Should we really honour the modern soldier?

[zanket]

Secondly, i ask you to kindly refrain from calling all soldiers killers of toddlers. Its not true, nor is it even relevant.

All soldiers in an offensive war are accomplices to whatever deaths occur. They all help make those deaths happen and thus all are deserving of disrespect. So it’s both true and relevant.

The soldier's job BY DEFINITION is to carry out someone elses wishes.

Unless the wish is an illegal order. The soldier’s job is to carry out only legal orders. Certainly an order to takeover another country and set up a puppet government should be illegal. Unfortunately in the US we have a situation where the leader has effectively declared himself the sole arbiter of the law. He has overturned well-established law with executive orders that the Supreme Court has not yet ruled upon. The soldiers should be able to see through that ruse and refuse the orders.

If you have a problem with what they are doing, FINE. Take it up with the idiot in the white house. HE is their commander - and by definition he COMMANDS them to do what they do.

He may command them but their allegiance is to their country’s Constitution, not him. If the soldier follows an illegal order then they are accomplices to a crime.

When you sign your name on that agreement, you agree to do WHAT YOU ARE TOLD or face dire consequences.

The consequences are not dire. A year in jail in exchange for possibly saving the life of a toddler who would be killed in offense? That’s a no-brainer.

By the way, if soldiers did whatever they wanted whenever they wanted there would be anarchy.

I didn’t suggest that they do whatever they want. I suggested they quit. That is an option they have. The military is prepared to handle the exercise of the option. The military has the forms to fill out and the jail cell waiting. If they need a replacement soldier then they can go to the job market and pay whatever is required to get one. So, no anarchy required.

If you would wake up and join us in well hell, HUMAN KIND, you would see that your version of the world will probably never come to fruition. Unless you want to move to Switzerland. Hey maybe THATS a good idea.

I don’t suggest pacifism. I just don’t respect the soldier who offends. You keep combining defense and offense.

Because of [Hitler’s] skill and prowess as a leader, i do respect him, i might hate his guts, but i still respect him.

Now I can see why we are so far apart on this topic. You see, if Hitler were alive today I wouldn’t respect him, because respect lends support; it gives power. Neither would I respect the Nazis for the same reason.

 

[zanket]

i would think [Moore] would be the last person to back down for fear of a bullet.

You make a good argument there. So I’ll say that if he respects the soldiers then I just disagree with that.

lastly, i wonder how your views would hold up in iraq under saddam, or under the taliban. i'm sure you'd have a long few days of your life left there. but hey, you're not there, might as well enjoy your freedoms. people like you make me wonder if any sacrifices the soldiers make are worth it.

Again, I don’t suggest pacifism as you imply. I support a strong defense of freedom and democracy. I enjoy my freedom so much that I want everyone to have it. Were I the prez, I’d make a list of all the dictatorships and get world support to take them all out, if not diplomatically then by force, as long as that took while making a best effort to minimize casualties on both sides. The thing I would not do, the key difference, is that I would not replace the dictatorship with another dictatorship that is a democracy in name only. I would replace it with true democracy. Soldiers who engage in the latter protect and serve and thus I respect them. Soldiers who set up puppet governments willingly make me less safe--that is, less free, just like Saddam and the Taliban did to people--and thus I disrespect them.

 

[spaganya]

You apparently really dont understand what it means to be a soldier. And thank GOD you arent out there defending MY country, because the first time you were given an order you dont like you would drop your gear, and hightail it like the PASSIFIST you are. Not only would that endanger all the men and women you fought beside, it would undermine the oath you took when you became a soldier to begin with. You seem to NOT UNDERSTAND that soldiering is a job. Its what you do. You show up to work and you follow orders, trusting that the ones in command make the right decisions. AGAIN, you only seem to agree with using force when it agrees with YOUR agenda. That is not only selfish but that is short sighted.

I agree with Fallen Angel in saying that the people that think like you make me wonder why the soldiers make such sacrifices. Not only do your one sighted finger pointing stance make me angry, it also makes me sad to know how unapreciated a soldier is just because he had the unfortunate privalege to be stationed in Iraq or Afghanistan. My only hope is that people one day will figure out that freedom isnt free, and in order for you to have the freedom that allows you to detest the military so, it is the soldier that gives you that right, FIGHTS for that right.

 

[zanket]

I didn’t suggest they quit rather than carry out an order they don’t like. I suggest they quit rather than carry out an illegal order. That does not undermine their oath; it adheres to it. I agree with using force not for my agenda per se but for defense. It is, after all, the Dept. of Defense. I respect the soldier that fights for freedom. Unfortunately what the soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq do has little to do with freedom. They defend only themselves. I find it sad that so few people can distinguish between defense and offense.

 

[Fallen Angel]

how is this defense zanket?:

Were I the prez, I’d make a list of all the dictatorships and get world support to take them all out, if not diplomatically then by force, as long as that took while making a best effort to minimize casualties on both sides.

 

[Fallen Angel]

hmm.... Iraq comes to mind... it's a dictatorship, and US tried to get the world support to take them out, sanctions didn't work, so we went in by force, and we are US, we always attempt to minimize casualties on both sides. Unless of course, you claim that the US fights by attrition? Well, we fit your model, so what's your problem with soldiers?

 

[zanket]

how is this defense zanket?:

Dictatorship is obviously a threat to the free world (think North Korea saber-rattling). It’s also obviously a threat to the people under dictatorship. Significant threats call for defense if diplomacy fails. I think the democracies of the world should collectively use their respective Depts. of Defense to defend all people worldwide.

hmm.... Iraq comes to mind... it's a dictatorship, and US tried to get the world support to take them out, sanctions didn't work, so we went in by force, and we are US, we always attempt to minimize casualties on both sides.

Easily thousands of Iraqis could have been spared. If only because Bush got impatient and didn’t respond to Saddam’s request for exile, which he certainly had an incentive to take. One of the Iraqis’ biggest complaints is that the US soldiers fire randomly in all directions whenever they are threatened. If police did that then they’d find themselves in prison in a hurry. Heck, we didn’t even help that 12-year-old kid whose legs and arms we blew off while orphaning him. Not until his picture was all over the media anyway, at which time we gave him a free flight to a hospital but still left him to fend for himself financially for the rest of his life. And of course there’s the dozens we tortured to death. It seems the US doesn’t give a shit about the Iraqis or Afghanis except as it pertains to our profit goals. Which makes sense since we’re there to plunder in the first place.

Well, we fit your model, so what's your problem with soldiers?

In my book Bush had a case for defense against Iraq and Afghanistan by the mere fact that these were dictatorships. (Not that he presented such a case to the public.) But now the US is setting up puppet governments in those countries. Bush’s wars are now clearly offensives, if that wasn't obvious from the beginning. He’s creating new threats. The soldiers there are accomplices. Rather than adhere to their oath to uphold the Constitution they blindly follow the orders of a megalomaniac, making the rest of us less safe in the process.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

You apparently really dont understand what it means to be a soldier. And thank GOD you arent out there defending MY country, because the first time you were given an order you dont like you would drop your gear, and hightail it like the PASSIFIST you are. Not only would that endanger all the men and women you fought beside, it would undermine the oath you took when you became a soldier to begin with. You seem to NOT UNDERSTAND that soldiering is a job. Its what you do. You show up to work and you follow orders, trusting that the ones in command make the right decisions. AGAIN, you only seem to agree with using force when it agrees with YOUR agenda. That is not only selfish but that is short sighted.

I agree with Fallen Angel in saying that the people that think like you make me wonder why the soldiers make such sacrifices. Not only do your one sighted finger pointing stance make me angry, it also makes me sad to know how unapreciated a soldier is just because he had the unfortunate privalege to be stationed in Iraq or Afghanistan. My only hope is that people one day will figure out that freedom isnt free, and in order for you to have the freedom that allows you to detest the military so, it is the soldier that gives you that right, FIGHTS for that right.

Soldiering is not always a job. I was drafted in the army. Hence it was a duty

Moreover, I imagine you are speaking of the US. The last time the US was invaded was by ??? in ???.

Let's call it what it really is: Offense..and not defense.

 

[spaganya]

Moreover, I imagine you are speaking of the US. The last time the US was invaded was by ??? in ???. .

um have we forgotten about 9/11? that was an attack if there ever was one. And we havent been all out "invaded" due to several reasons...

1. Somewhat isolated from huge military movements, by the time they are on their way here we would notice them....

2. People fear us as much as they need us.

 

[Undecided]

um have we forgotten about 9/11?

Umm… are we part of the ignorant masses who still doesn’t get that Iraq had absolutely no connection to that very attack? Me thinks so…

2. People fear us as much as they need us.

Too bad no one takes you seriously anymore.

 

[laughing weasel]

I was a small kid with big mouth and I was often the victim of beatings administered by groups of thugs. I naturally did not enjoy this treatment and learned that the best tactic you can use against a group of fighters is to RUN. This is not always an option sometimes you get trapped and when this occurs you are stuck fighting ion a situation that you just can’t win so you have to lose strategically you pick the weakest member of the group that is attacking you. He is usually hanging back like a jackal hardly even a threat on his own it is only when he joins with the group that he is dangerous. This becomes your focus you kick his tail so bad that he finds an excuse not to be near the next fight. That means that instead of five people beating you only have four people beating on you. Then you pick out the next and so on sometimes you cannot defeat them sometimes you can but you just have to try. Iraq was just the weakest and most easily justified target. If you are a small bully don’t talk trash while the big kids fight. Iraq made the mistake of thinking that just because it wasn’t throwing punches yet that it was free to encourage others. When it comes to the safety of my country I find it difficult to presume innocent until proven guilty.

 

[spaganya]

Undecided
Umm… are we part of the ignorant masses who still doesn’t get that Iraq had absolutely no connection to that very attack? Me thinks so…

I was talking about Afghanistan, everyone knows that Bush jumped the gun with Iraq, but even so, thats not the soldiers fault....

Too bad no one takes you seriously anymore.

No quite a few people take ME seriously, maybe not Dubya.

 

[spaganya]

I was a small kid with big mouth and I was often the victim of beatings administered by groups of thugs. I naturally did not enjoy this treatment and learned that the best tactic you can use against a group of fighters is to RUN. This is not always an option sometimes you get trapped and when this occurs you are stuck fighting ion a situation that you just can’t win so you have to lose strategically you pick the weakest member of the group that is attacking you. He is usually hanging back like a jackal hardly even a threat on his own it is only when he joins with the group that he is dangerous. This becomes your focus you kick his tail so bad that he finds an excuse not to be near the next fight. That means that instead of five people beating you only have four people beating on you. Then you pick out the next and so on sometimes you cannot defeat them sometimes you can but you just have to try. Iraq was just the weakest and most easily justified target. If you are a small bully don’t talk trash while the big kids fight. Iraq made the mistake of thinking that just because it wasn’t throwing punches yet that it was free to encourage others. When it comes to the safety of my country I find it difficult to presume innocent until proven guilty.

wow. damn good point.

 

[zanket]

Iraq made the mistake of thinking that just because it wasn’t throwing punches yet that it was free to encourage others.

When did it encourage others?

 

[Fallen Angel]

Easily thousands of Iraqis could have been spared. If only because Bush got impatient and didn’t respond to Saddam’s request for exile, which he certainly had an incentive to take.

zanket, your propaganda is becoming extemely tiresome. i want to see a source backing up your claim above. here is mine saying that you're WRONG.

Translator For Saddam Hussein: That is why, talking about asylum, we will -- whoever decides to forsake his nation from whoever requests is not true to the principles. We will die here. We will die in this country, and we will maintain our honor, the honor that is required of -- in front of our people.

that was taken from an interview with Saddam Hussein on 24 February 2003. here is the link to the full transcript: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/26/60II/main542151.shtml

but go ahead, show me that you know your facts... here is your opportunity

 

[Fallen Angel]

And of course there’s the dozens we tortured to death

should i pull up all the statistics of Saddam's regime and the deaths that caused? i'm not even going to bother. but perhaps if would show me the documentation on the above claim that would add weight to your words? otherwise, i'll just think it's an empty claim.

It seems the US doesn’t give a shit about the Iraqis or Afghanis except as it pertains to our profit goals. Which makes sense since we’re there to plunder in the first place.

please tell me what we are plundering in Afghanistan? rocks? or is it mines? i'm curious... enlighten me.

In my book Bush had a case for defense against Iraq and Afghanistan by the mere fact that these were dictatorships. (Not that he presented such a case to the public.) But now the US is setting up puppet governments in those countries.

oh, so the UN run elections in September in Afghanistan are going to set up a puppet government? please explain to me how that will happen? or are you WRONG again?

i'm really tired of your outlandish claims, how bout some sources? perhaps then i will consider your talk more than just empty words to support your ridiculous views?

 

[Asguard]

i notice you left out iraq, is that because you know he is right there?

and did bush award contracts to rebuild afgainstan?
if he did who is paying the companys?

 

[zanket]

but go ahead, show me that you know your facts... here is your opportunity

Of course Saddam would have said such thing. He was a dictator; they have to act tough. In reality a dictator will do whatever yields the most money & power. What Saddam is really doing in that translation is exhorting the brainwashed to die fighting to save his cushy life.

From Secret Surrender Plan: France Said to Be Working on Saddam Exile Deal:
American officials have told ABCNEWS that even with today's bombing, secret talks have continued behind the scenes about a Saddam Hussein surrender and exile to, among other places, the country of Mauritania in west Africa.

An exile deal was in the works before and after Bush started bombing... Why would Saddam accept exile after the bombs have started dropping, since he would then know that Bush would probably not honor his agreement? Bush’s itchy trigger finger probably soured the deal, leading to mass civilian death.

should i pull up all the statistics of Saddam's regime and the deaths that caused?

How is that relevant? Are you saying that because he tortured, we should torture? Can you answer that one?

but perhaps if would show me the documentation on the above claim that would add weight to your words? otherwise, i'll just think it's an empty claim.

From How Abu Ghraib torture victim faces final indignity: an unmarked grave:
The Pentagon is now investigating Jamadi's death together with at least 27 other suspicious deaths in US custody in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001.

please tell me what we are plundering in Afghanistan? rocks? or is it mines? i'm curious... enlighten me.

A pipeline ferrying natural gas from the Caspian Sea to the Indian Ocean. Bush Oil has sought build it since Bush Sr. was in office. Bush Jr. even invited the Taliban to Washington to discuss it. No sooner does Bush Jr. install Karzai, former Unocal consultant, in office in Afghanistan, and he awards the mega-contract to build the pipeline to Unocal. Bush Oil will earn billions off both the construction and running of that pipeline, and you can bet that Bush Jr. will personally get a nice chunk of that when he leaves office.

oh, so the UN run elections in September in Afghanistan are going to set up a puppet government? please explain to me how that will happen? or are you WRONG again?

The US isn’t interested in the day-to-day running of the country. Decisions about where to put sewage treatment plants, for example, will be left to the Afghanis. The US is interested only in making maximum profit off the resources and big business opportunities. Here is how it will happen: the US will build military bases there and a large “embassy,” same as it’s doing in Iraq. Then the US-appointed government will sign a treaty giving the US control of those bases & embassy in perpetuity. Thereafter, using those bases & embassy the US will keep the Afghanis in fear. They will know that if they, say, change the prime contractor on that pipeline from Unocal to an Afghani company, the bombs will start dropping again. Just like they did on Saddam and Noriega, among others--those who had the audacity to disobey their boss, the US.

US puppet governments are in plain sight. Consider that tomorrow the new “sovereign” Iraqi government plans to arraign Saddam. Let’s see, it’s a US-appointed government. Not an elected government (not that it will be a true democracy even after elections). So who is really arraigning Saddam? And let’s keep in mind that the other branches of the US government, the legislative and judicial, have no direct control in Iraq. It is Bush who is putting Saddam on trial; hence the outcome is assured. Bush is even trying to get them to legalize a death penalty. But of course the media says that it’s the Iraqi government who is putting Saddam on trial. It’s the sovereign Iraqi government that is considering the death penalty for Saddam. What a joke. Sadder still is that most Americans fall for it. Do you?

i'm really tired of your outlandish claims, how bout some sources? perhaps then i will consider your talk more than just empty words to support your ridiculous views?

Really I shouldn’t have to provide sources for things you can look up yourself in seconds, like I did in replying here.

 

[zanket]

Here's a comic relevant to this discussion. We can thank the offensive soldier, blindly following orders, for making this all possible:

 

[Fallen Angel]

An exile deal was in the works before and after Bush started bombing... Why would Saddam accept exile after the bombs have started dropping, since he would then know that Bush would probably not honor his agreement? Bush’s itchy trigger finger probably soured the deal, leading to mass civilian death.

same article: Officials in Mauritania said they knew nothing of any exile offer to Saddam Hussein or his sons.

my point about the "dozens" we tortured to death was appropiate. So after all it wasn't "dozens we tortured to death," but 28 "suspicious" deaths in US custody. well, that's what? 2 1/3 dozen to be exact. and i'm not excusing it, but 2 1/3 dozen since 2001, which is.. uhm.. 3 years, is better for Iraq than:

4,000 prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in 1984, 3,000 prisoners at the Mahjar prison from 1993-1998, 2,500 prisoners were executed between 1997-1999 in a "prison cleansing campaign;" 122 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in February/March 2000; 23 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in October 2001; and at least 130 Iraqi women were beheaded between June 2000 and April 2001.
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/19675.htm

i don't get your point on the afghanistani pipeline?

A pipeline ferrying natural gas from the Caspian Sea to the Indian Ocean. Bush Oil has sought build it since Bush Sr. was in office. Bush Jr. even invited the Taliban to Washington to discuss it. No sooner does Bush Jr. install Karzai, former Unocal consultant, in office in Afghanistan, and he awards the mega-contract to build the pipeline to Unocal. Bush Oil will earn billions off both the construction and running of that pipeline, and you can bet that Bush Jr. will personally get a nice chunk of that when he leaves office.

from the article you reference:

"Unocal is not involved in any projects (including pipelines) in Afghanistan, nor do we have any plans to become involved, nor are we discussing any such projects," a spokesman told BBC News Online.

The US company formally withdrew from the consortium in 1998.

tried to look for evidence of unocal being the company that got the contract, haven't found it yet, unless you can present some.

Really I shouldn’t have to provide sources for things you can look up yourself in seconds, like I did in replying here.

so i looked at your sources, and they still do not support any of your claims. i think you should provide sources that actually support your argument. and i suggest you spend more on themm then just mere "seconds" to make sure they support what you say.