More fallen heroes.

Remember, the deaths in Iraq are now all yours, not Bush's. Fulfill your promise, President Obama.

Bring our troops home from Iraq.

Originally posted by popinjay

More fallen heroes.

 

 

Remember, the deaths in Iraq are now all yours, not Bush's. Fulfill your promise, President Obama.

 

 

Bring our troops to afganistan.

fixed. troops aren't coming home any time soon i dont think. We will just be trading iraq for afganistan.

  Last I heard not only is Obama sending troops to Afganistan but he is planing on leaving something around 50k "advisers" in Iraq and possibly even sending troops to help in Pakistan, sounds like the more things "change" the more they stay the same.

Iraq is, or should be able to defend itself after 7 years.

It is precisely for the reason the above two posters gave (Afghanistan) that we need to get our troops out of Iraq. Iraq is infinitely less important at this time and the Iraq security services are operating fully as a sovereign nation. There is no longer a need to have our troops there. We can retain advisors and personnel to train them, but there is absolutely no reason our troops should be continually subject to the brunt of attacks after years of training Iraqis to "defend themselves."

Afghanistan is more important to the war on terror as that is where the terrorists were based in the first place and along the border in Pakistan. We cannot fight on two fronts any longer and must direct our forces home for rest and the remainder to where they will do the most good.

Iraq for Iraqis after seven years. Let them carry the front of the fight in their own country.

We will be there for 100 years just like the Philippines, Japan, Korea, and Germany.  Our mistake in Afghanistan and Iraq was thinking we can just leave and everything will be alright.  Just look what happened after we won those 2 wars.  Dictators and oppressive factions took power; we created Al'Queda after Afghanistan by arming them and thinking they can defend their country on thier own now.  If we were to leave now, it would mean we would create a 2nd Iran.

Originally posted by popinjay

More fallen heroes.

 

 

Remember, the deaths in Iraq are now all yours, not Bush's. Fulfill your promise, President Obama.

 

 

Bring our troops home from Iraq.

I don't know if you wrote that yourself but how can soldiers who invade a country wrongfully be heroes? This is just like when americans say Support our Troops, support them to do what? Kill innocents? 100k+ innocents and counting

I'm sorry but let's pretend that the U.S would have invaded Canada instead, who do you think would be the good guys? Those of us killing the invading americans or your soldiers? 

You can of course say that they didn't want to go, that their victims of circumstances but how does that absolve them? My cousin quit the army when they announced Canada would send soldiers to Afganistan and every single member of the family is proud of him for it. He's not a coward, he just doesn't believe in invading/killing/raping another country so a few greedy jerk get more money and power. Any good person would have quit the army before even at the risk of spending a few years in jail or having to defect.

For those that believe in God, do you really think God is going to accept "I had to follow orders" as an excuse and send them to heaven? I sure as hell wouldn't if I were God :)

---

Originally posted by Myrdek

I don't know if you wrote that yourself but how can soldiers who invade a country wrongfully be heroes? This is just like when americans say Support our Troops, support them to do what? Kill innocents? 100k+ innocents and counting
I'm sorry but let's pretend that the U.S would have invaded Canada instead, who do you think would be the good guys? Those of us killing the invading americans or your soldiers? 
You can of course say that they didn't want to go, that their victims of circumstances but how does that absolve them? My cousin quit the army when they announced Canada would send soldiers to Afganistan and every single member of the family is proud of him for it. He's not a coward, he just doesn't believe in invading/killing/raping another country so a few greedy jerk get more money and power. Any good person would have quit the army before even at the risk of spending a few years in jail or having to defect.
For those that believe in God, do you really think God is going to accept "I had to follow orders" as an excuse and send them to heaven? I sure as hell wouldn't if I were God :)

---

Yep, I wrote it and to me, they are heroes. That term is thrown around a lot with no meaning in our society but I really mean it in this case.

Half of the troops have been "stop-lossed" from Bush, meaning they served their contracts and when it was time for them to be discharged, they were held in active duty. Many had already served several tours.

Contrary to what Cheney would have everyone think, not ever serviceman wanted to go to Iraq and get blown up. But most went because it was their duty. Being a hero means doing something you don't want to do, even if you think it's a stupid ass idea which Iraq was, anyways. Some went AWOL, but most went even though they didn't agree with it and knew it was for oil.

That to me is the definition of a hero. The troops are not war criminals here, just like the Japanese Army, Italian army or German army were not wholly prosecuted after World War 2. Their governments did unspeakable things but the troops did not, by and large.

Originally posted by popinjay

Half of the troops have been "stop-lossed" from Bush, meaning they served their contracts and when it was time for them to be discharged, they were held in active duty. Many had already served several tours.

 

Contrary to what Cheney would have everyone think, not ever serviceman wanted to go to Iraq and get blown up. But most went because it was their duty. Being a hero means doing something you don't want to do, even if you think it's a stupid ass idea which Iraq was, anyways. Some went AWOL, but most went even though they didn't agree with it and knew it was for oil.

 

 

That to me is the definition of a hero. The troops are not war criminals here, just like the Japanese Army, Italian army or German army were not wholly prosecuted after World War 2. Their governments did unspeakable things but the troops did not, by and large.

We don't completly disagree but you have the bias of being an american and probably knowing people there.

I know most soldiers never wanted to be there in the first place and aren't idiots and their getting screwed in this as well. Their unwilling killers, but killers nonetheless. In war theres always heroes on both side, so yes some can be. But personally I would consider only the people who had the courage to say no. Thats my personal opinion

Doing something you don't want to do is a very bad way to define hero, you could say that about almost anything. Everyone is a hero if you believe this, I have higher standards than this :)

As human beings we got so used to the idea of unjust wars and people being sheep that we have learned to redefine right and wrong accordingly. Ex: A soldier who shoots an innocent on purpose in a war is considered better than a normal killer in your hometown. This is due to the group mentality of humans to think that people closer to them are more important than foreigners. The same way no one would choose their mother to die over a kid they don't know. Just because its a human thing doesn't make it right in my mind

---

Originally posted by Myrdek

We don't completly disagree but you have the bias of being an american and probably knowing people there.
I know most soldiers never wanted to be there in the first place and aren't idiots and their getting screwed in this as well. Their unwilling killers, but killers nonetheless. In war theres always heroes on both side, so yes some can be. But personally I would consider only the people who had the courage to say no. Thats my personal opinion
Doing something you don't want to do is a very bad way to define hero, you could say that about almost anything. Everyone is a hero if you believe this, I have higher standards than this :)
As human beings we got so used to the idea of unjust wars and people being sheep that we have learned to redefine right and wrong accordingly. Ex: A soldier who shoots an innocent on purpose in a war is considered better than a normal killer in your hometown. This is due to the group mentality of humans to think that people closer to them are more important than foreigners. The same way no one would choose their mother to die over a kid they don't know. Just because its a human thing doesn't make it right in my mind.

---

Most of the several hundred thousand troops that went through Iraq in the last seven years never even saw combat.

In any occupation situation, you need at least 3X more support staff BEHIND the frontlines than troops, not actually engaged in the battle. If they never saw combat, how could they be killers?

When you say they are killers, you are branding most of them with that brush and that is simply not the case. There were killers of course in several widely publicized cases. Some of them even got off due to technicalities, but not all. There is simply no way you can say that the majority of American troops in the region were killers.

So all the cooks, medical staff, administrative staff, motor pool and support staff, legal staff, USO aides and logistics people are all killers? Wow.

You say your standards are high, you should raise them even higher than to suggest that every soldier there is a killer.

Wow, you took a downturn from the intelligent response you posted before....

I never said they were all killers, you just assumed. They are all responsible to a certain degree for the ones who do kill. It would be too complicated to debate the extent of everyones involvement in a situation like this. How much responsibility does the cook have? Without cooks, front line soldiers would probably still do their job but a lot less efficiently.

Your reponse is pure emotion, please don't think with your heart but with your brain. I understand your position, I do pity Canadian soldiers who were sent to Afghanistan and my heart tells me the same think as yours for U.S soldiers. But my brain is the one I care about and I consider every single canadian soldier over there an enemy of good and those that killed civilians should NOT be treated more lightly than a simple murderer here.

Then again, I believe in humanitys survival over individuals, no matter how far they are or if I know them or not. It's a very difficult thing to do for humans to consider a strangers life as worthy as your best friends :)

Originally posted by Cleffy

We will be there for 100 years just like the Philippines, Japan, Korea, and Germany.  Our mistake in Afghanistan and Iraq was thinking we can just leave and everything will be alright.  Just look what happened after we won those 2 wars.  Dictators and oppressive factions took power; we created Al'Queda after Afghanistan by arming them and thinking they can defend their country on thier own now.  If we were to leave now, it would mean we would create a 2nd Iran.

     The problem is that the people in the middle east are nuts.....They have been bent on war and destruction since the beginning of time....You arent going to change that no matter what you do........They dont even care if they kill their own people or themselves.........

---

Originally posted by Myrdek

Wow, you took a downturn from the intelligent response you posted before....
I never said they were all killers, you just assumed. They are all responsible to a certain degree for the ones who do kill. It would be too complicated to debate the extent of everyones involvement in a situation like this. How much responsibility does the cook have? Without cooks, front line soldiers would probably still do their job but a lot less efficiently.
Your reponse is pure emotion, please don't think with your heart but with your brain. I understand your position, I do pity Canadian soldiers who were sent to Afghanistan and my heart tells me the same think as yours for U.S soldiers. But my brain is the one I care about and I consider every single canadian soldier over there an enemy of good and those that killed civilians should NOT be treated more lightly than a simple murderer here.
Then again, I believe in humanitys survival over individuals, no matter how far they are or if I know them or not. It's a very difficult thing to do for humans to consider a strangers life as worthy as your best friends :)

---

When you said "Their unwilling killers, but killers nonetheless," exactly who are the "they" you talking about? And now you say this, "They are all responsible to a certain degree for the ones who do kill." Another "they" post.

Would you clarify please? Are they the majority of US troops? The generals? The politicians? The individual units? Who are these "they" you keep saying are murderers and exactly how many "they" are there?

As "they" is a collective term usually meaning all, I'm sure you can see how your condemnation certainly looks like all American servicepeople. The vagueness is confusing. Would you care to be more specific about the "they" you mean?

Originally posted by popinjay

When you said "Their unwilling killers, but killers nonetheless," exactly who are the "they" you talking about? And now you say this, "They are all responsible to a certain degree for the ones who do kill." Another "they" post.

Would you clarify please? Are they the majority of US troops? The generals? The politicians? The individual units? Who are these "they" you keep saying are murderers and exactly how many "they" are there?

As "they" is a collective term usually meaning all, I'm sure you can see how your condemnation certainly looks like all American servicepeople. The vagueness is confusing. Would you care to be more specific about the "they" you mean?

When I said unwilling killers I meant those in the front line actually commiting the act.

For the responsibility I mean everyone who has a part in it to any degree. Their responsibility is debatable but their not completly exempt from it just because their not firing guns. It can include politicians, oil industries, civilians that approved the war and lended their support, and every single person stationned in Iraq providing services for soldiers so they can kill more efficiently. No one is innocent in an unjust war

Then again we can always go deeper and argue that its human nature and no one is responsible for their actions but thats just boring nihilism :)

I'm curious, you mentionned heroes yesterday and I'm wondering who you think are the biggest heroes, American soldiers invading Iraq or the people protecting their home at all cost? Personally that choice is very obvious. (Small hint, if the U.S invaded Canada I'd do everything in my power to blow up as many american as possible) :)

And thats coming from someone who has hated every single middle eastern person he's ever met. Bunch of arrogant jerks! :)

---

Originally posted by Myrdek

---

Originally posted by popinjay

When you said "Their unwilling killers, but killers nonetheless," exactly who are the "they" you talking about? And now you say this, "They are all responsible to a certain degree for the ones who do kill." Another "they" post.
Would you clarify please? Are they the majority of US troops? The generals? The politicians? The individual units? Who are these "they" you keep saying are murderers and exactly how many "they" are there?

As "they" is a collective term usually meaning all, I'm sure you can see how your condemnation certainly looks like all American servicepeople. The vagueness is confusing. Would you care to be more specific about the "they" you mean?

---

 
When I said unwilling killers I meant those in the front line actually commiting the act.
For the responsibility I mean everyone who has a part in it to any degree. Their responsibility is debatable but their not completly exempt from it just because their not firing guns. It can include politicians, oil industries, civilians that approved the war and lended their support, and every single person stationned in Iraq providing services for soldiers so they can kill more efficiently. No one is innocent in an unjust war
Then again we can always go deeper and argue that its human nature and no one is responsible for their actions but thats just boring nihilism :)
I'm curious, you mentionned heroes yesterday and I'm wondering who you think are the biggest heroes, American soldiers invading Iraq or the people protecting their home at all cost? Personally that choice is very obvious. (Small hint, if the U.S invaded Canada I'd do everything in my power to blow up as many american as possible) :)
And thats coming from someone who has hated every single middle eastern person he's ever met. Bunch of arrogant jerks! :)

---

In that case, the "they" you are talking about is brought to justice whenever possible in many cases.

Ex-U.S. soldier found guilty in Iraqi rape and deaths

Here is a sick piece of dirt trash that raped and killed Iraqis while wearing the U.S. uniform. It was a direct reflection on the U.S. simply because he was wearing the uniform, but not indicative of everyone wearing the uniform. Or the cooks who fed him, dentists who fixed his teeth, or administrative personnel who gave him his mail. He acted with a few other individuals who were caught as well.

He received life in prison, although he should have gotten the death penalty in my estimation, because he did these horrors while IN uniform and representing the United States. But, it's Kentucky, so what can you expect?

Point being, this "they" was caught as were several others and dealt with. I do not think the US should be there, this is where we agree and I've always said that. It was pure greed done by Cheney/Bush and for no other reason. But the people who are tasked to fight the actual war are fighting against real insurgents now (although there were not many before we got there) and are doing an excellent job under the circumstances.

I don't know any soldiers who "didn't want to go".

I know a few that haven't been able to and are champing at the bit still.

I know loads of teenie's dead keen to enlist who dream of going. Pop along to the COD forums! They want to cal in artillery strikes with a "9 line" and get their hands on a Stoner MG.

Soldiers aren't killers? They don't give them guns for a joke. Killing is part of the job. They all volunteer for a job to do with killing people.They aren't innocent little angels. It's not the peace corp.

Is that guy in the link any less of a murderer than the pilot who dropped a cluster bomb of on the Highway of Death. Is the bomb armer who fitted the JDAM any less of a murderer than the pilot who bombed the wedding? Is it only murder if they aren't your enemy soldiers?

Killing is killing. Soldiers do it. They volunteer for it and they all want to do it. It makes no difference to the person you killed if you are going to get censored for it. What difference to dead Iraqi if a soldier goes to prison or loses his job.

When is a killer a nice killer and when is he an evil one. When a man with a gun travels halfway round the world and kills someone, he is not innocent. No matter if the other person shot first, he is not innocent.

Heroes save people.

3 U.S. soldiers dead and nine wounded.

Not good.

It's going to get worse there for a while. Same thing happened when the Brits ended their surge in Basra.

The guerillas will see it as a sign of weakness and push their advantage. The militia's will all fight to take over the power vacuum. And if we are lucky a friendly government or warlord will end up on top.

We could have done this right at the beginning, all those years ago. It was always going to end this way, only the left has no balls. They want to be seen as heroes. Saviours and not invaders. They won't leave unless the Iraqi's and the world all thank them for being there.

Which no one is in a big rush to do.

Originally posted by Myrdek

Originally posted by popinjay

More fallen heroes.

 

 

Remember, the deaths in Iraq are now all yours, not Bush's. Fulfill your promise, President Obama.

 

 

Bring our troops home from Iraq.

 

This is just like when americans say Support our Troops, support them to do what? Kill innocents? 100k+ innocents and counting

and to think U.S. soldiers killed all of them is ignorant. The majority of news articles i read consist of suicide bombings killing civilians.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/430925/1/.html

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/04/23/iraq.violence/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/11/iraq/main708054.shtml

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-138198423.html

And those are just a few. I can link more, but i get the feeling it wont change your view on U.S.A. err i mean their soldiers anyway.

Forget the lame excuses mate.

Security in Iraq turned to shit after the invasion, Saddam was bad, but he wasn't in our league.

If we hadn't have invaded 99% of them would not be dead.

It's that simple.

Grow a pair and face up to the consequences of overthrowing governments. It's not called war because it is pretty. We all know how it goes when you start one. It's not our first time. It won't be the last either. 

On the otherhand, security in Kuwait and Iran are much improved. It's not all bad.

---

Originally posted by baff

I don't know any soldiers who "didn't want to go".

---

There are over 1 million men and women in the armed forces.

How many of those do you know?

Enough.

Originally posted by baff

Forget the lame excuses mate.

Security in Iraq turned to shit after the invasion, Saddam was bad, but he wasn't in our league.

If we hadn't have invaded 99% of them would not be dead.

It's that simple.

 

Grow a pair and face up to the consequences of overthrowing governments. It's not called war because it is pretty. We all know how it goes when you start one. It's not our first time. It won't be the last either. 

 

On the otherhand, security in Kuwait and Iran are much improved. It's not all bad.

baff! my favorite anti-american poster on these forums. Anyways if you want, we can compare the numbers of civilians killed in the iran-iraq war, gulf war, and the kurd genocide under saddam. And that is just in the last 2-3 decades. Of course if you would have it, i'm sure those 100k would have lived, but more elsewhere would have died sooner or later due to a HOSTILE invasion from iraq, and not an invasion from america (the kind where they help rebuild the country after the war is over)

yes civilians died, thats unfortunate. But a blood thirsty dictator is no longer in power to kill more kurds, iranians, kuwatians, or anyone else he had his sights on.