Originally posted by pieman
that is the first really properly stupid question i have heard!!! seriously,ci'm nt going to dignify that with an answer, it degrades both of
us.
As was claiming they have a choice, but I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt and ask for your reasoning.
no it doesn't, again, what is your point? as i said, the troops joined the military knowing they were getting themselves into.
No they more recent ones who joined (and by recent I mean the last 4-6 years) knew what they might potentially have to do, but none of them knew for
certain that they would be sent overseas. I do find it odd however that you continually ask what my point is instead of responding to direct
questions, and have no response to several of my statements besides "what's your point". Very odd indeed.
domestic law doesn't apply to international conflict, congressional approval does not make a war legal. seriously, i told you this
already.
the UN charter
And yet the UN has not punished the US in any way. They may not completely approve of the war, but I must point out they have done nothing to stop it.
Seriously, I am aware of the difference between domestic and international law. They didn't say "Yeah, ok, do it." But they also didn't say "No,
stop it. Get out of there." If they have please show me that, I may have missed it. The link to Chapter 1 of the UN Charter doesn't really have
anything to do with it aside from telling me the purpose of the UN.
oh yeah, explain to me how exactly the state of afghanistan or the state of iraq attacked america. and none of your links work, but it doesn't
matter, i know for a fact that the war wasn't authorised by the UN. it doesn't matter how you or anybody else tries to twist the wording of various
resolutions, america failed to get a final resolution authorising an attack on iraq and it went in anyway. lets not attempt to re-write history on a
site that attempts to deny ignorance.
I thought they worked. Sorry for that. Just tried to go to the un.org site instead of directly to the resolutions and the site must be down. Keeps
giving me a message about a loop that won't end or something along those lines. Don't really know if it's a problem on my end or not though. Could
always search for those UN resolutions on Google. I'm sure somebody has them. I already found them for you once though. Don't know what to tell you
if the UN website is down.
When all of this mess started we were
supposed to be going after al-Qaeda, not Afghanistan or Iraq. As I said, the original definition of
terrorist was widened to include whoever the government wanted it to include. If I recall correctly, they were included in the "axis of evil" which
apparently Bush decided so that he could go after anyone he wants to. Please show me where I said either Afghanistan or Iraq attacked the US. I recall
saying that we were attacked but not by either of them. I even remember saying in this thread and others that we had no reason to go to Iraq. I do
however believe we had every right to go after the people responsible for the attacks on 9/11. But that doesn't mean I agree with widening the
definition to include anyone Bush and Co. don't like.
peh, utter rubbish. if you knew anything about history you'ld know that eugenics was popular in much of the western world throughout the 30's
and 40's, hitlers final solution was just the culmination of widespread beliefs. hitler didn't come up with the idea, he just took it to it's
natural conclusion.
And if you knew anything about our troops you'd know that they don't take part in eugenics and aren't out trying to exterminate an entire race of
people, unlike Hitler and his group of idiots, for lack of a better phrase at the moment. But please continue trying to compare the two.
do you think that if you spout the same crap over and over again i'll just concede. i have answered this point in detail. while the government
can issue orders to the military, and they can then filter down to the troops, the troops may choose to disobey those orders.
No, I'm hoping that perhaps you may realize that they aren't the same thing at some point. But it is becoming apparent to me that I am wasting my
breath, or fingers as it were, trying to explain the difference between the two when I see no desire on your part to see them as being the seperate
entities that they are. Please continue to believe that they are one and the same.
so they are not in iraq protecting the innocent, you agree?
That is not written into their job description as far as I know. Of course, I'm not in the military and haven't read their complete job description
so I can't be sure. However, as I said I would be surprised if they just sat and watched while innocent people were killed. Haven't you ever done
something while working that wasn't in your job description simply because it was the right thing to do? If not, I hope you don't work anywhere in a
hospital.
what you said was "But we are and there is no honor in leaving innocent people in the hands of insurgents and crazies who will kill them for
the slightest perceived wrong." if they don't control or police the country, and they allow insurgents to continue recruitment and training, they
are being left in the hands of insurgents regardless of weather the US is in iraq or not.
Plain facts are: We are there, whether it's right or wrong. There are innocent people dieing. If we leave, the insurgents aren't just going to
immediately stop blowing up buildings and shooting people.
Our troops are currently fighting side by side with the Iraqi military to stop the insurgents. Again I ask, how is that not helping stop the
insurgents?
Insurgents turn themselves in to US and Iraqi Troops
US Bombs Iraqi Insurgent Hideouts
Google it. There are more examples.
oh my word, thats the lamest excuse i've ever heard ............ do you buy that? do you support that.
Yes, not wanting someone else to take the risk of dieing in your place is soooo lame. And yes, I do believe them. I wouldn't let someone else take my
bullet either if I could help it.
i didn't say the government was right, i said the troops were as culpable for their crimes as the government is. ......... support the troops,
allow them to believe that the american people support this war.
You sure haven't mentioned they were wrong either. All of your posts have been critical of the military, not the government. And what do you suggest
instead of supporting the troops? Should we all protest their funerals and call them names? I'm sure that would be so much better than understanding
that the war is wrong, but these people did not choose it.
Just a side note, can you not prove your points without calling mine a dream world? Just because we don't agree does not mean that my head is in the
clouds and I would appreciate it if you could cease with the comments about where you think my head is. It does nothing to further your case.
i hope the bush admin do get charged with war crimes, i really hope they do
Me too, unfortunately no one has the guts to actually charge Bush and Co with anything. They just got re-elected. I'm sure that showed them they are
wrong.