Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ziadel
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.
|
I don't know that man's story, but I'm sure he believed in what he was doing, and his motivation was a bit higher than "that's my order, and that's that". But that's just my opinion.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ziadel
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.
|
I've been tought in the military academy that the most effective soldier is a well trained one, who is defending his homeland. You don't have to look far for examples. How about, say, Vietnam and, oh, what the heck - Iraq?
Here's another fun fact for the pro-court martial crowd. The Old Testament (2 Krn 15, 16, 20, 23 and Mi for a start) described the Hebrews as one of the most brutal, pro-war nations and armies in the world at the time. What God told these folks to do was to kill each and every man in the oposing army, and fun stuff like that. But the real kicker is this - even though the Hebrews were pro-war, more than anyone else, there were several ways not to go to war. One of them was to plant a vine yard. The other to marry the girl. Ooh, and you know what? You could've said that you were scared, and they'd let you go just like that (no court martial)! Well, that was over two thousand years ago. What you guys are saying is that your army should be even more vile and tough with it's own soldiers than one of the most aggresive armies from the barbaric, ancient times. So... where does that put your military culture?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ziadel
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...
|
Alas, it was only in your eyes, and that does not make it a referendum, from the pont of view of the constitution, for a start. It was just what it was called - a presidential election.