Us soldiers marrying iraqi women

It happened in Vietnam. Is it happening now? Some Iraqi women are pretty good-looking. Strangely, I haven't heard anything about it during this war. Is it because Moslems aren't as liberal as Buddhists? Why isn't it happening now?

Yes, i think the reason is that the culture/religion gap is much larger there, as opposed to Vietnam. And I'll bet the way the war's going, that most of the soldiers are just concentrating on gettin the hell outta there

An American Classic is back! This bag of 100 Tim Mee 'plastic army guys' is proudly manufactured in the United States, and includes 50 tan and 50 green troops for maximum play value. There's about 12 different figures and all your old favorites are here, including minesweeper, bazookaman, radio operator, 60mm mortar, light machine gunner, kneeling rifleman, flame thrower, crawling rifleman, prone rifleman, bayonet fighter, and officer with binoculars and handgun. Figures stand up to 2.1 inches tall (52mm) and are approximately 1:35 scale. Made from fairly soft HDPE plastic with medium detail, a little flashing and those typically thin Tim Mee heads. Originally produced by Tim Mee in the late 60's, these figures may have been the first to depict US infantry troops during the Cold War with contemporary equipment including M16 A1 rifles and an experimental M60 light machine gun.

Order at Amazon for $12.50

I am a US Army Soldier stationed in Iraq. I am engaged to Iraqi woman who serves as an interpreter to the US Army. We are not sure if we can get married and have her come to the states. What do we have to do?

ask your American embassy in Iraq... you can also get married in the embassy b4 you go back to the states.. good luck to you both

Is there anything in the Qu'ran that contradicts this? I have served inthe Army, and have NEVER met a Muslim female soldier, Airman, Marine or Shipman. Would your men beat you if you enlisted in the Military? Just curious. Also, what do you think about female Military personnel? All the Iraqi chicks and dudes, looked at us like we had three heads. Are we "taboo" or like, super-duper keffirs or something? I'm a married woman, with two children. I served my country with honor, and ETS'ed. I'm not a heathen whore with a semi-automatic weapon. Why do you all see female service personnel that way? OK, so basically, Muslim females are supposed to cook and clean and make babies, right? Oh, now I see why I got the stankeye over there. I should have not been toting a gun, I should have been toting a cast-iron pot to the fire and two babies on my hip. It's all clear to me now. Haaya Bin Laden> Look lady, the ignorance you put on me, is the ignorance I saw over in Muslimland. OK?? I am just telling you what I saw. Blame your people, not me for recounting the tales. The truth hurts, huh? Have you ever been to a Muslim country? Seen how they treat women? You are judging my experiences from behind your protection of the US. Let's see how you would feel as a Saudi female. Been there too. It's not a great place to live as a woman.

Been in the service, never asked what religion I followed, just the oath to the country...My daughter followed the tradition in the Corps...the last of your ...(Question) was, just plain wrong and not in the military tradition of America. Americans as a whole view all service personnel reguardless of gender as heros, beliefs, race, gender not even an issue...Unless YOU make it one!

How would democrats react if the Iraq war was a success? On Sunday, NewsBusters reported a shocking discussion that ensued on "The Chris Matthews Show" wherein five liberal media members actually debated why America shouldn't withdraw its troops from Iraq. Maybe more shocking, the following day, an op-ed was published in the New York Times claiming that "We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, "morale is high," and, as a result, this is "a war we just might win." Adding to the shock is that this piece was written by two members of the Brookings Institution, which even Wikipedia acknowledges is "widely regarded as being politically liberal." The authors - Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack - described themselves as "two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq." Not anymore. Better prepare yourself for an alternate reality (emphasis added throughout): The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration's critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place. Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily "victory" but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with. Shocking. But it got even better: After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops...Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference. And, the numbers speak for themselves: [C]ivilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began - though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done. [...] [T]hings look much better than before. American advisers told us that many of the corrupt and sectarian Iraqi commanders who once infested the force have been removed. The American high command assesses that more than three-quarters of the Iraqi Army battalion commanders in Baghdad are now reliable partners (at least for as long as American forces remain in Iraq). Amazing, wouldn't you agree. Yet, the best was still to come: In war, sometimes it's important to pick the right adversary, and in Iraq we seem to have done so. A major factor in the sudden change in American fortunes has been the outpouring of popular animus against Al Qaeda and other Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against Moktada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. These groups have tried to impose Shariah law, brutalized average Iraqis to keep them in line, killed important local leaders and seized young women to marry off to their loyalists. The result has been that in the last six months Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists and turn to the Americans for security and help. The most important and best-known example of this is in Anbar Province, which in less than six months has gone from the worst part of Iraq to the best (outside the Kurdish areas). Today the Sunni sheiks there are close to crippling Al Qaeda and its Salafist allies. Just a few months ago, American marines were fighting for every yard of Ramadi; last week we strolled down its streets without body armor. Maybe most shocking, the authors, almost speaking directly to dovish Democrats in Congress as well as those running for president, concluded: How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008. How extraordinary to read this in the New York Times.

The authors of the New York Times piece may be "politically liberal" but they are war hawks. From Consortiumnews.com: “Yet the authors – and the New York Times – failed to tell readers the full story about these supposed skeptics: far from grizzled peaceniks, O’Hanlon and Pollack have been longtime cheerleaders for a larger U.S. military occupying force in Iraq. Indeed, Pollack, a former CIA analyst, was a leading advocate for invading Iraq in the first place. He published The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq in September 2002, just as the Bush administration was gearing up its marketing push for going to war.” And further: “Along those lines in early 2007, O’Hanlon emerged as a defender of Bush’s plan to send more than 20,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq. On Jan. 14, he published a Washington Post op-ed entitled, “A Skeptic's Case For the Surge.” O’Hanlon’s chief pro-surge argument was to hoist Iraq War opponents on their own petard – their supposed complaint that Bush’s failure was in not sending enough troops and not giving the military the necessary tools.” There is also nothing extraordinary about reading this in the New York Times. I remember, before the invasion, when the New York Times was running front page "exclusives" about Saddam's vast arsenal of WMDs. That information was spoon fed to the New York Times by the Bush administration.

NCCT's Media Release of 20 December 2011
... in harmony, inter-marrying ... and ask the Iraqi citizens ... their people during the US ... Taking Vows: Soldiers stood ... shirts and ... Arizona: Why an Iraqi Woman Fell Victim to Honor Killing (Time.com)
... seeing the two women there ... rooted in an Iraqi community ... comprised Shi'ite soldiers ... took her to Iraq, marrying her ... burned ...