Basically the silver-haired old white men of America have decided to boost intergration with Iraqi police and Iraqi armed forces so that one day the US can say "yes, they can do it on their own" and pull out.

Without a doubt there will be some form of US presence within Iraq for the next 50 years, (they have bases everywhere in the world) but who wants to bet that as soon as they pull out, everything goes tits up?

Bush wants to let his (democrat) successor decide to pull out of Iraq. I'm afraid Iraq is a lost case.

well...all I know is that the official recommendation from the Iraq committee was to slowly pull out and reduce forces. However, Bush is sending in 20,000 more troops. Yay.

I'm just happy to be out and untouchable. What I want will obviously never happen, so I'll just be happy with that.

I feel kinda bad for all those kids that just signed up to pay for their college fees and shit, and up in a hellhole like Iraq.

It's harder to feel sympathetic towards the professional soldiers and/or the idealists.

I know lots of americans have this mentality where they unquestionably support their soldiers. I find this a bit FUBAR because suppose i do not support the cause, they expect me to support the soldiers. The cause is the #1 factor for me. If i dont support the war, i will not support the soldiers because they are supporting something i do not agree with.

Then they give me all this shit about the fact that soldiers protect your freedom and give you the right to voice your opinion. That's bullshit because we all know american policy only protects the interests of americans. Look at the atrocities of the cold war for evidence. Thousands died at the hands of US foreign policy.

So the people that really believe in the idea to unconditionally support troops, are right wing morons who know nothing about the world outside the US.

I don't entirely disagree with your analysis (heh), but don't forget that the army is huge in the US, not like in the UK or Belgium. So pretty much everybody there that isn't filthy rich knows someone that is in the army or has friends with lovers/children/brothers/sisters in the army. That tends to make someone support "the troops" even if they disagree with the cause.

But yeah, if you're not personally involved like you or me, the cause is indeed all that really matters.

I ran a little stat-check...

Sources:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6254253.stm?ls
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/fa ... nt/uk.html
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/fa ... nt/us.html

1 in 200 US citizens is in the armed forces.
1 in 300 UK citizens is in the armed forces.

I guess you're right on that matter.

It's wrong to blame soldiers for bad foreign policy. Soldiers don't make policy, and they don't exactly have a choice when it comes to obeying orders. They sign on the line and lose their ability to choose for 2-5 years. Regardless of what they think about the war in Iraq, they have to go and they have to fight. I can say from my experience that they're probably not fighting for "freedom" or "America" or "patriotism" or any of that shit...they're just fighting for the guy next to them.

Anyway, don't blame the soldiers, blame the government. The military is only an extension of foreign policy, so blame the president, blame the department of state, and blame congress.

If soldiers don't support the cause that I don't either, then I blame them for enlisting.

Why? Someone that enlisted 4 years ago may have done so out of patriotism. Maybe they had friends that enlisted. Or maybe they come from an extremely poor area and that's the onyl way out of it. The number of people in the military that come from the extremely poor is very high... it gets you out of the squalor you grew up in, pays you probably more money than you would make anyway, teaches you skills that may be very saleable, and allows you to build up the cash reserves needed to move elsewhere.

There's nothing wrong with the military, imo.

I've heard otherwise from other people. Besides, the US is not a very poor country. The problem with the majority of patriotism, is that its limited to your own constitutional borders, which means that it does not benefit anyone but the US. I am not prepared to support UK troops in a role whereby insuring our own freedom, they need to remove someone elses. What progress does that make for the world? None, because 1-1 = 0. It's a bigger picture, which i'm finding that many Americans can't see it.

but don't blame the soldiers for governmental policy. Blame the government or the voters. A soldier has absolutely no freedom to influence government policy. You as a civilian have significantly more. Hell, I didn't even get to vote when I was in the military.

I blame the soldiers for implementing it, and having put themselves in the position to implement it.

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, then.

I blame you for voting into power a 1984-esque British government.

Huh? 1984? Are you saying New Labour is dated?