Against the War in Iraq?

[nightbird]

http://www.mfso.org/

[nightbird]

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Military Families Speak Out is an organization of people who are opposed to war in Iraq and who have relatives or loved ones in the military. We were formed in November of 2002 and have contacts with military families throughout the United States, and in other countries around the world.

As people with family members and loved ones in the military, we have both a special need and a unique role to play in speaking out against war in Iraq. It is our loved ones who are, or have been, or will be on the battlefront. It is our loved ones who are risking injury and death. It is our loved ones who are returning scarred from their experiences. It is our loved ones who will have to live with the injuries and deaths among innocent Iraqi civilians.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and just becuase I really like this letter and it speaks very well of the persecution some americans have faced on this board.....

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**********

A Soldier's MOTHER Speaks Out

by MFSO Member Denise Thomas

An essay has been making the rounds on the internet called "A Soldier's Father Speaks Out."

In it, the the author attacks those who oppose the war, accusing them

of not supporting the troops and of giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

MFSO member Denise Thomas wrote the following in response:

I have a daughter who is an American soldier and who recently returned from a year of service in Baghdad. I am married to a 23-year Army veteran. It is likely that he will serve in Iraq soon.

I am so fed up with propaganda coming from some Iraq war supporters that I wrote this open letter. I care very much about what affects the American soldier.

I'm not impressed when you spew propaganda that unnecessarily places our troops in harm's way. Why do you believe that only you are patriotic? Why do you exaggerate the positive things that happen in Iraq while ignoring the lies that our weary children and the American public have been told by this administration? Then you tell us (and our children who are fighting) that we don't support our troops.

I'm not impressed when you ignore the large number of American soldiers killed and wounded in Iraq, dismissing these brave patriots by using the condescending phrase "soldiers die in wars". Does that mean that we should not keep as many of them safe as we can? Using medically unfit soldiers to cover this administration's miscalculations concerning troop strength, and going into this conflict without most of our allies, is causing our soldiers to pay a much higher price. And you tell us that WE don't support our troops?

I'm not impressed, when you spout constant criticism of what we do to attempt to end this war and bring our soldiers safely home. You have a rabid need to discredit us, when all we want to do is to save our soldiers and innocent Iraqi civilians from unnecessary harm. And you say that we don't support our troops.

I'm not impressed when you tell our soldiers that they will be going home soon, then keep them for more than a year. There is a limit to human endurance. And you say WE don't support our troops.

I'm not impressed when you spout propaganda that attempts to undermine our credibility in the eyes of the media. YOU KEEP TELLING THEM WE DON'T SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!!!!

The hearts and minds of the Iraqi population cannot be won unless we demonstrate to them that we believe that an Iraqi life is every bit as valuable as an American life. We cannot destroy entire civilian neighborhoods, killing innocent people, for the slight possibility of neutralizing a few terrorists ---not if we support our troops.

You are fostering contention toward patriotic Americans who happen to believe differently than you do. Why do you refuse to believe that we support our troops just as you do? Why won't you talk to us without condemning or demeaning us? Why do you believe that those of US who have children who serve are less moral than those of YOU who have children who serve? I am finding that in order for soldiers and their families to be respected by the conservatives, we have to AGREE with the conservatives. We are moral, we are American, and we support our troops.

I tried to help my daughter get the medical discharge that she should have gotten 2 ½ years ago, and it became a partisan issue. Why is that? Medically unfit soldiers should be removed from the military when they become unfit. I was ignored or insulted by all pro-Iraq war people that I came into contact with. My experience has definitely helped me to move farther to the left, but I STILL support our troops.

Yes, I will do everything I can to get W. Bush out of office. He is the most divisive president in my memory. This war could have been postponed until we secured international support, or it could have been avoided altogether. We could have removed Hussein from power with a small force of persecuted Iraqi dissidents who begged Bush for the funds to let them do it. That strategy would not have given Bush access to Iraqi oil or control over the new government.

This is my right to freedom of speech. You have a right to your freedoms, including a right to try and keep W. Bush in office. That is the American way.

[odinsgrl]

Great site! My heart goes out to the families and the soldiers. I'm scared to death that my sister, will be sent there. Because much like those families, I believe this is a war based on lies, and I would not want her to die for them.

[Stellar]

As people with family members and loved ones in the military, we have both a special need and a unique role to play in speaking out against war in Iraq. It is our loved ones who are, or have been, or will be on the battlefront. It is our loved ones who are risking injury and death. It is our loved ones who are returning scarred from their experiences. It is our loved ones who will have to live with the injuries and deaths among innocent Iraqi civilians.

It is their loved ones who voluntairly chose to join the army too.

[Monkyburd]

They chose to join the army, but no one chooses to go to war.

Of course, except our commander and chief.

[Talon]

It is their loved ones who voluntairly chose to join the army too.

True, when you join the army you can't expect to do some training and get paid and not do any fighting. A army is meant to fight, they were happy while getting paid, but knew fine well what they were risked.

Frankly though the equipment of the UK army is a joke, Blair should not have sent them out without proper equipment, and now their sending out people who joined only a few months ago, which is hardly enough training.

[Stellar]

They chose to join the army, but no one chooses to go to war.

Of course, except our commander and chief.

Of course they'd rather choose not to go to war and still get payed than to go to war. But that doesnt matter. No ones giving them the direct choice to go to war or not to when they are already in the army. They're choice whether to go to war or not to go to war was taken when they joined the army. Theres no "Do you want to join the army and participate in a war or do you want to join the army and get payed without participating in any war that pops up?" choice. Its either you join the army and accept the dangers or dont join at all.

[snuffypuffer]

I agree, they knew what they were getting into when they joined. But putting them in jeopardy for reasons that are shady at best is still wrong. these people should be able to trust our leaders not to put them in harm's way unless it's absolutely necessary.

[Monkyburd]

Ha, well its a little different if you join the national gaurd, but thats something different.. They're imitation soldiers

The point I was making is,"I'll fight for the cause, if I have to,"

Snuffypuffer knows what I mean

War is hell. My friend is back from Afgan-land and says its the worst experience of his life, and that everyday people are dropping out of the service because of how bad it is over there. It's a damn desert, half the native people hate you, and everyday he heard of more casualties or suicides.

And he just had a desk job!

War shouldn't be the answer, especially when the United states is not directly threatened.

But thats up to our leaders to decide as well, isn't it?

[snuffypuffer]

My points exactly, and my cousin is in Iraq now, I'd kinda like to not have him sitting around as a target.

[Talon]

I agree, they knew what they were getting into when they joined. But putting them in jeopardy for reasons that are shady at best is still wrong. these people should be able to trust our leaders not to put them in harm's way unless it's absolutely necessary.

Well, thats true I guess they do sign up believing that their leaders aren't looking for a fight

But I really can't talk like that since I did support the war and regret it looking at the mess it caused. But then again, I can afford to shout 'Go in and klll the fascist!', I'm not a world leader, but they are, and should have thought long and hard about the effects.

Oh well, history will be our judge

[Dowdy]

They chose to join the army, but no one chooses to go to war.

Of course, except our commander and chief.

in australia going to war is voluntary.

My mum just watched fahrenheit 911 and she was worried about me joing the army. I keep on telling her that going to war is voluntary and that there are people who have been in the army for 30 years and never gone to war. But my mum is never going to stop worrying about me.

[nightbird]

yes they joined the army. whether it was to learn how ot fight, or to be a reserve and get the paid uni courses, or the fringe benefits, or to have a stable job I dont know. But no one joins the army hoping to go to war. no one joins the army to go to war and be killed by the wishes of a madman. at least not in the west. Bush's reasons for the Iraq war have been proven to be lies. THAT is what the families are against. they are not opposed to sending their loved ones to war when the war is just, and for humanitarian reasons. no one tried to stop soldiers being sent to Somalia, no one tried to stop Afghanistan.....but this war on Iraq did not occur for the reasons given, even that oh so noble reason of freeing a supressed people. this war occured becuase of the wishes of Bush, with no reason other than economic and political gain. and you support people dying for those reasons???

[bathory]

Bush's reasons for the Iraq war have been proven to be lies.

please stop making stuff up

[wunarmdscissor]

Frankly though the equipment of the UK army is a joke, Blair should not have sent them out without proper equipment, and now their sending out people who joined only a few months ago, which is hardly enough training. 

To be fair talon that was Geof Hoon's job.

[Dowdy]

please stop making stuff up

were you joking or are you serious about that comment?

[Talon]

were you joking or are you serious about that comment?

From other posts I think he's serious, but I could be wrong

[Stellar]

please stop making stuff up

were you joking or are you serious about that comment?

I should ask nightbird the same thing

You people think that because you're right... everything against Bush has been *proven*

Edited July 24, 2004 by Stellar

[Talon]

You people think that because you're right... everything against Bush has been *proven*

Not everything, just that the 45 minute thing was not true and that Iraqi WMD were nowhere never as powerful as reported... and nowhere to be found

In the UK they just released a report stating the reasons for war well false, however they say its the intellegences fault for gathering it not Blair's for following it.

[Stellar]

Actually, the yellow cake uranium story was backed up by British Intel. In the US, noone has proven that Bush knowingly lied... actually it seems that maybe it was an intel fault if anything. And thats assuming that the intel was wrong and that Saddam didnt just ship his weapons away to some other country.

[bathory]

yes i'm serious, if you are going to make the claim that Bush "LIED" as opposed to, Bush was wrong, Bush acted unknowingly on false intelligence from various sources, you better damn well prove that Bush indeed lied.

[snuffypuffer]

The point is, Bush wanted to invade Iraq, with or without solid intelligence. He just listened to what he wanted to hear, and never bothered to follow up and see if the information was good or not.

[bathory]

The point is, Bush wanted to invade Iraq, with or without solid intelligence. He just listened to what he wanted to hear, and never bothered to follow up and see if the information was good or not.

THE UN BELIEVED SADDAM HAD WMDS, THE ENTIRE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY BELIEVED HE HAD THEM, hell theres lots of compelling evidence that seems to suggest he was up to something!

Prove he just listened to what he wanted to hear? You can't follow up on information like that, you can only rely on what is called HINDSIGHT afterwards, think about it, we would be in exactly the same position if the US hadn't invaded Iraq, everyone would still think Saddam had them, simple.

[snuffypuffer]

THEY'VE NEVER BEEN FOUND! NOT ONE, SINGLE WMD HAS EVER BEEN FOUND! Thinking Saddam had WMDs and Saddam actually having WMDs are two completely different things. If he'd actually had them, don't you think he would have used them on us as soon as he invaded? He gassed his own friggin people! We invaded, don't you think he would have dropped as much mustard gas has he could get a hold of on us if he had so much as a barrel of the stuff?

Of course, I could be wrong.

[+joc]

THEY'VE NEVER BEEN FOUND! NOT ONE, SINGLE WMD HAS EVER BEEN FOUND! Thinking Saddam had WMDs and Saddam actually having WMDs are two completely different things. If he'd actually had them, don't you think he would have used them on us as soon as he invaded?

Ah Snuffster ...aren't you all forgetting something quite relevant here? If he didn't have anything to hide, why did he act like he had something to hide? Obviously it was because he did...maybe not WMD but certainly mass graves and rape parlors.

If he'd actually had them, don't you think he would have used them on us as soon as he invaded?

What you have done here is 'prove' that he was a dangerous and gathering threat> he did use them on his own people so why is it proposterous to believe that he would have given them to the terrorists?

And finally: You have forgotten something else.....I think it was called...uh...

Shock and Awe...yes, that's the ticket! Shock and Awe dessimated the Iraqi Military! Perhaps they planned on doing something but weren't able to...

And again, I pose the question...Who should you be more afraid of: A bully you think might have a switchblade in his pocket who has already knifed people in his own family and has threatened to knife you....or a bully who has a 357 locked and loaded but hasn't threatened you per say ....i.e. I am going to shoot you with this 357.... ?

It is like this: If you are against the war in Iraq...then you are in favor of Saddam still being El Presidente. One cannot seperate the two. You are either with us or against us...and if you are against us...you are with the terrorists.

People: Make up your minds!