lol well my comp is down (on my sisters husbands old comp) so im sure you all already discussed the whole "terrosists and liquid bombs thing" already

but I just thought i'd share a funny little story.

My dad was off on business in Canada when all that went down and was coming home like the day or 2 after that all happened. Anywho on his way back he said they were all really tight in security and they were like "who's the president of the US?"

haha! I woulda been like "unfortunately George W. Bush, but that's not my fault, dont blame me I didnt vote for the guy!" lol and they asked who the vice was too, in to which I would have replied, "that one guy who has lots of heart attacks and shot his friend..." lol

anyways lol glad nothing big went down and they got to it ahead of time. Im over this war, plus its putting all the younger guys in jeopardy. like my cousin is over there, and so is Rob aka Stephen aka Kieran as well as other massassi guys snoop etc

so yeah, cant wait till its all over. /my 2 cents

Too..much...lol!

But yeah, kinda "Duh" questions to be asking, very obvious.

All those guys knew exactly what they were signing up for.

Just be glad that the planes weren't taken over by terrorists from COBRA otherwise there would be SNAKES ON A MOTHER****ING...

Commence stabbing of Savage in 3... 2... 1...

:p

Honestly. They signed up, even for the Guard knowing they could go away to war. You have no grounds to complain. The Draft isn't being used, everyone willingly signs up.

Oh, and what do you want them to do since you're "Over this War"? Pull out so they can satisfy all the teenagers and early 20 year olds who think this is the dumbest thing ever? OK, so maybe I'm no politician and don't follow this stuff very closely. But common sense tells me this: We're in too deep to just "leave". Do you honestly believe that if we leave our problem will just go away? No, it won't.

Boricua, I like you. I really do. You always seem cheery, and you're a girl who has managed to stick around in a predominantly male forum. This is nothing personal, so please don't take it that way.

Leaving because we were "over this war" is the exact reason we're back in Afghanistan. Too many people are unfamiliar with the original Afghan conflict.

>.<

Come on happydud, it wasn't that bad....

Start at 4, give him more of a head start

I would have to say you're wrong. This conflict has dragged on longer, and proven more difficult, than most people originally thought. Case in point: When the soldiers on that aircraft carrier where Bush gave a speech a couple of years ago put the sign "Mission Accomplished" up, they honestly (to the best of their ability) believed the conflict was almost over. We now know that was not the case at all, and such misconceptions on behalf of many people in the military is not exactly what I'd call "knowing what they signed up for."

The Soviet war?

I remember Americans delivering weapons to these Afghans... who later ended up being your enemies. Or something.

You mean that game of risk thats centuries old?

Someone invades, installs puppet government, leaves 1 unit in there, give it a few years, rinse and repeat.

I would have to say you don't know what you're talking about. No one joined the military thinking "Oh! I'm only going to be in Iraq for a little while, because war is easy and no one dies! The rest of the time will be like a fart-joke-fueled bonding experience with my buddies, and we'll make cookies, and shoot guns, and sing songs around the fire." And if any of them weren't expecting just what war and combat really is, they deserve to learn the lesson the hard way.

FGR, yes, that one, the U.S. had quite a bit of influence.

I did not say soldiers do not understand the reality of war; I said in this case they did not understand the scope of it and the effort necessary to resolve it. I'm willing to bet 90% of soldiers back in 2003 did not expect us to still be fighting the war 3 years later to the extend that we have, with the amount of sectarian violence in the region killing 3500 people a month even today, and with significant troop level reductions failing to materialize 3 years into the conflict. If you're trying to argue the war has not proceeded quite differently from what people believed it would back in 2003, I would have to say you are completely and entirely wrong.

Expectations and possibilities are COMPLETELY different things.

Just because they didn't expect it to go one another 3 years doesn't mean the possibility wasn't there. I've learned already not to assume things without accepting that you could very easily be wrong in your assumpsions.

And to you I say any soldier who joins because they are too blind to see a conflict of this size coming still deserves to learn a lesson for giving their rights up without thinking about it. This war is just starting.

If they expected the possibility of the war dragging on, why did the soldiers do this?

...the soldiers had Bush land on a carrier in possibly the worst PR stunt ever to announce that we stopped fighting the Iraqis? The thing is, mission accomplished ment just that, we accomplished our mission of toppling the Iraqi government, we didn't officially go in there to fight the Paki suicide fighters we're fighting now, the Iraq war is different from this conflict.

Translation: WE GOT RID OF THEIR GOVERNMENT BUT MANY MORE WILL DIE IN THE NAME OF FREEDOM.

I'll say again what I said. It doesn't matter, if they just signed up for one conflict I personally find that stupid. You sign up to protect our country through thick and thin, it doesn't matter how long it takes, you said you'd give your life for it.

I would argue that toppling the old Iraqi government was just one step in the process of establishing a stable Democratic Iraq. The later is the mission, the former was an objective that had to be met in order to accomplish it. A statement that the mission has been accomplished when it did not bring forth any significant change in Iraq until a year later (when the Democratic government was officially established) is misleading at best.

And now you're bringing the topic away from idiots joining the military looking for an easy fight to the difference between objective and mission.

If the difference between certain objectives and the greater mission are not clear, that would be misleading and could cause what I referred to soldiers not knowing quite what they are getting themselves into. Beating the Iraqi army is one thing...it's a very small piece of a much larger picture, and I believe that was not made clear enough by comments and situations like the one shown above.

And like I said, that's their fault. No one should ever go into the military assuming it'll be a short lived fight. The military is an organization that must go to combat when the Master in Chief decides it so, soldiers going into the military during a time of peace must realize it may not always be a time of peace, and those joining during a time of war must realize war can last much longer than thought (see also: Revolutionary War, Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Soviet-Afghan War, Iran-Iraq War, etc etc).

Really? So when statements are made by the government to suggest the mission has been accomplished, and people believe it, that's their fault?

Your original statement was that "All those guys knew exactly what they were signing up for." I simply find this statement untrue. They thought they signed up for a crusade against Saddam's regime where the most important victory would occur when Saddam was captured and the Iraqi army destroyed. That is not the reality they live with today.

Anyone who signed their life away for 4+ years simply because they wanted to topple Saddam's regeim deserves what they get, because that is a horrible reason to join a force that was designed to protect our nation, not to go knock over a few statues and go down in the history book.

If the administration would have discussed the situation like it really is (that is to say, a conflict in Iraq that will go on in full force force for many more years) and never pulled PR stunts suggestions missions have been accomplished when they really have not just to paint a rosy political picture, I would not be in disagreement.

So, you want me to feel sorry for those who couldn't pick up a newspaper at the time this "Mission Accomplished" thing happened to realize fighting was still going on and the Admin was reminding people it "could be as late as 2007 or 2008 before we leave Iraq." Once more, that's their fault, if they didn't grasp what it means to sign your life away as a soldier, they deserve to learn a lesson.

As late as 2007 or 2008? I think it's pretty obvious at this point that we'll be there until 2009 and beyond. The mission wasn't accomplished in 2003 and it won't be accomplished in 2008 either like these "estimates" suggest. I see a pattern here, of the scope of the war constantly being expanded from what was originally planned. I, for one, don't know what we're getting into here in the long term. If you believe the soldiers do, fine. There really isn't anything more I can say.

...and that had nothing to do with what I said. I said the Admin was telling them 07-08, and your point about them "not realizing the scope" is wrong. If they just did research they'd known better, which I think anyone who signs their life away should do.

The Administration that is in charge of the war effort didn't do their research correctly?

EDIT: I'm out for the day. This doesn't seem to be going anywhere but perhaps I'll post again tomorrow.

Why do you keep bringing that up? I'm talking about soldiers, not the Admin. As far as I'm concerned, the Admin was well aware of what was going on and twisted the facts because Americans wouldn't get behind a war against an entire region. That instead of saying "we're going to Iraq to give those bastards easier access at American targets instead of them flying more planes into our buildings" the american public would rather hear some bull**** excuse like "Saddam is evil...remember him? The dude we fought 10 years ago? Yeah, we're taking him down." Now then, I'm assuming by your last post that you have nothing more to say about soldiers should know better about war in general before signing their lives away instead of dragging pink elephants into the room just so you can point them out to me. I think we've derailed this topic long enough, don't you think?

Soldiers should be fully aware of what they're getting into, but sugar-coated comments from the government (and certain entities in the mass media, I might add) about what's going on don't help matters in that regard is what I'm saying. Look, whatever, I think it's time to end this whole thing. Last post. I'm out.