An Iraqi boy takes cover behind an American soldier.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Intrepid, wanting to install a democratic government is a far cry from wanting to install some Mullah controlled theocracy.

From who's point of view?

Originally posted by pieman

It may sound funny but there is a difference between murder and killing someone in a State sanctioned armed conflict.

but you can still murder someone while engaged in a state sanctioned armed conflict if you intentionally kill non-sanctioned people or target, knowingly or recklessly, non-sanctioned groups, isn't that true? and couldn't innocents be interpreted to mean non-sanctioned targets? murder is still murder weather or not your in a war zone.

My point is that it doesn't matter whether the killings are intentional or not- the end result is still a dead, but innocent, person with the only difference being the state of mind of the person who killed the person.

It doesn't really take a genius to figure out that shooting machine guns and dropping bombs in crowded cities is going to kill lots of civilians even if civilians aren't the target of those machine guns and bombs- so whoever is shooting the machine guns and dropping the bombs carries the responsbility of killing innocent people.

If there is person A and person B where person A kills my son by intentionally stabbing him in the back and person B kills my son by firing a machine gun through my walls while my son is inside, trying to shoot my table instead of my son, and kills my son then I really don't see much of a difference, nor would I care even if I did, between person A who kiilled my son intentionally and person B who killed my son unintentionally. Both people killed my son and in both cases I just lost a loved one. I doubt my son would care either; I think the only thing he would care about is whether he got to live on or die, and I'm pretty sure he'd want to live.

Originally posted by RedDragon

Originally posted by Freezer
Did the soldiers make the decision to go into wars?

That the soldiers didn't make the decision to go into war is another common misconception.

Of course they decided to go to war. Wars can't be fought without soldiers so the soldiers are obviously the people ultimately responsible for the war and all the resulting death since they were the ones that actually carried it out. Politicians and generals write words on paper but the soldiers are the ones with the guns and bombs shooting and bombing people.

You remember the draft dodgers in the 60s and 70s? They were ordered to go to war but made the decision not to go to war. People over in Iraq were ordered to go to war and made the decision to comply with those orders (and go to war). Of course, if they didn't comply then they would go to jail but they still made the decision to go to war and put themselves in that situation in the first place by joining the military. Draft dodgers faced the same risk and were only saved by Canada's grace.

In fact, there actually a few hundred soldiers right now who did choose not to go to war and they are fighting a battle in the Canadian legal system. Whether they will be afforded the same grace as the Vietnam War draft dodgers remains to be seen, but they're willing to risk going to jail over risking killing innocent people when they drop around bombs in crowded cities hoping to kill insurgents and somehow magically miss all the civilians walking around on the streets.

[edit on 5/30/07 by RedDragon]

Do you honestly believe that?

Both the people the dodged the draft and those that went had a choice. They chose to go and defend the freedoms that were being opressed by the North. They fought for what they believed in. I hightly doubt those people joined the military for the sole purpose of shooting people. It's part of it, sure, but I doubt that was the reason they joined.

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Intrepid, wanting to install a democratic government is a far cry from wanting to install some Mullah controlled theocracy.

From who's point of view?

In my opinion, from any rational point of view.

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by RedDragon


2) People keep telling me my numbers are wrong but I seem to be the only person actually citing numbers right now. I'm presenting facts and you're presenting your emotions about the facts. Choose which argument is more convincing.

[edit on 5/30/07 by RedDragon]

Well, have you provided any concrete links for your facts? If not, they are just opinion.

Yes, the percentages of Iraqi civilians killed by whatever group were from the Iraqi Body Count. Google for Iraqi Body Count (IBC).

Originally posted by RedDragon


2) People keep telling me my numbers are wrong but I seem to be the only person actually citing numbers right now. I'm presenting facts and you're presenting your emotions about the facts. Choose which argument is more convincing.

[edit on 5/30/07 by RedDragon]

Show me a link with these numbers.

Intrepid, certainly you are not going to try and make a case for these insurgents. Please tell me, Intrepid, not you.

Originally posted by Valdimer

Originally posted by RedDragon

Originally posted by Freezer
Did the soldiers make the decision to go into wars?

That the soldiers didn't make the decision to go into war is another common misconception.

Of course they decided to go to war. Wars can't be fought without soldiers so the soldiers are obviously the people ultimately responsible for the war and all the resulting death since they were the ones that actually carried it out. Politicians and generals write words on paper but the soldiers are the ones with the guns and bombs shooting and bombing people.

You remember the draft dodgers in the 60s and 70s? They were ordered to go to war but made the decision not to go to war. People over in Iraq were ordered to go to war and made the decision to comply with those orders (and go to war). Of course, if they didn't comply then they would go to jail but they still made the decision to go to war and put themselves in that situation in the first place by joining the military. Draft dodgers faced the same risk and were only saved by Canada's grace.

In fact, there actually a few hundred soldiers right now who did choose not to go to war and they are fighting a battle in the Canadian legal system. Whether they will be afforded the same grace as the Vietnam War draft dodgers remains to be seen, but they're willing to risk going to jail over risking killing innocent people when they drop around bombs in crowded cities hoping to kill insurgents and somehow magically miss all the civilians walking around on the streets.

[edit on 5/30/07 by RedDragon]

Do you honestly believe that?

Both the people the dodged the draft and those that went had a choice. They chose to go and defend the freedoms that were being opressed by the North. They fought for what they believed in. I hightly doubt those people joined the military for the sole purpose of shooting people. It's part of it, sure, but I doubt that was the reason they joined.

Everyone fights for what they believe in and in the end that just gets more people killed. Anyways, that's not the point. The point is that the soldiers obviously choose whether or not to go to war- nothing magically takes over their brains and makes them unable to reason and forces them to go to the war. To take the responsibility of the troops' actions and place it on the politicians is just wrong.

But to state that they joined the service with the sole intent of killing innocent people is wrong too.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Intrepid, wanting to install a democratic government is a far cry from wanting to install some Mullah controlled theocracy.

From who's point of view?

In my opinion, from any rational point of view.

And from their point of view..

Killing people for political motives is terrorism. Going to war means killing people. Spreading democracy is a political goal. Killing people to spread democracy is terrorism. Thus, going to war to spread democracy is terrorism. It's no different than going to war to spread a religion.

[edit on 5/30/07 by RedDragon]

Originally posted by Valdimer
But to state that they joined the service with the sole intent of killing innocent people is wrong too.

No one ever said that either.

Originally posted by RedDragon
Likewise, all of our troops that have killed innocent people overseas are also murderers- not heros.


[edit on 5/30/07 by RedDragon]

Explain this to me then? How does that not imply that you claim American troops are over there to purposely kill innocent people?

Originally posted by RedDragon


Killing people for political motives is terrorism. Going to war means killing people. Spreading democracy is a political goal. Killing people to spread democracy is terrorism. Thus, going to war to spread democracy is terrorism. It's no different than going to war to spread a religion.

RedDragon, while I can see what you are saying, I can't say that I completely agree.

Have you took a good look at the economic condition of most of the Middle Eastern nations? Even with all of that oil money that they have gained over the decades, it has lead to little prosperity. Surely you must wonder why, and no, it's not because of American induced sanctions either. So, don't even throw that card out there.

Trying to lead a country to a better form of economy is not the same as trying to create a state where everything is controlled by stringent religious doctrine. It's just not.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Originally posted by RedDragon


Killing people for political motives is terrorism. Going to war means killing people. Spreading democracy is a political goal. Killing people to spread democracy is terrorism. Thus, going to war to spread democracy is terrorism. It's no different than going to war to spread a religion.

RedDragon, while I can see what you are saying, I can't say that I completely agree.

Have you took a good look at the economic condition of most of the Middle Eastern nations? Even with all of that oil money that they have gained over the decades, it has lead to little prosperity. Surely you must wonder why, and no, it's not because of American induced sanctions either. So, don't even throw that card out there.

Trying to lead a country to a better form of economy is not the same as trying to create a state where everything is controlled by stringent religious doctrine. It's just not.

I agree with you but they don't.

From our point of view, democracy is just right and theocracies are so wrong. From their point of view, theocracies are just right and democracies are so wrong. Them killing us to spread a Muslim theocracy (a la 9/11) is just as wrong to us as killing them to spread democracy (a la current justification of Iraq War) is to them.

If it turns out that the Muslim religion is right then we're in for some big # come after we die LOL but I'm an atheist.

Seriously though, that's why we shouldn't force democracy on people. What's terrorism to us is seen as an act of grace by many of them and what's seen as an act of grace by us is seen as an act of terrorism by them.

If they want to change then they need to do it themselves.

Originally posted by RedDragon


If it turns out that the Muslim religion is right then we're in for some big # come after we die LOL but I'm an atheist.

Well, that's true. I suppose that if that is the case, then you are in double #, eh,RedDragon?

If they want to change then they need to do it themselves.

Red, while I agree, they aren't going to change on their own, which is fine, but when it starts influencing other parts of the world, then something has to be done.



[edit on 30-5-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

Murders and babykillers every last damn one of them. The soldiers, no my friend. The protesters are. By pressuring the politicians into armchair commanding the war. Generals that advocate total war on the civilians don't last very long in command, provided they got there in the first place. By taking the job away from the people who know the job, have train for an done the job. The job becomes FUBAR. Intel says this village gets taken out completely. Sir, I only see civilians. Are you going to disobey an order from command? No sir.

Really want to protest, sign up go through BT, get your MOS, and complain to your CO in the field...that is if you still feel the same as you did beforehand. Funny thing about a hands on education, you tend to see the other side of the arguement clearly.

Bragging about the number Iraqi killed? Ditch that loser, they are either lying (likely) or might be psycho enough to take you out one day. You burn a lot of hate while killing to save yourself. But you don't do it out of hate. Battle changes you. It takes about 30 support people for every frontline soldier. Not many admit to being a clerk in an ammo dump or a cook in a tent. But everybody knows that the Special Forces get the girls. It is like the quarterback in high school.

Originally posted by Valdimer
They made the choice to go into service for this country. I'll agree with you on the fact that no one put a gun to thier heads. But that still doesn't answer my question as to it being a soldier's fault for being over there?

Why do you keep asking me a question that you answer your self while asking?

How is it not a persons fault to be in the army if the draft is not in place yet?

The contract has to be signed by the person who becomes the military recruit and therefor, it's the persons fault for signing the paper.

A person knows that if he joins the military service for a corrupted government, eventually he will have to be used in a corporate manner....

Why do you think they recruit armies? To serve the corporate entity that is in place, pure and simple.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth



Red, while I agree, they aren't going to change on their own, which is fine, but when it starts influencing other parts of the world, then something has to be done.



[edit on 30-5-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

That's why Afghanistan is justified in most people's eyes but Iraq isn't- Iraq wasn't attacking anyone.

[edit on 5/30/07 by RedDragon]

[edit on 5/30/07 by RedDragon]

Thats such a lovely picture. It gives me goosebumps thinking about it. Its just a damn shame that if we hadn't been there for all the wrong reasons that picture would never exist and that kid would have been in school instead of ducking behind a US soldier and being in that position.


As for the other "Picture is worth a 1000 words" pic, well I know it makes you feel as though peace activists are such traitorous and cowardly people but you of course are misconstruing the message to fit the purpose. Im sure he is meaning it to be since this administration is always using the old line of " supporting the troops" as a crutch to actually just support what they want to achieve, he is saying to F that particular phrase. As in like its BS. Which basically it is since this administration could really care less.

Seals will sometimes swim close behind their predators, the Great White shark. Because the seals are more manouverable, the shark cannot turn quickly enough to make a successful attack. The seal is safe by being close to its enemy.

The soldier is armed with a rifle. A rifle is hard to bring to bear on an object behind you hanging off your waist. The kid knows this and knows that he is safe from this soldier. Also the US soldiers are less likely (but not always) to fire on one of their own and so he is safe (temporarily) from US fire.

From a US point of view it does not matter. The kid may have survived this incident but home invasion murder, depleted uranium dust, white phosphorus, the new improved napalm replacement, a cluster bomblet or a land mine will get him sooner or later.