Did our soldiers die in vain in Iraq? Kerry must be able to answer this

[ladybugg33]

question with truth and dignity. He must say that the troops were following orders and we should not demean their deaths by framing a political question in an attempt to embarrass an oponent. The question should be framed in a way that puts those responsible for making the decisions that sent the troops to Iraq and the decisions that keep them there. It's too bad that Kerry has answered the Iraqi war questions wrong in the first place. His first response to the question if he would vote the same way knowing what he knows now should have been a resounding "No." "I was trying to support our President but he and his administration mis-led us. If I had know then what we know now as a result of these latest revelation, I would never have voted to GIVE THE PRESIDENT THE POWER to make this wrong decision." Had he said this in the beginning instead of pandering to the masses of the uninformed super patriotic zealots, he would be in a good position right now, especially after the latest report on Iraqi WMDs. Now he and Edwards are trapped by their own statements but there is a way out. They must keep hammering home that the latest revelations certainly cast the Iraqi decision by all the Congress in a much different light and further indicts the Bush administration and their supporters for making good, honest, and patriotic citizens feel like anti-American criminals for expressing their opposition to the Iraqi invasion. Saddam was an tyrant, buta tyrant much more under our control the other tyrants that we have supported in the past and those that we support right now (Musharaff).

[spanone]

1. They died valiantly in a vain endeavor. A pre-emptive war.....

launched on faulty and skewed information.

[Catfight]

10. well put, they did die valiantly in a vain endeavor. Perfectly said.

[cspiguy]

2. more importantly - does he plan to let them continue dying?

if it is pointless and unjust - why does he keep talking about winning it - like that's even possible?

[Guaranteed]

3. How about this- "If we can build Iraq into a stable democracy,

then our troops will not have died for nothing. Unfortunately, this administration refuses to see the problems Iraq is having in that journey toward stability, and if things keep going the way they are, we may come to the point where this WAS all for nothing."

[mmonk]

4. None of our military personnel die in vain

but some die as a result of bad judgement from their Commander in Chief.

[GOPFighter]

5. You're right

In fact this is the man reason we must vote the Bushites out, because if they continue in power Iraq will likely turn into a Vietnam where we leave defeated with our tail between our legs.

We must win the peace. We must leave Iraq better off that what it was when we went in. We must leave with dignity and with the good will of most of the Iraqi people. Only then can we say our troops did not die in vain.

[wtmusic]

6. Unfortunately the political element is unavoidable

if Kerry wants to get elected. If he believes the war was unnecessary (he does) then their deaths are in vain.

Can he come out and say it? No, he will lose the election. Kerry is handling the issue the *only* way he can.

[Catfight]

7. I think Bush needs to be investigated for War Crimes and I'd like

to hear Kerry say when he gets elected he will hold Bush accountable for any soldiers death if it was unnecessary.

[seabeyond]

8. if our love for them, gives us site in their loss

how to better do this. hell no..........they didnt die in vein. they lost their life, in protecting me and mines,..........even if in htought and intention. they can never be insignificant.

[phantom power]

9. They are dying for a mistake.

What needs to be emphasized, is it was Bush's goddamned mistake, not Kerry's.

[indie_voter]

11. He has, over and over

The best way was at the last debate when he said we must separate the warrior from the war.

I thought that was extremely eloquent.

[myopic4141]

12. A conundrum

An interesting conundrum has arisen in my position regarding a military draft. I prefer a draft over volunteer service because I feel that it is harder to engage in unnecessary wars with an army of reluctant individuals. Almost from the beginning of a volunteer vs draft military, I began noticing less and less reluctance to use the skills gained from military training. The desire to use was fast outpacing the reluctance to use. As a result, it had become more and more incumbent on the civilians in charge to show the reluctance not lacking by those who serve. Lo and behold, Bush got into office and the civilian reluctance disappeared and we now find ourselves in an unnecessary war. My worst fears had been realized.
Now the nation is in a position where more military personnel are needed to correct a major error in judgment accompanied by incompetence of execution. I had never been in favor of this war from an anti-preemptive war perspective. My point of view has been that the risk of unjust wars was too high to engage in a preemptive war policy and like the volunteer military position, this too has been borne out. What was once just is now only justified and badly justified as that.
As a result, we need a larger military force to transition a disaster into a success and the only way to get there is through a draft. My conundrum arises out of success or failure of the policy more than whether to draft or not. If the policy fails, it will be unlikely that there will be such endeavors in the future, which is a good thing; whereas, if the policy succeeds, it will more likely become part of the norm which is a bad thing. Failure will also mean a wasteful loss of life and I do not wish to draft individuals into military service to throw their lives away in such a manner (we went through that once before with Vietnam). Success will also be accompanied by a loss of life; but, the term wasted will be dropped although the lives will have still been wasted due to the war having been unnecessary. Lies of justification will follow success and unnecessary will be dropped from the arguments lexicon as well. Nothing will have been learned.
The question to answer is: "Which is worse, wasted lives from a failed policy to ensure discontinuance of the policy or wasted lives to prop up a policy that should fail; but, did not because of perseverance?" A hard question to which I do not have a good answer.

[Rambis]

14. He said it the other day in Tipton Iowa

Paraphrazing... You can protest the war but not the people who fight it. That is the lesson I learned in Vietnam. When I came back some people didn't like what I said and I am sorry about that but I didn't believe that speaking out was wrong.
This was a good and powerful statement and it worked. No one in that room thought he was full of it or trying to skirt the issue. It worked period. It will work Friday night.

[myopic4141]

19. I too served then.

However, I was not one who shipped out to Vietnam. Instead, the PTB felt that I would better serve as part of NATO. No strings were pulled to get the station, it just turned out that way. It was while in service that I came to view that the war was wrong and expressed my opinion once out; though not as loud for the war was winding down in any case. Even then, I felt that it was the draft that made us reluctant warriors which gave the impetus to rally against the war. Having a draft before Vietnam did not stop the war from happening; however, it was the cry of those who served that gave America most pause. Would volunteers rather than draftee's have been as loud is the only question. I think not. Speaking out is never wrong; but, that is not the issue of the conundrum.
The conundrum arises out of what to do with a policy that is wrong from the start once it has been engaged. Seeing it through to success; thus, providing the impetus for future engagements or having failure to discourage similar courses of action in the future. I think having a draft would have discouraged more than encouraged the preemptive policy we now find in force today because of the Vietnam experience; yet, a draft at this time would be the very thing that brings success followed by encouragement for future engagements. Namely, no matter how flawed the policy, we will always work our way out of it regardless of the cost. Bush counts on this sort of conundrum in his propensity for the "end justifies the means" approaches towards policy.
As I wrote elsewhere before, "I will mourn with those who lost love ones; but, I cannot support in anyway what we are doing there nor can I ever forgive those who put them there through flawed ideology".

[JI7]

13. he actually has answered it, said you have to separate war from warrior

this was in the first debate after bush was asked if the thousands of lives was worth it and bush went into that weird stuff of trying to love and how it's hard to love .

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. The answer is "Yes. Our soldiers died in vain."

Simple. Concise. True.

[Forkboy]

16. cha-ching

so sadly correct.

[hansolsen]

18. True. Sad, but true. And I think many of them are reaching the same

conclusion on their own.

Many others hold out hope of installing a true democracy in Iraq some day, but that road now runs through a giant desert dust storm that limits visibility to about two feet. Even the most gung ho soldier in the front lines has to be having doubts about the mission right now.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

17. Only the future will tell whether they died in vain

If Bush stays and Iraq continues to descend into chaos and we have to pull out leaving the country in shambles, then they will have died in vain. But if a new statesman and leader can rally the world including the arab world and the Iraqi people in helping Iraq attain true self-determination and stability, then their deaths will have meant something.