Are all soldiers like the Nazis?

RickyH said:
The new mission in iraq is to hand over power to the iraqi officials. In term we have to follow the iraqi laws, and enforce them. We have to do everything from follow the speed limit, to handing over detainees to the IPs. We can be pulled over by Iraqi police if you believe it.

https://www.mnf-iraq.com/images/CGs_Messages/security_agreement.pdf



Let me see these reports.
Click to expand...

I think he's confusing you guys with the behaviour of the few Blackwater contractors who were not subject to law. He doesn't understand US soldiers have been bending over backwards not to create new enemies among the civilian population as it is counterproductive to their aims.

Its easy to take shots at the military, there will always be reports of what went wrong and what mistakes were made and the military generally tries to remain transparent without placing troops at risk, however the successes and the good that a soldier does during active duty are generally not reported. It may seem like a thankless job but there are those who do appreciate what it is that you do.:)
 
mike47 said:
Did you forget G.W. Bush and his twin in deception Tony Blair ?!.
Click to expand...

Well no Mike. In Sam's equation G.W Bush nor Blair are technically nazi's. Its ALL those soldiers who are 'nazi's. Bush nor Blair have ever served in the military which just makes them 'bad men' but not 'nazi's I guess. The initial statement is skewed and detours around what she really wants to discuss.

I have always been against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, I think its a bad decision but that doesn't translate into attacks on the men who serve in the armed forces and I certainly do not hold them responsible for the decision to enter into these wars.

I do think the west has a problem with muslim extremism and we have to fight it but not using these tactics. This isn't simply a US problem either. Ever heard of Ingusetia? That small place right outside Moscow is undergoing its own problems with violence from extremists and the inevitable backlash against muslims:

The Swedish European Union presidency said in a statement that it "condemns (Monday's) terrorist attack in Nazran, Russia, and conveys its deepest condolences to the families of the victims of this brutal attack."

Early Monday a suicide bomber rammed a truck packed with an estimated 200 kilograms (441 pounds) of explosives through the gate of a Nazran police compound, killing at least 20 and injuring dozens. Nazran is the main city in Ingushetia, a restive and increasingly violent autonomous republic in southern Russia.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev responded swiftly to what he described as an "act of terror that could have been averted," and fired Ingushetia's interior minister. "The police must protect the people and the police must also be able to protect themselves," he said on state television.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4578478,00.html

Following the capture of the foothill villages of Muzhichi and Yandare in Ingushetia on the evening of October 16 (North Caucasus Weekly, October 16), militants from the Ingush Jamaat “Shariat” carried out another series of high-profile actions against Russian troops. According to various sources, more than 50 Russian military personnel were killed and wounded in two assaults by the militants on the Galashki Highway on October 18, which would make this the most audacious attack by the jamaat members in Ingushetia to date.

http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=5235


There are still ongoing problems in Chechnya. Remember the Beslan School Massacre when muslim militants demanding an end to the war in Chechnya blew up a school killing 168 children and over 300 hostages?

How about the bombing in London, Mumbai, Spain, Southern Thailand, Hasan's killing spree, daily bombings in Pakistan? What about the issue of China and their muslim population? Its not just the US. All these countries have absolutely NOTHING in common save a problem with islamic extremists. So the threats are real! Its not simply a matter of propaganda however I do not believe one can address these through a conventional war.

I dont want british or american soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan, I don't think any of these nations are worth the blood of these men. What happens in Afghanistan or Iraq is not my concern, their values or the way they choose to live is not my concern. Frankly I couldn't care less and they have their own to care for them. I do care about the lives of the men who serve and for western society and its values. Its not a matter of 'nationalism' or 'patriotism' but our way of life. Right now there is a clash in the West between some muslims and secular society. There are those who would have a secular society bend for their own purposes, like holding freedom of speech and press in judgement over cartoons etc.

So I agree with Sam essentially that West should militarily disengage in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think we should concentrate on our own societies and our own security. What they choose to do in theirs is no concern of mine, buses being blown up near Trafalga square and buildings falling down in NY on the other hand are my concern. Many make the mistake of thinking that the problem of islamic extremism will end if we pull out of these two wars. I don't believe this to be true, what I do believe is that we can better use our resources than wasting them on people who do not want it. I don't think we should offer 'help' or assistance of any kind, I think there are wealthy enough arab states to do this. Let them take care of themselves and let us work on taking care of our own society. I say let them be the donors of the aid that builds these societies if they so choose, I do not see why its the wealthy west that needs to take the brunt of the responsibility. If they had a handle on the extremism that is rooted in their own society then we wouldn't have this problem in the West. I think to not defend yourself out of some skewed notion of political correctness could one day be our undoing.
 
Last edited:
sniffy said:
One does have to wonder though why the people of Afganistan find it necessary, time and time again, to shoot back...... what is it about Afganistan...?

Could it be that there has been so much interference and invasion by external imperialsitic/resource hungry powers and that this has had a detrimental effect upon Afganistan's ability to concentrate on internal affairs? So much so that processes which might have evolved naturally over a period of decades has been interupted by this almost constant invasion and meddling. It may well be the latter that has left the door open to exploitation by those with agendas which are of no long term benefit to Afganis?

Wasn't so long ago that the 'Taliban' were the 'Mujahadin freedom fighters' repelling the Russian commies who were armed and funded by the US administration at the time.

Short term memories....
Click to expand...

Very short memories indeed! The British had a series of wars attempting to annex Afghanistan before the Russians made theirs. The area's landscape is what makes it easy to defend and difficult to conquer. Meanwhile the only thing the Afghans have managed to do when they are not fighting some outside force is fight among themselves. The Taliban were smart and simply negotiated with local warlords through payment of money and localized power. Those who scoff at the Taliban rules concerning women simply do not know that outside of Kabul most of these people were living like that anyway...no t.v, women fully covered and shackled to their home, etc. The are not only proud to be warriors they are good at it! Consequently like the Vietnamese I don't worry about the Afghans.

The russian war lasted ten years. The British-Afghan Wars (1838-42, 1878-80, 1919-21). You would make them out to be helpless innocent victims instead of the war savvy tough folk that they really are.

But then again liberals would always have someone be the 'victim'.:rolleyes:
 
The major problem with "Muslim" extremism is the difficulty with getting them to bend over, and grab their ankles. Its a situation that is easier to impose with some other peoples. Its why people have to frequently export the big dicks to them. Apparently this is supposed to motivate them to think that getting screwed an inevitable prospect.

Ever notice how, in much of "Muslim" extremism, the problem always starts with outside interference?

Those who are so excited by a few terrorist attacks have no problem sleeping through the history of their own actions.

Its pretty universal, this mindlessness. Its like the cops who are now terrorised by the "Maoists" who had a strange unexplained objection to brutal torture and killing of their families. And now the major issues are the Maoists bombing the infrastructure they see as threatening to their previously peaceful [and "backward"] existence.

I wonder why.
 
Lucysnow said:
Very short memories indeed! The British had a series of wars attempting to annex Afghanistan before the Russians made theirs.
Click to expand...

Er what part of the term 'Imperialistic' in my post did you misread? I know what the Brits did and most of it ain't pretty.


The area's landscape is what makes it easy to defend and difficult to conquer. Meanwhile the only thing the Afghans have managed to do when they are not fighting some outside force is fight among themselves.
Click to expand...

Might want to check your sources. Nomadic people relying on sheep and wool. Artisans and artists strong sense of oral history and ancient traditions in music and poetry.


The Taliban were smart and simply negotiated with local warlords through payment of money and localized power. Those who scoff at the Taliban rules concerning women simply do not know that outside of Kabul most of these people were living like that anyway...no t.v, women fully covered and shackled to their home, etc. The are not only proud to be warriors they are good at it! Consequently like the Vietnamese I don't worry about the Afghans.
Click to expand...


And I doubt they worry about who you worry about.

The russian war lasted ten years. The British-Afghan Wars (1838-42, 1878-80, 1919-21). You would make them out to be helpless innocent victims instead of the war savvy tough folk that they really are.
Click to expand...

Hmm so over a century exactly how many invasions by foreign powers is that......? For how long have the Afgans had foriegn troops on their soil?

I wonder if the US had been invaded so often and for such periods how much time and resource it would have to dedicate to issues such as civil rights.... and then compare that to a nation the size of Afghanistan.


But then again liberals would always have someone be the 'victim'.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Oh I've never said the Afghans behave like victims but I certainly think they have been subjected to a lot of attempted bullying.

But then someone always tries to dismiss a valid argument by adding the loaded term 'liberal'.
 
Lucysnow said:
I think he's confusing you guys with the behaviour of the few Blackwater contractors who were not subject to law. He doesn't understand US soldiers have been bending over backwards not to create new enemies among the civilian population as it is counterproductive to their aims.

Its easy to take shots at the military, there will always be reports of what went wrong and what mistakes were made and the military generally tries to remain transparent without placing troops at risk, however the successes and the good that a soldier does during active duty are generally not reported. It may seem like a thankless job but there are those who do appreciate what it is that you do.:)
Click to expand...

Not many people do understand what is going on with this war. That is most of the problem. They just have a really good idea of what might be going on, and it's enough for them to say what they say. So I do agree with you.
 
RickyH said:
Not many people do understand what is going on with this war. That is most of the problem. They just have a really good idea of what might be going on, and it's enough for them to say what they say. So I do agree with you.
Click to expand...

You might want to look up The Nuremberg Defense.

And what the outcome was:

"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."
 
Only really really really bad Muslims get due process [following years of confessions extracted under torture]. The rest just disappear.
 
sorry, you keep editing your posts. I don't believe there to be enough evidence to say there is a secret torture prison. If there was, I wouldn't even know about it.
 
heh, yeah they can blame the whistleblower for leaking his name.

Mark Swanner [twenty years of "serving his country"] is safe home in Stafford County, Virginia. I wonder if he keeps trophies from his victims of the last twenty years

Notice how not one of the US troops involved in the 183 waterboardings of Khaled Mohammed is on trial anywhere.

toilet-paper-constitution2-300x219.jpg


I also bet you have to look up all these names. And that there are many many more nameless victims in mass graves where your troops are.
 
S.A.M. said:
heh, yeah they can blame the whistleblower for leaking his name.

Mark Swanner [twenty years of "serving his country"] is safe home in Stafford County, Virginia. I wonder if he keeps trophies from his victims of the last twenty years

Notice how not one of the US troops involved in the 183 waterboardings of Khaled Mohammed is on trial anywhere.



I also bet you have to look up all these names. And that there are many many more nameless victims in mass graves where your troops are.
Click to expand...


I feel that if you're willing to torture some one to death, you'd best be prepared to take the punishment that comes with it. No deals should be made of the crime, and no one should get off the charges.

I've been waterboarded, it sure as hell isn't a good way to go. But it isn't as bad as what he may have done to an american in custody. Do you know some names off the top of your head of americans tortured by muslims?
 
Not in american. How about in arabic countries? Do you think they're any more right to torture americans with the intentions of killing them in every single case?
 
Depends on what the Americans were doing there. What would happen to an army of Arabs who invaded the US?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top