Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Schwan
Well, let's agree to disagree on that one. A soldier should have every right to know what he is risking his life for. Otherwise, there's nothing distinguishing him from a slave. Also, a soldier that truly believes in what he is fighting for is much more efefctive on the battlefield, thus he's a much better aset to the army, and he's less likely to run to, say, Canada.
|
I simply cannot agree to disagree on that one, becaue its such a fundamental part of being a soldier. Do you think Carlos Hathcock knew why he had to crawl 2000 meters through 2 feet high grass, covering about a yard or two an hour, while being eaten alive by bugs to shoot a NVA general? Nope, he did'nt, it could very well have been that HIS general lost a game of cards to THAT general, and his general wanted the dude dead. He did it because uif he did'nt, someone else would have to, and he did'nt wanna put anyone else in harms way. In short, the dude needed to get got, so he went and got him.
The
most effective soldier doesnt know why hes on the battlefield at the time, he just knows hes there and what he has to do.
Quote:
|
Last time I checked, the United States had a presidential election, and not a referendum for/against the war. The American voter had squat to say about the war. Either candidate would need to keep their troops in Iraq, for a longer or shorter time, but still. But, again, I don't recall the US public being asked of their opinion before the invasion.
|
This whole Iraq thing was going on, and if people didnt like the way GW was doing it, the majority would have voted against him... In my eyes, that election WAS a referrendum for/against the war, you like the way things are going, vote for GW, is you want to declare victory and run like hell, vote for Kerry.... thats the way the election seemed to me...