Pissed Off About a Military Comment

Off Topic
61

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
I don’t come home and rain shit down on them about them being nothing but godless baby killers. [/quote]

I don’t think anyone accused the common soldier of being a “godless baby killer”. As a whole, US foreign policy comes up as aggressive. The army is just the executive branch.

So please stop pretending anyone here is accusing your dad or uncle of anything.

This is the crux of the matter. People whined about the immorality and illegality of that particular war of aggression long before it even started. They pointed out the exact consequences that Washington feigned surprise at. In a sense, the American public drew lessons out of all this. Think for a second about the case of Iran which is openly defying the US in a way Iraq never reached - and for three decades! Without the lessons of Iraq, the White House would have been able to shape public opinion as usual. But we are witnessing an increase in a non-interventionist position (admittedly, it could be attributed to a less-than-sparkling economy) and a great deal of suspicion towards anything coming out of Pelosi’s mouth.

People are dead (Iraqis and Americans). Nothing’s bringing them back. Whining and rehashing the run-up to the invasion is crucial in ensuring such crap doesn’t get pull over.

Whoever claimed that to be the case?

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but it’s Kudos vs. Kang everytime. Particularly so with regards to foreign policy.

62

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
will to power wrote:
Afghanistan was harbouring, funding etc Osama and the others who attacked you. Who attacked you from Iraq on your soil?

Afghanistan was only hiding OBL. Once we chased him out we should have left.
[/quote]

Quote where I said you should withdraw.

[quote]
Isn’t that what you are saying about Saddam?[/quote]

No, I said Saddam was not threatening your freedom.

Edit; actually I said Iraqis weren’t, but Saddam wasn’t threatening much outside of Iraq anyway.

63

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
If you read my post I was saying don’t blame the troops for the war.
[/quote]

Nobody did, OG.

64

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
will to power wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
will to power wrote:

Someone failed at reading comprehension…

I didn’t reply to the OP. I replied to Mak. The OP referred to something that happened in Iraq, Mak said the troops were there to defend our freedom [thinking of Afghanistan], and I pointed out this was false.

DOn’t understand this logic. They are defending our freedom in Afghanisatn and not Iraq? How?

Aren’t we fighting Islamic terrorists in both places? Isn’t a free Iraq more dangerous to the bad guys than a free Afghanistan? The bad guys sure think so and that is why they fought so hard in Iraq.

If anything we should pull out of Afghanistan and focus on Iraq. Once an oil rich democracy is flourishing there perhaps we can change Saudi Arabia which is a root of the problem.

Afghanistan was harbouring, funding etc Osama and the others who attacked you. Who attacked you from Iraq on your soil?

Afghanistan was only hiding OBL. Once we chased him out we should have left. Isn’t that what you are saying about Saddam?[/quote]

You make a good point.

I once read that most of the funding for the 911 attacks was from the Saudis. Also all but four of the 911 hijackers were Saudi citizens. It is also not clear what proportion of time OBL spent hiding in Pakistan rather than Afghanistan.

It seems to me that when people support the war in Afghanistan but not the war in Iraq, it has more to do with the fact that the situation quickly went to shit in Iraq.

If the Iraq war was quickly won by the coalition, I doubt that many people would care about the fact that Saddam posed no legitimate threat to the freedom of anyone in the West or that he actually had no WMD’s.

Likewise, if a civil war had started in Afghanistan after the invasion, I think that more people would start asking themselves what the fuck are we doing over there.

65

[quote]will to power wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
will to power wrote:
Afghanistan was harbouring, funding etc Osama and the others who attacked you. Who attacked you from Iraq on your soil?

Afghanistan was only hiding OBL. Once we chased him out we should have left.

Quote where I said you should withdraw.

[/quote]

Just using the same logic you are using regarding Iraq.

[quote]

Isn’t that what you are saying about Saddam?

No, I said Saddam was not threatening your freedom.

Edit; actually I said Iraqis weren’t, but Saddam wasn’t threatening much outside of Iraq anyway.[/quote]

Saddam was shooting at our planes. Saddam tried to have GHW Bush assassinated. Saddam was writing checks to the families of suicide bombers.

66

[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
will to power wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
will to power wrote:

Someone failed at reading comprehension…

I didn’t reply to the OP. I replied to Mak. The OP referred to something that happened in Iraq, Mak said the troops were there to defend our freedom [thinking of Afghanistan], and I pointed out this was false.

DOn’t understand this logic. They are defending our freedom in Afghanisatn and not Iraq? How?

Aren’t we fighting Islamic terrorists in both places? Isn’t a free Iraq more dangerous to the bad guys than a free Afghanistan? The bad guys sure think so and that is why they fought so hard in Iraq.

If anything we should pull out of Afghanistan and focus on Iraq. Once an oil rich democracy is flourishing there perhaps we can change Saudi Arabia which is a root of the problem.

Afghanistan was harbouring, funding etc Osama and the others who attacked you. Who attacked you from Iraq on your soil?

Afghanistan was only hiding OBL. Once we chased him out we should have left. Isn’t that what you are saying about Saddam?

You make a good point.

I once read that most of the funding for the 911 attacks was from the Saudis. Also all but four of the 911 hijackers were Saudi citizens. It is also not clear what proportion of time OBL spent hiding in Pakistan rather than Afghanistan.

It seems to me that when people support the war in Afghanistan but not the war in Iraq, it has more to do with the fact that the situation quickly went to shit in Iraq.

If the Iraq war was quickly won by the coalition, I doubt that many people would care about the fact that Saddam posed no legitimate threat to the freedom of anyone in the West or that he actually had no WMD’s.

Likewise, if a civil war had started in Afghanistan after the invasion, I think that more people would start asking themselves what the fuck are we doing over there.

[/quote]

I wish more people would think this through with an open mind. The point of the war in Iraq was to reshape the Middle East. Saddam gave us enough excuses to go after him. Whether one likes the strategy or not the deed is done.

We currently have no more business in Afghanistan than we do in Iraq. If you are against our current actions in one you should be against them in another.

Either pull out of both or nation build in both. Right now nation building in Iraq is more useful than in Afghanistan in my opinion.

Running around the mountains in Afghanistan looking for a guy that is probably in the mountains of Pakistan is a complete waste.

Nation build or don’t but let’s not pretend that our current actionsin the two counties are all that different.

67

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
will to power wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
will to power wrote:
Afghanistan was harbouring, funding etc Osama and the others who attacked you. Who attacked you from Iraq on your soil?

Afghanistan was only hiding OBL. Once we chased him out we should have left.

Quote where I said you should withdraw.

Just using the same logic you are using regarding Iraq.
[/quote]

Quote where I said you should withdraw from Iraq. I’m talking about the motivation for the original invasion, not how to deal with the mess once you’re in it.

Shooting at planes flying over Iraq threatens your freedom?

The 2003 invasion of Iraq was not a response to this.

[quote]
Saddam was writing checks to the families of suicide bombers.[/quote]

Which suicide bombers, who were attacking whom, and how were they affecting you in America? Links would be appreciated here.

The Saudis are writing checks of that nature too by the way, and they are definitely planning and funding attacks against the US. Why do they get a free pass? I think it’s because the attack wasn’t related to your freedom or security.

68

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
will to power wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
will to power wrote:

Someone failed at reading comprehension…

I didn’t reply to the OP. I replied to Mak. The OP referred to something that happened in Iraq, Mak said the troops were there to defend our freedom [thinking of Afghanistan], and I pointed out this was false.

DOn’t understand this logic. They are defending our freedom in Afghanisatn and not Iraq? How?

Aren’t we fighting Islamic terrorists in both places? Isn’t a free Iraq more dangerous to the bad guys than a free Afghanistan? The bad guys sure think so and that is why they fought so hard in Iraq.

If anything we should pull out of Afghanistan and focus on Iraq. Once an oil rich democracy is flourishing there perhaps we can change Saudi Arabia which is a root of the problem.

Afghanistan was harbouring, funding etc Osama and the others who attacked you. Who attacked you from Iraq on your soil?

Afghanistan was only hiding OBL. Once we chased him out we should have left. Isn’t that what you are saying about Saddam?

You make a good point.

I once read that most of the funding for the 911 attacks was from the Saudis. Also all but four of the 911 hijackers were Saudi citizens. It is also not clear what proportion of time OBL spent hiding in Pakistan rather than Afghanistan.

It seems to me that when people support the war in Afghanistan but not the war in Iraq, it has more to do with the fact that the situation quickly went to shit in Iraq.

If the Iraq war was quickly won by the coalition, I doubt that many people would care about the fact that Saddam posed no legitimate threat to the freedom of anyone in the West or that he actually had no WMD’s.

Likewise, if a civil war had started in Afghanistan after the invasion, I think that more people would start asking themselves what the fuck are we doing over there.

I wish more people would think this through with an open mind. The point of the war in Iraq was to reshape the Middle East. Saddam gave us enough excuses to go after him. Whether one likes the strategy or not the deed is done.

We currently have no more business in Afghanistan than we do in Iraq. If you are against our current actions in one you should be against them in another.

Either pull out of both or nation build in both. Right now nation building in Iraq is more useful than in Afghanistan in my opinion.

Running around the mountains in Afghanistan looking for a guy that is probably in the mountains of Pakistan is a complete waste.

Nation build or don’t but let’s not pretend that our current actionsin the two counties are all that different.[/quote]

I agree with your analysis, although I hold the opposite position to you in both cases. Personally I am against both wars.

Like you though, I can’t see the logic behind saying that invading Afghanistan was morally justified, but going into Iraq wasn’t.

69

Being an infantry Marine i’ll make a few comments… 1st ‘Complacency Kills’ chances are these Marines were out in the desert for days, with a lot of downtime. Being complacent doesn’t always mean the Marines life will be in danger. Any time you hear a Marine espec a grunt say, “hey watch this, or look what I can do” better brase yourself.

2nd do I think the Marine was wrong? Yes, I’m iam sure he was disciplined for his actions. Although, I can see why he would do such things being bored out of his mind…

3nd I bet you my paycheck if the Marine would have saved the puppys life, you would have never heard about it. This is b/c the media is so fucked up… Fucking liberals who will only report negative in the world. They put Marines under a fucking micro-scope, and are always willing to tear us down for the slightest fucking infraction.

Is it really that big of a deal? It’s a fucking dog for Chist sakes… Nothing better to report on? Why are we over there anyway, to kill and pillage?? Honestly? We are there to save the fucking world, and give these stupid, piece of shit puke liberals the right to rave, and bitch about whatever they want.
Thank God for Fox New…

RANT over

70

[quote]will to power wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
will to power wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
will to power wrote:
Afghanistan was harbouring, funding etc Osama and the others who attacked you. Who attacked you from Iraq on your soil?

Afghanistan was only hiding OBL. Once we chased him out we should have left.

Quote where I said you should withdraw.

Just using the same logic you are using regarding Iraq.

Quote where I said you should withdraw from Iraq. I’m talking about the motivation for the original invasion, not how to deal with the mess once you’re in it.

Isn’t that what you are saying about Saddam?

No, I said Saddam was not threatening your freedom.

Edit; actually I said Iraqis weren’t, but Saddam wasn’t threatening much outside of Iraq anyway.

Saddam was shooting at our planes.

Shooting at planes flying over Iraq threatens your freedom?

Saddam tried to have GHW Bush assassinated.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq was not a response to this.

Saddam was writing checks to the families of suicide bombers.

Which suicide bombers, who were attacking whom, and how were they affecting you in America? Links would be appreciated here.

The Saudis are writing checks of that nature too by the way, and they are definitely planning and funding attacks against the US. Why do they get a free pass? I think it’s because the attack wasn’t related to your freedom or security. [/quote]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/14/world/main543981.shtml

The Saudis don’t get a pass. Maybe with a free, oil rich Iraq in place we can use as a base we can then do something to fix that country.

71

[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
…

I agree with your analysis, although I hold the opposite position to you in both cases. Personally I am against both wars.

Like you though, I can’t see the logic behind saying that invading Afghanistan was morally justified, but going into Iraq wasn’t.

[/quote]

A strong case can be made against both wars but once the shooting started the time to debate was over in my mind.

72

[quote]LiftSmart wrote:
How is killing a puppy different than stepping on a spider?[/quote]

Well, for most people its a) the emotional attachment to dogs that most of our culture has and b) the puppy’s ability, as a cute li’l furry thing aka an infant mammal, to express its emotions, including pain and fear, in ways that we can understand.

When you get right down to it, there’s no moral difference between killing any animal and killing a human being, except tribalism aka, “humans are from my group.” At which point how you define “group” becomes really important since by that logic anyone different from you in any way - blacks, Jews, anyone deemed “subhuman” - is OK to be killed by you.

and for the record:

Irish hit it on the head, as he often seems to do

73

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
will to power wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
will to power wrote:

Someone failed at reading comprehension…

I didn’t reply to the OP. I replied to Mak. The OP referred to something that happened in Iraq, Mak said the troops were there to defend our freedom [thinking of Afghanistan], and I pointed out this was false.

DOn’t understand this logic. They are defending our freedom in Afghanisatn and not Iraq? How?

Aren’t we fighting Islamic terrorists in both places? Isn’t a free Iraq more dangerous to the bad guys than a free Afghanistan? The bad guys sure think so and that is why they fought so hard in Iraq.

If anything we should pull out of Afghanistan and focus on Iraq. Once an oil rich democracy is flourishing there perhaps we can change Saudi Arabia which is a root of the problem.

Afghanistan was harbouring, funding etc Osama and the others who attacked you. Who attacked you from Iraq on your soil?

Afghanistan was only hiding OBL. Once we chased him out we should have left. Isn’t that what you are saying about Saddam?

You make a good point.

I once read that most of the funding for the 911 attacks was from the Saudis. Also all but four of the 911 hijackers were Saudi citizens. It is also not clear what proportion of time OBL spent hiding in Pakistan rather than Afghanistan.

It seems to me that when people support the war in Afghanistan but not the war in Iraq, it has more to do with the fact that the situation quickly went to shit in Iraq.

If the Iraq war was quickly won by the coalition, I doubt that many people would care about the fact that Saddam posed no legitimate threat to the freedom of anyone in the West or that he actually had no WMD’s.

Likewise, if a civil war had started in Afghanistan after the invasion, I think that more people would start asking themselves what the fuck are we doing over there.

I wish more people would think this through with an open mind. The point of the war in Iraq was to reshape the Middle East. Saddam gave us enough excuses to go after him. Whether one likes the strategy or not the deed is done.

We currently have no more business in Afghanistan than we do in Iraq. If you are against our current actions in one you should be against them in another.

Either pull out of both or nation build in both. Right now nation building in Iraq is more useful than in Afghanistan in my opinion.

Running around the mountains in Afghanistan looking for a guy that is probably in the mountains of Pakistan is a complete waste.

Nation build or don’t but let’s not pretend that our current actionsin the two counties are all that different.[/quote]

The ‘open mind’ idea has to come from both sides though, and the stumbling block here resides in the fact that, if Iraq was taken to reshape the Middle East, and that was the plan all along - ADMIT IT!

Bush’s ‘team’ lost most of their credibility by trying to pull a Jedi Mind Trick on the American public, as I mentioned above:

“Iraq has weapons they or Al-Quaeda could use on us”
“No, they don’t, but Saddam was helping Bin Laden”
“No, he wasn’t really, but but they could be hiding there”
“Look, they’re fighting back - told you they were terrorist waiting to kill us.”

That’s the issue many liberal types have with it - if the intent was to reshape (which is needed) then come through and either say that day one, wait a LITTLE longer to get more backing, or AT LEAST come clean now.

And more conversative types need to ADMIT that they were duped as well - that they supported the war for the reasons originally given (that Iraq had BAD WEAPONS and were getting ready to use them)…and let’s stop believing we supported it for the reasons NOW given.

74

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/14/world/main543981.shtml

The Saudis don’t get a pass. Maybe with a free, oil rich Iraq in place we can use as a base we can then do something to fix that country.[/quote]

You realise I’ve been implying this is about Israel’s security and not yours? That’s my point, those attacks didn’t affect you or Mak or me.

And the other side, again, is access to Iraqi oil fields.

OP, sorry for derailing your thread.

75

EDIT: i just saw that dude was discharged or whatever punishment they had
if he did do it then he is an utter sissy along with his buddies
if i was there then I would have shot him and said he fell.
no exageration either.

Its people like this I’m thankful I’ll never have to go to combat with… The military isn’t for everyone folks. This is the most rediculus statement I have ever heard… You are going to honestly tell me that, that Marine doesn’t deserve to live because he killed a fucking dog…

…

76

[quote]will to power wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/14/world/main543981.shtml

The Saudis don’t get a pass. Maybe with a free, oil rich Iraq in place we can use as a base we can then do something to fix that country.

You realise I’ve been implying this is about Israel’s security and not yours? That’s my point, those attacks didn’t affect you or Mak or me.

And the other side, again, is access to Iraqi oil fields.

OP, sorry for derailing your thread.[/quote]

Interestingly, a global survey last year showed that besides one African country (the name of which escapes me), Israel was the only other country where Bush had an approval rating of over 50 percent.

77

[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
will to power wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/14/world/main543981.shtml

The Saudis don’t get a pass. Maybe with a free, oil rich Iraq in place we can use as a base we can then do something to fix that country.

You realise I’ve been implying this is about Israel’s security and not yours? That’s my point, those attacks didn’t affect you or Mak or me.

And the other side, again, is access to Iraqi oil fields.

OP, sorry for derailing your thread.

Interestingly, a global survey last year showed that besides one African country (the name of which escapes me), Israel was the only other country where Bush had an approval rating of over 50 percent.

[/quote]
And that’s including the US.
So the Jews like Bush? Man, you’d think that’d be enough for the conservatives to oust him. Tricky conservatives…

78

It’s disturbing how many chest-thumping neocons we have here who just lap up anything Fox News puts out.

79

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
It’s disturbing how many chest-thumping neocons we have here who just lap up anything Fox News puts out.[/quote]

I find it disturbing how many people misuse terms like “neo-con”.

80

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
It’s disturbing how many chest-thumping neocons we have here who just lap up anything Fox News puts out.

I find it disturbing how many people misuse terms like “neo-con”.[/quote]

Oh, come on. You’re just being a neo-neo-con.