Originally posted by Rockpuck
France's inept ability to control the situation has little to do with the US Invasion, which was ordered starting with military advisers and heating
up from there by a "liberal" ..
The US government funded the French effort to suppress the liberation struggle in Vietnam for at least ten years before it committed it's own
advisers. There was never a communist threat as much as there was a French Imperialist threat which resulted in the US first paying and then bleeding
to do the same thing the French did. The fact the USSR sold arms to Vietnam is hardly relevant to any of this and it was most certainly not what
motivated the resistance in both South and North Vietnam.
Your assuming the majority of people don't like war, or rather, see war as necessary?
The majority of people do not like war and see it as completely unnecessary hence the fact that people are never asked if they want a war or not. If
you can't grasp this simple fact it's no surprise that you do not understand the larger picture of liberation struggles and how imperialist and
tyrants have done their best to eradicate it.
Not everyone is a Liberal.
Most, like you, don't even know what it means and it's entirely irrelevant to the question of whether people would ever vote for aggressive wars.
Whatever people may be in the political spectrum they don't want to die without very good reason hence the fact that you have to draft them or create
conditions by which you can economically coerce them to sign up for a decent pay.
e Besides, people are ignorant, easy to control...
Ignorant people are not nearly as great a problem as misinformed people. When Americans figured out that SH didn't have WOMD and that he really
wasn;'t responsible for 911 Bush started losing what little support he had at quite the alarming rate.
be glad you don't get to vote on wars because the people would approve and all the politician would have to say is "hey, you wanted
In fact i would love if we could put all wars to vote to see just what would happen. If a majority somehow votes for wanting to invade other countries
and risk death then we at least know that we have achieved much democracy and that we can shift our efforts to better informing people as what is
happening in the world.
Wow, a Million? .. I see what I am dealing with...
Yes and you know exactly where that number comes from and why i can state it as fact.
Blame those who ordered the attacks, not the men who carried out the superior's commands.
Soldiers can refuse illegal orders; if they choose not to use the tools we as citizens have provided
them with they should assume the consequences of their actions when we discover their crimes.
Through rationality, no, just because you follow an order does not make you accountable for the actions.
When it's an illegal order ( such as the order to invade Iraq) you are committing the foremost war crime and if international law held for Americans
soldiers as they do for Iraq's, Serbs and other less well armed nations all coalition troops who are stationed in Iraq are guilty of war crimes.
It's just a fact and arguing about it largely proves that you believe the US to be above the International laws it signed.
Usually deserters are considered cowards (and rightfully so) .. the ones that join the army for the paycheck and education, but when it comes
to doing your job you run away.
I am not talking about deserters and joining the army for a education and paycheck when there is so few other paying jobs and very little chance to
become educated is hardly a terrible thing if you agree that you will defend your nation against foreign aggression while you are receiving these
benefits. People who sign up for these reasons and then object to fighting illegal wars are not cowards as they have more to lose by being
dishonorably discharged and losing their benefits than they have a chance of becoming a casualty in combat. Why would you want to risk your life to
commit war crimes any ways? Doesn't that make you either very badly misinformed, a coward ( you could do the right thing and risk the ire of other
misinformed people) or just plain stupid?
No, standing up to a superior is not "bravery" it's a treasonous act.
Not if he gives an illegal order that your participation in would lead to the commission of war crimes. As most men just shut up and risk their lives
to commit these war crimes ( men are cowards in that way and I'm not sure if i would have the guts to stand on international law) it is in fact very
brave to do the right thing and risk the condemnation that media propagandist will shower on you.
Not sure I understood this, you are saying he lacks virtue?
I am saying that he had a very bad time as POW and that disagreements with other people should not lead to the presumption that they have no strengths
Since a young lad I watched the news and it was the same issues .. gays, military spending, social security, defense, religion all this BS ...
Not once in 22 years has a single major issue been presented much less resolved.. this is why we don't discuss the issues. I don't think they want
to remind us they never solved the issues from the last 10 elections..
Concentrate on divisive issues that creates factions within factions and as much emotional upset as possible and odds are your going to convince many
not to bother with voting and misdirect many of those who do. In fact i would say that they do not want to remind us that they in most cases did the
exact opposite of what we asked or completely ignored the issue if they couldn't twist it to their own benefit; when people wanted less military
spending they start to allow women in the army thus turning the debate into a civil rights one instead of a fiscal responsibility one.
As long as Americans can live in their Bubble they will be content..
Americans are not living in a bubble as they seem desperately unhappy, tired and scared to death of phantom terrorist and dictators with 'womd'.
This is hardly the sign of people who live in fantasy bubble of their own creation.
let the politicians do what they must so long as it doesn't effect them .. I don't think they care much about what type of government they
have, as most don't understand the one they got.
I think Americans care a great deal about what sort of government they have but that many have become disillusioned by understanding that the non-
democracy ( bush stole both elections ; or should i say Kerry and Gore gave it to him by not contesting the massive fraud) they are currently living
seems to yield progressive results in a very slow fashion. I am not even American and i seem to have more sympathy with the disagreements that results
from the very deceptive practice of having a two party system where the only distinction between the two is just how fast they will attempt to destroy
your civil rights.