thekai, you said:

*They are recalling Marines in very high numbers right now, and it's helping them prevent a draft. If Obama gets elected, then the chance of me being recalled to go to Iraq is almost completely gone. That's the difference to me. That's what matters. That's what's realistic.*

As it stands, right now, you have a more realistic chance of being killed in Afghanistan. And if you're voting for Obama simply to save yourself--which no Marine I've ever heard of would do, good luck--you'll probably end up in Karachi or some other city in Pakistan, trying to smoke the same rats out of different holes.

cmalpsv,
Thank you for your support and understanding. I wish the best for you and your family.
°
no,
I have never backtracked on my objection to serving in Iraq. I plainly said:
"If I get recalled to go to Iraq, I will surely go. I follow lawful orders, as they may be given from time to time by my superiors. I will not serve in Iraq because I think the war over there is the right thing to do, though. I will serve over there because by my coming, it allows another Marine to go."
Not once have I ever said that I will not go to Iraq. I have said more than once (in comments to other articles) that I will go if I am asked to go. My reasons for going to Iraq do not include, "fighting for what I believe is right" though.
I think the problem here is that you are too stubborn and too blind to look at the plain facts. Just then you put words into my mouth so that you could feel better about disagreeing with me.
No, Bush Jr. was not the president when Saddam invaded Kuwait, Bush Sr. was. Bush Sr. was satisfied with what he did, but Bush Jr. wanted to make his dad proud, or so it seems.
You ask if I have the stomach to fight terrorists in other countries, thereby questioning my courage. I will lay my life on the line against anyone who threatens the security and freedom of Americans. That's why I wanted to become a Marine. That's what makes us special. That's why Admiral Nimitz said of the Marines on Iwo Jima and all over the world, "Uncommon valor was a common virtue." More than just having the stomach to face enemies of epic proportions, I have the heart to do so. Do not question my level of dedication or courage, because I guarantee it far exceeds what you perceive it to be.

*No, you claim that the "war" was over in three weeks, and thus people are fixated on a "non-entity." Men and women of the United States Military are dieing over there! How can you be so disrespectful?*

There is no "war" in Iraq. There is no uniformed enemy. The enemy doesn't even have a cogent battle plan. Yes, Americans are dying in Iraq. Americans die in droves all over the world and no one calls it a war. Did the 240+ Marines who died in Beirut in 1983 die in a "war"?

*It is clear to me that you are far detached from what is really going on in the war against terror.*

The "war" is not against terror. It is against radical Islam. Iraq borders all the states that harbor radical Islamists except Pakistan. Do the math.

*You believe that taking the fight to Afghanistan is not a viable strategy,*

Nope. Not what I said. Besides, the "fight" has already been "taken" to Afghanistan. Waiting for hajis to pop up with an RPG in the Hindu Kush is an idiotic strategy. The fight should be taken to each and every state that has a hand in radical Islam. Saudi, Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia, Syria, etc. etc. You have the stomach for that?

* but that belief is in contrast to what our military leaders believe.*

I'm sure our military leaders don't want their forces to be bled to death chasing around a few dopes around Afghanistan. I'd bet they'd be much more for fighting this fight all at once.

As for you, Nice of you to backtrack on your objection to serving in Iraq. Your hero must be Obama, who changes his mind every five seconds about what he just said. I didn't vote for Bush , either, still he wasn't President when Saddam invaded Kuwait and set all this in motion, so it's not something that can be laid entirely on his doorstep.

Long Time Gone:
Me thinks you're correct, the writer had too much of the ganja weed and spaced on the rest of the story.

"whoa -- like details man."

thekai--thanks for putting that out there. There certainly are more than 2 people in Wisconsin who have Iraq on their minds this election year, not to mention Afghanistan. God Bless you and the USMC.

I'd like to correct a typo I had. I meant that if anything, troop sizes would decrease (the typo said decease), in reference to shifting the fight to Afghanistan.
°
No,
I do not think that you are in any position to tell me that I've learned nothing about service and duty. I enlisted in the Marine Corps post September 11, 2001. I enlisted in the Marine Corps post OIF I. I went to boot-camp post the Presidential election of 2004. As a Marine, I am part of the President's military. At any point, without congressional approval, the President of the United States can send any amount of Marines into a country at least temporarily, to help keep our country better defended. I did not vote for G.W. Bush, but the fact that he still won the election did not make me change my mind about joining.
If I get recalled to go to Iraq, I will surely go. I follow lawful orders, as they may be given from time to time by my superiors. I will not serve in Iraq because I think the war over there is the right thing to do, though. I will serve over there because by my coming, it allows another Marine to go. Marines take care of Marines, and as a Non-Commissioned Officer in the Marine Corps, it is my DUTY to extend my SERVICE in times of need, to relieve other Marines who are tired and worn out.
No, you claim that the "war" was over in three weeks, and thus people are fixated on a "non-entity." Men and women of the United States Military are dieing over there! How can you be so disrespectful?
It is clear to me that you are far detached from what is really going on in the war against terror. You believe that taking the fight to Afghanistan is not a viable strategy, but that belief is in contrast to what our military leaders believe.

The headline writer was at the Jimmy Buffett concert Saturday.

I would agree that this "article" is more internet-site-hit-generator than reporting. I'm wondering if it's part of some larger story.

*So we should continue a war, utilizing OUR Department of Defense, in a foreign country, to honor those that have died? This is Vietnam all over again! *

Here's another fool pretending it's 1968 all over again.

Iraq is not Vietnam. We never toppled the Hanoi government and installed a democratic regime there.

Repeat this over and over until your sanity returns.

*So we just hang around until they attack the unfortunate kid standing target duty on the side of the road. *

Maybe they could hurry back home and get killed by a drunk driver.

Thekai: *If Obama gets elected, then the chance of me being recalled to go to Iraq is almost completely gone. That's the difference to me. That's what matters. That's what's realistic.*

Nice to see that you haven't learned anything about SERVICE and DUTY.

*Having said all of that, I would not mind going to Aghanistan. I've always wanted to go there and fight for our country. I believe we should have kept our focus on the Taliban and Afghanistan in the first place.*

Ha, hope you have always had similar interests about fighting in Pakistan or Iran, because that's the next step if you really want to catch those behind the Taliban. Playing whack-a-mole in the Hindu Kush isn't a viable strategy.

*The mission should be to fight al Qaeda, which are now concentrated in Afganastan. That's changing the mission.*

A-Q is everywhere from Saudi to Indonesia to the Philippines to London. I guess you'd advocate armed conflict in all those states?

*i suppose AP thinks 2 people is a good sample size for then entire WI electorate.*

They do if they are for the Democrat candidate. Then it's "poll over, election over, see ya in January".

The media being in the tank for the left worked so well for Dukakis and Kerry, too, if you'll recall.

booch11, haha, that is exactly what was going through my mind. I am also concerned about pigs flying, so that makes 2 of us; same poll size.

About soldiers dying in vain, I don't think it's so much an issue of whether they win the war or not, but whether the war is just. Fighting to defend countries from communist takeovers is worthy in my opinion, so even though we lost in Vietnam I still value the soldiers who made an attempt to help them. When it comes to Afganistan/Iraq/Iran I have mixed feelings. In the short term it's possible to stablaize these regions and therefore "win", but in the long term Al-Qaida will just be replaced by another organization (there are already many others to choose from right now). Muslims, based on the example of their supreme prophet, will always inevitably turn to violence against unbelievers (aka infidels). While it's true that in many cases there are other compounding factors besides religion leading Muslims to violence (poverty, ethnic differences, etc), the bottom line is that there will likely always be a sizeable fraction of Muslims that don't see anything wrong with murduring infidels if they stand in their way of world domination. So what if we win against the Muslim fundamentalists in Iraq, only to give the country over to "moderate" Muslims which will, in time, return to the fundamentals of their faith and fight the infidels whereever they find them?

what is the purpose of this article?
did the AP just go out and ask two guys what they thought and wrote this lame report?
seriously, no greater study is cited.
just these two guys.
how in the world can quotes from two guys influence the headline, "Iraq war high on mind of Wis. voters?"

i suppose AP thinks 2 people is a good sample size for then entire WI electorate.

me and my neighbor think legislation is necessary to support pigs flying.
hence the headline, Pigs Flying Top On List Of WIS Voters."
what's the difference?

I guess I'll just have to live with the shame of having disagreed with you.

the libbies want to surrender. you lefties will be the first in line to convert to islam....go army-beat islam!

My last comment was for billnewbiw, btw.

The mission should be to fight al Qaeda, which are now concentrated in Afganastan. That's changing the mission.

Iraq as a nation never was, nor is it now, a threat to the United States. We have simply given new territory for al Qaeda to fight in, at the expense of the Iraqi people.

Considering the Iraq government wants us to leave as soon as possible, and now President Bush is calling for a gradual withdrawl of troops, your opinion is in the minority.

The idea that we should continue to lose lives, to justify those already lost, is actually an insult to those who have already sacrificed their lives or bodies. YOU are the one saying those lives lost are meaningless unless the mission is successful. Shame on you.

cmalpsv,
I am on my palm right now so I will briefly and directly answer your question, and if anyone wants further explanation I will do so later.
I don't think shifting the troops from Iraq to Afghanistan would incease or even maintain the troop level in the middle east right now. I think troop levels would decease. I'm not a spokesman for the Marine Corps, nor am I at liberty to discuss what the Marine Corps or U.S. military has planned. I will say that our leaders have told us not to be surprised if we start sending more people to Afghanistan.
Having said all of that, I would not mind going to Aghanistan. I've always wanted to go there and fight for our country. I believe we should have kept our focus on the Taliban and Afghanistan in the first place.

Those who advocate immediate withdrawal aren't trying to change the mission, they are trying to abandon the mission, and in the process, waste all those sacrifices made on our behalf. Isn't that what was done when we abandoned Vietnam and Cambodia? Those lives were wasted as were the live of millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians who were abandoned into the hands of the barbaric and vengeful. Then, at least it could be said that our enemies had powerful allies and a stalemate was the best we could hope for. The present situation bears little resemblance to then. Our enemy’s greatest allies are those among us who, when called upon for sacrifice, prefer to turn away, safe in our homes, willing to believe that what happens “over there” is none of our concern.
When the Japanese attacked us in 1941, did we capitulate in the face of horrendous losses with much more to come? Did we concern ourselves with the opinions of us held by the most powerful nations of the time? When the losses mounted and the President’s assurances seemed like wishful thinking, did we mount efforts to impeach him and join the peace movement en masse because the going got to be too tough?
The fate of Iraq is very much in our national interest but it is also a matter of humanitarianism. We cannot just walk away as we did in Vietnam and disregard the effects that will have as we did then.
Our enemies believe that our biggest weakness is our unwillingness to sacrifice. If we abandon Iraq we will confirm their beliefs. Then, the probability of war will not decrease, but increase.

I would say fuel prices is more on my mind than the wars

thekai, my son is also currently an active duty marine, having returned from Iraq in May. He is currently going thru more training and will then be deployed to Afghanistan (that is what he is being told at this point). With Obama's most recent support of engaging in that country, aren't you concerned that he may call you back for that?

I'm a Marine on active duty, and Iraq is one of my biggest issues this election. It's true that we can not just pull out, and it's naiive to think that any President would pull us out immediately and without forethought. However, there is a very large difference between Senators Obama and McCain.
°
My active duty contract is completed just a few short weeks after the inauguration. I'll be honorably discharged. If McCain gets elected, there stands a very, VERY good chance that the military will recall me. For those who don't know, when you enlist in the military, it's almost always an eight year contract. Usually you do four active years and four inactive. They are recalling Marines in very high numbers right now, and it's helping them prevent a draft. If Obama gets elected, then the chance of me being recalled to go to Iraq is almost completely gone. That's the difference to me. That's what matters. That's what's realistic.

Well, billnewbie, what did we say to the 58,000+ that died in Vietnam?

So we should continue a war, utilizing OUR Department of Defense, in a foreign country, to honor those that have died? This is Vietnam all over again! No target, no objective, no one knows who the enemy is. So we just hang around until they attack the unfortunate kid standing target duty on the side of the road. That is how we know who the enemy is now....Great Strategy. Honor our fallen by saving those that remain. Bring our people home!

if pulling our troops out of iraq and surrendering to radical islam is the only issue/criteria for voting for a person for president of the united states, then we need to bring back a literacy test to qualify to vote. if you don't know the issues you lose your privledge to vote! go army-beat islam!

billnewbie - What are you trying to say? That we should never change the mission if thousands of soldiers have already given their lives or been wounded, or that our allies might be harmed after we leave?

Whatever you think about this war, the support of our brave soldiers is no longer defined by the success or failure of the mission. We at least learned that lesson decades after the Vietnam War.

*“I just felt it was an unjust war,” said Wrich, 70, of Madison. “People see Obama as somebody who’s really committed to stopping this war.”*

Wow, a 70 year-old Madisonian voting for Obama. You could swing a dead cat and hit an Obama voter in Madison. Big Whoop.

And instead of "feeling", why doesn't this dude try "thinking". I'm sick to death of this nonsense. Saddam violated a cease-fire agreement for a decade and 9/11 gave us the political cover to restart hostilities from 1991. Get over it, democrat loser.

The "war" was over 3 weeks after it started, so these people are fixated on a non-entity.

Further, Obama wouldn't "end" our involvement even if he had a chance at winning. Take a look at what the Dimocrats did after they took back Congress in 2006, after promising to "end" the "war". Give me a break.

These old libs need to stop pretending it's 1968.

http://www.votenader.org/action/wisconsi...

Are you quite sure that the soldiers and the mission are "mutually exclusive"?
What of the 4000 who died? Those who were wounded? The 100,000 + who served a year or more of their lives in Iraq. Do we say "Well, Sadaam wasn't really so bad after all, he didn't really refuse to fulfill his promises that he made when we left him in power in 1990, he didn’t really use poison gas on his own people, he wasn’t really a mass murderer, and if we pull out of there quickly, the whole thing won’t fall under the control of an enemy who hates us and will certainly kill everyone who worked with us before we left”. And “Thanks for the sacrifices but they just weren’t worth the trouble (as in our sacrifices here at home).”

Mr. Buttery said: “You’ve got to support the mission, you’ve got to support your soldiers”.

The mission and the soldiers are mutually exclusive. The soldiers can also be supported by getting them out of Iraq, and changing the mission.

Obama has recently gone from immediate withdrawl to slow withdrawl to not sure what is appropriate at this time. Perhaps after his trip overseas he'll realize what a disaster an immediate withdrawl would be. Fortunately, attacks on coalition forces have dropped dramatically and the Iraqi forces have been able to take control of many provinces under their own power. Hopefully either potential president understands that the big problems are Afghanistan and Iran, not Iraq. When it comes to making the best decisions for the war, I support McCain. - I can't wait to see the first comment about the "100 more years" which was blown way out of context by the Obama campaign...but that's politics.