Contrary to rightwingtalkingpoints and the rightwingspinmachine, not all Iraq War Vets support the mission. Some have the cajones to speak out in a very forthright manner.

It took Vietnam vets to shut down the war in Vietnam, so it will take Iraq vets to shut this one down. I'm not talking stateside dissent either. I'm talking right smack in the center of that war zone.

What a great way to protest! Those soldiers are not only brave for fighting in the war and now coming out against it, they are also bright and creative for coming up with this protest format. I would like to have witnessed it...

We can only hope that this is but the first wave of these brave veterans speaking their minds. It will be very interesting to see what other ways they come up with to get their message out there.

For sure the right spin merchants will paint them as unpatriotic, un-American and far leftwing fringe. They will attack and froth at the mouth over this.

The rightwingspinmachine will more than likely just ignore them and hope that they go away. I pray that the opposite comes to pass.

Whatever the RW spinmeisters have to say, these are people who have been there and done that. Can Limbaugh, O'Reilly, or Hannity say the same?
If you've never walked in their shoes, don't claim to be better informed or more in touch with the reality of this war. These RW pundits, along with all these armchair warriors who grace this board, are in love with war - as long as they can view it from thousands of miles away. Like the Monday morning quarterbacks who never even played highschool football (but they read ESPN Sports Magazine and Sports Illustrated). Or, maybe they just stayed at the right hotel last night....
I'll take the views of a vet over the views of a chicken-hawk any day. And, please! Don't claim to be a veteran of the Vietnam War or any other war if you were never "boots on the ground."
Sallie

I agree!

How about this? Iraq and Kosovo vet.
http://www.stevesarvi.org/

I met with him again last night. Damn, I wish I would have taped the little speech he made.

That's the thing, they DON'T CARE. The vets that speak out are scum (in their eyes).

Why should we believe the right wing chickenhawks running this game ever cared?
Have you seen evidence of it?

They squeal & hug the flag. That's pretty much the whole game.

SARVI?

He's the one running against Bushie apologist John Kline in Minnesota?
Sounds like a winner.

A site I frequent has noted that Kline put his money down for tee times during the convention months ago.
At the big, fancy clubs. In the vicinity of $5,000 to hold his spot!

Who knew he was that avid a tee drinker?

A few dozen?

Sallie, I've observed your anti-military musings for months now and all I can say is thank God, the majority of Americans do not share your opinion on what qualifies as national defense. The "milk and cookies" approach to national security doesn't work. And who are you to define what qualifies someone to comment on Iraq? When was the last time Obama has spent "boots on the ground?"



Thanks for yet another chuckle when someone who doesn't have a freakin' clue about military service attempts to educate us veterans on what it is.

I don't know if I share Sal's view exactly.
How do you really know what the majority of Americans prefer?

I DO know that YOU are a legend. And therefore what you said here is golden.
I hear music & angels every time you post!

Since 1969, I'd say more like a few hundred thousand troops. From what those in my family has said over the years at family reunions etc etc, what took place was a lot of dissent among the ranks in Vietnam. There wasn't any protests like what happens in the streets today in Vietnam by US troops, but how they dissented in the field. My relatives have stated that their overall moral dropped at first until later, dissent in the ranks took over because they knew how wrong that war was. I feel the same 'low moral' exist in Iraq today.

How do you get national defense from our offensive invasion of Iraq?

Is that what that is?! I thought it was flies buzzing.... you know, like around a pile of fresh BS...

The million dollar question...

thank you for your service.

veterans may, no more than civilians, have no better grasp of foreign policy and the effects that result from that foreign policy. this is what contributes to having to have a defense. when it is convoluted by things such as nsc-68 the end result is not good because it precludes any introspection, examination and discussion outside the framework of such base conceptions. such is what we have in iraq and afganistan.

your disparging comments about "milk and cookies" national defense are clouded by nsc-68 and the permutations of it after the fall of the ussr. last one looked at other posts nothing such as a "milk and cookies" national defense was put forward as a viable defense. what has been put forward is analysis of why we have to deal with the conflicts we have and how to alter the situation in the future to prevent those conflicts.

a reading of "confessions of an economic hit man", "the secret history of the american empire" both by john perkins and "the limits of power" by retired colonel andrew bacevich may provide some insight for you regarding corporatocracy and foreign policy and their effects on defense policy.

Exactly!!! The fiasco in Iraq has in no way made us safer, nor has it defended us from anything. While I have nothing but praise for the men and women who with honor wear our nation's uniforms, I do not for a minute feel that the occupation of Iraq has done anything to make us a stronger or better nation. In fact, the opposite is true.

quite easily.

defense is a function of foreign policy which is a projection of domestic policy which is corporatist in nature.

the corporatocracy decided it. this is not the same as saying "microsoft said invade iraq" but that all foreign, domestic and defense policy decisions are the result of protecting the vested interests of the corporatocracy.

Good grief Jailbush, I was talking about the Iraqi veterans' protest at the DNC, not the valid opposition to the Vietnam War by hundreds of thousands.

hmm...do you think the majority of Americans believe the Iraq War was a national defense strategy?



Im not sure what you mean here. That we should never negotiate? That in all conflicts regardless their degree we should always elevate to the military option.



I think u already know the answer to that one



For McCain that was 40 years ago.

Good reads. Moyers interviewed Bacevich about his new book. What an interview! And.......... Bacevich is a..... Conservative.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/profile.html

More solid leadership for our nation! We need to replace the old guard and including a healthy dose of veterans in the mix is the right thing to do.

A long journey begins with but a single step. Does it irk you that not all Iraq War vets walk in lockstep with the CIC? To me, it's just the American way.

Yet another example of your inability to interpret and comprehend what is actually being said.

Sallie never attempted to define "what qualifies as national defense". She only questioned whether Limbaugh, Hannity, etc were more qualified to educate us on the war than those who have actually been there.

As far as your comment about Obama, he has talked to many soldiers (and wounded vets on his regular visits to Walter Reed and other hospitals) regarding their experiences. He has also been briefed by the commenders who are in charge in Iraq so he has both the perspective of the commanders and those who are actually "the boots on the ground". While that does not qualify as actual combat experience, it is much more than the vast majority of talking heads and pundits who pass for experts these days.

BTW, I do know what war is all about having been involved in one myself a few decades back so I do know what I am talking about!

that tootin' isn't coming from angels' horns

saw part of the pbs interview with bacevich. bought the book prior to the interview. bacevich as well as perkins makes very good points.

would consider bacevich as vp material in either party.

For a person who claims to pay attention to detail, you should have been more specific with your 'Just a few dozen?" response. Since I started out about how Vietnam Vets dissented among the ranks, your short response appeared to be directed to my opening remarks. At least we only got a "Good Grief" from you this time, in which just so happens nicely describes McCain.