Phinehas

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

Not wanting to derail the Patriotism thread, I thought I would start a new thread.

I actually agree with almost everything you said, although I disagree about the Iraqi war. Let me tell you why.
Realize that as citizens of the USA we have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Are we better than everyone else to any extent that they shouldn't have the same?
Long term, it is in our Iraqi neighbors' (and the world's) best interest to be able to have the same rights. This is ultimately in our best interest to happen.
The real question is, is it worth American lives? Are American lives better than anyone else's? You pay your taxes, and see police on the streets doing their job areesting murderers, dealers, etc. The policeman gets shot. Ultimately it makes you more safe, better him than you. This is good right? Right?...

There is a price to pay for any man's freedom, the Iraqis and the US are paying for theirs, what are you paying for yours? Sometimes people need help, what are you going to say to the next person who helps you and gets hurt? How are you going to feel when a friend of theirs says to them "You shouldn't have even been there."
You're right, there is a difference between being patriotic and blind. Anyone that says that you should support your country, no matter what, is a fool. This is very true. However, I'm wondering what sacrifice you've made that's been so costly. I don't dislike you, but yeah, I'm making it personal.

Who in the armed forces isn't big enough to know that the armed forces fight and die? That's what they do. No one has joined against their will. Even the people given a choice between jail time or military had a choice.

I salute the men and women of the armed forces who are willing to go and do what I would but can't. I also salute the parents who tought their kids to be selfless enough to join up, or the people who just decided to. I also salute the President, who has stayed the course through all the political flak.
It's because of people like this we can voice our opinions.

See the movie "Hotel Rwanda", it might give you a little different perspective. We weren't there, isn't that great?

-From an ex-Navy, ex-SEAL trainee

I would have to say though, that it is not America's right to police the world. We do not have a right to go into other countries and tell their rulers how to run their countries. This isn't right, in my opinion. Also, I believe that the United States has our own problems to take on before we start to take on those of other countries.

 

[dkara]

Not wanting to derail the Patriotism thread, I thought I would start a new thread.




I would have to say though, that it is not America's right to police the world. We do not have a right to go into other countries and tell their rulers how to run their countries. This isn't right, in my opinion. Also, I believe that the United States has our own problems to take on before we start to take on those of other countries.

I believe as a 'super power' the USA has some responsibilities in the world, but bestowing or shoving freedom down the throat of other nations is not one of them. We went there to fight terrorists [who weren't there]. In the course did we free the Iraqi's?

There are three factions that don't want freedom--they want to rule. And because of this they will kill anyone else who takes office. So it will always be a jocking for ruler---and that's not freedom.

Is all this 'we support the troops' thing a pendulum swing from VietNam?

I support the troops--the poor guy and girl wondering if they'll be blown up over there. But I detest the government for sending them on this fool's errand.

It's not going to work. It isn't working. It'll take a huge military presence forever---again, that's not freedom.

Freedom has to be yearned for and worked for from the inside out---not the outside in.

And everyone keeps talking about 'the war,' but we are no longer at war [shades of Viet Nam, yeah].

It's a sad state of affairs and getting sadder. Bin, the big terrorist, once said he'd take down the USA by taking us down financially. With our defecit---we're working right into his plan. And now the gov wants EVEN more money--while cutting American plans to get it. I hope folks wake up soon....

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

I believe as a 'super power' the USA has some responsibilities in the world, but bestowing or shoving freedom down the throat of other nations is not one of them. We went there to fight terrorists [who weren't there]. In the course did we free the Iraqi's?

There are three factions that don't want freedom--they want to rule. And because of this they will kill anyone else who takes office. So it will always be a jocking for ruler---and that's not freedom.

Is all this 'we support the troops' thing a pendulum swing from VietNam?

I support the troops--the poor guy and girl wondering if they'll be blown up over there. But I detest the government for sending them on this fool's errand.

It's not going to work. It isn't working. It'll take a huge military presence forever---again, that's not freedom.

Freedom has to be yearned for and worked for from the inside out---not the outside in.

And everyone keeps talking about 'the war,' but we are no longer at war [shades of Viet Nam, yeah].

It's a sad state of affairs and getting sadder. Bin, the big terrorist, once said he'd take down the USA by taking us down financially. With our defecit---we're working right into his plan. And now the gov wants EVEN more money--while cutting American plans to get it. I hope folks wake up soon....

Exaclty, exactly, exactly. I couldn't agree more.

 

[Aimee30]

Not wanting to derail the Patriotism thread, I thought I would start a new thread.




I would have to say though, that it is not America's right to police the world. We do not have a right to go into other countries and tell their rulers how to run their countries. This isn't right, in my o...pinion. Also, I believe that the United States has our own problems to take on before we start to take on those of other countries.

The truth is--you're right, we shouldn't police the world. We should basically fix our problems before we go telling other people how to run their lives. For Christians it's thus: "Why do you look for the splinter in your brother's eye, when there is a log in your own? First remove the log from your own eye so you can see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother's eye." It isn't the exact quote but I don't have the time to research it, but is a teaching of Jesus.
However, I think the U.S. should have waited for more backing if they wanted remove Saddam. He needed to go, since he killed a great many of his own people for opposing him, but this should have been a mutual decision by more than a few countries. In my opinion, they should have made it their priority to find him, not blow up the countryside.
We also do have quite a few problems in the U.S.--the poor getting poorer, homelessness, joblessness, no health care for certain people, people unable to get proper education to find work, gang violence--the list goes on and on. I don't see why we should put 200 million into a war when our countries troubles are endless?

 

[Lucretius]

Even though I don't agree with your religions, I love your politics! The Iraq War was a big mistake. No weapons. No terrorists. We destroyed their government (even though it was bad) and just propped up some guy that the American businessmen like.

 

[R.James]

I would have to say though, that it is not America's right to police the world. We do not have a right to go into other countries and tell their rulers how to run their countries. This isn't right, in my opinion. Also, I believe that the United States has our own problems to take on before we start to take on those of other countries.

That's perfectly fine. As long as noone is supporting the enemy the US is trying to defeat, or advocating the defeat of the US by that enemy, I don't think it is fair to be called unpatriotic.

 

[mepalmer3]

I would have to say though, that it is not America's right to police the world. We do not have a right to go into other countries and tell their rulers how to run their countries. This isn't right, in my opinion. Also, I believe that the United States has our own problems to take on before we start to take on those of other countries.

I more or less agree... although I will be VERY quick to admit that I really don't like political arguments much. But I am very interested in right/wrong conversations.

So... for the sake of arguing or trying to understand ourselves better... I'm curious as to why we think that it is ok for our government to "police us" but it's not ok for them to police someone else. What exactly is the distinction that changes it from being acceptable to wrong?

I'll throw out some ideas...

1. Distance - Maybe it's ok to polics people within a close proximity, but policing someone farther away is wrong. I can't see any reason why distance itself matters.

2. They weren't born here - But we are fine with policing anyone who moves here from other countries.

3. So maybe it comes down to we think it's wrong because they didn't vote for our government or the current group in power. But what about all the folks who didn't vote for bush? Wouldn't it be wrong for him/congress to create laws governing them when they didn't vote for him?

Anyway... Perhaps it sounds like a silly question, I'm just not sure I see a logical explanation as to why governing our own people is ok while governing others people/governments is not ok. Why do you think it's wrong for a government to police other countries?

 

[aeroz19]

I believe as a 'super power' the USA has some responsibilities in the world, but bestowing or shoving freedom down the throat of other nations is not one of them. We went there to fight terrorists [who weren't there]. In the course did we free the Iraqi's?

You are right.

I support the troops--the poor guy and girl wondering if they'll be blown up over there. But I detest the government for sending them on this fool's errand.

You are right.

Freedom has to be yearned for and worked for from the inside out---not the outside in.

You are soooooooooooo right. If we impose a democracy on them that they weren't ready for as a nation, how can we trust them to maintain it?

Let us compare how we earned our democracy (assuming you are American), and how the Iraqis got it imposed on them:

Us: We fought and died for a freedom that we desperately, earnestly, deeply desired. Once we got that freedom we glowed with new pride in our country and our democracy, and we courageously sent out soldiers to fight and die for it. We wanted it, we earned it, we took pride in it, and we enjoyed it and believed in it. It took time for everyone to participate in our democratic processes and enjoy our freedoms, however. Democracy evolved as time went on and effort was made to broaden its reaches.

The Iraqis: They got democracy imposed on them suddenly. They hate us and our ways, and despise anything that is from us. Many of them probably hate our form of government too (our democracy). They don't want a U.S. style government; they want a theocracy. They didn't work for or earn a democracy. There was no time to let it evolve so that the Iraqis could gain a sense of pride in their work and effort. There is no desire, no pride. It will take one generation or two before the Iraqis can identify themselves with the new government and maybe take pride in it. In the meantime guess where our soldiers will be. Yeah...

 

[JustJack!]

I believe as a 'super power' the USA has some responsibilities in the world, but bestowing or shoving freedom down the throat of other nations is not one of them. We went there to fight terrorists [who weren't there]. In the course did we free the Iraqi's?

And what responsibilities are these?

And everyone keeps talking about 'the war,' but we are no longer at war [shades of Viet Nam, yeah].

Vietnam wasn't a war? Does a war have to have front lines?

After seeing the results of the election, I can not condemn this war. Kinda sad when a nation who hasn't had an election in 50 years has a higher voter turnout than a 200yo republic. And we don't have to worry about getting blown up or gunned down while waiting to vote.

Regardless of the mistakes and poor judgement that went into this war, I think giving a nation of oppressed ppl a chance to have a say in their own government was worth it.

And with the elections in Afganistan and Palistine, I'm convinced these ppl want freedom, they just need help.

 

[sinner/SAVED]

I totally agree with the first 5 posts.

 

[Lucretius]

And what responsibilities are these?



Vietnam wasn't a war? Does a war have to have front lines?

After seeing the results of the election, I can not condemn this war. Kinda sad when a nation who hasn't had an election in 50 years has a higher voter turnout than a 200yo republic. And we don't have to worry about getting blown up or gunned down while waiting to vote.

Regardless of the mistakes and poor judgement that went into this war, I think giving a nation of oppressed ppl a chance to have a say in their own government was worth it.

And with the elections in Afganistan and Palistine, I'm convinced these ppl want freedom, they just need help.

Uh.. do you know ANYTHING about the history of Iraq? The British tried the EXACT SAME THING that is happening today in the 1920's and '30's. Guess what: after 8 years the Iraqi's got sick and tired of it, and rebelled. They didn't like the way of life that was forced on them EVEN though to us it seemed obviously morally superior to theirs. Those who do not know history are DOOMED to repeat it.

 

[Phinehas]

May the dissertation begin!

I believe as a 'super power' the USA has some responsibilities in the world, but bestowing or shoving freedom down the throat of other nations is not one of them. We went there to fight terrorists [who weren't there]. In the course did we free the Iraqi's?

"...shoving freedom down the throat of other nations" Ooh what a horrible fate! Oppression! Opression! (Insert scoff here) In spite of how horrid you may think freedom is, this is akin to shoving a million dollars "down someone's throat". If you don't want freedom you can either leave or give it away. People who live in dictatorships can't do much of anything but what they're told (or get shot or tortured, of course.) We're just giving them the chance to live long enough to decide if they like it or not.

This was never mainly about freedom for the Iraqi people anyway. There are quite a few misnomers about Saddam "never being involved in terrorism", etc. Every news agency knows what's gone on. I'd rather be fighting the war on terror on their doorstep, not on ours. We just happen to pick one of the most visible and vocal rabble rousers to crack on the noggin.

Whatever "bad experiences" you may have had with freedom, while unpleasant, pale in comparison with what went on in Iraq. I'm talking about things that, if those who were opposed to the death penalty were there to witness them, they themselves would pull the trigger. I'm talking about Uday (one of Saddam's son's), when he presided over Iraq's soccer team who" ...had a body-length steel case with internal spikes that would have gouged the person inside to death when shut. Soccer was his favorite sport. If his team lost, he might order the players' feet caned, or make them kick iron balls at practice until their feet were broken and bleeding."
I'm talking about Fathers tortured and killed because they objected to Saddam's sons raping their daughters or wives, I'm talking about women watching their infants' muscles snap their spines as gas induced convulsions wrack their childeren's bodies, all the while the women themseves choke on whatever their their own insides can heave out as they die a most painful death because Saddam decided to "test" chemical (gas) weapons on his own people.
This is the oppression of which I speak. Almost no one in the U.S.A., along with most others from first world countries, really have any idea what heavy oppression feels like.

(As far as wether or not Saddam actually gassed his own people, my brother was sent to the area when active service Navy, and had this to say

"...I may be wrong – please straighten me out about the kinder, gentler approach working when those same countries are making Billions in rearming sanctioned countries like Iraq. Help me here, please. Did you know that 300,000 Shiite Muslims and Kurds were wiped out by Saddam Hussein? I personally had a ringside seat to some of that action in 1992 where entire villages were massacred and burned. I have my personal flight log book to show I was there and three of my fellow squadron aircrewmen who worked in our carrier’s Intel department preparing the reports for the UN. Not to mention the sanctions-related deaths that could have been prevented, I’d say nearly half a million Iraqis are dead because of Hussein."

This excerpt is taken from this site/ letter to his best (liberal) friends he set up. Feel free to stop by.)

Some of the numbers involved.

Campaigns to suppress rebellious Kurds in the 1980s left 180,000 people missing and presumed dead. Saddam used chemical weapons to kill 5,000 Iraqi Kurds in the north and sent tanks to quash dissent among Iraqi Shiite Muslims in the south. Stories of abuse, such as children being tortured in front of their parents, were rife.

CNN Link

That was just the Kurds...

A couple here... a couple there, no one's gonna notice, right?

Heck, Saddam was a cool cat. He could do no wrong.

Identifying the remains of over one million missing Iraqis will bring comfort to their families, promote reconciliation, and help develop a new system of justice in Iraq. Some 50 mass graves containing hundreds of thousands of bodies have been identified. The Iraqi Human Rights Ministry is spearheading efforts to identify remains in the graves and collect evidence for future prosecutions. There is another effort to create a bureau of missing persons to centralize information on those killed under Saddam Hussein's regime.

Mass grave link

There are three factions that don't want freedom--they want to rule. And because of this they will kill anyone else who takes office. So it will always be a jocking for ruler---and that's not freedom.

Yes, yes, this makes perfect sense! This means we should do exactly what the factions want! WHAT A PHENOMINAL IDEA!! Why didn't I think of that? Yeah...

I support the troops--the poor guy and girl wondering if they'll be blown up over there. But I detest the government for sending them on this fool's errand.

If I ever hear gunfire in your house I'll be sure to let the police know not to go in, they could get hurt and it's a fool's errand. Poor, poor, policemen.

I've got news for you, whether it be you, or some guy in the Sudan, or Africa, everyone should be able to get a little empathy. They're worth just as much as you are.

It's not going to work. It isn't working. It'll take a huge military presence forever---again, that's not freedom.

It isn't working?

I'll be sure to let the Iraqi people know.

It doesn't have to be our military present, eventually it'll be theirs.
Besides, I think that we, as a nation have a huge military presence in our own country... I feel reasonably free... you?

It's a sad state of affairs and getting sadder. Bin, the big terrorist, once said he'd take down the USA by taking us down financially. With our defecit---we're working right into his plan. And now the gov wants EVEN more money--while cutting American plans to get it. I hope folks wake up soon....

Gasp! You're right! The USSR has the SAME PLAN! (commie bastids)
I think if we collapse economically it'll be due mainly to the fiscal geniuses in D.C.

There you have it, my two dollars worth. I don't plan on continually rebutting arguments here on this thread due mostly to the fact that it takes time and effort to inform others on what they're talking about. Sounds bad, but sadly enough, that seems to be the way of it. Most people who argue from the left like to use emotion and rhetoric rather than fact (I actually feel bad when some Christians do the same thing). I can't change anyone's mind for them.
If this post seems a mite harsh I want to let you know I was listening to Static X and Stone Temple Pilots when I wrote it(which might have a little something to do with it). This thing is so long I'd be suprised if anyone were still reading.
Peace!

 

[roguejet]

I believe as a 'super power' the USA has some responsibilities in the world, but bestowing or shoving freedom down the throat of other nations is not one of them. We went there to fight terrorists [who weren't there]. In the course did we free the Iraqi's?

Okay that's not true. I have to briefly sum up there are probably six different sources demonstrating Hussein supported terrorism. Even if it wasn't Bin Laden's specific group (and I think there are a couple specific sources for that information according to the 9.11 report although not specifically the Trade Center and Pentagon attacks) his government actively sponsored terrorism.

There are three factions that don't want freedom--they want to rule. And because of this they will kill anyone else who takes office. So it will always be a jocking for ruler---and that's not freedom.

So it's hopeless - so why even try, right? It's also impossible to send a man to the moon, travel beyond the speed of sound, climb Mt. Everest, and more recently, win the X Prize. Point being we do the impossible every day.

One other thing - every democracy has its problems, counter-revolutions, etc. The Soviets took an extra 70 years after their counter-revolution against the pro-moderate Bolsheviks(think that's who initially revolted vs. czarist rule) but they're working on democracy right now.

By the way, we've got two factions who want to rule, and they go at each other's throats daily. It's called Politics, and I don't mind as long as they don't kill anyone over it. I think that Iraqis will start to feel the same way.

Is all this 'we support the troops' thing a pendulum swing from VietNam?

I support the troops--the poor guy and girl wondering if they'll be blown up over there. But I detest the government for sending them on this fool's errand.

Yeah, 'we support the troops' I've heard it from everyone so much it makes me laugh. Tell me, if you 'support the troops' when was the last time you bought a serviceman or woman, or the wife/dependant of one their lunch while standing in line at a restaurant? Took one out for dinner? Got to know them and help them with their daily struggles? How about babysat for the guy or gal just home from deployment? Wrote a card saying thanks although I don't agree with the policies, you're okay by me, keep doing your job that I don't agree with?

According to the surveys, a huge majority of servicemen and their families intended to vote for Bush in the past election. (can't send link as newbie) They are on the front lines, putting their lives on the line, and seeing the effects of what they do in the lives of their friends and the Iraqis. If it was so futile, why would an overwhelming majority of them AND their families still intend to vote to keep the long wartime deployments?

It's not going to work. It isn't working. It'll take a huge military presence forever---again, that's not freedom.

Hmm. War is not easy, World War 2 history points to that. Why would you say 'forever'? Where are you drawing this conclusion from? Do we still have an 'occupying force' in Germany and Japan? Although we have bases there, I've been there, it's not an 'occupying force'.

Freedom has to be yearned for and worked for from the inside out---not the outside in. And everyone keeps talking about 'the war,' but we are no longer at war [shades of Viet Nam, yeah].

Shades of Vietnam. No longer at war. Do you think that terrorism is gone because we're not having more planes running into buildings? What do you define as war?

It's a sad state of affairs and getting sadder. Bin, the big terrorist, once said he'd take down the USA by taking us down financially. With our defecit---we're working right into his plan. And now the gov wants EVEN more money--while cutting American plans to get it. I hope folks wake up soon....

Please, tell me your facts and enlighten me so I may wake up. I would like to believe you, so do me this service. Tell me your facts on why we should quit the Iraq effort. I would like to hear more. I'm sure this position is not solely based on what your friends and family say, rather you've examined every side.

I more or less agree... although I will be VERY quick to admit that I really don't like political arguments much. But I am very interested in right/wrong conversations.

Great! So do I. Right vs. wrong is the core of any ethical debate. When you say right vs. wrong... let me ask you a great moral and ethical question.
Q: Do you believe that it is right under any circumstance to take another human's life?
Each person's answer basically comes down to yes or no. Hey, the Bible specifically says, Thou Shalt Not Kill.
My answer would be yes, conditionally, particularly if that person was threatening my life, my family's life, or in a further gray area, carrying out a threat to the lives of others that I felt I could prevent. I balance the Commandment with the "...no man has greater love that he lay down his life for that of his friend..." and there are several others that justify action...

If your answer is no, you believe that you would not personally every take another's life no matter the circumstance, we are at a moral impasse immediately, please ignore the rest of my answers because you will never agree to them.

So... for the sake of arguing or trying to understand ourselves better... I'm curious as to why we think that it is ok for our government to "police us" but it's not ok for them to police someone else. What exactly is the distinction that changes it from being acceptable to wrong?

I have a simple emotional distinction, please let me share it. It's that I don't want to have to worry about my kid or wife getting gunned down in a mass suicide attack on his school once he goes there. Here's a logical one. I don't want to have to worry about the tanker truck in front of me on the freeway exploding and covering five lanes of rush hour traffic with the equivalent of napalm.

Answer: What allows us to police someone else is that they have not been able to do it themselves, and that inaction by us will result in American deaths on a massive scale in the immediate future. This is the logic of preemptive strike. I will freely discuss preemptive principle in this thread or another if you would like.

I'll throw out some ideas...
1. Distance - Maybe it's ok to polics people within a close proximity, but policing someone farther away is wrong. I can't see any reason why distance itself matters.

That sounds a lot like what Americans thought would have worked in World War 2. Unfortunately it's as invalid then as it would be today in the 21st century. There are no terrain features that will keep those who wish to harm innocent American lives. There is no magic dome to keep us safe, excepting Christ, and even then we live at His will.

Tell me what you mean by 'close proximity'. I could be wrong but I don't think it applies in the global marketplace. There's more to foreign policy than that, but it's a start of a good discussion.

We can't 'police' anyone anywhere in the first place. It's not like we (US/Western NATO/etc.) are going out to create this new type of police state - hey, that's what we all want is to have to take care of someone else's mess until the end of time. It's a volunteer armed services - word gets out quick if people don't like their job and they tell others not to come in.

2. They weren't born here - But we are fine with policing anyone who moves here from other countries.

I'd have to know more to make sure I wasn't taking you out of context, however if I understand you correctly you're saying that we don't apply the rights of citizenship equally if someone's here on a student or work visa. Well, they're guests of the US. It's harder to boot someone out of the house if they're family, if they're a guest it's easier - maybe that analogy works here...?

Here's where I agree with you sort of:
The INS is bizarre in their judgement; I have a friend who works diligently to bring his girlfriend in from the Ukraine, however the regulations even after 9/11 consistently make it easier for a single male from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or several other countries in the middle east to come and reside in the US.

I could be wrong, give me some examples so I know that I have the right frame of reference. I apologize in advance if not on target.

3. So maybe it comes down to we think it's wrong because they didn't vote for our government or the current group in power. But what about all the folks who didn't vote for bush? Wouldn't it be wrong for him/congress to create laws governing them when they didn't vote for him?

So... I don't understand this either.

Anyway... Perhaps it sounds like a silly question, I'm just not sure I see a logical explanation as to why governing our own people is ok while governing others people/governments is not ok. Why do you think it's wrong for a government to police other countries?

Hmm. Plenty of precedence for us doing the right thing.. like the last hundred years. Germany. Japan. Both were conquered nations who rose from the ashes that we caused with our help. There's no reason why Iraq and Afghanistan cannot do the same thing.

Peace of mind brings on a whole new meaning in the terrorist age. The Romans, however misguided they were, had a leader whose saying was, 'let them hate us as long as they fear us'... My personal preference in life is that although I realize I walk with God every day, I would really like to not have to live in fear of the 7-Eleven exploding because we didn't act when we could have to deter terrorism.

Uh.. do you know ANYTHING about the history of Iraq? The British tried the EXACT SAME THING that is happening today in the 1920's and '30's. Guess what: after 8 years the Iraqi's got sick and tired of it, and rebelled. They didn't like the way of life that was forced on them EVEN though to us it seemed obviously morally superior to theirs. Those who do not know history are DOOMED to repeat it.

Now let me explain how your analogy disintegrated when we went into Afghanistan. The Soviets tried for ten years to pacify that country. It turned into their Vietnam. So far, our efforts in ten months did the same basic job they were after. That's a powerful comparison and our troops are best equipped and trained in the world. Seen 'em in action, think they have what it takes.

Second reason your analogy is incorrect: Those were colonial powers. They did not offer a future. The British colonial rule brought about one of the most prevalent forms of civil disobedience - Ghandi. Ghandi brought about self-rule in India. We the US are shortcutting the process and bringing about self-rule directly.

Third reason: I happen to know a lot about Iraq and one thing I do know is that in the colonial period they weren't coming out from under the shadow of a dictator who killed nearly 300,000 of them. A bit different frame of reference.

 

[roguejet]

You are soooooooooooo right. If we impose a democracy on them that they weren't ready for as a nation, how can we trust them to maintain it?

Please clarify this for me, so I don't misunderstand. Are you saying, self-rule is bad because we are forcing them to do it before they're ready? Hmm. I need some help here because my point of view is very different.

What do you suggest we do? I'm sure you've thought it through - what's the best play from aeroz19's pov?

In the meantime guess where our soldiers will be. Yeah...

Yeah, they'll be where I've been, and countless other volunteers have been. Where they wanted to be, on the tip of the spear, defending our foreign policy without supporting or condemning it.

Military fundamental tactical doctrine says to take the fight to your enemy, gain initiative, and strike back. They are doing just that because the stakes are too high to not fight in this war.

They don't like leaving home, family. But they do it and they reenlist because they know the job is not over.

And one other thing. They're also doing it so people like me, who've already done similar things, can enjoy the fruits of freedom. They're getting blown up and shot at so I can take my kid on a walk to the store without getting a satchel charge or IED detonated in my face. I did my time on the line, and they're doing it now.

They're on the front line buying time and space for us over here. They know it, and some of us know it. How do I know they know it?

I ask them. I talk to them, I know the strike rescue guys and the marines and the army snipers. They all know that at the very least, no matter what mistakes might have been made and were dissected in Monday Morning Quarterbacking, that terrorists are over THERE and not HERE shooting up their families at the shopping malls.

 

[roguejet]

Even though I don't agree with your religions, I love your politics! The Iraq War was a big mistake. No weapons. No terrorists. We destroyed their government (even though it was bad) and just propped up some guy that the American businessmen like.

Won't even go into how mistaken this is in this post.

Do me a favor. When you tell me 'I support the troops' I want you to just look up your neighborhood recruiting center. Do what I did two weeks ago when a friend of mine was going into the Army. By the way, this kid lost a HUNDRED pounds to join the Army. He was 25, making six digit income during dotcom. weighed 270 lbs. took a year to lose the weight, and decided to go in. He's in boot, I hope he makes it.

I went across the street, bought a case of beer and a case of soda. Brought it back and set it under the recruiter's desk. They can't have beer there so they took it out to their cars and divvied it up. Some of them didn't drink, they were happy with the sodas. Maybe you'll have to set the beer outside the door. Doesn't matter, they get the point.

Cost me $28.00 and change for that. Made their night.

Regardless of politics. Show the troops you care. do something for them. Buy them lunch in line if you see them in uniform or can tell the haircut. Don't engage them in any talk just tell them it's the least you can do.

Support your troops. Don't make it a tired phrase...

 

[mepalmer3]

Right vs. wrong is the core of any ethical debate. When you say right vs. wrong... let me ask you a great moral and ethical question.
Q: Do you believe that it is right under any circumstance to take another human's life?
Each person's answer basically comes down to yes or no. Hey, the Bible specifically says, Thou Shalt Not Kill.

I think most folks agree that the commandment is not to murder which is quite a big different from killing. But certainly there are times when taking another person's life is the right thing to do.

Answer: What allows us to police someone else is that they have not been able to do it themselves, and that inaction by us will result in American deaths on a massive scale in the immediate future. This is the logic of preemptive strike. I will freely discuss preemptive principle in this thread or another if you would like.

I'm not sure you understood what I was saying in my post. I was arguing that some people think it's morally wrong for the United States to sort of "police" by laws, force, or economic sanctions other countries. The same people often think it's ok for the US to "police" it's own citizens. So my question basically is that if it's ok for President Bob to police John, why isn't it ok for the president to police Juan or Omar? And I was trying to put myself in that perspective and think about why people think that way.

 

[Lucretius]

Won't even go into how mistaken this is in this post.

Do me a favor. When you tell me 'I support the troops' I want you to just look up your neighborhood recruiting center. Do what I did two weeks ago when a friend of mine was going into the Army. By the way, this kid lost a HUNDRED pounds to join the Army. He was 25, making six digit income during dotcom. weighed 270 lbs. took a year to lose the weight, and decided to go in. He's in boot, I hope he makes it.

I went across the street, bought a case of beer and a case of soda. Brought it back and set it under the recruiter's desk. They can't have beer there so they took it out to their cars and divvied it up. Some of them didn't drink, they were happy with the sodas. Maybe you'll have to set the beer outside the door. Doesn't matter, they get the point.

Cost me $28.00 and change for that. Made their night.

Regardless of politics. Show the troops you care. do something for them. Buy them lunch in line if you see them in uniform or can tell the haircut. Don't engage them in any talk just tell them it's the least you can do.

Support your troops. Don't make it a tired phrase...

Just because I do not support the war doesn't mean I want good Americans to die. I want them to come home, and I know that is what THEY want too. I am rallying to get them home. They prefer living at home than getting a lunch or soda in Iraq where they get SHOT AT EVERYDAY. Supporting the troops doesn't mean I have to like or support the war. Supporting the troops means trying as hard as I can to get OUR SOLDIERS HOME.

 

[roguejet]

Supporting the troops doesn't mean I have to like or support the war. Supporting the troops means trying as hard as I can to get OUR SOLDIERS HOME.

Supporting the troops... What do you think they would tell you they would like in the way of support, or do you just assume that above all, they want to be home, no matter the cost.

No matter which service I speak to, the 'troops' I have encountered want nothing more than to simply have the threat of terrorism eliminated. Being 'HOME' is irrelevant if they cannot live in security and peace.

They don't want to be 'HOME' at all costs. That's a value placed on them by people who haven't taken the time to speak to combat troops who are on the front lines. Of course they want to be with their loved ones, but they understand there's a greater good to what they're doing. They understand the value of their task in the big picture of national security.

My point is that bringing our soldiers home immediately is not what they want. Being brought home after the job they were sent to do is complete is what they want. Being able to relax and not worry about a grenade sailing through the window of a department store is what they want. Not having to worry about a Pentagon assignment being the target of an airliner is what they want.

I would say to you, find out what you can do to support our troops and make their lives a bit easier, maybe without judgement about what they are doing and with respect for the fact that they have made a decision to support the policies no matter what.

Our troops learned that coming home no matter what emboldened Al Qaeda operatives in Somalia in 1993 (yes, they were there arming rebel factions) and they desperately do not want to repeat that mistake.

(soapbox speech)
As for everyone who says that tired line of 'we support our troops' let me ask you one simple question:

When was the last time you paid for a troop's lunch when you saw him or her in line at McD's? When did you offer to babysit for a returning vet so he could go out with his wife?

Oh, and if you don't want to serve in the military? Get EMT qualified on your own time and dime so if something blows up you can be a decent first responder. Support our nation by being ready to respond to an emergency and help people. Jesus wouldn't object to helping people, so you've got no excuse for not contributing more than just hot air and conjecture.

I don't care if someone's pacifist, realist, or indecisive. Do your part to help the people who are protecting us, whether you agree with what they're doing or not. Get involved and learn how to protect yourself and others in case of a mass casualty.

(off soapbox)

 

[roguejet]

I'm not sure you understood what I was saying in my post. I was arguing that some people think it's morally wrong for the United States to sort of "police" by laws, force, or economic sanctions other countries. The same people often think it's ok for the US to "police" it's own citizens. So my question basically is that if it's ok for President Bob to police John, why isn't it ok for the president to police Juan or Omar? And I was trying to put myself in that perspective and think about why people think that way.

Now that makes sense. Sorry for the confusion... Probably because I was up late last night drinking coffee!

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

No matter which service I speak to, the 'troops' I have encountered want nothing more than to simply have the threat of terrorism eliminated. Being 'HOME' is irrelevant if they cannot live in security and peace.

They don't want to be 'HOME' at all costs. That's a value placed on them by people who haven't taken the time to speak to combat troops who are on the front lines. Of course they want to be with their loved ones, but they understand there's a greater good to what they're doing. They understand the value of their task in the big picture of national security.

I have many family and friends over sees, and this isn't that attitude at all. They are all quite angry at the war, and feel as though they are not fighting for anything but Bush's own wants, not the good of the country.

They most certainly do what to come home at all costs. They feel as though they were lied to.