Quoting:
This is why some of us are pro-peace.  We don't want to see any deaths, especially from our side.
End Quote

With all due respect, just because one supports the war doesn't mean one does not also want peace.

Quoting:
With all due respect, just because one supports the war doesn't mean one does not also want peace.
End Quote

Well said.

I support this war 110%.  However, obviously it would have been great if it could have been settled without war.  Just because I support this war, doesn't mean I want people to die.

Quoting:
I certainly hope the POWs are treated well, but unfortunately I highly doubt it :-/  What I've heard thus far is disgusting.


With all due respect, just because one supports the war doesn't mean one does not also want peace.
End Quote

I agree on the first point
and "Hear Hear" on the second!

Quoting:Can someone explain to me how a supply convoy can make a 'wrong turn' into hostile territory in the age of global positioning satellites and U2 spy planes? I'm no military strategist, but logic dictates that you want to keep the supplies in the back and well defended, for if you cut off the supply line, the troops will eventually been worn down by attrition. End Quote

Who knows?  One guess is not every unit is supplied with GPS.  Supplies and lines of communication get more complicated and difficult to maintain the closer the Coalition gets to Baghdad.  And the Coalition is responsible for the supplying of captured territory.  So, capturing Basra makes you responsible for its food, fresh water, etc.

Quoting:
The Coalition, today, is reminding Iraq that it is a blatent violation of the Geneva Convention to abuse and humiliate prisoners of war, and anyone doing so will be charged and prosecuted for war crimes.
End Quote

Absolutely right!
Although it's a bit late for the US to suddenly find it's copy of the Geneva convention isn't it?
What about Afghan POWs, the US humiliated them, denied them basic human rights and tortured 2 of them to death!  Does this statement mean we'll be seeing prosecutions from the US?  I don't think so  >:(
Just one more example of the cloud of hypocrisy that this war is being fought under.

Quoting:
Well, my only reason for questioning it is it just seems too...'convenient.' Note: BEFORE I give my reason, let me make CLEAR that I am deeply sorry that US soldiers have been taken hostage and possibly killed, and I pray for their safe return. But, allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment.

Now...consider this. Bush wages war on Iraq. Saddam is a bad man, so the war is justified to some extent. However, people both within the US and abroad call the war a crime against humanity, etc. etc. We've seen how high this reaches with Mr. Moore speaking last night on the Oscars. Now...history has proven that a war won't fly without the will of the people. World War 2 had the full support of the people. We had women working in the factories, people cutting back on meat to support the war effort, etc. To contrast, Vietnam was a different conflict. Although Nixon kept trying to trump it up, nobody bought it. People called the war unwinnable. And even with thousands of loyal soldiers getitng drafted and sent over there, there were thousands of people screaming 'Hell No, We Won't Go!' over here.

Now, take this conflict. As said before, it is justified to an extent, but people are still frowning upon the US. Protesters are out in full force, people are booing the National Anthem, etc. So, with such resistance, 'the powers that be' (we'll call them) know they must rally the support of the people or else they'll have to face conflicts on two fronts- the Iraqis over there and the people over here. So...'someone' gives the wrong directions to a supply convoy, and dumps 12 people from Fort Bliss, Texas into the hands of the Iraqis. Now...there's a FACE to the conflict. We're no longer fighting for oil or for Iraqi freedom, we're fighting for Shoshawna Johnson from good ol' El Paso, Texas! Now, you can downplay oil. You can even downplay the Iraqis. But I dare any of you to say that the US won't go and fight for their missing people. Such is not so. You see, now the US HAS to go through with this, or else it'll lose face in the eyes of the world. How would it look? "The Iraqis took US soldiers hostage, and the Americans left their people behind." You see?

My reasoning is that this hostage crisis- and it IS a crisis, make no mistake- wasn't entirely accidental. That's what I think...what do you guys think?
End Quote

I don't trust George Bush Jr. at all.  I think he's a puppet of the military industrial complex and the far right.   I don't trust many in our government.  This war with Iraq was decided long before Dubya even took office.  9-11 gave Bush Jr. the perfect oppurtunity to  sell this war to the American people.  But make no mistake, they were going to invade Iraq anyway.  This war has nothing to do with Saddam or liberating Iraq and "freeing the Iraqi people".  Nonsense.  It's about the oil and putting in a pro-American regime in Iraq.  And thanks to Osama bin Laden, Dubya can play the "terrorist/9-11 card" (the same way Johnny Cochrane played the "race card" in the O.J. trial) to silence anyone who critisizes or opposes him.  Without September 11th, Bush would have had a much, MUCH harder time in selling this war to America and the world.  But the right wing has skillfully played the terrorist/9-11 card to silence their critics.  

Now with saying all that, I can never believe that the U.S. Army would purposefully betray their own guys and lead them into enemy territory to be ambushed.  They're too loyal to each other.  "Leave no man (or woman) behind".  They would never do what your theory proposes.  They don't really care about Washington politics, but they are very loyal to each other.