It hurts me to say this, but what right do troops in Iraq have to be safe?

[Some Moran]

They have the right to be ensured a reasonable level of safety by their superiors, but they are occupying a foreign country, and citizens of this foreign country who may not like having occupying forces (whether for the right reasons, as is the case for many, or for the wrong reasons, as is the case for a few die-hard Baathists still floating around). What reason to Iraq's citizens have to feel bound to American laws and American values?

I don't see any...

[youngred]

1. They have the same right not to be violently killed as anyone

and since many of them are their against their wishes, but are doing the job asked by them of their superiors they don't deserve to die so bush co gets richer. However, the Iraqi's too have a right to safety, something which we are increasingly unable to provide. Many of them would have been in just as much danger with Saddam in power, the only difference is a change in which absolutist asshole is getting their money

[kentuck]

2. I guess you felt the same way about us VIet Nam vets when we ....

were in Viet Nam?

[Some Moran]

7. Well...

That's way before my time, but yes I feel that while it was unjustified and they should not have been there, they had no right to safety from retributions against the citizens of the country they are occupying. They don't deserve to die, but there's no way they should expect to be safe.

[Kamika]

32. iraq and vietnam was two totally different things

The legal goverment in Vietnam actually wanted us there

[Aidoneus]

33. what legal government?

.

[Kamika]

34. the vietnamese

south vietnamese one

[Aidoneus]

35. forget it.

<deleted>

[Darranar]

36. How not?

Didn't the peace talks between France and the Veitminh divide the country into two?

[Kamika]

37. yes there was

I dunno how it had legitimity, it was acnowledged by most countries..

Either back your stuff up or dont post, the burden of proof is on you

[Aidoneus]

39. ok forget my "forget it"

didn't feel like starting a discussion on this within this Iraq thread after I--...well, started one--, but since I wrote something halfway decent out to Darranar in a PM I may as well post that to hold up my end of things here. Slightly edited from my PM for this.. may be a bit unorganized and spotty in spots, one more knowledgeable in the details of the views I put forth is quite welcome to provide additions or corrections.

-------

I didn't feel like pursuing that in the thread, shouldn't have started it but that line I first replied to interested me..

The Geneva talks temoporarily provided a demarcation line with re-unification to be pursued through political means at a later date. The line was not intended to be in any way permanent, I believe they were referred to as "regrouping zones", but it was illegally seized upon by the Americans to transform the "temporary" division into a proxy for conquering the whole Indochina region.

I'll provide a link to the Geneva agreements a bit further down, but Section 6 of the treaty explicitly states,
6.The Conference recognizes that the essential purpose of the Agreement relating to Viet-nam is to settle military questions with a view to ending hostilities and that the military demarcation line is provisional and should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary. The Conference expresses its conviction that the execution of the provisions set out in the present Declaration and in the Agreement on the cessation of hostilities creates the necessary basis for the achievement in the near future of a political settlement in Viet-Nam.

Previously to direct US involvement and occupation (there had been meddlings since Truman in some form, or back to Wilson if you count the snubbing of Minh's request for anti-colonial support against the French), the French were practically blackmailed into maintaining their murderous occupation of Indochina, under US threat of suspending aid if they pulled out--so instead, they bled and fought a murderous war against the Vietminh they could never win. The eventual directly combative and manipulative US involvement was against the Geneva Agreements, which can be read here--
http://vietnam.vassar.edu/doc2.html

I've read that when the agreements were made, the Hanoi government pulled its people out of the southern areas as agreed, but the dictator of the south nonetheless persecuted the families of those left behind of the people that followed the agreement. The dictator and his US masters had no intent of any political solution other than imposed force, and instead hoped to conquer all of the lands. At the time full war broke out between the US-agents and the NLF, Hanoi was still under the naively mistaken impression that there was still some political solution to be hammered out and to a degree disapproved of the NLF's actions for at ime (it can be remembered that throughout much of his life, Ho Chi Minh was quite enamoured with the United States, basing the 1945 declaration of independence partially on our own; it was very unfortunate to have his naive admiration so murderously tossed back at them like that).

All the same, the divisions made for "north" and "south" Vietnam were not legitimate divisions according to the relevant agreements.

[Aidoneus]

50. ?

.

[Aidoneus]

59. ?

.

[Forkboy]

60. everytime you post a long response

people disappear.

[Aidoneus]

61. so it seems

that's either as much a message in itself as whatever it is they could say in response, or a hint that I'm too long winded.

My humility could swing either way, but my arrogance prefers to think that I'm just being ducked. :)

[Hippo_Tron]

55. Uh actually...

The south wanted to unite with the north.

[WilliamPitt]

3. Um...

Soldiers don't have a 'right to be safe.' They sign up for dangerous work. What they DO have is the right not to be used, to have their lives spent, to no good end whatsoever. That right has been violated hundreds and hundreds of times over there...thousands of times, if you count the wounded.

[Some Moran]

4. I agree...

They do have the right to be safe from being used the way they are now, but as an occupying force they have no right to be safe from Iraqis.

[pw]

8. They have the right not to have their lives wasted.

The soldiers who have died have not made the US or the world any safer from terrorists. They've died to increase the income of a few carefully selected companies.

The ones who are dying now in the occupation aren't generally dying in combat operations that reduce the forces of resistance, or in taking some necessary objective. They're dying on roads and streets that have become RPG and small-arms shooting galleries.

And they have a right not to be ordered to put their lives in needless danger.

[_NorCal_D_]

38. Our troops

at least have the right to be well equipped.

Also keep in mind that the troops are not responsible for the invasion, Bush and his friends are.

[Syncronaut Seven]

28. Those I know signed up

out of a sense of duty, pride, love of country. Not this. I think most would have not joined if they had a sense of history. Is it any wonder Viet Nam is so poorly covered in high school history texts.

If you don't know history, it's as if you were just born yesterday. -- Howard Zinn

[Brucey]

5. What is a "right?"

Usually "rights" are things in the constitution or laws that allow people to do things. There is a "right" to be safe in the constitution (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness). However, it the US government that insists on calling the invasion and occupation a "war." According to international law, participants in a war can be expected to be shot at without any right to safety guaranteed by laws. Wounded soldiers do have rights, however. I was chagrined to see a report on CNN that showed American soldiers killing wounded Iraqis. That is murder. Same thing they did to Saddam's sons. It is agonizing that US soldiers get away with atrocities that are generally not reported, and abominably, not cared about by people in the US. We should care just as much about killing of innocent Iraqis as we do about US soldiers. Maybe more, since the Iraqis did not join up.

[centristmass]

9. These are American Troops

The American people sent these troops to Iraq. That includes everyone on this thread who is an American. This is the kind of stuff that the right wing salivates at and loses presidential elections. Those troops are Americans but more than that, they are working class Americans. They are heavily overrepresented by minorities. How any democrat could disparage them and wish them ill is beyond me. They have a right to self defense and it is obvious that the person righting that they have no right to safety knows not a single American soldier in uniform. It is elitist to say the least to wish them ill.

I did not see any atrocities committed on CNN and to call the attack on Saddams sons an atrocity is utter nonsense. They went in twice and were repulsed and wounded by the sons and those with them. They told them to give up repeatedly but they decided to fight to the death. This is not an atrocity in any sense of the word but exactly how anyone would deal with that situation if confronted with it. This is plain military hating and it is something the RW uses repeatedly to destroy the Democratic ability to counter charges of weak on defense and foreign policy. I can see that they will use it again effectivly with posters like this.

[sistersofmercy]

17. I would never wish harm on our troops in fact I wish every single one of

them could come home unharmed.
I also have no ill will towards the Iraqis.
I totally disagree with you about Saddam's sons and 14 year old grandson, Mustafa, it was excessive action taken in order to sickly boast morale. A couple of AK-47s and pistols against Bradleys is a fair fight? They should have negotiated.
Perhaps there is another board more suited for your opinions.

[Brucey]

18. To centristmass:

You don't see the atrocities, but they are reported and I have seen them. Regarding Saddam's sons, when their wounded, perhaps dead, bodies lie on the floor, the US soldiers entered the building, took a pistol and shot off their faces. The face of one son had to be re-constructed so the US could take photos and put them all over the media, a sacrilige to Muslims. These are atrocities. Today a US tank ran over a child. Wounded Iraqis have been murdered. Protesters have been shot at indiscriminantly. Marketplaces of innocent people have been invaded and people shot at indisciminantly. The PBS show Frontline documented many of these actions by the US forces. It is nonsensical to complain about the horrid actions of terrorists but to support the horrid actions of US troops. If war mongers get angry about this, tough shit. If it loses elections, then fuck the Republican bastards and their sheep.

[Isome]

27. You don't know what happened... you know what they told you.

You believe them, that's your choice, desire, decision. I'm not so sure.

I am sure that whoever coined the phrase head-on-a-stick politics, to describe the way we disgustingly showed the dead bodies of the brothers (before & after the clean up) was correct.

[Malva Zebrina]

29. Barbarism and assassination of the sons of the dictator of the country

we invaded--and lied about it's WMD so egregiously- dragging their pictures through the media--while they are dead, is outright shameless barbarism. We assassinated them like a tribe of wild eyed Neanderthals--Is this proper invasion technique?--seek out the sons of the enemy and then assassinate them for being there, then show their pictures mutilated and dead all over the world? What do you call that? War? or barbarism?

Bush sent these troops to Iraq for his own greedy motives. The American people, do not forget, did not elect Bush--he was appointed. Millions of us did not send these troops willingly to die for Bush because we knew Bush was lying and that he was sending our children to die for his greed. These deaths and the deaths of all of the Iraqi innocents civilians is not on my conscience--it was not done in my name.

[Brucey]

51. Marianne, you are my hero!

Right, right, and right.

[LittleApple81]

40. You have to go somewhere else besides American Press to

see atrocities committed by the "coalition" forces. The "American" (read Bush) press is totally self-muzzled and self-censored.

I do not wish ANYBODY dead. But we do not have the right to kill Iraqi citizens WHO DID NOT FLY THE PLANES INTO THE WTC and had no connection with it. These poor people have gone from an oppresive SOB (Saddam) to an oppresive occupation (USA).

[DUreader]

6. Hey, Moran, this just doesn't make any sense. Right?

You need Coffee!

[Isome]

12. The question makes sense to me...

It's unrealistic to expect there to be no violent resistance to an army occupying a sovereign country. Now, we know that expectation primarily comes from *'s administration, but they've suckered in the sheeple.

[Darranar]

10. Strikes against the US military forces are legitimate...

that doesn't make them moral.

Violence dosn't help.

[centristmass]

11. Do you know any soldiers?

I cant believe what i read here honestly. I am wondering how Democrats could possibly be so elitist to say that it is OK for terrorists to attack American troops. It was the Americans who went into France after WWII and by the same logic, the French had a right to attack us as we were occupiers. These are Americans, working class Americans, made up of way more minorities then the general population. How can democrats (I would understand such callousness from the GOP) be so cavalier about the lives of working class Americans? Are you really democrats?

[Darranar]

13. Oh, please...

1. They aren't terrorists. Attacking occupying forces isn't terrorism.

2. We do care about their deaths; that's why we fight for their safe return. But at the same time, we have sympathy for the Iraqis being brutalized by this occupation. We understand that these people are struggling against oppression, whether it's under Bush or Hussein...

I personally don't think that what they're (the Iraqi resistance) doing is moral. I can understand the reasons for it, but I don't think it helps anything. But it certainly isn't terrorism.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[karlschneider]

15. If the USA were invaded and occupied by some other country, would you

feel it would be wrong to resist by any means at your disposal?
A simple yes or no will do.

[RapidCreek]

52. You won't get an answer Karl

He can't hear you. Funny how that works, eh? Guy makes some disengenous assertion, spouts some equivocation and disappears when he gets called on it.

So what's up Centrist? Is an answer to this simple yes or no question beyond the scope of your intellect? If not, give it!


RC

[Isome]

19. There are two problems with that post...

No definition of elite, elitist, or elitism would make sense in your statement. Though not in your post, I also read something about resistance not being "moral"; that (morality), too, is irrelevant. Morality is respecting the boundries of sovereign nations. Immorality is invading a sovereign nation and calling it a "pre-emptive" strike. Violent resistance of an occupying army has no moral precepts.

I may have missed something, but no one says it is okay for "terrorists" to attack American troops. It is unreasonable to expect there to be no violence in a war, if that violence is directed at your side, and calling everyone not on your team a "terrorist" is, IMO, the real example of elitist thinking. One country's army is another country's terrorists.

[Tinoire]

22. What did you expect when they were sent to war?

Did you protest it by the way or are you just now waking up in shock that US kids are getting killed over there?

What did you think they were going over there for? To hold a re-naming ceremony for the Bush International Airport and to march around one of Saddaam's parade fields 3 times?

The only people being cavalier are those who sent them there and ignore the realities of combat by thinking they have "a right to be safe".

God preserve these troops from the war-mongerers, whichever party those war-mongerers are hiding in.

Ah, the fruits of illegal wars and occupation are not pretty are they?

Love always,
A retired US Army soldier.

[Scott Lee]

65. "Gott Mit Uns"

You can find that inscribed on any German Army Wehrmacht beltbuckle from the Third Reich preiod. What does it mean? It means "God is with us".

Apparently some of these folks have the same feeling about invading US forces. They feel they such invaders should suddenly be shielded from eons of human culture that has taught that it is one of humankinds' most inherent rights to fight to liberate their nation from an invader.

I find it amazing that some "liberals" have so much in common with the Nazis of times past.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

30. I think it was pretty cavalier of Dems to be callous

about the lives of working class Americans when they sent them to die in an oil war.

[Scott Lee]

67. Aren't the current armed forces voluntary?

I've been wondering lately - do clear thinking Americans who sign on voluntarily to military service these days REALLY think they never will have to face deployment and or a real firefight?

This is making me feel less and less sympathetic for "the troops".

[Kamika]

43. why its ok

We went in and attacked killed and now occupying Iraq.


Any country that gets invaded and occupied has a right to strike back

[Malva Zebrina]

49. Terrorists?

These are not "terrorists" by any stretch of the imagination. The Iraqi people have never been terrorists that would threaten us in the US. These are not enemies we were after--these are the citizens we were told would welcome us, strewing flowers in our path as we marched into Bagdhad and freed them from Saddam. Did not materialize like we were told. These are people who are resisting an occupation and the stealing of their natural resources as well as their culture and their history. In WW II , the French resistance were not "terrorists", were they? This is more wordspeak from the Bush cabal--branding the Iraqi people as "terrorists" They never were terrorists and never had a thought of terrorizing us here in the US. Calling them terrorists only serves to make them more resentful of their occupation. Bush cannot understand that--he is, after all, the "tough Texan" who doesn't mince words. :puke:

[RichM]

16. None at all.

There are 2 distinct aspects of "the troops" that are very prone to get confused. One is that they are human beings who had no role in the decision-making that led to their current task. The other is that they are agents of the US government occupying a foreign country. It's perfectly possible to feel supportive & sympathetic feelings towards them in their first role, even while opposing them in their second role.

This has always been the case, even during Vietnam. In Vietnam, the troops were similarly sent on a totally unjustifiable criminal mission. But at least the US government of that era was a duly-elected legitimate government. The Bush regime can't even make that claim, so the criminality of the enterprise is even worse.

[youngred]

20. that is an excellent point

and one too often lost on both sides of the political spectrum

[Tinoire]

21. They have no rights

We are talking about soldiers here! Soldiers who signed up for war, death and killing.

Their superiors have an obligation to not jeopardize their safety but the opposition is under no such obligation.

What do people think an Army is all about? Parades and educational reimbursements?

I don't wish any harm on any US soldier but I wish no harm on the Iraqis either! Blood is spilled in war- that's the nature if the beast and that's why we protest it!

[shepard]

58. Rights

Look through the soldiers eyes and see the world that we know only a part of.Has that soldier at one time saved my life,your life or the life of someone you know? The answer is more than likely yes,even though we may never know it.Though he may do a job that few of us would care to,that soldier,has people that shed real tears for him.So what right does that soldier have?He has the right to hope for our support behind him.Ahe'ee Nehemah
Grandfather, show them the peace we understand;
teach them humility.
For I fear they will someday destroy themselves
and their children
as they have done so Mother Earth.
I plead, I cry.
After all, they are my brothers...

[Tinoire]

69. Very beautiful but

we can't confuse the right to be supported with the right to be safe.

Not even the first is a right... It's our moral obligation to do so, but ask any Private- the first thing you're taught in the Army is "YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS".

WE, the people, the government, have a moral obligation to support soldiers but that is a far cry from saying they have a right.

You put it well when you said he had a right to hope... That's about all a soldier has- a right to hope. The rest is on us.

We should be ashamed not to support them and responsible government officials should be prosecuted for not supporting them.

Once again though, this discussion is about the right to be safe from being shot at and there is no such right, for any military, in any country.

[RuB]

23. Everyone has a right to ask a stupid question now and again. eom

[sandnsea]

24. A right to proper military equipment

They have that right no matter what.

And they have a right to a military and reconstruction plan that will increase security in general. Just like the Iraqi's have a right to this. It isn't a question of having a right not to be attacked, rather a right to have an Administration that creates the best possible environment for a peaceful resolution. This Administration isn't doing that.

[jumptheshadow]

25. The rights our soldiers have

They have a right to an American administration that values their lives; that honors their deaths in public; that will take every diplomatic step possible to keep them out of harm's way; that will deploy them only when there is an imminent threat or on a peacekeeping mission, and only with truthful and substantial evidence; that has planned rationally and intelligently for the sequel to their military mission, and, finally, that supports them and their families with real military benefits.

[Cocoa]

26. who are you tellling this to?

who would claim that troops have a right to be safe?

[ShaneGR]

31. These threads should be locked

They serve no purpose over to divide Du between a small minority of people intent on bashing the military (and the men & women in it) and the vast majority who have enough class to support the troops, in spite of Bush.

[Cat Atomic]

42. I agree.

It's also fodder for people like Andrew Sullivan, who apparently like to stir the pot, wait for some oddball fringe statements to bubble to the surface, and then display them on a website as being representative of the average "lib"'s opinion.

[jumptheshadow]

45. You're right about Sullivan

And it's guaranteed that a guy like Sullivan will select the most outrageous quote for public consumption and ignore anything else said on this thread.

He'll ignore the fact that many DU folks have been sending soldiers packages overseas and that the effort was organized by a long-time DUer.

He'll ignore the many posts that have supported veterans' benefits and individual soldiers.

He'll ignore the fact that people on active duty post here.

He'll ignore the many veterans who post here, and who have paid dearly for the right to express their opinions without being demonized by a twit who probably wouldn't let himself get within 500 miles of harm's way.

It used to be that people who called themselves journalists worked meticulously to place quotes in context.

Sadly, those high standards seem to have fallen by the wayside.

[RichM]

44. Laughable BS. Please study the distinction drawn above between

two entirely different senses in which one may "support the troops." (#16)

You are once again confusing support for them as individuals, with support for them in their role as agents of the US government, engaged in the criminal occupation of a foreign country. There is no moral obligation whatever to "support" them in that second role, even while one may feel supportive of them in the first role.

Furthermore, it's not a matter of "class." And to criticize the troops in their role as occupiers, has nothing whatever to do with "bashing the military." The troops in Iraq are engaged in a massive crime. They have no fucking right to be there. This is not "bashing."

[Karenina]

46. You GO boyfriend!

:loveya:

[RapidCreek]

54. Well said Rich

Rapid Creek

A US VET

[screembloodymurder]

41. They don't expect safety

it's war.

[Wapsie B]

47. By what right

do the pod people have to be safe from the evils of rampant liberalism? I mean all these years of peace and prosperity can be dangerous to the military-industrial complex.

:evilgrin:

[RichardRay]

48. Folks, it's a war...

One of the ways you can tell a war (military action) from peace keeping (civil action) is whether the concept of 'rights' still has a meaning. 'Rights' are an absurdity once civility has given over to war. War has no rules - the 'rules of war' are an absurdity - show me one country, army, unit commander or individual soldier who ever decided to lose a war, a campaign, a battle or his life because some alternative action was against the 'rules of war'.

I suggest that if you don't believe that then you've never been in a war. I would also suggest that you haven't really figured out why war is a bad idea.

Until the war is over Iraqi's have no rights, U.S. soldiers have no rights, U.N personnel in Iraq have no rights, the Red Cross/Red Crescent has no rights. Claiming any group does suggests that the conflict in Iraq is no longer a war and has moved into a civilized arena - that the mission has been accomplished. Anybody want to stand up in front of that banner and make that claim?

We do have rights back here in CONUS and it's OUR god damned job to use them to end the war so that everyone can once again have rights. That's one of the reasons it so important that we manage to do just that and why I'm relatively unconcerned if Howard Dean has been endorsed by the NRA or Wes Clark was a member of the wrong board of directors.

-
Richard Ray - Jackson Hole, WY

[anti_shrub]

53. I can just see it now

Whoever's filling in for Rush reading this topic on air as proof that the left hates America and wants the troops to die.

[Malva Zebrina]

57. considering how George Bush has failed the troops

in Iraq, I would say it is Bush that wants the troops to die--and further, does not care one bit if they do as long as he comes out smelling and looking like roses--he will have his "presidential library" and his "presidential museum" and in there will be his costume that he donned to land on the USS Lincoln to declare that the mission was "accomplished" and all the rest of his little costumes and jackets that say "president" on them will be on display. And his absolutely dull wife will write a book saying how bright and clever she was as she travelled about Europe being toasted at state dinners, filling her face with little, unique, exquisite pastries, while our children died in Iraq for her husband's greed.

He could care less about the troops--remember he was AWOL and has little respect for the rules of the military--he got away with it--why should he care for these measly little troops that come from the lower classes ? He is doing his job for the corporations that are making lots and lots and lots of money off the deaths of our children.

[quaker bill]

56. The military is well armed

for the purpose of securing their own safety. That is why we buy them all the guns and kevlar.

The problem is when we confuse military action with some form of diplomacy. Military force is not a diplomatic tool. It's use arises from the failure of diplomacy to resolve problems.

It should only be used in the most dire of circumstances and then prosecuted to the extent necessary to fully resolve the problem as quickly as possible.

If our foriegn policy and diplomacy were well ordered, we would rarely have use for the military. If we understood the true brutality of warfare conducted with these modern weapons, warfare would be rarer still.

[Myra]

62. I have to admit

That I feel more horror for the slaughtered
Iraqi and Afghani people, than for the
soldier carrying out the slaughter orders
for the Commander in Thief.

But I also feel horrible that so many of those
soldiers had little choice but to join
the military because they're from disadvantaged
backgrounds and can't afford college,
and/or the job market is so dismal.
Of course that's part of the BFEE's strategy
in trashing the economy. More poor folks enlist
to do their dirty work.

But it's hideous for everyone.
Just wait 'til they start the draft again...

[Scott Lee]

63. Demanding invulnerability for US troops is racist

Tell me, why should the laws of nature and of basic human rights for centuries be put suddenly on hold just because it's US troops in the crossfire?

To presuppose such is to reveal one's own bigotries, supremism and racism. Evidently, the order of things must be suspended when North Americans become involved - is that what some of you are saying?

[IrateCitizen]

64. Why don't you read the initial post on this thread...

and get back to me?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=639395&mesg_id=639395

[Oilwellian]

66. If I didn't know better...

I'd say this thread was purposefully created to use as fodder for drooling rightwing journalists who go out of their way to paint the left as being against the military. Why would you want to contribute to their blatant subterfuge by focusing on our dislike for this war instead of focusing on the lies Bush told to put our troops in harms way to begin with? The question itself is ridiculous. Since when have any of our troops fighting in a foreign land, been safe?? I've also noticed you haven't answered any of the responses posted on this thread since yesterday. Where's your passion to defend what you originally posted? Or shall we say, "mission accomplished?"

[Isome]

68. I think I understand the dislike of the topic...

from the standpoint of how it could be used against Democrats. However, I believe that concern is one of our biggest problems as Democrats.

We're more concerned with the distorted interpretations of our various positions the GOP will invariably present to the general public, instead of refining and understanding the reasons for those positions. We're better able to engage in outside discussions and clarify our particular stance, when we allow ourselves to openly talk about the issues.

In this case, the discussion underscores the horrific consequences of war, no matter how justified some people may believe it to be. Concluding or believing that, in war, neither side will emerge unscathed by death, physical mutilation, or psychological scarring, is not a condemnation of the U.S. military. It is an unalterable fact.

If, or when, the neo-con lurkers relay the contents of this thread as more proof of the Democrats hatred of the military, it isn't something we can change, nor will it make their twisted dissemination of the dialogue here true. We cannot continue to run away from discussions the GOP has deemed closed & off limits; at some point, we have to grow a pair.

[Selwynn]

70. The have the same right to not be brutally murdered as anyone else..

Just because we have violated the rights of Iraqis in this area doesn't mean further violations of this sacred human right will justify things.

The better approach to this situation is not to quietly wish for US soldiers to be killed in order to force us out of Iraq - a position that few admit to pulbical, but is painfully obvious that many here hold...

The the better approach, if for no other reason that out of respect for fellow DUers with loved ones in Iraq against their will, is to focus on the campaign at home, the protests against the war, the turning of pulbic support, and the bringing of pressure to bear on the Bush Adminstration forcing them into a withdraw of US forces from Iraq.

We cannot "withdraw" from our responsibiltiy to a country that we utterly annihilated. It will cost us money and effor and we are responsible for rebuilding that place. However, we can withdraw our military presence, turn over security responsiblity to the United Nations, allow UN oversight of oil revenues, and treat our role as financially supporting an international coilition of rebuilders not as military conquerors.

In this way, we can actively work to bring our boys home quickly and safely rather than continuing to expose them to violence. And it is a much healthier attutde than one where we come dangerously close in emotions to almost wishing violence on our boys because we want them out so much. I'm sorry but I cannot ever bring myself to consider that a decent or human perspective.

Many of you will remember this was an awfully emotional subject for me last week. And I have to confess I deeply loathe the kinds of attitudes reflected in the opening post. The bottom line is, who gives a damn whether they have a right or not -- they are our american boys and girls, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, and all I want is to get them home in one piece - the best way to do that is to fight the resistance at home. Hopefully I stated my opinion more reflectively here.

[Isome]

72. Maybe I'm skipping over it...

so can you point out to me where you find posts that seem to "quietly wish for US soldiers to be killed in order to force us out of Iraq"?

I do not see that attitude reflected in the posts here, but it's possible I've missed a post or two. Then again, it is also probable, IMO, that your admitted "emotional" reaction to the subject is clouding your perception of a reasonable topic of discussion.

My understanding of the initial post is that it is questioning the absurd idea that U.S. soldiers should or have a right to be safe from harm in the midst of a guerilla war. There is no malice there.

And, I come to that conclusion even though my brother is in Iraq.

[Scott Lee]

73. so let me get this straight....

Attacking, invading and occupying troops have a "right" not to be attacked in turn?

Hooo boy.

[Book Lover]

71. Every right!

What is the logic in throwing away the lives of your soldiers/sailors? Yes, you sign a contract when you sign up, but you do not expect your life to be put on the line for a lie, or for useless political ends, or for the welfare of a few dozen rich people and organizations. Unless there is a cowardly, boorish fool occupying the office of commander-in-chief, of course.