Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why when people who are against the war in Iraq, and speak publicly against it, are considered demeaning or disrespecting the military? Can't a person disagree with the President about the war in Iraq, and not disrespect the military?
Everyone in the US military chooses to be there. So at the very least anybody that joined after the Iraq war knew what they were getting themselves into and therefore should be held accountable for their actions.
Everyone in the US military chooses to be there. So at the very least anybody that joined after the Iraq war knew what they were getting themselves into and therefore should be held accountable for their actions.
I'm not the kind of person who is "Rah-rah America," but Jesus - those people do what they do so you can safely enjoy your life as an American, regardless of what you think about our current war.
Sgt. Joe Sixpack isn't responsible for the war, and shouldn't be held accountable for doing his job. If you want to hold someone accountable, go find a politician.
I used to think the military was used to defend America but I got over it while I was in 'Nam 40 years ago. The military is used as the acquisition division of the corporate elite and has nothing to do with defending us peons.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymous
I'm not the kind of person who is "Rah-rah America," but Jesus - those people do what they do so you can safely enjoy your life as an American, regardless of what you think about our current war.
Sgt. Joe Sixpack isn't responsible for the war, and shouldn't be held accountable for doing his job. If you want to hold someone accountable, go find a politician.
I completely agree, the problem isn't caused by the folks in the military who are doing what they promised to do. The problem starts with the politicians who are not doing what they promised to do.
Sgt. Joe Sixpack isn't responsible for the war, and shouldn't be held accountable for doing his job.
If Sgt. Joe Sixpack joined the military after the war started then he knew exactly what he was getting himself into and thus should be held accountable.
I'm not talking about the people that joined up before the war that may have been of the impression that the US military was just about defending their way of life etc.
At some point you have to hold people accountable for things they knowly do.
If Sgt. Joe Sixpack joined the military after the war started then he knew exactly what he was getting himself into and thus should be held accountable.
I'm not talking about the people that joined up before the war that may have been of the impression that the US military was just about defending their way of life etc.
At some point you have to hold people accountable for things they knowly do.
You're equating "Joining the US Military" with "Wanting to go fight in Iraq". They are different. Just because someone wants a career in the military does not mean they support the war in Iraq. Fifteen years from now we may be invaded by China, you never know.
This war is temporary. When someone becomes a soldier, they may have a career that extends across different campaigns on different continents throughout several decades. They may be doing it so our country doesn't get invaded in the future. By the way - when you say "held accountable", what you are really saying is that you want someone to put the blame on.
You're equating "Joining the US Military" with "Wanting to go fight in Iraq".
At the moment if you join the military the likelihood of going to Iraq is high. That is the likelihood of having blood on your hands for an obvious illegal war is very high. They know what they are getting themselves into.
Quote:
what you are really saying is that you want someone to put the blame on.
When I say it I mean it in a moral sense really, that is they are morally culpable for their actions.
Everyone in the US military chooses to be there. So at the very least anybody that joined after the Iraq war knew what they were getting themselves into and therefore should be held accountable for their actions.
Likewise, if they don't want to kill innocent civilians, they can quit. While that's certainly not encouraged and is rife with punitive measures, no one--and I mean no one--should be subjected to the will of another without recourse. Our military has built-in measures, its own laws and operations, designed to reduce the human being to a tool. They impose the amoral and potentially corrupt will of a government on soldiers who are told to obey without question. For some reason we find that patriotic, when in fact, it's just pure evil. Nothing these soldiers do is somebody else's fault. They are still human beings and they still have a say in the matter. Committing atrocities in their government's name doesn't morally absolve them of accountability.
If we want to end this war, perhaps we should encourage our troops to quit. They are not wanted there anyway. Our politicians--the ones pulling the strings--won't listen to us and won't listen to reason and of course won't listen to the Iraqis or Afghans. If the troops lay down their arms and refuse to fight, what can the US government do except get them the hell out of there and end the war? If our government abandoned those that refused and let them be slaughtered, do you think our government could survive the wrath of the US public? I don't think so. This is one strategy that puts the people back in charge and ends the pointless bloodshed of our sons and daughters.
Likewise, if they don't want to kill innocent civilians, they can quit. While that's certainly not encouraged and is rife with punitive measures, no one--and I mean no one--should be subjected to the will of another without recourse. Our military has built-in measures, its own laws and operations, designed to reduce the human being to a tool. They impose the amoral and potentially corrupt will of a government on soldiers who are told to obey without question. For some reason we find that patriotic, when in fact, it's just pure evil. Nothing these soldiers do is somebody else's fault. They are still human beings and they still have a say in the matter. Committing atrocities in their government's name doesn't morally absolve them of accountability.
If we want to end this war, perhaps we should encourage our troops to quit. They are not wanted there anyway. Our politicians--the ones pulling the strings--won't listen to us and won't listen to reason and of course won't listen to the Iraqis or Afghans. If the troops lay down their arms and refuse to fight, what can the US government do except get them the hell out of there and end the war? If our government abandoned those that refused and let them be slaughtered, do you think our government could survive the wrath of the US public? I don't think so. This is one strategy that puts the people back in charge and ends the pointless bloodshed of our sons and daughters.
This is unbelievable; I, for one, would help imprison anyone "encouraging" a member of our military to "quit" for any reason, whether it's in this war or any other military conflict. And I wouldn't want any military personnel sitting behind a trigger wondering if they should shoot or not. That isn't their job...and that's why we have one of the best-trained military organizations in the world. Would you seriously want your nation's defense system to be compromised because personnel were debating philosophy or politics in the middle of a battle?? Give me a break.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.