• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

A marine in Iraq advice to protestors

Arch Enemy said:
"Bad" is a perspective, so technically "bad" people don't exist. Only those who have different opinions.

No kidding?
So I guess it's just a matter of perspective when a man abducts a child, rapes and kills him/her?
:roll:
 
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:

Actually yes it is.

The rapist doesn't see it as such a bad act, now does he.
 
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 Most of which haven't ever experienced the ending of another persons life, I've got news for our marines, war is outdated its nothing more than a conflict between greedy people, theres no more honor in being apart of an army.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.

Most likely this is the single most revolting post I have seen on any message board. It makes me wonder how long you served, if at all. No matter what war for what reason, it is always an honor to wear the uniform of America's armed forces. If you have never set foot on a battlefield, then you are hardly qualified to make a pick between protestors and soldiers.
 
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.

Interesting that someone who has never been on a field of combat will say what is honorable and what is not. You are certainly in no position to tell anyone what is honorable, blowing up your enemy from far away is smart combat.
 
Arch Enemy said:
Actually yes it is.

The rapist doesn't see it as such a bad act, now does he.

Actually yes he does, otherwise he would not try to hide his act. If he could not tell his act as right or wrong he would not be convicted. He knows it is bad, he is just evil.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Arch Enemy said:
Being a coward is not honorable, I agree, but neither is blowing up your enemy from miles away.

Or brain washing little kids to hate America and everything it stands for. Or strapping a bomb to yourself going on a bus a killing innocent civilians. Or blaming the death of your son or daughter on the President. Or sawing off someones head and distributing the tape.

BTW Cheetos rock!
 
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.

People like you make me sick. I will not even dignify the rest with a response.
 
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.

Uhhh, THEY ARE. They thought hmmmm should I go and serve in Americas military and protect the Citizens of the United States of America or sit on my but looking at my computer screen eating cheetos all day (cough, cough, Napolean) I think they made the right choice. 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:
 
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..........

If we didn't invade 1800 American servicemen would be alive, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians would be alive, Iraq woudn't be a terrorist haven.

People go on about freeing Iraqi's, as Robin pointed out the US didn't give a damn about Iraqi freedom all during Saddams regime until the end. All many dictatorships are in the world, is the US going to invade them all by force? "to free people".

My heart goes out to those servicemen who are dying to fill the pockets of the rich elite in America. I would be sick to the stomach if I was fighting in Iraq. Personally I don't know how Bush can sleep at night.
 
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.

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.
 
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:

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.
 
Arch Enemy said:
"Bad" is a perspective, so technically "bad" people don't exist. Only those who have different opinions.

An example of post-modern thought in full ripeness.

From an abstract point of view you may be correct, depending upon your worldview. However, whether you think good or evil are absolutes from some source or relative, we agree as a consensus that some acts are bad (murder rape); and even if you have an absolute view, some areas are open to interpretation (is smoking pot bad?)

Grey areas we might debate: Was intenionally dropping a nuclear bomb on a civilian center bad if it ended WWII sooner? Certain other areas we can all agree are "bad" or "evil" (Nazi extermination of 6 million Jews).

It is fair to argue whether certain acts are justified or not or are "good" or "bad" to use those labels. But to excuse all behavior as simply a matter of opinion is nonsense. If that is the framework, there is not basis for criminal laws or punishment, and society falls apart.
 
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.

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."
 
cnredd said:
A nice cheap shot notwithstanding, your last sentence has a ring of truth to it.

And I was trying to be somewhat less provocative by using the word "mistake." ;)

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).

Completely agree.

Although its not to the same extent, the same logic SHOULD apply to the general public(as an "unwritten rule").

Completely disagree.

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...

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.

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 improvidently 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.

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 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.

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.

I agree neither side has a particularly meritiorious position when it comes to attacking the opponent for political gain.

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
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:
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.
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:)

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.
That's the "legalese" crap that has infected every discussion in this country today.

Iriemon said:
I agree neither side has a particularly meritiorious position when it comes to attacking the opponent for political gain.
2 outta 4...I'm battin' .500...where do I sign?:lol:

Iriemon 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.
Hey...It got my point across, didn't it?:doh
 
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.

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.

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:)

Well we disagree. I was using the word "consensus" to mean a general agreement of the whole, not a 51% majority.

That's the "legalese" crap that has infected every discussion in this country today.

? You just would beat the crap out of someone who made fun of your little sister without investigating why?

2 outta 4...I'm battin' .500...where do I sign?:lol:

What is the saying? Even unreasonable minds can agree? :)

Hey...It got my point across, didn't it?:doh

Maybe its a good analogy -- Bush made an offer we couldn't refuse. :shock:
 
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 believe I said SHOULD..."looking through past posts..."YUP!...It says `SHOULD`".
There are exceptions to my earlier "unwritten rule" comment.

Iriemon said:
Well we disagree. I was using the word "consensus" to mean a general agreement of the whole, not a 51% majority.
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:
You just would beat the crap out of someone who made fun of your little sister without investigating why?
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:
What is the saying? Even unreasonable minds can agree? :)
Don't let it out...This forum would crumble...:2rofll:

Iriemon said:
Maybe its a good analogy -- Bush made an offer we couldn't refuse. :shock:
And now the Democratic Party sleeps with the fishes:2razz:
 
Arch Enemy said:
Actually yes it is.

The rapist doesn't see it as such a bad act, now does he.

Of course he does. That's the excitement.
 
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.

Iraq was supported in the 80's because they were the enemy of our enemy. No different then the US support of Communist Russia and Stalin during WWII. Nazi Germany and Japan would not have been defeated unless the USSR was an ally of the Allied powers. If you mean the safety and security of the US as others interests, then you are correct, the people are in favor of what secures their safety. Now I don't agree that attacking Iraq was in our best interest from a security standpoint for the present, but it was for the future, I just think Bush could have waited since we had them contained.
 
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.

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.
 
Arch Enemy said:
Actually yes it is.

The rapist doesn't see it as such a bad act, now does he.

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.
 
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.

Then don't join the millitary. As long as we don't have a draft then participating in a war is never an issue.
 
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.

But those rules are made, changed, and abolished. But the society and culture will stay the same until something dramatic happens. Though Persia doesn't exist anymore its culture is still alive, it has been intertwined with many other cultures.. but it's still there. Society came before rules.
 
Back
Top Bottom