• 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:
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.

But no matter what the society they are run by rules. People in all societies are governed by some type of rule. If that society fails, whatever takes it's place is a going to be governed by sets of rules. If you don't have rules you can't have a society.
 
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.

That is one of the most idiotic statements I have ever read........In case you did not know it the military is not a democracy......You can not pick and choose what you want...............
 
Not sure how you are supposed to be in the millitary, get paid,get the training, get the benifits. And then when it comes time to actually do your job your allowed to just say NO. Thanks for the free money, training and bennies but I don't think I feel like doing this today.

You are well aware of the risks when you join the millitary. It's no time to start crying when they actually ask you to do your job
 
Calm2Chaos said:
Not sure how you are supposed to be in the millitary, get paid,get the training, get the benifits. And then when it comes time to actually do your job your allowed to just say NO. Thanks for the free money, training and bennies but I don't think I feel like doing this today.

You are well aware of the risks when you join the millitary. It's no time to start crying when they actually ask you to do your job

:applaud
Its about time someone got the real point across. If you are in the military it doesn't matter what your stance on the war is you have to do your job.
 
Living very close to Fort Lewis army post and talking to guys from the Stryker division who have just returned from Iraq I would say that 90 percent of the guys support the mission there and their Commander in Chief and are very puzzled why the media in this country nevers tell about the good things going on there and only focust on the negative things..........
 
Navy Pride said:
That is one of the most idiotic statements I have ever read........In case you did not know it the military is not a democracy......You can not pick and choose what you want...............

I'm not saying that it IS I'm saying that it SHOULD BE. No one wants to fight for a cause they dont believe in. And because it's not a cause they believe in they don't use the best of their ability.
 
Navy Pride said:
Living very close to Fort Lewis army post and talking to guys from the Stryker division who have just returned from Iraq I would say that 90 percent of the guys support the mission there and their Commander in Chief and are very puzzled why the media in this country nevers tell about the good things going on there and only focust on the negative things..........

It's because when we went to war we were told that Iraq was a serious threat because of all the WMDs and programs it had, because of its connections to terrorism, and 9-11, and that it would be a quick in and out because the Iraqi people would be so grateful to us. Plus we get the daily reports of soldiers and Iraqis dying, maybe they don't get that news over there.

When you get sold the goods, it makes you a little negative.
 
Iriemon said:
It's because when we went to war we were told that Iraq was a serious threat because of all the WMDs and programs it had, because of its connections to terrorism, and 9-11, and that it would be a quick in and out because the Iraqi people would be so grateful to us. Plus we get the daily reports of soldiers and Iraqis dying, maybe they don't get that news over there.

When you get sold the goods, it makes you a little negative.

Agreed. When you buy an apple, bring it home, and discover that it's rotten why be happy about it? I'd hardly be breaking out a bottle of Moet & Chandon and tossing confetti in the air. Same with Iraq.
 
Arch Enemy said:
I knew I was going to be tore apart instantly, I typed mine up quickly without thinking about it too much. Let me try and clear some things up, disregard that post of mine.



I don't believe that people who can kill on command are able to successfully protecting anybodies rights. Aggression doesn't make things safer, instead they make things less safer, granted that some aggressions have prooved to been helpful (Afghanistan Destruction).



I totally agree! Liberia for example, we made a promise to send peace-keepers over before the Rebel group LURD seiged the capital. We didn't keep our promise, the once American Loyalists soon turned against America and now they have no reason to think highly of us anymore. If we would have deployeed troops before the 2nd Civil War went underway, we would have saved our relationship with these people... as well as many innocent people.
In an interview, the leaders of Liberia said that if America couldn't keep their promise, then to tell them! They would have turned to the EU who would have helped them in a heart-beat. Our only excuse for not deploying troops in need is the Iraq War.


Whoa, just because I don't respect doesn't mean I don't support them. I want them all to come home safe, I want them to live and survive. Are they really dying for me? If I remember correctly, not once did Iraq attack us... strangely enough they're number 1 target on their hit-list was Iran. The enemy of my enemy is my... .enemy.
Don't forget they chose that life-style, hell, most of them probably joined the military because of the benefits they recieved from it (paid college). Like Albert Einstein said "It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder", I believe that full-hearted.


Very funny! Its not my fault I can't be over there, did you forget theres an age limit to joining the military. If I believed that we went to war for the right reasons and I was 18 Years Old, then I'd join and fight side by side with my Americans. Yes, I know that was pretty much against my beliefs, but I do believe that (in the case of a reasonable war) no one should have to die for my safety. But obviously, I'm not threatened and too young, therefore I'll just sit here and eat cheetos (dude can I please something more joyful? Cheetos are terrible!)


Agreed! I'll buy them a beer when they return!


Whoa, No!
They should have to realize what they're asking troops to do. I know they can't or won't do that, but at least they should be able to take the fact that they've killed someones loved one and not say bs like "he died for a noble cause". Sayings like such are nothing more than a way a Leader can fuel the propaganda machine, as well as this saying "...his death cannot be in vain, we must complete the mission".



I know, people who'd rather have peace instead of war should be punished for their ideas! They've got no reason for living, they're UN-educated and worst of all, they smell bad! /End Sarcasm

Why you seem to think I'm a pacifist is beyond me. I know theres some situations which cannot be settled peacefully, but war should be a last resort. Reasons for me disliking Armed Forces? because thats a showing of aggression, you don't build an strong military to keep peace. You build a strong Army for military conflicts and to scare others, giving them the feeling that you'd go to war with them, kill their children, their family, and burn their cities to the ground.
I'm in an agreeing that a "Peace-Keeping" Army is needed, but not an armed forces with the power to destroy the world. I find that a national guard is acceptable, as long as they stay in their own nation.


Honestly, damn me for having different ideas.



Peace-Keeping Army? What in the hell is that? That is nothing worse then trying to keep peace with a weapon. I am in the Army and spend a year in Baghdad. We in the Military kill to defend the national interest of the US. We are not built to keep peace....that is what a cop does. We make the peace.

I don't want to be simple here but your remarks seem to need it. There is evil in the world. It is far better to shot it in the head before it shots you here in the USA. The people we are fighting don't give a damn about your feelings and they will never stop. We have to make them fear us worse then they hate us. Since you have never spent a day in the military, or have ever been to the Middle East you will not understand.

And one final thought.....you really make your self look like a fool if you think there is no honor in being in the Army. There is no greater honor then putting yourself in service of others......even people like you.
 
Fighting in the name of peace is kind of like having sex in the name of abstinence.
 
vergiss said:
Fighting in the name of peace is kind of like having sex in the name of abstinence.


If you walk up to a terrorist with a gun pointed at him...He will kill you...

If you walk up to a terrorist with a flower and a smile and an offer of a handshake...He will kill you...
 
Is that a personal opinion or from experience?

Personally I know several members of the IRA who would be considered terrorists by the rest of the world whom I have drank pints with, laughed and chatted with and they are perfectly normal people.

From experience I would refute your comments as both naieve and ambiguous.
 
cnredd said:
If you walk up to a terrorist with a gun pointed at him...He will kill you...

If you walk up to a terrorist with a flower and a smile and an offer of a handshake...He will kill you...

And if you walk up to a non-terrorist and kill his dad, son, mother, sister or brother ... He will kill you ...
 
Parmenion said:
Is that a personal opinion or from experience?

Personally I know several members of the IRA who would be considered terrorists by the rest of the world whom I have drank pints with, laughed and chatted with and they are perfectly normal people.

From experience I would refute your comments as both naieve and ambiguous.

I was referring to the enemies of the terrorists...

Keep in mind that this forum is from America..."terrorist" is, indeed, a generic term, but when said in this forum, unless otherwise referenced, is geared toward Islamic radicals.
 
Iriemon said:
And if you walk up to a non-terrorist and kill his dad, son, mother, sister or brother ... He will kill you ...

If Osama Bin Laden put that in his "Letter to America", I might actually believe your sarcasm...but he didn't...

And thank you for being their mouthpiece...Is this at a "scale" rate or are you doing this for them "pro-bono"?
 
cnredd said:
I was referring to the enemies of the terrorists...

Keep in mind that this forum is from America..."terrorist" is, indeed, a generic term, but when said in this forum, unless otherwise referenced, is geared toward Islamic radicals.

Was this forum around before 9/11? If so, what did the term "terrorist" mean back then?

Does that mean that its an American only forum? Or should I be aware that people here use generic terms where they should be specific?

It seems like a community I would like to be a part of but if its mainly people in one country stating opinions towards other people in the same country of a different mind, perhaps I should find a forum which is more international?

From what I can see there are many arguments which are rebutted as "you lefty, support the terrorists", "you righty, support our own form of terrorism". Is it a case that intelligence, points with back up and reference are glossed over because the majority just wish to trade insults instead of actually understanding the fundemental principals and reasoning behind many sides to debates or arguments in a respective manner. I was under the impression what a "debate" is sharing ones views with others in the hope they will better understand your position and them sharing theirs with you so that you might better understand theirs.

Why does all base, unintelligent name calling take precedence in a forum where "debate" (as in the URL) is the primary objective? Is this as a result of lax administration, too many cynics or too many children?

Anyways I appreciate your advice with regard to the "accepted" usage of the term on these boards cnRedd but that hardly justifies the generalisation in my book. So I am sure to be having this tete-a-tete again regarding the same matter with you or someone else ;)
 
Parmenion said:
Was this forum around before 9/11? If so, what did the term "terrorist" mean back then?

Does that mean that its an American only forum? Or should I be aware that people here use generic terms where they should be specific?

It seems like a community I would like to be a part of but if its mainly people in one country stating opinions towards other people in the same country of a different mind, perhaps I should find a forum which is more international?

From what I can see there are many arguments which are rebutted as "you lefty, support the terrorists", "you righty, support our own form of terrorism". Is it a case that intelligence, points with back up and reference are glossed over because the majority just wish to trade insults instead of actually understanding the fundemental principals and reasoning behind many sides to debates or arguments in a respective manner. I was under the impression what a "debate" is sharing ones views with others in the hope they will better understand your position and them sharing theirs with you so that you might better understand theirs.

Why does all base, unintelligent name calling take precedence in a forum where "debate" (as in the URL) is the primary objective? Is this as a result of lax administration, too many cynics or too many children?

Anyways I appreciate your advice with regard to the "accepted" usage of the term on these boards cnRedd but that hardly justifies the generalisation in my book. So I am sure to be having this tete-a-tete again regarding the same matter with you or someone else ;)

This forum is less than 2 years old...

The "lax administration" is done on purpose...if you were to only get "great minds" always talking intelligently and without emotion, you'd have about 3 members. You make it sound as if you were a Moderator, you would ban 80% of all of the members...

It was made to include as many people as possible...Yes, that even means the idiots.

Also, the emotions and idiocy displayed depends on the members feelings as to a particular thread. I post alot on "Bias In The Media", "Polls", "Today's News", and "War on Terror"....But I USUALLY shy away from "Economics", Religion", and "The Constitution"...I go to where I feel more strongly about the subject matter. You can be in total agreement with one person on one thread, then go against everything that same person stands for in another.
I, personally, have had a few instances of that.

Fantasea is another member here...when it comes to "terrorism", I am usually in complete agreement with her....In the "Abortion" thread, I think she's a nutjob!;)

If you would like to start a thread on the IRA, you're more than welcome to...wait a couple of days and check out the responses...then you will know if it is a big enough concern for the members of this forum.
 
cnredd said:
If Osama Bin Laden put that in his "Letter to America", I might actually believe your sarcasm...but he didn't...

And thank you for being their mouthpiece...Is this at a "scale" rate or are you doing this for them "pro-bono"?

I am not sure what you mean. I was making the point that, IMO, when people are killed in Iraq, especially from bombs or fire from our side, there's a chance that a son, or brother, or dad, will blame America for the loss, and those that oppose us, including those that oppose us and are willing to use terror tactics, gain another volunteer.
 
Iriemon said:
I am not sure what you mean. I was making the point that, IMO, when people are killed in Iraq, especially from bombs or fire from our side, there's a chance that a son, or brother, or dad, will blame America for the loss, and those that oppose us, including those that oppose us and are willing to use terror tactics, gain another volunteer.

The US - stated publicly that any collateral damage in unintentional and is making every effort to keep it at a minimum...No war is perfect.

Radical Muslim Cleric - the US is attacking our religion and are oppressing our people.

A) Who is your "terrorist volunteer" listening to?
B) Does he even get the information the US has stated?
C) Is it the US's fault he's listening to the Radical Muslim Cleric?

If the Brits, when bombing Germany, killed some Jews in a concentration camp unintentionally, did the rest of the victim's family start hating Brits?
 
cnredd said:
The US - stated publicly that any collateral damage in unintentional and is making every effort to keep it at a minimum...No war is perfect.

Radical Muslim Cleric - the US is attacking our religion and are oppressing our people.

A) Who is your "terrorist volunteer" listening to?
B) Does he even get the information the US has stated?
C) Is it the US's fault he's listening to the Radical Muslim Cleric?

If the Brits, when bombing Germany, killed some Jews in a concentration camp unintentionally, did the rest of the victim's family start hating Brits?

The stated intention that "collateral damage in unintentional and is making every effort to keep it at a minimum" rings somewhat hollow to me given the fact the Administration doesn't even bother keeping track of how many Iraqi civilians have been killed in this war.

It was the stated intention of this Administration that this pre-emptive invasion and occupation was to remove Iraq's WMDs. It was the stated intention of this Administration to remove Hussein from power, and put an end to his abusive conduct -- and Abu Grave happens. It was the stated intention of this Administration that we were going in for a very limited and clear purpose.

So when some Iraqi looks at the blown up corpse of his dead brother, what do you think he is going to think about our stated intentions?
 
There are independent counts of civilian casualities kepy if you would like me to link you to them?

One particular one I trust to be more accurate than the others because they have done many previous casualty counts in otehr war situations which the US & UN accepted as being accurate enough figures to release.

PS: Cheers cnredd, it'll take some getting used to ;) I have moderated many forums in my time and I would have banned many peeps who were disrespectful to other members for far less than here! lol! But my tolerance level will simply have to adjust because there are definitely some subjects here worth having a look at and ones I would be happy to share views with others on :)
 
Last edited:
Parmenion said:
There are independent counts of civilian casualities kepy if you would like me to link you to them?

I know ... the point I'm trying to make is that IMO, a certain percentage of Iraqis who see family members die in this war will blame the US ... they are the ones who will join the insurgence and the terrorists.
 
Of course, and I would not disagree with you, I was just trying to be helpful in case you wanted to know what the civilian casualty counts actually were :)
 
IValueFreedom said:
Now, that said, this war IS NOT what the military should be used for. Those boys over there are being "used and abused" for a personal agenda.

Well written, IValueFreedom.

The letter that this post is about is more reason to bring the troops home. Read everything that they are going through and realize that they should not be there in the first place.
 
alex said:
Well written, IValueFreedom.

The letter that this post is about is more reason to bring the troops home. Read everything that they are going through and realize that they should not be there in the first place.

The letter that this post is about? Are we reading the same thing?

I know you think that nothing, even a world free of terror for one's children, is worth dying for, but bear with me here.

I think it's pretty obvious that Mr. Fencil is confident in his role as a Marine in Iraq and is unhappy with the attitude of the civilians whose interests he is fighting for.

And if not fighting for America's interests, exactly what should the military be used for?
 
Back
Top Bottom