Isn't this an invasion?

I think there is a danger in too much devotion to one's country, because even our leaders are bound to make ethical and humanity mistakes. I would rather believe and trust my own conscience when it comes to something like what this president is ready to do to innocent Iraqis. My conscience tells me it is wrong for our country to attack another nation when it has not proven that they are a threat to our national security. Iraq has threatened no one. They have not attacked no one in the past twelve years. Going back in history only complicates current and future matters. This world is changing; the question should be, how can we best promote democracy, peace, and the freedoms we enjoy to other countries without engaging in war? War should be the very last option. c.i.

I think it is wrong for this "Bush" to allay his beliefs as those of the country - and for this I will (and did) fight!

au- Our sons and daughters will stay in harm's way as long as we continue to support the government in it's unjust ways. Do you seriously believe the Vietnam War would ever have ended (or at least, continued on for years longer) otherwise? Our duty to our sons and daughters in the field is to stand up and say "No More!" to the fools in power. To do otherwise is to be complicit in their deaths, just as surely as any shot fired in anger, IMO. We're not sheep to be led to the slaughter or to allow the same for our children.

A site devoted to veterans and their families and a sensical debate about war.

Veterans For Common Sense

Thanks lk!

littlek, Isn't it any wonder that those experienced with war do not want the US to have Gulf War II? Why are Americans so ready to send our boys and girls to war, and spend all that money, for a hyped up war that very few believe in? We haven't even taken care of the wounded vets from Gulf War I, and some people wants to send more of our troops into harms way for what? Anybody take the trouble to ask Bush and company what they intend to do in Iraq after the war? How long will our troops stay in Afghanistan and Iraq? Who is going to govern Iraq after Saddam? Are people's thinking so shallow that they can't foresee future problems and costs by occupying Iraq? c.i.

Au1929 -- I find that shocking. Remember that many US vets who returned home while the war continued in Vietnam fought the war on home soil -- courageously and often at considerable physical and emotional risk. I hope those of us who are able will emulate them should the US engage in an unjust war again.

Well, CI, since you ask...all kinds of stuff beginning to break loose. Heard that the military, under Franks, will be the ones to administer Iraq. Then I read that the Iraq National Congress, which is the group the Bush league used for information and favored for taking control, is out of favor (seems they had ideas of their own), and that's why Rumsfeld says the military should administer. Now I read and hear that the Senate Committee is questioning all of this, asking the administration for definite plans. Biden, Lugar, and Grassley getting noticeably irritated at the answers. Which are vague and almost non-existent.

Now discussions on France, Germany and Belgium assume new importance, since they are countries with money, and they will definitely not be contributing. The Senate Committee is asking hard questions about this. They want a list of who is with us, and who is helping, and did not get answers.

Tonight, on the PBS Lehrer show, I heard some of the plainest talk I've heard yet, and very little of it was favorable, with one commentator saying Rumsfeld had done a dumb thing by insulting some European countries. And Lugar was quite specific in pointing out that a favorable American opinion was vital. Biden said the same thing, and that's the first time I've heard anyone at that level refer to the thought that the American public might not be backing this.

Maybe this whole effort is coming apart at the seams. There doesn't seem to be as much in the way of a united front. The Senate Committee seems to be cooling on the whole preospect. Looks like we're in for interesting times.

mama, I hope that's the beginning of the end of this stupid talk of war. Thanks for sharing. c.i.

It's heartening to see that finally some are asking the simple questions. Where have they all been? c.i.

blacksmithn




Supporting the government and the government policies is not the same as supporting our troops once they are committed. If you don't support the government, which I definitely do not, and it's policies vote against them, protest if you will but do not short change our people in the field.



What would you have us do once engaged?

au: noted and a good point comes to the surface - our government is also not out Nation, especially when said government is anti-nation!

Patriotism and free speech
 
It’s OK to support the troops and still oppose the war


By Lawrence M. Solan


Feb. 11 —  Although the Bush administration continues to insist that war with Iraq is not inevitable, most people think that war is close to inevitable, although it will not begin immediately. That gives the American people a short window of time to think in advance about how those who now who oppose a war in Iraq should conduct themselves once it begins, and how those who support the war should react to contrary views.

POLLS BOTH HERE and abroad show discomfort with unilateral military action taken by the United States, but considerably more support for concerted action taken with the support of the United Nations. People on both sides hold strong views. The government has been advocating its position forcefully, and has been gaining increased support, especially with Secretary of State Powell coming forth as a leading spokesman for the administration’s views. On the other hand, large demonstrations in opposition to a war have been held, and many who do not protest in the streets have their own doubts about the prospect of another war in the Persian Gulf.
       Of those who disagree with Bush’s approach, many will throw their support behind the president’s policies once war begins. They will believe that once Americans are endangered, it is time to put differences behind us, and to support the administration. But many others will continue to disagree with those policies. Right now, before emotions flare, is the time to ask how these groups should deal with one another.
       

http://www.msnbc.com/news/871380.asp?0cv=OA01

In fact, how could one do anything other than support the troops as one supports anyone in harm's way -- all the more so when they are caught in a situation which they, too, may feel to be dishonorable or unjust as did so many military in Vietnam and even the Gulf War. Our hearts also break for the troops and civilians on the other side, and (as citizens of the invading nation) we also feel responsible for their suffering. It's that belief in our responsibility which motivates me, whether we're in a time of war or peace, to question our government's decisions. How do we deal with fellow citizens who disagree with us? Respect them and depend on them to return that respect.

Tartar, There are no simple answers or arguments for or against support of our troops - especially in a situation that our president now takes us. There is still a moral imperative for many of us; how do we support an invading military when the country being attacked does not pose any threat to us or our allies? This president and his hawks has not convinced me that Iraq is a threat. Must we support our military because our president is the commander in chief? Or, can he be wrong, and killing innocent people is the main issue? If Viet Nam is any indication of what our country can do wrong, do we throw away our ethics and support the killing of innocent Vietnamese? It's not that simple for some of us. c.i.

We also must pray for the arrogance and immoral mistakes of our "leaders"!

The troops are also part of the innocent victims scene. Not that they won't be participating - but it was not their decision. And we will have plenty of victims. There is only now beginning to be reluctant comments on that.

Today I am puzzled. Rumsfeld said that the occupation will be administered by the US military, with some assistance from some Iraqis. Yet today I read that the two admin men who are responding to the Senate Committee's questions say the occupation will be administered by cooperating Iraqis - not the military.

There are so many disturbing things about this process. Still no plan emerges, and it appears that it is not only the general public who doesn't know. The Senate feels it doesn't, and the military and the admin seem to disagree with each other. Post Iraq - how long? If the military is in charge for a long time, where is that budgeted?

I stand in admiration of all the Bush league's peripheral victories. They have transformed the U.N. into a body to be consulted. They have made a bad man into an underdog. And they have changed the very meaning of the word "war." Nowhere have I seen talk about a war between us and an opposing force - it's just one man. Yet, against this one man, we have about 200,000 troops, ships, airplanes, armaments - something is twisted in the thinking. And they have succeeded in uniting some European countries and their peoples into a common thought. They may have also succeeded in getting us some long-lasting, dangerous enemies.

All this, and a falling economy - in just two short years. What hath Rove wrought?

There are some links to Post War plans for Iraq on this thread: http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=104060#104060



timber

After today, it still becomes an invasion!

Never in my wildest notions did I ever think I would live to see the day that the US would be so foolish as to advocate war in this manner. It is just sick and sorry.