Fort Hood soldiers breaking the silence in war in Iraq (1 Viewer)

95% of the returning veterans who have positive things to say about their mission there.

I find this statistic rather dubious; you got a link for this claim? I can see where half or more than half would have such an opinion, but 95%?

Yes, maybe they had positive things to say about their mission, but what about the policy in Iraq and opinions on continuing the occupation?

There's a big difference about personal opinions about individual missions and the policy writ large. I think we need to make that distinction. As it reads, your arguing that a vast majority of returning vets support the current Bush policy.

Frankly, I find it hard to believe.
 
I find this statistic rather dubious; you got a link for this claim? I can see where half or more than half would have such an opinion, but 95%?

Yes, maybe they had positive things to say about their mission, but what about the policy in Iraq and opinions on continuing the occupation?

There's a big difference about personal opinions about individual missions and the policy writ large. I think we need to make that distinction. As it reads, your arguing that a vast majority of returning vets support the current Bush policy.

Frankly, I find it hard to believe.

As nearly as can I can tell, nobody has polled Iraq War veterans on the subject as presented since the 2004 election. War veteran support for the policy was 65% in favor in that poll, conducted by CBS.

Here's a fun little poll for you Reb, from Zogby, from last August.

UPI/Zogby Poll: 54% Lack Confidence in Bush's Ability As Commander in Chief

Survey shows just 3% of Americans approve of how Congress is handling the war in Iraq; 24% say the same for the President

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1343

The main issue among pollsters regarding Iraq veterans has been making use of them to critique the treatment of veterans by the president and congress.
 
As nearly as can I can tell, nobody has polled Iraq War veterans on the subject as presented since the 2004 election. War veteran support for the policy was 65% in favor in that poll, conducted by CBS.

Sounds about right to me, but wouldn't be surprised that given what's happened between 04-08, that number probably is down slightly--
 
I find this statistic rather dubious; you got a link for this claim? I can see where half or more than half would have such an opinion, but 95%?

Yes, maybe they had positive things to say about their mission, but what about the policy in Iraq and opinions on continuing the occupation?

There's a big difference about personal opinions about individual missions and the policy writ large. I think we need to make that distinction. As it reads, your arguing that a vast majority of returning vets support the current Bush policy.

Frankly, I find it hard to believe.

I deliberately said "their mission" because Sgt. Coppa is quoted as saying, "The honest truth is that if the American people knew what was going on over there everyday, they would be raising their voices too." She(he?) isn't talking about overall policy, she's appears to be talking about the soldier's every day mission.

Perhaps that quote smacks too much of this famous one:
"They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."
http://www.vietnamwar.com/johnkerryvietnamveteransagainstthewar.htm

And so much hubbub over two soldiers and two signs. Seems a bit contrived to me.
 
Sounds about right to me, but wouldn't be surprised that given what's happened between 04-08, that number probably is down slightly--

I would have to think with the success of the surge that number may have actually gone up some.
 
I deliberately said "their mission" because Sgt. Coppa is quoted as saying, "The honest truth is that if the American people knew what was going on over there everyday, they would be raising their voices too." She(he?) isn't talking about overall policy, she's appears to be talking about the soldier's every day mission.

Perhaps that quote smacks too much of this famous one:
"They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."
http://www.vietnamwar.com/johnkerryvietnamveteransagainstthewar.htm

And so much hubbub over two soldiers and two signs. Seems a bit contrived to me.

No, not hubbub--and it's not just two soldiers with two signs. Soldiers are coming home and opposing the war, including generals. Granted, they maybe just as political as Michael Yon, but this notion that all Iraq veterans support the current policy is just false.

I asked specifically where you got this 95% number from--and you answered my question partially. Of course most soldiers are going to feel great about their own mission, it doesn't mean at all they support the policy, which is why I made the distinction.
 
Curious.

The TV news story says Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW).

http://ivaw.org/index.php

But, when you click on the link it takes you to a different group, Veterans Against the Iraq War (VAIW).

http://www.vaiw.org/vet/index.php

Wonder which one is correct?

Dad, be fair on this one. I know you want to defend, but if you are going to get into this, lets go deep. You know that there is much that the Soldiers have to say about this War. They can't and are told what to say into the cameras. Yes, we are still giving our Soldiers briefings on what to say and not say when the media comes around. The media has even fallen into the fray, they only spoke to us, the officers, when they came here two months ago. We are bound by AR 88 of UCMJ not to speak ill of the CinC or his policies. We could lose our career in an instant, which is why we get bombarded with those guys when they are around.

Soldiers have much to say and are not being heard. Soldiers face things like: Not going to a promotion board, not getting certain schools and branded by higher etc.

These policies were developed to keep GOOD ORDER AND DISCIPLINE. But, like many things since 2000 that have been misused to their benefit, highers is using this "GAG ORDER" to keep our Soldiers silent and not say how they really feel.

I will submit one thing: The amount of money we are spending over here literally makes me heave sometimes. Like I told you the last time I was here, things are not like you think they are. I just ordered one of my CPTs to begin working a contract for the IA that it would take you 10 years and two swollen knees and you still would not get from our Government. Oh yeah, I had to tell him to keep it under 50,000 dollars to reduce red-tape and visibility. This is one of many projects, but its all on us. We are spending our money like a drunken Sailor over here.

There are some project we have going that simply dwarf that number, but those I cannot talk about here. It is frustrating to see all of our money flowing in this country to people who are not that thankful for it. Then you call home and hear that the stock market is low-crawling, your house is worth 20,000 less than it was 3 years ago and some politician is asking for more money for Iraq.

Okay, i am getting close here. Better shut down before I say something that I have to answer for. Oh, yes, one last thing. MB and BLOGs like this are being scoured by some of the administration guys to find out what is being said about them. Maybe they will come and read saintsreport.

If Soldiers could really say what they want to say, you would be amazed. As it is, only the Soldiers than have positive things to say about this ordeal gets the microphone.
 
I would have to think with the success of the surge that number may have actually gone up some.

Not necessarily. I'm assuming that many of these soldiers expected to go home after the surge was deemed rather successful. Well, mission accomplished. Really, I think the recent success offers a *golden* opportunity to come home or at least begin coming home. After all, it's what we were told.

Where's the serious discussion of the troop drawdown? Many of these guys, like ordinary Americans assumed that this whole thing would end sometime soon. Many of us were foolish enough to believe that the surge was part of the endgame.

The surge was sold as part of the endgame

Appearently for Bush, it wasn't. :shrug: More lies, more misrepresentation of actual goals--in fact, Bush has said throughout that we're there to liberate the Iraqis, and we'll only stand down when the Iraqis will stand up.

It's all been a bunch of bs from the get-go. I can see where soldiers coming home would speak out or say enough is enough.

Like so many other Americans, how many really, really believed that the mission would last longer than 4 years, with serious discussion of a 100 year commitment? What's this new discussion do to morale?
 
Last edited:
The surge was sold as part of the endgame

That depends on your definition of "end game".

The purpose of the surge, as I understood it, was to force militants back, particularly in Baghdad, disrupt/break much of their structure, and therefore drastically improve the security situation. This would allow us to begin to draw-down and give the Iraqis a little breathing space.

In that regard it succeeded (or rather, is succeeding, Iraq still has to make more progress in this period of relative "peace").

But none of this assumes an immediate and total, or even significant, "pull back". After all our, by now acknowledged, goal is a long-term occupation (uh oh!), the "transition" is to a peaceful sort with all kinds of cute legal agreements, big payouts to Iraq, and where we have no real internal responsibilities, ala what we have in South Korea, Okinawa, Germany, etc.

I don't have any January numbers but in December we lost "only" (I understand that's a relative term) 21 soldiers. The 3 month (oct - dec) total was 93 That's the lowest ever. During the worst parts of the "occupation" (you liberal scum!) we had monthly totals well over 100, so this is a significant drop.

I think at this point the most worrying thing is whether or not the Iraqi government is making sufficient progress in the break that we've given them. But the surge was an un-mitigated success from our end and our ability to progress in "the end game" is at this point wholely dependent on Iraq's progress.
 
That depends on your definition of "end game".

The purpose of the surge, as I understood it, was to force militants back, particularly in Baghdad, disrupt/break much of their structure, and therefore drastically improve the security situation. This would allow us to begin to draw-down and give the Iraqis a little breathing space.

In that regard it succeeded (or rather, is succeeding, Iraq still has to make more progress in this period of relative "peace").

But none of this assumes an immediate and total, or even significant, "pull back". After all our, by now acknowledged, goal is a long-term occupation (uh oh!), the "transition" is to a peaceful sort with all kinds of cute legal agreements, big payouts to Iraq, and where we have no real internal responsibilities, ala what we have in South Korea, Okinawa, Germany, etc.

I don't have any January numbers but in December we lost "only" (I understand that's a relative term) 21 soldiers. The 3 month (oct - dec) total was 93 That's the lowest ever. During the worst parts of the "occupation" (you liberal scum!) we had monthly totals well over 100, so this is a significant drop.

I think at this point the most worrying thing is whether or not the Iraqi government is making sufficient progress in the break that we've given them. But the surge was an un-mitigated success from our end and our ability to progress in "the end game" is at this point wholely dependent on Iraq's progress.

Pretty fair assessment. In other words, a completely open-ended, commitment with a blank check.

And I think your right about Iraqi "political" progress *cough* *cough* oil deal.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/feedarticle?id=7318100

So of course, the current policy right now is to keep 130,000 troops in Iraq until the Iraqi government can figure out how much of its oil rights it should give away or keep. And if it decides to keep too much, I wonder if the U.S. will sponsor a change in government behind the scenes. I understand know why keeping a standing army until the oil law gets drafted is useful. Ironically, the Kurds seem to be the ones standing in the way.

What a ******* racket. Warmed-over, kinder version of imperialism.
 
Last edited:
As with all information, and opinions for that matter, one must consider the source and make up their own mind.
 
Dad, be fair on this one. I know you want to defend, but if you are going to get into this, lets go deep.

Good to hear from you, as always, Shizzle. Thanks for taking the time to "go deep."

Water saver shower heads, anyone? :hihi:

I think Champ does have a valid assertion in at least one regard.

Soldiers and veterans who blog or voice favorable opinions about Iraq policy do not get the media attention that those opposed do.
 
Pretty fair assessment. In other words, a completely open-ended, commitment with a blank check.

And I think your right about Iraqi "political" progress *cough* *cough* oil deal.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/feedarticle?id=7318100

So of course, the current policy right now is to keep 130,000 troops in Iraq until the Iraqi government can figure out how much of its oil rights it should give away or keep. And if it decides to keep too much, I wonder if the U.S. will sponsor a change in government behind the scenes. I understand know why keeping a standing army until the oil law gets drafted is useful. Ironically, the Kurds seem to be the ones standing in the way.

What a ******* racket. Warmed-over, kinder version of imperialism.

That's an arrogant, over-simplistic, and pretty base assessment of that. Your complete inability to consider other factors is, honestly, shocking. You're bclemms/Ron Paul, blackadder/Israel in your dogma. You make fair points, but no one would ever be able to tell because of the sheer single-mindedness of your overall tone.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom