[aldo_14]

I think the removal of Saddam Hussein could have been a compelling reason for war - were it not for the international consequences of launching a US war in an Arab country at that time (even if removing a dictator like Saddam was/is a decent motive, it was and is the wrong time).  I don't think the American people would have accepted such a division of effort from the 'War on Terror', either.

So the US (in particular, but the UK also didn't do much to disagree) invented a false imminent threat from Iraq in order to justify the war as self defense.  but no-one bought it, and they ended up painted into a corner when UNMOVIC found nothing in inspections, and the US had a load of troops sitting around in the desert who could only stay for so long.

[Turnsky]

Originally posted by an0n
The thing with America is that, since the Twin Towers got rocket-plane'd, they've had this "You're un-American" crap crammed into their throat holes.

Basically, because they're all *****es, every last one of them, they all yielded to the onslaught of the "If you criticize, you're an unpatriotic, treasonous, beard-loving, Arab bastard!" brainwashing.

It's sad to see, but when 90% of the population is rednecks, drug dealers, NRA psychos and trailer-park trash you've got to expect this kind of ****.

you forgot the evengelical crowd, an0n.

now, patriotism is all good and fine, but when you get people, who are patriotic to their country's values/morals and rams it down another's throat, it can get pretty ****ing tiresome.

and this goes both ways, i might add.  hence why there's so much unrest right now in iraq.. the people lashing out at the US are so-called "patriots"

now, i heard a /really/ good quote from sudeki, and i believe it applies in a fashon..

"without religion or science, a soldier wouldn't earn his pay"

[an0n]

No, because he'd be dead.

[magatsu1]

anyone see the F16 reports yesterday ? firing on a crowd of people ?

[an0n]

*shock*

At least it never bombed a Red Cross building.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Night Hammer
But not as publicy or as loudly as the good ol' Dems:p

Ric, I spose I do support them, due to family ties and the fact that I think things should done in the world. No I dont think we should maintain a peacekeeping force or set up new countries but I think dictators and terrorists should be gotten rid of. Since we are the only country that seems to use force everyone criticizes us. The UN's solutions dont work, economic sanctioning doesnt really do much. It affects the innocent people yall whine n ***** about us affecting, not the leaders, not the people who make the decisions. Iraq had it for about 13/14 years didnt seem to bug them, **** Cuba has been under them since the 60's theyre doin fine(Im Cuban, have family there). Force is the only thing morons like Sadamm and Qadaffi respond to. So the military does their job only to be criticized by a bunch of *****es who wont do anything to help themselves or anyone else.

and you may not be a democrat but you seem liberal as hell

I'm not buying the "we did it to help the Iraqis" excuse, not from you and particularly not from Bush and his band of sociopaths. Why?

There are more people in America that are living under the poverty line (uhm, about 31 million is the number I read) than there are people in Iraq *total* (26 miliion). If you're so keen on helping people, help your own countrymen first. If all Bush wants to do is love everyone and make them happy and all that BS, he's got a good 30 million people right under his nose, waiting for a helping hand that they have been denied since birth. It stands to reason that before you go all the way over to Iraq in order to liberate the poor hudled masses, you would maybe want to look into helping people in your own backyard. And since Bush has and is working for the interests of the elite since day one, that excuse for war is not really a valid one.

Also, and I hope you don't take it personally, you being a Cuban exile kind of explain your political beliefs. The Miami cuban exile community is notoriously right-wing (and among the most militant groups in the US).

Originally posted by aldo_14


I blame the politicians, not the troops.  It's the job of the army to defend their country, but not to identify the threat... at the end of day they have no choice but to obey the politicians, because if they didn't, then they wouldn't be much of a defense.

Oh come on. Since when does being a soldier entail abdication of all thought. It is not only possible, but necessary, that soldiers be more than just mindless drones. This wouldn't at all lessen the effectiveness of the military, since it is the reason *why* they fight as opposed to *how* they fight. If the war is one where having an ignorant and indoctrinated military is necessary to fight it, its probably not legitimate in the first place and should not be fought.

Rest assured, standing army of no, if America were to be invaded, you would very quickly have a massive resistance with no help from the politicians. If an army is purely defensive, and it should be, than it does not need politicians to identify threats, it is very obvious when defence of your country is needed.

You can have all sorts of extenuiating circumstances (god, I feel like a lawyer), such as the fact that the army generally recruits from the poorer classes, that most people are heavily misinformed as to what the army is, that Hollywood has been on a systematic campaign of propaganda for many decades now, and those are all true, but in the end these are grown men and women we are talking about, no younger than myself. They have access to all the same sources information as I do, and so they are responsible for their own beliefs.

[Turnsky]

Originally posted by an0n
*shock*

At least it never bombed a Red Cross building.

an0n has a point,  i mean, it's no suprise at all.

if it fired on an hospital, or something equally important.. then, it'd be something of a shock.

[Rictor]

ah, but people are fine?
...or for example the Palestine hotel, where all the journalists are staying. Yeah, seems like a fair target to me, after all, the only good journalist is an embedded journalist.

[an0n]

People die everyday due to trigger-happy Americans. Come back when they shoot someone important.

[Turnsky]

Originally posted by Rictor
ah, but people are fine?
...or for example the Palestine hotel, where all the journalists are staying. Yeah, seems like a fair target to me, after all, the only good journalist is an embedded journalist.

i never said it was good or bad.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Rictor

Oh come on. Since when does being a soldier entail abdication of all thought. It is not only possible, but necessary, that soldiers be more than just mindless drones. This wouldn't at all lessen the effectiveness of the military, since it is the reason *why* they fight as opposed to *how* they fight. If the war is one where having an ignorant and indoctrinated military is necessary to fight it, its probably not legitimate in the first place and should not be fought.

Rest assured, standing army of no, if America were to be invaded, you would very quickly have a massive resistance with no help from the politicians. If an army is purely defensive, and it should be, than it does not need politicians to identify threats, it is very obvious when defence of your country is needed.

You can have all sorts of extenuiating circumstances (god, I feel like a lawyer), such as the fact that the army generally recruits from the poorer classes, that most people are heavily misinformed as to what the army is, that Hollywood has been on a systematic campaign of propaganda for many decades now, and those are all true, but in the end these are grown men and women we are talking about, no younger than myself. They have access to all the same sources information as I do, and so they are responsible for their own beliefs.

What would you like the military to have done, then?  Mutiny?

[Deepblue]

Whoa.... talk about thread mutation... I wholeheartedly agree with eagleclaw. Your position on the war is a different matter entirely and is OT.

[Rictor]

Well, I would like them to be informed individuals, who do require a valid reason in order to go out and kill other people. Is that too much to ask? If we're talking short term, I dunno, conciencous objector seems good.

The same applies equally to any other job. Moral issues ought to determine whether you do your job or refuse, on ethical grounds. Seems far-fetched, but I don't see why its impossible.

[Deepblue]

Thats not how the military works...

[redmenace]

Don't take this the wrong way but...
considering that the oil fields in the mideast are drying up and Iraq is the last large reserve in the world, I am happy Saddam is gone. Not that I am saying we are going to steal it or that I think the war was about oil but, eventually the oil embargo would have to been lifted and saddam having access to such a huge source of cash is frightening at best.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Deepblue
Whoa.... talk about thread mutation... I wholeheartedly agree with eagleclaw. Your position on the war is a different matter entirely and is OT.

How is the war a seperate matter from the people who fight it?
This is my whole point. Blind, unconditional support for any person or institution is almost always a recipe for disaster.

Originally posted by Deepblue
Thats not how the military works...

yes, I realize, but why. Tell me what that is not the way it *should* work? The fact that something is as it is does not mean that is the best way.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Rictor
Well, I would like them to be informed individuals, who do require a valid reason in order to go out and kill other people. Is that too much to ask? If we're talking short term, I dunno, conciencous objector seems good.

The same applies equally to any other job. Moral issues ought to determine whether you do your job or refuse, on ethical groups. Seems far-fetched, but I don't see why its impossible.

That's not the job of an army, though.  The job of conscience, reason, etc is performed - or should be - by the elected government.   If you allowed the army to decide who, when and where to fight, you'd be dropping into the region of a junta.  

If you allowed individual to make the same decision, you'd have a military whose capacity for both attack and defense was completely unknown.  You could not be able to make any plans, because you don't know who will fight and when.

The military is the tool of the government.  It is the government who makes the decision to use that tool, and it is they who hold responsibility.  If the army becomes more than a simple tool, it becomes a danger to democracy itself.

[Clave]

Blind, unconditional, obediance, is the only effective way to make a military force work.  You may have individuals with opinions, but they are the ones in charge.  The average grunt MUST obey instantly or the fighting force becomes a mere armed rabble...

[Turnsky]

Originally posted by Clave
Blind, unconditional, obediance, is the only effective way to make a military force work.  You may have individuals with opinions, but they are the ones in charge.  The average grunt MUST obey instantly or the fighting force becomes a mere armed rabble...

commonly referred as "chain of command"

[Kosh]

But not as publicy or as loudly as the good ol' Dems

Untrue.