Are the soldiers who protect America bad?, page 17

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.

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!

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...

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.

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.

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...

F-22 Pilots Told Not to Talk
  Posted 19 days ago with 23 member flags

Military tanks being transported by the hundreds on trains (...NWO quickly approaching?)
  Posted 17 days ago with 12 member flags

Purported U.S. Invasion of Iran Preliminary Draft? Selective Service to Resume Duties?
  Posted 16 days ago with 9 member flags

Did the Integration of the NAZIS in America Caused Ideoligical Contamination of the US Government ?
  Posted 16 days ago with 7 member flags

Combat Exoskeleton Marches Toward Afghanistan Deployment - CYBORGS!
  Posted 3 days ago with 6 member flags

Eglin Air Force Base hangar Foam Party!
  Posted 11 days ago with 4 member flags

Space weapons / Anonymous / Afghan War plan
  Posted 4 days ago with 4 member flags

Reports of Rumbling in the Sky: Pulsejet Technology?
  Posted 14 days ago with 3 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: