What a Pussy!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]olderguy wrote:

I think you would have had to have served to really see the whole picture.[/quote]

I’m serving right now. I still think the guy deserves some credit because I would imagine he isn’t the only soldier who feels he was lied to.

[quote]
What happens to a policeman or fireman when he shirks his duty? I think as Rangertab said, the duty sucked and the risk outweighed the benefits.[/quote]

I wouldn’t relate this to a fireman deciding to not run into a building to save someone. There is debate on whether we should be over there at all at this point.

I personally would suck it up and do what I pledged to do. I took an oath to do just that. That doesn’t mean I can’t see his point of view, however.

42

[quote]orion wrote:
hedo wrote:

Empire building…yeah that’s the US. You really didn’t pay attention in school did you. Open one of those books and read a little history.

You have bases in more than 2/3 of the worlds countries?

Your military spending is probably larger than all the rest of the world`s combined?

You solve inner political problems by destroying other countries, f.E Columbia?

A country that was envisioned as a federation with a rather weak president more and more becomes centralized with the presidency becoming more and more powerful?

If I argued that you weapons industry and your military are gigantic for peacetime purposes and have common interests which leads to allmost constant warfare and the erosion of rights for US citizens who more and more become subjects than free citizens and if I compared all that to Rome before the republic finally fell also in name…

When do you think empire building starts?

Plus, the empire building started in earnest, IMO, with the invasion of the Confederation which did not exactly happen yesterday.

[/quote]

Your a European and an Austrian no less. Your opinion has zero credibility with regard to empire building because of your history.

Why don’t you go an lecture someone who cares about your opinion. Perhaps the Austrians could bully a small african nation…one of the favorite Euro things to do over the years.

By the way I served in one of those bases, in Europe. They weren’t there because the rent was cheap. They were based in countries that were defeated in wartime to protect them from the Soviets. Remember that little empire. The ones that made the Europeans piss their pants for 45 years. We should have left it to them.

Now we just have to wait a few more years until you are overtaken by your guest workers.

43

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
…
And yet the US of A argued at the Nuremberg trial that the excuse “I was just following orders” is not enough because it is up to each soldier to know when an order is criminal.

…

Bogus argument unless you think every soldier in Iraq is a war criminal.

Wasn’t the bulk of the trial held for those who were in charge and not the common foot soldier, as it should be?

Yes. Orion’s position is based on the assumption that every soldier deployed to Iraq is a war criminal and thus this guys refusal to deploy is the right thing to do.[/quote]

I think his refusal to deploy is the right thing to do based on moral law. If he believes the war is truly unjust he has the moral obligation to refuse to go.

44

[quote]hedo wrote:
Your a European and an Austrian no less. Your opinion has zero credibility with regard to empire building because of your history.[/quote]

It’s a bit unfair to constantly hit the Europeans over the head with their history. Most Europeans on these forums wouldn’t be born for another 20 or 30 years when those events took place.

It’s important to remember the mistakes of history as to not repeat them, but to constantly use 60 year old events as justification to ignore their criticism of current events is an easy dodge.

That said, many Europeans might help their cause if they were able to articulate their views without simply resorting to anti-US rhetoric. Seeing as many of those countries are members of NATO and/or consider the USA as an ally.

45

[quote]Professor X wrote:
olderguy wrote:

I think you would have had to have served to really see the whole picture.

I’m serving right now. I still think the guy deserves some credit because I would imagine he isn’t the only soldier who feels he was lied to.

What happens to a policeman or fireman when he shirks his duty? I think as Rangertab said, the duty sucked and the risk outweighed the benefits.

I wouldn’t relate this to a fireman deciding to not run into a building to save someone. There is debate on whether we should be over there at all at this point.

I personally would suck it up and do what I pledged to do. I took an oath to do just that. That doesn’t mean I can’t see his point of view, however.[/quote]

Honestly I hope you aren’t over there. I’m sure it sucks big time. And I know it just plain sucks even if you aren’t. LOL

Fire Chief, Police Chief, Commander-in-Chief, as far as I’m concerned, he is waiting for SWAT against the chiefs orders.

All I feel he’s entitled to is a point view. IMO. He’s not entitled to break the law as he see’s fit and if Bush and Rumsfeld are proven to have done so, then they should pay the price. Due to a debate about whether we should be there or not means everyone can stay home or come home?

I don’t know about you, but I don’t think we should get medals for doing our time, and I don’t think he should be rewarded for breaking the law.

I’m struggling about the war, and have no love for Rumsfeld, who should be horse whipped for saying “you go to war with the army you have”, or Bush or Cheney for that matter. But I think there is a bigger picture. I have a customer in London who tells some scary things about what is going on there. Muslims want there own judicial systems, etc. Look at "Obsession:Radical Islam. I sometimes think we fight it now or fight it later, but we will fight it.

Stay safe

46

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ssn0 wrote:
First Lt. Ehren Watada, a 28-year-old Hawaii native, is the first commissioned officer in the U.S. to publicly refuse deployment to
Iraq. He announced last June his decision not to deploy on the grounds the war is illegal.

Lt. Watada was based at Fort Lewis, Washington, with the Army’s 3rd (Stryker) Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division. He has remained on base, thus avoiding charges of desertion.

He does, however, face one count of “missing troop movement” and four counts of “conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman.” If convicted, he faces up to six years in prison.

“Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman”?

This is the most BS offense ever, especially since it is gender specific. What do female officers get charged with?

quote conduct unbecoming and officer and gentleman quote

Missing a troop movement is just as bad as desertion and in a “time of war” is considered the same offense–in old times an officer could shoot an enlisted person for these offenses.[/quote]

47

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
…
And yet the US of A argued at the Nuremberg trial that the excuse “I was just following orders” is not enough because it is up to each soldier to know when an order is criminal.

…

Bogus argument unless you think every soldier in Iraq is a war criminal.

Wasn’t the bulk of the trial held for those who were in charge and not the common foot soldier, as it should be?

Yes. Orion’s position is based on the assumption that every soldier deployed to Iraq is a war criminal and thus this guys refusal to deploy is the right thing to do.[/quote]

true, but you know who I would like to see in a courtroom, right?

ALso I do not know if fighting in an illegal war automaticaly makes you a war criminal, though starting one automatically does.

48

[quote]hedo wrote:

Your a European and an Austrian no less. Your opinion has zero credibility with regard to empire building because of your history.

Why don’t you go an lecture someone who cares about your opinion. Perhaps the Austrians could bully a small african nation…one of the favorite Euro things to do over the years.

By the way I served in one of those bases, in Europe. They weren’t there because the rent was cheap. They were based in countries that were defeated in wartime to protect them from the Soviets. Remember that little empire. The ones that made the Europeans piss their pants for 45 years. We should have left it to them.

Now we just have to wait a few more years until you are overtaken by your guest workers.

[/quote]

Since you are staring to resort to ad-hominem arguments I think you agree with some of my ideas concerning US and empire building.

Plus a few small questions to throw in there:

Would the SU have existed without the US intervention in WWI?

Why DID the US intervene in WWI?

Is it possible that said intervention led to WWII by destroying Austria-Hungaria, leading to unacceptabe peace terms and letting the bolsheviks take over and thereby help the fascists into power years later because of the communist “threat”?

Was WWII perhaps something we see quite often, the US trying to fix things after they first helped to royally fucking things up?

Just asking, I rarely meet experts on history, especially American ones, and since American are widely famous for their allmost instinctive grasp of foreign cultures, languages and complex social interactions…

… please enlighten me!

49

[quote]pookie wrote:

That said, many Europeans might help their cause if they were able to articulate their views without simply resorting to anti-US rhetoric. Seeing as many of those countries are members of NATO and/or consider the USA as an ally.

[/quote]

Look if you tell someone there government is torturing people (Guantanamo), destroys and corrupts whole countries because of inner political problems (Columbia) an is adopting practices that were unheard of even in police states (in part for lack of the technical possibilites) and said someone thinks that is is un- or anti- American though

CRITIZISM IS AS AMERICAN AS IT GETS AND EVERYTHING ELSE MENTIONED ABOVE IS AS UN-AMERICAN AS SOCCER OR DECENT GAS MILEAGE

well, I would call said someone a deluded fool who is unable to distinguish between himself and his government, which btw

IS GROSSLY UN-AMERICAN.

PS: the real problem is the size of the US federal government. Though relatively small by European standards it is HUGE by absolute standards.

Huge governments that command vast resources tend to fuck up big time. It is just the nature of government and the US one has a very big stick to swing around.

I am constantly reminded that Austria is small and insignificant.

True.

But that is also the reason the Austrian government does not have the resources to fuck up on a global level.

So all in all, I am against big extortion rackets, i.E governments and not anti-American.

50

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
…

I think his refusal to deploy is the right thing to do based on moral law. If he believes the war is truly unjust he has the moral obligation to refuse to go. [/quote]

What is immoral about fighting terrorists in Iraq?

The whole thing is ludicrous. He thinks deposing Saddam was morally incorrect. Fine. That is done. He is not going there to depose Saddam.

He is going there to try to protect civilians from car bombs in markets.

It is kind of too late to protest the invasion. It takes a special kind of stupid to think that he can unring that bell.

51

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
…

I think his refusal to deploy is the right thing to do based on moral law. If he believes the war is truly unjust he has the moral obligation to refuse to go.

What is immoral about fighting terrorists in Iraq?

The whole thing is ludicrous. He thinks deposing Saddam was morally incorrect. Fine. That is done. He is not going there to depose Saddam.

He is going there to try to protect civilians from car bombs in markets.

It is kind of too late to protest the invasion. It takes a special kind of stupid to think that he can unring that bell.[/quote]

At this point in the game, is risking the lives of our soliders worth trying to stop that region from fighting between its own people? Do you think our presence will stop that much hatred and killing?

I personally feel we are sitting on a time bomb. I would rather our own people not be there when it goes off.

52

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
…

I think his refusal to deploy is the right thing to do based on moral law. If he believes the war is truly unjust he has the moral obligation to refuse to go.

What is immoral about fighting terrorists in Iraq?

The whole thing is ludicrous. He thinks deposing Saddam was morally incorrect. Fine. That is done. He is not going there to depose Saddam.

He is going there to try to protect civilians from car bombs in markets.

It is kind of too late to protest the invasion. It takes a special kind of stupid to think that he can unring that bell.

At this point in the game, is risking the lives of our soliders worth trying to stop that region from fighting between its own people? Do you think our presence will stop that much hatred and killing?

I personally feel we are sitting on a time bomb. I would rather our own people not be there when it goes off.[/quote]

53

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
…

I think his refusal to deploy is the right thing to do based on moral law. If he believes the war is truly unjust he has the moral obligation to refuse to go.

What is immoral about fighting terrorists in Iraq?

The whole thing is ludicrous. He thinks deposing Saddam was morally incorrect. Fine. That is done. He is not going there to depose Saddam.

He is going there to try to protect civilians from car bombs in markets.

It is kind of too late to protest the invasion. It takes a special kind of stupid to think that he can unring that bell.

At this point in the game, is risking the lives of our soliders worth trying to stop that region from fighting between its own people? Do you think our presence will stop that much hatred and killing?

I personally feel we are sitting on a time bomb. I would rather our own people not be there when it goes off.[/quote]

I think it is time to let the Iraqis fight their own battles.

I don’t think that is the reason this guy is refusing to deploy.

54

[quote]olderguy wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
…

I think his refusal to deploy is the right thing to do based on moral law. If he believes the war is truly unjust he has the moral obligation to refuse to go.

What is immoral about fighting terrorists in Iraq?

The whole thing is ludicrous. He thinks deposing Saddam was morally incorrect. Fine. That is done. He is not going there to depose Saddam.

He is going there to try to protect civilians from car bombs in markets.

It is kind of too late to protest the invasion. It takes a special kind of stupid to think that he can unring that bell.

At this point in the game, is risking the lives of our soliders worth trying to stop that region from fighting between its own people? Do you think our presence will stop that much hatred and killing?

I personally feel we are sitting on a time bomb. I would rather our own people not be there when it goes off.

[/quote]

My fear is the time bomb we are sitting on is larger than the one in Iraq. It isn’t just that region. Sunni nations are funding and dictating to Sunnis and Shiites are doing the same. As in Iran, the Shiites, are playing against the Sunnis, which would be Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Syria somewhere in the middle. Iran would love to take over Saudi oil.

Having ADM Fallon take over CentCom and talks of a surge makes me think we are going for a show of strength and maybe an attack on Iran’s nuclear installations. We are moving more Naval forces to the area while we speak to keep the oil flowing if it were to happen.
I don’t think we are going anywhere for a while, and sooner rather than later, the shit hits the fan.

1.3bil Muslims and 10 to 15% want to kill all Infidels. Do the math. If you thought Hitler had a master plan, well I think it’s nothing compared to what they have in store for the world.

55

[quote]orion wrote:
Look if you tell someone there government is torturing people (Guantanamo), destroys and corrupts whole countries because of inner political problems (Columbia) an is adopting practices that were unheard of even in police states (in part for lack of the technical possibilites) and said someone thinks that is is un- or anti- American though [/quote]
[/quote]

What I mean is that you concentrate on all that is wrong with the USA while there is also a lot that is right.

It is quite likely that you are running a computer powered by an American made CPU, running an American made OS connected to the American created internet.

You might enjoy fine Japanese electronic products, for which the US is indirectly responsible because they helped Japan rebuild after WWII. You might also enjoy fine German automobiles, also made indirectly possible because the Marshall Plan was a lot more generous than the WWI Treaty of Versailles… which almost garanteed the Germans would go to war again.

Use a GPS? American made and supported, again.

American corporations, for all their ills, are also incredible economic engines and have been responsible for enormous progress in the last hundred years.

And I hate going back 60 years too, but hadn’t it been for the US, there is a fairly good chance you’d be enjoying a real global fascist dictatorship.

So, yes, the US does things that are questionable and maybe even reprehensible, especially when it comes to foreign policy; but they also do a lot of things right. I think overall, the balance of their actions is on the “good” side, not the evil one.

Consider also the alternatives if they didn’t oppose Russia, China or other totalitarian states. Gitmo would be a joke in the USSR. Even the “new” milder USSR has dealt with it’s Tchechen problem mostly by making a lot of people very dead, very quickly.

As badly mishandled as Iraq has been, the US has never made that conflict a war of extermination. I’m not quite sure that, were the situation reversed, we’d get that same consideration extended.

All countries play political games, make and break alliances and try to position themselves on the global chessboard. The US is so powerful, economically and militarily, they’re bound to step on some toes, no matter what they do. They’re blamed and criticized for what they do, and just as much blamed and criticized when they do nothing. Darfur being a prime example. The US has often been blamed for not sending a peacekeeping mission there. Why don’t other countries step up and do it? Darfur is not a world power; a force of a few thousand men would be more than adequate to prevent the genocide that’s going on.

The way I see it, if we’re going to be stuck with one hyperpower that polices the globe, we could do a lot worse than having the USA do it.

56

[quote]olderguy wrote:
1.3bil Muslims and 10 to 15% want to kill all Infidels. Do the math. If you thought Hitler had a master plan, well I think it’s nothing compared to what they have in store for the world.[/quote]

You give the impression of the islamic world as a coherent whole. If the islamic world is going to stand united under one flag in a march against the corrupted west, they have a long way to go.

57

[quote]MaloVerde wrote:
Courage? When one volunteers, signs on the dotted line and takes the oath there are no options as to which battles one would like to fight or which orders one is going to follow.

EVERYONE and I mean EVERYONE knows when they sign up that ANYTHING is possible. [/quote]

Yeah…recruiters don’t exist to fill young kids’ heads with bullshit. Everyone knows exactly what they’re getting into. Like for instance if you tell the recruiter you want to be a mechanic and he says “I’ll set you up for that no prob” and then 6 months later you find out that they already have enough mechanics, you’ll be in the front lines…that’s knowing what you’re getting into.

[quote]MaloVerde wrote:
His failure to answer his call to duty that he VOLUNTEERED for is cowardice not courage.[/quote]

How many people would have the balls to risk a jail sentence for their beliefs? Not many. You probably wouldn’t. It takes no courage whatsoever to follow orders from a higher authority, by definition. Military hierarchies only “work” because they are structured around coercion, or the implied threat of it. People obey out of fear. That is the antithesis of courage.

[quote]MaloVerde wrote:
If he wanted to make his positions known he should have become a politician and left the defense of our country to soldiers.

This piece of shit hasn’t failed his country down as much as he failed the soldiers he was supposed to be leading. [/quote]

If every soldier followed his example, there would be no Americans getting killed in Iraq. Maybe he should get a medal of honor for civic duty.

58

[quote]hedo wrote:
the problem is your military is a jobs program rather then a fighting force.[/quote]

Only a raving mad, war-crazed zealot would consider this to be a “problem”.

Get this: They haven’t been attacked nor are they under threat of attack (due to the fact that they mind their own business in international affairs).

They have a national defense, unlike the United States of America.

The U.S. has a national offense.

Their military, which you apparently consider to be weak, dominates this country’s armed forces in it’s ability to deter attacks from the outside.

No 9/11’s for Sweden or Switzerland. Not now, not ever. It won’t happen to them. It WILL happen to us (again).

All because of the differences in foreign policy and your precious imperial police force.

59

[quote]karva wrote:
olderguy wrote:
1.3bil Muslims and 10 to 15% want to kill all Infidels. Do the math. If you thought Hitler had a master plan, well I think it’s nothing compared to what they have in store for the world.

You give the impression of the islamic world as a coherent whole. If the islamic world is going to stand united under one flag in a march against the corrupted west, they have a long way to go.[/quote]

Imagine the kind of tyrant it would take to control such an “incoherent” group of people. I bet he would have to be damn near hussei…insane.

60

[quote]karva wrote:
olderguy wrote:
1.3bil Muslims and 10 to 15% want to kill all Infidels. Do the math. If you thought Hitler had a master plan, well I think it’s nothing compared to what they have in store for the world.

You give the impression of the islamic world as a coherent whole. If the islamic world is going to stand united under one flag in a march against the corrupted west, they have a long way to go.[/quote]

I would like to know what your idea is of “a long way to go”. Just watch the video "Obsession, radical Islam. Same central thought process throughout the arab world.

Trust me, I don’t think for a second that the islamic world is a coherent whole, but there is no doubt in my mind that they are united in their thoughts about infidels, Jews, Christians, whatever and march under many flags. I think that anyone that thinks otherwise is foolish. Call me crazy, but whether Sunni or Shia, being Saudi, Syrian, or Iranian, they want us dead. Plenty of factions, plenty of flags. Period. Plenty of sympathizers from plenty of rich familys, sects, whatever.

And let’s not forget that oil going from $30 not to long ago, to $75 hasn’t lined their pockets to further their agenda. If they funded them at $30, well you figure it out. Doesn’t take much thought. Sadaam was hated by everyone in the Arab world but still managed to reward suicide bombers that were backed by his enemies.