In a message dated 11/12/2005 1:44:52 P.M. Central Standard Time, andreas@xxxxxxxxxxx writes: When the German soldiers returned from their war, they all said that they had seen nothing. None of those atrocities or abuses. When the US soldiers returned from Vietnam, they all said that they had seen nothing. None of those atrocities or abuses. When the US soldiers return from Afghanistan and Iraq, they all say that they had seen nothing. None of those atrocities or abuses. Of course not. These are good boys, returning to their homes, their moms, their communities. What else would they say? HI, This thread seems to be moving away from the Iraqi War to an anti-war-in-general (or, at least, to an anti-military thread) Before it completely goes there, I will also again wonder how you say that these soldiers have not talked about their experiences? The Library of Congress & the Smithsonian Folk Life Center started a few years ago a project called The Veterans History Project. It was actually begun because so many of our WWI and WWII veterans (and those who had helped on the Homefront) were dying so fast and there were not really any satisfactory oral history projects done to save their memories/thoughts/experiences. Veterans from other wars also participate in this project and there is training being done all around the country by local historical societies in order to train volunteers on how to conduct an oral history, provide the equipment, etc. and they are doing this and saving the tapes in the Smithsonian (and usually the local library or historical society is also saving copies). If you have not ever gotten trained and conducted one of these, I would imagine that in your own areas there is a need and you would learn a lot about what is said/not said. In addition, I imagine that in many places it does not occur to the people who state 'all the military' is wearing speedos and running around like maniacs (that is my term from what was said) to go sit at some of the VFW places and chat with some of our military who have served in wars or elsewhere. I imagine that there are few that are not in the military that go to the places which actually have military tributes and the such--for often there is little publicity done to bring in those who are not in the military. At least, that was what I discovered here in the Midwest some 12 years ago when we first began our Military Tributes. We do them occasionally now (they are a lot of work to put together -- esp since our librarian who helps the most with this has a hard time focusing on the different wars one by one....which is what we have tried to do in order to make these more manageable in terms of planning) But, if you did attend, you would know that we have roundtable discussions for our veterans of various wars. They are, actually, very candid about what happened. It's hardest for the women from the Vietnam War era because of the stereotype that they were only there to follow the men and do whatever... SO not true! But, we have had women who deny serviing--one had not told her husband or kids--because of the stereotype. Yet, she had High Need to talk about it (thus the phone call to us) --and finally some of our women vets here were able to reach into her world. The ethical aspects of when to shoot and when not to shoot is a very hard one. But, remember that the military that is in Iraq has NOT had years of training on how to deal with some of those situations. The dad that I talked to last week was telling about one of the choices his son had to make in Iraq. He had befriended a 14-year old boy--or had been befriended by one. He was constantly around, chatting, and seemingly genuinely curious. At one point, he asked to go in and look around the area that this soldier was guarding. He (the soldier) got permission but the boy would have to have his pack searched or leave it outside just as any others were searched before entering. He refused and got angry--and the soldier felt awful at not being able to 'trust' this young one ... but, the boy ran into a Mosque carrying his pack (which sometimes he carried and sometimes he didn't). He didn't return after that. Was the kid carrying a bomb or was he genuinely upset because he felt not trusted? Hard to say. Obviously bothered him enough to talk about it to friends and family, though. I wonder about the decision to bomb only if less than 29 civilians were hit. What else goes into that decision (surely other aspects? Perhaps the thought that on insurgent attack will kill or maim more than that if not stopped? Or was it pulled from the air? I don't know--not enough information. Wonder if that was talked about in the interview at all or if the sensationalist info was taken and run without digging deeper to find out how and why that choice was made.) In addition, ,was it the military who made it--or more of these civilian analysts who seem to be running this war Just because it came from 'The Pentagon" does not necessarily mean any longer that it was from the military. We tend to outsource so much (even torture) any more...and the military has been marginalized (probably for the same reasons that Andreas cited--who can trust them? So the civilians have taken over in running this war...) I think the focus, if people really care about getting the US out of Iraq, though, needs to be on other aspects than that of the entire US Miltiary running around in speedos and killing anything that moves. Still, the argument that the military is over there having a good time, enjoying prostitutes, etc. is nothing new. It is one I hear a lot in regards to the US getting out of the UN or the UN being totally corrupt--and often is mentioned how they do nothing about the UN Peacekeeping forces who are having sex with little 12 and 13 year old girls in exchange for pieces of food (not even money...). I'm sure that UN Peacekeepers are also running around in Speedos and shooting anything that moves. But, if war is simply an extension of politics (who said that?), then is the root problem more of a political one? Best, Marlena in Missouri