A petition signed by 2,700 current and former service members in support of continuing U.S. combat operations in Iraq will be turned over to two Republican lawmakers tomorrow in a ceremony at the headquarters of the nation’s largest group of combat veterans.

The petition was organized by two U.S. service members serving in Iraq, Navy Lt. Jason Nichols, serving in Baghdad, and Minnesota National Guard Staff Sgt. David Thul, who is conducting convoy operations in Iraq with the 34th Infantry Division.

...

Many view Appeal for Courage as a response to a group calling itself Appeal for Redress, which in January turned over a petition signed by about 1,000 service members calling for Congress to cut off funding for the Iraq combat mission. The number of signatures on that petition has grown to about 1,900.

About 60 percent of the 2,700 signatures on the Appeal For Courage petition come from service members who are serving or have served in Iraq, with about two-thirds enlisted members and one-third officers. The signatures were gathered over about a month.

As an American currently serving my nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to fully support our mission in Iraq and halt any calls for retreat. I also respectfully urge my political leaders to actively oppose media efforts which embolden my enemy while demoralizing American support at home. The War in Iraq is a necessary and just effort to bring freedom to the Middle East and protect America from further attack.

quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy

As of March 29th, 2007 there were 142,000 U.S. troops in Iraq....So 1600 0f these people have signed the petition....Is this a ploy by Democrats to show that about 1% of the troops feel we should be there?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy

As of March 29th, 2007 there were 142,000 U.S. troops in Iraq....So 1600 0f these people have signed the petition....Is this a ploy by Democrats to show that about 1% of the troops feel we should be there?

No, it's a "ploy" to highlight the agenda of much of the media to blare massive headlines about anything "anti-war", but to "oops" and forget to publish much of anything that is "pro-war".

There is a certain symmetry here.  Both petitions are basically the same thing, except one  is of service members against the war.  It got great headlines.  A second, of service members in support of the war - and with more signatures - doesn't get a peep out of the media.

FirmKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: selfbnd411

I don't care if every single soldier says he wants to stay in Iraq.  In the United States, politicians control the military, not the other way around.  If Bush wants to reverse things, he needs to talk to Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Mao Tse Tung.

quote:

ORIGINAL: selfbnd411

What is the point then?  I love how Chris Matthews on Hardball has been pounding every hawkish Republican who parrots the Bush argument that politicians inside the Beltway shouldn't be telling Generals what to do.  He asks them just one question--"Do you believe that civilians should control the military or should the military control the civilians?"  It's a A-bomb question--if you say the military should control the civilians you're in favor of dictatorship.  If you say civilians should control the military, then you reject Bush's assault on the US Constitution.

Soldiers are citizens too, and they're free to submit their opinions to Congress.  But their opinions should carry no more weight than yours or mine.  We are all just citizens.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

The simple answer to any person who is pro-Iraq or pro any other invasion. Invasions and occupations don't work! Whether it is Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin or anyone else, without a substantial flooding in of new population by the invaders or a welcoming host population, sooner or later it will all end in tears. I'm struggling to think of a single invasion that was actually successful in achieving its goals other than one with the single objective of defeating an enemy before packing up and going home.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611
I don't give a damn what he thinks should be controling the military. The military is not controlled by the people. The Constitution of the United States gives the power of commander-in-chief of the armed forces to the president, and the president solely.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

The simple answer to any person who is pro-Iraq or pro any other invasion. Invasions and occupations don't work! Whether it is Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin or anyone else, without a substantial flooding in of new population by the invaders or a welcoming host population, sooner or later it will all end in tears. I'm struggling to think of a single invasion that was actually successful in achieving its goals other than one with the single objective of defeating an enemy before packing up and going home.

Japan

United Stated nuked them twice. Forced the government to surrender. And forced the population to give up their emperor. It worked. And American Generals like Douglas MacArthur strolled through Japan like the next Julius Ceaser. Today, Japan is one of the richest democracies in the world. And is today of the America's biggest allies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: selfbnd411

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611
I don't give a damn what he thinks should be controling the military. The military is not controlled by the people. The Constitution of the United States gives the power of commander-in-chief of the armed forces to the president, and the president solely.

So you're saying that the President does not represent the People, and that he is not elected?

Indeed...I believe we have found common ground on that!

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

The simple answer to any person who is pro-Iraq or pro any other invasion. Invasions and occupations don't work! Whether it is Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin or anyone else, without a substantial flooding in of new population by the invaders or a welcoming host population, sooner or later it will all end in tears. I'm struggling to think of a single invasion that was actually successful in achieving its goals other than one with the single objective of defeating an enemy before packing up and going home.

Japan

United Stated nuked them twice. Forced the government to surrender. And forced the population to give up their emperor. It worked. And American Generals like Douglas MacArthur strolled through Japan like the next Julius Ceaser. Today, Japan is one of the richest democracies in the world. And is today of the America's biggest allies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Don't confuse meatcleaver with any facts.  He's got his ideology to guide him.

But, another example a little closer to home, although more distant in time ... he might want to ask the Carthagians if invasions work.

Oh .. that's right ... the Romans invaded ... but didn't occupy ... long.

FirmKY