CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
The way one feels about soldiers in general needs to be separated completely from how one feels about a war, and even how one feels about a specific soldier who commits an atrocity.
I disagree completely with the Iraq war. I disagree completely with many things the military does.
But soldiers do a hard job, and do not enjoy the freedoms in their line of work that most do in theirs.
If I have a boss who wants me to do something I am morally against, I have all kinds of protections and freedoms, and it is up to me whether I do this thing or not, I can be blamed.
I do not believe one can ever blame a soldier. One does not have to idolize soldiers, but they should be respected, and it should be understood that any blame, if there is to be blame, be placed where it belongs,
not on the soldiers, but on the ones deciding what the soldiers are to do.
It does no one any good to blame someone who has little to no choice in the matter, and who more often than not in the case of soldiers, have no idea what they are or are not blowing up like in this instance. They are told to do something, and they do it, generally they do it quite well.
So it's okay not to be proud of a war in general, even in my case, I actually hate that war and truly believe it to be a wicked waste of time and resources to line the pockets of a few.
But I do think that one should be proud of the job our military has done in every war, just or unjust, win or lose, in the history of our country.
Whether the specific cause is just, one cannot argue that the majority of the soldiers believe it to be just, and the majority act in such a way that it would be difficult for the average human to mimic.
My problem with this automatic respect for soldiers is that it allows very dumb people who have a hard time earning respect, to get it easilly just if they are willing to take such a job that needs a flexible morality and willingness to do outrageous things (like the video shows)
The Milgram experiment shows us that about 65% of our population is willing to do immoral things as long as an authority figure tells them that it is right.
I think this automatic respect for soldiers is exactly that and helps governments do immoral things.
My problem with this automatic respect for soldiers is that it allows very dumb people who have a hard time earning respect, to get it easilly just if they are willing to take such a job that needs a flexible morality and willingness to do outrageous things (like the video shows)
This "flexible morality and willingness to do outrageous things" is protecting the freedom of all Americans. You sit in your comfortable home and you frown upon their actions, but you fail to realize that without them, you're sitting ducks against a world full of those who will not hesitate to rob you of your freedoms.
.
I think this automatic respect for soldiers is exactly that and helps governments do immoral things
Your government (in any democratic system) is supposed to be representing the will of the people. If you're looking for someone to blame, take a long hard look in the mirror! You (the people) can pull those soldiers out of Iraq if you really want to. Don't just sit there and point your fingers in the general direction of those doing the most honorable of jobs (risking their lives). Having said that, those who break the rules of ethics and honor in their lives should be individually chastized.
"This "flexible morality and willingness to do outrageous things" is protecting the freedom of all Americans. You sit in your comfortable home and you frown upon their actions, but you fail to realize that without them, you're sitting ducks against a world full of those who will not hesitate to rob you of your freedoms."
These soldiers are the victims but nonetheless, the war was faught overseas in a totally, uncalled for attack against a country who posed absolutley no threat to America or its NATO allies. Yes a country is in need of its soldiers to protect them but you have to understand the difference between defence and offence. This wasn't eaven a pre-emptive strike!
"If you're looking for someone to blame, take a long hard look in the mirror! You (the people) can pull those soldiers out of Iraq... Don't just sit there and point your fingers in the general direction... "
"Nearly three-quarters of Americans say the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable, while two-thirds say the U.S. military there is bogged down and nearly six in 10 say the war was not worth fighting -- in all three cases matching or exceeding the highest levels of pessimism yet recorded. More than four in 10 believe the U.S. presence in Iraq is becoming analogous to the experience in Vietnam." - Washington Post.
It is quite obvious this is one of the most unpopular war in history, only second to Vietnam. Now I am not sure if you are suggesting that Americans should personally send for each soldier enlisted in Iraq. You think people can suddenly vote off the war in Iraq? Perhaps if they all wrote a petition? Maybe if they sent a letter to Bush himself, what difference would it make?
Bush, wanted that war, Cheyney wanted that war, Rumsfeld wanted that war and Obama hasn't even started pulling out troops. There isn't a damn thing regular people can do about it besides march in protest which is what people have been doing since day 1.
"Having said that, those who break the rules of ethics and honor in their lives should be individually chastized."
I'm not sure to who or what you are reffering to but if you seriosuly believe that people who think that the war was unreasonable should be critisized sevearly, then you have no sence of democracy which you so proclaim.
you have to understand the difference between defence and offence. This wasn't eaven a pre-emptive strike!
The best defense is a good offense. If this wasn't even a pre-emptive strike, what do you call it? Soldiers went in there to neutralize the threat of a chemical war and to bring democracy to Iraq. You want Saddam to hold the world to ransom with oil? You would standby while he oppresses Iraqis? Nay-sayers will always say nay, but saying nay will achieve nothing because nothing will amount to nothing.
.
...Washington Post
That people say they don't like something is not the same as actually doing something about it. 9 out of 10 people may not like the war (btw nobody actually likes wars), but unless they vote against it, it doesn't mean anything.
.
There isn't a damn thing regular people can do about it besides march in protest which is what people have been doing since day 1
If there isn't a damn thing anyone can do anything about it, then the system isn't really democratic. It's time to fix that.
.
Having said that, those who break the rules of ethics and honor in their lives should be individually chastized
This statement means that those who act improperly against the rules and laws of society should be criticized individually. It basically means if those soldiers are unethical and broke the rules of engagement and were found to be guilty, they should be frowned upon and punished, not all the soldiers who are involved in the war. Learn to read English so you don't waste my time.
This "flexible morality and willingness to do outrageous things" is protecting the freedom of all Americans
As it has turned out and the CIA even said before the war ; Iraq posed no real threat to American citizens - You could just as well have attacked Brittain on the same grounds (that there could be a terrorist there that could hurt someone)
you sit in your comfortable home and you frown upon their actions, but you fail to realize that without them, you're sitting ducks against a world full of those who will not hesitate to rob you of your freedoms.
I am not arguing against the existance of an army in general - I am arguing against the assumption that they are always used for moral righteous purposes which people should automatically respect
Your government (in any democratic system) is supposed to be representing the will of the people. If you're looking for someone to blame, take a long hard look in the mirror! You (the people) can pull those soldiers out of Iraq if you really want to.
what world do you live in. Assuming you are an American, then you live in a representative Democracy (not a real Democracy since no such thing has ever existed). And if you havent noticed the process which by these representatives are choosen has very little relation to the "people" and very great relations to corporate interest. The "people" have a right to vote every four years, as an analogy, how well do you think you could steer a car if you only could touch the steering wheel every four days, or even minutes. compaired to the influence the "people" have on issues, the corporate interest gets its way by employing 5 lobbyist for every one congressman - and company´s do not in general invest in things that they dont get a return on, so that tells us the lobbyist are getting things done (asside from all other clues).
If you think the people could stop the war, then I think you live in a fairy land in your own ideolog head.
Don't just sit there and point your fingers in the general direction of those doing the most honorable of jobs (risking their lives). Having said that, those who break the rules of ethics and honor in their lives should be individually chastized.
I am not suggesting that the soldiers should be blamed for the war and not the officals - I only suggesting that the purpose soldiers have (at least in the Iraq war) is not Honarable, or something to be proud of. That is, I am not saying the soldiers are bad people, I am saying they might be misguided, and it doesnt help when people far removed from the shitty job soldiers do are generallly cheering them on in the immoral acts they are ordered to do. In other words I am suggesting soldiers should reconsider partaking in such wars and not take seriously the propaganda that deems them good for doing so.
You could just as well have attacked Brittain on the same grounds (that there could be a terrorist there that could hurt someone)
Maybe you forgot the reasons for the Iraq war. As I recall it, there were suspicions of chemical weapons, the people needed to be freed, and the oil supply was in jeapardy.
.
I am arguing against the assumption that they are always used for moral righteous purposes which people should automatically respect
It's because they are suppose to always be used for moral righteous purposes!!! This assumption is held by everyone including those inlist in the armed forces. It is assumed that the armed forces are there to do a noble job. If they end up doing something immoral, it's not their fault (unless they ignored rules of engagement and of warfare, in which case they should be subjected to disciplinary actions individually).
.
The government serve the interests of corporations, not people
The country is made up of corporations. Corporations are made up of people. So the people's interest is served in the end. If the system aint working, change it! Take the Constitution out and give it a good going over!
.
If you think the people could stop the war, then I think you live in a fairy land in your own ideolog head
So there's nothing anybody can do about anything?... what a hopeless world...
.
I only suggesting that the purpose soldiers have (at least in the Iraq war) is not Honarable, or something to be proud of
The purposes of soldiers in the Iraqi war are honorable. Their purpose is to serve the interests of a nation and the nation is represented by its government. That's pretty honorable if you ask me. Unless you view the US government as a group of rotten dishonorable and immoral thugs... in which case you should change them.
Maybe you forgot the reasons for the Iraq war. As I recall it, there were suspicions of chemical weapons, the people needed to be freed, and the oil supply was in jeapardy.
The made up "suspicions where disputed by the CIA before the war - the same people who the government gets this information from- But for some reason (megalomania maybe?) The Bush administration knew better. If this comes as news to you. They didnt find any wepons in Iraq - either chemical or nuclear.
The oil supply is in more jeapardy now than before the war since now Iran has easiear access to those areas - and this was also the offical explination Bush senior gave for not finishing Saddam in the first Gulf war (because that would make Iran a greater threat, and increas their power in the area - which is quite true)
It's because they are suppose to always be used for moral righteous purposes!!! This assumption is held by everyone including those inlist in the armed forces. It is assumed that the armed forces are there to do a noble job. If they end up doing something immoral, it's not their fault (unless they ignored rules of engagement and of warfare, in which case they should be subjected to disciplinary actions individually).
Well given that the US is the greatest agrressor in war (has attacked the most country´s and most often) in the last 50 years I think this attitude should be rethought.
The country is made up of corporations. Corporations are made up of people. So the people's interest is served in the end. If the system aint working, change it! Take the Constitution out and give it a good going over!
It is true that the two overlap, but concerning this war the overlaping of the corporations involved and the general public in America is little or non.
So there's nothing anybody can do about anything?... what a hopeless world...
It is easy to see it as hopless but there is always hope, and I think one of the best things people can do in general is to not belive the bullshit the government gives them, such as that this is a noble war.
The purposes of soldiers in the Iraqi war are honorable. Their purpose is to serve the interests of a nation and the nation is represented by its government. That's pretty honorable if you ask me. Unless you view the US government as a group of rotten dishonorable and immoral thugs... in which case you should change them.
Again the interest of the nation as a whole is not being served in the war - if anything it is being diserved. I do view the Bush administartion as a group of rotten sihonarable and immoral thugs. I wish I could change them but their odds where highly stakked against mine.
I'm not sure how you are looking at this situation.
It seems to me, that this video has maybe convinced you that every soldier's outing consists of shooting people they should not have shot.
I would think that one would be more understanding of human nature, especially considering what you know of Milligram's experiment.
So then if it has been shown that even the general population is more likely to obey orders when given by an authority figure, wouldn't one with military training be even more likely to follow orders? A large part of their training is specifically that from my understanding.
If it is shown, as it has been, that following orders is natural, how can you blame a human for being human?
I'm afraid your blame is misdirected.
Yes, there will always be individual cases of individual soldiers doing the wrong thing.
Just as there are individual cases of individual citizens doing the wrong thing.
Do you blame every human alive for say a rape case in Houston?
How can you blame all soldiers if one acts on their own?
And if they are not acting on their own, but are carrying out an order, knowing that this is not only human nature, but it is also what they are trained to do, and also that they face court marshal if they do not carry out an order,
how can you possibly blame them?
You are wasting your disappointment I'm afraid. You can blame every soldier on earth, you can dislike every soldier on earth, you can protest every soldier on earth, and it would be no different than being angry at a dog whose owner didn't house train it.
Nothing at all changes by your disapproval.
The only way to change the way soldiers carry out orders, is to change the orders.
It seems to me, that this video has maybe convinced you that every soldier's outing consists of shooting people they should not have shot.
No that is not what I am assuming. On the other hand I think the Iraq war us an unjust war with little justification, and for that reason soldiers should be even more cautious about their rules of engagement (I remind you that 130000 Iraqis have died, compaired to 4000 US solders - everyone of those deaths is likely to be an equal tragedy)
So then if it has been shown that even the general population is more likely to obey orders when given by an authority figure, wouldn't one with military training be even more likely to follow orders? A large part of their training is specifically that from my understanding.
Yes. That was my point, and I think they are even more likley to follow unjust orders (even to the degree of shooting more people than neccessary, like in the video) if they have been brainwashed by this idea that no matter how unjust the war is and no matter if they shoot soldiers or civilians, they "are still doing a moral and rigthous job"
I am not questioning their bravery though- but I still think their bravery is overrated given all the super-high tech killing tools they get to use to distance themselves from harms way while killing people.
If it is shown, as it has been, that following orders is natural, how can you blame a human for being human?
I think "natural" is a loaded term there. Just because humans show certain tendencey to immoral things, that doesnt justify them. We should strive to be moral. And I want to stress that I am not "blaming" soldiers for being soldiers - I am saying that they should not get a stamp of approval for being so - I think they should be on neutral ground until they either do something bad or something good - It is hard for me to see how much good they can do though in such an unjust war.
I'm afraid your blame is misdirected.
I am not blaming the soldiers for the war or belittleing the blame the officals who gave the orders have - They should get most of the blame (along with everyone who does immoral things in this war)
Do you blame every human alive for say a rape case in Houston?
That is just silly. I dont see how you could have gotten that from my arguments.
How can you blame all soldiers if one acts on their own?
I dont. I just think that overall the mentality they go to this war with is wrong and prone to make them trigger happy - so as to make such instances as are shown in the video a more common occurance then is neccesary ( I actually belive the war wasnt neccessary and left things worse of than before the army went in)
And if they are not acting on their own, but are carrying out an order, knowing that this is not only human nature, but it is also what they are trained to do, and also that they face court marshal if they do not carry out an order,
I can understand that a soldier might find himself in that position, but I think if he has also been brainwashed by this idea that what he is doing is unquestionable, then he might be a little to happy to follow the order, as the video shows.
how can you possibly blame them?
Again. I dont. I am mearly saying that like we shouldnt assume that they as individuals are bad people for going to this war they had little or no say about- we shouldnt either assume that they are good and righteous people for doing so.
You are wasting your disappointment I'm afraid. You can blame every soldier on earth, you can dislike every soldier on earth, you can protest every soldier on earth, and it would be no different than being angry at a dog whose owner didn't house train it.
Again. I am not shifting the blame from the officals to the soldiers.
Nothing at all changes by your disapproval.
The only way to change the way soldiers carry out orders, is to change the orders.
Well it seems our main point of contention here is more a question of language than of substance. If it were a bell curve with pride on one side and shame on the other, you are arguing for the direct center, and I'm arguing a nudge on the side of pride. Correct me if that's not how you see it.
I hesitate to even go through point by point because I'm not sure how much is to be gained, but I'll mention a couple of things.
I think "natural" is a loaded term there. Just because humans show certain tendencey to immoral things, that doesnt justify them. We should strive to be moral. And I want to stress that I am not "blaming" soldiers for being soldiers - I am saying that they should not get a stamp of approval for being so - I think they should be on neutral ground until they either do something bad or something good - It is hard for me to see how much good they can do though in such an unjust war
My only reply is that it is not a matter of morality in these situations but of nature. While I would be proud of one who did not give in to nature, I also would not blame one for following nature. It just looks like we hold people to two different standards. I like yours better, I feel mine is more realistic.
That is just silly. I dont see how you could have gotten that from my arguments.
I got this because the debate names soldiers in general, yet the video of course is only a small group of soldiers. I realize it was meant as an example and not an inference that all soldiers have done something similar. But still, it is a generalization. Had the debate been about the soldiers in the video, I would agree with you completely and this would have been an incredibly boring argument.
Well, really the rest is just a matter of language I think. I really don't see any way to debate one way or another the rest of your replies.
We are at war, whether we like it or not. We can shun them like we did with Vietnam (which we lost), or we can praise them like we did during the World Wars (which we won).
Yeah, but what has to be taken into account is that World War II was a righteous war, that was not instigated by the US, while both the Vietnam War and Iraq War where instigated by the Us on very week grounds (that later on where found to be totally false)
This just goes to show how well the propaganda in America has worked
I was in no way reffering to the war in Afganistan - I was talking about the Iraq war. And the central intelligence agency said it then and stills says, that there where no connections between the Taliban and Iraq government - yet still there are dumb americans who belive it to be so, even after officials have countlessly come out and reffuted that "fact"
Bush and Cheney even went so far as to give out information about undercover spy´s form their own agency (CIA) so as to put them in danger because they spoke against the Iraq war
I am almost in shock to hear that you seem to think the Iraq war had something to do with 911 - It was a cheap PR trick of the Bush administration to try to link the two and it failed on the first day - everybody knows this (or at least I thought so)
You believe that I have fallen prey to the propaganda. I have not. I frequently argue with my relations and the people on here, attempting to convince them that America has lied to them about nearly everything - communism, war, Global Warming etc. However, I do not see enough proof that Bush was responsible for 9/11.
Maybe I was judging your response incorrectly, but it seemed to me that you where alluding to some connection between Iraq authorities and the attack on september 11. Such connections have even been refuted by the CIA
I agree, that there is in no way enough proof to say that the Bush administration had some part in the 911 attacks.
How the saudi family was moved out of the country (the only flight allowed at the time in the whole country) and the collapse of building 7 are a bit strange, but that is another debate.
well that is sort of the consensus - that none of the reasons for going into Iraq turned out to be true and in the aftermath things are even worse there than when Saddam reigned, not to mention the opertunity it gave the Iran government to caputer oil wells in Iraq (which is a great concern for the future). Concerning the Viet Nam war Even Robert McNamara said that the Americans didnt understand that the Vietnamese wherent fighting the Americans to protect Communism but only to defend their land. In other words the Viet Nam war was concocted by people blinded by crazy cold war retoric and mind set.
But I am a bit amazed that you would even question that world war II and Americas part in that was more righteous than the other two.
My knowledge of anthropology is also quite sufficient. I do indeed realize that they are not the same people, as I realize that it is a fallacy to generalize them.
As I have said, my knowledge is primarily regarding the ancients. And my lack of modern knowledge has little to do with one's sexual prowess (i.e. 'numnuts').
Also, when I wrote the previous argument, I had forgotten that this debate dealt exclusively with the Iraq war.
Very well then. Im sorry I called you a numnut - It just gets a bit annoying how alot of Americans I debate here seem to assume that all people of the same race/color share the same political connvictions or and beleifs.
The Iraqis under Saddam Hussein where sworn enemy´s with the Taliban - (named Al kaida by George Bush, and that name wasnt used by Bin Laden until he found out that that was what the Americans where calling his "organisation")
Al Qaida (al ka-ee-dah). Iraq (ee-rahk). I pronounce 'h', when it is an Arabic name or word, similar to the Scottish 'loch' or the German 'Bach'.
I understand the difference between many peoples. I know of the history of war and hatred between the Chinese and the Japanese. I know about the times Norway was taken over by Sweden. I know about the Germanic conquest over the Roman Empire.
What I do not know is modern history - just about anything after 1900. That's my 'cut-off' point. While I've heard-tell some things, I've never really bothered with it.
P.S. You need not be sorry for any insult you have ever used against me. I cannot recall having ever been offended, especially not over the internet.
How can one not be proud? They are serving their country, fighting for the freedom of their countries of origin. One has to be proud of them, you can decide to feel shame towards those that start the war. Not the soldiers that defend their country.
The soldiers in Iraq arent "defending their country" (not even Orwell could have come up with such newspeak)
Iraq posed no threat to the US before the war.
Like I said to Iamdavidh:
My problem with this automatic respect for soldiers is that it allows very dumb people who have a hard time earning respect, to get it easilly just if they are willing to take such a job that needs a flexible morality and willingness to do outrageous things (like the video shows)
The Milgram experiment shows us that about 65% of our population is willing to do immoral things as long as an authority figure tells them that it is right.
I think this automatic respect for soldiers is exactly that and helps governments do immoral things.
Offcourse the decission makers deserve the most blame though. And I am not saying that all soldiers are inherently bad - I am saying that they in no way deserve respect for partaking in wrongfull wars.
Your neighbors knocking on the door with automatic weapons and refusing you access to necessary freedoms or
Your neighbors stockpiling automatic weapons and can use those against you and refuse you access to necessary freedoms any time they choose
.
Think about this:
If you didn't think it was a righteous war at the very beginning, before the soldiers were committed into Iraq, why the fuck didn't you stop the whole thing?
Your neighbors knocking on the door with automatic weapons and refusing you access to necessary freedoms or
Your neighbors stockpiling automatic weapons and can use those against you and refuse you access to necessary freedoms any time they choose
First of all: Iraq is not Americas Neighbor. Secondly, things have to be taken in porportion - Like the CIA said before and after the war, Iraq posed no real threat to the US. Does that mean that no Iraqi could have possibly commited a "terrorist" act in America? - NO - It means that they are no more likely to do so than other country´s Americans would never attack (say Brittain)
I am a bit amazed that you still think Iraq was stockpiling wepons to any greater lengths than the average country - This has been refuted long time ago, by just about every news media in the world along with offical institutions (I guess you have been watching Faux news a bit to much)
Think about this:
If you didn't think it was a righteous war at the very beginning, before the soldiers were committed into Iraq, why the fuck didn't you stop the whole thing?
This is about the most moronic statement I have seen on this site. Why didnt I stop the war? For the same reason that I didnt stop inflation.
All countries on this planet is in the neighborhood called Earth. The actions of each country concerns all others as we're all human beings. Sure you can turn a blind eye to your neighbor's mistreatment of his children or stockpiling of dangerous offensive weapons or having power over something that may well rob you of your freedoms, but the strong should not act like the weak.
.
they are no more likely to do so than other country´s Americans would never attack (say Brittain)
Why Britain? They can't seriously be in the same league as Iraq! You're comparing a brutal, oppressive, dictatorial regime to a civilsed, progressive, democratic, modern monarchy. If you're comparing Iraq with any other dictatorial, oppressive regimes then I have this to say:
Life is about choices: A or B (due to limited resources you can't choose both).
If both means you'll be doing something good, but B means you'll benefit lots from doing it, you'd choose B. So the US can choose to free the people of Vietnam or Cuba, but Iraq has lots of oil... ;) It doesn't mean it's an unrighteous choice.
.
Why didnt I stop the war? For the same reason that I didnt stop inflation
So there's not a goddamn thing anybody can do about it, except sit at home and moan about those risking their lives? Nice.
Sure you can turn a blind eye to your neighbor's mistreatment of his children
By what: killing 130000 more???
or stockpiling of dangerous offensive weapons
NEws flash. Iraq didnt stockpile wepons and the CIA told the Bush administration about this before the war
or having power over something that may well rob you of your freedoms,
This is newspeak at its finest.
Why Britain? They can't seriously be in the same league as Iraq! You're comparing a brutal, oppressive, dictatorial regime to a civilsed, progressive, democratic, modern monarchy.
I wasnt compairing the two as nations - I was pointing out the fact the Iraq as nation didnt pose a threat to Americans so that only leaves out possible lone nuts (or a few nuts) from these country´s that could have done damage - and these nuts are equally liklely to be stationed in Brittain as in Iraq.
Life is about choices: A or B (due to limited resources you can't choose both).
I suggest using your sources to do something a bit more creative
If both means you'll be doing something good, but B means you'll benefit lots from doing it, you'd choose B. So the US can choose to free the people of Vietnam or Cuba, but Iraq has lots of oil... ;) It doesn't mean it's an unrighteous choice.
Your idea of freedom is very strange to me. Dont see how being in the middle of a war and then some outside government putting up some pseudo democracy increases anybody´s freedom. Concerning vietnam your statement is both idotic and outrageous.
But you snidely remark on the real reason fro the war: stealing oil, and call that righteous - how noble!
So there's not a goddamn thing anybody can do about it, except sit at home and moan about those risking their lives? Nice.
I am not sure you understand what inflation means - but my point was that no one person or a small group can on their own change such things in the short timespan these things happen. It takes years, and it takes rethinking of ones principles- something Americans have a hard time doing even facing the fact that they are the greates aggressor of the last half a century
You're thinking about Afghanistan. Iraq has never, and would have never most likely posed a threat.
In fact, Saddam hated Al Qaeda, and Iraq was the only power balancing out Iran's power in the area. Sunni v Shiite and all that.
If anything the Saddam regime was quite helpful, as crappy a place as it was. We are the ones who put Saddam in power after all. We did it for a reason.
I'm not saying it isn't cool if they do become a real democracy someday, and that it isn't good to remove an asshole dictator,
I am saying though, that they likely won't ever be a real democracy, they'll probably elect another dictator, and now we don't have a balance of power in the Middle East anymore.
Plus all the dead people and wasted money.
The war was a huge effing mistake. We should still be proud of the soldiers though, they did what they were told to do extremely well.
Saddam's regime wasn't a direct threat but you gotta remember that prior to the war, he went into Kuwait! Threatens the stability of the region, He is a bad ass dictator and so I'm completely ok with the Iraq war. It's great to support the war efforts when everything is going great and you're winning, but that's not a true test of resolve now, is it? I don't like it when people support you during your good hours and abandon you when things aren't going so well.
.
The war would only be a mistake if you went in there with the intention of robbing them of their land or resources or freedom. As it stands, the Iraqis are enjoying at least some form of democracy, more freedom, acceptance in the international community, the US has more of a presence in the middle east. So people should be proud of the soldiers in general and of their presence in Iraq specifically.
Yeah, and Bush Sr. did exactly the right thing, and it was the shortest and least bloody war in history. But what on earth does that have to do with invading Iraq this last time? They hadn't invaded anyone, weren't planning on invading anyone in fact.
Jeesh, pull yourself out of the Right Wing ass. There was no justification prior to the war, and your perception of the good that has come since is premature at best. Iraq went from having 0 Al Qaeda to being one of the best places to recruit new terrorists. As for democracy, I'll believe it when I see it. I'm not sure how many countries we've tried to turn democratic, it's a lot, but I know how many times it has worked, none.
My bro in law just came home from Baghdad, when he joined, we were not at war. before b-rad(his nickname) left he he told the family "I chose to defend this country, i didnt choose to go to that hell hole. but if its to defend my country and my family, ill do anything for them." so im proud of him for going there with so much confidence.
I dont like telling you this concerning how close you are to this issue given that your brother served in the war - and I In no way mean to belittle your brother for I can only assume he is a nice person.
But I dont think he was defending your country, for as it has turned out Iraq didnt in any way pose a threat to the US. I think he was serving corporate interest and wild speculations by crazy people in office.
I also dont mean to belittle the fact that over 4000 American soldiers have died in the war, but that number is dwarfed by the 130000 Iraqis who have died in the same war. And Americans have no moral high ground to assume that those lifes where less worthy than the American ones.
Offcourse you are rightfully proud of your brother for being heroic and putting himself in harms way. My position is not that family´s shouldnt be proud of their kin when they do a hard job. My position is that this culture in America of automatically assuming soldiers are doing an honorable job and a moral thing only makes it easier for the psychopaths who make these senseless decisions to do so. So in other words, I question the assumption that "we should be proud of our soldiers" in general, not that family members are proud of their kin.
I think that the war was and is unlawfull, shamefull and that no one should be proud to have partaken in it.
On the other hand I am glad that your brother didnt get hurt and I hope that he didnt hurt anyone in the way that is illustrated in the video I put a link to at the top. I think that these "nintendo" devices soldiers use today to kill others make it very easy to de-attatch themselves to the evil they are doing.
"My position is that this culture in America of automatically assuming soldiers are doing an honorable job and a moral thing only makes it easier for the psychopaths who make these senseless decisions to do so."
I don't understand how you linked the 2 things there...
I mean how proud we feel towards soldiers has no bearings whatsoever on how easy it is to commit them to wars. The decision to commit soldiers to wars should never be made lightly, and if it was, you can lay the blames squarely on yourself and those in power, not the soldiers.
how proud we feel towards soldiers has no bearings whatsoever on how easy it is to commit them to wars.
Yes it does. It means that those soldiers are under less pressure from family not to go, if the family assumes that they will be doing a moral and decent job there
I do blame the authorities for putting the soldiers in harms way and I do think the Bush administration took the decission very lightly (because you can be sure that none of their children where sent to war , except possibly as some sort of token effort and then they got the best cushy jobs there)
Pressure from family would stop soldiers going into war? If that's how it worked nobody would go to war! Just think about that seriously for a second. Families getting involved in the efforts of any soldiers going into a battlezone will probably do more harm then good for that soldier. If he lacks commitment or concentration for a second on the battlefield, it could result in his death or the death of his comrades!
If he lacks commitment or concentration for a second on the battlefield, it could result in his death or the death of his comrades!
This might very well be true, but it swings both ways - If the soldier goes in with to much commitment and trigger happyness then he is prone to kill many more then neccissary.
Sorry but I dont assume that his life is more worthy than a life of an Iraqi (with all things being even, they are equal)
"some of the men appear to have been armed..." - so they're armed.
.
"...the behavior of nearly everyone was relaxed." - so not everyone were relaxed...
.
As far as I can see, they were hostiles. What the hell is that guy hiding behind the wall at the corner holding an RPG for? Why is he hiding like that? You are in a warzone, don't go around holding weapons and hide behind buildings and expect to be treated like a civilized citizen.
Why is he hiding like that? You are in a warzone, don't go around holding weapons and hide behind buildings and expect to be treated like a civilized citizen.
So you are suggesting that the best way to behave in a warzone is to be out in the open?
Weather what he was carrying a wepon or a camera, that is beside the issue - The issue is that the Apache pilots where acting like they where playing Nintendo - shooting everything in sight, and bragging about it - shooting a car that contained two children and a person trying to helpe the rauters reporter who was killed for carrying a camera.
So you are suggesting that the best way to behave in a warzone is to be out in the open?
No, I suggest that if you act like a combatant and get shot, you should not blame your enemy or say that they've done something shameful.
.
Weather what he was carrying a wepon or a camera, that is beside the issue - The issue is that the Apache pilots where acting like they where playing Nintendo - shooting everything in sight, and bragging about it
So the issue you have is that the soldiers are trying to enjoy their shitty job? You have an issue with the soldiers' use of language? You've just lost all credibility. If I'm an evil immoral SOB, it makes you a pathetic pussy. I'm glad the armed forces aren't full of weak asses like you. You're more likely to praise the enemy while he bip you up the bip.
Also about the guy hiding there - the command to kill him was given before he went behind the wall.
But that is the last thing I will say to you. You seem to me the kind of guy that, if you would have been alive in germany circa 1939, you would have been a proud nazi
saying that you would have done the same thing after watching this video makes you a bigot ,for sure
Despite how many feel about the war, the mass majority of troops in the fight are doing it for reasons that they find legitimate and noble. They are doing it to protect us and our freedoms. What we do know about Iraq is that al-Qaeda is currently there and that many insurgents still run rampant. Whether the Iraqi military is truly ready to take over or not is a matter of opinion.
What we do know is that in a war, the goal is to win with as few casualties on OUR side. The only way to do this is to eliminate all possible threats. War is War. No one ever said it had to be pretty.
What individual soldiers do may be an atrocity (such as rape or purposeful killing of non-threatening civilians), but that does not reflect the entire military.
Air raids and fire fights are part of War. They are done to to reach victory.
Now, if you have a problem with a soldier doing what he must to win this war, than I understand. But if you deviate from the fact that it is for victory, your reason is unjustified.
The reason just about every nutcase in the middle east says he is a part of Al qaeda is the same reason Bin Laden associated himself with it after Bush coined the term. It gives them some prestige among their goons - It is not taken serously by anyone except the British and Americans who use the meme as a boogie man to justify their wars. The truth is that there is no organized multi-national organisation called Al Qaeda - there are just alot of middle eastern thugs who want to sound more impotant and powerful than they are by associating themselves with this semi-made up organization.
It seems that as long as somone is from the middle east and is openly against America, then he can call himself a member of Al Qaeda, without Americans questioning it.
Al Qaeda is in essence more of a scare tactic American officals came up with after the red scare had worn off, rather than some organisation instigated by middle easterners.
You are not getting what I am saying - The American government didnt invent the crazy terrorists that try to (and sometimes) succeed in attacking America, anymore then they created the Russians in the cold war. What they co-created was this idea that Al qaeda was this highly intergrated international terrorist organization straight out of a James Bond movie - that they where not.
Similarly in the Cold war the scare tactic was concocted that the russians where these high-tech robot like millitary machine, and like Al qaeda the russians where only to happy to identify with the myth Americans perpetutated. But everybody would later find out that the soviet union was rotten and incongruent society.
And it is true that Americans coined the term Al Qaeda.
On the other hand the American government sponsored and trained both Osama Bin Landens group and Saddam Hussain, before those people went rogue. So in a sense Americans helped "create" these people.
Saying this I in no way mean that these people arent a threat.
But weather you are willing to listen or not, these are all offical facts.
Americans did not invent the term al-Qaeda, either. in fact, Osama Bin Laden claimed, himself, that he and his organization made up the term. link
According to interviews with Wright Lawrence, the organization had been around since 1988 (he actually talked with the founding members), and they had used the term back then. It basically meant "The Base/Headquarters". The name just stuck as an official title for them.
Muslim Extremists pledging their allegiance to Osama Bin Laden (and receiving his approval) become a part of al-Qaeda, much like al-Zarqawi. They had become an al-Qaeda base in Iraq.
If you are referring to those who have had no actual contact with Osama Bin Laden or any official leaders of al-Qaeda but wish to be part of the cause (and do so by blowing themselves up), I understand that they may not be true members, but they are still true terrorists following the ideals of a ruthless organization.
I think it shows a lack of clear thinking when people blame the soldiers collectively for a war and then shame them. It is a more reasonable reaction to focus that anger upon the government and war criminals instead.
Lets just say if for no other reason to be there we got rid of Saddam. Look at what he did. Here is a partial list.
1. Reprisal Against Dujail
On July 8, 1982, Saddam Hussein was visiting the town of Dujail (50 miles north of Baghdad) when a group of Dawa militants shot at his motorcade. In reprisal for this assassination attempt, the entire town was punished. More than 140 fighting-age men were apprehended and never heard from again. Approximately 1,500 other townspeople, including children, were rounded up and taken to prison, where many were tortured.
2 Anfal Campaign The purpose of the campaign was ostensibly to reassert Iraqi control over the area; however, the real goal was to permanently eliminate the Kurdish problem.
The campaign consisted of eight stages of assault, where up to 200,000 Iraqi troops attacked the area, rounded up civilians, and razed villages. Once rounded up, the civilians were divided into two groups: men from ages of about 13 to 70 and women, children, and elderly men. The men were then shot and buried in mass graves. The women, children, and elderly were taken to relocation camps where conditions were deplorable. In a few areas, especially areas that put up even a little resistance, everyone was killed.
Hundreds of thousands of Kurds fled the area, yet it is estimated that up to 182,000 were killed during the Anfal campaign. Many people consider the Anfal campaign an attempt at genocide.
3. Chemical Weapons Against Kurds
It is estimated that chemical weapons were used on approximately 40 Kurdish villages, with the largest of these attacks occurring on March 16, 1988 against the Kurdish town of Halabja.
Beginning in the morning on March 16, 1988 and continuing all night, the Iraqis rained down volley after volley of bombs filled with a deadly mixture of mustard gas and nerve agents on Halabja. Immediate effects of the chemicals included blindness, vomiting, blisters, convulsions, and asphyxiation. Approximately 5,000 women, men, and children died within days of the attacks. Long-term effects included permanent blindness, cancer, and birth defects. An estimated 10,000 lived, but live daily with the disfigurement and sicknesses from the chemical weapons.
Saddam Hussein's cousin, Ali Hassan al-Majid was directly in charge of the chemical attacks against the Kurds, earning him the epithet, "Chemical Ali."
So we know they had WMD's.
4. 4.Invasion of Kuwait
On August 2, 1990, Iraqi troops invaded the country of Kuwait. The invasion was induced by oil and a large war debt that Iraq owed Kuwait. The six-week, Persian Gulf War pushed Iraqi troops out of Kuwait in 1991. As the Iraqi troops retreated, they were ordered to light oil wells on fire. Over 700 oil wells were lit, burning over one billion barrels of oil and releasing dangerous pollutants into the air. Oil pipelines were also opened, releasing 10 million barrels of oil into the Gulf and tainting many water sources. The fires and the oil spill created a huge environmental disaster.
5.Shiite Uprising & the Marsh Arabs
At the end of the Persian Gulf War in 1991, southern Shiites and northern Kurds rebelled against Hussein's regime. In retaliation, Iraq brutally suppressed the uprising, killing thousands of Shiites in southern Iraq.
As supposed punishment for supporting the Shiite rebellion in 1991, Saddam Hussein's regime killed thousands of Marsh Arabs, bulldozed their villages, and systematically ruined their way of life. The Marsh Arabs had lived for thousands of years in the marshlands located in southern Iraq until Iraq built a network of canals, dykes, and dams to divert water away from the marshes. The Marsh Arabs were forced to flee the area, their way of life decimated.
By 2002, satellite images showed only 7 to 10 percent of the marshlands left. Saddam Hussein is blamed for creating an environmental disaster.
I can never be ashamed of the military that risks their lives to defend my life. I am so proud of our marines and army and navy and air force for protecting this great nation. :)
I would understand that if the army actually was protecting your nation in this war. The truth is that the army was protecting corporate interest that is not neccisarilly much aligned with the public interest of Americans.
I wouldn't necessarily distance myself from any corporate interest in haste. Corporate interests and public interests usually go hand in hand. The corporates are made up of people, families, lives.
That is somewhat true in general, but the company´s that gained from the war (who by a strange "coincidence" are all sort of related to the Bush administration and their friends - Halliburton for example) are not a great percentage of Amercian industry.
Concerning American Oil company´s, some would say they risk loosing buisness because of this war in the long run (given all the turmoil in the OPEC country´s) allthough they maybe gained a little in the short run.
As a thumb rule, short term gain usually only helps very few, while long run gain helps many
You should be proud of them. They are doing something good for the country without getting payed. They are doing it of the kindness of their hearts-they are not being forced to. Also, if you aren't proud, they might not want to do any thing like that again. They took a risk of dying, to save us.
Have you heard of a military pension? Soldiers ARE paid. Some people go to the military to pay for college.
"They took a risk of dying, to save us."
They took a risk of dying, yes, but not to save us. Save us from who? To save us from the Taliban (who weren't in Iraq) or the WMD's (also not in Iraq)?
Or perhaps it was to save the people of Iraq from an oppressive government. Perhaps we save them by killing over a hundred thousand innocent civilians, and only nineteen thousand violent insurgents (Check the Iraq Body Count). Perhaps we save them by firebombing cities, destroying businesses, hospitals, government offices, and schools among others. Perhaps we save them by torturing the "terrorists" who we pick up off the street, who were just there, not necessarily committing crimes (Abu Ghraib). Or perhaps by installing a corrupt and inefficient government in Iraq.
Iraq has become more democratic, yes, and women are better off, but sometimes I really begin to doubt the methods used by our military to achieve peace. We can't hope to force people [violently] to change their culture. It must begin to change only when the people want to change, and cannot be forced on a people. It can only change with peaceful diplomacy.
It is estimated that chemical weapons were used on approximately 40 Kurdish villages, with the largest of these attacks occurring on March 16, 1988 against the Kurdish town of Halabja.
Beginning in the morning on March 16, 1988 and continuing all night, the Iraqis rained down volley after volley of bombs filled with a deadly mixture of mustard gas and nerve agents on Halabja. Immediate effects of the chemicals included blindness, vomiting, blisters, convulsions, and asphyxiation. Approximately 5,000 women, men, and children died within days of the attacks. Long-term effects included permanent blindness, cancer, and birth defects. An estimated 10,000 lived, but live daily with the disfigurement and sicknesses from the chemical weapons.
Saddam Hussein's cousin, Ali Hassan al-Majid was directly in charge of the chemical attacks against the Kurds, earning him the epithet, "Chemical Ali."
I think the use of the word shamefull is a very indignified word for any indivivual. Least of all soldiers who ment well in trying to protect the country.
I would rather say, 'not heros'.
It was not their choice to go to war and I dont want to see another generation of Vietnam veterans whose efforts went totally unoticed and are occasional spat on every now and then. Before I continue on with this argument I must clarify it was not their choice to go to war it was the poor choice of people like Bush, Cheyney, Rumfseld, they commited shamefull acts.
Statement: They are not heros.
They are not heros, because a hero is a righteous defender not a greedy oppressor. The Iraq war was totally uncalled for, we were lied to again and again, Iraq posed no threat to America and 9/11 had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!
There is no clear reason as to why we were there and why we are still there, but people have a reason to believe that the war was created to pump revenue into Americas major oil industries (Bush happens to be the son of a major oil tycoon), a secret agreement with Israel to decimate middle-eastern enemies posing a threat to Israeli security and increase buisness among the many war related industries.
All reasons are for greedy cooperate controll, how can that be an honourable thing to fight for?
I have changed the statement from "shamefull" to "not much reason to be proud"
Shamefull is a bit strong when judging soldiers over all. I generally like for and against stands to be great opposites but in this one I went a bit to far. I was so disgusted by the video link I posted above that I felt at the time that this was justified.
About the actions of the Bush administration I still think what they did was not only shamefull but also criminal behavior, and I think they should be impeached
This argument is based on dislike of the war. It has nothing to do with the unwanted leaving of home, family, and living in a desert with the military's idea of accommodations. So you do not like the war nor the people who started it. That was not the question.
Concerning the bravery of US soldiers going into war. It got me thinking. So I looked up how many soldiers have been shipped over to Iraq in this war and got 1.6 million. Of those people 4300 have died. That means that one out of 372 dies. Now that is quite similar both in death rate and in work force on a large construction site (it is common for large construction sites to have at least one death over a period of 2-4 years while the production is going on and usually the work force is somwhere around 200-500 people depending on the size of the project). So the risk of going into Iraq (for American soldiers who have all sorts of super high-tech gadgets to distance themselves from the people they are killing -like in the video) is on average not more than working on a large construction site. (lets say building a dam)
So on average (and I want to stress ON AVERAGE - because some guys going to Iraq actually have jobs that are much more dangerous than others, and therfore are much braver) but again on average, US soldiers are not neccisarilly much braver than construction workers.
War is hell - And I dont want to belittle the psycological harm it can do to soldiers, but I think Americans highly overrate the bravery of their soldiers given how the odds are stacked with them (on average) with all the fine tools America builds for killing people from a distance.
There's not much to say, really. The video speaks for itself.
There were indeed weapons present in the initial group, so the initial attack may have been justified. But shooting up the van full of unarmed civilians was clearly unjustified.
In any situation where you give a lot of guys highly advanced weapons and insulate them from the rule of law, you're going to have atrocities like this committed.
I don't think it's right to make the generalization that we should be ashamed of the soldiers serving in Iraq. I'm sure there are many who serve honorably. In any conflict as protracted as the one in Iraq has been, a certain number of incidents like this are probably inevitable. But I don't think Iraq is something we should be proud of either. War is an ugly business. It should not be celebrated. And we should never have gone into Iraq in the first place.
My point wouldnt be that Americans should be ashamed of the soldiers that took part (and still do) in this war in general - It would rather be that the soldiers should themselves be asshamed to partake in such an unlawfull war. And the retoric that is upheld in America, that people should be "proud to serve their country" I think is phony. First of all, they arent serving their country - Your country posed no threat from Iraq - they are serving corporate interest, and very ill thought out corporate interest at that, because the whole place is now open to the Iran government which are a much tougher cookie to deal with in the future concerning this oil.
I think the feeling of being proud should be turned into anger against your government that put young people in harms way for this senseless war.
although I know that alot of low income people are sort of forced to join the army because it is one of few options they have to be able to then go to collage and such, I still think that saying "most of them dont choose to go to Iraq" is a bit strong.
I want to stress that I am not putting forward the idea that these men and women should be chastized for being soldiers - I am stressing how harmfull it can be to automatically assume that what they are doing is honorable
Like I said before here, the Milgram experiment shows that about 65% of people are willing to do immoral things if they get the command to do so from an autority figure - Not only getting the command, but also getting congratulations from the whole of a nation for doing an immoral thing isnt helping - and only makes it easier for immoral psycopaths like Bush, Chaney and Rumsfeld, to order what they ordered.
I think that the culture in America of assuming soldiers are doing honorable and good work should be rethought, especially since in war after war for the last 50 years Amercians have been doing many many immoral things.
I think that the culture in America that people tend to blame everyone else for everything is shameful.
Soldiers don't get a choice on where they go or which war they fight in. As far as they're concerned, they're there to obey orders to protect their country. It's the people who give those orders (and ultimately those vote for them) who are to blame.
Again: I am not blaming the soldiers for the war. I am questioning the assumption that just by being a soldier you should be proud and considered moral and just.
It's the people who give those orders (and ultimately those vote for them) who are to blame.
Hope you didnt vote for Bush then (not that it would have mattered because he stole the election)
Again: I am not blaming the soldiers for the war. I am questioning the assumption that just by being a soldier you should be proud and considered moral and just
Why do you question the assumption? What's your reason? I mean it's a pretty good assumption if you ask me! Soldiers are there to risk their lives in protecting their country and its values. The Iraq war is no exception.
Why do you question the assumption? What's your reason? I mean it's a pretty good assumption if you ask me! Soldiers are there to risk their lives in protecting their country and its values. The Iraq war is no exception.
First of all. "Attacking a country to protect your country against Terrorists that live in yet another country, and bombs and chemical wepons that never existed" is about the most hypocrictical sentence I have ever heard
Granted: the soldiers risk their lives, and my point is not to belittle that. My point is that they risk their lives for very silly reasons, and in the process they kill over 100 times more people than get hurt on their side.
Hence: my assumption that although the majority of them (the soldiers) are not to blame for being immoral or evil (all that blame goes to the Bush administration) they still have very little to be proud of (except maybe if they saved lives there or something like that, but given the offical death toll numbers 130000 Iraqis (not all terrorists as americans so gladly assume - many children and civilians) against 4300 Americans it seems they need to have saved alot of lifes to make up for what they have done)
So with the benefit of hindsight, you're saying that the soldiers in Iraq (specifically) shouldn't be proud.
I don't understand how you can openly admit that it's not their fault (it's the government's fault) but then suggest that they shouldn't be proud of doing their jobs?! Their profession is inherently a noble one and they should be proud of it. If they're being used as pawns in a war, it makes no changes to the nobility of their profession whatsoever. People get killed in wars, so your quoting bodycounts doesn't mean anything. If you only want the "bad people" to be killed, you don't need an army, what you need is a group of secret agents to find and capture those "bad people" and a court to try and determine their "badness" and then execute them. Wars don't work that way, so soldiers should never be proud in your opinion???
I think if you had the control of the armed forces, you'd only ever react to an invasion, is that correct? You would wait for someone to attack and then defend, that's all you'd be doing, you'd always be on the defensive, right? That's the only way for soldiers to be proud of what they do, right?
I'm so very glad that people like you are not in charge of a nation's defense.
You shouldn't question the assumption at all because honor is inherent in the job of each soldier. Just like the doctors and nurses and teachers in civil society. It must be assumed that their jobs are for the greater good of society. If any individual should break the law or act dishonestly or unethically, that individual should be looked at separately from the group and perhaps stripped of their title. Now, soldiers risk their lives while doctors, nurses and teachers don't!
What about the nurses and doctors who worked for the German Nazis doing experiments on Jews and retarded people in the second world war - where their jobs noble, just because of their job title.
Context matters.
In an unjust war, people who take part have no right to assume their job is righteous and moral even though generally the job of a soldier, nurse, doctor and etc. are considered so.
It seems to me you disagree with my fundamental assumption that the war was and is unjust and uncalled for. Am I right in that assumption?
What about the nurses and doctors who worked for the German Nazis doing experiments on Jews and retarded people in the second world war
Again, they were a minority and they were made to do things they probably hated with their lives or livelihood at risk. You can't point fingers at them and condemn all doctors and nurses under the Nazis' regime at that time. The vast majority of them saved lives and should be proud of their profession (even if the lives they saved were those of Nazi soldiers). If the purpose of your profession is noble, then it should be assumed so. Individual cases should be looked at if individuals act contrary to that assumption. The majority should not suffer a generalization from the negative actions of a minority.
.
It seems to me you disagree with my fundamental assumption that the war was and is unjust and uncalled for. Am I right in that assumption?
My opinion of whether the Iraq War is justified plays no part in my opinion that we all should be proud of soldiers (in any war). But if you must know, I agree with the war in Iraq.
You think that most Americans after 9/11 weren't seeking vengeance? Do you think that people wanted to sit back and mourn for a few months? They wanted blood. Thats just an example of a war that people wanted.
So if a group of lets say North Korean terrorists attacked Amercia you would find justification in that to attack, lets say china (because they look the same)
I was disputing what Sulith said, not really the idea of How proud can one be of the soldiers partaking in the Iraq War.
In the regards of that I am not proud that my fellow Americans are slaughtering innocents in unbelievable numbers, though they occasionally catch a 'bad guy' with a stray bullet however to many bullets end up hitting the wrong people.
