Are the soldiers who protect America bad?

page: 17
27
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Right or wrong, they do volunteer, good thing they do, because if these people stopped volunteering...some of us wouldn't be on here talking about this.

[edit on 1-7-2009 by Indie Girl]




posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Majestic23
 


OK, now I get you!!

It's Ok for countries like the Soviet Union to mess around in third world countries, but the US shouldn't have! Because in most of the countries you listed, the Soviets were there, too.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but putting the blinders on like you are isn't right, either.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65
It's Ok for countries like the Soviet Union to mess around in third world countries, but the US shouldn't have! Because in most of the countries you listed, the Soviets were there, too.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but putting the blinders on like you are isn't right, either.


Where did anyone say its ok for any country to do that?

Stop thinking in terms of countries and start thnking in terms of power play.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indie Girl
Right or wrong, they do volunteer, good thing they do, because if these people stopped volunteering...some of us wouldn't be on here talking about this.

[edit on 1-7-2009 by Indie Girl]


Please explain why that is the case.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 02:51 AM
link   
majestic23,

Here's your explanation: The mullahs in Iran are executing Iranian citizens for speaking out against the corrupt election results in their country.

And the response from our "courageous" president Obama and speaker Pelosi has been nothing but deafening silence.

Compare that to President Reagan standing at the foot of the Berlin Wall calling out Gorbachev.

Thankfully, Obama will be gone by Nov. 2012.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by riff_raff
majestic23,

Here's your explanation: The mullahs in Iran are executing Iranian citizens for speaking out against the corrupt election results in their country.

And the response from our "courageous" president Obama and speaker Pelosi has been nothing but deafening silence.

Compare that to President Reagan standing at the foot of the Berlin Wall calling out Gorbachev.

Thankfully, Obama will be gone by Nov. 2012.


Iam sorry Riff Raff mate you have lost me there. What does that explain?



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Majestic23
 


It explains nothing. Just another Obama basher come to 'save' us all. The difference between our relationship with Iran and our relationship with the former USSR at the time of Reagan's speech is huge. Reagan's words did not fall on deaf ears, whereas if Obama where to take a simular stance and tone with Iran, it would be used against us in less than a heartbeat. The secret of good diplomacy is the same as the secret of good comedy: TIMING!



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   
It's painful to see both sides of the argument. The topic of this thread shouldn't even be in question. The soldiers sign up to fight for our country knowing very well what may happen, but they ARE NOT the ones that give the orders. They follow them; if they don't, they are no longer in the military. Our government gives the orders, and in this perspective the morality of the soldiers should not even be in question.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by wschroeder
 


Holy Night Of The Living Thread, Batman!

Personally, I think that when people have been armed and sent to collectively do violence, their morality is by definition in question. They are people not machines, and as such it is they who are responsible for their own actions, not merely whoever ordered those actions. No doubt you'll remember that "just following orders" is no defence...



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 06:22 AM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


Well spoken. I am not even going to bother reading all of the replies. I am simply going to say what I think, and leave it at that.

To those that have served, thank you. As a (peacetime) veteran, and the wife of a career soldier, I know what it takes. Know that most people appreciate what you do. The ones that don't are the minority. Seen many come up to my soldier man, when he returned from deployment, and thank him. Not one single person made a negative comment (and probably a good thing, as I would not have reacted nicely).

To those that assume volunteering for the military means a person wants to kill, get a CLUE. I don't know ANYONE that wants to go out and shoot people. I have known many that were willing to do so, if required. Yes, to defend freedom. For MANY people, not just this country. Plus, people join for many reasons. Education, as you can get much of that paid for while in. Training in various occupations. Experience. Discipline. Even simply a JOB. Yeah, some join to be able to afford to support their families. If you can't get that, you have issues.

As for the military defending the government, or attacking the people, NOT freaking likely! The oath is to protect and defend the Constitution. Not the elected officials, but the basis for our freedoms. Soldiers don't simply blindly follow orders, either, and they are allowed, and in fact expected, to question something that looks illegal.

No, they don't all go around attacking civilians for no reason, either. There will ALWAYS bee casualties in a war, that were innocent. Doesn't mean anyone wanted it that way. Plus, in many cases, especially when fighting terrorists, the enemy isn't in uniform, and isn't always an adult, or a man. If some kid is aiming a gun, of setting up an ambush of a convoy, that kid is a viable target. I have pictures of vehicles hit. I know people that have had injuries, and of people that have died, from such attacks. No, the troops aren't perfect, any more than ANYONE, but they aren't monsters, or programmed robots, either.

As a final note, I would MUCH rather stand beside a trained, volunteer soldier (or airman, marine, seaman) than someone forced to serve, in a dangerous situation. One is willing to stand and fight, while the other might not be.

Great post, OP. Far better than I expected from the title.




posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by Majestic23
 


It explains nothing. Just another Obama basher come to 'save' us all. The difference between our relationship with Iran and our relationship with the former USSR at the time of Reagan's speech is huge. Reagan's words did not fall on deaf ears, whereas if Obama where to take a simular stance and tone with Iran, it would be used against us in less than a heartbeat. The secret of good diplomacy is the same as the secret of good comedy: TIMING!


The difference is that Reagan, in this case, would do more than talk, and would not do NOTHING. There is no diplomacy in failing to act.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


Are you nuts?!?!?! Three words why can explain EXACTLY why Reagan would have done nothing: MUTUAL ASSURED DISTRUCTION. You apparently know nothing about the Cold War except what you've read online... BTW, Reagan DID nothing, as the Soviet Union did not fall until AFTER his presidency...





new topics
top topics
 
27
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join