Originally Posted by djplong

I would put it differently. Our soldiers died in Iraq because of the deliberate lies told by the Commander In Chief. Our soldiers are dying in Afghanistan because of the previous administration's concentration on Iraw and our current administrations hand-wrangling about which way to go, policywise.

I remember how Iraq started. This wasn't about freedom for the Iraqi people. If it was, we would have attacked Saudi Arabia for treating their women like chattel. We would be attacking North Korea because, well, they actually DO have nukes. It was all about WMD programs, yellowcake, etc. That's how it was sold to the American People. On top of that, as many as 60% of the population believed that Saddam has something to do with 9/11. That little tidbit has been proven false again and again.

When we were running up to invasion, I was in a group discussing this and my personal reservation was that we had never before been a "first strike country". I was nervous about what kind of precedent this would set. BUT - given all the word having come out about nukes and chemical weapons, and the fact that Saddam DID use them on his own people (so it wasn't a stretch to say he would use them on others) kept me from openly opposing the war.

Privately, behind closed doors, it seems the administration was hell-bent on pinning 9/11 on Saddam so we could have justification for invasion. Why? Who really knows? I've heard everything from the President wanting revenge on Iraq's leaders for the assasination attempt to a theory that it was something to demonstrate American military might against a country where we already had assets on the ground (making it a much easier logistical target - like when Noriega declared 'maximum war' on the us with a pair of military bases right there in Panama).

When our soliders died in Europe or in the Pacific Theater or Korea, those were in response to attacks. Even the war in kuwait was in response to naked aggression. Afghanistan harbored the people who attacked us on 9/11. All clear justification for war. I remember the ultimatum that Bush delivered saying, basically, "hand over Bin Laden or else". My "tree hugging" friends didn't think Bush would even SAY those words but I was sure he would, and he did. We all know what happened next.

The "technical" justification for invading Iraq? Saddam wasn't allowing inspectors into research facilities in a timely manner, perpetually playing a game of cat-and-mouse with them. Now we know that he was bluffing but we weren't so sure then. Except I wonder about the administration officials (but not Bush himself) who said we'd find the goods within a week because they had intelligence on exactly where the chemical and nuclear materials were.

This is far different from the defense missions in the past.

My mom was a Marine. My father was in the Navy. I work on an Air Force base. My brother was in the Navy. My fiancee has one son in the Army (back from Iraq) and one son who just left the Navy. My other brother discovered he had a hole in his heart during his physical when he enlisted in the Air Force.

Go ahead. TELL me I'm disrespecting them because I disagree with the Commander In Chief misusing the nobility that is our armed forces. TELL me I'm disrespecting them because I disagree with sending National Guard troops overseas.

When they enlisted, they signed a check to the U. S. Government that can be cashed at any time requiring them to give up their lives.

If you can't see the difference between the respect I have for the soldiers and the disrespect I have for the way they were utilitzed, then I truly do feel sorry for you.