Soldiers are biased towards supporting any war that the U.S. undertakes no matter how immoral or bad the reasons are for going. I am tired of right wingers trying to portray them as honest sources for whether we should be waging wars. That is the most biased sentence I've read in a long time. I hate to break the news to you, but there are soldiers, sailors and airmen that don't support the war. I don't know how you claim that "right-wingers" are trying to portray them as honest sources. Then why is it that Democrats and Liberals are hanging on every word from John Kerry, Max Cleland and John Murtha? They all combat veterans in Vietnam. In case you were/are unaware, but during Vietnam, John Kerry spoke out AGAINST that war. So in that case, his words and Ron Kovic's words shouldn't have been listened to? Now Dumbya and his cronies are trying to make Iran look like they have or are trying to aquire nulcear (not nucular) weapons. Pardon me, but could you possibly mean nuclear weapons?

like I said, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Trombone, you apparently are not familiar with military life. A soldiers duty is not question why, it is but to do and die. Dogfaces, swabbies, jarheads and zoomies have no 1st Amendment rights. They are bound by Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

I hate to break the news to you, but there are soldiers, sailors and airmen that don't support the war. How is that possible? Bush is their Commander-in-Chief, so they are required to support and enforce his policies and interests, on pain of court-martial.

How is that possible? Bush is their Commander-in-Chief, so they are required to support and enforce his policies and interests, on pain of court-martial. If you care to look down to the bottom of the thread, and you'll see how that is possible! Nice try tho.

If you're interested in knowing what military soldiers think about Bush, go visit their latrines and read the writing on the wall!

Current soldiers can not speak out against a war without getting in trouble. Plus the fact that this army is all volunteer. They want to fight wherever Dumbya sends them. They signed up for it, unlike many in Vietnam that were drafted to fight a stupid war for the wrong reasons. Today, we are again in a war for the wrong reasons. We just don't have the draft which makes lots of kids go who don't want to be there or make their families mad for doing it. Now, the army gets poor impressionable kids who don't have enough money for college and can barely graduate from high school. All I am saying is the public needs to use their own brains and understand that soldiers are not the best place to get unbiased information on how the war is going or if we went in for the right reasons. They have all sorts of reasons to say the war is just, not the least of which is they will get punished for speaking out against it as current soldiers.

They signed up for it, unlike many in Vietnam that were drafted to fight a stupid war for the wrong reasons. The examples I gave of the men who fought in Vietnam went volunteeraily. You are spouting off about something you have no knowledge of.

I have plenty of knowledge bud. All right wingers try to bat down anyone who hasn't fought in war as not knowing what they are talking about. Dumbya never fought in a war. I guess he doesn't know what he is talking about with the military and Iraq, where as John Kerry does because he is a decorated war verteran.

Soldiers are biased towards supporting any war that the U.S. undertakes no matter how immoral or bad the reasons are for going. I am tired of right wingers trying to portray them as honest sources for whether we should be waging wars. Wait one minute, why are you twisting your intial statement around? Is it because now you are going back and trying to use the same soldiers that you said should have had no voice about a war or conflict, because now it serves your purpose? Soldiers are biased towards supporting any war that the U.S. undertakes no matter how immoral or bad the reasons are for going. You never addressed my question to you. I don't know how you claim that "right-wingers" are trying to portray them as honest sources. Then why is it that Democrats and Liberals are hanging on every word from John Kerry, Max Cleland and John Murtha? They were all combat veterans in Vietnam. In case you were/are unaware, but during Vietnam, John Kerry spoke out AGAINST that war. After he been there and served honorably. So in that case, his words and Ron Kovic's words shouldn't have been listened to? Is it because you just don't want to listen to soldiers that don't share the same opinion of the war as you do? Why is it that you now listen to John Kerry, but when he came back from Vietnam, are you saying you wouldn't have? He served there. Or would you have listened then like now, just because you like the words that he was saying? I guess he doesn't know what he is talking about with the military and Iraq, where as John Kerry does because he is a decorated war verteran. And for the record, I'm not a male, so I don't think you should refer to me as "Bud".

Currently serving soldiers do not speak out in a major way against a current war. Kerry did his activism after he was out of the military. I have not changed my tune at all. You said it yourself, Kerry spoke out during Vietnam after he had served, not while he served. Those two things are very different. I am more willing to listen to someone not currently serving in the military, because they will not be disciplined by the military, whereas an active duty soldier will be disciplined. I have had friends who were disciplined, so don't even try to argue that fact bud. And I know you are female. Bud stands for buddy.

Sounds like you're changing your tune to me, Bud. Soldiers are biased towards supporting any war that the U.S. undertakes no matter how immoral or bad the reasons are for going. I am tired of right wingers trying to portray them as honest sources for whether we should be waging wars. No where in your initial statement did you say retired or soldiers or military personnel that are no longer active? Even when someone retires or in no longer enlisted in active duty, they are still considered soldiers. So when you made the broad statement "Soldiers are biased towards supporting any war that the U.S. undertakes no matter how immoral or bad the reasons are for going." You may as well be speaking about them also. Also something that you seem not to acknowledge, but when Kerry spoke out against the Vietnam War, he was still serving in the military. In fact, he was the spokesperson for VVAW (Vietnam Veterans Against the War) the year was 1971, that is the year he spoke in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He was in the Naval Reserves at that time(he was honorably discharged from active duty March 1970, and from that date to Feb. 1978, he was in the Naval Reserves). Also during 1971, he appeared on several television shows and in newspapers columns protesting the war. So, Bud, you very well did change your tune, whether you were aware of it or not. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/president/candidates/kerry.new.html 1966 - Enlistment 1967-1970 - Active Duty 1970-1978 - Naval Reserve (including a short standby reserve service in 1972) Kerry did his activism after he was out of the military. I have not changed my tune at all. Well, yes you did, I just don't think you have any know.ledge of the subject. You said it yourself, Kerry spoke out during Vietnam after he had served, not while he served. Sorry, I never said that, I stated: They were all combat veterans in Vietnam. In case you were/are unaware, but during Vietnam, John Kerry spoke out AGAINST that war. After he been there and served honorably. So in that case, his words and Ron Kovic's words shouldn't have been listened to? And: Why is it that you now listen to John Kerry, but when he came back from Vietnam, are you saying you wouldn't have? He served there. Never in those statements did I say he was no longer in the military. I just said he a combat veteran and had served honorably during his tours there. Those two things are very different. I am more willing to listen to someone not currently serving in the military, because they will not be disciplined by the military, whereas an active duty soldier will be disciplined. I have had friends who were disciplined, so don't even try to argue that fact bud. Interesting, then you should never take anything John Kerry said during that time as facts. Because according to you, he would have been biased with him being still active at that time. As far as me arguing the facts, I just did, Bud.

(Shakes Head)

(shakes butt)

(Scratches head wondering why since Trombudgod72 started the thread, he's been banned twice?:| ) :^O

I've been banned twice because they don't like my ideas. They know I am right, but they just don't want to hear it. It is not pc enough for the right wingers.

look tromb, just to show there are no hard feelings, I have had three of my posts in reply to you pulled. Guess they don't like my ideas either.....LOL

Obviously, nobody read my previous Post! No serving active military member who values his career will speak publicly on the war. I wrote some of my deepest thoughts during the Tet Offensive in Vietnam and read about it in the local newspaper a week later. I was very careful what I wrote Mom from then on. However, if you want the truth about the war, go read the latrine walls in Iraq.

Obviously, nobody read my previous Post! No serving active military member who values his career will speak publicly on the war. I wrote some of my deepest thoughts during the Tet Offensive in Vietnam and read about it in the local newspaper a week later. I read it, but I didn't and don't give it any credence. If you feel so strongly about the war, then you show speak out against it. Service member or not. You have those rights. Some facts: A active duty service member has free speech rights, but they are limited. They have the right to: read anything they want, write letters to newspapers and even publish their own newspaper, as long as they don't use military supplies or equipment. Of course there are certain things they obviously can't do, like violate operational security, communicate with the enemy, encourage violence (other than official military operations), or urge people to violate military regulations. They also are unable to take part in a partisan political letter-writing campaign. Distribute materials that presents "a clear and present danger to the loyalty, discipline, or morale of military personnel" or that would "materially interfere with the accomplishment of the military mission." Use words that undermine "the good order and discipline of the armed forces" or bring "discredit upon the armed forces." (Article 134) Use "contemptuous words" about anyone in your chain of command (including the President and Vice-President) if you're a commissioned officer. (Article 88) They also have the right to go to peaceful protests in the United States. But they cannot wear their uniform to the demonstration. Or protest on-base or on-duty. They also can't join an organization that advocates discrimination or promotes violence (other than official military actions). Once discharged, they have the right to speak up about their wartime experience. This is documented in the Uniform Code of Military Justice and evidenced by the activism of some veterans (VFW, American Legion, John Kerry, etc). Obviously, nobody read my previous Post! No serving active military member who values his career will speak publicly on the war. I wrote some of my deepest thoughts during the Tet Offensive in Vietnam and read about it in the local newspaper a week later. I read it, but I didn't and don't give it any credence. I guess you didn't read my previous post. A active duty service member has free speech rights, but they are limited. They have the right to: read anything they want, write letters to newspapers and even publish their own newspaper, as long as they don't use military supplies or equipment. Of course there are certain things they obviously can't do, like violate operational security, communicate with the enemy, encourage violence (other than official military operations), or urge people to violate military regulations. They also are unable to take part in a partisan political letter-writing campaign. Distribute materials that presents "a clear and present danger to the loyalty, discipline, or morale of military personnel" or that would "materially interfere with the accomplishment of the military mission." Use words that undermine "the good order and discipline of the armed forces" or bring "discredit upon the armed forces." (Article 134) Use "contemptuous words" about anyone in your chain of command (including the President and Vice-President) if you're a commissioned officer. (Article 88) They also have the right to go to peaceful protests in the United States. But they cannot wear their uniform to the demonstration. Or protest on-base or on-duty. They also can't join an organization that advocates discrimination or promotes violence (other than official military actions). Once discharged, they have the right to speak up about their wartime experience. This is documented in the Uniform Code of Military Justice and evidenced by the activism of some veterans (VFW, American Legion, John Kerry, etc). Article 2 of the UCMJ states that the scope of the legislation covered in the UCMJ only applies to Service Members active in the armed forces and federalized Reservesmen or National Guardsmen. If they're active duty in the reserves or guard, refer to the active duty portion of my post. If they are not on active duty and they do not have federalized status, their actions are not restricted by the Uniform Code of Military Justice: they have all the rights that civilians enjoy. Again, if they have been discharged, they have the right to speak up about their wartime experience. http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm

Sorry about posting some of the same parts of my post over. I was editing it, and messed it up! Sorry! :)