Quote:
|
Originally Posted by reconmike
Who are you? Some "professional" that sits in an office playing arm chair quaterback? Most who join the military and combat units do so because they are warriors, I know it is hard to believe but there are still men out there that want to do that, be a warrior. Whether you know this or not when someone joins the military they volunteer, meaning they can get a contract stating what their MOS, (job, for you professional types) will be.
Who says you that what you speak is the truth, you aren't arrogant, but what the "professionals" call having delusions of granduer.
|
Who am I? I already answered that. I'm Willravel, and I'm right (at least on this). It's really simple: why does the military exist? To protect the lives and liberties of it's citizens. Is that being done in Iraq? No. The logic has to start there. Before you tell me about warriors and how everyone in the military is a volunteer (duh), we have to start at the basics. Our soldiers are not protecting american lives or liberties. Those who have had the misfortune to lose their lives or be injured over there have not done so to protect american lives or liberties. Also, I am hardly the only one who has correctly been taught what honor is. I'm sure that plenty of people here would agree that this is a travesty and is stripping the honor away from the military.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by reconmike
Were these the same views your grandfather, the career army / role model had? Because I am sure the during his tenure, he had one or two presidents that filled that descripton.
|
He fought in Vietnam because he was orderd to, but he made it very clear to me that we had no business being there. He explained how many lives were wasted and that he prayed that it never happened again. I'm glad he can't see this.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by reconmike
Again who says your right? He asked you who are you to tell a soldier his business? Untill your on the business end of a firearm, bb guns excluded, you haven't a clue what soldiering is about.
|
Who said anything about a "bb gun"? It was a 9mm round that I'm told was probably from a Browning handgun (pistol is another word for hand gun, and is hardly a toy). It went clear through my calf. Have you ever been shot?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by reconmike
Terrorism on the rise? I am finding it hard to locate the terror attacks on the US post 9/11.
|
Since the War on Iraq, global deaths from terrorism have increased a great deal. Each year, the death count shows definate signs of increases globally. Terrorism is on the rise.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5889435/
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by reconmike
Death count on the rise? Really? Someone with such a strong military background should know this happens in war.
|
Someone with two ears and a TV should know that the war was over years ago. Don't you remember the speech from the aircraft carrier by the president? Don't you remember "Mission Accomplished"? We won. Yay for us, eh?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by powerclown
It doesn't matter if they're scared, or confused, or in denial, or against the policy - none of that matters, the military isn't a democracy. When the commander gives an order, the soldier obeys without hesitation, or he/she is immediately discharged, court-martialed or otherwise removed from his post. Insubordination is insubordination in any walk of professional life, and magnified tenfold in the military - any military - for reasons of practicality and ultimately, survival. And again, the US military is a volunteer army.
|
Thank you for making a reasonable argument. I'm not asking anyone to disobey orders that they can't prove on the spot are a breach of the UCMJ or Geneva Conventions. Most of the peope over in Iraq are very honorable people, of that I have no doubt. The problem is that
we, those who are still here on US soil, are not fighting hard enough to return our soldiers to defending the country, their job. I see many doing a lot, but it clearly isn't enough. 20,000 more brave souls are headed over there because the monkey in the oval office want's to salvage one of the most ignorant and selfish decisions made by a president in recent history. In order to "support the troops" we should fight to defend them with the same resolve that they fight to protect us. I have copies of letters I've sent to every Senator in the US on my computer. Each has been printed and mailed twice. I've recieved one response that basically read: "Don't call us, we'll call you."
The only main difference between Vietnam and Iraq is the draft. At the rate we are going now, Iraq will either end with the US leaving sooner, or the US having a draft and leaving later with an exponentially higher death count.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by powerclown
Now we're getting to the heart of the matter. If one is ready to acknowledge that a military force is an extension of government policy, than how are the two to be separated, ideologically speaking? Can one blame the troops for anything they do, when they are only following orders? If one disapproves with a government's decision to use military force, can one approve of those individuals directly responsible for implementing the government decision? I'm questioning the consistency of maintaining separate ideological positions relative to a central government and the military branch of that government.
|
I do blame a few of the soldiers for allowing some of the horrible corruption from the top to drip down on them, the rapists, the torturers, those that kill in cold blood, but most of the soldiers, as you have correctly pointed out, are good men and women who are stuck. I feel it's our responsibility to make sure that what they are fighting for is rightous and justified.