|
On October 02 2012 08:24 LuckyCharms45 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 06:59 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 05:02 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 01 2012 06:17 Cillas wrote:
kmillz, check that : "your troops"
that aint our soldiers, so why should I CARE for american troops.
Those wars are over american interests and every war also aims at civilian population. Cruelty whatever what has to be published. Should i care for murderers just because they are from the glorious usa? This is the mother of all double standards. So what you are expressing is essentially, "I should care about the possibly innocent people who have been torturer but the possibly innocent people who knew anything about the torturing who still serve in the United States Military are not worth anything to me." It makes me sick that the United States may have been issuing torture, but generalizing and demonizing the men and women who are trying to serve their country as well as placing them in jeopardy will only sew the seeds for further violence. That is not to say that we should not punish those who commit atrocities under the cover of warfare, but rather to be conscious that others may be effected by what we make public. In essence all I ask for is careful consideration before any action. Another point I hope to draw attention to is how easy it is for those who do not serve their country to speculate on the men and women who do. When you enter the military, the company you find yourself with are the people you are trusting to keep you alive. I personally have never served my country but I most certainly can appreciate the bond that brothers and sisters in arms share and I can accept if they have difficulty breaking those bonds and accusing a brother/sister of crimes. Rather: should I care more about the American troops than the terrorists? Why? At this point I don't even care any more. They're both mass murderers and condemned by the UN. The only difference at this point is that you get tortured and imprisoned without trial if you say that about the Americans while the terrorists are proud. Both makes me sick to my stomach. *Sigh* Again with the generalizations. You make it sound like every soldier lives only to kill and has no emotion or regret for what they've done. And as far as who you should care about, you should care about any innocent person who is caught in the crossfire, be it soldier, citizen, or wrongly accused terrorist. Why? Because they are a human being. I'm not particularly spiritual but there is nothing more important then preserving innocent life.
It is a disturbing generalization, I had a friend who was a pacifistic, but still wanted to serve his country and do what he can to help (which is why he joined the Signals Intelligence side, where we deal more with saving lives than killing).
|
On October 02 2012 08:24 LuckyCharms45 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 06:59 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 05:02 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 01 2012 06:17 Cillas wrote:
kmillz, check that : "your troops"
that aint our soldiers, so why should I CARE for american troops.
Those wars are over american interests and every war also aims at civilian population. Cruelty whatever what has to be published. Should i care for murderers just because they are from the glorious usa? This is the mother of all double standards. So what you are expressing is essentially, "I should care about the possibly innocent people who have been torturer but the possibly innocent people who knew anything about the torturing who still serve in the United States Military are not worth anything to me." It makes me sick that the United States may have been issuing torture, but generalizing and demonizing the men and women who are trying to serve their country as well as placing them in jeopardy will only sew the seeds for further violence. That is not to say that we should not punish those who commit atrocities under the cover of warfare, but rather to be conscious that others may be effected by what we make public. In essence all I ask for is careful consideration before any action. Another point I hope to draw attention to is how easy it is for those who do not serve their country to speculate on the men and women who do. When you enter the military, the company you find yourself with are the people you are trusting to keep you alive. I personally have never served my country but I most certainly can appreciate the bond that brothers and sisters in arms share and I can accept if they have difficulty breaking those bonds and accusing a brother/sister of crimes. Rather: should I care more about the American troops than the terrorists? Why? At this point I don't even care any more. They're both mass murderers and condemned by the UN. The only difference at this point is that you get tortured and imprisoned without trial if you say that about the Americans while the terrorists are proud. Both makes me sick to my stomach. *Sigh* Again with the generalizations. You make it sound like every soldier lives only to kill and has no emotion or regret for what they've done. And as far as who you should care about, you should care about any innocent person who is caught in the crossfire, be it soldier, citizen, or wrongly accused terrorist. Why? Because they are a human being. I'm not particularly spiritual but there is nothing more important then preserving innocent life.
Oh but why exactly are people caught in a crossfire? Oh right...
On October 02 2012 08:40 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 08:24 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 02 2012 06:59 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 05:02 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 01 2012 06:17 Cillas wrote:
kmillz, check that : "your troops"
that aint our soldiers, so why should I CARE for american troops.
Those wars are over american interests and every war also aims at civilian population. Cruelty whatever what has to be published. Should i care for murderers just because they are from the glorious usa? This is the mother of all double standards. So what you are expressing is essentially, "I should care about the possibly innocent people who have been torturer but the possibly innocent people who knew anything about the torturing who still serve in the United States Military are not worth anything to me." It makes me sick that the United States may have been issuing torture, but generalizing and demonizing the men and women who are trying to serve their country as well as placing them in jeopardy will only sew the seeds for further violence. That is not to say that we should not punish those who commit atrocities under the cover of warfare, but rather to be conscious that others may be effected by what we make public. In essence all I ask for is careful consideration before any action. Another point I hope to draw attention to is how easy it is for those who do not serve their country to speculate on the men and women who do. When you enter the military, the company you find yourself with are the people you are trusting to keep you alive. I personally have never served my country but I most certainly can appreciate the bond that brothers and sisters in arms share and I can accept if they have difficulty breaking those bonds and accusing a brother/sister of crimes. Rather: should I care more about the American troops than the terrorists? Why? At this point I don't even care any more. They're both mass murderers and condemned by the UN. The only difference at this point is that you get tortured and imprisoned without trial if you say that about the Americans while the terrorists are proud. Both makes me sick to my stomach. *Sigh* Again with the generalizations. You make it sound like every soldier lives only to kill and has no emotion or regret for what they've done. And as far as who you should care about, you should care about any innocent person who is caught in the crossfire, be it soldier, citizen, or wrongly accused terrorist. Why? Because they are a human being. I'm not particularly spiritual but there is nothing more important then preserving innocent life. It is a disturbing generalization, I had a friend who was a pacifistic, but still wanted to serve his country and do what he can to help (which is why he joined the Signals Intelligence side, where we deal more with saving lives than killing).
In what way is participating in war serving ones country, unless you're actually being attacked? If the Iraq war was really about bringing peace and democracy to Iraq (lol), the soldiers are effectively undermining the US, as they're basically on unimaginably expensive welfare, with state paid equipment and salaries.
These people could've helped export and cultivated a growing economy instead of being a burden on the tax payers. Your taxes goes straight into funding an army that commits war crimes and regularly tortures people.
How about focusing on education and health care instead?
|
On October 02 2012 10:07 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 08:24 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 02 2012 06:59 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 05:02 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 01 2012 06:17 Cillas wrote:
kmillz, check that : "your troops"
that aint our soldiers, so why should I CARE for american troops.
Those wars are over american interests and every war also aims at civilian population. Cruelty whatever what has to be published. Should i care for murderers just because they are from the glorious usa? This is the mother of all double standards. So what you are expressing is essentially, "I should care about the possibly innocent people who have been torturer but the possibly innocent people who knew anything about the torturing who still serve in the United States Military are not worth anything to me." It makes me sick that the United States may have been issuing torture, but generalizing and demonizing the men and women who are trying to serve their country as well as placing them in jeopardy will only sew the seeds for further violence. That is not to say that we should not punish those who commit atrocities under the cover of warfare, but rather to be conscious that others may be effected by what we make public. In essence all I ask for is careful consideration before any action. Another point I hope to draw attention to is how easy it is for those who do not serve their country to speculate on the men and women who do. When you enter the military, the company you find yourself with are the people you are trusting to keep you alive. I personally have never served my country but I most certainly can appreciate the bond that brothers and sisters in arms share and I can accept if they have difficulty breaking those bonds and accusing a brother/sister of crimes. Rather: should I care more about the American troops than the terrorists? Why? At this point I don't even care any more. They're both mass murderers and condemned by the UN. The only difference at this point is that you get tortured and imprisoned without trial if you say that about the Americans while the terrorists are proud. Both makes me sick to my stomach. *Sigh* Again with the generalizations. You make it sound like every soldier lives only to kill and has no emotion or regret for what they've done. And as far as who you should care about, you should care about any innocent person who is caught in the crossfire, be it soldier, citizen, or wrongly accused terrorist. Why? Because they are a human being. I'm not particularly spiritual but there is nothing more important then preserving innocent life. Oh but why exactly are people caught in a crossfire? Oh right... Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 08:40 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 08:24 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 02 2012 06:59 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 05:02 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 01 2012 06:17 Cillas wrote:
kmillz, check that : "your troops"
that aint our soldiers, so why should I CARE for american troops.
Those wars are over american interests and every war also aims at civilian population. Cruelty whatever what has to be published. Should i care for murderers just because they are from the glorious usa? This is the mother of all double standards. So what you are expressing is essentially, "I should care about the possibly innocent people who have been torturer but the possibly innocent people who knew anything about the torturing who still serve in the United States Military are not worth anything to me." It makes me sick that the United States may have been issuing torture, but generalizing and demonizing the men and women who are trying to serve their country as well as placing them in jeopardy will only sew the seeds for further violence. That is not to say that we should not punish those who commit atrocities under the cover of warfare, but rather to be conscious that others may be effected by what we make public. In essence all I ask for is careful consideration before any action. Another point I hope to draw attention to is how easy it is for those who do not serve their country to speculate on the men and women who do. When you enter the military, the company you find yourself with are the people you are trusting to keep you alive. I personally have never served my country but I most certainly can appreciate the bond that brothers and sisters in arms share and I can accept if they have difficulty breaking those bonds and accusing a brother/sister of crimes. Rather: should I care more about the American troops than the terrorists? Why? At this point I don't even care any more. They're both mass murderers and condemned by the UN. The only difference at this point is that you get tortured and imprisoned without trial if you say that about the Americans while the terrorists are proud. Both makes me sick to my stomach. *Sigh* Again with the generalizations. You make it sound like every soldier lives only to kill and has no emotion or regret for what they've done. And as far as who you should care about, you should care about any innocent person who is caught in the crossfire, be it soldier, citizen, or wrongly accused terrorist. Why? Because they are a human being. I'm not particularly spiritual but there is nothing more important then preserving innocent life. It is a disturbing generalization, I had a friend who was a pacifistic, but still wanted to serve his country and do what he can to help (which is why he joined the Signals Intelligence side, where we deal more with saving lives than killing). In what way is participating in war serving ones country, unless you're actually being attacked? If the Iraq war was really about bringing peace and democracy to Iraq (lol), the soldiers are effectively undermining the US, as they're basically on unimaginably expensive welfare, with state paid equipment and salaries. These people could've helped export and cultivated a growing economy instead of being a burden on the tax payers. Your taxes goes straight into funding an army that commits war crimes and regularly tortures people. How about focusing on education and health care instead?
Forget about 9/11 already? What do education and health care have to do with compromising national security?
|
On October 02 2012 03:11 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 03:04 Caihead wrote:On October 02 2012 02:53 kmillz wrote:On October 01 2012 20:23 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 01 2012 16:40 kmillz wrote:On October 01 2012 11:18 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On October 01 2012 09:30 kmillz wrote:On October 01 2012 08:58 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 01 2012 08:53 kmillz wrote:On October 01 2012 08:36 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
[quote]
Good reason to commit war crimes and kill civilians. ^^ Not to say you're wrong but in todays day and age commiting war crimes is pretty easy to avoid, America seems to be the main country aiming to not try and commit them. On the killing civilians? That is obviously a loss that will occur but it doesn't take much to realize the "eagle eye" gross miscalculations causing deaths that just shouldn't happen (watch movie if you don't understand what I mean, it's in the first 10-20 minutes) I'm not saying the war crimes and killing of civilians are right, but it happens, and when we get put on blast by wikileaks it damages the U.S. military as a whole, including every person who doesn't commit war crimes. The soldiers and Marines who follow procedure have to pay the price for the small few who commit atrocities and it disgusts me that people actually think Bradley Manning is a hero. So you think the soldiers and marines would rather have the atrocities hidden? You think it's better to keep the truth concealed? What kind of backwards logic is this, I know people in the armed forces and I have a pretty good gauge of their morale compass and I doubt they'd go "Well if we keep it hidden, our backs are clean". How is anything you just said ok? The US military should be blasted for the abuses, it should be hurt for its actions. Action > consequence. I have no idea what youi're trying to justify, at first you made a valid point, people do bad shit but if your argument against wikileaks is that they try and tell the world the shit that's bad then you're suffering a severe case of fucked morale compass. I was in the Marine Corps, and yes I think we would rather have the atrocities hidden so we don't get killed over them. It is fucking war it is not a game and people do bad shit in wars, people get killed and when someone fucks up we all pay for it. I think those who commit the crimes should be handled accordingly and punished to the max as per UCMJ, but I do not think it justifies putting everyone at risk. Public accountability man, if you can't handle what an organization you are part of does then don't be a part of it. Hiding shit is never good. Second of all, on something else you said. Freedom of press and some other legal precedent means a reporter who leaks classified documents cannot get in trouble for it. Only the person who was privileged can get in trouble for leaking the info, the reporter doesn't get in trouble for publishing or writing any of it. I think that was established sometime around when deepthroat was leaking all the watergate stuff.
He said the incident that had affected him the most was when 15 detainees had been arrested by the Iraqi Federal Police for printing anti-Iraqi literature. He was asked by the army to find out who the "bad guys" were, and discovered that the detainees had followed what Manning said was a corruption trail within the Iraqi cabinet. He reported this to his commanding officer, but said "he didn't want to hear any of it"; he said the officer told him to help the Iraqi police find more detainees. Manning said it made him realize, "i was actively involved in something that i was completely against ..." He explained that "i cant separate myself from others ... i feel connected to everybody ... like they were distant family," and cited Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, and Elie Wiesel. He said he hoped the material would lead to "hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms. if not ... than [sic] we're doomed as a species." He said he had downloaded the material onto music CD-RWs, erased the music and replaced it with a compressed split file. Part of the reason no-one noticed, he said, was that staff were working 14 hours a day, seven days a week, and "people stopped caring after 3 weeks."
I'd have to agree with him 100%. Evil prevails when good men do nothing. I joined the USMC in 2008, long before any of these atrocities took place. I never went to Iraq or Afghanistan and I never had anything to do with anything that resulted in the death of anybody, but I do know many fellow Marines, soldiers, sailors, and airmen who have been to combat. I have good friends with Combat Action Ribbons (CAR) and Purple Hearts, and I am confident they would agree that these leaks are WRONG. They jeapordize everything we work hard for and protect to keep safe. I worked in the signals intelligence field, same as Bradley Manning. I was an Arabic Cryptologic Linguist and I would NEVER compromise the Top Secret data I have been entrusted with no matter what happened to me so so fuck off if you think I am holding back anything from the press. I withhold information that would be invaluable not only to international press but our exact ENEMY who is trying to destroy us. If I am wrong for being silent, so be it, but I do it with the firm belief that it protects my brothers and sisters in arms. Your "brothers & sisters" in arms deserve to know first and then the rest of us so they can march back to their homes. Serving a nation that willingly tortures is barbaric to begin with. The fact you think anything like this is "better" secret is crazy to me, and as I said before name a single attack/event since 2010 that was the direct cause of this? All of the sensitive data was redacted that would lead to any backlash. I think you're missing the point of the quote "Evil prevails when good men do nothing". If your behind the Middle Eastern conquest and you're allowing such things, you allow the atrocities to reoccur, it is your (and whoever else is in your shoes) fault for not standing up. That's such a warped mentality. Yes, you are right. It was wrong of me to serve my country. Sorry. What do you mean by "serving your country" there exactly, are you talking about serving your government's interests? Serving the interests of the American people? Or acting on behalf of a vague nationalist idea? Surely serving your country means representing and listening to the views of American citizens, and American citizens among rational people would rather their military not hide its war crimes and murder of civilians regardless of whether or not it's collateral damage. The journalists and intelligent services men who exposed Watergate, the pentagon papers, and operation northwood have been proclaimed as heroes standing for the public's right to know the actions of its own governing body whom claims to represent them, and for truth, justice and the American way, quite literally. America heralded itself as the front runner in civil liberties and transparent government actions as the world's biggest super power. Surely serving your country also means abiding by moral ruling ideology that your country prides itself on? How about joining the military in a time of war in a time of war? I didn't realize you had to explain what you mean when you say you serve your country these days.
You never really effectively addressed Calihead's argument. Just because you "serve your country" doesn't mean you're doing a good thing. Its true that just because some bad things happen in a war, that shouldn't imply that soldiers always do bad things. Because you do have to look at the broader picture...but this is precisely what we're asking you to do and you don't seem to be willing to do when looking at the reasons your government is sending soldiers overseas.
There are soldiers in Syria who are "serving their country" right now, there were soldiers in Libya who also served their country. Obviously Nazi germany is another example. You could say that those aren't examples because their government is no longer legitimate...but firstly that's all relative - those soldiers would probably justify their actions in a similar way that you do - more or less a thoughtless "I'm supporting my country, that's all that matters, and I won't feel sorry for doing it".
More broadly though, there are many other subtler cases where just because you serve your country doesn't mean you're doing good...you have to think and take personal responsibility, and have a personal moral stance on *what it is that you are doing*, because you could be doing something profoundly wrong that not only hurts/kills innocents but also puts people back at home at greater risk.
Afghanistan and Iraq can probably be argued to be positive in the long run. But it kind of is important that you recognize the point that Calihead was making. I get the feeling that you do...as it is more or less a form of common sense. But still just in case I wanted to say it  .
|
On October 02 2012 10:21 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 10:07 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 08:24 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 02 2012 06:59 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 05:02 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 01 2012 06:17 Cillas wrote:
kmillz, check that : "your troops"
that aint our soldiers, so why should I CARE for american troops.
Those wars are over american interests and every war also aims at civilian population. Cruelty whatever what has to be published. Should i care for murderers just because they are from the glorious usa? This is the mother of all double standards. So what you are expressing is essentially, "I should care about the possibly innocent people who have been torturer but the possibly innocent people who knew anything about the torturing who still serve in the United States Military are not worth anything to me." It makes me sick that the United States may have been issuing torture, but generalizing and demonizing the men and women who are trying to serve their country as well as placing them in jeopardy will only sew the seeds for further violence. That is not to say that we should not punish those who commit atrocities under the cover of warfare, but rather to be conscious that others may be effected by what we make public. In essence all I ask for is careful consideration before any action. Another point I hope to draw attention to is how easy it is for those who do not serve their country to speculate on the men and women who do. When you enter the military, the company you find yourself with are the people you are trusting to keep you alive. I personally have never served my country but I most certainly can appreciate the bond that brothers and sisters in arms share and I can accept if they have difficulty breaking those bonds and accusing a brother/sister of crimes. Rather: should I care more about the American troops than the terrorists? Why? At this point I don't even care any more. They're both mass murderers and condemned by the UN. The only difference at this point is that you get tortured and imprisoned without trial if you say that about the Americans while the terrorists are proud. Both makes me sick to my stomach. *Sigh* Again with the generalizations. You make it sound like every soldier lives only to kill and has no emotion or regret for what they've done. And as far as who you should care about, you should care about any innocent person who is caught in the crossfire, be it soldier, citizen, or wrongly accused terrorist. Why? Because they are a human being. I'm not particularly spiritual but there is nothing more important then preserving innocent life. Oh but why exactly are people caught in a crossfire? Oh right... On October 02 2012 08:40 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 08:24 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 02 2012 06:59 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 05:02 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 01 2012 06:17 Cillas wrote:
kmillz, check that : "your troops"
that aint our soldiers, so why should I CARE for american troops.
Those wars are over american interests and every war also aims at civilian population. Cruelty whatever what has to be published. Should i care for murderers just because they are from the glorious usa? This is the mother of all double standards. So what you are expressing is essentially, "I should care about the possibly innocent people who have been torturer but the possibly innocent people who knew anything about the torturing who still serve in the United States Military are not worth anything to me." It makes me sick that the United States may have been issuing torture, but generalizing and demonizing the men and women who are trying to serve their country as well as placing them in jeopardy will only sew the seeds for further violence. That is not to say that we should not punish those who commit atrocities under the cover of warfare, but rather to be conscious that others may be effected by what we make public. In essence all I ask for is careful consideration before any action. Another point I hope to draw attention to is how easy it is for those who do not serve their country to speculate on the men and women who do. When you enter the military, the company you find yourself with are the people you are trusting to keep you alive. I personally have never served my country but I most certainly can appreciate the bond that brothers and sisters in arms share and I can accept if they have difficulty breaking those bonds and accusing a brother/sister of crimes. Rather: should I care more about the American troops than the terrorists? Why? At this point I don't even care any more. They're both mass murderers and condemned by the UN. The only difference at this point is that you get tortured and imprisoned without trial if you say that about the Americans while the terrorists are proud. Both makes me sick to my stomach. *Sigh* Again with the generalizations. You make it sound like every soldier lives only to kill and has no emotion or regret for what they've done. And as far as who you should care about, you should care about any innocent person who is caught in the crossfire, be it soldier, citizen, or wrongly accused terrorist. Why? Because they are a human being. I'm not particularly spiritual but there is nothing more important then preserving innocent life. It is a disturbing generalization, I had a friend who was a pacifistic, but still wanted to serve his country and do what he can to help (which is why he joined the Signals Intelligence side, where we deal more with saving lives than killing). In what way is participating in war serving ones country, unless you're actually being attacked? If the Iraq war was really about bringing peace and democracy to Iraq (lol), the soldiers are effectively undermining the US, as they're basically on unimaginably expensive welfare, with state paid equipment and salaries. These people could've helped export and cultivated a growing economy instead of being a burden on the tax payers. Your taxes goes straight into funding an army that commits war crimes and regularly tortures people. How about focusing on education and health care instead? Forget about 9/11 already? What do education and health care have to do with compromising national security?
See, this is where my argument that tax money should go to education comes in. What does Iraq have to do with 9/11?
|
On October 02 2012 10:34 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 10:21 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 10:07 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 08:24 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 02 2012 06:59 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 05:02 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 01 2012 06:17 Cillas wrote:
kmillz, check that : "your troops"
that aint our soldiers, so why should I CARE for american troops.
Those wars are over american interests and every war also aims at civilian population. Cruelty whatever what has to be published. Should i care for murderers just because they are from the glorious usa? This is the mother of all double standards. So what you are expressing is essentially, "I should care about the possibly innocent people who have been torturer but the possibly innocent people who knew anything about the torturing who still serve in the United States Military are not worth anything to me." It makes me sick that the United States may have been issuing torture, but generalizing and demonizing the men and women who are trying to serve their country as well as placing them in jeopardy will only sew the seeds for further violence. That is not to say that we should not punish those who commit atrocities under the cover of warfare, but rather to be conscious that others may be effected by what we make public. In essence all I ask for is careful consideration before any action. Another point I hope to draw attention to is how easy it is for those who do not serve their country to speculate on the men and women who do. When you enter the military, the company you find yourself with are the people you are trusting to keep you alive. I personally have never served my country but I most certainly can appreciate the bond that brothers and sisters in arms share and I can accept if they have difficulty breaking those bonds and accusing a brother/sister of crimes. Rather: should I care more about the American troops than the terrorists? Why? At this point I don't even care any more. They're both mass murderers and condemned by the UN. The only difference at this point is that you get tortured and imprisoned without trial if you say that about the Americans while the terrorists are proud. Both makes me sick to my stomach. *Sigh* Again with the generalizations. You make it sound like every soldier lives only to kill and has no emotion or regret for what they've done. And as far as who you should care about, you should care about any innocent person who is caught in the crossfire, be it soldier, citizen, or wrongly accused terrorist. Why? Because they are a human being. I'm not particularly spiritual but there is nothing more important then preserving innocent life. Oh but why exactly are people caught in a crossfire? Oh right... On October 02 2012 08:40 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 08:24 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 02 2012 06:59 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 05:02 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 01 2012 06:17 Cillas wrote:
kmillz, check that : "your troops"
that aint our soldiers, so why should I CARE for american troops.
Those wars are over american interests and every war also aims at civilian population. Cruelty whatever what has to be published. Should i care for murderers just because they are from the glorious usa? This is the mother of all double standards. So what you are expressing is essentially, "I should care about the possibly innocent people who have been torturer but the possibly innocent people who knew anything about the torturing who still serve in the United States Military are not worth anything to me." It makes me sick that the United States may have been issuing torture, but generalizing and demonizing the men and women who are trying to serve their country as well as placing them in jeopardy will only sew the seeds for further violence. That is not to say that we should not punish those who commit atrocities under the cover of warfare, but rather to be conscious that others may be effected by what we make public. In essence all I ask for is careful consideration before any action. Another point I hope to draw attention to is how easy it is for those who do not serve their country to speculate on the men and women who do. When you enter the military, the company you find yourself with are the people you are trusting to keep you alive. I personally have never served my country but I most certainly can appreciate the bond that brothers and sisters in arms share and I can accept if they have difficulty breaking those bonds and accusing a brother/sister of crimes. Rather: should I care more about the American troops than the terrorists? Why? At this point I don't even care any more. They're both mass murderers and condemned by the UN. The only difference at this point is that you get tortured and imprisoned without trial if you say that about the Americans while the terrorists are proud. Both makes me sick to my stomach. *Sigh* Again with the generalizations. You make it sound like every soldier lives only to kill and has no emotion or regret for what they've done. And as far as who you should care about, you should care about any innocent person who is caught in the crossfire, be it soldier, citizen, or wrongly accused terrorist. Why? Because they are a human being. I'm not particularly spiritual but there is nothing more important then preserving innocent life. It is a disturbing generalization, I had a friend who was a pacifistic, but still wanted to serve his country and do what he can to help (which is why he joined the Signals Intelligence side, where we deal more with saving lives than killing). In what way is participating in war serving ones country, unless you're actually being attacked? If the Iraq war was really about bringing peace and democracy to Iraq (lol), the soldiers are effectively undermining the US, as they're basically on unimaginably expensive welfare, with state paid equipment and salaries. These people could've helped export and cultivated a growing economy instead of being a burden on the tax payers. Your taxes goes straight into funding an army that commits war crimes and regularly tortures people. How about focusing on education and health care instead? Forget about 9/11 already? What do education and health care have to do with compromising national security? See, this is where my argument that tax money should go to education comes in. What does Iraq have to do with 9/11?
unless you're actually being attacked?
We were attacked, we responded.
|
United States7483 Posts
On October 02 2012 10:41 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 10:34 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 10:21 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 10:07 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 08:24 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 02 2012 06:59 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 05:02 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 01 2012 06:17 Cillas wrote:
kmillz, check that : "your troops"
that aint our soldiers, so why should I CARE for american troops.
Those wars are over american interests and every war also aims at civilian population. Cruelty whatever what has to be published. Should i care for murderers just because they are from the glorious usa? This is the mother of all double standards. So what you are expressing is essentially, "I should care about the possibly innocent people who have been torturer but the possibly innocent people who knew anything about the torturing who still serve in the United States Military are not worth anything to me." It makes me sick that the United States may have been issuing torture, but generalizing and demonizing the men and women who are trying to serve their country as well as placing them in jeopardy will only sew the seeds for further violence. That is not to say that we should not punish those who commit atrocities under the cover of warfare, but rather to be conscious that others may be effected by what we make public. In essence all I ask for is careful consideration before any action. Another point I hope to draw attention to is how easy it is for those who do not serve their country to speculate on the men and women who do. When you enter the military, the company you find yourself with are the people you are trusting to keep you alive. I personally have never served my country but I most certainly can appreciate the bond that brothers and sisters in arms share and I can accept if they have difficulty breaking those bonds and accusing a brother/sister of crimes. Rather: should I care more about the American troops than the terrorists? Why? At this point I don't even care any more. They're both mass murderers and condemned by the UN. The only difference at this point is that you get tortured and imprisoned without trial if you say that about the Americans while the terrorists are proud. Both makes me sick to my stomach. *Sigh* Again with the generalizations. You make it sound like every soldier lives only to kill and has no emotion or regret for what they've done. And as far as who you should care about, you should care about any innocent person who is caught in the crossfire, be it soldier, citizen, or wrongly accused terrorist. Why? Because they are a human being. I'm not particularly spiritual but there is nothing more important then preserving innocent life. Oh but why exactly are people caught in a crossfire? Oh right... On October 02 2012 08:40 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 08:24 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 02 2012 06:59 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 05:02 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 01 2012 06:17 Cillas wrote:
kmillz, check that : "your troops"
that aint our soldiers, so why should I CARE for american troops.
Those wars are over american interests and every war also aims at civilian population. Cruelty whatever what has to be published. Should i care for murderers just because they are from the glorious usa? This is the mother of all double standards. So what you are expressing is essentially, "I should care about the possibly innocent people who have been torturer but the possibly innocent people who knew anything about the torturing who still serve in the United States Military are not worth anything to me." It makes me sick that the United States may have been issuing torture, but generalizing and demonizing the men and women who are trying to serve their country as well as placing them in jeopardy will only sew the seeds for further violence. That is not to say that we should not punish those who commit atrocities under the cover of warfare, but rather to be conscious that others may be effected by what we make public. In essence all I ask for is careful consideration before any action. Another point I hope to draw attention to is how easy it is for those who do not serve their country to speculate on the men and women who do. When you enter the military, the company you find yourself with are the people you are trusting to keep you alive. I personally have never served my country but I most certainly can appreciate the bond that brothers and sisters in arms share and I can accept if they have difficulty breaking those bonds and accusing a brother/sister of crimes. Rather: should I care more about the American troops than the terrorists? Why? At this point I don't even care any more. They're both mass murderers and condemned by the UN. The only difference at this point is that you get tortured and imprisoned without trial if you say that about the Americans while the terrorists are proud. Both makes me sick to my stomach. *Sigh* Again with the generalizations. You make it sound like every soldier lives only to kill and has no emotion or regret for what they've done. And as far as who you should care about, you should care about any innocent person who is caught in the crossfire, be it soldier, citizen, or wrongly accused terrorist. Why? Because they are a human being. I'm not particularly spiritual but there is nothing more important then preserving innocent life. It is a disturbing generalization, I had a friend who was a pacifistic, but still wanted to serve his country and do what he can to help (which is why he joined the Signals Intelligence side, where we deal more with saving lives than killing). In what way is participating in war serving ones country, unless you're actually being attacked? If the Iraq war was really about bringing peace and democracy to Iraq (lol), the soldiers are effectively undermining the US, as they're basically on unimaginably expensive welfare, with state paid equipment and salaries. These people could've helped export and cultivated a growing economy instead of being a burden on the tax payers. Your taxes goes straight into funding an army that commits war crimes and regularly tortures people. How about focusing on education and health care instead? Forget about 9/11 already? What do education and health care have to do with compromising national security? See, this is where my argument that tax money should go to education comes in. What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? We were attacked, we responded.
Iraq didn't attack us, they had nothing to do with it. They didn't have WMD's either. Don't be dense.
|
On October 02 2012 10:43 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 10:41 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 10:34 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 10:21 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 10:07 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 08:24 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 02 2012 06:59 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 05:02 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 01 2012 06:17 Cillas wrote:
kmillz, check that : "your troops"
that aint our soldiers, so why should I CARE for american troops.
Those wars are over american interests and every war also aims at civilian population. Cruelty whatever what has to be published. Should i care for murderers just because they are from the glorious usa? This is the mother of all double standards. So what you are expressing is essentially, "I should care about the possibly innocent people who have been torturer but the possibly innocent people who knew anything about the torturing who still serve in the United States Military are not worth anything to me." It makes me sick that the United States may have been issuing torture, but generalizing and demonizing the men and women who are trying to serve their country as well as placing them in jeopardy will only sew the seeds for further violence. That is not to say that we should not punish those who commit atrocities under the cover of warfare, but rather to be conscious that others may be effected by what we make public. In essence all I ask for is careful consideration before any action. Another point I hope to draw attention to is how easy it is for those who do not serve their country to speculate on the men and women who do. When you enter the military, the company you find yourself with are the people you are trusting to keep you alive. I personally have never served my country but I most certainly can appreciate the bond that brothers and sisters in arms share and I can accept if they have difficulty breaking those bonds and accusing a brother/sister of crimes. Rather: should I care more about the American troops than the terrorists? Why? At this point I don't even care any more. They're both mass murderers and condemned by the UN. The only difference at this point is that you get tortured and imprisoned without trial if you say that about the Americans while the terrorists are proud. Both makes me sick to my stomach. *Sigh* Again with the generalizations. You make it sound like every soldier lives only to kill and has no emotion or regret for what they've done. And as far as who you should care about, you should care about any innocent person who is caught in the crossfire, be it soldier, citizen, or wrongly accused terrorist. Why? Because they are a human being. I'm not particularly spiritual but there is nothing more important then preserving innocent life. Oh but why exactly are people caught in a crossfire? Oh right... On October 02 2012 08:40 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 08:24 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 02 2012 06:59 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 05:02 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 01 2012 06:17 Cillas wrote:
kmillz, check that : "your troops"
that aint our soldiers, so why should I CARE for american troops.
Those wars are over american interests and every war also aims at civilian population. Cruelty whatever what has to be published. Should i care for murderers just because they are from the glorious usa? This is the mother of all double standards. So what you are expressing is essentially, "I should care about the possibly innocent people who have been torturer but the possibly innocent people who knew anything about the torturing who still serve in the United States Military are not worth anything to me." It makes me sick that the United States may have been issuing torture, but generalizing and demonizing the men and women who are trying to serve their country as well as placing them in jeopardy will only sew the seeds for further violence. That is not to say that we should not punish those who commit atrocities under the cover of warfare, but rather to be conscious that others may be effected by what we make public. In essence all I ask for is careful consideration before any action. Another point I hope to draw attention to is how easy it is for those who do not serve their country to speculate on the men and women who do. When you enter the military, the company you find yourself with are the people you are trusting to keep you alive. I personally have never served my country but I most certainly can appreciate the bond that brothers and sisters in arms share and I can accept if they have difficulty breaking those bonds and accusing a brother/sister of crimes. Rather: should I care more about the American troops than the terrorists? Why? At this point I don't even care any more. They're both mass murderers and condemned by the UN. The only difference at this point is that you get tortured and imprisoned without trial if you say that about the Americans while the terrorists are proud. Both makes me sick to my stomach. *Sigh* Again with the generalizations. You make it sound like every soldier lives only to kill and has no emotion or regret for what they've done. And as far as who you should care about, you should care about any innocent person who is caught in the crossfire, be it soldier, citizen, or wrongly accused terrorist. Why? Because they are a human being. I'm not particularly spiritual but there is nothing more important then preserving innocent life. It is a disturbing generalization, I had a friend who was a pacifistic, but still wanted to serve his country and do what he can to help (which is why he joined the Signals Intelligence side, where we deal more with saving lives than killing). In what way is participating in war serving ones country, unless you're actually being attacked? If the Iraq war was really about bringing peace and democracy to Iraq (lol), the soldiers are effectively undermining the US, as they're basically on unimaginably expensive welfare, with state paid equipment and salaries. These people could've helped export and cultivated a growing economy instead of being a burden on the tax payers. Your taxes goes straight into funding an army that commits war crimes and regularly tortures people. How about focusing on education and health care instead? Forget about 9/11 already? What do education and health care have to do with compromising national security? See, this is where my argument that tax money should go to education comes in. What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? unless you're actually being attacked? We were attacked, we responded. Iraq didn't attack us, they had nothing to do with it. They didn't have WMD's either. Don't be dense.
It was about the war on terrorism, I'm not saying it was the right move, I am just saying we were attacked and that is what led to us going there. Also, this:
Allegations of a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda were made by some U.S. Government officials who asserted that a highly secretive relationship existed between Saddam and the radical Islamist militant organization al-Qaeda from 1992 to 2003, specifically through a series of meetings reportedly involving the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS).
|
On October 02 2012 10:41 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 10:34 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 10:21 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 10:07 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 08:24 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 02 2012 06:59 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 05:02 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 01 2012 06:17 Cillas wrote:
kmillz, check that : "your troops"
that aint our soldiers, so why should I CARE for american troops.
Those wars are over american interests and every war also aims at civilian population. Cruelty whatever what has to be published. Should i care for murderers just because they are from the glorious usa? This is the mother of all double standards. So what you are expressing is essentially, "I should care about the possibly innocent people who have been torturer but the possibly innocent people who knew anything about the torturing who still serve in the United States Military are not worth anything to me." It makes me sick that the United States may have been issuing torture, but generalizing and demonizing the men and women who are trying to serve their country as well as placing them in jeopardy will only sew the seeds for further violence. That is not to say that we should not punish those who commit atrocities under the cover of warfare, but rather to be conscious that others may be effected by what we make public. In essence all I ask for is careful consideration before any action. Another point I hope to draw attention to is how easy it is for those who do not serve their country to speculate on the men and women who do. When you enter the military, the company you find yourself with are the people you are trusting to keep you alive. I personally have never served my country but I most certainly can appreciate the bond that brothers and sisters in arms share and I can accept if they have difficulty breaking those bonds and accusing a brother/sister of crimes. Rather: should I care more about the American troops than the terrorists? Why? At this point I don't even care any more. They're both mass murderers and condemned by the UN. The only difference at this point is that you get tortured and imprisoned without trial if you say that about the Americans while the terrorists are proud. Both makes me sick to my stomach. *Sigh* Again with the generalizations. You make it sound like every soldier lives only to kill and has no emotion or regret for what they've done. And as far as who you should care about, you should care about any innocent person who is caught in the crossfire, be it soldier, citizen, or wrongly accused terrorist. Why? Because they are a human being. I'm not particularly spiritual but there is nothing more important then preserving innocent life. Oh but why exactly are people caught in a crossfire? Oh right... On October 02 2012 08:40 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 08:24 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 02 2012 06:59 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 05:02 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 01 2012 06:17 Cillas wrote:
kmillz, check that : "your troops"
that aint our soldiers, so why should I CARE for american troops.
Those wars are over american interests and every war also aims at civilian population. Cruelty whatever what has to be published. Should i care for murderers just because they are from the glorious usa? This is the mother of all double standards. So what you are expressing is essentially, "I should care about the possibly innocent people who have been torturer but the possibly innocent people who knew anything about the torturing who still serve in the United States Military are not worth anything to me." It makes me sick that the United States may have been issuing torture, but generalizing and demonizing the men and women who are trying to serve their country as well as placing them in jeopardy will only sew the seeds for further violence. That is not to say that we should not punish those who commit atrocities under the cover of warfare, but rather to be conscious that others may be effected by what we make public. In essence all I ask for is careful consideration before any action. Another point I hope to draw attention to is how easy it is for those who do not serve their country to speculate on the men and women who do. When you enter the military, the company you find yourself with are the people you are trusting to keep you alive. I personally have never served my country but I most certainly can appreciate the bond that brothers and sisters in arms share and I can accept if they have difficulty breaking those bonds and accusing a brother/sister of crimes. Rather: should I care more about the American troops than the terrorists? Why? At this point I don't even care any more. They're both mass murderers and condemned by the UN. The only difference at this point is that you get tortured and imprisoned without trial if you say that about the Americans while the terrorists are proud. Both makes me sick to my stomach. *Sigh* Again with the generalizations. You make it sound like every soldier lives only to kill and has no emotion or regret for what they've done. And as far as who you should care about, you should care about any innocent person who is caught in the crossfire, be it soldier, citizen, or wrongly accused terrorist. Why? Because they are a human being. I'm not particularly spiritual but there is nothing more important then preserving innocent life. It is a disturbing generalization, I had a friend who was a pacifistic, but still wanted to serve his country and do what he can to help (which is why he joined the Signals Intelligence side, where we deal more with saving lives than killing). In what way is participating in war serving ones country, unless you're actually being attacked? If the Iraq war was really about bringing peace and democracy to Iraq (lol), the soldiers are effectively undermining the US, as they're basically on unimaginably expensive welfare, with state paid equipment and salaries. These people could've helped export and cultivated a growing economy instead of being a burden on the tax payers. Your taxes goes straight into funding an army that commits war crimes and regularly tortures people. How about focusing on education and health care instead? Forget about 9/11 already? What do education and health care have to do with compromising national security? See, this is where my argument that tax money should go to education comes in. What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? We were attacked, we responded.
I dunno what to say man... You kind of solidified my argument.
|
On October 02 2012 10:41 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 10:34 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 10:21 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 10:07 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 08:24 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 02 2012 06:59 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 05:02 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 01 2012 06:17 Cillas wrote:
kmillz, check that : "your troops"
that aint our soldiers, so why should I CARE for american troops.
Those wars are over american interests and every war also aims at civilian population. Cruelty whatever what has to be published. Should i care for murderers just because they are from the glorious usa? This is the mother of all double standards. So what you are expressing is essentially, "I should care about the possibly innocent people who have been torturer but the possibly innocent people who knew anything about the torturing who still serve in the United States Military are not worth anything to me." It makes me sick that the United States may have been issuing torture, but generalizing and demonizing the men and women who are trying to serve their country as well as placing them in jeopardy will only sew the seeds for further violence. That is not to say that we should not punish those who commit atrocities under the cover of warfare, but rather to be conscious that others may be effected by what we make public. In essence all I ask for is careful consideration before any action. Another point I hope to draw attention to is how easy it is for those who do not serve their country to speculate on the men and women who do. When you enter the military, the company you find yourself with are the people you are trusting to keep you alive. I personally have never served my country but I most certainly can appreciate the bond that brothers and sisters in arms share and I can accept if they have difficulty breaking those bonds and accusing a brother/sister of crimes. Rather: should I care more about the American troops than the terrorists? Why? At this point I don't even care any more. They're both mass murderers and condemned by the UN. The only difference at this point is that you get tortured and imprisoned without trial if you say that about the Americans while the terrorists are proud. Both makes me sick to my stomach. *Sigh* Again with the generalizations. You make it sound like every soldier lives only to kill and has no emotion or regret for what they've done. And as far as who you should care about, you should care about any innocent person who is caught in the crossfire, be it soldier, citizen, or wrongly accused terrorist. Why? Because they are a human being. I'm not particularly spiritual but there is nothing more important then preserving innocent life. Oh but why exactly are people caught in a crossfire? Oh right... On October 02 2012 08:40 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 08:24 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 02 2012 06:59 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 05:02 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 01 2012 06:17 Cillas wrote:
kmillz, check that : "your troops"
that aint our soldiers, so why should I CARE for american troops.
Those wars are over american interests and every war also aims at civilian population. Cruelty whatever what has to be published. Should i care for murderers just because they are from the glorious usa? This is the mother of all double standards. So what you are expressing is essentially, "I should care about the possibly innocent people who have been torturer but the possibly innocent people who knew anything about the torturing who still serve in the United States Military are not worth anything to me." It makes me sick that the United States may have been issuing torture, but generalizing and demonizing the men and women who are trying to serve their country as well as placing them in jeopardy will only sew the seeds for further violence. That is not to say that we should not punish those who commit atrocities under the cover of warfare, but rather to be conscious that others may be effected by what we make public. In essence all I ask for is careful consideration before any action. Another point I hope to draw attention to is how easy it is for those who do not serve their country to speculate on the men and women who do. When you enter the military, the company you find yourself with are the people you are trusting to keep you alive. I personally have never served my country but I most certainly can appreciate the bond that brothers and sisters in arms share and I can accept if they have difficulty breaking those bonds and accusing a brother/sister of crimes. Rather: should I care more about the American troops than the terrorists? Why? At this point I don't even care any more. They're both mass murderers and condemned by the UN. The only difference at this point is that you get tortured and imprisoned without trial if you say that about the Americans while the terrorists are proud. Both makes me sick to my stomach. *Sigh* Again with the generalizations. You make it sound like every soldier lives only to kill and has no emotion or regret for what they've done. And as far as who you should care about, you should care about any innocent person who is caught in the crossfire, be it soldier, citizen, or wrongly accused terrorist. Why? Because they are a human being. I'm not particularly spiritual but there is nothing more important then preserving innocent life. It is a disturbing generalization, I had a friend who was a pacifistic, but still wanted to serve his country and do what he can to help (which is why he joined the Signals Intelligence side, where we deal more with saving lives than killing). In what way is participating in war serving ones country, unless you're actually being attacked? If the Iraq war was really about bringing peace and democracy to Iraq (lol), the soldiers are effectively undermining the US, as they're basically on unimaginably expensive welfare, with state paid equipment and salaries. These people could've helped export and cultivated a growing economy instead of being a burden on the tax payers. Your taxes goes straight into funding an army that commits war crimes and regularly tortures people. How about focusing on education and health care instead? Forget about 9/11 already? What do education and health care have to do with compromising national security? See, this is where my argument that tax money should go to education comes in. What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? We were attacked, we responded.
Yeah, you fabricated another enemy which actually had territory but was for all intents and purposes innocent. Why? Because attacking territory was the only thing that administration could understand.
I mean really, the correct response would have been to make people of the world not hate you. Instead Bush managed to turn most of the west against US foreign policy.
|
On October 02 2012 10:46 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 10:43 Whitewing wrote:On October 02 2012 10:41 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 10:34 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 10:21 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 10:07 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 08:24 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 02 2012 06:59 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 05:02 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 01 2012 06:17 Cillas wrote:
kmillz, check that : "your troops"
that aint our soldiers, so why should I CARE for american troops.
Those wars are over american interests and every war also aims at civilian population. Cruelty whatever what has to be published. Should i care for murderers just because they are from the glorious usa? This is the mother of all double standards. So what you are expressing is essentially, "I should care about the possibly innocent people who have been torturer but the possibly innocent people who knew anything about the torturing who still serve in the United States Military are not worth anything to me." It makes me sick that the United States may have been issuing torture, but generalizing and demonizing the men and women who are trying to serve their country as well as placing them in jeopardy will only sew the seeds for further violence. That is not to say that we should not punish those who commit atrocities under the cover of warfare, but rather to be conscious that others may be effected by what we make public. In essence all I ask for is careful consideration before any action. Another point I hope to draw attention to is how easy it is for those who do not serve their country to speculate on the men and women who do. When you enter the military, the company you find yourself with are the people you are trusting to keep you alive. I personally have never served my country but I most certainly can appreciate the bond that brothers and sisters in arms share and I can accept if they have difficulty breaking those bonds and accusing a brother/sister of crimes. Rather: should I care more about the American troops than the terrorists? Why? At this point I don't even care any more. They're both mass murderers and condemned by the UN. The only difference at this point is that you get tortured and imprisoned without trial if you say that about the Americans while the terrorists are proud. Both makes me sick to my stomach. *Sigh* Again with the generalizations. You make it sound like every soldier lives only to kill and has no emotion or regret for what they've done. And as far as who you should care about, you should care about any innocent person who is caught in the crossfire, be it soldier, citizen, or wrongly accused terrorist. Why? Because they are a human being. I'm not particularly spiritual but there is nothing more important then preserving innocent life. Oh but why exactly are people caught in a crossfire? Oh right... On October 02 2012 08:40 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 08:24 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 02 2012 06:59 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 05:02 LuckyCharms45 wrote:
[quote]
This is the mother of all double standards. So what you are expressing is essentially, "I should care about the possibly innocent people who have been torturer but the possibly innocent people who knew anything about the torturing who still serve in the United States Military are not worth anything to me."
It makes me sick that the United States may have been issuing torture, but generalizing and demonizing the men and women who are trying to serve their country as well as placing them in jeopardy will only sew the seeds for further violence. That is not to say that we should not punish those who commit atrocities under the cover of warfare, but rather to be conscious that others may be effected by what we make public. In essence all I ask for is careful consideration before any action.
Another point I hope to draw attention to is how easy it is for those who do not serve their country to speculate on the men and women who do. When you enter the military, the company you find yourself with are the people you are trusting to keep you alive. I personally have never served my country but I most certainly can appreciate the bond that brothers and sisters in arms share and I can accept if they have difficulty breaking those bonds and accusing a brother/sister of crimes. Rather: should I care more about the American troops than the terrorists? Why? At this point I don't even care any more. They're both mass murderers and condemned by the UN. The only difference at this point is that you get tortured and imprisoned without trial if you say that about the Americans while the terrorists are proud. Both makes me sick to my stomach. *Sigh* Again with the generalizations. You make it sound like every soldier lives only to kill and has no emotion or regret for what they've done. And as far as who you should care about, you should care about any innocent person who is caught in the crossfire, be it soldier, citizen, or wrongly accused terrorist. Why? Because they are a human being. I'm not particularly spiritual but there is nothing more important then preserving innocent life. It is a disturbing generalization, I had a friend who was a pacifistic, but still wanted to serve his country and do what he can to help (which is why he joined the Signals Intelligence side, where we deal more with saving lives than killing). In what way is participating in war serving ones country, unless you're actually being attacked? If the Iraq war was really about bringing peace and democracy to Iraq (lol), the soldiers are effectively undermining the US, as they're basically on unimaginably expensive welfare, with state paid equipment and salaries. These people could've helped export and cultivated a growing economy instead of being a burden on the tax payers. Your taxes goes straight into funding an army that commits war crimes and regularly tortures people. How about focusing on education and health care instead? Forget about 9/11 already? What do education and health care have to do with compromising national security? See, this is where my argument that tax money should go to education comes in. What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? unless you're actually being attacked? We were attacked, we responded. Iraq didn't attack us, they had nothing to do with it. They didn't have WMD's either. Don't be dense. It was about the war on terrorism, I'm not saying it was the right move, I am just saying we were attacked and that is what led to us going there. Also, this: Show nested quote +Allegations of a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda were made by some U.S. Government officials who asserted that a highly secretive relationship existed between Saddam and the radical Islamist militant organization al-Qaeda from 1992 to 2003, specifically through a series of meetings reportedly involving the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS).
How very convenient that you missed the second part of that quote:
"[...]The consensus of intelligence experts has been that these contacts never led to an operational relationship, and that consensus is backed up by reports from the independent 9/11 Commission and by declassified Defense Department reports[3] as well as by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, whose 2006 report of Phase II of its investigation into prewar intelligence reports concluded that there was no evidence of ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.[4] Critics of the Bush Administration have said Bush was intentionally building a case for war with Iraq without regard to factual evidence. On April 29, 2007, former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet said on 60 Minutes, "We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period."[5]"
|
On October 02 2012 10:48 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 10:41 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 10:34 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 10:21 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 10:07 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 08:24 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 02 2012 06:59 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 05:02 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 01 2012 06:17 Cillas wrote:
kmillz, check that : "your troops"
that aint our soldiers, so why should I CARE for american troops.
Those wars are over american interests and every war also aims at civilian population. Cruelty whatever what has to be published. Should i care for murderers just because they are from the glorious usa? This is the mother of all double standards. So what you are expressing is essentially, "I should care about the possibly innocent people who have been torturer but the possibly innocent people who knew anything about the torturing who still serve in the United States Military are not worth anything to me." It makes me sick that the United States may have been issuing torture, but generalizing and demonizing the men and women who are trying to serve their country as well as placing them in jeopardy will only sew the seeds for further violence. That is not to say that we should not punish those who commit atrocities under the cover of warfare, but rather to be conscious that others may be effected by what we make public. In essence all I ask for is careful consideration before any action. Another point I hope to draw attention to is how easy it is for those who do not serve their country to speculate on the men and women who do. When you enter the military, the company you find yourself with are the people you are trusting to keep you alive. I personally have never served my country but I most certainly can appreciate the bond that brothers and sisters in arms share and I can accept if they have difficulty breaking those bonds and accusing a brother/sister of crimes. Rather: should I care more about the American troops than the terrorists? Why? At this point I don't even care any more. They're both mass murderers and condemned by the UN. The only difference at this point is that you get tortured and imprisoned without trial if you say that about the Americans while the terrorists are proud. Both makes me sick to my stomach. *Sigh* Again with the generalizations. You make it sound like every soldier lives only to kill and has no emotion or regret for what they've done. And as far as who you should care about, you should care about any innocent person who is caught in the crossfire, be it soldier, citizen, or wrongly accused terrorist. Why? Because they are a human being. I'm not particularly spiritual but there is nothing more important then preserving innocent life. Oh but why exactly are people caught in a crossfire? Oh right... On October 02 2012 08:40 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 08:24 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 02 2012 06:59 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 05:02 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 01 2012 06:17 Cillas wrote:
kmillz, check that : "your troops"
that aint our soldiers, so why should I CARE for american troops.
Those wars are over american interests and every war also aims at civilian population. Cruelty whatever what has to be published. Should i care for murderers just because they are from the glorious usa? This is the mother of all double standards. So what you are expressing is essentially, "I should care about the possibly innocent people who have been torturer but the possibly innocent people who knew anything about the torturing who still serve in the United States Military are not worth anything to me." It makes me sick that the United States may have been issuing torture, but generalizing and demonizing the men and women who are trying to serve their country as well as placing them in jeopardy will only sew the seeds for further violence. That is not to say that we should not punish those who commit atrocities under the cover of warfare, but rather to be conscious that others may be effected by what we make public. In essence all I ask for is careful consideration before any action. Another point I hope to draw attention to is how easy it is for those who do not serve their country to speculate on the men and women who do. When you enter the military, the company you find yourself with are the people you are trusting to keep you alive. I personally have never served my country but I most certainly can appreciate the bond that brothers and sisters in arms share and I can accept if they have difficulty breaking those bonds and accusing a brother/sister of crimes. Rather: should I care more about the American troops than the terrorists? Why? At this point I don't even care any more. They're both mass murderers and condemned by the UN. The only difference at this point is that you get tortured and imprisoned without trial if you say that about the Americans while the terrorists are proud. Both makes me sick to my stomach. *Sigh* Again with the generalizations. You make it sound like every soldier lives only to kill and has no emotion or regret for what they've done. And as far as who you should care about, you should care about any innocent person who is caught in the crossfire, be it soldier, citizen, or wrongly accused terrorist. Why? Because they are a human being. I'm not particularly spiritual but there is nothing more important then preserving innocent life. It is a disturbing generalization, I had a friend who was a pacifistic, but still wanted to serve his country and do what he can to help (which is why he joined the Signals Intelligence side, where we deal more with saving lives than killing). In what way is participating in war serving ones country, unless you're actually being attacked? If the Iraq war was really about bringing peace and democracy to Iraq (lol), the soldiers are effectively undermining the US, as they're basically on unimaginably expensive welfare, with state paid equipment and salaries. These people could've helped export and cultivated a growing economy instead of being a burden on the tax payers. Your taxes goes straight into funding an army that commits war crimes and regularly tortures people. How about focusing on education and health care instead? Forget about 9/11 already? What do education and health care have to do with compromising national security? See, this is where my argument that tax money should go to education comes in. What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? unless you're actually being attacked? We were attacked, we responded. Yeah, you fabricated another enemy which actually had territory but was for all intents and purposes innocent. Why? Because attacking territory was the only thing that administration could understand. I mean really, the correct response would have been to make people of the world not hate you. Instead Bush managed to turn most of the west against US foreign policy.
To be a little fair on Bush it was either the world against the US or the US against George Bush, something had to happen after 9/11 and he chose the to turn his back on Europe. Ironically Bush is now probably considered one of our worst presidents of time. But given a few decades history might not be so harsh on him.
As a side note i wish Political threads removed the Country tags it really does bring out some flawed logic in your own thinking to try to defend a fellow (American in my case).
|
On October 02 2012 11:00 DreamChaser wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 10:48 HellRoxYa wrote:On October 02 2012 10:41 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 10:34 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 10:21 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 10:07 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 08:24 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 02 2012 06:59 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 05:02 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 01 2012 06:17 Cillas wrote:
kmillz, check that : "your troops"
that aint our soldiers, so why should I CARE for american troops.
Those wars are over american interests and every war also aims at civilian population. Cruelty whatever what has to be published. Should i care for murderers just because they are from the glorious usa? This is the mother of all double standards. So what you are expressing is essentially, "I should care about the possibly innocent people who have been torturer but the possibly innocent people who knew anything about the torturing who still serve in the United States Military are not worth anything to me." It makes me sick that the United States may have been issuing torture, but generalizing and demonizing the men and women who are trying to serve their country as well as placing them in jeopardy will only sew the seeds for further violence. That is not to say that we should not punish those who commit atrocities under the cover of warfare, but rather to be conscious that others may be effected by what we make public. In essence all I ask for is careful consideration before any action. Another point I hope to draw attention to is how easy it is for those who do not serve their country to speculate on the men and women who do. When you enter the military, the company you find yourself with are the people you are trusting to keep you alive. I personally have never served my country but I most certainly can appreciate the bond that brothers and sisters in arms share and I can accept if they have difficulty breaking those bonds and accusing a brother/sister of crimes. Rather: should I care more about the American troops than the terrorists? Why? At this point I don't even care any more. They're both mass murderers and condemned by the UN. The only difference at this point is that you get tortured and imprisoned without trial if you say that about the Americans while the terrorists are proud. Both makes me sick to my stomach. *Sigh* Again with the generalizations. You make it sound like every soldier lives only to kill and has no emotion or regret for what they've done. And as far as who you should care about, you should care about any innocent person who is caught in the crossfire, be it soldier, citizen, or wrongly accused terrorist. Why? Because they are a human being. I'm not particularly spiritual but there is nothing more important then preserving innocent life. Oh but why exactly are people caught in a crossfire? Oh right... On October 02 2012 08:40 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 08:24 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 02 2012 06:59 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 05:02 LuckyCharms45 wrote:
[quote]
This is the mother of all double standards. So what you are expressing is essentially, "I should care about the possibly innocent people who have been torturer but the possibly innocent people who knew anything about the torturing who still serve in the United States Military are not worth anything to me."
It makes me sick that the United States may have been issuing torture, but generalizing and demonizing the men and women who are trying to serve their country as well as placing them in jeopardy will only sew the seeds for further violence. That is not to say that we should not punish those who commit atrocities under the cover of warfare, but rather to be conscious that others may be effected by what we make public. In essence all I ask for is careful consideration before any action.
Another point I hope to draw attention to is how easy it is for those who do not serve their country to speculate on the men and women who do. When you enter the military, the company you find yourself with are the people you are trusting to keep you alive. I personally have never served my country but I most certainly can appreciate the bond that brothers and sisters in arms share and I can accept if they have difficulty breaking those bonds and accusing a brother/sister of crimes. Rather: should I care more about the American troops than the terrorists? Why? At this point I don't even care any more. They're both mass murderers and condemned by the UN. The only difference at this point is that you get tortured and imprisoned without trial if you say that about the Americans while the terrorists are proud. Both makes me sick to my stomach. *Sigh* Again with the generalizations. You make it sound like every soldier lives only to kill and has no emotion or regret for what they've done. And as far as who you should care about, you should care about any innocent person who is caught in the crossfire, be it soldier, citizen, or wrongly accused terrorist. Why? Because they are a human being. I'm not particularly spiritual but there is nothing more important then preserving innocent life. It is a disturbing generalization, I had a friend who was a pacifistic, but still wanted to serve his country and do what he can to help (which is why he joined the Signals Intelligence side, where we deal more with saving lives than killing). In what way is participating in war serving ones country, unless you're actually being attacked? If the Iraq war was really about bringing peace and democracy to Iraq (lol), the soldiers are effectively undermining the US, as they're basically on unimaginably expensive welfare, with state paid equipment and salaries. These people could've helped export and cultivated a growing economy instead of being a burden on the tax payers. Your taxes goes straight into funding an army that commits war crimes and regularly tortures people. How about focusing on education and health care instead? Forget about 9/11 already? What do education and health care have to do with compromising national security? See, this is where my argument that tax money should go to education comes in. What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? unless you're actually being attacked? We were attacked, we responded. Yeah, you fabricated another enemy which actually had territory but was for all intents and purposes innocent. Why? Because attacking territory was the only thing that administration could understand. I mean really, the correct response would have been to make people of the world not hate you. Instead Bush managed to turn most of the west against US foreign policy. To be a little fair on Bush it was either the world against the US or the US against George Bush, something had to happen after 9/11 and he chose the to turn his back on Europe. Ironically Bush is now probably considered one of our worst presidents of time. But given a few decades history might not be so harsh on him. As a side note i wish Political threads removed the Country tags it really does bring out some flawed logic in your own thinking to try to defend a fellow (American in my case).
"something had to happen after 9/11"
the war in Afghanistan doesn't qualify as something? Do remember that we didn't go into Iraq until March 2003.
|
On October 02 2012 10:30 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 03:11 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 03:04 Caihead wrote:On October 02 2012 02:53 kmillz wrote:On October 01 2012 20:23 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 01 2012 16:40 kmillz wrote:On October 01 2012 11:18 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On October 01 2012 09:30 kmillz wrote:On October 01 2012 08:58 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 01 2012 08:53 kmillz wrote:
[quote]
I'm not saying the war crimes and killing of civilians are right, but it happens, and when we get put on blast by wikileaks it damages the U.S. military as a whole, including every person who doesn't commit war crimes. The soldiers and Marines who follow procedure have to pay the price for the small few who commit atrocities and it disgusts me that people actually think Bradley Manning is a hero. So you think the soldiers and marines would rather have the atrocities hidden? You think it's better to keep the truth concealed? What kind of backwards logic is this, I know people in the armed forces and I have a pretty good gauge of their morale compass and I doubt they'd go "Well if we keep it hidden, our backs are clean". How is anything you just said ok? The US military should be blasted for the abuses, it should be hurt for its actions. Action > consequence. I have no idea what youi're trying to justify, at first you made a valid point, people do bad shit but if your argument against wikileaks is that they try and tell the world the shit that's bad then you're suffering a severe case of fucked morale compass. I was in the Marine Corps, and yes I think we would rather have the atrocities hidden so we don't get killed over them. It is fucking war it is not a game and people do bad shit in wars, people get killed and when someone fucks up we all pay for it. I think those who commit the crimes should be handled accordingly and punished to the max as per UCMJ, but I do not think it justifies putting everyone at risk. Public accountability man, if you can't handle what an organization you are part of does then don't be a part of it. Hiding shit is never good. Second of all, on something else you said. Freedom of press and some other legal precedent means a reporter who leaks classified documents cannot get in trouble for it. Only the person who was privileged can get in trouble for leaking the info, the reporter doesn't get in trouble for publishing or writing any of it. I think that was established sometime around when deepthroat was leaking all the watergate stuff.
He said the incident that had affected him the most was when 15 detainees had been arrested by the Iraqi Federal Police for printing anti-Iraqi literature. He was asked by the army to find out who the "bad guys" were, and discovered that the detainees had followed what Manning said was a corruption trail within the Iraqi cabinet. He reported this to his commanding officer, but said "he didn't want to hear any of it"; he said the officer told him to help the Iraqi police find more detainees. Manning said it made him realize, "i was actively involved in something that i was completely against ..." He explained that "i cant separate myself from others ... i feel connected to everybody ... like they were distant family," and cited Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, and Elie Wiesel. He said he hoped the material would lead to "hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms. if not ... than [sic] we're doomed as a species." He said he had downloaded the material onto music CD-RWs, erased the music and replaced it with a compressed split file. Part of the reason no-one noticed, he said, was that staff were working 14 hours a day, seven days a week, and "people stopped caring after 3 weeks."
I'd have to agree with him 100%. Evil prevails when good men do nothing. I joined the USMC in 2008, long before any of these atrocities took place. I never went to Iraq or Afghanistan and I never had anything to do with anything that resulted in the death of anybody, but I do know many fellow Marines, soldiers, sailors, and airmen who have been to combat. I have good friends with Combat Action Ribbons (CAR) and Purple Hearts, and I am confident they would agree that these leaks are WRONG. They jeapordize everything we work hard for and protect to keep safe. I worked in the signals intelligence field, same as Bradley Manning. I was an Arabic Cryptologic Linguist and I would NEVER compromise the Top Secret data I have been entrusted with no matter what happened to me so so fuck off if you think I am holding back anything from the press. I withhold information that would be invaluable not only to international press but our exact ENEMY who is trying to destroy us. If I am wrong for being silent, so be it, but I do it with the firm belief that it protects my brothers and sisters in arms. Your "brothers & sisters" in arms deserve to know first and then the rest of us so they can march back to their homes. Serving a nation that willingly tortures is barbaric to begin with. The fact you think anything like this is "better" secret is crazy to me, and as I said before name a single attack/event since 2010 that was the direct cause of this? All of the sensitive data was redacted that would lead to any backlash. I think you're missing the point of the quote "Evil prevails when good men do nothing". If your behind the Middle Eastern conquest and you're allowing such things, you allow the atrocities to reoccur, it is your (and whoever else is in your shoes) fault for not standing up. That's such a warped mentality. Yes, you are right. It was wrong of me to serve my country. Sorry. What do you mean by "serving your country" there exactly, are you talking about serving your government's interests? Serving the interests of the American people? Or acting on behalf of a vague nationalist idea? Surely serving your country means representing and listening to the views of American citizens, and American citizens among rational people would rather their military not hide its war crimes and murder of civilians regardless of whether or not it's collateral damage. The journalists and intelligent services men who exposed Watergate, the pentagon papers, and operation northwood have been proclaimed as heroes standing for the public's right to know the actions of its own governing body whom claims to represent them, and for truth, justice and the American way, quite literally. America heralded itself as the front runner in civil liberties and transparent government actions as the world's biggest super power. Surely serving your country also means abiding by moral ruling ideology that your country prides itself on? How about joining the military in a time of war in a time of war? I didn't realize you had to explain what you mean when you say you serve your country these days. You never really effectively addressed Calihead's argument. Just because you "serve your country" doesn't mean you're doing a good thing. Its true that just because some bad things happen in a war, that shouldn't imply that soldiers always do bad things. Because you do have to look at the broader picture...but this is precisely what we're asking you to do and you don't seem to be willing to do when looking at the reasons your government is sending soldiers overseas. There are soldiers in Syria who are "serving their country" right now, there were soldiers in Libya who also served their country. Obviously Nazi germany is another example. You could say that those aren't examples because their government is no longer legitimate...but firstly that's all relative - those soldiers would probably justify their actions in a similar way that you do - more or less a thoughtless "I'm supporting my country, that's all that matters, and I won't feel sorry for doing it". More broadly though, there are many other subtler cases where just because you serve your country doesn't mean you're doing good...you have to think and take personal responsibility, and have a personal moral stance on *what it is that you are doing*, because you could be doing something profoundly wrong that not only hurts/kills innocents but also puts people back at home at greater risk. Afghanistan and Iraq can probably be argued to be positive in the long run. But it kind of is important that you recognize the point that Calihead was making. I get the feeling that you do...as it is more or less a form of common sense. But still just in case I wanted to say it .
Every country needs a military to defend itself. You can argue about how big that military should be and how it should be run, but it doesn't change that particular fact. "Serving the country" generally involves making an enormous sacrifice (putting one's life in danger). That is why it is viewed upon so favorably by the poster and by myself personally. Sure, there are some bad soldiers out there, but I respect the hell out of anyone who is willing to go fight and possibly die in some desert so that I don't have to. Also, while the U.S military has been involved in some particularly awful and horrific acts, it still has done a lot of good things. Considering that it's essentially the defense force for the entire Western world, I think people sometimes tend to not appreciate its significance as much as they should.
You can't make the comparison between American soldiers and Syrian soldiers because American soldiers are not sent in with express orders to kill civilians like the Syrian army has been doing. Yes, civilians do get killed when we invade, but that's not a part of our military policy and unfortunately is "collateral damage" (as callous a term as that is). I also don't really see the Nazi comparison, because the U.S is not out trying to conquer the world here. We invaded Afghanistan because the Taliban was harboring Al-Qaeda, and we invaded Iraq because we thought they had WMD's (which was a huge mistake, I think most Americans will agree on this one).
I agree with you that blind patriotism is not a good thing and that it can make people think and act irrationally. But by no means do I think "serving the country" or supporting the troops in the U.S military fall into that category.
|
On October 02 2012 11:12 RJGooner wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 10:30 radscorpion9 wrote:On October 02 2012 03:11 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 03:04 Caihead wrote:On October 02 2012 02:53 kmillz wrote:On October 01 2012 20:23 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 01 2012 16:40 kmillz wrote:On October 01 2012 11:18 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On October 01 2012 09:30 kmillz wrote:On October 01 2012 08:58 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
[quote]
So you think the soldiers and marines would rather have the atrocities hidden? You think it's better to keep the truth concealed? What kind of backwards logic is this, I know people in the armed forces and I have a pretty good gauge of their morale compass and I doubt they'd go "Well if we keep it hidden, our backs are clean".
How is anything you just said ok? The US military should be blasted for the abuses, it should be hurt for its actions. Action > consequence. I have no idea what youi're trying to justify, at first you made a valid point, people do bad shit but if your argument against wikileaks is that they try and tell the world the shit that's bad then you're suffering a severe case of fucked morale compass. I was in the Marine Corps, and yes I think we would rather have the atrocities hidden so we don't get killed over them. It is fucking war it is not a game and people do bad shit in wars, people get killed and when someone fucks up we all pay for it. I think those who commit the crimes should be handled accordingly and punished to the max as per UCMJ, but I do not think it justifies putting everyone at risk. Public accountability man, if you can't handle what an organization you are part of does then don't be a part of it. Hiding shit is never good. Second of all, on something else you said. Freedom of press and some other legal precedent means a reporter who leaks classified documents cannot get in trouble for it. Only the person who was privileged can get in trouble for leaking the info, the reporter doesn't get in trouble for publishing or writing any of it. I think that was established sometime around when deepthroat was leaking all the watergate stuff.
He said the incident that had affected him the most was when 15 detainees had been arrested by the Iraqi Federal Police for printing anti-Iraqi literature. He was asked by the army to find out who the "bad guys" were, and discovered that the detainees had followed what Manning said was a corruption trail within the Iraqi cabinet. He reported this to his commanding officer, but said "he didn't want to hear any of it"; he said the officer told him to help the Iraqi police find more detainees. Manning said it made him realize, "i was actively involved in something that i was completely against ..." He explained that "i cant separate myself from others ... i feel connected to everybody ... like they were distant family," and cited Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, and Elie Wiesel. He said he hoped the material would lead to "hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms. if not ... than [sic] we're doomed as a species." He said he had downloaded the material onto music CD-RWs, erased the music and replaced it with a compressed split file. Part of the reason no-one noticed, he said, was that staff were working 14 hours a day, seven days a week, and "people stopped caring after 3 weeks."
I'd have to agree with him 100%. Evil prevails when good men do nothing. I joined the USMC in 2008, long before any of these atrocities took place. I never went to Iraq or Afghanistan and I never had anything to do with anything that resulted in the death of anybody, but I do know many fellow Marines, soldiers, sailors, and airmen who have been to combat. I have good friends with Combat Action Ribbons (CAR) and Purple Hearts, and I am confident they would agree that these leaks are WRONG. They jeapordize everything we work hard for and protect to keep safe. I worked in the signals intelligence field, same as Bradley Manning. I was an Arabic Cryptologic Linguist and I would NEVER compromise the Top Secret data I have been entrusted with no matter what happened to me so so fuck off if you think I am holding back anything from the press. I withhold information that would be invaluable not only to international press but our exact ENEMY who is trying to destroy us. If I am wrong for being silent, so be it, but I do it with the firm belief that it protects my brothers and sisters in arms. Your "brothers & sisters" in arms deserve to know first and then the rest of us so they can march back to their homes. Serving a nation that willingly tortures is barbaric to begin with. The fact you think anything like this is "better" secret is crazy to me, and as I said before name a single attack/event since 2010 that was the direct cause of this? All of the sensitive data was redacted that would lead to any backlash. I think you're missing the point of the quote "Evil prevails when good men do nothing". If your behind the Middle Eastern conquest and you're allowing such things, you allow the atrocities to reoccur, it is your (and whoever else is in your shoes) fault for not standing up. That's such a warped mentality. Yes, you are right. It was wrong of me to serve my country. Sorry. What do you mean by "serving your country" there exactly, are you talking about serving your government's interests? Serving the interests of the American people? Or acting on behalf of a vague nationalist idea? Surely serving your country means representing and listening to the views of American citizens, and American citizens among rational people would rather their military not hide its war crimes and murder of civilians regardless of whether or not it's collateral damage. The journalists and intelligent services men who exposed Watergate, the pentagon papers, and operation northwood have been proclaimed as heroes standing for the public's right to know the actions of its own governing body whom claims to represent them, and for truth, justice and the American way, quite literally. America heralded itself as the front runner in civil liberties and transparent government actions as the world's biggest super power. Surely serving your country also means abiding by moral ruling ideology that your country prides itself on? How about joining the military in a time of war in a time of war? I didn't realize you had to explain what you mean when you say you serve your country these days. You never really effectively addressed Calihead's argument. Just because you "serve your country" doesn't mean you're doing a good thing. Its true that just because some bad things happen in a war, that shouldn't imply that soldiers always do bad things. Because you do have to look at the broader picture...but this is precisely what we're asking you to do and you don't seem to be willing to do when looking at the reasons your government is sending soldiers overseas. There are soldiers in Syria who are "serving their country" right now, there were soldiers in Libya who also served their country. Obviously Nazi germany is another example. You could say that those aren't examples because their government is no longer legitimate...but firstly that's all relative - those soldiers would probably justify their actions in a similar way that you do - more or less a thoughtless "I'm supporting my country, that's all that matters, and I won't feel sorry for doing it". More broadly though, there are many other subtler cases where just because you serve your country doesn't mean you're doing good...you have to think and take personal responsibility, and have a personal moral stance on *what it is that you are doing*, because you could be doing something profoundly wrong that not only hurts/kills innocents but also puts people back at home at greater risk. Afghanistan and Iraq can probably be argued to be positive in the long run. But it kind of is important that you recognize the point that Calihead was making. I get the feeling that you do...as it is more or less a form of common sense. But still just in case I wanted to say it . Every country needs a military to defend itself. You can argue about how big that military should be and how it should be run, but it doesn't change that particular fact. "Serving the country" generally involves making an enormous sacrifice (putting one's life in danger). That is why it is viewed upon so favorably by the poster and by myself personally. Sure, there are some bad soldiers out there, but I respect the hell out of anyone who is willing to go fight and possibly die in some desert so that I don't have to. Also, while the U.S military has been involved in some particularly awful and horrific acts, it still has done a lot of good things. Considering that it's essentially the defense force for the entire Western world, I think people sometimes tend to not appreciate its significance as much as they should. You can't make the comparison between American soldiers and Syrian soldiers because American soldiers are not sent in with express orders to kill civilians like the Syrian army has been doing. Yes, civilians do get killed when we invade, but that's not a part of our military policy and unfortunately is "collateral damage" (as callous a term as that is). I also don't really see the Nazi comparison, because the U.S is not out trying to conquer the world here. We invaded Afghanistan because the Taliban was harboring Al-Qaeda, and we invaded Iraq because we thought they had WMD's (which was a huge mistake, I think most Americans will agree on this one). I agree with you that blind patriotism is not a good thing and that it can make people think and act irrationally. But by no means do I think "serving the country" or supporting the troops in the U.S military fall into that category.
Do you have any suggestions to the people of the next innocent (relatively speaking) country that is accused of having WMDs, have UN inspectors sent over who find nothing and a few days later are declared war upon?
|
On October 02 2012 10:48 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 10:41 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 10:34 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 10:21 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 10:07 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 08:24 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 02 2012 06:59 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 05:02 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 01 2012 06:17 Cillas wrote:
kmillz, check that : "your troops"
that aint our soldiers, so why should I CARE for american troops.
Those wars are over american interests and every war also aims at civilian population. Cruelty whatever what has to be published. Should i care for murderers just because they are from the glorious usa? This is the mother of all double standards. So what you are expressing is essentially, "I should care about the possibly innocent people who have been torturer but the possibly innocent people who knew anything about the torturing who still serve in the United States Military are not worth anything to me." It makes me sick that the United States may have been issuing torture, but generalizing and demonizing the men and women who are trying to serve their country as well as placing them in jeopardy will only sew the seeds for further violence. That is not to say that we should not punish those who commit atrocities under the cover of warfare, but rather to be conscious that others may be effected by what we make public. In essence all I ask for is careful consideration before any action. Another point I hope to draw attention to is how easy it is for those who do not serve their country to speculate on the men and women who do. When you enter the military, the company you find yourself with are the people you are trusting to keep you alive. I personally have never served my country but I most certainly can appreciate the bond that brothers and sisters in arms share and I can accept if they have difficulty breaking those bonds and accusing a brother/sister of crimes. Rather: should I care more about the American troops than the terrorists? Why? At this point I don't even care any more. They're both mass murderers and condemned by the UN. The only difference at this point is that you get tortured and imprisoned without trial if you say that about the Americans while the terrorists are proud. Both makes me sick to my stomach. *Sigh* Again with the generalizations. You make it sound like every soldier lives only to kill and has no emotion or regret for what they've done. And as far as who you should care about, you should care about any innocent person who is caught in the crossfire, be it soldier, citizen, or wrongly accused terrorist. Why? Because they are a human being. I'm not particularly spiritual but there is nothing more important then preserving innocent life. Oh but why exactly are people caught in a crossfire? Oh right... On October 02 2012 08:40 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 08:24 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 02 2012 06:59 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 05:02 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 01 2012 06:17 Cillas wrote:
kmillz, check that : "your troops"
that aint our soldiers, so why should I CARE for american troops.
Those wars are over american interests and every war also aims at civilian population. Cruelty whatever what has to be published. Should i care for murderers just because they are from the glorious usa? This is the mother of all double standards. So what you are expressing is essentially, "I should care about the possibly innocent people who have been torturer but the possibly innocent people who knew anything about the torturing who still serve in the United States Military are not worth anything to me." It makes me sick that the United States may have been issuing torture, but generalizing and demonizing the men and women who are trying to serve their country as well as placing them in jeopardy will only sew the seeds for further violence. That is not to say that we should not punish those who commit atrocities under the cover of warfare, but rather to be conscious that others may be effected by what we make public. In essence all I ask for is careful consideration before any action. Another point I hope to draw attention to is how easy it is for those who do not serve their country to speculate on the men and women who do. When you enter the military, the company you find yourself with are the people you are trusting to keep you alive. I personally have never served my country but I most certainly can appreciate the bond that brothers and sisters in arms share and I can accept if they have difficulty breaking those bonds and accusing a brother/sister of crimes. Rather: should I care more about the American troops than the terrorists? Why? At this point I don't even care any more. They're both mass murderers and condemned by the UN. The only difference at this point is that you get tortured and imprisoned without trial if you say that about the Americans while the terrorists are proud. Both makes me sick to my stomach. *Sigh* Again with the generalizations. You make it sound like every soldier lives only to kill and has no emotion or regret for what they've done. And as far as who you should care about, you should care about any innocent person who is caught in the crossfire, be it soldier, citizen, or wrongly accused terrorist. Why? Because they are a human being. I'm not particularly spiritual but there is nothing more important then preserving innocent life. It is a disturbing generalization, I had a friend who was a pacifistic, but still wanted to serve his country and do what he can to help (which is why he joined the Signals Intelligence side, where we deal more with saving lives than killing). In what way is participating in war serving ones country, unless you're actually being attacked? If the Iraq war was really about bringing peace and democracy to Iraq (lol), the soldiers are effectively undermining the US, as they're basically on unimaginably expensive welfare, with state paid equipment and salaries. These people could've helped export and cultivated a growing economy instead of being a burden on the tax payers. Your taxes goes straight into funding an army that commits war crimes and regularly tortures people. How about focusing on education and health care instead? Forget about 9/11 already? What do education and health care have to do with compromising national security? See, this is where my argument that tax money should go to education comes in. What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? unless you're actually being attacked? We were attacked, we responded. Yeah, you fabricated another enemy which actually had territory but was for all intents and purposes innocent. Why? Because attacking territory was the only thing that administration could understand. I mean really, the correct response would have been to make people of the world not hate you. Instead Bush managed to turn most of the west against US foreign policy.
Even if iraq had nothing to do with terrorism, the regime in iraq was by no means innocent. Can you really say that saddam hussein was an innocent?
|
On October 02 2012 11:22 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 11:12 RJGooner wrote:On October 02 2012 10:30 radscorpion9 wrote:On October 02 2012 03:11 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 03:04 Caihead wrote:On October 02 2012 02:53 kmillz wrote:On October 01 2012 20:23 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 01 2012 16:40 kmillz wrote:On October 01 2012 11:18 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On October 01 2012 09:30 kmillz wrote:
[quote]
I was in the Marine Corps, and yes I think we would rather have the atrocities hidden so we don't get killed over them. It is fucking war it is not a game and people do bad shit in wars, people get killed and when someone fucks up we all pay for it. I think those who commit the crimes should be handled accordingly and punished to the max as per UCMJ, but I do not think it justifies putting everyone at risk. Public accountability man, if you can't handle what an organization you are part of does then don't be a part of it. Hiding shit is never good. Second of all, on something else you said. Freedom of press and some other legal precedent means a reporter who leaks classified documents cannot get in trouble for it. Only the person who was privileged can get in trouble for leaking the info, the reporter doesn't get in trouble for publishing or writing any of it. I think that was established sometime around when deepthroat was leaking all the watergate stuff.
He said the incident that had affected him the most was when 15 detainees had been arrested by the Iraqi Federal Police for printing anti-Iraqi literature. He was asked by the army to find out who the "bad guys" were, and discovered that the detainees had followed what Manning said was a corruption trail within the Iraqi cabinet. He reported this to his commanding officer, but said "he didn't want to hear any of it"; he said the officer told him to help the Iraqi police find more detainees. Manning said it made him realize, "i was actively involved in something that i was completely against ..." He explained that "i cant separate myself from others ... i feel connected to everybody ... like they were distant family," and cited Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, and Elie Wiesel. He said he hoped the material would lead to "hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms. if not ... than [sic] we're doomed as a species." He said he had downloaded the material onto music CD-RWs, erased the music and replaced it with a compressed split file. Part of the reason no-one noticed, he said, was that staff were working 14 hours a day, seven days a week, and "people stopped caring after 3 weeks."
I'd have to agree with him 100%. Evil prevails when good men do nothing. I joined the USMC in 2008, long before any of these atrocities took place. I never went to Iraq or Afghanistan and I never had anything to do with anything that resulted in the death of anybody, but I do know many fellow Marines, soldiers, sailors, and airmen who have been to combat. I have good friends with Combat Action Ribbons (CAR) and Purple Hearts, and I am confident they would agree that these leaks are WRONG. They jeapordize everything we work hard for and protect to keep safe. I worked in the signals intelligence field, same as Bradley Manning. I was an Arabic Cryptologic Linguist and I would NEVER compromise the Top Secret data I have been entrusted with no matter what happened to me so so fuck off if you think I am holding back anything from the press. I withhold information that would be invaluable not only to international press but our exact ENEMY who is trying to destroy us. If I am wrong for being silent, so be it, but I do it with the firm belief that it protects my brothers and sisters in arms. Your "brothers & sisters" in arms deserve to know first and then the rest of us so they can march back to their homes. Serving a nation that willingly tortures is barbaric to begin with. The fact you think anything like this is "better" secret is crazy to me, and as I said before name a single attack/event since 2010 that was the direct cause of this? All of the sensitive data was redacted that would lead to any backlash. I think you're missing the point of the quote "Evil prevails when good men do nothing". If your behind the Middle Eastern conquest and you're allowing such things, you allow the atrocities to reoccur, it is your (and whoever else is in your shoes) fault for not standing up. That's such a warped mentality. Yes, you are right. It was wrong of me to serve my country. Sorry. What do you mean by "serving your country" there exactly, are you talking about serving your government's interests? Serving the interests of the American people? Or acting on behalf of a vague nationalist idea? Surely serving your country means representing and listening to the views of American citizens, and American citizens among rational people would rather their military not hide its war crimes and murder of civilians regardless of whether or not it's collateral damage. The journalists and intelligent services men who exposed Watergate, the pentagon papers, and operation northwood have been proclaimed as heroes standing for the public's right to know the actions of its own governing body whom claims to represent them, and for truth, justice and the American way, quite literally. America heralded itself as the front runner in civil liberties and transparent government actions as the world's biggest super power. Surely serving your country also means abiding by moral ruling ideology that your country prides itself on? How about joining the military in a time of war in a time of war? I didn't realize you had to explain what you mean when you say you serve your country these days. You never really effectively addressed Calihead's argument. Just because you "serve your country" doesn't mean you're doing a good thing. Its true that just because some bad things happen in a war, that shouldn't imply that soldiers always do bad things. Because you do have to look at the broader picture...but this is precisely what we're asking you to do and you don't seem to be willing to do when looking at the reasons your government is sending soldiers overseas. There are soldiers in Syria who are "serving their country" right now, there were soldiers in Libya who also served their country. Obviously Nazi germany is another example. You could say that those aren't examples because their government is no longer legitimate...but firstly that's all relative - those soldiers would probably justify their actions in a similar way that you do - more or less a thoughtless "I'm supporting my country, that's all that matters, and I won't feel sorry for doing it". More broadly though, there are many other subtler cases where just because you serve your country doesn't mean you're doing good...you have to think and take personal responsibility, and have a personal moral stance on *what it is that you are doing*, because you could be doing something profoundly wrong that not only hurts/kills innocents but also puts people back at home at greater risk. Afghanistan and Iraq can probably be argued to be positive in the long run. But it kind of is important that you recognize the point that Calihead was making. I get the feeling that you do...as it is more or less a form of common sense. But still just in case I wanted to say it . Every country needs a military to defend itself. You can argue about how big that military should be and how it should be run, but it doesn't change that particular fact. "Serving the country" generally involves making an enormous sacrifice (putting one's life in danger). That is why it is viewed upon so favorably by the poster and by myself personally. Sure, there are some bad soldiers out there, but I respect the hell out of anyone who is willing to go fight and possibly die in some desert so that I don't have to. Also, while the U.S military has been involved in some particularly awful and horrific acts, it still has done a lot of good things. Considering that it's essentially the defense force for the entire Western world, I think people sometimes tend to not appreciate its significance as much as they should. You can't make the comparison between American soldiers and Syrian soldiers because American soldiers are not sent in with express orders to kill civilians like the Syrian army has been doing. Yes, civilians do get killed when we invade, but that's not a part of our military policy and unfortunately is "collateral damage" (as callous a term as that is). I also don't really see the Nazi comparison, because the U.S is not out trying to conquer the world here. We invaded Afghanistan because the Taliban was harboring Al-Qaeda, and we invaded Iraq because we thought they had WMD's (which was a huge mistake, I think most Americans will agree on this one). I agree with you that blind patriotism is not a good thing and that it can make people think and act irrationally. But by no means do I think "serving the country" or supporting the troops in the U.S military fall into that category. Do you have any suggestions to the people of the next innocent (relatively speaking) country that is accused of having WMDs, have UN inspectors sent over who find nothing and a few days later are declared war upon?
Welcome to Earth.
|
Saddam Hussien was not fucking innocent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dujail_Massacre
That's like saying Uncle Joe was a misunderstood and ambivalent president.
Chemical weapons are also WMDs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign
And who was going to step in to help the Iraqis? The US is the only NATO country that commits any significant forces to an operation. Flip through the last fifty years of world history, find NATO\UN conflicts and tell me who else dedicated HALF of what we do. We're the "global police" because we have to be, not because its fun. Ask the delegates at the UN who else would or could step in and you'll get silence.
Next time, maybe Europe should stop a genocide instead of us. Worked out REAL well in Bosnia, right?
|
On October 02 2012 11:22 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 11:12 RJGooner wrote:On October 02 2012 10:30 radscorpion9 wrote:On October 02 2012 03:11 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 03:04 Caihead wrote:On October 02 2012 02:53 kmillz wrote:On October 01 2012 20:23 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 01 2012 16:40 kmillz wrote:On October 01 2012 11:18 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On October 01 2012 09:30 kmillz wrote:
[quote]
I was in the Marine Corps, and yes I think we would rather have the atrocities hidden so we don't get killed over them. It is fucking war it is not a game and people do bad shit in wars, people get killed and when someone fucks up we all pay for it. I think those who commit the crimes should be handled accordingly and punished to the max as per UCMJ, but I do not think it justifies putting everyone at risk. Public accountability man, if you can't handle what an organization you are part of does then don't be a part of it. Hiding shit is never good. Second of all, on something else you said. Freedom of press and some other legal precedent means a reporter who leaks classified documents cannot get in trouble for it. Only the person who was privileged can get in trouble for leaking the info, the reporter doesn't get in trouble for publishing or writing any of it. I think that was established sometime around when deepthroat was leaking all the watergate stuff.
He said the incident that had affected him the most was when 15 detainees had been arrested by the Iraqi Federal Police for printing anti-Iraqi literature. He was asked by the army to find out who the "bad guys" were, and discovered that the detainees had followed what Manning said was a corruption trail within the Iraqi cabinet. He reported this to his commanding officer, but said "he didn't want to hear any of it"; he said the officer told him to help the Iraqi police find more detainees. Manning said it made him realize, "i was actively involved in something that i was completely against ..." He explained that "i cant separate myself from others ... i feel connected to everybody ... like they were distant family," and cited Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, and Elie Wiesel. He said he hoped the material would lead to "hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms. if not ... than [sic] we're doomed as a species." He said he had downloaded the material onto music CD-RWs, erased the music and replaced it with a compressed split file. Part of the reason no-one noticed, he said, was that staff were working 14 hours a day, seven days a week, and "people stopped caring after 3 weeks."
I'd have to agree with him 100%. Evil prevails when good men do nothing. I joined the USMC in 2008, long before any of these atrocities took place. I never went to Iraq or Afghanistan and I never had anything to do with anything that resulted in the death of anybody, but I do know many fellow Marines, soldiers, sailors, and airmen who have been to combat. I have good friends with Combat Action Ribbons (CAR) and Purple Hearts, and I am confident they would agree that these leaks are WRONG. They jeapordize everything we work hard for and protect to keep safe. I worked in the signals intelligence field, same as Bradley Manning. I was an Arabic Cryptologic Linguist and I would NEVER compromise the Top Secret data I have been entrusted with no matter what happened to me so so fuck off if you think I am holding back anything from the press. I withhold information that would be invaluable not only to international press but our exact ENEMY who is trying to destroy us. If I am wrong for being silent, so be it, but I do it with the firm belief that it protects my brothers and sisters in arms. Your "brothers & sisters" in arms deserve to know first and then the rest of us so they can march back to their homes. Serving a nation that willingly tortures is barbaric to begin with. The fact you think anything like this is "better" secret is crazy to me, and as I said before name a single attack/event since 2010 that was the direct cause of this? All of the sensitive data was redacted that would lead to any backlash. I think you're missing the point of the quote "Evil prevails when good men do nothing". If your behind the Middle Eastern conquest and you're allowing such things, you allow the atrocities to reoccur, it is your (and whoever else is in your shoes) fault for not standing up. That's such a warped mentality. Yes, you are right. It was wrong of me to serve my country. Sorry. What do you mean by "serving your country" there exactly, are you talking about serving your government's interests? Serving the interests of the American people? Or acting on behalf of a vague nationalist idea? Surely serving your country means representing and listening to the views of American citizens, and American citizens among rational people would rather their military not hide its war crimes and murder of civilians regardless of whether or not it's collateral damage. The journalists and intelligent services men who exposed Watergate, the pentagon papers, and operation northwood have been proclaimed as heroes standing for the public's right to know the actions of its own governing body whom claims to represent them, and for truth, justice and the American way, quite literally. America heralded itself as the front runner in civil liberties and transparent government actions as the world's biggest super power. Surely serving your country also means abiding by moral ruling ideology that your country prides itself on? How about joining the military in a time of war in a time of war? I didn't realize you had to explain what you mean when you say you serve your country these days. You never really effectively addressed Calihead's argument. Just because you "serve your country" doesn't mean you're doing a good thing. Its true that just because some bad things happen in a war, that shouldn't imply that soldiers always do bad things. Because you do have to look at the broader picture...but this is precisely what we're asking you to do and you don't seem to be willing to do when looking at the reasons your government is sending soldiers overseas. There are soldiers in Syria who are "serving their country" right now, there were soldiers in Libya who also served their country. Obviously Nazi germany is another example. You could say that those aren't examples because their government is no longer legitimate...but firstly that's all relative - those soldiers would probably justify their actions in a similar way that you do - more or less a thoughtless "I'm supporting my country, that's all that matters, and I won't feel sorry for doing it". More broadly though, there are many other subtler cases where just because you serve your country doesn't mean you're doing good...you have to think and take personal responsibility, and have a personal moral stance on *what it is that you are doing*, because you could be doing something profoundly wrong that not only hurts/kills innocents but also puts people back at home at greater risk. Afghanistan and Iraq can probably be argued to be positive in the long run. But it kind of is important that you recognize the point that Calihead was making. I get the feeling that you do...as it is more or less a form of common sense. But still just in case I wanted to say it . Every country needs a military to defend itself. You can argue about how big that military should be and how it should be run, but it doesn't change that particular fact. "Serving the country" generally involves making an enormous sacrifice (putting one's life in danger). That is why it is viewed upon so favorably by the poster and by myself personally. Sure, there are some bad soldiers out there, but I respect the hell out of anyone who is willing to go fight and possibly die in some desert so that I don't have to. Also, while the U.S military has been involved in some particularly awful and horrific acts, it still has done a lot of good things. Considering that it's essentially the defense force for the entire Western world, I think people sometimes tend to not appreciate its significance as much as they should. You can't make the comparison between American soldiers and Syrian soldiers because American soldiers are not sent in with express orders to kill civilians like the Syrian army has been doing. Yes, civilians do get killed when we invade, but that's not a part of our military policy and unfortunately is "collateral damage" (as callous a term as that is). I also don't really see the Nazi comparison, because the U.S is not out trying to conquer the world here. We invaded Afghanistan because the Taliban was harboring Al-Qaeda, and we invaded Iraq because we thought they had WMD's (which was a huge mistake, I think most Americans will agree on this one). I agree with you that blind patriotism is not a good thing and that it can make people think and act irrationally. But by no means do I think "serving the country" or supporting the troops in the U.S military fall into that category. Do you have any suggestions to the people of the next innocent (relatively speaking) country that is accused of having WMDs, have UN inspectors sent over who find nothing and a few days later are declared war upon?
Don't slaughter your own people?
Of all the things that America has done in the war on terror, removing Sadam from power is one of the few that i have no problem with.
|
And now him and Osama Bin Ladin are dead, I think most people would agree that is a win for peace, even if it came from a war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
