fragments, not bullets, and so was pretty useless against 7.62x39mm soviet ammunition (the kind fired by AK47/AKM rifles).

While you're at it, you might want to check the problems that have arisen with quality control. If I remember correctly, a few thousand Interceptor vests were recalled because they'd failed to stop 9x19mm luger rounds, meaning that the larger, more powerful rifle rounds the Iraqies use would have punched through them like they were paper.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51481-2004Dec9.html

Would you accuse the Washington post of having a liberal bias? Ask your brother what "hillbilly armor" is. Early on, Humvees and trucks were not armored, so soldiers had to weld or ribbet scrap metal to try to get some protection against small arms and RPGs (if you know how an RPG HEAT warhead works, you'll know why this was folly).

Rumsfeld said the problem was "essentially a matter of physics," with production of armored Humvees taking time to catch up to demand. "You go to war with the Army you have," he said. "They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time." In any case, he said, "all the armor in the world" is sometimes not enough to keep even a tank or "an up-armored Humvee" from being blown up.

Keep in mind this was in 2003, we had already fought in Afghanistan. They had two years to prepare, but the up-armored version of the humvee with CROWS didn't come out until relatively recently (tests for the teleoperated M2 machinegun ended in late 2004).

Oh.. and by the way, "support the troops" really only means that you want them to WIN. (But I haven't heard that one..why???) Supporting them...and their mission. To Win.

Gotta agree with you there, all this partisanship means the troops are getting the short end of the stick. But they wouldn't be in this mess to start with if we had stopped at Afghanistan.

Google Donald Rumsfeld and see for yourself why I think supporting the troops, and supporting the administration are almost opposites. Yeah Rumsfeld is gone, but he resigned, Bush backed him unconditionally.

[NeoCon Newbie]

If you say you support our troops and you want them to come home where were you during the gulf war there was no protest during that war was it because clinton was president a democrat. If Gore or Kerry where president know and the war is having the same outcome as it is know you guys would not be protesting you guys would be saying kerry or gore what a good job you are doing keep up the good work.

[MAGI]

If you say you support our troops and you want them to come home where were you during the gulf war there was no protest during that war was it because clinton was president a democrat. If Gore or Kerry where president know and the war is having the same outcome as it is know you guys would not be protesting you guys would be saying kerry or gore what a good job you are doing keep up the good work.

NeoCon Newbie,
Here's a little information about the Gulf War of 1991 for you.
The U.S. president that invaded Iraq then was your hero's daddy, George H. Bush
of the "thousand points of light" with his "100 hour war".
Not "clinton"!



[edit] Coalition forces enter Iraq
Shortly afterwards, the U.S. VII Corps assembled in full strength and launched an armoured attack into Iraq early Sunday, February 24, just to the west of Kuwait, taking Iraqi forces by surprise. Simultaneously, the U.S. XVIII Airborne Corps launched a sweeping “left-hook” attack across the largely undefended desert of southern Iraq, led by the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment (3rd ACR) and the 24th Infantry Division (Mechanized). The left flank of this movement was protected by the French 6th Light Armored Division (which included units of the French Foreign Legion). The fast-moving French force quickly overcame the Iraqi 45th Infantry Division, suffering only a handful of casualties, and took up blocking positions to prevent any Iraqi force from attacking the Allied flank. The right flank of the movement was protected by the British 1st Armoured Division. Once the allies had penetrated deep into Iraqi territory, they turned eastward, launching a flank attack against the Republican Guard.

Both sides exchanged fire, but the Republican guard divisions, worn down by weeks of aerial bombardment, proved unable to withstand the Allied advance. Tank battles, including the Battle of Medina Ridge and the Battle of 73 Easting, flared as the Republican Guard attempted to retreat. The Allies won with minimal losses.


General Colin Powell briefs President George H. W. Bush and his advisors on the progress of the ground war.It soon became obvious the Iraqi strategy was inherently flawed. Once Iraq had decided it was not going to advance into the eastern oil fields of Saudi Arabia, there was no reason for Iraqi forces to deploy further south from Kuwait City in great numbers. The decision to deploy significant quantities of troops along the desert border of Kuwait unnecessarily increased the length of Iraqi supply lines. Secondly, once the decision had been made to deploy along the border, the decision to extend it only slightly along the Iraqi border invited a massive flanking. Indeed the Iraqis did not possess enough forces to maintain a long enough front along the border of Kuwait and southwestern Iraq. Therefore it was imperative that the deployment and the front should have been shortened to just south of Kuwait City and extending to the outskirts of Basra. Iraq possessed only one absolute military advantage over the allies, that being the quality and quantity of its artillery pieces, especially the South African made G5 howitzer. However, most of Iraq’s artillery pieces were towed and hence not well suited to large expansive maneuvers. This also meant that it was in Iraq’s interest to slow down the movement of opposition forces and engage along lines that could not be easily broken or flanked.


The "Highway of Death"The Coalition advance was much swifter than U.S. generals had expected. On February 26, Iraqi troops began retreating out of Kuwait, setting fire to Kuwaiti oil fields as they left. A long convoy of retreating Iraqi troops formed along the main Iraq-Kuwait highway. This convoy was bombed so extensively by the Allies that it came to be known as the Highway of Death. Critics of the action contend that the column also contained prisoners and other fleeing Iraqi civilians, such as families of Iraqi military units. Forces from the United States, the United Kingdom, and France continued to pursue retreating Iraqi forces over the border and back into Iraq, moving to within 150 miles (240 km) of Baghdad before withdrawing.

One hundred hours after the ground campaign started, President Bush declared a cease-fire and on February 27 declared that Kuwait had been liberated.



Without a doubt you won't read it, but anyway the full account:

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

[Thelonious]

Waffle,
I wrote about the war that "Bush-Chenney-Rumsfeld were well able to start and are now completely unable to stop. "

You responded with:
"Unable or unwilling?"

Unable. Bush-Chenney-Rumsfeld are completely unable to stop the Bush-Chenney-Rumsfeld War. We can debate how when and where they could end US involvement in the Bush-Chenney-Rumsfeld War, but the war will go on with or without US troops. The Bush-Chenney-Rumsfeld War will go on long after Bush and Chenney have left office. If the world is very lucky the Bush-Chenney-Rumsfeld War will not expand beyond to borders of Iraq. If the world is very lucky the Bush-Chenney-Rumsfeld War will end as a bloodbath of Iraqis killing Iraqis... but the Iraqi anarchy, the power-vacuum in an oil rich country like that just invites medlers.

I really doubt that the Bush-Chenney-Rumsfeld War will end anytime soon. All the indicators are it is just getting started.

[Thelonious]

I certainly wouldn't dispute an ABC News/USA Today poll (yeah right), but you say that the poll's results showed that 78% of Iraqis oppose the presence of US troops in Iraq. All I can tell you is that my brother who is on his 2nd combat tour in Iraq told me that hands down, all the Iraqi civilians he's dealt with love the Americans. They DON'T want them to leave.

JR,
It happens that I believe ABC news and USA today much more than I believe the anecdotal hearsay evidence allegedly coming from one soldier in Iraq.
There are dozens of reasons why anecdotal evidence is not proof. But one is simply the biases involved in the very situation. Let's look at the scene: A heavily armed well-trained soldier from the most powerfull army anywhere within three thousand miles walks down the street. I know dammed well he's got back up nearby. I know dammed well that if he even suspects me of having contacts with terrorists or militias he can, ransack my house, arrest me and hold me without charge for the rest of my life, torture me until I confess to things I have never done. Ok. How will I greet him. I'm gonna be F....ing nice to that soldier. I'm gonna smile offer him a drink. I'm gonna tell him how much I love Americans and how much I want them around. And I'm gonna save myself a lot of potential trouble by doing so.
I don't know if that is how you're brother got the impression that he did. Maybe he is really in a town where they really do like Americans. I don't even know if you really have a brother. But this story doesn't prove anything to me.

A corrolary point is why should I not believe ABC/USA Today? Because a proven liar like Rush Limbaugh says that they are liberal. That is hardly a condemnation. If you have any real evidence of ABC and or USA Today lacking objectivity then out with it. 'Till then you're just yapping empty nonsense. [James is right. The vast majority of reports from all sorts of sources are that the ABC/USA Today numbers are correct]

[ababof]

Newbie,

You may be surprised, but I think that BUsh senior, is far more intelligent than his son. I am not saying he would 100% chance have gone if there was no oil in Irak, but at least he was able to go on a good occasion, for there was a genocide going on, and he was fighting an army. Now, the question you should ask is why they did not try to get Saddam at that time ...

[Thelonious]

Oh.. and by the way, "support the troops" really only means that you want them to WIN.

Hmmm. That's funny. I thought I could speak English. but it really "ONLY" means that I want them to win.... Hmmmmmm. That's news to me. You must be WAY smarter than I am.

By the way, it that why so many people have "I want them to win" bumper stickers. I mean around here it's about 50/50 "I want them to win" and "Support the troops"

So by extension does "Support the troops" mean I don't care if they all die or get any time off at all, or receive medical care, or veterans benefits, or coffins or funerals... as long as they win???

Sounds a little silly, doesn't it?

[ababof]

Thel,
I'm far more stupid than you. I thought "support the troops" meant support Bush administration and pay your taxes withant asking questions because it takes billions for the soldiers who defend democracy, and we need some millions for internal affairs too, including teaching the next generation what our democracy is about.

[MAGI]

Thel,
I'm far more stupid than you. I thought "support the troops" meant support Bush administration and pay your taxes without asking questions because it takes billions for the soldiers who defend democracy, and we need some millions for internal affairs too, including teaching the next generation what our democracy is about.

:D

------------------------------------------------------------------------
an article about a president who has my utmost respect:

America Tortures Prisoners, Carter Says
Calls Vice President Cheney 'Disaster for Our Country'
AP
Posted: 2007-10-11 07:39:19
Filed Under: Politics News, World News
WASHINGTON (Oct. 11) -- The U.S. tortures prisoners in violation of international law, former President Jimmy Carter said Wednesday, adding that President Bush makes up his own definition of torture.


Philip Cheung, Getty Images Former President Jimmy Carter, seen in September, told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Wednesday that the U.S. tortures prisoners captured in the war on terror. "I don't think it. I know it," Carter said.
1 of 7
"Our country for the first time in my life time has abandoned the basic principle of human rights," Carter said on CNN. "We've said that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to those people in Abu Ghraib prison and Guantanamo, and we've said we can torture prisoners and deprive them of an accusation of a crime."

skip

"But you can make your own definition of human rights and say we don't violate them, and you can make your own definition of torture and say we don't violate them," Carter said.

skip

"We're not going to engage in this kind of rhetoric," she said.

In the CNN interview, the Democratic former president disparaged the field of Republican presidential candidates.

"They all seem to be outdoing each other in who wants to go to war first with Iran, who wants to keep Guantanamo open longer and expand its capacity _ things of that kind," Carter said.

He said he also disagreed with positions taken by Democratic Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, who have declined to promise to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq over the following four years if elected president next year.


http://news.aol.com/story/ar/_a/america-tortures-prisoners-carter-says/20071010165209990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

skip 23,041 comments at this moment....


one being:
Masmanz 01:04:48 PM Oct 11 2007

Report This! The warmongers certainly hate Carter. He was instrumental in Egypt/Israel peace accord which ended a major conflict in the region. The warmongers would have preferred to bomb and occupy Egypt instead. They would have much preferred to kill hundreds of thousands of Egyptian and get thousands of our own soldiers killed. Their motto -- Any war is better than peace. If the Zionist lobby had helped Carter he would have solved the entire Middle East problem but then that would have made the Zionists lobby redundant.
Carter's efforts to free the hostages through diplomatic means was sabotaged by Reagen people, remember Iran/Contra. It was sad that the Iranians listened to the Reagen people (just to get some arm deal) instead of dealing with Carter. It was Iran's loss not Carter's. The patience eventually paid off and all the hostages came home alive. The warmongers would have much preferred to invade Iran, getting all the hostages killed, plus perhaps several hundred thousand Iranians dead

[ababof]

Magi,
according to the articles posted,-yours and James's- the interview was on "BBC". radio or channels? Because that question is not far from Kouchner "mischieving" on radio, but filmed and then spread, but (I listened to the programm)the 30 seconds or less on TV are from the liberty we used to take on a one-hour radio broadcast. And where there is no context, it is easy to mis-interprete.
I wouldn't be surprised if he was asked about British issues, that should be related to the press room also, but the brits were angry about Bush impeaching US soldiers to shed light in the British courts about the soldiers activities. Not even mentionning how Bush showed his discomptempt to GB and Italia...

Susannah Tarbush in Al-Hayat - 05/04/07//
British military officials and some politicians and commentators have expressed alarm over the screening of a powerful new feature film that depicts British soldiers behaving with brutality and depravity towards Iraqi civilian prisoners during the invasion of Iraq. 'The Mark of Cain', to be shown by Channel 4 on Thursday night, contains scenes of soldiers urinating on and physically assaulting Iraqi captives, and forcing them to commit sexual acts with each other. There have been calls for Channel 4 TV to withdraw the film from its schedule on Thursday night.
'The Mark of Cain' is the first British feature film on the experiences of British soldiers in the Iraq war. It had its world premiere at the International Film Festival Rotterdam in February, where it won the human rights organisation Amnesty International's award for "Movies that Matter". After the film is shown on Channel 4 it will be released on DVD and shown in cinemas.
The film was written by one of Britain's most outstanding TV dramatists, Tony Marchant. Although it is a fictional story, it is based on extensive research. Marchant and his researcher interviewed almost 100 people, including former and serving soldiers. They also had military advisers on set during the shooting of the film in Tunisia and the north of England.
'The Mark of Cain' focuses on two 18-year-old soldiers, childhood friends Mark (played by Gerard Kearns) and Wayne (Matthew McNulty). After two men in their regiment are killed by Iraqis, feelings run high and the two young soldiers become drawn into increasingly serious abuse of Iraqi prisoners. The soldiers' military superiors seem to have given the green light for the abuses, but it is only the two low ranking young soldiers who have to face the consequences at a court martial.
The Guardian newspaper said the drama is "television at its very, very best." The Conservative MP Michael Gove, a staunch supporter of the war, acknowledges that the film is an "effective, wrenching drama" but calls on Channel 4 to think "very, very hard about screening it." He says the screening "will inflame opinion, not just in Iraq but in the wider Middle East, because it looks so realistic and has that quality of documentary."
Colonel Tim Collins, commander of the Royal Irish Regiment during the Iraqi invasion, complains that the film "panders to popular prejudices" against the British Army and what its soldiers do. He says it "fails to capture the realities and subtleties of the most disciplined and professional army in the world."

[ababof]

LINE 4 erratum : I meant to say Bush despised the Brit Army action and the Italian Intelligence Service ( collateral damages happened but were purely the allies' responsibility : they had to do what Americans were doing, instead of being killed stupidly by your troops..)

[MAGI]

bof,
Without a doubt some of our young troops of ALL nations commit atrocities after seeing their comrades killed and/or wounded during war. They lose their morality for a time (or a lifetime....or kill themselves), those poor young children, thrown into the horror by the monsters who manipulated this
pre emptive invasion particularily!
It should be shown. The coffins should be shown.

All The horrors of war should be in the news hourly.
"War is HELL"

That is the reason most of us cannot accept war. You and I know it well.

All we can do now is try to end it, so let The Truth of War be known.
Bravo for those with the fortitude and morality to publish truth!

[MAGI]

and of coarse, there is this factor which really contributes to the problem:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-recruit11oct11,0,4222162.story?coll=chi_tab01_layo ut
U.S. Army lowers its recruiting standards
More recruits have criminal records, no high school diploma

[cat's meow]

Support the Troops, bring them hone.

[haus]

Support the Troops, bring them hone.

While having a hone can be very useful, especially if you have a dull knife, most troops would just look at you funny if you brought them one.

If you really want to bring a troop something that will make them happy, bring them porn. I've never seen the arrival of any object spread as much hope, contentment, and a sense of purpose through a division as a newly arriving "training film."

[NeoCon Newbie]

Support the troops by wanting them to win. Liberals dont like our troops because if they did they would want us to win this war.

[JamesP]

Support the troops by wanting them to win. Liberals dont like our troops because if they did they would want us to win this war.


The statement above is a particularly weak argument.

Read the many posts below for some perspective, but, in general, the "right-wing war & tax-cut" enthusiasts intentionally confuse the mission with the people burdened with the task of fighting it.

Insisting on staying and "winning", in this case, is to support only yourself, the tragically-flawed Bush administration and their friends: the war-profiteers.

The troops lose when you leave them in Iraq to fight a badly managed "unwinnable & immoral war" with no end in sight.

They "win" when we:
- declare victory! (Look Ma! no weapons of mass destruction, no more Saddam Hussein & we've held democratic elections in Iraq)
- bring them home to their families safe & sound
- give them great health & education benefits for having served us

[cat's meow]

While having a hone can be very useful, especially if you have a dull knife, most troops would just look at you funny if you brought them one.

If you really want to bring a troop something that will make them happy, bring them porn. I've never seen the arrival of any object spread as much hope, contentment, and a sense of purpose through a division as a newly arriving "training film."
Very cute, you caught me without an 'M' in my pocket. :o

[cat's meow]

Support the troops by wanting them to win. Liberals dont like our troops because if they did they would want us to win this war.
Define win or winning? Good money says you can't...

[FDRfollower]

Beyond the simplistic "I wish good thoughts for the troops" kind of BS, step back and take a look at situation our troops are faced with, which is very dire. In dire, I harken to the problem of the Pellopenesian War in which the cream of the Greek army was destroyed in Sicily.

Here we have roughly a quarter million troops stationed in Iraq. In the West and East are nations which are not very friendly (doesn't help when we call them the axis of evil and keep trying to overthrow their governments you know). To the north is our "ally" Turkey, which is threatening to invade northern Iraq in order to deal with the PKK (which is a TERRORIST movement) that the US is allowing to carry out attacks on Turkey, further complicated by Pelosi pushing that idiotic "Turkish genocide" bill, leading towards Turkey threatening to not allow any US military presence on Turkish soil. In the South of Iraq are a majority of Sunnis which are most certainly hostile and the Brits are pulling all their troops out leaving the south in control of the Sunni's. In effect, the Brits lured us into the perfect trap. Plus, they have a psychotic vice-president to use 9/11 as a damocles sword to herd everyone into the abattoir!

So, does anyone see a real problem here? Does the idea of Cheney going on a big bombing campaign of Iran (know what the majority religion is there?) while our troops are bottled up inside the country with this picture in mind sound like a good stategy? Note, that the Ken "cakewalk" Adelman types are saying "Oh, we'll bomb their military infrastructure completely in a couple of days" again.

You can say "support the troops" till you're blue in the face, but face it. If you don't get Cheney out now by the Kucinich Impeachment bill HR333, he's going to slaughter them all, and the congress (they should go to hell for being such cowards), and every dumb-ass american who couldn't think beyond their bellybutton.

[Thelonious]

Do you remember how macho Rumfeld sounded when he said "I don't do quagmires"???

[FDRfollower]

LINK (http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2000/terror_memo_2703.html) to an article about the PKK, along with other terrorist organizations.

[ababof]

FDR,
even when you oversimplify to make it understandable, it's obvious to see the problem has been manipulated in all senses to find support. Even when you talk about the PKK, you don't mention that when Iraq was pointed at for repressing and killing Kurds, Turkish killing and repression against Kurds was indirectly supported by the USA By selling weapons and expressly saying it can be used as means of repressions. Hide this, show that...and PKK is more powerful than before, and Al quada now exists in Iraq, and so on...What about your other "allies "in Europe ? Long list of nonsense and misinformation. Wafflediddle talks about the UN Resolutions. Many times they wanted to take resolutions against Israel. Impossible. So what sign can they now send to others? IT's naughty, what you're doing, you should not...Yet it would be insulting to constantly have a double standard.

[FDRfollower]

This is not a recent problem Ababof, if you're familiar with the Sykes/Picot treaty and "The Great Game" that was running in Central Asia long before. Is it a mistake that the British and French drew the political borders in areas that would ensure that unrest and destabilization would be the case whenever the empires needed conflict in order to destabilize each other? Think about the British rule in Sudan. Dividing the country between a "muslim" north and a "christian" south, ensuring that it would be very difficult to have a unified nation at all. The brits are still at "The Great Game", only with the purpose of destroying the US.

[JamesP]

More Troop Support, Republican Style:


Oil Price Rise Causes Global Shift in Wealth
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/111007A.shtml
Steve Mufson reports in Saturday's Washington Post that "Oil consumers are paying $4 billion to $5 billion more for crude oil every day than they did just five years ago, pumping more than $2 trillion into the coffers of oil companies and oil-producing nations this year alone."

Army Spending $2.6 Billion on Choppers That Overheat
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/111007B.shtml
Aaron C. David, reporting for the Associated Press, says "The Army is spending $2.6 billion on hundreds of European-designed helicopters for homeland security and disaster relief that turn out to have a crucial flaw: They aren't safe to fly on hot days, according to an internal report obtained by The Associated Press."

The New York Times | Veterans Without Health Care
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/111007C.shtml
In an editorial, The New York Times says that "many Americans believe that the nation's veterans have ready access to health care, that is far from the case. A new study by researchers at the Harvard Medical School has found that millions of veterans and their dependents have no access to care in veterans' hospitals and clinics, and no health insurance to pay for care elsewhere."

[ababof]

Oil prices : so what ? It was expected BEFORE the war by economists. If the prices had been higher before, perhaps more suckers would have think about oil as something precious, and not a never ending source of energy. Sure, we must buy cars, and not use them, that's logical, it is impossible to argue on both sides without looking stupid. That's why Al Gore will look intelligent long after GW Bush.

Funny helicopters. What are they, french, made in Taiwan ?

Health care : why should they be excluded of the wonderful American system ? Weren't they clever enough to pay a private insurance? They should have asked what they could do for the insurance companies of their country, instead of asking what their country could do for them ? Do I get it right ? Am I not, Proud ? Are they useless waste who forgot the values of their country and get what they deserve?
Perhaps just a bit idealistic, like me...