I found this post on another forum I belong to... At times, I think it can be easy to forget that the soldiers who go to Iraq and other places like that to help keep the peace etc, have their own lives and families that they are leaving behind to go and fight for us, and to protect us. After watching this YouTube video, I will never forget again. Thank you to all the Soldiers!!!


Lizzie Palmer who put this YouTube program together is only 15 years old. There have been over 3,000,000 hits as of this morning. In case you missed it,here it is.


http://www.youtube.com/v/ervaMPt4Ha0&autoplay=1

Where are the videos of the soldiers spilling the innocent blood of thousands of iraqi men women and children who do not want them in their land or videos of them sexually abusing prisoners with no consequences, why do these soldiers invade only oil rich countries why not countries less rich but where oppression is more prevelant, sierra leone for example

They only invade rich countries because it makes war profitable. ( Look at all the private "security companies" in Iraq) If you strip away the lies & rhetoric of the politicians, war is just armed robbery on a grand scale. Plus the arms companies get to test , demonstrate & flog off their wares. On top of that incomperant politicians get to wrap themseves in the flag. Patriotism, the last refuge to which a scoundrel clings.

we remember I will never forget thanks

I watched the video...thank you for the link.

Still feeling emotional...anger...outrage...sadness.

I feel all this and more every time I see reports of a dead soldier or civilian no matter what nationality they are.

After my sadness I continually come back to outrage that all these people are dying for corporate greed masked with the cloak of patriotism.

I will never blame a soldier they are also victims in this abortion of our morals we call a war.

Lets demand an end to this war before we lose anymore lives and with what is left of our morality and dignity.

That was beautiful, I needed that. Thanks for the link BB.

THAT WAS JUST NOT MY CUP OF TEA > sorry it sucked in my opinion

Who made that clip Walt Disney? Ronald Regan? It's the kind of thing you'd expect to see emanating from a military dictatorship. I don't know about other people but when I think of the war in Iraq I tend to think of all the dead civilians blown to bits, kids with no arms or legs & the arogant attitude of the occupying forces. I think of Abu Ghraib & the horrible things that went on there, of inocent people losing their lives for no other reason than they happened to be born into a country that was the focus of US military aspirations. I remember an American soldier walking in a group past a wounded Iraqi, " is he dead" asked one soldier " his comrade lifted his rifle & shot him thruogh the head blowing blood & brain across the wall behind him, "He is now he said & laughed about it. The worst thing about this was it was done in front of a news camera as if it was the most normal thing in the world. Those soldiers chose to take up arms, go to Iraq & kill people for whatever reason. The Iraqi people weren't given any choice the US decided to rain bombs down on the in their "Shock & Awe" Yeah it was Shocking & it was Awfull, It was aaabsolutely disgusting. So I think I'll save my sympathies, for what they're worth, for a more deserving cause.

looks good cant Wait for the game

I don't recall seeing signs about "Sign up and shoot Iraqis" anywhere. I know in my stint with the USMC there was no occupation list of places you can blow up or people to shoot for added incentive. There was places you could go and do your service according to your MOS but I really don't remember seeing anything telling me if I joined up I could kill people. Even though armed combat is a hell of a rush, no man knows that until it happens to them. My parents were struggling with money, I was a problem child but I loved history and couldn't afford college. So I signed up. It was either that or jail eventually. Selling drugs, living on the run...none of that really appealed to me. Seeing other countries and what women they had to offer sure did and that nice GI bill was tops too.

Yeah I know people say they joined the military (especially the Corp) to kill people. But take it from me, that's always the first kid to buy the farm when bullets fly. Karma? Fate? No idea, don't care but it was rule of thumb. And that was always the guy you watched your back around on patrol or at the shooting range. That's people who have a death wish or daddy didn't buy them the BMW they always wanted. And you don't have to be American to be crazy.

A military dictatorship is a form of government wherein the political power resides with the military; it is similar but not identical to a stratocracy, a state ruled directly by the military.

Since the military takes it's orders from a publically elected official that may be changed every four years the U.S. does not qualify as this.



To hold up a few bad apples and say they represent the whole orchard is unfair. Do we blame all of Islam for a few bad apples?



Agreed! This was not the decision of U.S. troops.



Sympathy is an emotional affinity in which whatever affects one correspondingly affects the other, and its synonym is pity. Sympathy comes from the Latin sympatha, from Greek: συμπάθεια transliterated as sympatheia, from συν + πάσχω = συμπάσχω literally: to suffer together also: affected by like feelings or emotion. Thus the essence of sympathy is that a person's feelings reflect or are like those of another or that a person suffers as a response to, or because of, another person's suffering.

If your sympathy is conditional then you have the same kind of sympathy that Al Qaeda does, only for people who agree with them. I feel sympathy for all who suffer...and U.S. soldiers and their families are suffering because my governments decisions. So be angry at the war but not at it's victims!

OMG! This wasn't the kind of discussion I meant to start... but glad for everyones opinions all the same. I am not saying I agree with war, or the fact that soldiers are sent into countries where they are not wanted. I am also not condoning the horrible things that sometimes happen to innocents in these countries by the hand of SOME of the soldiers supposedly sent there to protect. There are always a few in power, who abuse that power.

I just wanted to say thank you to the soldiers who do their job for the right reasons.

It's really good seeing more people appreciate the occupation of "soldier" more now than say 40 years ago. It's a job and you do your job. You can gripe, grumble, moan, and cuss all day but if you don't like it...quit.

Like most of the topics in "Banana Republic," this one stirred up controversy. I appreciated the sentiment (ex soldier). I'm also violating one of my own rules by responding to this (I have learned to never look at anything in "Banana Republic," because it's not worth getting into email discussions on all of the politics and ignorance in the world), so take it or leave it.

However, an attitude of "Those soldiers chose to take up arms..." really set me off. Crowhawk, I'm not calling you out as such, but you have no understanding of what soldiers really do / how wars are fought if you really believe that. Armed forces from any country are nothing but "instruments of political power." That statement in itself profoundly trivializes the human factor, but it doesn't detract from the truth of it. No soldier decides to go to the war. They are sent. They don't decide to come home. They are returned. They may choose to resist (going AWOL, fleeing elsewhere, becoming a conscientious objector, etc.), but they don't choose to take up arms.

"Keep the peace"?? in iraq??
I'm not sure where you get your information from, but, from what i can tell, there has'nt been much "peace" going on in iraq as of late.

And as for protecting us; against what?? the WMDs they did'nt have?? or the links to Al Cia'da that did'nt exist??


They chose to take up arms the moment they joined the military.
I mean it's not called "The Armed Forces" for nothing now is it??

The US (and it's military) has been in a perpetual state of war ever since it emerged from WWII as the worlds largest military superpower. The US economy benefitted greatly from WWII, and the people runnin' the show were'nt going to let this new-found method of economic growth be impeded in any way by the simple fact that the war had ended.

If the US were to drastically cut it's military spending, a large portion of its population would find itselph out of work. But the only way to justify this continued spending to the taxpayers in the first place, is to terrify them into believing that evil villains are constantly plotting against them in far-away lands. The scripts used are often quite similar to disney films in that respect... only without the cute little talking animals, and a lot more blood and gore.

My opinion is that war is no way to settle one's problems. It's just murder on a grand scale. It serves only to create more problems.

People join for many reasons...I can't make a blanket statement about why they join.

I don't know if you have seen the recruitment commercials here in the states but they appeal to peoples self interest...Join the military and we will pay for your college and teach you a skill that will help you advance in a career. Marketing at it's best or worst? Simply put we appeal to their self interests then put them in a selfless situation. Many of these people are 18 years old, hardly an age where they truly understand the choice they are making.



Agreed.

Pearl Harbor removed the notion that if America left other countries alone they would leave us alone. We have yet to find the balance needed to secure our safety but live in peace.

if a soldier murders, he is a murderer it doesnt matter if 'its his job' or he was 'told to do it'. the american and british army are commiting attrocities in iraq en mass, i for one smile when i hear that some british and yankee soldiers are going to return in a coffin. what about the sexual abuse of the prisoners where they told to do that too or could it be that they are just sick bastard ppl who should be accountable for their actions.as for elessars (*** **** ** *** **** ******* ******) claim that someone is like al qaeda because they have no sympathy with the terrorist us and british forces, i have this to say, **** ** *****. it doesnt deserve anymore ** ********** *****

Mod Edit: Flames removed

bogbhoy I often disagree with opinions posted in the Banana Republic and other people often disagree with mine...however in order to keep discussions spiraling into flaming matches we respond respectfully and refrain from personally attacking anyone. The issues in the Banana Republic are emotional for us all...however if you are unable to refrain from attacking those with whom you disagree with you need to find some other site to post on.

Hope you have a nice day.

so instead u respectfully compare ppl to al qaeda based on some half baked idiotic notion, i feel this is worse than anything ive done. i believe ppl should discuss things with respect however there are some instances like this where i find it hard to afford ppl basic respects.

Reread this, I know it's semantics (what is actually meant) but is compares their sympathy not them.

The means is not justified by the end result. Al Qaeda's sympathy is conditional ours should not be. That is the point I am trying to make. You smile about dead people? I could never do that.

i smile cause theres less chance of an an innocent iraqi being murdered by illegal occupiers, theres your semantics. i feel what you typed was kinda cheap thats why i responded in the manner i did, but i guess its your opinion and i gotta respect that right

i think at the end of the day there will always be different opinions. we all have the right to our own opinion and shouldn't shove our opinion down other peoples throat, but at the same time there is nothing wrong in telling people what you believe and why you believe it, as long as we respect what everyone has to say.

like i have said before, not ALL soldiers rape and abuse innocents, and not ALL soldiers abuse their privlidge and power.

I agree that innocent Iraqi's are being killed by U.S. forces and I am against the war and am trying to influence it's end. You say it's illegal...what or who's law has been broken? You say they are being murdered...since we are communicating in English here is the definition.

Murder is the malicious and unlawful killing of one human being by another. Murder is distinguished from other forms of homicide by the elements of intent and the lack of justification. Sometimes murder is used to describe what is really a homicide. While the two terms are similar they are not synonymous. Although all murders are homicides, only intentional homicides are murders.

No law has been broken so it is not illegal and the homicides of innocent Iraqi's are not intentional so it is not murder. I will agree with what you mean that it is absolutely wrong.

I could have just said that conditional sympathy is wrong but that would not have stood out. Comparing someone's sympathy to a generally excepted evil was intended to provoke a strong emotional response. Why? Because I want people to think about what they say and believe. You may never agree with my point of view here but you will always remember our conversation because of the emotional response you had. I can not change anyone's mind only they can do that...but I can make them think about it like I have done here.

You rationalize smiling at someones death to prevent someone else from dying. Still something I can not do...even if a suicide bomber only blew up himself I still find this tragic. We each are unique and special. Suicide bombers are usually women or children who have been conditioned to believe what they are doing is god's will, they are also being used. Every loss of human life is tragic.

I would not even say that you need to respect my opinion...just not flame me for it.

No worries on the manner in which you responded. I don't hold a grudge...peace begins with one's self.

I don't think my sympathies can be compaired to "Al Quaeda" I don't actually believe Al Quaeda exist. Al Queda just means "The Base" min Arabic & refered to a house in Pakistan that was used by Ossama bin Laden & others to help the Mhudja Hadein as they crossed into afghanistan to fight the Rusians. In this endeaver they were aided,( despite pleas to the desist by Michael Gorbacheov) by the US who gave them military assistance including "Stinger" surface to air missiles. Al Quaeda is just a bogey man to frighten the populus enabling the use of RICO organised crime laws. North America like Britain governs it's population on fear. Since the colapse of the Soveit Union & the end of the Cold War America needed a new object of fear to unite around.

The USA has been involved to a greater or lesser extent in something like 140 wars since 1945. Not one of these, including Korea, Panama, Georgia, Vietnam, Nicuragua, El Salvador (The mythical Sandinista's) Somalia, or Iraq could in any way be considered wars for national survival. These were wars of imperialism. wars that were nothing more than armed robberies on a huge scale. Without exception they were caried out against poor people from less well developed countries in pursuit of US world hegemoney

My sympathies, empathies affinities are with the Iraqi people, not because they are conditional but I find it far easier to envision my-self in the position of someone who is, for no reason other than being born in the wrong place, being bombed, shot tortured, being dragged from his house in the early hours of the morning & living in fear of an occupational force that knows nothing about him in fact doesn't even speak his language. I find it easier to put myself in that place than that of the opressor. I would not no matter who ordered me to, drop bombs on people. I would not join the british army in order to repress the Northern Ireland civil rights movement. The whole world sees this as an ilegal occupation. The whole of the UN Boo'd & jeered Colin Powell when he stood before them with his tube of talcum powder & demanded to go to war on resolution 14/41 The Neurenberg War Crimes Tribuneral decreed that acting under orders is no defence. It was no defence in Bergen-Belsen It was no defence at Mai Li & It is no defence in Iraq. I would like nothing better than to one day see GW Bush, Don Rumsfeldt, Paul Wolfewitz & Tony Blair et al stand trial for war crimes in The Hague for what they have done to the people of Iraq including the use of banned chemical weapons ( the use of white phosferous against a human target is ilegal) in Faluja. Torturing & abusing prisoners in various prisons including Abu Grahib. Evading their responsibilities to the civilian population. Murdering or being grossly negligent concerning the deaths of what may amount to hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. A record to be proud of??

Thank you, I did not know that.



I don't understand how you can not believe in a group that releases video to Arabic news stations. They say they are Al Qaeda and OBL said that 911 was his plan. I will have to side with my own eyes and the interpreters who tell me in English what is being said, at least until conflicting evidence is presented.



No argument here it is a matter of public record.



Governs with fear no...but it does try to rally support for it's decisions with what ever tools it has...fear being a powerful one. I am not afraid...the people I know are not afraid...more and more we are angry.



I really wish I could argue with you here but I can't...wait 140 seems a little high even with 1 a year it comes out to less than 70. Not that the number really matters because your point is on target.



Grossly negligent is accurate murder is not. No I am not proud of the items you list but you only list the negatives...there are many positives. We are not perfect beings, no one ever will be. You declare that no could ever force you to kill...this is because of your experiences and where you grew up. If you were born under Taliban control or to patriotic U.S. soldier parents your view would be much different because your experiences would be different. We have little choice but to hold people accountable for their actions even thought it is obvious they would have made different choices with a different background. We can however show understanding and compassion for their mistakes and be fair with our judgement. In regard to comparing your sympathy to Al Qaeda...it was just my way of emphasizing how wrong I believe conditional sympathy is. You do not appear to have been offended but I offer my apology if you were.

Butterfly Babe that your thread has provoked such strong responses is a good thing. Communication is they key to understanding. Only with understanding will we someday be able to live in peace. Please don't look at the responses as negative you have a very successful thread.

I think the terms 'illegal war' and 'murder' do apply to the British and US in Iraq, they entered into the conflict based on a lie (the Non-existent WMD's) - under the terms of the Geneva Convention the occupation is illegal and those responsible will face war-crime tribunals in the future

However I do empathize with the relatives of all the dead, on all sides of this atrocity. I have friends who have served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and not all of them were on Bush's team.

The 'horror stories' work both ways - both sides in this 'war' take prisoners, both sides torture these prisoners for information that they don't bloody know. And both sides are dieing, the only difference is no innocent Brits or Yanks are dieing.

I usually stay out of these ... but this cannot be allowed to pass without comment.

What exactly are you basing that opinion on? I find it hard to credit such a ridiculous statement ... surely you dont think that every Brit or American has gone there with the intention of killing people? Or is as some extremist Muslims have said, that theyre guilty by virue of just being British or American?

They troops ceased being innocent when they signed the paperwork to enlist (whatever side of the conflict they are on), whereas the civilians that die (as a result of both British/US and Iraqi actions) are innocent and their only crime is to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. How is that 'a ridiculous statement'

i was trying not to make this about religion, but as you brought up Islamic Extremists i will have to comment on that.

The three major religions all agree on many things, one being, killing a fellow human is murder - however you want to dress it up

You are assuming that there are no civilian Brits or Americans in Iraq ... thats why its a ridiculous statement. I know several medical personnel who have been to Iraq, of their own free will, to help the Iraqi people. Not all of them come back. It offends me to hear you bundle them under the banner of "guilty" when these are some of the best of humanity in my opinion.

I've got to disagree with the statement "No inocent Brits or Yanks are dieing". Of course they are. They,re for the most part working class (I hate that term) kids sent over to fight a war they have nothing invested in & will for all intents & purposes receive no thanks for. It is sad but as things are inevitable fact that more of these kids will commit suicide after returning than actually die in the conflict. The USA have managed to institute a back door conscription policy whereby you can receive an education in exchange for service to the military. this is weighted against the under priviledged in favour of the oligarchy. If someone doesn't believe these people are inocent then what about those who like Ken Bigley & nick berg were beheaded whith a meat knife by their captors, videod in support of their cause & distributed to various Arabic press agencies. What kind of lunatics believe this will further their cause unless their cause is terror for the sake of terror

I don't believe in Al Qaeda as a global uber-terrorist franchise with Osama bin Laden at it's helm, I DO believe in the existane of islamic fundementalist terrorism. Various islamic extremist organiations exist, from Indonesia, Chechnia & throughout the Middle East & Sub Saharan Africa. Ansar al Islam, Islamic Jihad, Sawt al Kiffala (Voice Of The Calliphate) release videos in support of their aims which are usually based around turning the world into an islamic supper-state (Caliphate) under Sharia Law &/o eradicating Israel from the face of the earth. (I do not include groups whose sole aim is liberating/supporting the Pallestinians) They have a world view that is although distastefull, childlike in it's naieve simplicity. These groups to some degree may share common aims & ideology, but they are not part of a greater unified world conspiricy under one leader as western politicians would have us believe. I have seen the videos purporting to show, with an English translation Osama bi Laden admiting planning & organising the attack on the World Trade Centers. Whether the translations are acurate, I can't say, I have been told by more than one Arabic speaker that they are not. The Name/term Al Qaeda only appeared after 9/11 I won't go into the reasons & theories why, only to say that it gave a tangible face to wage war against.

Iv Elessar of course I'm not offended, nor do I mean any offence exept to ignorance & closed mindedness. I, like you, write this to encourage debate.

You are assuming i am thick, One of my best mates is a cost assessor and has just been looking at the price of rebuilding Afghanistan - he's no more guilty than I am. However he is making an income from others misery, which bring me to this......

what part of this calls nurses and doctors guilty?


The second part of this quote being the strongest 'the civilians that die (as a result of both British/US and Iraqi actions) are innocent and their only crime is to be in the wrong place at the wrong time' doesnt this include non-military Brits/Yanks in Iraq??

I also know a lot of medical and non-military men/women who have been/are in Iraq
If the medical staff were being paid enough here in the UK, they wouldn't look for freelance work in dangerous zones - before you say it - not all are paid for there services, but i disagree. Job enhancement is greater if you have done some Red Cross or Peace Corps work.

A truly heroic doctor would go out there, for nothing and never tell anyone so that no-one could advance his/her career

Besides, all of this is semantics - whether you are a nurse, soldier, MP or accountant - you are aware that you are entering a warzone and you are risking your life. you have a choice to not go (with the exception of the soldier) the Iraqi civilians dont have this luxury

The bit where you said



Hey chaps ... I'm just not going to turn up for work for a few months ... keep my job open ... just reschedule the next few months ops

exactly, i believe its called taking a sabbatical or 'working abroad'

i know you were being sarcastic, which isn't really the stance any of us should take in the Banana Republic, but ironically you are right, thats exactly what should be said by heroes, the only people that should know where they are are the people that need to know, family, organisers and most important - taxman - ok i am being sarcastic now so i think thats the end of my input in a thread that seems to have been hijacked

btw elessar. it is illegal and it is murder this is without any doubt. in the same way you could never smile like me when the terror bringing americans and brits meet their death, i could never justify or pass off mass murder as a homicide. would you say the nazi regime where murderers too or that was a whole big pile of homicide too. the fact you passed it off as homicide when these terrorist armys drop bombs indiscriminately or shoot ppl dead in the street without justification would lead me to conclude that you are like al qaeda.why dont the americans and british leave all other lands alone and let the ppl of other lands rule themselves in which ever way they want whether they agree with it or not. the iraqi ppl brought no war to america they had no weapons of mass destruction, so get out american and british terrorists or else go home in body bags :)

Well put
How would everyone feel if this happened to you????
Invaded by a force that is not welcomed or needed

Not using the English definition of the words.



I am not justifying or passing off anything, I am using the correct English terminology.



Nazi regime was targeting Jewish non-combatants and exterminating them. A statement comparing the two is again ignoring English definitions of what the words mean.



Indiscriminant they are not. The U.S. uses the best targeting technology know to the world today to avoid loss of cilivlian life. However it is not perfect and the missiles intended for one target will often miss. You may conclude all you want, believe would be a more accurate term. I believe your use of the English language disregards the meaning of words and that you will always choose the most extreme words because they convey your feelings.



They did the U.N. inspectors oversaw the destruction of them and since the U.S. sold them the weapons we still have the receipts. However it does appear that by the start of the U.S. invasion they had all been destroyed.



I agree however I am concerned much more about the sheer number of Iraqi civilians who lose their life, 1000 Iraqis that lose their life to every 1 American. American soldiers are not killing the majority of Iraqis, they are killing each other. I feel the U.S. bears responsibility for this because we destablized a government that was keeping peace.

@ OP

Thanks for the post, this is the side of the war we rarely see. Although I've noticed some responses criticized this as some kind of propaganda ploy, I think it's a good display of the human side that people tend to ignore in place of their own political agenda. I've seen similiar picks of US military personel with Iraqi citizens with the same feel -- noticeably not shown in US media but certainly shared among the soliders and their families in the service.

As one US grunt once said, "If you can't support us then get in front of us and see if you can do a better job."

i apologise for the fragmentary approach to prose i have used here - it is inelegant but i really haven't the time to properly compose so i'll just list. apologies in advance for repetition too.
it's quite likely to be best if you do not read this


i could, i can, but i never will support armed conflict. the purpose of a soldier is to kill at the will or whim of another. simple as that. if anything i have more respect for 'terrorists' who at least decide who they murder rather then abandoning their free will with a swipe of a pen for a salary.

statement of assumptions -incomplete
as far as i'm concerned killing humans without their express & informed consent = murder.

peacekeepers with assault rifles... peace... assault... hmmm

lv.elessar - you are american therefore the language you speak & write is not english. think about it.

law is not admissable to ethical debate. ethical debate informs law (or should do)

i believe that although in hard fact we are meat (irrespective of the possible existence of souls or spirits): humans should not treat each other like meat. this includes bombing people for peace. war on war (spelt 'war on terror' in governmental-american&english) &c

legalised slaughter
does it matter at all wether it was legal? do you really care? isn't it wrong regardless?

that said - american government forces have been using this war as an excuse for gross violations of human rights, law & dignity since day 1. there are still many us citizens 'detained' without recourse to law & without charge, it's been what, five years?
legal? i think not. is the war legal? well, when has law ever bothered murderers? those who order killing or those who perform it? when did ethics matter to them? but i severly doubt that ignoring the un resolution was legal... anyone care to give me a second on that?


ethical equivalence
the actions of saddam & his army were inexcusable, inhumane, atrocities. the actions of bush & his army were inexcusable, inhumane, atrocities. the actions of blair & his army were inexcusable, inhumane, atrocities. spot the difference?

there can be no separation of these facts- each of them ordered death & destruction on a grand scale & were obeyed by people either too scared to refuse of too dumb to realise they should. ignorance may be considered a mitigating circumstance but it is not a justification or enough for me to feel the need to excuse them.

defense or offense?
one defends oneself by preventing harm to oneself - not by harming others. this is a key fact the english & the americans who believe attacking iraq was a defensive measure need to understand. attack is not synonymous with defense - clear?

so how to deal with iraq ethically if you have a time machine?
first - goto just before the english decided to make a country out of at least three territories who've warred for years... and stop them.
shame really.
second - do not allow the newly liberated iraqis the ability to form military structures before political ones maybe?
third - do not train & arm saddam in the first bleeding place.
fourth?

difficult conclusion
I do honestly think that although murder is wrong, fighting for peace is a laughable oxymoron & britain&america didn't really care about civil rights when they planned this...
saddam needed stopping.
so did bush clearly but that's beside the point.

can anyone tell me how we could've done it without more death?

i don't think so - he wasn't a reasonable man & frankly assassinating him wouldn't help either (that & it'd be an inexcusable murder)

so maybe, just maybe, this time, the record will show that a bunch of murdering morons went somewhere & blew shit up for the later good. will it be greater. well, that remains to be seen.

so yes, i do think it's a shame squaddies got shot, i think it's a shame they signed up, i believe that all military personnel might as well be issued with death certificates at the moment they sign up, clapped in irons & charged with intent to kill.

soldiers who don't sign up to kill people haven't read the job description.
or they misunderstood & thought that 'to defend all enemies yadda yadda meant to actually defend against enemies rather then attack people who aren't friends...

& here ends the first of my posts on this site, hope you thought about it. responses?

Very very well said.



You can justify anything (most often with patriotism or religon); does that mean there is no murder?



Just like all soldiers are conditioned to believe that killing people for their government is a good thing to do.



That is far from the point. People who criticize the war aren't saying "you aren't killing good enough, we can kill better then you", they are saying "killing is wrong".

surprising but i've seen the demoraphics: the majority of suicide bombers* are not children, although a fair number of women do join the fun, they overwhelmingly have qualifications from respectable higher education establishments - unlike soldiers - & are largely from what are generally regarded as the middle class - also unlike soldiers.

oc i must agree they've been conditioned & are being used - just like soldiers.

*with the exception of enlisted soldiers [who are usually considered seperately, though i do not support the reasons for this] worldwide, since the first recorded incident & for applying only to those whose identities are known [as most are]

As the old cliche says "One mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist. It was a fore-gone conclusion that Iraq would descend into civil war. Iraq with it's Soviet era weapons couldn't hope to withstand a conventional war against the most up to date technology & the best equipped army the world has ever seen. The only avenue open to it was to surrender or to fight a guerilla war of resistence.

One thing that should be born in mind is the fact that the North American soldiers are fighting because they are paid to do so. The Iraqis fight for ideology, for their home-land, families & if the truth be told freedom. It is very hard for the USA to maintain the idea that somehow it is they, who are fighting for freedom, whilst occupying a country against the wishes of the people of the occupied country. In WW!! The Nazis labled the French, Dutch, Polish, Belgian, Scandinavian or anyone else who had the bravery to resist the German occupation of their countries "TERRORISTS".

It is also supremely arrogant to say that if the USA left Iraq that the Iraqis couldn't govern themselves & that without the US Iraq would descend into anarchy. It has with & as a result of US occupation, already done so.

Thank you for the post!! thank you to all who "protect our rights"

Just exactly what "Rights" are those?? What "Rights" does the US have in Iraq??

I hate soldiers - I was working for the army as medicall help and I can tell you ...this people are not normal in their brains.

The quote was from a grunt on the ground. Believe it or not many soliders believe they're over there making a difference stemming the damage of what is basically a civil war. They face nothing but criticism but no one has come up with a better solution so they see the people being critical as hypocrites -- easily criticizing but providing little or not constructive solutions. I quoted it specifically to show the sentiment that the soliders themselves don't feel they're pawns of Bush or anyone else.

A solider is governed by military law and (generally when not in a dictatorship) the government that backs it (in this case a democracy). A terrorist has no guidance and no restraint outside of his own ideology. It's true that a solider kills but I find it highly offensive that you refuse to make a distinction between what a solider does and a terrorist. Yes, I'm familiar with all the witty comments about terrorism like "terrorists are just what the big army calls the small army" but the reality is that although collateral damage is a factor soldiers generally aren't called upon to kill civilians whereas terrorists not only don't care, they target them intentionally.




By any international definition killing human beings designated as "combatants" is not murder. If a solider dies in a war, it's not murder because they're there as a combatant. Terrorists specifically target civillians. Yes, there are lots of stories of civillians being killed by those in the army even by direct order. We call these incidents war crimes. Even in incidents where a civillian dies in the ensuing collateral damage of an attack (e.g. missile that misses it's target) it's a reasonable thing to accept that it was not intentional. But, when a guy walks into a crowded disco, pizzeria, market place, day care, etc. and blows himself up he's doing it for maximum casaulties and he obviously makes no distinction as to who he kills.

What's especially insidious is what happenned in the bombings in Britain not too long ago (London?) where there were two sets of bombs. One to blow up a train (subway?) and another minutes later to kill anyone that came to help the survivors. I can only shudder to imagine what 9/11 would have been like if the terrorists had had the foresight to plant bombs around the base of the world trade center before the planes hit so that they could also kill all the people that came to help. And yet you'd put terrorists on some moral high ground because it's premeditated? Absolutely disgusting.


However, I agree there's a big distinction between what a peacekeeper is expected to do and what an army soldier is expected to do. The one is not a suitable substitute for the other.




If ethical debate leads to laws, wouldn't that make them admissable to an ethical debate?

Legal or illegal aside, what's your definition of "slaughter" and why assume such a definition would neccessarily be negative? If the army successfully targets a missile at a terrorist training compound and kills hundreds (or even thousands) of them, you may choose to use the word "slaughter" but I certainly wouldn't feel it was wrong regardless of what words you chose to use to describe it. In an armed conflict that's how it goes.




Would you like to clarify this? I agree that many americans have had rights violated but are you lumping those incidents with things going on in Iraq itself? If so, which incidents?



I'm a bit confused, I thought you said legality didn't matter on ethical issues.

Well either way in this case it was definitely a LEGAL war. The UN passed a resolution at the end of the Gulf War that Iraq violated. However, even though there was clear evidence the resolution had been violated most of the countries including the bulk on the UN security council refused to take action to enforce their own resolution. The US took it upon themselves to enforce it and so it's no surprise that they received much international criticism for doing so. It puts the truth to the lie that the UN functions as anything other than a political tool. A UN that passes agreements and resolutions but then doesn't enforce it is useless. I know the US has received a lot of criticism for unilaterally deciding to go into Iraq.. but France did the same thing down in Sierra Leone (Ivory Coast?). Where was the condemnation of France for taking such unilateral military action without UN approval? (I'd also like to point out that France's decision was ALSO motivated by economic factors.)




Yeah, Blair and Bush were idealistic in the notion they could fix Iraq while Saddam was just interested in maintaining his power. (And for the record, I don't for one second accept the assumption that Blair was the lap dog of Bush.. he was definitely an equal partner in this.)

Iraq was all about oil, right? If Iraq was all about oil then why didn't they just cut a deal? Saddam wasn't an islamofacist like in Iran, he's just your average tinpot dictator solely interested in maintaining his power. All the US had to do was cut a deal for an exclusive oil deal (it's worked so far with Saudi Arabia so there's no reason to think it wouldn't with Iraq). But of course, that's all assuming it was all about oil which it obviously wasn't. Ideology, however misguided, on the part of Bush and Blair played a definitive factor in the decision to go to war.



I suppose you could say it was all coercion. But did it occur to you that there were many people that hoped they could do some good in Iraq? And still do?



Yeah, as mud. With the potential threat of nuclear weapons the only way currently to stop said weapon use is by denying the ability to use it. That means a proactive military operation - not waiting until after the missiles are flying to do something about it.



Unfortunately the time machine is in the shop.

I would, however, like to make a point on your third step. US policy has been for the longest time to influence without getting directly involved. Saddam Hussein was just one guy on a long list (remember the Iran-Contra scandal)? Bush's war was not the same but a departure from previous US foreign policy as he decided to send the US army itself in instead of trying to find someone with a competing interest and supporting them. Although it may not have worked out the way we all would have liked I'm not so sure it was a worse choice then the kinds of things done in the past. My list would be like this:

Step 1 - Go into Iraq.
Step 2 - Destroy all weapons and stockpiles, or weapon production facilities.
Step 3 - Depose Saddam, help organize new government.
Step 4 - Leave with the promise of return should Iraq's neighbours violate their territorial sovereignty.
Step 5 - Queue civil war. (This part is inevitable if Saddam isn't in power.)

Is it great for Iraq? Not really, but they're no longer an immediate threat to the US and that was the main concern.





Don't know why you think fighting for peace is a "laughable oxymoron". There's many examples in history of a decisive military victory resulting in peace.



Wow.. just wow. I'm sure someone has already said this in other threads if not this one.. but many join the armed forces for the economic and educational benefits it offers. So your caricature isn't really accurate.

I think you did a fine job of expressing your opinion.



Ok..what is it then? We have Americans that speak French, Spanish, English etc. English is capitalized because it's the name of a language...and happens to be the one I am typing in. I know you Brits think us Yanks have butchered your language but over here I am accused of speaking King's English (proper English). You will need to justify your argument if you want me to think anymore on it.



Nothing wrong with this as long as you identify it as your opinion, the definition I used was copy/paste from an online dictionary. Intent is the deciding factor.



Yes..Yes...Yes. Well those are my short answers but I am glad you asked and now let me explain why. Accuracy is always important. If you use words like illegal and murder the only people who will listen are the ones who already agree with you. I choose to be accurate because I am trying to convince the people who don't agree with me to change their position. At the beginning of the war most Americans were for it now most are against it. It has taken 10 years for people like myself to convince the mainstream public that the war in Iraq is wrong. If you think I am relentless here you'll really be glad you are not my family, with the exception of my father they all now agree with me. If I had used words that do not apply like illegal and murder then right away they would have stopped listening. Just as when you hear the President speak about the war or terrorism...Do you listen? Probably not...most of us know he will give us more propaganda. So while I share your emotional hatred of the war I choose to be accurate in it's description. I am trying to make a difference and inflammatory words and statements are counter productive. In my opinion if someone is not part of the solution then they are part of the problem.



Not that I have ever heard but if you find something like this I would like to see it.



I posted a dictionary definition so argue with Webster or Wikipedia I just accept it as the definition...however if you get them to change it then I will accept the change as well. BTW I love you name it's very creative.



I agree! I do believe by the definition of terrorism that with campaigns like "shock and awe" the U.S. military also engages in terrorism but do not believe they target civilians. So the term terrorist is at best ambiguous. Defining them as a hate group would be more accurate. Take Israel for example they shell residential housing in Palestine in hopes they kill a "terrorist" but who is causing more terror? If these hate groups would change what they say they target then they would be the same as us. For example: Our suicide bombing today was intended to kill members of the military while they shopped and lose of civilian life was not intentional and we are deeply sorry. Because they intend and want to kill civilians is the reason they are different. However both of us are killing civilians...so no matter how we justify it we are more like them than not. Killing is not the answer and will never bring peace to this war.

Great debate everyone.

If you Yanks butchered it, then us Canucks have boiled it in oil and the Aussies have surely tarred and feathered it.




Well I'd separate what's going on in Iraq with what's going on in Israel/Palestine. Because Israel has placed so many restrictions on movement the palestinian terrorrists have had to be more inventive. This includes, but not exclusively, running guns and other weapons using ambulances and using women and children as human shields for weapon stockpiles and other strategetic bases. They basically dare Israel to attack these targets knowing the condemnation they'll face but if Israel doesn't, how can they protect themselves? I don't think the blame should fall squarely on Israel because the palestinians put civillians in harms way. In Iraq I have yet to hear a single incident of this occuring. Sometimes civillians are killed but this civil war is sectarian in nature and are divided along ethinic lines - Sunni and Shiite. It's not just about killing Americans they ARE targeting each other.

An Average Day 30th June 2007
65 Afghan Civilians Killed by U.S. and NATO Bombs....Thank you soldiers

I'd love to know where this information comes from and whether or not the civilians are actually civilians.

Btw, we just buried 3 canadian soliders who served in Afghanistan.

Just exactly how was Iraq an "immediate threat to the US"???