asguard, i just know more about afghanistan, i'll address iraq eventually...
Fallen Angel said: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.
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...
i don't get your point on the afghanistani pipeline?
from the article you reference:
tried to look for evidence of unocal being the company that got the contract, haven't found it yet, unless you can present some.
i think you should provide sources that actually support your argument.
Excerpt from an LA Times story:
Pentagon officials on Friday increased to 37 the number of detainee deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan that have prompted investigations, including at least eight unresolved homicides that may have involved assaults before or during interrogation.
Earlier this month, defense officials detailed 25 cases of prisoners who died in U.S. Army detention centers. But in an unscheduled briefing at the Pentagon, a senior defense official and a senior Pentagon medical official said the number had risen to 30 cases, including some involving more than one death, for a total of 37 deaths. Thirty-two deaths occurred in Iraq and five in Afghanistan.
Fallen Angel said:When me and you can go constantly back and forth and argue, i think convincingly, either side, how can you expect soldiers who are concerned with their survival 24/7 to take the time and engage in a debate that will probably have no clear cut victor? That's why soldiers do what they do, they follow orders, unless they are illegal and they recognize it as such and refuse to do it. Otherwise, if the orders are legal, they will follow them, and they will trust in their superiors to make the right decisions. Just because you seem to have problem with their trust, does not mean that they should be automatically condemned for putting faith in their leadership. They should not be automatically honored, each person should be judged on their merit. However, they do not deserve a broad disrespect just because they serve in a war that does not suit your conscience.
Fallen Angel said:why do you focus so much on 37 deaths?
the point of Mauritania officials is that, they knew nothing of the fact that Saddam was being offered exile in their own country. I would think that the sponsor nation would know something about it. hence, it puts doubt as to whether or not the exile was actually offered.
in all your research, you felt that Unicol was tied to Bush Co. and would swear by it.
You claim that the soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq should refuse to serve in order to be respected by you. When me and you can go constantly back and forth and argue, i think convincingly, either side, how can you expect soldiers who are concerned with their survival 24/7 to take the time and engage in a debate that will probably have no clear cut victor?
Fallen Angel said:you would rather send the sons and daughters of america to their deaths, than make sure they survive in harms way. as long as they died for righteousness and all that crap.
get real man, the world isn't white and black. everything is a shade of gray.
their families don't give a shit about righteous causes, all they care about is having their husbands/wives home.
i'm tired of pointing out that US war is the most sophisticated and least casualty producing in history of warfare.
us forces are the most discriminate in their targeting.
nothing is perfect, yet you demand perfection.
i'm sure you would argue that we should not drop the atomic bomb on japan and instead send thousands of GIs to their deaths.
but you don't seem to argue that US was wrong in cutting off their trade with Japan and thus adding yet another reason for their attack on US in WWII.
your defensive GIs in WWII were honorable?
even those that plundered German homes during the invasion for spoils of war?
in my opinion you contradict yourself considering the backdrop of history in which you claim defensive wars were faught.
you say that military bases shouldn't be built. how else do you occupy a country if you don't build bases in them???
before returning to democracy there must be peace, which will be inforced by the military forces until such time when civilian authority can take over.
or should we just allow anarchy on the streets and let people loot and kill each other?
let me guess, you don't have a solution, but it's easy to criticize.
there's a thing called reality that is very different from your moral high ground. soldiers must live that reality and they must kill in that reality.
and they must come home all fucked up because they had to kill for this democracy.
and then people like you just wait for them and take away even more than what the soldiers already gave.
give the soldiers a break. or become a soldier and then make your stupid stand and go to jail. or are you too scared to put your beliefs into practice?
i hope other readers saw the point of my arguments and will judge each soldier on their individual merit and not spit on them for serving you.
spaganya said:there is NO SUCH THING as a "just" war.
WAR IS WAR.
People die, things suck, and in the end there isnt always clear winner.
Whether or not YOU think the war is just has no merit on the mental state of a soldier after being asked to kill.
The soldier is just a regular citizen that has actually chosen to sign on that dotted line and swear an oath to protect the citizens of their country, and follow the commands of their chief of staff. The fact that you think that because they are doing that, and doing something that i might add i am pretty confident in saying you would NEVER have the guts or balls to do, they deserve automatic disrespect is appalling.
You cheapen the morals and values of every civil servant that has ever come before you, including the ones that give you the right to say such rubbish.
That statement is not even close to being the same statement that Fallen Angel said.
And i dont hesitate to state that i seriously doubt you would be willing to take up a gun and a badge and defend your fellow citizens either.
You seem so quick to deal out judgement but slow to take any blame.
You seem hellbent on judging every soldier over there for doing their duty.
no soldier chooses anything that they do. they are at the military's whim.
Their lives, their dreams and their futures become that of their country.
There is no choice involved which you STILL seem to not recognize.
Every statement you have put on here seems to simply judge every soldier and state that they are all disrespectful because they have been selected to go over there.
The fact that you contradict yourself over and over just shows me that you not only will never see the other side, you dont care to see the conflicting views in your own statements.
spaganya said:what part of the constitution are they violating by following orders and fighting in iraq?
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
that is true…
ask any JAG lawyer or any MP on a military base and you will find that military men and women and their families have less rights than everyone else.
As a woman, i often say that the world would be a better place if we were in charge, we would settle our differences in a more constructive way than war. But alas, we dont live in such a society.
Violence is a certainty in today's society.
I had a friend say to me that today's society isnt how it used to be in saying "i will proudly serve", now they say "i dont have to go because someone else will."
The only choice you have is to be part of the military or not be part of the military.
Zanket, it seems to me your ideals are based on a utopian society that cannot and will not exist in the near future.
Its fine to say that soldiers should throw down their arms, and pacificity is the "way to go" but its unrealistic and irresponsible to think that way.
Getting back to the original statement, i believe that the soldier in the fact that he/she is willing to commit themselves to something and do their job inspite of low pay, low respect, bad conditions, and obvious distain from people like you shows they KNOW and embody duty and honor.
spaganya said:Not to mention the fact that although you might deem what Dubya did as wrong, the supreme court has done no such thing, and because thats how military works, you follow orders that are given to you, they arent to judge what is and isnt constitutional to begin with. why dont you write the supreme court?
soldiers are not to blame if you think people are out there "killing toddlers" as you so retardedly put it.
If you have a problem with what is going on in the world take it up with the decision makers in society not the people who are charged with the task of carrying out orders without question. THAT IS THEIR JOB.
NEGATIVE. that is what is wrong with socialism, communism and all societies that believe everyone should be equal and peaceful.
Again, who says what is defense and offense? One country's terrorist is another country's freedom fighter. You arent the only end all be all on that source.
Honestly why the hell would you even compare the two? soldier is a job. gang member is a club affiliation as far as i am concerned. the fact you would even try to affiliate the two is insulting.
Under your way of thinking you would say that someone who's job to "flip the switch" or "inject the poison" into someone who is condemned to death that if they disagree with the verdict that they should refuse to carry out the task of putting that person to death.
I am assuming you didnt study philosophy in that a person has to sometimes just give up and trust the system lest they succumb to anarchy.
For example, you might believe the person that you are "flipping the switch" on is innocent, but being that the person has gone through trials, appeals and so on and EVERYONE at every turn has found them guilty, for the sake of decorum and keeping order, you are obligated to go through with your orders because that is how the system works. and you dont fault the undertaker, you fault the system.
hence if you dont think its just you change the system, you dont crucify the undertaker.... follow me? or does this reasoning completely escape you?
mza said:i hope everyone can understand and respect that at the least, because i know that some people in the defence forces are dickheads and think they ant to kill people, but once they have im sure its a different matter. i know if my mates who are in the army went to a war zone and i had the chance id be over there looking out for them, regardless of why they are there. and if u cant respect that then i pity the friendships you have.
Fallen Angel said:yes mza, number one reason people fight is for each other, i agree. i don't think zanket cares tho. he feels that if the war is illegal in his opinion, the soldiers should stand by and die for the cause of "justice" (his version, not everyone elses).
i'm still waiting for him to crucify the guy that flips the switch at executions.. got kinda quiet after that post didn't it?