GQ_jumper 4 #26 May 1, 2007 Shit man, I don't know. I know if I was over there again, I would shoot first and ask questions later. Yes, some innocents could die, but to fucking bad. We are all just pawns in the big game - don't put your life at risk over someone else's politics. Quote As far as that would go to protect ME we both know it's the wrong answer, my job is to protect those innocents so long as it doesn't come at the expense of my teammates. and just like you said, we are all pawns, soldiers are nothing more than a tool of politicians, it's our job to risk our lives for someone elses politics.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andrewwhyte 1 #27 May 1, 2007 Quote The only thing I was arguing was that despite what E.M. thinks there is no justification to punish troops on the ground whether this war is legal or not so long as the individuals follow proper ROE and abide with the rules set forth in the Geneva conventions. If you deliver an enemy combatant to your superiors with the reasonable expectation that they will go to Gitmo, are you guilty of violating the Geneva convention? I suspect your opinion on that is different from most of the world's. ***Me personally, I do whatever is necessary to 1)bring my teammates home alive, 2)protect innocent civilians, 3)accomplish the mission, and 4)bring myself home safe, in that order of precedence. I wouldn't consider my actions to be a "crime of aggression" as it was put earlier. Interesting priority list. Tell me, if the innocent civilians are US citizens do they move ahead of your teammates on the list? What if they are citizens of coalition partners? I would say that your putting the lives of your fellow soldiers ahead of those of the citizens of Iraq is that which destroys your legitimacy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #27 May 1, 2007 Quote The only thing I was arguing was that despite what E.M. thinks there is no justification to punish troops on the ground whether this war is legal or not so long as the individuals follow proper ROE and abide with the rules set forth in the Geneva conventions. If you deliver an enemy combatant to your superiors with the reasonable expectation that they will go to Gitmo, are you guilty of violating the Geneva convention? I suspect your opinion on that is different from most of the world's. ***Me personally, I do whatever is necessary to 1)bring my teammates home alive, 2)protect innocent civilians, 3)accomplish the mission, and 4)bring myself home safe, in that order of precedence. I wouldn't consider my actions to be a "crime of aggression" as it was put earlier. Interesting priority list. Tell me, if the innocent civilians are US citizens do they move ahead of your teammates on the list? What if they are citizens of coalition partners? I would say that your putting the lives of your fellow soldiers ahead of those of the citizens of Iraq is that which destroys your legitimacy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #28 May 1, 2007 edited: I hate hate hate when politicians take the discussion of the war "to the troops on the ground". I hate that too, but at least it seems to be some progress from a couple years ago when questioning our invasion of Iraq bought you a label of "Unamerican." "It's not fair to the troops..." just sounds more like a whine to me.-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GQ_jumper 4 #29 May 1, 2007 QuoteIf you deliver an enemy combatant to your superiors with the reasonable expectation that they will go to Gitmo, are you guilty of violating the Geneva convention? I suspect your opinion on that is different from most of the world's. How would I be guilty of violating the rules of the Geneva convention by turning a captured enemy combatant in a detention facility? there is no justification for that, that's like saying that a man who owns a gunshop and sells a pistol to someone who later uses it to kill someone is guilty of murder. What would my other options be, let the man I just risked my life to take alive go free, or execute him, one would put me in jail and the other would put me at risk of being killed by the man I just captured then freed. Nice try. QuoteInteresting priority list. Tell me, if the innocent civilians are US citizens do they move ahead of your teammates on the list? What if they are citizens of coalition partners? I would say that your putting the lives of your fellow soldiers ahead of those of the citizens of Iraq is that which destroys your legitimacy. How does putting my teammates first destroy my legitimacy, it seems that you would just rather celebrate over the dead bodies of myself and my fellow teammates. There is nothing that takes away from my credibility in my priorities, the men I serve with come first, these men are my family, I don't have a wife and kids to go home to, at the moment I don't even have a home to go back to. When I get home I'll be living in the team room at work or on one of my teammates couches until I find another home. Everyone else on my team besides me has a wife and kids, or fiance waiting for them to come home and I intend to make sure every one of them get to see them again even if it means me not making it back. And even though I'm using MY TEAMMATES as the example that priority extends to all Coalition soldiers, we're all on the same team. Just behind my teammates safety comes ANY innocent person, it makes no difference if they are US or Iraqi, an innocent person is an innocent person no matter their nationality and their safety comes before mine. However, I have not yet been put in the situation where I had to make the decision of one of my men or the life of an innocent, it's never come up at the same time, and until that time comes(which I hope it never does) then who knows exactly who I'm going to drag to safety first. The other two, I don't believe need justification, they're self-explanitory. All you're trying to do is paint me as evil simply because I wear a US military uniform, and it's a pretty pathetic attempt at that. I know you have some crazy notion in your head(as your post shows) that tells you all US soldiers sign up to satisfy some type of sick bloodlust, but if you would take a second to step away from your twisted view of things and get to know a few of us you may realize that we are no different than you. I live, breath, and bleed the same as you, deal with it.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Turfsurf 0 #30 May 1, 2007 Will you all agree that we're fighting the wrong war for all the wrong reasons? I wonder why most of the world does not support us with this war? It blows my mind that over 59 million people could be so stupid as to re-elect this guy.At least we will not hear "four more years". Use your turn signal! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #31 May 1, 2007 Quote It blows my mind that over 59 million people could be so stupid as to re-elect this guy. Maybe it had something (read: a whole helluva lot) to do with the alternative. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #32 May 1, 2007 Quote Call me simple but... Wouldn't the troops like to come home if we determine this war is no longer just? edited: I hate hate hate when politicians take the discussion of the war "to the troops on the ground". They are playing on guilt when they do this...guild connected to the way the troops were handled after the disaster that was Vietnam. The politicians and generals all walked away with money can good careers after that, but those kids were treated like shit. It took nearly a decade to even start the recognition and respect those troops deserved and most remember the embarasment of that. Thus, they are playing upon the fears of doing that again. I'm also insulted to beleive that they insult our intleigence by claiming this is a black/white issue....as if no one can comprehend the complexity of what is going on.....nor that it is possible to seperate feelings into different catogories on the same topic. I fully support the troops over there. I am fully against this Administration, its policy and this war. Fuck off to anyone that tells me I can't feel that way._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #33 May 1, 2007 Quote Quote It blows my mind that over 59 million people could be so stupid as to re-elect this guy. Maybe it had something (read: a whole helluva lot) to do with the alternative. I think it had to do more with what the press told people what the alternative was. The reality and the lies in the last few elections are hard to seperate. Those that didn't put much thought into who to vote for believed the hype and lies.....much to our loss. This isn't the first time in history someone has swindled themselves into a position of power, nor will it be the last._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #34 May 1, 2007 QuoteShit man, I don't know. I know if I was over there again, I would shoot first and ask questions later. Yes, some innocents could die, but to fucking bad. We are all just pawns in the big game - don't put your life at risk over someone else's politics. Quote As far as that would go to protect ME we both know it's the wrong answer, my job is to protect those innocents so long as it doesn't come at the expense of my teammates. and just like you said, we are all pawns, soldiers are nothing more than a tool of politicians, it's our job to risk our lives for someone elses politics. And right there is the main reason I got out. Be safe. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #35 May 1, 2007 Quote Quote Quote It blows my mind that over 59 million people could be so stupid as to re-elect this guy. Maybe it had something (read: a whole helluva lot) to do with the alternative. I think it had to do more with what the press told people what the alternative was. Are you saying the press favored Bush? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Turfsurf 0 #36 May 1, 2007 Quote Quote It blows my mind that over 59 million people could be so stupid as to re-elect this guy. Maybe it had something (read: a whole helluva lot) to do with the alternative. Oh sure, look at where we are today!Use your turn signal! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChasingBlueSky 0 #37 May 1, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote It blows my mind that over 59 million people could be so stupid as to re-elect this guy. Maybe it had something (read: a whole helluva lot) to do with the alternative. I think it had to do more with what the press told people what the alternative was. Are you saying the press favored Bush? I'm thinking the press favored rhetoric and talking points which played upon fear and the current mindset of the mostly uninformed voting public. It just so happened this favored Bush._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #38 May 1, 2007 If only Dan Rather had been able to pull of his deception... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Turfsurf 0 #39 May 1, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote It blows my mind that over 59 million people could be so stupid as to re-elect this guy. Maybe it had something (read: a whole helluva lot) to do with the alternative. I think it had to do more with what the press told people what the alternative was. Are you saying the press favored Bush? Fox News fake and un-balancedI'm thinking the press favored rhetoric and talking points which played upon fear and the current mindset of the mostly uninformed voting public. It just so happened this favored Bush. Use your turn signal! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChasingBlueSky 0 #40 May 1, 2007 QuoteIf only Dan Rather had been able to pull of his deception... It was all media that fucked up big. Not sure they learned their lesson either._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andrewwhyte 1 #41 May 1, 2007 QuoteQuoteIf you deliver an enemy combatant to your superiors with the reasonable expectation that they will go to Gitmo, are you guilty of violating the Geneva convention? I suspect your opinion on that is different from most of the world's. How would I be guilty of violating the rules of the Geneva convention by turning a captured enemy combatant in a detention facility? there is no justification for that, that's like saying that a man who owns a gunshop and sells a pistol to someone who later uses it to kill someone is guilty of murder. What would my other options be, let the man I just risked my life to take alive go free, or execute him, one would put me in jail and the other would put me at risk of being killed by the man I just captured then freed. Nice try. The practices at Guantanamo Bay are a gross violation of the Geneva convention. There is no such legitimate designation as 'enemy combatant.' Someone is either an enemy soldier, eligible for the protections under Geneva or they are a civilian criminal who has no business at a military detention centre. 'Enemy combatant' was a designation invented by the US administration and/or brass specifically to circumvent the Geneva convention. Other than in a 'prisoner of war' context imprisoning people for years without trial or representation is a war crime. I don't know your rank, but I suspect you are not a senior officer (or you would not be posting here). The chance of you ever being called to task for being complicit in violating the Geneva convention for such an act is virtually zero. That does not mean you do not have to personally examine your actions within a wider context; 'following orders' is not an excuse for doing something you know to be wrong. The Nuremburg trials made this very clear. Be righteous Stay safe Come home Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ErricoMalatesta 0 #42 May 1, 2007 QuoteYes there is, all occupying forces in Iraq are breaking international law. Soldiers as established by Nuremberg principles are not exempt from these laws under the pretext of following orders QuoteThat doesn't apply to a broad set of orders such as deploying to combat. That would only apply if I was given an order to do something like execute an infant and I complied. Yes that does apply to a broad set of orders when the order is invade another country and invading another country is a supreme act of aggression and against all international laws. Quote Simply because I am here in Iraq doesn't make me a criminal Yes it does, if you looked up international laws you wouldn’t even argue the point but I suspect it is a self-justification mechanism seeing as you are stuck there Quote remember, congress voted to send me here and whether or not the rest of the world agrees with it the US did go through a diplomatic process to avoid this war. Saddam just didn't want to play nice. What Saddam did or didn’t do is irrelevant, he ruled a sovereign country and you broke all international laws, went against world opinion, and invaded. QuoteSo let me get this straight, the next time I get shot at I have no legal right to shoot back Occupying forces have NO legal rights the only things they have are obligations. Seeing as you had no legal right to invade and occupy I suspect you will fire back regardless of the law. However Iraqi people have every right to resist the invasion and occupation of their land and that includes killing occupying forces. QuoteRegardless of the reason for which I 'm here I still have the right to do whatever is necessary to protect myself, teammates, and Coalition assets. No you don’t have any rights. Occupying armies have no rights. Quote Nice try buddy, but I don't think I'll be ending up behind bars under any of you "charges", despite your wishes for it to be so. Like I have already said, we live in a world where the U.S shit on who they want and universal moral laws such as ‘what is right for one is right for everyone’ don’t apply. So I never said you would be behind bars. You are still breaking pretty much the most serious laws on the planet and you have no legal rights under international law, you can either accept this or you can block it out and you seem to be blocking it out. Quote Just curious, have you always had such a hate for US soliders? Or do you just have some sort of a god complex because you're "free-thinking" enough to see the light? I haven’t expressed any hate towards US soldiers in this thread I have merely pointed out what international law says. However as a general answer to a general enquiry I hate any soldier of an imperial force who do the power and economic dirty work of their nation state for over a century and rack up a kill tally of millions and millions of people and I consider them pieces of human garbage, it just happens the only imperial force lately is the U.S. A few hundred years ago I probably would have disliked the English, French, Dutch, etc. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nathaniel 0 #43 May 1, 2007 Quote Gives us the moral high ground afterwards. I don't see Muj asswipes or Taliban dickheads following LOAC regs... They follow the Sharia, which gives Islamic cultures the moral high ground when they win wars. See the whole history of the middle ages for example. It's entirely symmetric.My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andrewwhyte 1 #44 May 1, 2007 Quote QuoteInteresting priority list. Tell me, if the innocent civilians are US citizens do they move ahead of your teammates on the list? What if they are citizens of coalition partners? I would say that your putting the lives of your fellow soldiers ahead of those of the citizens of Iraq is that which destroys your legitimacy. How does putting my teammates first destroy my legitimacy, it seems that you would just rather celebrate over the dead bodies of myself and my fellow teammates. There is nothing that takes away from my credibility in my priorities, the men I serve with come first, these men are my family, I don't have a wife and kids to go home to, at the moment I don't even have a home to go back to. When I get home I'll be living in the team room at work or on one of my teammates couches until I find another home. Everyone else on my team besides me has a wife and kids, or fiance waiting for them to come home and I intend to make sure every one of them get to see them again even if it means me not making it back. And even though I'm using MY TEAMMATES as the example that priority extends to all Coalition soldiers, we're all on the same team. Just behind my teammates safety comes ANY innocent person, it makes no difference if they are US or Iraqi, an innocent person is an innocent person no matter their nationality and their safety comes before mine. However, I have not yet been put in the situation where I had to make the decision of one of my men or the life of an innocent, it's never come up at the same time, and until that time comes(which I hope it never does) then who knows exactly who I'm going to drag to safety first. Not an easy choice to say the least. However, I ask you to consider this; if you are in the US in a Katrina like situation, or perhaps a Waco like one, during a firefight would you sacrifice American civilians to protect your teammates? I know what the response would be from civilian uniformed services would be. The firefighter will pull the child out first, the cop will not shoot the woman the bad guy is hiding behind. According to your betters the war is long over in Iraq. Your job is to establish the peace; to help create a civil society similar to that of the US. I seriously doubt whether your betters would want you to place your teammates welfare ahead of that of American civillians'. If my country were occupied by a foreign force that I considered to be liberators, and those soldiers proceeded to sacrifice Canadian civilians in favour of their own fellows, The occupation would lose all legitimacy in my mind. I would immediately move to remove them from my country (join an insurgency/ resistance movement). Quote The other two, I don't believe need justification, they're self-explanitory. Fine. QuoteAll you're trying to do is paint me as evil simply because I wear a US military uniform, and it's a pretty pathetic attempt at that. I know you have some crazy notion in your head(as your post shows) that tells you all US soldiers sign up to satisfy some type of sick bloodlust, but if you would take a second to step away from your twisted view of things and get to know a few of us you may realize that we are no different than you. I live, breath, and bleed the same as you, deal with it. The only thing I will say to this is that not everyone who questions you is your enemy. Be righteous Stay safe Come home Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #35 May 1, 2007 Quote Quote Quote It blows my mind that over 59 million people could be so stupid as to re-elect this guy. Maybe it had something (read: a whole helluva lot) to do with the alternative. I think it had to do more with what the press told people what the alternative was. Are you saying the press favored Bush? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Turfsurf 0 #36 May 1, 2007 Quote Quote It blows my mind that over 59 million people could be so stupid as to re-elect this guy. Maybe it had something (read: a whole helluva lot) to do with the alternative. Oh sure, look at where we are today!Use your turn signal! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #37 May 1, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote It blows my mind that over 59 million people could be so stupid as to re-elect this guy. Maybe it had something (read: a whole helluva lot) to do with the alternative. I think it had to do more with what the press told people what the alternative was. Are you saying the press favored Bush? I'm thinking the press favored rhetoric and talking points which played upon fear and the current mindset of the mostly uninformed voting public. It just so happened this favored Bush._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #38 May 1, 2007 If only Dan Rather had been able to pull of his deception... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Turfsurf 0 #39 May 1, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote It blows my mind that over 59 million people could be so stupid as to re-elect this guy. Maybe it had something (read: a whole helluva lot) to do with the alternative. I think it had to do more with what the press told people what the alternative was. Are you saying the press favored Bush? Fox News fake and un-balancedI'm thinking the press favored rhetoric and talking points which played upon fear and the current mindset of the mostly uninformed voting public. It just so happened this favored Bush. Use your turn signal! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #40 May 1, 2007 QuoteIf only Dan Rather had been able to pull of his deception... It was all media that fucked up big. Not sure they learned their lesson either._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #41 May 1, 2007 QuoteQuoteIf you deliver an enemy combatant to your superiors with the reasonable expectation that they will go to Gitmo, are you guilty of violating the Geneva convention? I suspect your opinion on that is different from most of the world's. How would I be guilty of violating the rules of the Geneva convention by turning a captured enemy combatant in a detention facility? there is no justification for that, that's like saying that a man who owns a gunshop and sells a pistol to someone who later uses it to kill someone is guilty of murder. What would my other options be, let the man I just risked my life to take alive go free, or execute him, one would put me in jail and the other would put me at risk of being killed by the man I just captured then freed. Nice try. The practices at Guantanamo Bay are a gross violation of the Geneva convention. There is no such legitimate designation as 'enemy combatant.' Someone is either an enemy soldier, eligible for the protections under Geneva or they are a civilian criminal who has no business at a military detention centre. 'Enemy combatant' was a designation invented by the US administration and/or brass specifically to circumvent the Geneva convention. Other than in a 'prisoner of war' context imprisoning people for years without trial or representation is a war crime. I don't know your rank, but I suspect you are not a senior officer (or you would not be posting here). The chance of you ever being called to task for being complicit in violating the Geneva convention for such an act is virtually zero. That does not mean you do not have to personally examine your actions within a wider context; 'following orders' is not an excuse for doing something you know to be wrong. The Nuremburg trials made this very clear. Be righteous Stay safe Come home Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ErricoMalatesta 0 #42 May 1, 2007 QuoteYes there is, all occupying forces in Iraq are breaking international law. Soldiers as established by Nuremberg principles are not exempt from these laws under the pretext of following orders QuoteThat doesn't apply to a broad set of orders such as deploying to combat. That would only apply if I was given an order to do something like execute an infant and I complied. Yes that does apply to a broad set of orders when the order is invade another country and invading another country is a supreme act of aggression and against all international laws. Quote Simply because I am here in Iraq doesn't make me a criminal Yes it does, if you looked up international laws you wouldn’t even argue the point but I suspect it is a self-justification mechanism seeing as you are stuck there Quote remember, congress voted to send me here and whether or not the rest of the world agrees with it the US did go through a diplomatic process to avoid this war. Saddam just didn't want to play nice. What Saddam did or didn’t do is irrelevant, he ruled a sovereign country and you broke all international laws, went against world opinion, and invaded. QuoteSo let me get this straight, the next time I get shot at I have no legal right to shoot back Occupying forces have NO legal rights the only things they have are obligations. Seeing as you had no legal right to invade and occupy I suspect you will fire back regardless of the law. However Iraqi people have every right to resist the invasion and occupation of their land and that includes killing occupying forces. QuoteRegardless of the reason for which I 'm here I still have the right to do whatever is necessary to protect myself, teammates, and Coalition assets. No you don’t have any rights. Occupying armies have no rights. Quote Nice try buddy, but I don't think I'll be ending up behind bars under any of you "charges", despite your wishes for it to be so. Like I have already said, we live in a world where the U.S shit on who they want and universal moral laws such as ‘what is right for one is right for everyone’ don’t apply. So I never said you would be behind bars. You are still breaking pretty much the most serious laws on the planet and you have no legal rights under international law, you can either accept this or you can block it out and you seem to be blocking it out. Quote Just curious, have you always had such a hate for US soliders? Or do you just have some sort of a god complex because you're "free-thinking" enough to see the light? I haven’t expressed any hate towards US soldiers in this thread I have merely pointed out what international law says. However as a general answer to a general enquiry I hate any soldier of an imperial force who do the power and economic dirty work of their nation state for over a century and rack up a kill tally of millions and millions of people and I consider them pieces of human garbage, it just happens the only imperial force lately is the U.S. A few hundred years ago I probably would have disliked the English, French, Dutch, etc. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #43 May 1, 2007 Quote Gives us the moral high ground afterwards. I don't see Muj asswipes or Taliban dickheads following LOAC regs... They follow the Sharia, which gives Islamic cultures the moral high ground when they win wars. See the whole history of the middle ages for example. It's entirely symmetric.My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #44 May 1, 2007 Quote QuoteInteresting priority list. Tell me, if the innocent civilians are US citizens do they move ahead of your teammates on the list? What if they are citizens of coalition partners? I would say that your putting the lives of your fellow soldiers ahead of those of the citizens of Iraq is that which destroys your legitimacy. How does putting my teammates first destroy my legitimacy, it seems that you would just rather celebrate over the dead bodies of myself and my fellow teammates. There is nothing that takes away from my credibility in my priorities, the men I serve with come first, these men are my family, I don't have a wife and kids to go home to, at the moment I don't even have a home to go back to. When I get home I'll be living in the team room at work or on one of my teammates couches until I find another home. Everyone else on my team besides me has a wife and kids, or fiance waiting for them to come home and I intend to make sure every one of them get to see them again even if it means me not making it back. And even though I'm using MY TEAMMATES as the example that priority extends to all Coalition soldiers, we're all on the same team. Just behind my teammates safety comes ANY innocent person, it makes no difference if they are US or Iraqi, an innocent person is an innocent person no matter their nationality and their safety comes before mine. However, I have not yet been put in the situation where I had to make the decision of one of my men or the life of an innocent, it's never come up at the same time, and until that time comes(which I hope it never does) then who knows exactly who I'm going to drag to safety first. Not an easy choice to say the least. However, I ask you to consider this; if you are in the US in a Katrina like situation, or perhaps a Waco like one, during a firefight would you sacrifice American civilians to protect your teammates? I know what the response would be from civilian uniformed services would be. The firefighter will pull the child out first, the cop will not shoot the woman the bad guy is hiding behind. According to your betters the war is long over in Iraq. Your job is to establish the peace; to help create a civil society similar to that of the US. I seriously doubt whether your betters would want you to place your teammates welfare ahead of that of American civillians'. If my country were occupied by a foreign force that I considered to be liberators, and those soldiers proceeded to sacrifice Canadian civilians in favour of their own fellows, The occupation would lose all legitimacy in my mind. I would immediately move to remove them from my country (join an insurgency/ resistance movement). Quote The other two, I don't believe need justification, they're self-explanitory. Fine. QuoteAll you're trying to do is paint me as evil simply because I wear a US military uniform, and it's a pretty pathetic attempt at that. I know you have some crazy notion in your head(as your post shows) that tells you all US soldiers sign up to satisfy some type of sick bloodlust, but if you would take a second to step away from your twisted view of things and get to know a few of us you may realize that we are no different than you. I live, breath, and bleed the same as you, deal with it. The only thing I will say to this is that not everyone who questions you is your enemy. Be righteous Stay safe Come home Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GQ_jumper 4 #45 May 1, 2007 No you don’t have any rights. Occupying armies have no rights. Quote Do your homework buddy, even under the international laws you are crying about me violating by being here I still have the inherent right to defend myself. According to your little interpretation I have no other right apart from walking out in the street unarmed and waiting to take one in the chest. Step back for a second and think about how that sounds, pretty rediculous huh? Not to mention the fact that WE AREN'T AN OCCUPYING FORCE. I figured I would throw in that fact even though you have proven that you don't have the ability to see things for what they are. By definition you must have military control to be an occupying force, well guess what, we don't have military control, the Iraqis do. I know your media sources(which obviously know more than those of us here on the ground) says we call the shots. When in actuality we don't roll without the Iraqis being OK with it. Yes we are still conducting our own operations against insurgents, with the OK from the Iraqis that own the battlespace. We are becoming more and more of a support asset for them giving them extra manpower where needed. So by definition we are in no way an occupying force, which would mean in your realm that I now have the right to breathe again. History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GQ_jumper 4 #46 May 1, 2007 The practices at Guantanamo Bay are a gross violation of the Geneva convention. There is no such legitimate designation as 'enemy combatant.' Someone is either an enemy soldier, eligible for the protections under Geneva or they are a civilian criminal who has no business at a military detention centre. 'Enemy combatant' was a designation invented by the US administration and/or brass specifically to circumvent the Geneva convention. Other than in a 'prisoner of war' context imprisoning people for years without trial or representation is a war crime. Quote I don't know your rank, but I suspect you are not a senior officer (or you would not be posting here). The chance of you ever being called to task for being complicit in violating the Geneva convention for such an act is virtually zero. That does not mean you do not have to personally examine your actions within a wider context; 'following orders' is not an excuse for doing something you know to be wrong. The Nuremburg trials made this very clear. I am well aware and agree with you 100% that "just following orders" is not an excuse, which is why I strive to make the right choice in every situation I find myself in out here. However, it is a FAR stretch to say I am guilty of violating anything simply by placing a detainee in a detention facility. Like I said before neither of the other options would have a positive result. Not to mention that now basically everyone we roll up goes straight into the Iraqi justice system, not ours. Quote Not an easy choice to say the least. However, I ask you to consider this; if you are in the US in a Katrina like situation, or perhaps a Waco like one, during a firefight would you sacrifice American civilians to protect your teammates? I know what the response would be from civilian uniformed services would be. The firefighter will pull the child out first, the cop will not shoot the woman the bad guy is hiding behind. According to your betters the war is long over in Iraq. Your job is to establish the peace; to help create a civil society similar to that of the US. I seriously doubt whether your betters would want you to place your teammates welfare ahead of that of American civillians'. I understand the point you are trying to make, but I am not in the US, I am in a combat zone, obviously my actions and priorities would be far different if I were ever to find myself in one of the situations you just described. It feels like you were trying to cross my situation over to another one to create an argument that doesn't apply to my particular situation. If I read your post wrong however I apologize. Like you said, I am here to help re-establish peace, and I do this by rolling up those responsible for threatening innocents. Obviously there are times when our efforts have to be focused on those that are a threat to us, but once again that's par for the course over here. I think this is one thing in this argument you and I seem to agree on, hey its a start Quote Be righteous Stay safe Come home I'll give ya two outta three, I don't fair too well with that whole stay safe part, makes for a boring triptake careHistory does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflybella 0 #47 May 2, 2007 Quote Quote Call me simple but... Wouldn't the troops like to come home if we determine this war is no longer just? edited: I hate hate hate when politicians take the discussion of the war "to the troops on the ground". They are playing on guilt when they do this...guild connected to the way the troops were handled after the disaster that was Vietnam. The politicians and generals all walked away with money can good careers after that, but those kids were treated like shit. It took nearly a decade to even start the recognition and respect those troops deserved and most remember the embarasment of that. Thus, they are playing upon the fears of doing that again. I'm also insulted to beleive that they insult our intleigence by claiming this is a black/white issue....as if no one can comprehend the complexity of what is going on.....nor that it is possible to seperate feelings into different catogories on the same topic. I fully support the troops over there. I am fully against this Administration, its policy and this war. Fuck off to anyone that tells me I can't feel that way. I never made that connection before but it sure fits. It's such bullshit and so manipulative. I don't even really get what people say when they say they "support the troops". Is that a nod to Vietnam, too - when the troops were spit on and yelled at, etc? I guess back then - culturally - it was accepted that fleeing the country to avoid the draft was really an option. And today, with an all volunteer armed forces - the troops must follow orders and fight the war. So when one says he "supports the troops", does he mean he doesn't blame them for not dissenting? If so - what the fuck do the politicians mean?! Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,992 #48 May 2, 2007 >I don't even really get what people say when they say they "support the troops". It's meaningless. It's like saying "I am against raping teenagers." Everyone is. I admire people who actually DO support the troops, in whatever way they can. Most people just talk. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GQ_jumper 4 #49 May 2, 2007 It's meaningless. It's like saying "I am against raping teenagers." Everyone is. Quote It's a simple catch phrase that gets politicians a few extra gold stars in the happy column to make up for something else they are doing.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,992 #50 May 2, 2007 >It's a simple catch phrase that gets politicians a few extra gold stars in >the happy column to make up for something else they are doing. Lately it's used more often as a slam. "You DON'T support the troops because you don't support Bush/the war/our foreign policy." But that's just an attempt to take away someone _else's_ gold stars. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
billvon 2,992 #50 May 2, 2007 >It's a simple catch phrase that gets politicians a few extra gold stars in >the happy column to make up for something else they are doing. Lately it's used more often as a slam. "You DON'T support the troops because you don't support Bush/the war/our foreign policy." But that's just an attempt to take away someone _else's_ gold stars. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
