Paul,
WWII is the first that came to mind. We were attacked. We were not attacked by Iraq. Al-Qaeda attacke us and the President was right to go into Afganistan. IMO and most Americans thought we should focus on killing Bin Laden and committed much more troops in Afganistan. In WWII, Japan attacked and we rightfully fought back. We also went after Germany and Italy because of the Axis of Power association with Japan.

Another war is the Korean war. A free nation's liberty was attacked by communist North Koreans and we had to react.

Vietnam war was the same. Though, Americans did not support it because we lost more than 50k young men in the jungles. The landscape was just too hard for us to fight and our weapons were not as advanced. If we had current technologies things might have been different. But I think the Americans were wrong not to support the troops because they were drafted into it.

The first Gulf war was also righteous because another free nation, Kuwait was attacked by Iraq. We drove Iraq's Republican Guards back into Iraq and contained Saddam. You can argue then that's why we should attack Iraq in the 1st Gulf war and destroyed Saddam in the first place. But Bush senior knew we had no strategy after taking Iraq and the power vacume after Saddam would create chaos in Iraq and destsblize the region. VP Cheney was Bush's Defence Secretay during the first Gulf war and he objected going after Saddam for that reason. Our current President Bush did not see as clearly as his father did 10 years before.

Oh, and one more thing. I don't think Bush lied to the American people about Iraq. I think he got the noncredible intel and used that as his main argument for going into Iraq. It was bad intel and he/his administration did not bother to double/tripple ckeck before making the move. I think Powel suffered greatly as a result, which he did not deserve. He was a fine soldier and wonderful Secretary of State. I wish he would come back somehow. I thought of an anology of this whole 5 pages of debate. It's like the gun and shooter debate. Most people associate the gun as the problem of our crimes, not the shooter. But it's not the tool that's at fault, but rather the user. Our military is the gun of our nation. We need it, just like our 2nd Amendment says. It's the shooter, our nation's leader, who should the responsible for his actions of using the tool.

 

I respect the military, they do protect us from enemies. But they are the patriots who voluntarily join, and I don't have that heart. And to do somethin' like join the military you gotta have that patriotism.

And before this gets into a HUGE political debate.... The deal is pretty simple. We were going to go into the war no matter what... and I am a democrat, but after speaking to some close friends I can see the republican side of things now.

#1 Compared to Vietnam, where we lost 10k solders a year, we lost 4k in 6 years. So we are doing a lot better than what we used to be doing.
#2 Them boys signed up for it, it isn't a draft. They knew they were gonna be doing this stuff, and they signed up anyways. It shows their patriotism. I salute them.
#3 We haven't been under threat of attack since 911, and those 4k of solders sacrificed their lives for it, and they are doing their job. We haven't been attacked since we went into Iraq, and so it stands that their sacrifices are legitimate as we haven't been attacked ever since.
#4 Whether weapons of mass destruction existed.. to be a powerful nation, we thrive on natural resources. We can't be a powerful nation with an Achilles heel. So whether you like it or not, the US needs oil and it was probably another reason to go into Iraq besides lookin' for weapons. Kindof like a consolation prize.
#5 And pertaining to #4, another reason behind entry into the east is that 1 Global Government is still being worked on... whether you guys realize it or not, that's what the richest people of the US (who are stronger than the president and government itself) are doing.

Don't believe me? Learn.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...83847743189197

Open your eyes to that documentary.

Don't believe me? How about them "National ID cards" that have tracking devices implanted and require you to have them on you at all times... basically means people can watch every exact position you're in... as a matter of fact MIT invented those microscopic chips so cheap... most likely every item in the world CREATED by a human, will have one on it. What's that mean? They can actually track every item you wear, use, buy, sell, etc. Now if that is pretty crazy. It starts with the National ID cards or Health Cards that are going to be REQUIRED to even ride a plane. And they actually release this year... scary.

 

I have nothing but the most respect for any person that joins the armed forces to protect this country.

But to those that said that every American should be forced to serve, can suck a **** !!!!!!

 

Not the Army, nor the Navy (Never Again Volunteer Yourself). My son is getting close to being of age and I'll probably sway him towards the Air Force to keep his bottom off of the front lines, this is of after college of course.

As far as the stereotypes? I was in the Navy, RM1 SS/DV, and had I not been a submariner I would have been a lifer. Even having been out over 15 years I still miss the dis/organization, the friends, and the nifty places I've seen(UNITAS run is AWESOME). I got out shortly after Desert Storm and used my GI bill for a little edumacation receiving my MSCS in a few years with credit earned from my Navy schools, although some of my crypto classes yielded zero credits in the real world. These days I'm "just" an IT manager, if you're curious about pay look up IT manager with 10 years experience at about the 90% tile in 95131.

As far as enlisting? I think more people should do it, if everyone was spineless and chose not to serve their country there would be no one to protect the spineless people's rights lol. Please don't fault our service men and women for decisions made by an inept leader.

 

i guess a had some questions...i took the asvab for the airforce but spiffed my scores to the army for a number of reasons, and the question is how can someone be positive for marijuana and hasnt smoked since 2002??!?!?! so all in all i lost my MOS of imagery analyst for something i didn't do. and i can;t dispute anything... any input would be appreciated

 

Hair test?

 

You're a tool man. Seriously, does what you are really fighting for make any difference to you at all?

Fighting for your country isn't as simple as it use to be. You need to be grown up enough to look at what is really going on, and if you think the current actions of the government are right and moral, well thats sad that you will be armed soon. Granted my experience is very limited, I only know a few who have fought in the current war and are from same general area, but from everything they've said..........they would call you an idiot to your face.

 

illusion,
well put. It's not the fault of our service men and women for our leaders's actions, as the analogy of the gun and the shooter. Though, I did not serve our country, my father was in the Navy also, chief engineer on a destroyer. People should pay more respect to the soldiers who put their lives on the line for all Americans.

iLogin,

I have no party affiliation, I'm a moderate-conservative. I form my thoughts on the facts I gather. I dissagree with you on some of your arguments.
#1) We lost less in Iraq than Vietnam because our strategy/technology and the nature of the fight in Iraq. We have smart weapons, JDAMs, Hellfires, drones, satelite, etc. that makes killing easier. And not we're not fighting the Iraqie army as we were fighting the entire N. Vietnamese army, more of them, less of us. We are fighting small insurgent cells. More of us, less of them.
#2) I agree with you 100%
#3) Partly agree. All the soldiers including Afghanistan and Iraq prevented us from being attacked again. I think we were just very laxed in our security before the attack, Al-Qaed got lucky.
#4&5) WMD did exist in Iraq, because we sold it to them. But the quantities were low. I can't say for sure if they destroyed them before we came it but, they had no way near the amount of quantities and production capabilities the administration said they had. It's easy to say that since the US is big and powerful and we need a lot of resources, we can invade Iraq just for the oil. What if China (big and powerful and needs more resources than us) invaded Alaska to drill for more oil? Your statement makes light of the argument that we invaded Iraq for the wrong reason. Not quite sure what you meant the "Global government is still being worked on"?

 

nah, it was a urinalysis. my recruiter said it was most likely a mix up. but i wanted to know if i'm screwed for future jobs regardless of the test being a false negative..