I resent the notion that Americans who die in Iraq are ...

[Poiuyt]

serving their country

There have been a lot of tearful parents on my local news lately as more and more people from my area are killed in Iraq. My heart goes out to these poor people but I resent it when it is said that their sons and daughters died serving their country.

They did NOT die serving their country, they died serving George Bush's desire to be a "war president." They died so that Bush could play toy soldier. They died so that Bush would be re-elected. Bush saw how popular his father was during the first Gulf War. He knew that our country typically rallies around its leader during times of war or crisis. All he needed was a never-ending war to preserve his power. The soldiers dying in Iraq are dying because of George W. Bush's sick obsession to be a powerful world leader.

The families of the dead might feel comfort in the thought that their sons and daughters died serving their country and I am certain that they feel proud. But I really resent the fact that our president would play on these people's feelings of patriotism just so that he can act like a big shot.

I know that this post will be insulting to many people. I know that every one of those fine soldiers enlisted with the intent of serving their country, and I applaud them for that. I thank God for people like that. But when they are fighting in a war with no purpose, then I am afraid they are dying in vain. I don't see the Iraq war making our country any safer or the country of Iraq any safer (more free perhaps, but less safe).

Thank you for letting me rant. Now go ahead, flame away.

[Dhalgren]

1. No flame here, I agree with you.

It is going to be really sad when these parents and families (and the soldiers who survive) finally drop their denial and realize that they were dupes. I'm sorry, but that's what they are. Many of the men and women in Iraq, right now, know that what they are doing is wrong, but they struggle to survive and make the best of an awful situation - I especially feel for them. But guilt is guilt and there is plenty to go around - each of us included.

[Trajan]

2. I disagree ...

Even as I understand your sentiments ...

I despise what the Neocons are doing to our country AND the world ... But we all know tht MOST ALL soldiers joined for the schooling opportunities, and would NEVER have enlisted knowing what was coming from this bunch of traitorous losers in the WH ...

No: ... We nee to keep a HEALTHY separation ...

Bush and the PNAC/AEI Neocons ? ... BAD ...

Soldiers serving their nation ? .... GOOD ...

Blurring the lines between Bush and Soldiers (like Mari333's son) serves no decent or fair purpose ...

[Old and In the Way]

7. Absolutely correct.

It's threads like this that give the RW ammunition to paint us a anti-American extremists.

This has nothing to do with soldiers that are serving their country, under extreme duress and hardship. It has everything to do with the administration that has used our sons and daughters as fodder to further their economic and political agenda.

[Selwynn]

15. I agree as well.

[boobooday]

3. You are right about the exploitation

But they are serving their country, just as anyone does who works for the government. And right now any of us who work for the government are serving the Bush Cartel.

Here's to all government employees getting a new boss, and all of those portraits of the chimp going to the dumpster.

http://www.wgoeshome.com

[salinen]

4. Not me. This is "Operation Chimp"

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[sadiesworld]

6. Yes, I find your post insulting...

I, for one, am sick of this crap. These kids are over there doing what they believe is right ( or just trying to jump start their lives) and you sit here and blame them for the monkey's madness. Enough is enough and too far is too far.

Let their heartbroken parents decide if they were serving their country...

[leftynyc]

35. I also find the orignal post insulting

These young men and women are indeed serving their country. You don't like the POLICY, complain about that but until utopia comes around, we need an armed military and thank God for those who are willing to go into the line of fire.

[el_gato]

37. they are dying for Halliburton

facts are facts

[rooboy]

8. Whether a soldier dies serving his country is a case-by-case proposition.

If a soldier dies whilst brutalizing a village, then they are not serving their country.

If they die whilst feeding or defending the innocents in a village, they are.

End of story, as far as I'm concerned.

[The Traveler]

9. It is not Bush's intent that matters

It is the intent of the fallen soldier. That is what we must regard, when we regard them and their families.

It is not their fault they were deceived and betrayed.

As for Bush, we need to go George Patton on his skanky ass and see to it he has a long and comfortable retirement in Crawford.

[troublemaker]

10. Their service is very real

They are indeed dying in vain, but still serving, and serving well.

A lot of guys in all wars die in pointless or futile actions like Galipoli or Market Garden or almost any WWI trench charge, and it's not their fault they weren't given productive orders. A military that second guesses the command structure (including the President) is no military at all. Our current troops are doing a solid job of trying to follow their orders, and that's all we can ask.

[mike1963]

13. I do not disagree with you in principle, but just what are "the orders"?

There are thousands of troops, many reservists never trained for guerilla warfare in Iraq trying to do a job the military was never designed to do...and "orders" are trickling down from who the hell knows where (in the manner of the children's game 'telephone')...

So we have 25 year old Captains passing along poorly understood orders to do ...something... but specifically WHAT? Given that there is a total lack of national command strategy, what the hell are the intermediate superior officers supposed or expected to actually do or accomplish? Does anybody even know?

What is the actual objective here (there)? It changes every couple months - originally to capture & eliminate Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Our kids tried their damndest (as did the highly-compensated muckety-mucks) and guess what: there WERE NONE.

Then it became a quasi-crusade, cum 'liberation' effort. "Saddam was a bad man so we had to remove him." And he is removed...but since that day back in 12/03 things have gone from popcorn-fart to full-blown stinky shit. Wonderful progress.

The whole debased debacle has devolved into a "shoot them all, anybody might be the enemy" non-strategy. (pardon the unintended alliteration)

I wouldn't expect many grunts to grasp the concept of "illegal orders" but someone really ought to explain it to them.

[against all enemies]

11. You're wrong.

If you feel this way don't support Kerry, he would rather not have your vote. Some kid from Briar Patch, bullets flying all around, doesn't get to decide if the war he is in has a purpose. He can't even decide if he lives or dies. They are serving their country, it is the country that is not serving them.

[Bucky]

12. I understand your point, but I think you're wrong. Here's why...

When you put on that uniform you know you're putting your life on the line. That in and of itself means you're serving your country and risking your very existence for a higher calling. I have nothing but respect for the troops who were sent to Iraq.

Certainly the mission is fundamentally flawed--they shouldn't have been sent. They're not there for the reason they were told they were going there. But the fault is with the president for lying to them. A measure of their honest service is that the president HAD to lie to them in order to convince the country that the war was necessary.

That doesn't erase the troops' sacrifice; that doesn't change the fact that they said "if the country sends me, I'll serve and follow orders". A democracy needs a military that follows rather than gives the orders. Hell, if the military feels like it can pick and choose the orders it'll follow, you won't really have a democracy. The war is not the troops' fault. The fault belongs first with the lying president and secondarily with the citizenry who failed to question the bogus claims used to justify the war.

(That's just the domestic responsibility; a big share of hte blame falls on Saddam Hussein too who could have prevented it all by being less of a bastard).

I want to offer this analogy. Let's say there's a fire company who respond to a fire someplace. That's their mission: to respond to fires when called upon to do so. On the way to the site the dumbass monkey at the wheel drives the firetruck off a bridge and kills the whole crew. Then it turns out the fire was a false alarm anyway. Are the firefighters heroes? Hell yes, responding to fires is dangerous, low paying, necessary work. But who do you blame? I blame the monkey driver and I blame the citizens who let the city hire a monkey as a driver. It's a tragedy, but the valor of the firefighters is never in question.

[Poiuyt]

17. What do you do with a lying fire chief?

Let's say that the fire chief sends his company to respond to a fire alarm that the chief KNOWS to be false. He also knows that there is a good chance that the truck will go off the bridge. If the facts came out, wouldn't you be mad at the fire chief?

[atreides1]

19. And I Think You Blame Too Many

"When you put on the uniform you know you're putting your life on the line"

That statement would be true, if recruiters has as part of their PR, a DVD showing the realities of combat. There are enough historical
films that do show real dead combat casualties. But recruiters tend
not to discuss the possibility of war. Can't get many people to sign
on the dotted line with that as a selling point. So they tell the story of how the military enabled them to achieve their dreams, this of course sells better then "you might have to die one day."

"But the fault is with the president for lying to them"

I would be the last person to offer any defense for Chimpy, but let's not put all of the blame at his door. Congress failed these
men and women also, at least all of those that surrendered their
authority, mainly because they did not want to be seen as being unpatriotic. Let's also not forget that Colin Powell lied to the UN Security Council, by using faulty intelligence, that he probably already knew was bullshit. As for the mission being flawed, you're too kind with that description, this was a cluster fuck from day one.

"if the country sends me, I'll serve and follow orders"

That's a pretty broad statement. First the country did not send them, at least not all of the country. They were sent by the president, and a mostly cowardly congress, and people who thought that this would be all fun and games. You are correct that a democracy needs a military that is subordinate to a civilian government, not a military that follows orders without question. I think history has shown what kind of people you find in a military that just follows orders. Personally I don't want a military that follows orders without questions, they need to question orders that
are not right, orders that violate the Geneva Conventions, orders that would result in killing civilians and call it collateral damage.
There has to be a line that a soldier cannot cross, without that line, without the ability to question an order, atrocities become a reality. Rape, murder, torture, any soldier has the right, no the duty to question such an order.

As for this being a democracy, democracies do not tend to send their military forces into harms way by using lies, it has happened to this country before, remember the Gulf of Tonkin.

The blame lies with the president, most members of congress, and the majority of the citizens of this country, not all. As for putting this
on Saddam just because he was a bastard, that's like saying it's fine to shoot your neighbor just because he plays his music to loud.

And in case no one has noticed, our military removed one dictator, while making nice with at least four other ones. So does this mean that in twenty years we'll be attacking the four former Soviet states
that lie north of Afghanistan.

Place blame where it's due and quit throwing a wide net out by saying that everyone is to blame.

The final thing that I have to say is that this president, with the permission of the majority of Congress, sent the military into harms way for his own gain. While he has done this, he along with his cronies in the US Congress have gutted the VA budget, tried to cut
hazardous duty pay,and stop paying school districts that support the dependent children of military personnel that live on bases.

So you see in reality Bush already thinks he's a King, and as everyone knows Kings can send their armies anywhere, anytime, and for
any reason. Now tell him how the military is supposed to be used in a democracy, not us. And you might want to yell it real loud, because there are a lot of cemeteries that may want to hear it too.

[Justitia]

14. to defend what I think pduck is saying...

...and please forgive me if I misunderstand...

I don't think pduck is making any reference to the soldiers themselves, as they obviously are doing their jobs, have no choice and are dying as pawns in a game they cannot control.

In fact, pduck only mentions those soldiers that have, unfortunately, died.

I think pduck is expressing anguish over their PARENTS buying into the propaganda that their deaths are somehow justified as "duty in svc of their country". This is a REALLY hard concept to translate into words, but I think I know exactly where you are coming from. I always find these proud parents somewhat disturbing.

On one hand, I fully understand their psychological NEED to think their children's lives weren't ended in vain. On the other hand, we wonder how they can accept the means of their death when so blatantly wrapped up in a lie. And, on yet another hand, somewhere in the back of our minds, we know that there is a special sympathy for these parents and we wonder if the Powers That Be would finally be held accountable if they all spoke out in protest.

It is very, very difficult to wrap your mind around this phenomena, and I feel so unnerved when I see these parents too. I wonder so much about their family history, how their parenting affected their child's choice to enter the military, how much is their psychological need to embrace this idea versus blind sacrifice for a manufactured ideal of patriotism.

I feel even worse for those parents who flatly recognize that their child was indeed faceless and disposable to this administration. Their ability to go on without succumbing to gut-rotting hatred of the gov't is amazing.

Very, very difficult issue on all sides.

[Poiuyt]

18. You've got it

Your analogy of the soldiers as disposable pawns is a good one. They are just doing their duty, but IN THIS CASE, they are serving Bush, the PNAC, the oil companies, etc. They are not making America safer by being in Iraq, they are not protecting the Constitution. What bothers me is how this administration misleads us into believing that they are.

[jobycom]

20. I get it, but I disagree with him still

Part of being a soldier is not asking why, but simply doing what the hierarchy orders you to do. That's part of what makes them heroes, that they bury their own goals to do what is required. That's how they serve their country, and that is what they are doing, and their parents are right to find what solace they can in that.

It is not the fault of the soldiers that their deaths are not accomplishing a great deed. It is the fault of Bush, and of us. The troops defend us, and it is our duty to defend them from unscrupulous leaders. As a nation, we failed in Viet Nam, and we have failed again. We've allowed them to be used for the wrong purposes. It is we who are not serving our country. (And I know that "we" here does not fully apply to DUers, who did what we could do to stop this. But I still feel shame over the failure.)

[MadProphetMargin]

24. You hit the nail square on the head. Bravo.

[TahitiNut]

36. Yes, it's not whether they served the nation, but whether the nation ...

... honored their service by using that service honorably and responsibly.

This is, indeed, one of the most difficult political issues to grasp, imho. When one of our grown children demonstrates their faith and trust in We the People by offering their "sacred duty" to this nation, they do so by placing their faith in the People to exercise the political responsibility inalienably theirs. When we, as a nation, fail to step up to that responsibility, the dishonor is ours.

The fruits of self-governance, whether sweet or sour, are ours to share equitably. So, it does neither us nor them any honor to pretend their lives were invested wisely or responsibly.

[DrWeird]

16. Of course you're correct.

600+ americans have died for absolutely no good reason.

Those who disagree are just kidding themselves so they'll feel better. If they really supported the troops they'd bring them home.

[MadProphetMargin]

21. They ARE serving their country. The problem is, their country is

mis-using them.

Don't blame the grunts. Blame the two-bit, lobotomized chucklehead in the Whitehouse...and his masters.
Oh, yeah...save a little of that blame for the Hannitys and Limbaughs of the nation, and their dittohead followers.

[Djinn]

22. No-one IS Blaming the grunts

no-one has said "it's the soldier's fault" they're disputing the notion that their death has done anything "for their country"

I couldn't consider joining the armed forces because very very few wars ARE fought to defend one's country OR to liberate people, they're ususally about money and power for some already priviledged rich people. I'm not a pacifist by any stretch but I wont fight imperialist wars, and unfortunately that's what most of them are

[MadProphetMargin]

23. No argument there. I enlisted a long time ago, full of idealism, only to

find myself fighting in two "conflicts" which, upon later reflection, seem to have been nothing more than trade shows for Boeing, GM, and Morton Thiekol.

[FARAFIELD]

25. I DISAGREE

I dont think it warrants a flame though. I served for eight years myself and i did the right thing. We need those guys out there to protect us and the country. They are providing a great service, the ones that die are providing the ultimate service. I believed in the KOsovo peace keeping mission, if we cant save a people from genocide then who should we save, but we have to take it once in a while. And right now that means until we vote out Tipsy McDumbass, they are stuck there and deserve our support.

[ComerPerro]

26. I appreciate your point, but

I don't want to take away any comfort the families may have.

These people believed that they were dying for a noble cause and to protect freedom and their country. To me, that's enough. I say that is heroic..

BUT

It also makes their deaths more tragic and more sick and wrong. Bush has a lot of blood on his hands.

How he has manipulated so many, I will never know. But he has done a terrible thing. And the worst part is, he doesn't seem to give a shit about the dead. The press barely reports deaths anymore.

This is all just so sick and wrong.

[dpibel]

27. There's service and then there's service

I don't think this is about whether the servicepeople who are dying in Iraq are good, bad, or indifferent people. As with any collection of human beings, there are no doubt some of each.

Here's where I think this discussion is getting hung up:

There is the contractual duty to serve taken on by each military person: If they are sent to fight in a war, that's what they do, because that's what they agreed to do; they agreed to become subservient to their rank superiors. That is individual service; it's what servants do.

The problem is that there's this other sense of service, in which the word takes on a meaning of doing something good for. I am sorry to say that, although the military people in Iraq are certainly fulfilling their contractual duty to serve, I can't for the life of me see what benefit accrues to the country from their being there.

Yes, a country needs to have an army for defense. That does not mean that whatever that army does has something to do with defense. These people are not dying to defend this country, because this country was not threatened by Iraq.

Perhaps the best example I can give is people who say, "Those people are over there fighting and dying so ratbastards like you have the freedom to say bad things about them." I'm very sorry, but the invasion of Iraq has not one single thing to do with protecting my freedom of speech. It just doesn't.

That's the way I sort it out: They're over there because they agreed to follow orders, and that's what they're doing. But, unfortunately, the action in which they are engaged has not one single thing to do with serving this country in terms of making this country more safe or more free.

And the idea, fronted by at least one poster on this thread, that this is a great humanitarian effort is interesting, but unconvincing. Had the invasion been sold as a humanitarian intervention, that would be one thing; even with the sham that constituted congressional debate before the invasion, someone might have pointed out that the grave sins of Hussein, which we so like to repeat over and over and over again were not ongoing. There were no fresh mass graves in Iraq, because Saddam Hussein had got out of the business of mass killing about a decade ago. For doubters, see the Amensty Internation reports on Iraq for the last five years--in fact, even using conservative estimates of civilian deaths in the US invasion, the US has outkilled Hussein during the past six years (more dead from the one year of US action than dead under Hussein in the preceding five years).

None of this means I don't mourn the dead soldiers and feel for their families (although no more than I mourn the thousands of dead Iraqis and feel for their families). It just means that I don't buy the idea that those deaths have taken place for my benefit, or for the benefit of the country at large. No threat subdued. No freedoms protected. Nothing but dead people and rage.

[sweetheart]

28. The career folks i've met in the military...

want to go to war. The thought of training a whole lifetime to
fight war and never to have one is unthinkable... it is the ultimate
waste from that POV.

Fighting a war is exciting and gives their lives purpose, and they
really don't care much for the cannon fodder kids who die on
street-to-street fighting. The career militarists are above
them in rank and are in the command tent with the very exciting
video games, and cool airplanes and missiles.

They serve no one but themselves and the perpetuation of their
species of profesional warriors; people who must make war in every
generation or they fail in life. This career militarism was said
to be a principal problem for germany in the build up to WW1, with
the prussian miltiarists dominating policy thinking... and demanding
a purpose in life.

They are bored, and without a war, its burger king... something
they are simply not humble enough to accept.

[saigon68]

33. Absolutely right Sweetheart

This goes right to the heart of the 'WARRIOR' eithic

[LagaLover]

34. I've spent 19 years in the military,

My husband 21. I know of NO ONE who wanted to go to war. I was terrified when my husband flew combat missions over Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan. Those who have none and seen war hate it more than anyone else. You are just plain wrong.

[sweetheart]

38. I met a whole generation of warriors in Texas A&M

And there are some really gung ho people in the military, wholly
intense warrrior folk, who are really indeed bad fighting mother
fuckers. They like to have a fight, and win. The Teddy Roosevelt
machismo crap is alive and well in the upper command tent. This is
what has driven american intervention in countries all over the
earth in neoliberal war interventions. It is a gross military
failure this iraq mess. The forces are not available for other war.
This is the best time in the universe for China to take taiwan.
We don't even have enough hardware to get in time, except threatening
nuclear strikes, and they know we would stand down at the possibility
of losing the entire west coast from submarine launched nukes.

They are fucking around with dynamite, and you may not know these
folks, or you may be denying that you know them... but SOMEBODY
has been doing these war making activities and training the terrorists
in south america. Obviously it is not an area of the miltiary where
you've been involved. Likely your on the fodder end of the
services, not an insult, rather that most most people are at the
field end, not in the command tent.

Hang out in a bar at west point, or Renssalear Poly. Meet your
upper military command and play the video games they play. Check
out "command and Conquor: Generals" and notice how much the game
plays like the iraq war, with "YOU ARE VICTORIOUS" at the end...
and the gross oversight as to the complexity of involving ourselves
in "another asian war" afganistan and iraq, the bane of every
empire on earth. Oh, jesus, what a stupid bunch of morons... not
the people who did not make the decisition, but the shits who went
along with hitler. I men hitler and his upper command. The whole
lot should be in prison. I'm so pissed off about this, i've
practially livid that these wicked pricks, have chosen to waste
the goodwill of AALL americans and ALL the peole on earth in
a F*UCIING war for EXOON and BP, designed by a guy with a fake
heart... brought to you by satan, dressed as a CNN presidential
charlatain.

[LagaLover]

44. Okayyyyy...right...

[sweetheart]

48. LOL! yes ha !

That last part really flowed from this poets fingers... ha!


... right... okay. ha!

[VLC98]

40. Absolutely.

I don't usually agree with your posts, but in this case I think you're right. My husband has been AD Air Force for nearly 19 years and is the least gung-ho person I know. I don't think he could live with himself if he had to kill another human being in a war for profit, such as this one in Iraq. For him, joining the Air Force was a means of survival, coming from a dysfunctional family.

[sweetheart]

41. peace with truth

The vast majority of the miltiary is a functional organization, and
only the central general command those General Clark sorts of folk,
are hardened men, and wholly admirable, those that are.

Then there is those folks as the school of americas who train
south american terrorists, and the people who rape women in Okinawa,
and a whole lotta vile crap that goes on around the american military
that some decent folk have not to do with, but yet a fact of our
militarism... and culture of abuse.

I am sorry, if i appear to inappropriately label "all" of the folk,
rather a particular set of characters, who revel in war, the rumsfelds, kissingers and the like... we have nazi evil shits in
our midst... people who are trashing our national and world security
with a video game mentality of "YOU ARE VICTORIOUS".

I take no issue with folk who i have no issue with... and those who
read the thread will certainly know those. I am picking no fight
with justice, rather corrupt injustice in self perpetuation of this
monolithic empire beast. All you careeer military people out there,
why don't you quit, and go back to work contributing to the economy
instead of sponging off the public purse.

Military people should be very humble, and prefer not to be working
at all, to the point, that if the're really warrior souls, they
either go to war, or they pursue civilian means. That is the real
code of the samurai. There is no nobility in bombing a mosque and
killing 40 people, or in being in the organization that did it, when
it was entirely avoidable... entirely. We should not be there.

The military people, somebody there, is doing this, and everyone
can claim its all professional, and everybody's a good person and
i'm sure they are, but somebody is doing this... it is really
perverse that our culture, being so authoritarian, has a population
of apologists who cannot take responsibility for what we do, because
we have no power, hollow; empty; reduced republican citizens
who have no power to choose goodwill in life besides waging aggressive
war and occupation.

peace,

[VLC98]

46. I understand some of what you're saying...

and agree to an extent. But, you say "career military people should quit and go back to work contributing to the economy". Career military people are not going to throw away their retirement benefits by quitting with 10-15+ years in. Also, what America are you living in, thinking there are abundant job opportunities out there? My husband has to provide for his family, even though he knows this war is bullshit. He is keeping his head down until he can retire in about a year.

[sweetheart]

47. Were I him, i'd do the same

The personality of the services has changed from "service" to
"empire" during his career, and it is an unfortunate thing this
group karma. As for individual karma, each of us makes gray
choices in a world to survive. All we have is our personal
impeccability to go on; and for those in iraq it is to stay
alive. For a career officer, it is to finish and with your early
retirement, see what you've been protecting all these years by
joining the civilian economy. With those excellent beneifts a
second career as a school teacher or something would really
reinvigorate a different part of the soul.

Lucking that, to have excellent retirement benefits... that is
compared to "none" the civilian working-poor standard.

[VOX]

29. Strictly speaking, the troops are following orders given by their country.

In the person of the commander-in-chief. So, yes, they *are* dying for their country, and they are deserving of all respect, support and sympathy.

If a citizen disagrees with the overall mission, that is a separate matterly entirely.

[panzerfaust]

30. Tao of the warrior

No matter how – volunteer, professional, or conscript – that you come to be in a war, in an army, in a battle – you fight, and die, for one thing only: your buddies.

Death be not loud...

[mulethree]

31. Sen. Byrd

Ancient fellow from WV, was in congress during the Vietnam war so he's been on the hill for 35+ years.

He was giving a speech Wednesday saying the 600 deaths in Iraq remind him of "The Charge of the Light Brigade"

600 Calvary got some crossed up orders and charged right into a crossfire. Good soldiers, Brave men - slaughtered because their command screwed up.

The Charge of the Light Brigade
Alfred, Lord Tennyson
-------------------------------------------

Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
"Forward, the Light Brigade!
"Charge for the guns!" he said:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

"Forward, the Light Brigade!"
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Someone had blunder'd:
Their's not to make reply,
Their's not to reason why,
Their's but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred.

Flash'd all their sabres bare,
Flash'd as they turn'd in air,
Sabring the gunners there,
Charging an army, while
All the world wonder'd:
Plunged in the battery-smoke
Right thro' the line they broke;
Cossack and Russian
Reel'd from the sabre stroke
Shatter'd and sunder'd.
Then they rode back, but not
Not the six hundred.

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon behind them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
While horse and hero fell,
They that had fought so well
Came thro' the jaws of Death
Back from the mouth of Hell,
All that was left of them,
Left of six hundred.

When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wondered.
Honor the charge they made,
Honor the Light Brigade,
Noble six hundred.

[Mari333]

32. When I called Kerrys office yesterday the man in charge

of Military affairs told me that quite a few frantic freaked out families of soldiers have been calling him and telling him how angry they were with Kerry putting the troops in danger by not agreeing with Bush. Thats where their minds are at , some of them, and I re iterated to the man that "many of these parents and loved ones of troops cannot wrap their minds around the reality that Bush sent their kids over there, and mine, to die for nothing. Nothing. Just to be there to protect corporate interests and keep the Pentagon and war dept fat cats making money, and protect US corporations in the region...the parents of these kids dont want to believe their son or daughter is there for Nothing..which they are"
He seemed enlightened by that concept/
Then I turned him on to www.mfso.org and told him theres a lot more parents out there and loved ones of military and troops who are NOT behind Bush and know perfectly well this occpation is horseshit.
I hope he checks www.mfso.org out.

[leesa]

39. I understand, but I think THEY think they are serving their country

So I guess you have to cut them some slack for that. Military people are lied to and conned 24/7...how else could you get them to fight wars for resources and corporate gain.
I wish they would really think about their pledge to uphold the Constitution though because they clearly aren't doing that. They are pretty much screwed any way you look at it though so I guess it helps them mentally to maintain the illusion.

[HootieMcBoob]

42. There has to be a better way for you to express your concern

They are being killed by the Bush administration. They take a pledge to defend the constitution of the United States. They are following orders. You can bet that none of them want to be there. They are being taken advantage of by this administration.

We should thank them for putting their lives on the line. It's not their fault that Bush is totally fucking everything up and using them as pawns. Their lives mean nothing to him. They should mean something to us. And they should mean something to you. Rather than suggesting that they are not serving their country your resentment should be aimed at how they are being abused by their government. I personally resent your subject line and think that it does more harm than good to us as liberals that you feed the freeper trolls with this kind of thing.

[Skittles]

43. I DISAGREE

They are in the MILITARY. The military SERVES OUR COUNTRY. The fact that an incompetent, lazy, thieving piece of SHIT has severely undermined this DOES NOT ALTER THE BASIC FACTS.

[Toucano]

45. You're wrong.

They are serving their country.

They don't have the authority to choose a conflict or decide foreign policy.

How they are actually used is irrelevent. They enlisted to serve their country and from their persepctive, that's what they're doing. The motives of the commander are not the same as the motives of the soldiers.

It's the policy that's wrong, not the soldiers.