PDA

View Full Version : So... are U.S. Soldiers... Terrorists?


hingisGOAT
May 24th, 2007, 05:02 PM
What Rosie said had me thinking... yeah, if another country invaded the USA and killed 600,000 or so of this nation's citizens -- they would be terrorists according to every person living within our borders.

And many have gone so far as to say the war in Iraq is a grave injustice... even EVIL on the part of the Bush administration. If the intent of the war is misguided and thousands die because of one man's incompetence and selfishness... than wouldn't it be fair to say that his minions who knowingly serve out his cruel intent (the soldiers) are also evil? As an American citizen this is pretty much THE taboo, the big pink elephant in the room. But why do the soldiers get a free pass? Are they not out there killing in the name of American cowboy ideology?

Or do we forgive their killing of innocent civilians because they are just "taking orders" from the man? Are we so quick to forgive those who attack us, just because they are "taking orders" too? The majority of the country opposes the war and all of its violence, malice, murder, and ill-intent. Yet this majority would never dream of referring to our troops as terrorists. Why aren't they? Their cause is hardly noble...

antonella
May 24th, 2007, 06:53 PM
You are an idiot.

hingisGOAT
May 24th, 2007, 07:51 PM
You are an idiot.

:wavey:

miffedmax
May 24th, 2007, 08:49 PM
That's why I've been against this war from the beginning--it puts the men and women who have volunteered to protect us in a morally ambiguous and militarily impossible position.

You can have all the smart munitions, all the best intentions and a sincere commitment to a cause (all, btw, sadly lacking in the current administration) but the fact is that during any war, innocent civilians are going to die. That is precisely why the U.S. Constitution (another thing for which the current administration has little use) makes it hard for the US to declare war and, sadly never seeing a day when Congress might surrender its perogatives, makes declaring war the business of the legislative body and not the executive.

But to me, it does come down to intention. I don't think the US set out to inflict 600,000 casualties on the Iraqi people. I think that despite their morally bankrupt reasons for attacking Iraq, the people who planned it honestly believed they were going to waltz in, shoot a few bad guys, set up a civilian regime and be welcomed as liberators.

The fact that you would have to be a slack-jawed, drooling imbecile with the intellect and morals of a crack whore, have absolutely no knowledge of history or military affairs and in general too incompetent to successfully run a second-rate pro baseball team to believe any of that not withstanding, I don't think you can call our troops terrorists.

You can, however, find plenty of war criminals and cowards in Washington, D.C.

A few weeks ago I forced my kids to watch a documentary on the Berlin Airlift and flat out told them I wanted them to see what it was like when we were the good guys.

I hope and pray we can be again.

hingisGOAT
May 24th, 2007, 09:09 PM
The fact that you would have to be a slack-jawed, drooling imbecile with the intellect and morals of a crack whore, have absolutely no knowledge of history or military affairs and in general too incompetent to successfully run a second-rate pro baseball team to believe any of that not withstanding, I don't think you can call our troops terrorists.

:lol: nice post :yeah:

RVD
May 24th, 2007, 09:16 PM
That's why I've been against this war from the beginning--it puts the men and women who have volunteered to protect us in a morally ambiguous and militarily impossible position.

You can have all the smart munitions, all the best intentions and a sincere commitment to a cause (all, btw, sadly lacking in the current administration) but the fact is that during any war, innocent civilians are going to die. That is precisely why the U.S. Constitution (another thing for which the current administration has little use) makes it hard for the US to declare war and, sadly never seeing a day when Congress might surrender its perogatives, makes declaring war the business of the legislative body and not the executive.

But to me, it does come down to intention. I don't think the US set out to inflict 600,000 casualties on the Iraqi people. I think that despite their morally bankrupt reasons for attacking Iraq, the people who planned it honestly believed they were going to waltz in, shoot a few bad guys, set up a civilian regime and be welcomed as liberators.

The fact that you would have to be a slack-jawed, drooling imbecile with the intellect and morals of a crack whore, have absolutely no knowledge of history or military affairs and in general too incompetent to successfully run a second-rate pro baseball team to believe any of that not withstanding, I don't think you can call our troops terrorists.

You can, however, find plenty of war criminals and cowards in Washington, D.C.

A few weeks ago I forced my kids to watch a documentary on the Berlin Airlift and flat out told them I wanted them to see what it was like when we were the good guys.

I hope and pray we can be again.DAYEMN!!! :worship: :worship:

I was just going to say that the aswer is a no-brainer. :shrug:
...OF COURSE WE ARE!!
We fit the definition to a 'T'.

samsung101
May 24th, 2007, 09:38 PM
Where was the concern of Rosie or The Donald or anyone
else, when for the past 12 years, the Dems and Rep.'s,
UN, and EU, and world, said Saddam, comply or else....
comply or this will happen....? There wasn't any really.
When Clinton said it, and had aerials over Iraq for 8 years,
not a peep - okay to give Saddam ultimatums to fully
comply or face military action.




Uh, I hate to tell you this, but, most of
the people killed in the past 3 years have
been killed by non-Americans.

Tens of thousands.

Those peace loving, Iran backed, China backed,
Democratic Party/Left Wing supported
members of the religion of peace...terrorists.

Who holds them to any level of accountability?
No one. Can't. No specific nation. No specific
army. No tribunal to contact.

Whereas, our guys, when they do something wrong, or
are even accused of a wrongdoing, face a trial,
hearings, and a verdict, and prison time or worse.



Whose only aim is to kill anyone not like them.

Whereas our aim is to free Iraq, as we did, help
Iraq set up a new govt., which we are donig, and then
leave...as we plan to do...their aim is to stay, control,
and kill.




Germany never attacked the USA.
Nor did Italy.
Nor did Kosovo, Bosnia, Croatia.
Nor did North Korea.
Uh, we sort of sent soldiers there to do
things didn't we?
Old Bubba did, and yes, people died from
American carpet bombing to the tune of
thousands in the 90's.

Please bring all our troops home.
From Japan, South Korea, England, Italy, Germany,
Greenland, Phillipines, Middle East, everywhere.

Then, let the peace loving people of the world
have at it w/o the USA lifting one finger to
'terrorize' them.....

Leave South Korea, and let's see what China and
North Korea do knowing the USA will not lift a finger.
Saudi Arabia - ditto.

Fine with me.

égalité
May 24th, 2007, 09:38 PM
I think that the "support the troops, not the war" argument really breaks apart in the absence of a draft. It's not much more than acquiescing to the traditional glorification of the soldier, which, in a time when wars are fought by machines and face-to-face combat is seen only in movies, is becoming a romanticized fable from the past. If you disagree with the war, I don't see how you can support people who agree with it enough to fight in it. But the military is the most feasable financial option for many, so I'm wary to place blame on the troops.

BUBI
May 24th, 2007, 10:01 PM
"Terrorist" is often used as propaganda word... In a war terrorism is a tactic and U.S. Army is using it just like anybody else. Some soldiers even take pleasure shooting civilians...

Pureracket
May 24th, 2007, 10:04 PM
When Clinton said it, and had aerials over Iraq for 8 years,
not a peep - okay to give Saddam ultimatums to fully
comply or face military action.
.Republican mantra, " .....bu....,bu....,but Clinton did it."

égalité
May 24th, 2007, 10:10 PM
Republican mantra, " .....bu....,bu....,but Clinton did it."

I heard on Fox News that Hillary Clinton sunk the Titanic! :eek: She is certainly NOT getting my vote! :mad:

BUBI
May 24th, 2007, 10:26 PM
Republican mantra, " .....bu....,bu....,but Clinton did it."
But in this case it's true. Clinton already had the same regime change policy. If Gore had won presidency, he probably would have attacked Iraq too.

Pureracket
May 25th, 2007, 02:39 AM
But in this case it's true. Clinton already had the same regime change policy. If Gore had won presidency, he probably would have attacked Iraq too.Based on WMD?

miffedmax
May 25th, 2007, 03:22 AM
I don't think Gore would have. It's getting pretty clear that the Bush administrations, all of whom were on the losing end of the argument about whether to push on to Bagdhad in Gulf War I, were spoiling for a fight with Iraq.

mykarma
May 25th, 2007, 04:44 PM
What Rosie said had me thinking... yeah, if another country invaded the USA and killed 600,000 or so of this nation's citizens -- they would be terrorists according to every person living within our borders.

And many have gone so far as to say the war in Iraq is a grave injustice... even EVIL on the part of the Bush administration. If the intent of the war is misguided and thousands die because of one man's incompetence and selfishness... than wouldn't it be fair to say that his minions who knowingly serve out his cruel intent (the soldiers) are also evil? As an American citizen this is pretty much THE taboo, the big pink elephant in the room. But why do the soldiers get a free pass? Are they not out there killing in the name of American cowboy ideology?

Or do we forgive their killing of innocent civilians because they are just "taking orders" from the man? Are we so quick to forgive those who attack us, just because they are "taking orders" too? The majority of the country opposes the war and all of its violence, malice, murder, and ill-intent. Yet this majority would never dream of referring to our troops as terrorists. Why aren't they? Their cause is hardly noble...
:worship::worship::worship:

ptkten
May 25th, 2007, 05:24 PM
But in this case it's true. Clinton already had the same regime change policy. If Gore had won presidency, he probably would have attacked Iraq too.

I really don't think so. Bill rejected many overtures from members of his cabinet and inner circle to go to war with Iraq during the 90s and Gore is more anti-war than Bill. I think it's a big stretch to say Gore would have gone to war with Iraq.

RVD
May 25th, 2007, 09:29 PM
I really don't think so. Bill rejected many overtures from members of his cabinet and inner circle to go to war with Iraq during the 90s and Gore is more anti-war than Bill. I think it's a big stretch to say Gore would have gone to war with Iraq.Thank you! The key here is intelligence over puppet leader and facade. Bush is a dummy and allowed himself to be used. Even that little imbecile's dad warned him against members of his own cabinet AND the repercussions of another Iraqi war. :shrug:
That little fool didn't get enough butt whoopings in his youth.