Iraq War is over

[MaroC]

Here's the thing. Yes, it's an all volunteer army. But, in case you're, I don't know, an idiot or something, you should realize that only George W. Bush--with the help of a compliant congress--asked for war. Are you saying that being in the military is somehow immoral? Yes, a lot of these guys died for a war that was never explained to them--is that their fault? And here I guess you might say:

It's their fault because they joined the military.

Bullshit. The U.S. government has an obligation to put soldiers in harm's way only when it is absolutely necessary. Joining the army is not wrong; actually it's a pretty selfless way to serve, considering the army pay rate and the hazards of the job. After death and disfigurement, the greatest hazard of their very honorable profession is PTSD. These guys didn't ask for it by joining the military. That whole blame-the-soldiers thing was discredited in this country a long time ago, shortly after Vietnam vets arrived home to be spit upon.

I won't lie: what you said made me sick. Just atrocious, man.

Sure, blame it on bush. It's not like the whole usa was blinded by its blood thirstiness, and was eager to go to war back in 02/03. Nope, just bush

Aaaaaanyways, just to clear out any misunderstandings...when youre invading other countries for oil, being in the military is highly immoral. Because i've seen the videos of how iraqi children got the shit beaten out of them, i've seen the respect these soldiers had in abu graib. But can we blame soldiers that were following commands? Yes we can /obama]. I barely had pubes back then, and yet i saw what was going on. How the fuck cant they? Why still put yourself in that position?

And i wont lie either: I kinda dont care if i made you sick, and i dearly hope...youre not, and i repeat, NOT going to say that america made the world a better place by invading iraq. LOL

 

[Ristol]

I completely disagree with you. I think blaming soldiers is ridiculous. And I never supported the invasion of Iraq. Of course it was a bloody disaster. That's not what we're talking about. It wasn't about oil. It was about George W. Bush trying to have himself a mega-presidency and remake the world. Yes, I blame Bush because he and his people started it.

I just disagree with you about blaming soldiers. That's all.

 

[MaroC]

I completely disagree with you. I think blaming soldiers is ridiculous. And I never supported the invasion of Iraq. Of course it was a bloody disaster. That's not what we're talking about. It wasn't about oil. It was about George W. Bush trying to have himself a mega-presidency and remake the world. Yes, I blame Bush because he and his people started it.

I just disagree with you about blaming soldiers. That's all.

Please tell me youre joking right.

But tell me this also. Do you also not-blame the al-qaida warriors, just their so called leader bin laden. Or does your not-blaming policy only cover the american warriors, you know...what you call 'good guys'?

 

[masta247]

I also blame soldiers a bit, even if it seems that there are people more responsible for all of these, they are too to some extent. Soldiers are not just mindless tools. It's not the brainwasher who kills, it's the soldier who finally decides to pull the trigger. People above him just spark him to do so, so killing them would be ethically better than killing who they want you to kill.
Then If it's impossible, if I allowed myself to be in a shitty position where I'd be told to go to war or go to jail I would've picked the latter just to do the right thing. If every soldier thought that way then there would be no problem at all and the "harder" way would be actually peaceful and with no bad consequences.
It's not about morality anymore to them because soldiers are brainwashed to ignore morality. But we can judge them based on their moral choices because they allowed themselves to be in that shitty position.

You "sell your soul" to the bad side by becoming a soldier. Wouldn't a world without soldiers be just plain better?
Going by morality alone soldiers do nothing good, yet they are told that they are protecting something. They are not, they are just trained to kill other people like them who are brainwashed by other bad people. And they are sometimes killing innocent people too. That blood is on their hands.
They are to blame for becoming soldiers, and then following that evil path.

The problem is that the world is still too stupid to let go and until there are soldiers there will be more soldiers to kill soldiers that are already out there, just killing in the name of a different brainwash. So soldiers are just tools of mass destruction who can choose not to be. A nuke that had decided to be able to blow but can choose not to.

 

[Ristol]

Please tell me youre joking right.

But tell me this also. Do you also not-blame the al-qaida warriors, just their so called leader bin laden. Or does your not-blaming policy only cover the american warriors, you know...what you call 'good guys'?

It's not the stated aim of the U.S. armed forces to subjugate women, stone adulteresses, or impose a fascist philosophy on the world. The U.S. military, for all its many flaws, is not an amoral band of murderers, rapists, and fatuous defenders of a brutality that knows no bounds of reason. That's what al-Qaeda is about. There is no comparison.

Also, as I said before, members of the U.S. military do not choose war. They choose to join the military. I don't think people join the military because they are bloodthirsty. Some probably do. I think the majority serve for decent reasons. Maybe I'm too optimistic. Anyway the central difference here is that al-Qaeda slaughters innocents as its stated ambition. Obviously innocent people have died at American hands; I don't deny that. There's no way to reconcile any war of choice like Iraq. But Afghanistan is not a war of choice. We did not ask for that war. As Thomas Friedman said, if you didn't like a world with too much American power, good luck in a world with too little.

Of course I blame al-Qaeda. I'd be crazy not to.

 

[masta247]

Also, as I said before, members of the U.S. military do not choose war. They choose to join the military. I don't think people join the military because they are bloodthirsty. Some probably do. I think the majority serve for decent reasons. Maybe I'm too optimistic. Anyway the central difference here is that al-Qaeda slaughters innocents as its stated ambition. Obviously innocent people have died at American hands; I don't deny that. There's no way to reconcile any war of choice like Iraq. But Afghanistan is not a war of choice. We did not ask for that war. As Thomas Friedman said, if you didn't like a world with too much American power, good luck in a world with too little.

Of course I blame al-Qaeda. I'd be crazy not to.

There aren't any genuinely good reasons to join the military. American soldiers join the military for the very same reason Al-Qaeda "troops" do. America is just more powerful and able to scream louder and push their opinions/will stronger.
These so called "terrorists" aren't much more of a "brainwashed freaks killing innocent people" than American troops are. You're just looking at it from a different side.
There's that "mass brainwash" that makes Americans think that the world is such a bad place and America is so good to get rid of that. "Terrorists = bad, America = good, killing terrorists = doing good". Letting America decide on everything = peace, anyone else = chaos, evil, destruction.
The thing is that if every country stopped thinking that way there would be no wars. And the funny thing is, that analyzing facts Americans are not any more correct in their belief that they're so good than Al-Qaeda is.

 

[MaroC]

It's not the stated aim of the U.S. armed forces to subjugate women, stone adulteresses, or impose a fascist philosophy on the world. The U.S. military, for all its many flaws, is not an amoral band of murderers, rapists, and fatuous defenders of a brutality that knows no bounds of reason. That's what al-Qaeda is about. There is no comparison.

Also, as I said before, members of the U.S. military do not choose war. They choose to join the military. I don't think people join the military because they are bloodthirsty. Some probably do. I think the majority serve for decent reasons. Maybe I'm too optimistic. Anyway the central difference here is that al-Qaeda slaughters innocents as its stated ambition. Obviously innocent people have died at American hands; I don't deny that. There's no way to reconcile any war of choice like Iraq. But Afghanistan is not a war of choice. We did not ask for that war. As Thomas Friedman said, if you didn't like a world with too much American power, good luck in a world with too little.

Of course I blame al-Qaeda. I'd be crazy not to.

Dont mistake Al-Qaida for the Taliban. Al-Qaida's main cause is to kick American interference out of the muslimworld. Perhaps Bill O'reily never schooled you on this topic...But let me tell you what the American middle-eastern policy brought them. It brought numerous of dictators that dont give a fuck about their own people as long as theyre on good terms with America. Ya know, Saddam, Mubarak...Fuck it, even the Taliban were okay for you guys the first 6 years. I never heard any yank whine about them back then. Bin Laden ofcourse. Once a puppet himself. And dont let me start about the Palestinian suffering that carries on and on due to American vetoing. Just to do the math...no American interference, no Al-Qaida. No Iraq-Iran war, no Saddam. No Iraq war, no bombing London and Madrid...

But who am i talking to? You still believe the Iraq war wasn't about oil. Pure American economic benefits. War-industrials getting major orders...

Both Al-Qaida and America dont mind making innocent victims in order to achieve their goals. Only difference is that the Americans are investing in public-relations too, and Al-Qaida isnt.

 

[Tha_Wood]

bitches and guns, this is every mans dream, i dont wanna go home where im just an ordinary human being.

 

[Preach]

There aren't any genuinely good reasons to join the military. American soldiers join the military for the very same reason Al-Qaeda "troops" do. America is just more powerful and able to scream louder and push their opinions/will stronger.

People don't join the army for that reason. Most, anyway. Do you know anyone who toured Iraq and / or Afghanistan? I know people who have been both places, I've known them all my life, and this is a small community. Your verdict is wrong in all their cases, so I'm pretty sure that extends beyond my friends in the military. I think the real issue is, like me, you never wanted to do military service, it never fascinated you, and you have too great a respect for life to kill any living thing. Saying it like that sends a completely different message than suggesting all soldiers are brainwashed or joined the army so they could be badasses. Maybe the fact that some people hold that opinion contributes to tipping them over when they rejoin society. You're basically writing someone off as being too crazy or weird for you to take serious, while the real deal is that your prejudice for what you believe they are doing hinders you from ever understanding them from an emotional point of view.

These so called "terrorists" aren't much more of a "brainwashed freaks killing innocent people" than American troops are. You're just looking at it from a different side.
There's that "mass brainwash" that makes Americans think that the world is such a bad place and America is so good to get rid of that. "Terrorists = bad, America = good, killing terrorists = doing good". Letting America decide on everything = peace, anyone else = chaos, evil, destruction.

The thing is that if every country stopped thinking that way there would be no wars. And the funny thing is, that analyzing facts Americans are not any more correct in their belief that they're so good than Al-Qaeda is.

I don't disagree with you, but I think you need a deeper understanding of biologic psychology to even have an opinion about something like this. Your opinion is a result of you trying to find a correlation between various observations without a vocational foundation to base your ideas on. It's very easy to mix up hard facts with notions and misconceptions due to momentarily having other things or your mind, or losing focus, which is why you'll have episodes like that stripper who was "retired". If you feel like the world is such a cold place, with so much horror and pain, you don't even need to be factually right. I'll be honest, you often seem depressed with the current state of affairs. Not depressed as in clinically depressed, but I sense a bit of hopelessness in you. You seem to be a person who values life greatly, and thus, all the killing and death in the world takes its toll on you.

Now those kinds of emotions will drive you to agree with yourself regardless of how faulty or subjective your impression may be. You are one man, who lived one life, with many experiences, many thoughts, and you are the product. Any soldier has had an equal amount of moral and ethical dilemmas, he has seen as much good and as much bad shit as you, and he has had the same amount of thoughts in his head. Saying he is "brainwashed" is a huge insult to anyone's individuality. "Brainwashed" is such a stupid term anyway, because it suggests there is a right and a wrong way to think.

Or simply put, I have a friend who was in Afghanistan and Iraq, and he told me to say "fuck you". Lol.

 

[Jokerman]

The thing is that if every country stopped thinking that way there would be no wars.

That's a very naive and often said statement.

People don't join the army for that reason. Most, anyway. Do you know anyone who toured Iraq and / or Afghanistan? I know people who have been both places, I've known them all my life, and this is a small community. Your verdict is wrong in all their cases, so I'm pretty sure that extends beyond my friends in the military. I think the real issue is, like me, you never wanted to do military service, it never fascinated you, and you have too great a respect for life to kill any living thing. Saying it like that sends a completely different message than suggesting all soldiers are brainwashed or joined the army so they could be badasses. Maybe the fact that some people hold that opinion contributes to tipping them over when they rejoin society. You're basically writing someone off as being too crazy or weird for you to take serious, while the real deal is that your prejudice for what you believe they are doing hinders you from ever understanding them from an emotional point of view.

:thumb:

 

[masta247]

@Preach: Okay I have just re-read everything that I wrote last night and I wouldn't say some things I did last night now.
At some point of my life I was fascinated with everything about military but I always thought that the concept of being a soldier is morally wrong. Not that a person "joins the military to be a bad ass". But that if you think about it then joining the military is choosing an ethically inferior path that will most probably make you do some seriously fucked up things. I guess that the reason behind joining is different but the outcome is similar - choosing an ethically worse path.
Soldiers rarely do good deeds and often have to do evil things, even if they don't see it that way. They are trained to kill and by "brainwashed" I meant that they are morally confused - some bad things probably don't seem that bad to them. "Kill or be killed" or treating your enemy as a lesser human being.

But yes, I overreacted and you're overall right.

That's a very naive and often said statement.

Yes, you don't have to be a soldier to kill or go to war and soldiers have their purpose if they are used the right way.

 

[Preach]

At some point of my life I was fascinated with everything about military but I always thought that the concept of being a soldier is morally wrong. Not that a person "joins the military to be a bad ass". But that if you think about it then joining the military is choosing an ethically inferior path that will most probably make you do some seriously fucked up things. I guess that the reason behind joining is different but the outcome is similar - choosing an ethically worse path.
Soldiers rarely do good deeds and often have to do evil things, even if they don't see it that way. They are trained to kill and by "brainwashed" I meant that they are morally confused - some bad things probably don't seem that bad to them. "Kill or be killed" or treating your enemy as a lesser human being..

This is pretty similar to me. At some point in my life I realized I had turned into a softie, and I didn't like it, so I was ruthless with my own ideas and it pretty much killed all my confidence. I tore myself down and rebuilt myself, so to speak, to be more demanding, more authoritative, and less insecure about what I want. It was a journey that took me to a lot of low points in my life, but it is also what taught me to be understanding and reserved, and by now I am a totally different person than I was 4 years ago. Well duh.

Anyway, I believe that the human race have always had laborers and warriors in some capacity. The fact that humans some times ravage and kill, I don't think it's a result of social evolution, I think it's a result of our very nature. There is no way there could be a peaceful human race, just like water can't run uphill. It is a scientific impossibility. That's my belief however. Then the difference between a person considered to be violent, and a person considered to be "normal", is how well they were trained to deal with their emotions in the young growing phase. In a sense, people who aren't violent are more brainwashed than people who are - Brainwashed by their own government and society to think that violence is an unnatural thing, when it in fact dates back to the first mammals. Whether we want to incorporate violence in our future society is a different discussion, but branding it as "wrong" or "illogical" or "bad" is flawed at best.

In fact, I wager that when people take distance from violence, they fuck things up for themselves in the future. If ever there was a need for you to take to arms and protect yourself, you will be docile and easy to push over. You will put up with more than a more aggressive type of person would before you set your hind legs down, and thus, your government (or any institution that wants to take advantage of your docile personality) will be able to do so. Let's be dramatic and say that in 50 years when we run out of oil, and the world goes into anarchy, and your government try to force something upon its people that rob you of your rights, those same violent people are the ones that will lead your revolution lol. Aggression and violence is very much needed to maintain balance in society, believe it or not. Otherwise we'd all turn into drones who dare not defend ourselves when we have to.

I'm being melodramatic but I'm having a hard time putting my idea into words so hopefully you get what I'm going for; the idea that violence serves a function in your life, even if that function is that you don't practice it.

 

[Ristol]

Dont mistake Al-Qaida for the Taliban. Al-Qaida's main cause is to kick American interference out of the muslimworld. Perhaps Bill O'reily never schooled you on this topic...But let me tell you what the American middle-eastern policy brought them. It brought numerous of dictators that dont give a fuck about their own people as long as theyre on good terms with America. Ya know, Saddam, Mubarak...Fuck it, even the Taliban were okay for you guys the first 6 years. I never heard any yank whine about them back then. Bin Laden ofcourse. Once a puppet himself. And dont let me start about the Palestinian suffering that carries on and on due to American vetoing. Just to do the math...no American interference, no Al-Qaida. No Iraq-Iran war, no Saddam. No Iraq war, no bombing London and Madrid...

But who am i talking to? You still believe the Iraq war wasn't about oil. Pure American economic benefits. War-industrials getting major orders...

Both Al-Qaida and America dont mind making innocent victims in order to achieve their goals. Only difference is that the Americans are investing in public-relations too, and Al-Qaida isnt.

You obviously see everything from the point of view of radical Islam. I'm sorry for your sickness.

Anyway, the problem with your conspiracy oil theory is that the U.S. has not benefited economically from this war. That's a fact. They've gained nothing besides some big contracts for defense contractors.

By the way, you don't need to be an asshole to make your point. I don't know where you're getting that I'm conservative or that I watch Bill O'Reilly; if you really read the things I've said, it's obvious that I strongly disagreed with invading Iraq in the first place. I think you did too. That we can agree on. The war was bullshit. We just disagree on why it was waged.

Islamists like yourself have very selective memory when it comes to U.S. foreign policy. What about the 80s, when the C.I.A. freed Afghanistan from Soviet occupation? (A lot of good that eventually did.) And the 90s, when the U.S. and NATO did everything they could to protect the Muslims in Bosnia? Do you not know all this or is it (as I suspect) that it doesn't fit into your "America hates Islam" ideology?

Anyway, I think we've both made our points. We're not going to agree.

 

[MaroC]

You obviously see everything from the point of view of radical Islam. I'm sorry for your sickness.

Anyway, the problem with your conspiracy oil theory is that the U.S. has not benefited economically from this war. That's a fact. They've gained nothing besides some big contracts for defense contractors.

By the way, you don't need to be an asshole to make your point. I don't know where you're getting that I'm conservative or that I watch Bill O'Reilly; if you really read the things I've said, it's obvious that I strongly disagreed with invading Iraq in the first place. I think you did too. That we can agree on. The war was bullshit. We just disagree on why it was waged.

Islamists like yourself have very selective memory when it comes to U.S. foreign policy. What about the 80s, when the C.I.A. freed Afghanistan from Soviet occupation? (A lot of good that eventually did.) And the 90s, when the U.S. and NATO did everything they could to protect the Muslims in Bosnia? Do you not know all this or is it (as I suspect) that it doesn't fit into your "America hates Islam" ideology?

Anyway, I think we've both made our points. We're not going to agree.

Well thats an interesting way to explain things. They did everything they could to protect Muslims in Bosnia...Yeah right. Jesus Christ man, you cant be serious on this one, right? 7000 Muslims, men, women, elder, children were deported to concentration camps to be slaughtered right before the eyes of NATO troops and they didnt do jack. But I dont blame you for really believing they did everything they could. Rupert Murdoch really got his hands on you. Thats all.

No they didnt benefit from this war. They didnt went to war because they were afraid China or India would get their hands on Saddam's oil. Sure, sure, sure. They just really wanted to free the Iraqi people, just like they want to free the Palestinians now. The CIA and mr. Blix lied when they said Saddam did not have WMD.

Really dude. You should really break free from all the propaganda that tv throws at you. Its becoming pathetic.

 

[S O F I]

The War Project - Veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan tell their stories

 

[Jokerman]

SOFI, I'm sorry for your sickness.

 

[S O F I]

Yeah, you better edit.

I don't know what you mean. The link I provided is very much relevant to the discussion of soldiers' morals as they briefly touch upon the politics of what they do. I strongly suggest you read the interviews. Some are very touching.

 

[Jokerman]

I don't know what you mean.

Read Ristol's last post. lol