I have opined for some time that people who actually serve in the military and who see how horrible war is are less hawkish than others who haven't served. My impression fits with the Current Administration (the only member who was openly against Iraq was Colin Powell).

I am curious who here has seen combat and what their view on war is. I would prefer that to keep this thread for people who have actually served, but I have no way to enforce that so reply at will.

__________________
"George W. Bush surrounds himself with smart people the way a hole surrounds itself with a donut." —Dennis Miller

A full day and no bombing-crazy vets. I guess all the bomb first ask questions later people we have here have never seen combat. I thought as much.

__________________
"George W. Bush surrounds himself with smart people the way a hole surrounds itself with a donut." —Dennis Miller

Likewise the ones who have seen combat are not here saying war is wrong.

As a navy vet who did not see combat myself (but was involved in Granada and has seen people die training for combat), I can tell you that most of the combat experienced vets I knew were hawkish.

Do you wonder why Bush (and republicans in general) have the overwhelming majority of veteran support?

I served in Bosnia as a Marine.

I don't know what you mean by hawkish. I believe that sometimes we have to fight, and we should do so in a decisive manner. Does that count?

__________________
What have you done for your people today?

Yes, that is hawkish, to a dove.

PJ you really can't generalize. My grandfather stormed Normandy, and everything you saw in Saving Private Ryan was true and even worse, if you experienced it first hand. He never held that war should never be, though he knew how horrible its effects are on the human body and psyche. It all depends on the cause which can be argued. I don't think this war on Iraq was like WW2 or Vietnam. I think it was handled with more accuracy and care to innocent peoples lives than any other war. We didn't carpet bomb the place for God's sake.

__________________
lambaste me not

Sure. But what I am talking about is the manner in which Bush has chosen to use the military. In my opinion, he blew the blow against al-Queda because instead of going directly after al-Queda with special force teams, he decided to oust the taliban. Now, I don't have a problem with ousting the Taliban, but we should have done that after we hit al-Queda, not before. The taliban wasn't going anywhere -- we knew where they were. Al-Queda, on the other hand, scattered as soon as the first bomb dropped.

I am also talking about Iraq. I was in favor of ousting Hussein in the beginning and even I said to myself, after listening to Powell that "that's a pretty weak case for war." Rummy's comment that "we know where they are" and then naming every point on a compass also left me less than convinced. We know from Administration insiderS (<-- plural) that this Admin was adament about invading Iraq and they got what they wanted. Unfortunately, a lot of soldiers and civilians lost their lives for that satisfaction.

Now, I am not stubbornly against war -- I know that sometimes war is necessary, but it should be the last option and not as a "well, the country could possibly become, one day, a threat against us or someone else, I think." Bush was a coward with his life and rash with the lives of others. And, because they American people seem to love war (Presidents always get their highest popularity ratings during some sort of bombing), and Bush knew that even if the case against Iraq fizzled which it has, a large percentage of Americans would still support him and his war.

I don't war to be used while alternatives exist. And, in Iraq, alternatives were everywhere. And, now, in the next conflict we get into (or possibly the one after that), Bush will (possibly) have his mini-nukes to use. We have been engaging in chemical warfare since 1991 (DU), but Bush wants to ratchet it up a bit. And, people don't think he is a nut?

__________________
"George W. Bush surrounds himself with smart people the way a hole surrounds itself with a donut." —Dennis Miller

Was he supposed to use transporters to get the special forces there, with phasers set on stun?

Hitting the Taliban first was a strategic move. By hitting them first you cut off support and communication. They want to run to the hills? Fine. They will do that anyway. But since the Taliban was basically Al-Queda's bloodflow in Afghanistan, we hit them first.

__________________
lambaste me not

Al-Queda didn't need the Taliban which is proven from the fact that the Taliban is not in power anymore (except for the border areas) and al-Queda is still striking big targets (Madrid and possibly the two Russian planes).

__________________
"George W. Bush surrounds himself with smart people the way a hole surrounds itself with a donut." —Dennis Miller