All soliders that have served Iraq - Page 2




View Poll Results :Are you for or against the iraq war
Yes for the iraq war 7 33.33%
No against the iraq war 14 66.67%
Voters: 21. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
 
November 12th, 2008  
Bacara
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DTop
What is the purpose of this poll?
to me, you can only based a opinon on a war, by asking real soliders what they think, because the media so anti-war they will never report improvements, so i want to see what the soliders on the ground think
November 12th, 2008  
DTop
 
 
IMO, it's almost like a non-question to a soldier. We are assigned our missions and we do them. We don't have the luxury of considering whether we are for or against the war. I suppose it's a difficult thing to understand unless you've been there.
If you want to ask whether or not soldiers think things are improving in Iraq, that's a different question.
November 16th, 2008  
AJChenMPH
 
 
Top,

I suspect he's simply seeking an opinion. You're right -- as a soldier, you follow orders and execute the mission, no questions asked. But even then, you still have an opinion of whether the mission you're executing is worth risking your life. During WWII, I suspect there was nary a soldier who wondered why he was "over there", whereas there were probably many more soldiers during Vietnam wondering they were "over there".
--
November 16th, 2008  
DTop
 
 
Well, it seems to me that while I wasn't in WWII (my Dad and uncles were), I was in Vietnam and in Gulf I, that soldiers are the same no matter what generation they come from. What differs among them is how they got there. In Vietnam, many were conscripted and had a hair across their butts from the get go. Once in combat, they fought as well as anyone and I was proud to serve among them.
In Desert Storm, we were all volunteer soldiers. There was a world of difference until the stuff hit the fan, then once again they fought as well as anyone and once again I was just as proud to be counted as one of them.
My Dad and uncles expressed the same sentiments to me about wondering why they were there whether sitting in a foxhole in Hurtgen forest (one uncle), about to assault Iwo (another uncle) or boarding his B-17 for any of the many raids against the Nazis (Dad). They each had times they told me about when they wondered if what they were assigned to do was the best idea to cross the minds of men. But, they executed their missions to the best of their abilities.
My initial question was posed because I wanted to be sure that someone wasn't gathering some sort of anti-war material for a school paper or some such. I have no problem with the curiosity of a young person. I still think the poll questions could have been phrased better though.
December 15th, 2008  
papasha40
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DTop
The basic question posed by this poll is "Are you for or against the iraq war".
The answers are:
Yes: I am for or against the war
OR
No: I am for or against the war

Now, would it not be better if the choices were FOR or AGAINST? I'm just asking, not trying to be particularly pedantic.
DTop, Your question is certainly not pedantic. I have a hard time with how the question was asked, and what the choices for an answer were.
December 16th, 2008  
papasha40
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DTop
IMO, it's almost like a non-question to a soldier. We are assigned our missions and we do them. We don't have the luxury of considering whether we are for or against the war. I suppose it's a difficult thing to understand unless you've been there.
If you want to ask whether or not soldiers think things are improving in Iraq, that's a different question.
DTop, I have relatives and friends who were and are in the military. I agree with you that a soldier has an obligation to complete the mission he or she has been assigned to do.

Many other members have described the contrast between certain wars, Viz: WW2, Vietnam and Iraq. I think the point may be yes, a soldier has an obligation to complete his or her mission, but soldiers are also human beings, sentient and thinking/questioning. If a war is a immoral war, eventually it cannot be won. There are thousands of examples of this but just the ones in the 20th century should teach us something. Spain is finally a democracy after decades of a brutal fascist gov. Vietnam was lost because the will was not there. Afganistan was lost for much of the same reasons. The brutal Soviet Union fell because it was not only economically bankrupt, it was morally bankrupt. I believe the reasons for the invasion of Iraq were criminal. I'll leave it at that.

If a soldier doesn't think and just obeys orders, It's a good way to create more Calleys.
December 16th, 2008  
HokieMSG
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papasha40
DTop, I have relatives and friends who were and are in the military. I agree with you that a soldier has an obligation to complete the mission he or she has been assigned to do.

Many other members have described the contrast between certain wars, Viz: WW2, Vietnam and Iraq. I think the point may be yes, a soldier has an obligation to complete his or her mission, but soldiers are also human beings, sentient and thinking/questioning. If a war is a immoral war, eventually it cannot be won. There are thousands of examples of this but just the ones in the 20th century should teach us something. Spain is finally a democracy after decades of a brutal fascist gov. Vietnam was lost because the will was not there. Afganistan was lost for much of the same reasons. The brutal Soviet Union fell because it was not only economically bankrupt, it was morally bankrupt. I believe the reasons for the invasion of Iraq were criminal. I'll leave it at that.

If a soldier doesn't think and just obeys orders, It's a good way to create more Calleys.
I'm makeing an assumption that you are a civlian Papa.
Sometimes there is time to think about your orders and your mission. Most times you do not have that luxury.

Most soldiers care for the guys (and girls) in their unit and really don;t get involved in deep thinking. In most cases they are too busy working on completeing their mission to think about why they are there.
December 18th, 2008  
papasha40
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HokieMSG
I'm makeing an assumption that you are a civlian Papa.
Sometimes there is time to think about your orders and your mission. Most times you do not have that luxury.

Most soldiers care for the guys (and girls) in their unit and really don;t get involved in deep thinking. In most cases they are too busy working on completeing their mission to think about why they are there.
HokieMSG, You hit it on the head. Yes I am a civilian. But please believe me when I say, I have great empathy for the armed forces, It is soldiers and sailors and airmen and all other military formations who keep our counties safe. You state that most soldiers care for the well being of the other soldiers they serve with. I do not know that from experience, but I do know that. I suppose Shakespeare said it best in Henry 5th when the king calls upon his army for help in defeating the French. I forget the exact words but it was something like, "He who sheds blood with me, who bleeds with me is my brother. We band of brothers, etc.

Its not hard to imagine the amazing bonds which are created by soldiers who fight together. I have only the greatest respect for that.

By the way when I mentioned Afganistan, I was referring to the Soviet invasion in the 80's. I believe Nato should be in Afganistan now.

But I still believe Iraq was a bad move. When we push all the false reasons to the side, what we are left with is profiteering on a grand scale. That should never be a reason to go to war.
December 18th, 2008  
HokieMSG
 
 
papa. Thank you for your candor. Someone once said that "He who forgets history, is condemned to repeat it." Since our politicians are transient they tend to think they have better ideas how to do things. Usually what happens is that we have to relearn all of the mistakes we made on the last problem before we can make any progress. Every problem is not the same as the last, but there are similarities that we should be able to look at and use to help shorten the learning curve.

From a soldiers perspective, politicians worry too much about perception and political power and end up saddling the soldiers with overly restrictive ROEs (Rules Of Engagement). George Patton once said "Never tell a man how to do something. Tell them what you want, and they will surprise you with their ingenuity."

Regardless of what we think concerning going to war in Iraq, once the first casualty happened we need to stay there and complete the mission or all of the sacrtifices made were for nothing. Look what happened with US involvement in Somalia. As soon as we got a bloody nose, Clinton pulled us out. We got the bloody nose in the first place because we operated during the daytime. (Something they had never done until then).
March 2nd, 2009  
coyotebait
 
 
The question is a pest. I didn't think any GIs agreed with the war. My Sergeant Major's question for me at my board was if I knew about the report that Iraq had no NBC. That pretty sums it up for me. Should we just say "forget it" then and just pull out, No. We're in it so let's do it right. I'm out of the army now, but even if they tossed me back in, I'd think that was stupid. This is kind of a nasty thing to say, but has anyone else noticed that the one's who are "tired of the war" seem to be the people who haven't been there in the first place?
 


Similar Topics
New Jobs Set For 2 Generals With Iraq Role
Iraq Broadcast News By Pentagon Correspondents
Opposition To Iraq War Is Divided After 5 Years
The Missing Player: A 'Czar' To Manage The Iraq War
Plan For Troop 'Surge' In Iraq Gathers Force