Arch Enemy said:"Bad" is a perspective, so technically "bad" people don't exist. Only those who have different opinions.
VTA said:No kidding?
So I guess it's just a matter of perspective when a man abducts a child, rapes and kills him/her?
:roll:
Arch Enemy said:Yeah, sadly... the difference between him and the protesters is that he chose to give up his rights and freedoms in order to follow the ambitions of people with suits and tuxedos. Most of which haven't ever experienced the ending of another persons life, I've got news for our marines, war is outdated its nothing more than a conflict between greedy people, theres no more honor in being apart of an army.
I'd pick the protestors over a soldier any-day.
Arch Enemy said:Now what if a draft occured? If it stood for my ideas that war is not always the answer, then I'd lose all of my freedoms and I'd be defending my beliefs.
Being a coward is not honorable, I agree, but neither is blowing up your enemy from miles away.
Arch Enemy said:Actually yes it is.
The rapist doesn't see it as such a bad act, now does he.
Arch Enemy said:Being a coward is not honorable, I agree, but neither is blowing up your enemy from miles away.
Napoleon's Nightingale said:I don't have respect for anyone who blindly drops their boot on soveirgnty just because a suit tells them to. If they don't believe in the cause they shouldn't be forced to fight for it. I would remind that "soldier" that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. I'm not interested in his sobstories.
Napoleon's Nightingale said:The point is that following anyones orders just because they say so is a stupid thing to do. If they don't want to think for themselves then I have no pity for them. Soldiers should be the ones choosing what battles they fight.
Navy Pride said:I give you credit my friend you have the left wing talking points down pat.......That said you can skip all that tripe and just tell the troops you support them and their mission to free the Iraqi people from a monster and the setting up of a free and democratic society in Iraq where all men and women can be free of terorrism.............
How do I know this? Because I went throiugh the same thing when I was in Viet Nam and that is what we wanted to hear..............We did not want to cut and run like you want to do in Iraq that will cause the deaths of millions of Iraqis who only want to live in peace and harmony with their neighbor and the terrorists would win and all our brave troops who have died would have died in vain........
Think about it my ideolistic friend..........
Napoleon's Nightingale said:The point is that following anyones orders just because they say so is a stupid thing to do. If they don't want to think for themselves then I have no pity for them. Soldiers should be the ones choosing what battles they fight. It's easy for Franks, Rummy, etc to send them into battle but they're not the ones fighting..they don't have to pay the piper at the end of the day. They don't risk their lives..all they do is order the body bags.
guns_God_glory said:I hate how people say "If it wasn't for President Bush my son or daughter would still be alive today" NO your son or daughter made the CHOICE to go into the military, a right choice might I add, and President Bush didn't hold a gun to their head and make them sign up. Let them rest in peace.
:hm
:cowboy:
Arch Enemy said:"Bad" is a perspective, so technically "bad" people don't exist. Only those who have different opinions.
Iriemon said:The fact someone signed up for military service does not excuse the CiC from starting a war based on "mistakes" in using intellegence and deceiving the American people.
People join the military for many reasons, some to serve their country. I doubt many joined to be used as fodder because of the president's "mistake" and its consequences.
cnredd said:A nice cheap shot notwithstanding, your last sentence has a ring of truth to it.
When someone joins the military, a future soldier understands that he/she is under the directive of the CiC...The REASONS the CiC makes his decisions are not relevant to the direct orders of the soldier; he/she makes a full commitment to follow those orders whether or not they personally agree with them. If they were to pick-and-choose correct reasons for this war but not the next, or the next war but not this one, the military would collapse(As I'm sure some would want to see).
Although its not to the same extent, the same logic SHOULD apply to the general public(as an "unwritten rule").
The United States doesn't really seem "united" these day when it comes to the backing of the President, does it? But this person was elected through a process provided through the Constitution that gives him(and Congress) the power to make these decisions...whether or not one thinks of them as "good" or "bad". To not back him and fret about the details later not only undermines the missions he decides, but undermines the Constitutional that gave him him those powers. It used to be "I hate the moves he made, but he's my President, so I gotta have his back"...Now it's, "I hate the ideas, so I'll yell from the highest mountain; Screw the President!". Times have changed indeed...
Remember the days where you can make fun of your little sister, but if the guy down the street did it, he was achin' for a bruisin'? That used to be the thinking with our Presidents...Now it's open season...
I know what some are thinking..."Well that's what was done with President Clinton, too!"...A) You're exactly right...B)It was bullshit then, too...This "I'm doing bullshit because you did bullshit before" attitude just leaves us with two big steaming piles of bullshit.
MICHAEL -"Fredo -- you're my older brother, and I love you. But don't ever take sides with anyone against the Family again. Ever."
I was referring to international conflicts...The United States can bitch to each other about national issues, but when it comes to foreign policy, the nation should speak with one voice.Iriemon said:I don't think they have changed at all. People have always screamed "screw the President" when he does something they disagree with. From the Whiskey Rebellion on down. It has always been a part of the American ethos.
Sorry, but I can't disagree more...The American people, as a consensus, PUT the President in the position to make these decisions. As with almost every policy, there are MANY things that the President is privy to that the general public does not, and indeed, SHOULD not, know. There are reasons documents have "Top Secret" on them. We did not elect a President so he can ask for permission on policies...Otherwise, we'd just vote on every policy ourselves and have no need for a President!(Watch a thread start with THAT one!:lolIriemon said:It is the president's responsibility to use the American forces in a way that the American people, as a consensus, agree is necessary. If the use of force is truly justified and necessary, the American people will support it and always have. When American troops are inprovidently deployed for questionable rationale and benefit, a percentage of the population will question why. As time goes on and the dead increase, that question will be asked more loudly. That is the lesson we should have learned from Vietnam. The American public will not put up with a long term war of questionable justification and merit.
That's the "legalese" crap that has infected every discussion in this country today.Iriemon said:I don't remember those days. If my little sister had gone and kicked the kid in the shin for no reason, I'd tell my little sister, what did you expect? Don't kick the kid and he won't make fun of you.
2 outta 4...I'm battin' .500...where do I sign?:lol:Iriemon said:I agree neither side has a particularly meritiorious position when it comes to attacking the opponent for political gain.
Hey...It got my point across, didn't it?:dohIriemon said:MICHAEL -"Fredo -- you're my older brother, and I love you. But don't ever take sides with anyone against the Family again. Ever."
The Sicilian mafia is your role model for our country?! LOL Great movie.
cnredd said:I was referring to international conflicts...The United States can bitch to each other about national issues, but when it comes to foreign policy, the nation should speak with one voice.
Sorry, but I can't disagree more...The American people, as a consensus, PUT the President in the position to make these decisions. As with almost every policy, there are MANY things that the President is privy to that the general public does not, and indeed, SHOULD not, know. There are reasons documents have "Top Secret" on them. We did not elect a President so he can ask for permission on policies...Otherwise, we'd just vote on every policy ourselves and have no need for a President!(Watch a thread start with THAT one!:lol
That's the "legalese" crap that has infected every discussion in this country today.
2 outta 4...I'm battin' .500...where do I sign?:lol:
Hey...It got my point across, didn't it?:doh
I believe I said SHOULD..."looking through past posts..."YUP!...It says `SHOULD`".Iriemon said:Putting aside whether it should, it historically has not. Do a little research on the war of 1812 at some point to see how united the country was in that war, as an example.
I used "consensus" as the result of the election as accorded by the Constitution...as per my quote...The American people, as a consensus, PUT the President in the position to make these decisions.If you want to be technical, your view of "consensus" is correct, but even if you removed "as a consensus" from my quote, the quote itself still stands..."The American people PUT the President in the position to make these decisions."Iriemon said:Well we disagree. I was using the word "consensus" to mean a general agreement of the whole, not a 51% majority.
Yes I would...then I'd give her the riot act later on if she was wrong. You would sit and watch and say, "Maybe she deserves it"?Iriemon said:You just would beat the crap out of someone who made fun of your little sister without investigating why?
Don't let it out...This forum would crumble...:2rofll:Iriemon said:What is the saying? Even unreasonable minds can agree?
And now the Democratic Party sleeps with the fishes:2razz:Iriemon said:Maybe its a good analogy -- Bush made an offer we couldn't refuse. :shock:
robin said:How much did the administation of the time care about the freedom of the people of Iraq in the 80's when Saddam was your ally against the Iranians & Rumsfeld was trying to sell him arms ?
How much did the USA care about the freedom of the people of the Americas when the CIA installed one fascist SOB after another in Ghile, Guatemala etc ?
The war in Iraq serves one purpose & one purpose only for those safely away from the front line that decided it should be fought... & that is THEIR interests & THEIR interests alone.
Bush's wish to boost a lack lustre presidency as a heroic leader of good v bad & a kick back for Northrop Grumman & other arms manufacturers that are making $billions in return for the $millions they invested in his election campaign.
Any benefits for the Iraqis are 100% incidental.
VTA said:Of course he does. That's the excitement.
Iriemon said:When people sign up for military service, in exchange for their pay and benefits they are agreeing to fight as the US Govt and military command instructs them. It is not a deal where you sign up but have to fight only if you want to. Not only would that be a breach of the contract, but it would not work. Heck, I'd join the army right now if I got the pay and benes but didn't have to fight.
You are raising a deeper issue, perhaps, about whether we should have a volunteer versus draft force. The argument I just made makes a lot less sense when you are talking about someone drafted into the army against his will. With a draft force, the Govt is sending people to fight who did not agree or want to do that. There is an argument that we should have a draft force, precisely for the reasons you mention, and that it would in effect put more political pressure on our leaders about how they committ forces.
Arch Enemy said:Actually yes it is.
The rapist doesn't see it as such a bad act, now does he.
Napoleon's Nightingale said:Thats precisely what I'm saying. There shouldn't be a contract stating that someone MUST participate in a war they do not agree with.
Calm2Chaos said:But society is run by rules. Without them you have anarchy. And just because you don't think you bad does not make you good. I may think i am a goat. But no matter how hard I think it I will never be a goat.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?