The American "Hero"

reply to post by alpha chino


so, you say, to kill is to be a hero?

he had a choice, dont tell me that he didnt ... because you always have a choice ...

so, if someone invades your home, and you shoot them, you are a hero right?
lets say the robber goes with a few friends, and if the friends start shooting you, than, they are heroes (since they are protecting the robber)?

well, the US troops are invading other people's home, they are not defending their home, they are not defending anything

so, please, forgive me if I dont agree with you

reply to post by Brood

Im not American and I agree with many of your sentiments the problem is you're dealing with close and personal emotion when it comes to soldiers and their families and they do not necessarily grasp the big picture.As you imply there were many good,decent patriotic Germans that believed in their country right or wrong who felt it their duty to join the Whermacht and whilst I would not call America Nazi yet its wars are an empires war to secure resources and supply routes.

the problem is that most of these people that join the army, they simply dont think, for some reason

lets be real here, killing and wars dont equal peace, so, you must think that most people should know that, but they dont

off course that soldiers are not the root of the problem, but hey, they could solve the problem if they just didnt join the army

its easy to say, well, the guilty is with the politicians, so, let me keep killing here

for what I understand the politicians dont force you to join, or do they?

Originally posted by anglodemonicmatrix
reply to post by Brood

 

Im not American and I agree with many of your sentiments the problem is you're dealing with close and personal emotion when it comes to soldiers and their families and they do not necessarily grasp the big picture.As you imply there were many good,decent patriotic Germans that believed in their country right or wrong who felt it their duty to join the Whermacht and whilst I would not call America Nazi yet its wars are an empires war to secure resources and supply routes.

There is a lot of truth this, what comes next is the real question. I live in Canada; we are directly and fully adjacent to America, and more than 80% of our cities are located close to the American border. we have the largest governed land mass on the planet and we still have tons of natural resources -- how long will it be before our long-proclaimed brother invades us for what we need just as much as them? Why does our entire country have to anticipate this fear, because the American government wants to create a global empire based on control by fear? Pretty scary stuff, and if you consider the almost self-worship and self-proclaimed superiority level of many Americans, it makes it much easier to believe that this kind of stuff is going to happen. Lime I said, it's a very real situation and its a shame nobody wants to take it seriously based on the "heroic" concept of the American military that has been instilled in all of their minds.

reply to post by Faiol


Totally agree, pretty much elaborating on one of my points and making it very understandable, thanks for your input.

Furthermore, is it really okay to give up our basic human morals of not killing eachother just to serve for a purpose that your country wants, even though it does not comply with the thoughts of the country itself? Is this how democracy works? Is this the democracy we are spreading across the globe by force?

reply to post by Brood


I dont think the US invaded those countries because of their natural resources

I think they did simply because some organizations just led them into ... just background politics

the US is apparently broke right now ...

reply to post by Brood


It take guts to be a soldier.

It takes even more guts to be a hero.

I was going to rant at this; I'm a former soldier and I find the whole thread disgusting and the OP should be ASHAMED of himself....
This country was founded by those England would consider terrorists
I cant say anymore i am disgusted with the OP and his comment about AMERICAN HEROES

People who join the army aren't usually gifted with high intelligence. Sometimes it's the economic situation that drives them to it. Sometimes they have 'issues'. But they are not heroes. And if they truly believe they are engaging in self defence, it proves they are idiots.
I happen to think Islam is a danger, not just the fundamentalist variety. But lets not pretend we invaded other peoples sovereign territory to defend ourselves. Plus we killed millions of ordinary citizens and recruited millions of would be jhadists in the process. How clever is that!
There have to be better ways to curb fundamentalism than bombing another country to smithereens. And as nasty as these Islamic practices are, two wrongs don't make a right. When our armies descend to murdering and torturing, we have already lost - imo.
Also - anyone who is tempted to watch these videos is sick - and just as evil as those wielding the sword. Just my opinion.
We would be better countering 'islamification' in our own countries. Mark my words, this is the 'Trojan horse method' of infiltration and we will all wake up and realise it when it is too late.

reply to post by Brood


Soldiers do what they are told. That is their job. Just like a fireman does not first ponder whether or not he feels like putting out a fire. A soldier does not question whether or not he feels like fighting, it wouldn't work that way.

Now if you would have picked Mahatma Gandhi as your president, I highly doubt those soldiers would be over there given their life for our choice.

No, a hero is somebody who values the lifes of others over that of himself.

By definition, all soldiers, all firemen, all policemen etc....are Heroes!!

And I thank them for their selflessness!!!!

Peace

reply to post by starchild10


I agree with a few of your points, but we definitely need to stop looking at the religion of Islam as if it is the problem. Islam is a peaceful religion with many similarities to Christianity -- I know this as I have gone to three different religious schools over my elementary and secondary education and taken several World Religions courses. The truth is that it is not Islam that is flawed, but humanity. The faith of Islam never says "kill for your faith and you shall receive 72 virgins at deaths door", it never says "Hit your wife if she disobeys you"; find this in the Quran and that will grant you the right to speak against the actual religion. This is a very misunderstood faith and it is a shame that ignorant people take such a harsh stance against it so often, it is clearly a huge issue and somehow contributing to America's obvious-yet-subtle evidence of genocide in the Middle East.

________________

Branching off of the initial topic, I want to try to put things into an actual perspective of all of this from a Canadian stance, a country that has pretty much always been a continental sibling with the United States:

The Canadian army is pretty legitimate, we do not wage wars against countries, our military runs through trenches with bullet flying past their heads to deliver food and supplies to both sides of the struggles in the Middle East to help sustain human life despite discrepancies between countries. Unfortunately, more Canadian soldiers that humbly risk their lives delivering necessities to those in need in foreign countries that are oppressed by war were killed by the war in Iraq than Taliban members or terrorists. These Canadian soldiers, and their families, have a much better understanding of the word "hero" in application to the military than any modern-day American. This is what the military is about: helping to resolve global issues, not creating them. Canada, of course, received no official apology, America officially regarded all these instances as"friendly fire" and did not address them further. Actually, Canadian soldiers no longer even bother to be thanked in speeches thanking countries for their support by the American government; our forces' true humble heroism and martyrdom falls short of the overly-patriotic symbol of the American hero that slaughtered them so guiltlessly.

Originally posted by operation mindcrime
reply to post by Brood

 

Soldiers do what they are told. That is their job. Just like a fireman does not first ponder whether or not he feels like putting out a fire. A soldier does not question whether or not he feels like fighting, it wouldn't work that way.

Now if you would have picked Mahatma Gandhi as your president, I highly doubt those soldiers would be over there given their life for our choice.

No, a hero is somebody who values the lifes of others over that of himself.

By definition, all soldiers, all firemen, all policemen etc....are Heroes!!

And I thank them for their selflessness!!!!

Peace

Do you actually think it is ethical to sell out your moral standards on life and death for a standard paycheck? Let's be realistic, here. Anyways, this really isn't what this post is about at all.

No, a hero is somebody who values the lifes of others over that of himself.

I am sorry, let me make this clear; somebody who has killed someone solely because they are from the Middle East does not represent upholding the lives* of others over their own. Therefore, by your logic, they are not a hero. Thank you for helping me to prove my point.

A patriot is like a loyal, loving dog.

Never questions his owner, or why he's asked to do the tricks he does, he just does them purely out of faith. Admirable? Sure. Does their action make the world a better place? Tragically, almost never.

But really, I find it incredibly disturbing that even people here believe the military/soldiers are above criticism for their actions.

reply to post by Brood

Do you actually think it is ethical to sell out your moral standards on life and death for a standard paycheck?

Now hold on, that's not fair!!

Do you think a firemen chooses to become a firemen because he could have the opportunity to loose his life for somebody else? Or because he likes really big fires?? Changes are pretty big a fireman is a fireman because it pays the bills. At the end of the day that is the motivation for most of us to go to work. Do not suggest that it are only soldiers who do this.

The big difference is that the job they have chosen comes with the risk of loosing your life. When accepting such a job, you accept that you might give your life to preserve that of others. (This of it self is enough for me to be labeled a hero). You are suggesting that a soldier must consult his own morals and values before he acts upon the orders received?? What if his ethical assessment gets him of the hook morally but causes the death of many others??

Let's agree that a battlefield is a confusing place to begin with. You are going to have to trust the ethical reasoning that brought you there in the first place. So to deny them the title "hero", you will have to do better!!!

I know you have psycho's running around like your Lt. William Calley, but please do not use those "exceptions" to make your point.

Peace

Originally posted by Faiol
reply to post by alpha chino

 

so, you say, to kill is to be a hero?

he had a choice, dont tell me that he didnt ... because you always have a choice ...

so, if someone invades your home, and you shoot them, you are a hero right?
lets say the robber goes with a few friends, and if the friends start shooting you, than, they are heroes (since they are protecting the robber)?

well, the US troops are invading other people's home, they are not defending their home, they are not defending anything

so, please, forgive me if I dont agree with you

Obviously you haven't been paying much attention to what has been happening in Iraq have you?...

The MAYORITY of insurgents are from OTHER COUNTRIES, and NOT FROM IRAQ...

Heck, we even have now most tribes in Iraq fighting alongside the U.S. and allies AGAINST INSURGENTS...

Iraqi Tribes Strike Back at Insurgents
In Turbulent Areas, Zarqawi's Fighters Are Target of Leaders and a New Militia

By John Ward Anderson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, March 7, 2006

Separately, more than 300 tribal chiefs, politicians, clerics, security officials and other community leaders met last week in Hawijah, about 35 miles southwest of Kirkuk, and "declared war" on al-Qaeda in Iraq. In a communique, the participants vowed "the shedding of blood" of anyone involved in "sabotage, killings, kidnappings, targeting police and army, attacking the oil and gas pipelines and their transporters, assassinating the religious and tribal figures, technicians, and doctors."

www.washingtonpost.com...

Perhaps you missed the fact that insurgents have killed more IRAQIS, than they have killed American, or allied forces...

Perhaps you missed the fact that INSURGENTS attacked voter stations trying to stop IRAQIS from voting...

Iraqis vote as insurgents launch wave of attacks

BAGHDAD (AP) — Iraqis defied insurgents who lobbed hand grenades at voters and bombed a polling station Sunday in an attempt to intimidate those taking part in elections that will determine whether their country can overcome deep sectarian divides as U.S. forces prepare to leave.

dailycaller.com...


Perhaps you missing the fact that regular IRAQIS have had to fight against INSURGENTS....

Fed-up Iraqis fight insurgent patrol / Shopkeeper, kin kill 3 militants prepared for battle

March 23, 2005|By Robert F. Worth, New York Times

(03-23) 04:00 PST Baghdad — 2005-03-23 04:00:00 PST Baghdad -- Ordinary Iraqis rarely strike back at the insurgents who terrorize their country. But just before noon Tuesday a carpenter named Dhia saw a troop of masked gunmen with grenades coming toward his shop here and decided he had had enough.

As the gunmen emerged from their cars, Dhia and his young relatives shouldered their Kalashnikov rifles and opened fire, the police and witnesses said. In the fierce gun battle that followed, three of the insurgents were killed, and the rest fled just after the police arrived. Two of Dhias nephews and a bystander were wounded, the police said.

articles.sfgate.com...

The people that leftwingers call "freedom fighters" are the ones who for the most part have been killing Iraqis for several years now...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Situations like this with abuse of power happen in Western civilization all the time; America has no business interfering with democracy in Iraq, it is clear it is not a moral stance to promote ethical treatment of Iraqis, there are much more serious issues in other parts of the world that America does not bother to address nearly as much:

Humanrights.change.org...

It is obvious that the American Military's agenda is not focused around anything that regards human rights in Iraq, the issues simply aren't as pressing as they are elsewhere, and the main difference that sets Iraq apart is that it has the most available resources. George Bush clearly used the instances of 911 to guilty the general public into believing that this war was about something, somehow, but that does not make it just.

reply to post by operation mindcrime


Firemen do not shoot people in the face for a living. Firemen do not willingly accept when they accept their job that they might have to kill people if a war begins. Firemen do not need to hang up their morals on life and death to serve their country. Firemen are more ethically stable than soldiers. It is funny that you argue that you should be classified as a hero because you did serve in the military; speaks wonders for why people REALLY join the army -- you're really just proving my point.

Originally posted by Brood
I've seen many posts on this thread, praising soldiers who fought in the war in Iraq as if they are some sort of hero. First and foremost, let me just say that there was actually no excuse for this war at all. The only reason Iraq was to become a potential enemy was that they were supposedly "harboring weapons of mass destruction".

First of all that claim of yours is WRONG... There were many reasons given for toppling Saddam Hussein's regime, not just one...

As for no excuse for the war?... Well perhaps you should have told this to the Russian government which supposedly had been providing EVIDENCE since 9/11 and until the beginning of the war that "Saddam was planning attacks in U.S. soil, and other interests...

Putin: Saddam prepared terrorist attacks against US
Saddam Hussein's regime prepared terrorist attacks against the United States and its interests abroad, Russian President Vladimir Putin said at a news conference after a regional economic and security summit in the Kazakh capital Astana last week.

According to Mr. Putin, after September 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, “Russian special services received information that officials from Saddams regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the US military and other interests."

He said Russian intelligence officers had passed this information to their American colleagues, and US President Bush had personally thanked the head of the Russian intelligence service.

www.russiajournal.com...

But at the same time the Russian government had been claiming that the U.S. had no reason for attacking Iraq...and we later found out that the Russian government had been giving U.S. troop movement to Saddam's regime through a Russian ambassador...

Russia gave Saddam intelligence during invasion, Pentagon says

The unclassified report does not assess the value of the information or provide details beyond citing two captured Iraqi documents that say the Russians collected information from sources "inside the American Central Command" and that battlefield intelligence was provided to Saddam through the Russian ambassador in Baghdad.

seattletimes.nwsource.com...

As to your other claim that no evidence was found... let me leave that for later....

Originally posted by Brood
Of course, no evidence of these claims was ever found, and this was stated publicly many times (unless of course, the American government was intelligent enough to keep the receipt when they sold them the weapons)... yet, the war began anyways.

.... Are you an European?... First of all it is a known FACT that countries like Germany had been the main providers of chemical gas, and weaponry to Iraq in the 80s, and not the U.S.... in case you haven't noticed the Iraqi regime had been using German, Russian, French, Chinese weapons alongside some other countries on the "European side"... btw, I know China is not an European country...

In fact the mustard gas which the regime of Iraq used, apart from other wmd had been bought from GERMANY, and not the U.S.... but again, uninformed Europeans, and even some Americans believe any lies that are made to bash away at the U.S...

A POLEMIC
Germany's leading role in arming Iraq
By Marc Erikson

Expurgated portions of Iraqs December 7 report to the UN Security Council show that German firms made up the bulk of suppliers for Iraqs weapons of mass destruction programs. Whats galling is that German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and his minions have long known the facts, German intelligence services know them and have loads of information on what Saddam Hussein is hiding, and Schroeder nonetheless plays holier than thou to an easily manipulated, pacifist-inclined domestic audience.
...

www.atimes.com...

In the 90s Russia became Iraq's number 1 provider of weapons, which is why Saddam's regime owed billions of dollars to the Russians, but they also owed to the Chinese, the French, the Italians, the Spaniards, and some other European, and also Asian countries...

But of course, a U.S. bashing member is not aware of the facts... what else is new?...

Originally posted by Brood
The American public showed little hesitation to invade a country that was in the Middle East (not that any of you actually knew that before the war started, because that is not in the U.S. and therefore it is not important :@@

because the Taliban (a meddling group of religious extremists NOT based in Iraq at all) is in the Middle East. The topic of the events of 911 and the war on Iraq are immensely different, yet the American public happily accepted them as related because George Bush talked about them as if they were.

... Oh boy...here we go again... Saddam was a known sponsor of terrorism, including terrorism which had killed Americans...

Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had extensive ties to terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda, according to an official report published by the Pentagon’s Institute for Defense Analyses and released through the Joint Forces Command.

That report, Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents, came up with some startling revelations in its 59 pages:

• Saddam’s Iraq trained terrorists for use inside and outside Iraq and in 1999 sent 10 terrorist-training graduates to London to carry out attacks throughout Europe. (Page 1)

www.humanevents.com...

As for the claim that the Pentagon admitted there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda....

www.vamortgagecenter.com...

Even countries like Spain found that a 9/11 terrorist which they caught in Spain, was linked to the Iraqi ambassador in Spain.

Spain links suspect in 9/11 plot to Baghdad

An alleged terrorist accused of helping the 11 September conspirators was invited to a party by the Iraqi ambassador to Spain under his al-Qaeda nom de guerre, according to documents seized by Spanish investigators.
Yusuf Galan, who was photographed being trained at a camp run by Osama bin Laden, is now in jail, awaiting trial in Madrid. The indictment against him, drawn up by investigating judge Baltasar Garzon, claims he was 'directly involved with the preparation and carrying out of the attacks ... by the suicide pilots on 11 September'.

www.guardian.co.uk...

Originally posted by Brood
It's funny that you should all refer to Nazis so negatively (not that I approve of the behavior of Nazis whatsoever);

It's funny that you show not to know what the heck you are talking about...

Originally posted by Brood
Americans are the most recent perpetrators of genocide from a developed country, in all of its definitions. America invaded a country to retaliate against the attacks on 911 -- by attacking a country who shared nothing in common with the attackers except for the fact that they are Middle-Eastern, a war waged solely on race -- so that the American public would have more faith in their protection.

BS, BS, and more BS... I already demonstrated that your "freedom fighters"/insurgents have been killing, and attacking REAL Iraqis to the point that the Iraqis have been striking back.

The U.S. didn't go to Iraq to wage a war against a race...that is nothing more than an ignorant comment from an ignorant member...

I have already shown that you don't know what the heck you are talking about, and you are wrong in EVERYTHING you claimed...

Originally posted by Brood
And honestly, it's not like America even cared about the genocide of the Nazis even though the rest of the developed world was on board; you had to wait until Japan made it your problem.

Please do not even try to use Nazis to compare anyone... You are probably one of those Europeans who are also bashing constantly Israel...

Originally posted by Brood
When the war was over, America acted like they were the only reason the war was won, even though Vimy Ridge had already been taken and we already had full knowledge of the repetitive Blitzkrieg technique and had worked out ways to counter it.

Well, well, well... hate America much?... It doesn't matter to Europeans like yourself that America picked up the bill, and did not ask for any return payments at all... and of course say thanks to America for fighting in WW1 and WW2?... inconcievable... at least to ignorant people that is...

Originally posted by Brood
while America wants to take all the credit for it even though America only joined the war for VINDICATION.

Really?... I missed the world wide announcements that the U.S. has wanted to take full credit for WW1...

Originally posted by Brood
In any fashion, soldiers from any of these unjust wars are still looked at as heroes; servants to their country.

Well, at least they don't exagerate, and lie through their teeth like some people seem to do...

Originally posted by Brood
They were pawns in Satan's game of chess

You were probably looking at a mirror when that statement came to your mind...

Originally posted by Brood
The heroes are the people who invade countries, kill children, piss on their corpses, and collect their wage at the end of it all.

Didn't you hear? we also shoot bolts of lightning from our eyes, and make virgin sacrifices every day....

The ignorance you spout and show is very telling... Don't tell us, you have never served in any military branch..oh and btw don't bother to apply, they don't accept liars...

You, ignorant sir, are trying to use some bad apples in the U.S. military, which can be found in ALL militaries around the world, not as the exception, but as the rule... But hey keep lying through your teeth...at least it is very entertaining...

Originally posted by Brood
Your real heroes are what the rest of the world sees as REAL terrorists, and THAT is why you get extreme retaliations like the events of 911,not because Bin Laden hates gay people, or any other sad excuse you want to make up to convince yourselves that it wasn't America's need to express it's self-proclaimed superiority to the rest of the world; you blind, complacent neanderthals. It is a very sad and selective world you all live in. I know you are all going to say "We don't make the decisions!" Then I ask you... does this idea of democracy that you force upon other countries actually work at all? How is working out for you folks?

Wow.. I guess you also want to blame America for the Muslim invasions of Europe in the 7th century A.D. right?...

Let's not forget that ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS have been attempting to attack EVEN COUNTRIES WHICH WERE AGAINST THE IRAQI WAR LIKE FRANCE, GERMANY, ETC, ETC...

But an "ignorant, blind neanderthal" couldn't put 1+1 = 2 together...of course not...

I ask you, does exagerating, and even lying through your teeth been working out for you much?....

Originally posted by Brood
reply to post by operation mindcrime

 

Firemen do not shoot people in the face for a living. Firemen do not willingly accept when they accept their job that they might have to kill people if a war begins. Firemen do not need to hang up their morals on life and death to serve their country. Firemen are more ethically stable than soldiers. It is funny that you argue that you should be classified as a hero because you did serve in the military; speaks wonders for why people REALLY join the army -- you're really just proving my point.

Now I know you like to assume a lot. (This becomes evident if you realize I have never served a day in life!!)

Yes, becoming a soldier could put you in a position that you have to shoot somebody. I could not do it!! My sense of morality does not allow it. But then again, if everybody was like me, I could not be writing on this board or even in this language because some evil dictator f*ck would not allow it.

Somebody has to fight for our right! Somebody has to physically defend the morals that we uphold.

I am not saying that each war and every decision made was the correct one, but you can not hold the man putting his life on the line responsible for that?!?!?!

Peace

Originally posted by Faiol
killing and wars dont equal peace, so, you must think that most people should know that, but they dont

off course that soldiers are not the root of the problem, but hey, they could solve the problem if they just didnt join the army

Likewise, not having a military does not equal peace either.

Do you really believe that if the US didn't have armed forces we'd all live in peace?

Ask the Afghans how well that worked for them...

If you can't defend yourself there's always someone who will come along and try to steal what you have. In civilian communities you have the police for protection. (That's a whole other topic though) On a global scale you have the military.

You may not have the fortitude to volunteer to defend your country, family and friends, but some of us do. Servicemen don't want to be treated specially for their sacrifices, just FAIRLY. Is that really too much to ask for?

The ignorance in this thread is astounding... Here, have a few facts to chew on. Maybe someone will learn something.

Poverty level of recruits

A larger percentage of new recruits come from middle-class/wealthier areas as opposed to poorer ones.

When comparing these wartime recruits (2003- 2005) to the resident population ages 18-24 (as recorded in Census 2000), areas with median household income levels between $35,000 and $79,999 were overrepresented, along with income categories between $85,000 and $94,999. (See Chart 2.) Though the mainstream media continue to portray the war in Iraq as unpopular, this evidence suggests that the United States is not sending the poor to die for the interests of the rich.

As conflict in Iraq continues, youth from wealthy areas continue to volunteer for duty despite increased risk. Additionally, over the course of these three recruit years, representation from the poorest quintile has decreased dramatically. The representation among recruits of the lowest-income quintile fell nearly a full percentage point, from 14.61 percent in 2003 to 13.66 percent in 2005.

www.heritage.org...

Educational levels

They're generally more educated than civilian peers.

At least 90 percent of recruits must be high school diploma graduates (which does not include equivalency). Recruit accessions from the first three quarters of fiscal year 2006 are above this guideline in all branches except the Army. As of May 2006, 83.1 percent of accepted Army recruits met this requirement, which is still a greater percentage than the national graduation rate including equivalency.

The military defines a "high quality" recruit as one who has scored above the 50th percentile on the AFQT and has a high school diploma. The percentage of high-quality recruits has increased from 57 percent in 2001 to 64 percent in 2005 (67 percent in 2004),[10] indicating not only that the military is accepting intelligent and well-educated recruits, but also that the representation of these recruits has increased strongly since the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

www.heritage.org...

The accessions to all four components compared favorably with their civilian counterparts across both measures of quality. For instance, roughly 68 percent of all accessions scored above the 50th percentile on the AFQT, while only 51 percent of the civilians were able to do so (see table B-4 in appendix B). Air Force and Navy accessions did particularly well, while the Army and Marine Corps accessions still did better than the civilian comparison group.

The accessions were also more likely to have a high school degree (or its equivalent) than the typical civilian in their age group. Overall, more than 99 percent of all active duty enlisted accessions had a high school degree or equivalent as compared to 82 percent among the civilian comparison group.

prhome.defense.gov...

Overall Comparison

Overall, the wartime recruits are more similar than dissimilar to their civilian counterparts. The all-volunteer force displays near proportional representation of income backgrounds. Whites serve in approximate proportion to their population, although representation of minority groups varies. Recruits must meet educational standards, and the military provides resources for furthering education to those who might not otherwise have the opportunity to attend four-year colleges. Although rural representation is disproportional, the military offers the opportunity to gain new skills and enter industries that are not available in rural areas.

With regard to income, education, race, and regional background, the all-volunteer force is representative of our nation and meets standards set by Congress and the Department of Defense. In contrast to the patronizing slanders of antiwar critics, recruit quality is increasing as the war in Iraq continues. Although recent recruiting goals have been difficult to meet, reenlistment is strong and recruit quality remains high. No evidence supports arguments for reinstating the draft or altering recruiting policies to achieve more equitable representation.

www.heritage.org...

I've also seen (yet again) the asinine notion that we're there for oil tossed around at least once in this thread. Here's some facts for you on that one:

The top five exporting countries accounted for 64 percent of United States crude oil imports in June while the top ten sources accounted for approximately 87 percent of all U.S. crude oil imports. The top five sources of US crude oil imports for June were Canada (2.197 million barrels per day), Saudi Arabia (1.348 million barrels per day), Mexico (1.066 million barrels per day), Nigeria (1.066 million barrels per day), and Venezuela (0.850 million barrels per day). The rest of the top ten sources, in order, were Iraq (0.630 million barrels per day), Russia (0.437 million barrels per day), Angola (0.425 million barrels per day), Colombia (0.387 million barrels per day), and Algeria (0.375 million barrels per day).

www.eia.doe.gov...

Canada. That is where we get most of our oil from. We get almost three and a half times the amount of oil from Canada as we get from Iraq. For the love of all that is holy can you all quit with the asinine claim that we're in Iraq for oil when all evidence points directly north of us?

And now, for the opinion part of my post and if you've managed to read this far and facts haven't scared you off then this likely isn't directed at you. I am so sick and tired of these threads popping up here. I'm tired of the armchair quarterbacks thinking they know everything and that any and all US troops are murdering scumbags who don't deserve the effort required to look in their direction. I'm tired of the ignorance and blatant hatred displayed in threads such as this one. I've said it before and I'll say it again, for a site who's motto is "Deny Ignorance" there are a hell of a lot of ignorant people here.

It's no damn wonder half the world thinks Americans are morons when people who claim to be from here don't even have the common sense necessary to research for themselves whether their claims are correct. The information is literally available at your finger tips if you'd just look for it, yet no one seems capable of typing into the proper box and clicking that little search button.

You disagree with the wars? Congratulations, so do I. Have since they decided to go into Iraq instead of chasing bin Ladin back into the hole he crawled out of. You think the troops are being put in harms way with no good reason behind it? Congratulations, so do I. Problem is it's too late to stop it. Now that we're there, now that the wars have been going on for almost 9 years, we have an obligation to help rebuild what we helped destroy. Leaving Iraq or Afghanistan with no working government and no military/security forces of their own would be irresponsible and would have left the civilians in those countries at the mercy of whichever warlord was strong enough to impose his will on everyone. But apparently that's what some people here would prefer.

You want to moan and complain about the wars? Have at it. But at least have the courtesy to direct your moaning and complaining toward the people who deserve it: Congress. The military doesn't decide where they're going or whether or not they are fighting a war. Congress does. You don't like the decisions that have been made, direct your anger where it's deserved and blame Congress since they're the ones who approved military force and sent our troops to Iraq and Afghanistan. And yes, the wars are legal by our laws because Congress approved military action and the use of military force.