Do you look down on people who...

[Walsingham]

Atr0creep, I don't mean to be cynical isn't your statement somewhat akin to saying "I don't mind going out in the rain, provided there's no water involved?" I really don't see how powerful people are ever going to absent from the decision to go to war. We have the luxury in our countries of trying to see that our personal and tehir personal interests coincide, but you're never going to cut them out entirely. And, as we previously said, you can't run an army using people who fight when they feel like it.

 

Incidentally, I remembered this afternoon that such an Army was tried at least once, in the counter-bolshevik struggles in Northern Russia around Archangel just after ww1. Really didn't work. They got comprehensively tonked.

[astr0creep]

Atr0creep, I don't mean to be cynical isn't your statement somewhat akin to saying "I don't mind going out in the rain, provided there's no water involved?" I really don't see how powerful people are ever going to absent from the decision to go to war. We have the luxury in our countries of trying to see that our personal and tehir personal interests coincide, but you're never going to cut them out entirely. And, as we previously said, you can't run an army using people who fight when they feel like it.

 

Incidentally, I remembered this afternoon that such an Army was tried at least once, in the counter-bolshevik struggles in Northern Russia around Archangel just after ww1. Really didn't work. They got comprehensively tonked.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm saying invading Iraq was not for protecting your country. There was no link between 9/11 and Iraq/Saddam and no WMD were ever found.

Going to war to protect your threatened country is fine. I was all for the strike against Afghanistan and I'm all for anti-terrorism. But the current Iraq war only serves the purpose of making wealthy and powerful people wealthier and more powerful, people who will NEVER share their "good fortune" with the rest of the world they are supposed to protect/represent.

There was nothing virtuous and/or honorable in invading Iraq, even removing Saddam from power has proven a grave mistake.

[Driekan]

Looking down on those who dont volunteer for military service? Well, that's a no-brainer. If we were having a world war or a conflict against a vast imperialistic force or something like that, then I'd understand you expecting strong, young man to offer themselves in the protection of what's right...

 

But... Surprise, surprise... We're NOT.

 

Can anyone here sincerely believe that Iraq could pose a threat to the US in any way at all? Sincerely, Iraq was hardly a threat to even itself, since if Saddam so much as sneezed too hard the UN would be all over him. They WERE working on it before Bush bombed the **** out of the country, you know? They were organizing parties to go check on the supposed weapons of mass destruction, despite his refusal, and eventually there would have been lawful, correct action.

 

Instead, the US have bombed the hell out of Iraq and caused such a degree of destruction and de-structuring that for a while the country was back to a state of primal anarchy. Just read the numbers, looting and pillaging and chaos was rampant... I dont see news about this anymore at this time, but I wouldnt be at all surprised if the situation was still the same there. The only thing keeping Iraq from going back to stone age is a foreign military presence that's holding back all the violence and rebellion. Violence and rebellion they created.

 

Now, I'm not throwing dirt in the soldier's face for this, I'm just shoveling it in their administrator's. The soldiers didnt choose to be sent there, and most of them signed up probably with very decent and noble reasons - self-improvement, or selflessness. However, all of this was wasted the second war was declared on Iraq. It's a fact... You CAN get a bunch of positive factors and turn it into one big, negative BOMB. Bush has proven that to us.

 

Now I do come to the point of throwing dust towards the soldiers. A minority of them, though. Let us not forget (Or conveniently ignore) the torture that took place (And probably still takes place) there. Humiliation and offense to the most basic concepts of human rights, right there in our face. And that's not to mention the cultural disrespect (Or hatred?) with which they treat the locals. I've seen more than one movie showing US troops ripping veils off of women's face, or acting agressively towards them wearing it. That's the equivalent of someone walking down your hometown and ripping out girl's panties... Just in case the cultural difference isnt clear enough from simply seeing their horrified expressions over it.

 

And then there is what every army does, but still isnt exactly memorable or desirable. Every invasion in history resulted in:

- Raping

- Looting

- Robbing

- Beating of natives

 

By the invading army. You can be preety sure that for the first week there, a lot of this happened. We'll just never see the numbers.

 

End-result: Do I look down on those who dont sign up? No, I respect them, just as much as I do those who DO. You just took another - potentially less polemic - path in your life. The oportunity for self-improvement, bravery, honor, good or whatever the hell you place value in is still there.

[Cantousent]

I don't look down on you because you didn't volunteer, astr0creep. First of all, you're not an American, so it's not as if your status as a volunteer would protect my personal rights.

 

However, you misunderstood my argument. The Constitution puts the decision for war or peace in the hands of the civilian government. The civilian government decided to prosecute a war against Iraq. The military, acting in accordance with its Constitutional role, carried out military operations at the behest of the civilian goverment. The war is legal. An international body might disagree. I'm sure several international entities have claimed that the war is illegal. Strictly speaking, however, such speech is pointless. It might serve to voice a political message, but there is no international entity that supercedes our Constitution.

 

I can hear the howls of rage, but it is simply a fact that our military is sworn to protect and defend the Constitution. You say Iraq did not pose a threat to our Constitution? I say that a much larger threat would be the military command refusing to take orders from the civilian government.

 

Just think of that. If we say it's perfectly fine for the military to refuse to prosecute a war at the behest of the civilian government, then is it equally fine for the military to prosecute a war without the permission of the civilian government? With the decision for peace or war laying in the hands of the military, would the civilian government be confined to domestic policy?

 

The decision to wage war in Iraq may or may not be a good policy. I doubt if we'll know the answer to that question within the next decade. However, if the military had refused to act out the wishes of our elected officials, the outcome would have been far worse. ...And a weak US would not be a benefit to our northern neighbors.

[astr0creep]

I don't look down on you because you didn't volunteer, astr0creep.  First of all, you're not an American, so it's not as if your status as a volunteer would protect my personal rights.

 

However, you misunderstood my argument.  The Constitution puts the decision for war or peace in the hands of the civilian government.  The civilian government decided to prosecute a war against Iraq.  The military, acting in accordance with its Constitutional role, carried out military operations at the behest of the civilian goverment.  The war is legal.  An international body might disagree.  I'm sure several international entities have claimed that the war is illegal.  Strictly speaking, however, such speech is pointless.  It might serve to voice a political message, but there is no international entity that supercedes our Constitution.

 

I can hear the howls of rage, but it is simply a fact that our military is sworn to protect and defend the Constitution.  You say Iraq did not pose a threat to our Constitution?  I say that a much larger threat would be the military command refusing to take orders from the civilian government.

 

Just think of that.  If we say it's perfectly fine for the military to refuse to prosecute a war at the behest of the civilian government, then is it equally fine for the military to prosecute a war without the permission of the civilian government?  With the decision for peace or war laying in the hands of the military, would the civilian government be confined to domestic policy?

 

The decision to wage war in Iraq may or may not be a good policy.  I doubt if we'll know the answer to that question within the next decade.  However, if the military had refused to act out the wishes of our elected officials, the outcome would have been far worse.  ...And a weak US would not be a benefit to our northern neighbors.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Clarification noted and accepted.

[213374U]

The only thing keeping Iraq from going back to stone age is a foreign military presence that's holding back all the violence and rebellion. Violence and rebellion they created.

As a matter of fact, that is a lie, but I'm willing to grant you the benefit of doubt and assume you're just misinformed. The only thing that prevented the country from bursting into civil war before the war were Saddam's own totalitarian practices (including, but not limited to, genocide). Now with Saddam gone, and a foreign occupation force on their land, the violence is difficult to control. But the violence was latent. It wasn't created by the invasion.

 

 

Now I do come to the point of throwing dust towards the soldiers. A minority of them, though. Let us not forget (Or conveniently ignore) the torture that took place (And probably still takes place) there. Humiliation and offense to the most basic concepts of human rights, right there in our face.

Yes, it's truly sad when a few people damage the image of a much larger group of people like that. But let us not forget that thanks to the media, every little detail gets blown out of proportion.

 

And also, let us not forget that torture and executions of hostages are commonplace there. Not US soldiers, but people like doctors, journalists, and the like that have nothing to do with the occupation and are there only to help, or at worst, to make a living. I thought you were talking about the war in itself, and that is also a consequence of it. Why did you omit that part?

 

 

And that's not to mention the cultural disrespect (Or hatred?) with which they treat the locals. I've seen more than one movie showing US troops ripping veils off of women's face, or acting agressively towards them wearing it. That's the equivalent of someone walking down your hometown and ripping out girl's panties... Just in case the cultural difference isnt clear enough from simply seeing their horrified expressions over it.

Indeed. Or even the equivalent of stopping ritual genital mutilation! God forbid us from fighting barbaric practices when they are rooted in their culture! Edited May 16, 2006 by 213374U

[metadigital]

Whether our actions in Iraq are lawful in other countries is irrelevant.  The military in our country is sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.  It is right that this is so.

Iraq did not put the Constitution of the United States of America in danger. Al-Qaeda did, or so the American media says, and Afghanistan was "cleaned" for harboring them at the time of the 9/11 attacks. Doesn't anyone remember G.W. Bush's "mission accomplished" speach on that aircraft carrier?

Iraq was supposedly invaded for having WMDs that could possibly threaten the US(and the rest of the world), WMD that were never found, either because they don't have them anymore or because they are well hidden and the inspectors didn't have time to do their job properly before President Bush launched his famous pre-emptive strike.

American soldiers are still in Iraq because if they leave, there will be a civil war for control of the territory(and oil) that used to be kept in line, albeit with an iron fist, by Saddam Hussein.

 

If my country would be invaded I would fight to the death to protect my family, my home, my rights, my way of life. Which is why I would've liked that my country had mandatory military service incorporated in the education system, so that I would have the means, the skills to fight.

 

Joining the army to fight and die so that men of power can have more power does not seem quite right to me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Astr0, the point is that the Armed forces are at the command of the democratically elected government, and not able to create their own policy. Even if the most Senior General disagrees with the government's policy, to oppose it would be a coup. And that would be against the (legitimate) government, which would in fact be against the people of the country.

 

Change the policy through the system.

[Judge Hades]

I really doub the curent goernment has our best interests at heart. The only interest they have is lining the pockets with money and doing the same for their friends.

[alanschu]

I really doub the curent goernment has our best interests at heart.  The only interest they have is lining the pockets with money and doing the same for their friends.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Would you have expected something different with Kerry?

[Judge Hades]

Point taken, but that is why we need to get rid of our current form of government and place something better, something more streamlined and less clunky.

Edited May 17, 2006 by Judge Hades

[thepixiesrock]

Point taken, but that is why we need to get rid of our current form of government and place something better, something more streamlined and less clunky.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Do you have some sort of suggestion as to what to do? Because thats a really stupid thing to say unless you actually have a good, well thought out plan.

[Moose]

You should have a system where everyone sits down and discusses all viable options, then all agree on the best course of action. If they can't come to one then they should be forced to.

 

In fact better yet, just disband the senate. Fear will keep the states in line. Fear of this battle... erm... yeah.

[thepixiesrock]

Hahahaha

[metadigital]

It's funny 'cause it's true!

[Judge Hades]

Actually, yes.

 

First off remove the Senate and the House. Replace them with a council of governors. Each state Governer sends a representative, or themselves to discuss matters on a nation wide scale and make sure things keep running. It would give more say and power to the individual states on a equal basis. Keep the Judicial system the same as well as the executive branch, but the council of governors can remove a president and appoint one in his stead if he proves to be incompetent or acts against the best interests of the nation as a whole.

 

Also eliminate the FCC and the IRS. Instead of a tax on one's income there should be a federal sales tax.

Edited May 17, 2006 by Judge Hades

[LoneWolf16]

Jefferson would have agreed...probably.

[thepixiesrock]

Thats a great idea! What are you wasting your time here? Go get the malitia together already!

[Judge Hades]

Thats a great idea!  What are you wasting your time here?  Go get the malitia together already!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah, right. Nothing is going to change so why bother. Right now we have a bloated inefficient government that requires a huge arse bureaucracy to run. Its not going to change now unless there is a very very very bloody coup by those in power but 99% of the people in the US are sheep so it would be pointless.

[LoneWolf16]

The funny part is that there's just as much of a possibility for corruption in that type of government that there is in the current one. It's not the system that's the problem, it's the people in it.

[thepixiesrock]

Don't forget about that flouride in the drinking water! It makes us much more agreeable with them. The revolution is doomed to faliure.

[Judge Hades]

True enough. Humans, by their vrey nature, are very corruptable.

Edited May 17, 2006 by Judge Hades

[metadigital]

My bodily fluids are protected as I do not drink water processed in public utilities ...

[LoneWolf16]

I wouldn't go that far...

 

But just imagine if the world were ruled by people who actually were the greatest minds their respective nations could produce?

 

 

 

...We'd be a billion asteroids by now...but that's beside the point.

[Baley]

It would give more say and power to the individual states on a equal basis. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

-Segregation

-Anti-abortion laws

-Anti-gay laws

-Anti-evolution laws

-The ten commandments in every court room

-A bible in every school, in every child's locker

-Censorship, censorship, censorship, mountains of censorship, skyscrapers of it, as far as the eye can see.

 

 

The South shall rise, my brother!

[thepixiesrock]

I'm serious about the flouride though.