Thanks for fighting for our freedom in Iraq!

Jaime Savory Levee wrote: »

Lol. Yeah I'm not giving out about it, I'm just saying it's why some people might say "Thanks for protecting my freedom" without even thinking about it

The difference, I think, is that they do think about it, and they mean it when they say it.

This isn't an incidental comment like a scripted 'Have a nice day, Mr Moran' at the supermarket checkout. These are people who will go out of their way to come over to you and shake your hand. They will reach into their pockets and pay for your meal, no matter how much you protest against it. I've had people pay for my meal anonymously, the first I've found out about it is when I ask for the bill and am told 'the people who had been sitting at that table over there, but left five minutes ago' paid for it. And more than once, if you think I'm taking a single example. 'Military discounts' are a very real financial display from anything from small business owners through major companies like GM. And bear in mind, I live in the San Francisco region, the absolute most anti-war part of the country. I'm typing from within eyesight of Berkeley. (Out my office window). Can you imagine what it's like in more conservative parts of the country?

We had an officer from New Zealand's army come out to visit us, and he was astonished by the depth of feeling shown towards US servicemen, something he would never imagine at home. I certainly can't imagine it in Ireland. How many people would anonymously pay for a three-course-meal for a member of either the RDF or PDF? If Mairt went to Pete's of Parnell St and asked for a military discount on a big-screen TV, do you think he'd get 15% off, or laughed at? That's how heartfelt it is. It's not national jingo-ism, it's an honest appreciation of the work and risk voluntarily taken by servicemen on the behalf of the citizenry of the country.

Now, that covers the 'Thank you for serving', 'thank you for protecting us', and 'thank you for fighting for our freedoms,' all of which I commonly receive.

When it comes down to the very specific 'thank you for fighting for our freedom in Iraq' (which, truthfully, I've very rarely received) that does get a little more indirect. The initial cause, the WMDs, would have applied fine to begin with, as WMDs would have been a bit of a threat to US security. I fully admit that Iraqi freedoms were pretty much incidental, a positive side-effect, if you will. Once the WMDs turned out to not be present, the focus shifted towards leaving Iraq in a condition which would not see it is a threat to US security in the future. At that point, US and Iraqi freedoms did become closely interlinked on the basis that democracies very rarely attack other democracies if nothing else. The US, like any country, very rarely will do anything out of the pure goodness of its heart, excepting maybe the odd humanitarian rescue which in the scheme of things costs very little. To that end, US forces are in Iraq fighting for the US. It just happens that the US goals and the concept of freedom for Iraqis seem to be interdependent.

But while I can't seriously comprehend anyone still thinking the Iraq invasion was a good idea, respecting the soldiers is a different thing.

Wonder no more. I still think it was a good idea, even after having to spend a year risking getting shot at. I am not alone. Now, I also think it was very poorly executed, which is a different matter entirely, which I think is, indeed, the dominant viewpoint.

They invaded Iraq, claiming to the perceived ignorance of their own citizens, that Osama Bin Laden was in Iraq when in fact he was in Afghanistan/Pakistan.

I don't know if they were claiming that. I certainly recall quite a bit of news about how they almost got Bin Laden in the Tora Bora region around that time. The discussion was of prospective co-operation, not of co-location.

NTM