<p>the best way to support the troops(and their families) is to oppose the war and get them home asap</p>
<p>
…only then will the *HAF<a href=“Hate%20America%20Firsters”>/i</a> stop calling these very same soldiers “prostitutes”, “drunks” and “Junkies” and begin to call them ‘victims’; which by any standard is a grand improvement, most especially in the land of the permanent cringe.</p>
<p>Dorothy, don’t forget Baby Killers.</p>
<p>FF: Good point about the misdemeanors. I know I could be charged with one every day, because I speed. Kids making prank phone calls are committing a misdemeanor. Walking a dog without a leash, violating a curfew, or owning a fake ID are misdemeanors. When I was a youngster about the age of today’s typical military volunteer, I often engaged in boisterous conduct, sometimes trespassing as my friends & I jumped in and out of neighborhood pools. I was an underage drinker, too. All misdemeanor crimes, for which I was never charged. Even if I had misdemeanors on my record, that would not have been the reason I would not join the military. I’m simply too chicken. As are most Americans who sleep soundly in our beds while our freedoms are protected by these boisterous, beer drinking soldiers who boast a tatoo or two.</p>
<p>Ridiculous. Supporting the troops IS bringing them home.</p>
<p>I support their lives, not their deaths.</p>
<p>Pretty clear. And don’t speak of them protecting “freedoms”. We have created more terrorists in the past four years than in any time in history, thanks to this illegal and immoral war. You have much LESS freedom than you did, before the invasions. Plus, Americans are now hated around the world. Seems like you are less safe, not more. </p>
<p>Oh well. What’s another 3000 lives, to sacrifice for Bush’s corporate interests?</p>
<p>Well this post has certainly been amusing… :)</p>
<p>Anyway, I figure it this way: </p>
<p>I believe America needs a military (although I have heard good arguments as to why maybe we don’t). </p>
<p>I believe that our men and women in the military work extremely hard and extremely faithfully at their very tough jobs. </p>
<p>I believe it is sickeningly unfortunate that they have a lying idiot at the helm who has taken advantage of them beyond all comprehension.</p>
<p>“FF: Good point about the misdemeanors. I know I could be charged with one every day, because I speed. Kids making prank phone calls are committing a misdemeanor.”</p>
<p>CNN interviewed the enlisted wife of a convicted arsonist last night, who is currently serving in Iraq. She fears for the other service members’ safety.</p>
<p>I think he is an outlier, though. Most of the soldiers are honest, hardworking, dedicated individuals duped by a lying, cheating, deceitful, and inept Administration, who “may”, to use the terms of Oregon Republican Senator Gordon Smith, be engaged in criminal acts.</p>
<p>You know, I’m not so worried that 17% have entered with a drug/alcohol problem prior to enlistment. What matters is what percentage AFTER they come home. The army for many is an opportunity to make changes in their lives for the better. I can’t or won’t knock that. What you were before doesn’t matter as much as what you become. It’s just another type of college. </p>
<p>Besides, alot of kids went to nam without issues and came back with them. There are estimated huge numbers of kids coming back from Iraq with pych problems that will or should have treatment. There’s been suicides, spousal abuses and out right clinical depression cases reported. It took us decades to reach out and help nam vets, let’s make sure this administration and the next one don’t do the same thing. </p>
<p>This gets back to the commander in chief and his ability to lead. For a fraction of the money we spend on death from above, we can treat our wounded both visable and invisable wounds. </p>
<p>I have no confidence in him as a leader, we would have been better off if he asked his dad to handle this one. American lives should never be wasted by a learning curve.</p>
<p>Support the troops? You bet. I have “adopted” a handful of soldiers (and one marine), sending various care packages and letters during their various deployments. I am 100% behind them and their efforts. Thank god they’ve all come home safe save one (who came home, but early because of severe PTSD). BUT I also hate the hate the war and do not support it. Nor do I hesitate being critical of the leaders who whose decision-making got us into it.</p>
<p>I’m not saying this to pat myself on the back (what I’ve done is peanuts compared to the efforts of some other people I know) but to point out that people should not be so quick to declare the anti-war crowd a bunch of liberal pansies who are giving moral aid to the terrorists (or the other nonsense I’ve seen lobbed). There are a lot of people against the war who offer tangible, caring, thoughtful support to the men and women in the military. Including working hard to try to get them home.</p>
<p>Men and women are coming home from Iraq broken, both mentally and physically. There is no accurate record of the number of maimed soldiers, but I have heard upwards of 20,000. This is only the ones with missing limbs, not the ones who will suffer from PTSD for the rest of their lives, the ones who are so mentally scarred from the horrors of war that they will never be able to hold a job, take care of a family, enjoy American life.</p>
<p>And the most criminal part of it all is that Bush and company continue to cut veteran benefits. So these broken people will return with little to no support.</p>
<p>Way to support the troops. <sarcasm></sarcasm></p>
<p>Who the heck is Jim Davies other than someone who wrote his very own Letter to the Editor? And who says he represents “the left” or anyone else’s views but his own? If he’s anything like some of the wacked out oddballs that write letters to my local paper, he’s not representative of anything at all but the dialogue going on inside his own head. </p>
<p>I wouldn’t put one of those “support our troops” magnetic ribbons on my car because it implicitly conveys the message that you supported Bush and the war his administration created in Iraq. I don’t support the war, never did. I support the troops that have signed petitions calling for an end to this debacle — at least 1,000 signatures of active duty service personnel according to the last account I read. Getting them out of there is the best thing we can do for them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>oh, please!!! Now we resort to the “I have heard” method of substantiating an argument. Once again your statistics are just a tad off - aren’t you one of those who accuse the administration of using shoddy data?</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1580531,00.html?cnn=yes[/url]”>http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1580531,00.html?cnn=yes</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, and BTW, the bomb technology that is being used against the armored vehicles comes courtesy of mini’s buddies in Iran.</p>
<p>FF are you saying there’s “only” 500 wounded? </p>
<p>“Number of US troops wounded in Iraq as of January 10, 2007: 22,834”
(iCasualties.org. Jan. 10, 2007)</p>
<p>Number of US troops wounded in Iraq prior to “Mission Accomplished”
speech in 2003: 542</p>
<p>Number of US troops killed in Iraq as of Jan. 22, 2007: 3,056</p>
<p>Number of US troops killed in Iraq prior to “Mission Accomplished”
speech in 2003: 139</p>
<p>Total US military expenditures (including in Iraq and Afghanistan)
in 2006: $522 billion</p>
<p>Total military expenditures of the 10 next top spenders combined:
$386 billion
(Includes China, Russia, the UK, Japan, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia,
South Korea, Italy, and Australia. Center for Arms Control and Non-
Proliferation. Feb. 16, 2006.)</p>
<p>U.S. Federal Discretionary Budget spent on Military not including
Iraq, in 2006: 48.7 percent
– Amount spent on Education: 6.7 percent
(White House Office of Management and Budget, Feb. 6, 2006)</p>
<p>Oh please. indeed.</p>
<p>Easy to poopoo and “oh please” the facts.</p>
<p>There ya go, FF. I heard correctly.</p>
<p>Looks like Opie needs to do some remedial reading exercises and AM needs to work on her short term memory. If you look at AM’s OP, she said that there were 20,000 soldiers who were amputees - or that’s what “she heard”. Do I have to keep you straight on your own “facts”?</p>
<p>AM, I’m wondering how someone in the mental health field would diagnose someone who “hears” fictitious data, passes it on as real data, sees it challenged but then defended and automatically jumps on the defense as gospel truth - without ever once thinking about it or doubting her original point? Would that represent delusional thinking? Just wondering.</p>
<p>I did say “maimed” soldiers, which could include all the amputees and the rest of the broken men and women. I was sure it was over 20,000. It was, after all, what I “had heard”, although I doubt that there are accurate records of the real number, which means if they are reporting 20K, I assume the actual toll of injuries is significantly higher. We will never really know.</p>
<p>FF, I have to know if you really trying to purport that there are only 500 injuries from this war debacle? I don’t know whether to laugh or not (this is no laughing matter though, so I will refrain).</p>
<p>No, what you said was “This is only the ones with missing limbs”. I can’t believe that you are still trying to stick with this by claiming that you said something that you never did and it’s right there for all to read.</p>
<p>AM, I’ll also add you to the list of those needing remedial reading if you think that I anywhere maintained that there were only 500 casualties.</p>
<p>Most of the weapons found in captured caches bear U.S. serial numbers.</p>
<p>500 amputees. That’s your quote, which I find utterly preposterous.</p>
<p>“Looks like Opie needs to do some remedial reading exercises”</p>
<p>NO not really. I just pointed out things. I understood the poster and the point being made, You on the other hand played the ole “don’t look behind the curtain BS” oh great and glorious OZ. </p>
<p>The only problem for you, is it’s become very tired to watch you jump on a phrase and try and run with it. rather than understand the intent behind it.
I can’t believe your that thick that you couldn’t understand the poster’s comment. Instead, your attacking the poster to confuse the issue and change the subject. That’s just tired, old and really usless. 99% of the other readers understood that post, why didn’t you? </p>
<p>I’m betting your smart enough to understand, but mean enough to do what you did. That’s too bad, because there was another way to handle it that wouldn’t turn it to such an adversarial (yes, I don’t know the right spelling) posting.</p>
<p>Allmusic, you know I am totally on your side on the bigger issue, but I gotta agree with FF, you did say 20,000 with missing limbs. I really, really doubted FF’s figure of “only 500” with missing limbs (which is horrific enought), but that is what the Time Magazine article says, and I haven’t seen anything else to refute that. </p>
<p>The whole thing is a total debacle, and a tragedy in so many ways; let’s not give unnecessary grist to those few who still support it.</p>