• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. troops hope Afghanistan sacrifices not in vain

liblady said:
the leaders don't bear the brunt, the soldiers do.
Click to expand...

this is true. it is easy to send someone who thinks they are doing the right thing off to die. it is not so easy for the leaders to send themselves.

it is like martyrdom it is easy to tell others it is great. if it is so great why aren't the leaders doing it themselves?
 
katiegrrl0 said:
have you ever thought that the other guy might if he believed that you would. your idea of peace is kill as many of the others as you can before they attack you. not a very good idea.
Click to expand...




You didnt read my post. See the takamura quote. That is my philosophy as a true pacifist.




Whatever else you garnered about the greatness that is the Good Reverend is of your own creation. ;)
 
katiegrrl0 said:
the leaders are more wrong. if they didn't have over zealous forces to send it could not happen now could it?
Click to expand...

You cannot "opt" for which efforts you support and which ones you don't.
If you're "out" you are officially "out."

So - if everyone, like you suggests, leaves the military because they don't support one act over another then that would mean that we have no one to fight in any circumstance.

If we didn't have a solid military then we would be vulnerable and easy targets. Enough groups, organizations and factions - not to mention whole countries - in the world spite us so much that any gap in our military would quickly be taken advantage of and that could easily net in an attack on us, in our country, on our soil.

Get your head out of the clouds and realize that the war in the Middle East is not the only military situation we're involved in. It seems to be the only one you're aware of but their are countless other situations gong on worldwide and quite a many are not vast, deep military excursions but necessary functions with a solid and honest purpose.

Pick what you want - to be open to attack and subjugation or safety.

Now - if you want to be without a solid military of support and protection then, fine, but fortunately our government actually cares about US and wants to keep us quite intact and unharmed.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Seriously? so we are only worried about today? Screw the ones who are there 1 year 5 months later cause Obama fiddled for 6 months?


Come on man.... :lol:
Click to expand...

Of course we are worried about the future. I'm just trying to grasp the how the plans of the future, or lack there of, are a cause of deaths today.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
You are indeed, and I am not trying to be insulting, a fake pacifist. You lack a cohesive reality to practice your pacifism...

Pacifism from a position of weakness is nothing....


I am out but I leave you with a quote demonstrating what actual pacifism is.





“ A pacifist is not really a pacifist if he is unable to make a choice between violence and non-violence. A true pacifist is able to kill or maim in the blink of an eye, but at the moment of impending destruction of the enemy he chooses non-violence. He chooses peace. He must be able to make a choice. He must have the genuine ability to destroy his enemy and then choose not to. I have heard this excuse made. “I choose to be a pacifist before learning techniques so I do not need to learn the power of destruction.” This shows no comprehension of the mind of the true warrior. This is just a rationalization to cover the fear of injury or hard training. The true warrior who chooses to be a pacifist is willing to stand and die for his principles. People claiming to be pacifists who rationalize to avoid hard training or injury will flee instead of standing and dying for principle. They are just cowards. Only a warrior who has tempered his spirit in conflict and who has confronted himself and his greatest fears can in my opinion make the choice to be a true pacifist.” -takamura




Simply stating "just don't fight only "fools" do it", is cowardice, not pacifism
Click to expand...

there is no such animal as a pacifist walking in strength. if you have a weapon you will use it. it is not at all fake. with your views on war and killing i would say that your Christian faith comes into question. this is just another page in the bible that you turn quickly by. i am so glad that your god lets you pick and choose what you want to believe of his/her/it word. it must help you sleep at night with the blood on your hands from the death you support. when supporting these wars do you do it in fact in the name of your god??????? don't call my stance a fake. yours has holes as large as all outdoors. i hear the phony coming to mind. maybe all you do is like to argue. your points oppose each other. you need to pick a few that fit and stick to them.

god
killing
war support
wow
and judgment on top of that

can you even make a coherent sentence out of what you profess as beliefs you have?
 
bhkad said:
I'm sorry for being cryptic.

I was objecting to your suggestion that an immediate decision is better than a well considered one which takes awhile.

I think Obama is going to wait til after the run off election to see how the political climate looks in Kabul before making a troop decision. Because, no matter how many troops are added, if the govt remains too corrupt or too weak any hopes for positive change will be just a pipe dream.
Click to expand...

This is actually one of my biggest concerns with Afghan. What is the point of "liberating" Afghan if it only remains peaceful as a police state? More troops aren't going to make the Afghan military and government less corrupt.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
That's the family, relationship, psychological and physical burden.

I was refering to the burden of "blame" and "responsibility" that people asign during and after conflicts.

Individuals, sadly, are reduced to numbers on paper of "casualities" and statistics - in the history books everyone will know "Bush" they will know "Obama" and they will know "Clinton" in regard to this Middle East situation.
The only time a soldier will go down in history is for descention and acts of valor.
Click to expand...

the soldiers pay the price for faulty decisions by leaders. that is why soldiers should refuse to go.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
When I was there? I pushed the iraqi army and republican guard out of Kuwait. I'm cool with my actions. :shrug:
Click to expand...

you were not defending your country as another poster said the military was to do. that she said was their job.
you were a foreign invader nothing more. no better than the militaries that you berate.
 
apdst said:
Because if a soldier will follow orders that aren't perfect, in a perfect world, then I know that no matter what, I can count him to protect this country, to the death. I don't have much confidence in a soldier who picks and chooses what missions he is dedicated to. He might change his mind, when we need him the most. Soldiers have to be able to be counted on 100% of the time, not just when they feel like doing their job.
Click to expand...

well than you have no problem with the Nazi high command following Hitler's orders. they were just doing the right thing by their boss.

i find it funny no matter how many times i say that you all avoid it. the reason being is it makes your staements about following orders make zero sense.

maybe you guys want to work together to make up a debate that makes sense and fits together.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Exactly!

You can't depend on a floor when it has holes right through it.

In politics if one changes their mind about what they support frequently they're accused of flip-flopping.
Click to expand...

than in your eyes the Nazi's were correct to follow the oders as well. that makes 2 Nazi supporters.
 
katiegrrl0 said:
the soldiers pay the price for faulty decisions by leaders. that is why soldiers should refuse to go.
Click to expand...

Like I said - without a military you'll have to defend yourself and, obviously, you're not cut from that cloth.

You don't know the first thing about the price that soldiers pay, don't pretend that you do - my husband is one and he's been one long before this bruhah in the sand started 20 years ago.

While you're sitting around whining about someone's values that you cannot grasp we've been dealing with it first hand and well aware of all the demands.

Further, for a considerable amount of time my husband held a job that most couldn't qualify for and, as a result, we're quite *aware* of things that you'll never know about.

Oh so easy it is to be blind, for you, until your desire comes around on you full circle and singes your infallible hair.
 
apdst said:
It's not blind patriotism. It's a devotion, to the death, to his unit and his comrades. You'll never be able to understand, but when your life is on the line, the last thing you want is someone who might waffle at the last second.
Click to expand...

same thing except with your statement i need a violin to accompany while we all weep.
 
katiegrrl0 said:
you were not defending your country as another poster said the military was to do. that she said was their job.
you were a foreign invader nothing more. no better than the militaries that you berate.
Click to expand...



And what of the thousands of kuwaitis killed tortured and maimed.


How does that mesh with your pacifism apeasment?
 
bhkad said:
The Taliban was the gov't in 2001 and they were asked to give up Osama. They refused. We invaded.

You think that was wrong?
Click to expand...

yes. that was wrong. the target was Al Queada Osama was the goal how good did you guys do with that. when your military followed asinine orders to start a mess on a second front you let the first target go. so you ****ed up both missions. big thumbs up to your military. mission accomplished. a large SNAFU. sounds like the current status quo.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
And what of the thousands of kuwaitis killed tortured and maimed.


How does that mesh with your pacifism apeasment?
Click to expand...

Is there debate on the first invasion? We did the right thing then, including not toppling Saddam. Done and over, the second invasion which we are still in is in contention for sure. I mean, do we add up how many civilians there are dead because of our invasion and occupation of the land? Not to mention our own side. I'm not a complete pacifist, as I understand there are times for action and it must be taken. But at the same accord, I'm not in favor for throwing my troops and military at a problem which isn't ours. If the Iraqi people wanted freedom, they could have fought for it themselves.
 
apdst said:
And, if we didn't over zealous forces to fight the enemy when they land forces on Daytona Beach, our country will be conquered by a hostile power.
Click to expand...

i will keep watch of the news for when you are attacked. not likely to happen. even if you pull in all your troops.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
I'm not standing up for their (the leader's, president, Congress, etc etc) actions and decisions - I find fault in a lot of them just as you. I feel they did do enough, didn't go deep enough.

What's easier to alter or control, the actions of millions or the actions of a few?
Click to expand...

if they are the people the millions. if they are the leaders because the US has no recall the leaders are impossible to control. that is why they do not keep their word. that is why Obama is a disappointment. that is why i left the US. there is no way to get them out once seated.
 
apdst said:
Was al Qaeda based in Saudi Arabia, receiving funds and safe haven from Saudi Arabia?

Was the Taliban ruling Saudi Arabia, providing funds and safe haven to al Qaeda?

I have a scenario for you: 19 Americans go to Brazil, train for and plan a terrorist operation, with the santion of the Brazilian government, then attack London. Who should the British go after?
Click to expand...

Saudi was as guilty for 9/11 as anyone. yes. Iraq was not guilty of anything on 9/11.

oh yes they were they were not in bed with the Bush's so they got a pass like the Saudi's were.
 
bhkad said:
Don't be fooled, Afghanistan was and remains a hotbed for anti-US planning and had we not invaded the chances are that we'd have been attacked again as we were on 9/11.

The Saudi government wasn't complicit in the attacks.

It pains me to be the first to bring this to your attention.
Click to expand...

sure defend Bush's buddies. that what you all do. now tell me what Iraq did. oh i'll help they did nothing except exist. so don't hand me that crap about the Saudi's.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
You didnt read my post. See the takamura quote. That is my philosophy as a true pacifist.




Whatever else you garnered about the greatness that is the Good Reverend is of your own creation. ;)
Click to expand...

no pretty much true the great Reverend is as phony as his positions. they are like cloth blowing in the wind. they simply collect dust.

as the positions you support are opposed to each other you have no positions they are moot. you don't even know what side of the fence on which you stand. LOL so yeah you are pretty laughable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom