But what should ordinary citizens who oppose the war do? Not enlisting is a way of sending a message to the government. Let’s suppose that every eligible civilian chose not to enlist. Then, the armed forces would tell the president that there were no new soldiers coming, and this would force the president to end the war. I understand that you may reasonably disagree with me about the moral correctness of the Iraq war, but I’m curious if you think that this is a sensible position for someone who opposes the war to take.

“Question 19 is problematic, as there’s no way to conclude motive for answering the question. I support the decision to remove Saddam from power, but depending on how I decide to read the question, I could answer either way.”

I don’t know, Wordsmith, asking someone if we should have invaded Iraq is a pretty straightforward question. And over one-third of the military personnel answering felt comfortable with a simple “no.”

Yeah, I hear that dipsh*t Bush almost every day on the radio. Remember, it’s
O: Operation
I: Iraqi
L: Liberation

So that would be why oil is so cheap right now, right?

Yeah, I hear that dipsh*t Bush almost every day on the radio. Remember, it’s
O: Operation
I: Iraqi
L: Liberation

If youre not personally there and its not your own child, then you dont know the heartache of 4000 plus mothers whose children will never come home.

Of course that was a dramatization to us who are obviously not heart broken and secretly happy we wont be going there….If you feel so strongly that war is necessary and now then they are still taking enlistments….Damn your excuses take your bon bons over there get suited up and SERVE THE COUNTRY YOU LOVE!

I am sure they will share their oil profits with you and your family when you get maimed. When you get back here and the country you served doesnt give a job,etc….Yeh America treats the war heros well….You get a flag when one of the family members dies…..Pretty cool exchange….right?

A perfect illustration of how the Left feels about the American military is the 30 second YouTube jewel from Moveon.org called Not Alex. A young, uncombed actress/mom bounces a baby on her knee and says:
“Hi, John McCain. This is Alex. And he’s…

Actually Beth, somebody did ask the soldiers who are or have been on the ground, and less than half think the war was necessary. Over a third don’t think we should have gone to Iraq at all.

According to the poll conducted, 46.1% say “yes” when asked in question 9, should the U.S. have gone to war in Iraq, while 34.2% say no.

Question 19 is problematic, as there’s no way to conclude motive for answering the question. I support the decision to remove Saddam from power, but depending on how I decide to read the question, I could answer either way.

but no evidence has been put forward to demonstrate the Saddam and Al-Qaeda, out of joint membership in the I-Hate-America Club, ever worked or would work together. Or that Saddam helped any other similar terrorist organizations.

Adam, no disrespect or vitriol intended here. Just honest disagreement. Earlier, I linked to my post which itself links to information regarding the Pentagon-funded Iraqi Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism, which examines some of the documents in the HARMONY Database. I strongly urge you to check it out, along with the relevant links in my post.

As for Adrian’s comment, it gets me thinking how there are those who aren’t anti-war, just anti-THIS-war.

The problem with this sort of mentality, that you can simply choose and pick which wars you wish to fight in and believe in as an enlisted soldier, would be disastrous.

People insert adjectives like “illegal” and “lied into” when referring to the Iraq war, as if they are automatic givens. But they are arguable opinions. And if they are opinions that are actually false yet held to be true by soldiers…and those soldiers act upon such opinions in an unprofessional way….

“If you learn about it from the soldiers on the ground you would have a different view of the necessity of the war.”

Actually Beth, somebody did ask the soldiers who are or have been on the ground, and less than half think the war was necessary. Over a third don’t think we should have gone to Iraq at all.

Military Times poll

But here’s another interpretation. Three points:

a) Alex’s life (should he choose not to enlist) may involve patriotic service and productivity (not “a life of complete narcissism”).

b) The mother may think that the Iraq war does not serve American interests, and therefore that it is not helping “keep the wolves at bay.”

c) If the U.S. was in a war that grown-up Alex thought was just and necessary, then maybe he would enlist! And his mother–if she also thought that this hypothetical war were just and necessary–might support his decision, despite her concern for his safety.

So I think that the ad can be read as being anti-military, unpatriotic, and unrealistic; but it can also be read in more reasonable way. The most important information that is left out is Alex’s mom’s reason for not wanting him to serve. Is it because she wants other people’s sons to fight instead of Alex, or is it because she does not support the Iraq war?

I think all of us are filling in the missing information differently.

And to the Enforcer, I understand how nice it would to be able to boil foreign policy down to tight phrases, but no evidence has been put forward to demonstrate the Saddam and Al-Qaeda, out of joint membership in the I-Hate-America Club, ever worked or would work together. Or that Saddam helped any other similar terrorist organizations.

And all of this is corollary to the central argument about that dumb MoveOn ad. I think it’s ridiculous because it panders to emotionally-based lines of argument. That said, I posted here originally simply to try and help you all understand that your interpretation seems to be off and in broadcasting your misinterpretation of the ad (as dumb an ad as it may be) so loudly, you’re doing yourselves a disservice.

As a final note, I’d also like to add that I’m disheartened by the seeming intolerance to non-orthodox opinions on this thread. Seems to me your brave children, and my brother, serve our country precisely to protect such an exchange of opinion.

(U) Conclusion 1: Statements by the President, Vice President, Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor regarding a possible Iraqi nuclear weapons program were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates

(U) Conclusion 2: Statements in the major speeches analyzed, as well additional statements, regarding Iraq’s possession of biological agent, weapons, production capability, and use of mobile biological laboratories were substantiated by intelligence information. Intelligence assessments from the late I990s through early 2003 consistently stated that Iraq retained biological warfare agent and the capability to produce more.

(U) Conclusion 3: Statements in the major speeches analyzed, as well additional statements, regarding Iraq’s possession of chemical weapons were substantiated by intelligence information. Intelligence assessments, including the December 2000 ICA stated that Iraq had retained up to 100 metric tons of its chemical weapons stockpile. The October 2002 NIE provided a range of 100 to 500 metric tons of chemical weapons.

Conclusion 4: Statements by senior policymakers regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities were all substantiated by intelligence information.
(U) Conclusion 5: Statements by the President, Vice President, Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense regarding Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction were generally substantiated by intelligence information

Conclusion 6: The Secretary of Defense’s statement that Iraqi WMD facilities were not all vulnerable to attack from the air was substantiated by available intelligence information

(U) Conclusion 7: Statements in the major speeches and additional statements analyzed regarding Iraqi ballistic missiles were generally substantiated by available intelligence.

(U) Conclusion 8: Statements by the President, Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State that Iraq was developing unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) that could be used to deliver chemical or biological weapons were generally substantiated by intelligence information

(U) Conclusion 9: The President’s suggestion that the Iraqi government was considering using UAVs to attack the United States was substantiated by intelligence judgments available at the time

(U) Conclusion 10: Statements in the major speeches analyzed, as well additional statements, regarding Iraq’s support for terrorist groups other than al-Qa’ida were substantiated by intelligence information. The intelligence community reported regularly on Iraq’s safe harbor and financial support for Palestinian rejectionist groups, the Abu Nidal Organization, and others. The February 2002 NIE fully supported the claim that Iraq had, and would continue, to support terrorist groups.

(U) Conclusion 11: Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other al-Qa’ida-related terrorist members were substantiated by the intelligence assessments. Intelligence assessments noted Zarqawi’s presence in Iraq and his ability to travel and operate within the country. The intelligence community generally believed that Iraqi intelligence must have known about, and therefore at least tolerated, Zarqawi’s presence in the country.

Conclusion 12: Statements by the President and Secretary Powell that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training were supported by the intelligence. Numerous intelligence assessments stated that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training and specifically training in poisons and gases.

(U) Conclusion 13: Statements in the major speeches analyzed, as well additional statements, regarding Iraq’s contacts with al-Qa’ida were substantiated by intelligence information.

Lets end with a quote from the Chairman of the Senate report:

“I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction is so serious that despite the risks and we should not minimize the risks we must authorize the President to take the necessary steps to deal with that threat. There has been some debate over how “imminent” a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons that he has and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can. Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Congressional Record, October 10, 2002.”

John, perhaps you’re reading quite a bit into :”all young males have to sign up for the selective service, it wouldn’t take long for the draft to be reinstated. Electing John McCain President could make that a reality.” - just saying…If that’s really how you perceive reality then I’m shocked. No, really. I’m quite shocked that it’s now John McCain who will swoop in to take the baby Alexes of the world via the draft, and not the Great Satan GWB ( here’s a reality check - the war has been ongoing since 2003 and yet no draft! I know, just crazy, with a Repub in the oval office and all).

Oh, and BTW, dear John T. Allen - the Iraq War was not built on lies; you just choose to see it that way. As for injust or immoral and illegal (the Far Left War screed) - take it up with the congressional dems who supported the war in Iraq and former pres. Bill Clinton who unequivocally believed the same info the Bush administration was presented with in regards to Iraq.

Stop impugning the patriotism and motives of people who disagree with you and love America as much as you do!!!!