U.S. troops hope Afghanistan sacrifices not in vain

Aunt Spiker said:

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.

Click to expand...

so what you are saying is that you think the Nazi high command was right in all they did under order. why were there war trials? you can't have it both ways. pick a side.

Gibberish said:

Millions of "soldiers" refuse to go, by not signing up to join the military.

Click to expand...

this is true i agree. as a soldier joins he enables leaders to conduct war. if there is no military because of lack of interest than we all win.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

No wrong sorry.

Click to expand...

i would figure you could not understand the simplicity of Gibberish's response.

katiegrrl0 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Sure I defend Bush & Co. 24/7.

Iraq was threatening it's neighbors with non-existent WMD's. That's what they did.

And the Saudi govt. didn't have anything to do with 9/11.

katiegrrl0 said:

so what you are saying is that you think the Nazi high command was right in all they did under order. why were there war trials? you can't have it both ways. pick a side.

Click to expand...

I think that using extreme examples doesn't help much in this argument. Soldiers for the US are voluntary and you sign contract. If there is significant moral objection, there may be paths which are open. But in the end, you can't be a soldier and opt out when fighting starts. You were paid to fight, and that's what you must do. There's not always an absolute morality. The Nazis weren't correct in what they did, but no army can stand if they allow their soldiers to flee. Maybe some kept on and did their duty because of the alternative. There were trials because we won, not the Nazis.

katiegrrl0 said:

this is true i agree. as a soldier joins he enables leaders to conduct war. if there is no military because of lack of interest than we all win.

Click to expand...

The unspoken assumption is that the enemy will play by your rules.

Lotsa luck lady.

Aunt Spiker said:

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.

Click to expand...

well since you have never seen the cloth or where it has been i will let that slide.

i have been waiting two hours here for a response on the Nazi's that followed orders. i guess it is not in your nature to respond directly to that which refutes all you have states thus far. hmmmm is that the case?

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...

was that the US's problem? was that up to you to decide.

i don't like it. just as i don't like the way women are treated in many countries and i work tirelessly to help them. i have helped in Iraq with those the US tried to murder in invasion. i have bandaged the wounded and carried medicines. what di you do other than try and kill them. what? what has gone on in Iraq is Murder. if you were there you are one of them.

bhkad said:

Sure I defend Bush & Co. 24/7.

Iraq was threatening it's neighbors with non-existent WMD's. That's what they did.

And the Saudi govt. didn't have anything to do with 9/11.

Click to expand...

oh please they were a threat to no one. the only threat they posed was to daddy Bush's pride. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

oh show me the WMD's Bush found. that is so full of ****.

Ikari said:

I think that using extreme examples doesn't help much in this argument. Soldiers for the US are voluntary and you sign contract. If there is significant moral objection, there may be paths which are open. But in the end, you can't be a soldier and opt out when fighting starts. You were paid to fight, and that's what you must do. There's not always an absolute morality. The Nazis weren't correct in what they did, but no army can stand if they allow their soldiers to flee. Maybe some kept on and did their duty because of the alternative. There were trials because we won, not the Nazis.

Click to expand...

so you support the Nazi's in what they did. that makes three that support following unjust orders. keep them coming. i am beginning to see how you all support unjust invasions. makes sense.

bhkad said:

The unspoken assumption is that the enemy will play by your rules.

Lotsa luck lady.

Click to expand...

maybe people need to talk and make new rules. i am not saying my rules will not get me killed someday. what i am saying is that as closed minded as you all are about keeping the rules the same means there will never be change.

katiegrrl0 said:

oh please they were a threat to no one. the only threat they posed was to daddy Bush's pride. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

oh show me the WMD's Bush found. that is so full of ****.

Click to expand...

They were a threat to Israel. You are right that we've found no Iraq connection to the 9/11 attacks.

You can't assume that because there were no WMD's found that they weren't used as a potent threat by Saddam.

katiegrrl0 said:

so you support the Nazi's in what they did. that makes three that support following unjust orders. keep them coming. i am beginning to see how you all support unjust invasions. makes sense.

Click to expand...

Please do not be dumb. I don't see anyone here supporting what the Nazi's did. If you knew anything instead of jumping to conclusions so you can advance retarded notions with no realistic and logical backings you would know that I am well against the Iraq war, our invasion and occupation of Iraq. So just stop. Your hyperbole is amongst the most egregious and idiotic I've seen in some time. Stupidity will not advance this debate.

In the quote you quoted from me, it specifically says what the Nazi's did was wrong. They were aggressors and acted in inhuman ways. Were the soldiers justified to carry out orders? It's different than our system, there was not a volunteer system in Germany and no path to take for moral objections, and going against the power could lose yourself your life. So there were maybe many reasons. We did our best to run through the ranks and find the people who were issuing orders, and those people faced harsh justice (and rightfully so). So just stop with your hyperbole, spin, and intellectually dishonest debate methods and use calm, ordered logic to express your thoughts.

katiegrrl0 said:

maybe people need to talk and make new rules. i am not saying my rules will not get me killed someday. what i am saying is that as closed minded as you all are about keeping the rules the same means there will never be change.

Click to expand...

Don't be so melodramatic. Only John Lennon died by thinking like that. Well, keeping the rules the same makes sense until the enemy changes his mind. Talk that stuff to bin Laden and see how far you get.

katiegrrl0 said:

this is true i agree. as a soldier joins he enables leaders to conduct war. if there is no military because of lack of interest than we all win.

Click to expand...

War is not the only purpose or function of the military. Surely in your desire to understand and judge others in history you know that.

I wish I could puff on your dream-pipe of living in a threatless world, but I know better. We are far from such a paradise but, of course, it would be nice.

And, further, you don't have to be a formed military force in order to fight, overthrow or usurp.

So, what you're really wanting is for everyone to be peaceful and complacent and not hold against eachother - while at the same time you suggest that those who come around you with religious advocacy should be thrown in jail.

If the world was up to you you'd be the only one in it, it seems.

Also, there's far more to Hitler's power than having an army at his command - far more involved. Read up, learn, and discover. One way or another, through science, literature, art and disillusion - without a war he still would have done such things.

katiegrrl0 said:

i will keep watch of the news for when you are attacked. not likely to happen. even if you pull in all your troops.

Click to expand...

That's the same thing folks said in 1941. People were thinking it in 2001, too.

Ikari said:

Please do not be dumb. I don't see anyone here supporting what the Nazi's did. If you knew anything instead of jumping to conclusions so you can advance retarded notions with no realistic and logical backings you would know that I am well against the Iraq war, our invasion and occupation of Iraq. So just stop. Your hyperbole is amongst the most egregious and idiotic I've seen in some time. Stupidity will not advance this debate.

In the quote you quoted from me, it specifically says what the Nazi's did was wrong. They were aggressors and acted in inhuman ways. Were the soldiers justified to carry out orders? It's different than our system, there was not a volunteer system in Germany and no path to take for moral objections, and going against the power could lose yourself your life. So there were maybe many reasons. We did our best to run through the ranks and find the people who were issuing orders, and those people faced harsh justice (and rightfully so). So just stop with your hyperbole, spin, and intellectually dishonest debate methods and use calm, ordered logic to express your thoughts.

Click to expand...

the only retarded notions i see put forth here are those that support the troops of the US following unfit orders to invade nations. they are as you say not supportive of the Nazi for following unfit orders. so they need to make up their minds as to what they do believe.

the other retarded notion is the fact that these posting support Iraq for the most part but they did not support Russia moving troops against Georgia. i was there and saw that one. i see that these posters like to look at the events in history with a jaded eye. the US seems to get a break no matter how they act. the rest of the world must tow the mark.

i would say that those are pretty retarded. obviously you support the same notions as the rest so i would say that you must be in the retarded clan as well. make up your mind and know what you think is right and wrong.

i see it all in very black and white terms. if it is wrong for one to invade it is wrong for all. if it is wrong for one to have nuclear weapons it is wrong for all. i am consistent in what i say whereas the morons that you chose to defend have not a clue as to what they are defending.

in one case this is right in the next case it is wrong. somehow posters need to pick a side and stay on it.

the bolded statement is what i speak of. it was okay in your mind that the US could invade Iraq and has been shown do inhuman things. yet the Nazi's are wrong for doing the same thing. how is that logic? how do you justify what you are trying to say with a foot on each side of the fence.

the Nazi's as well as the US soldiers could have said no we will not do such things. neither did they are both equally as guilty for murder and crimes against humanity. one you defend because of blind patriotism and the other you condemn because you know that is correct.

please make up your mind as to what is right and what is wrong. it will help you in debate to be consistent in your points as i have been in this entire thread.

i use the examples i use to make points where people really are unsure what they believe. it seems since only you attempted to answer the Nazi question at least know the difference of right and wrong. the others avoided it because their response would have been made to be as stupid as they are had they said the Nazi's were wrong.

bhkad said:

Don't be so melodramatic. Only John Lennon died by thinking like that. Well, keeping the rules the same makes sense until the enemy changes his mind. Talk that stuff to bin Laden and see how far you get.

Click to expand...

seen your military out and see if the inept US forces can even find him maybe in a few decades or so they might. but as addled as they seem good luck with that.

has anyone ever tried to find out what Bin Laden is pissed off about or maybe the US whats things on the table before they talk. another horses ass policy from a bunch of horses asses at the top

katiegrrl0 said:

was that the US's problem? was that up to you to decide.

i don't like it. just as i don't like the way women are treated in many countries and i work tirelessly to help them. i have helped in Iraq with those the US tried to murder in invasion. i have bandaged the wounded and carried medicines. what di you do other than try and kill them. what? what has gone on in Iraq is Murder. if you were there you are one of them.

Click to expand...

So you "pacifist" will sit by while people suffer, YOu "pacifist" willsit by while people are killed, You "pacifist" will sit by while women are raped, You "pacifist" will sit by and let the wolves of this world pray on the sheep, and sit thier in ingorant bliss preaching "If I just show them peace, how could they refuse!".... It's a fools erand....


Like the takamura quote you ignored because it hits you to your very core... You can not be weak, and a pacifist.... That simply makes you a statistic to the tyrant, to the wolf.....


It's imo, the most abysmall and abhorrent state of being for those not a sociopath.... It is cowardice, and it is the claim of pacisfism that the coward clings to, that does a mass injustice to those of use who are true pacifists.....




"you don't like", The fact that you choose to be the weak, means your are insignificant, There is nothing you say that matters, because the wolf when he comes knocking does not consider the desires of the sheep....

katiegrrl0 said:

seen your military out and see if the inept US forces can even find him maybe in a few decades or so they might. but as addled as they seem good luck with that.

has anyone ever tried to find out what Bin Laden is pissed off about or maybe the US whats things on the table before they talk. another horses ass policy from a bunch of horses asses at the top

Click to expand...

:lol: "inept"......



Bin laden's text to America says we need to come to islam for him to stop attacking us....


I find it odd a "pacifist" such as yourself, would excuse bin laden's violence for understanding, and attack the peacemakers that are the American troops...

Aunt Spiker said:

War is not the only purpose or function of the military. Surely in your desire to understand and judge others in history you know that.

I wish I could puff on your dream-pipe of living in a threatless world, but I know better. We are far from such a paradise but, of course, it would be nice.

And, further, you don't have to be a formed military force in order to fight, overthrow or usurp.

So, what you're really wanting is for everyone to be peaceful and complacent and not hold against eachother - while at the same time you suggest that those who come around you with religious advocacy should be thrown in jail.

If the world was up to you you'd be the only one in it, it seems.

Also, there's far more to Hitler's power than having an army at his command - far more involved. Read up, learn, and discover. One way or another, through science, literature, art and disillusion - without a war he still would have done such things.

Click to expand...

i spent 10 weeks 2 years ago working with the Holocaust Museum filming interviews of survivors. we also filmed the remains of the death camps and holding camps. we studied the survivors and there stories. i know about war. i know the violence of war.

he was trying to send them out of Germany. the fees for immigration became so high that this practice stopped. it was the nations that raised the fees that pressed the Final Solution. if you read the original papers that were found from the meeting of Wannsee you will see that Reinhard Heydrich states this in that document. it was the senseless raising of immigration fees that brought about the death camps to full capacity. Rudolf Lange insists that something needed to be done with all the Jews. this was the Nazi response to the worlds end of Jewish immigration. fine job the world did by trying to force Hitler's hand.

my problems with religion also fit into this debate as well. such peaceful believers standing up for war. i see them as all hypocrites that have no idea what their faith is about. all they want to do is spread it like some cancer.

Ikari said:

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.

Click to expand...

:lol: a night at a bar with the Good Reverend, and I could tell you a story about UN corruption and the war THEY caused in 2001.......

Gibberish said:

Really? I didn't refuse to go to war by choosing not to sign up for the military?

Click to expand...

No I just found you comparing yourselves to those who served rather audacious to say the least.

katiegrrl0 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Pseudo bhuddist intellectualism is vapid when you have nothing to back it up.... :shrug:

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.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. I demonstrated through takamura's quote my stance succinctly... Your failure to demonstrate courage is your failure, not the greatness that is the good reverend! :lamo

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

So you "pacifist" will sit by while people suffer, YOu "pacifist" willsit by while people are killed, You "pacifist" will sit by while women are raped, You "pacifist" will sit by and let the wolves of this world pray on the sheep, and sit thier in ingorant bliss preaching "If I just show them peace, how could they refuse!".... It's a fools erand....


Like the takamura quote you ignored because it hits you to your very core... You can not be weak, and a pacifist.... That simply makes you a statistic to the tyrant, to the wolf.....


It's imo, the most abysmall and abhorrent state of being for those not a sociopath.... It is cowardice, and it is the claim of pacisfism that the coward clings to, that does a mass injustice to those of use who are true pacifists.....




"you don't like", The fact that you choose to be the weak, means your are insignificant, There is nothing you say that matters, because the wolf when he comes knocking does not consider the desires of the sheep....

Click to expand...

you need help with reading comprehension. i said i work with the injured and displaced in Iraq and other places. i do my part. i do work with women in countries where they have no freedom. i cannot do everything. when military's create death and destruction as they do there are not enough people or resources to take care of it all.

you do not know me or can judge as you so like in your Christian way like to do. to know whether i am weak or not. i see you have been by one of your statements to the 1st Gulf conflict. is that the only one you have played in. if so than you may be the weak Willie among us.

no i choose to be as i am because i respect life far more than you do my extremely hypocritical friend. when you figure out what you stand for or against maybe you can unravel the mystery for us so that we can really debate the real person. are you perhaps schizophrenic and suffer from a dual personality or something. it gets confusing as to who i am debating with you. in one thread you are a god freak in the next thread all you can do is chant war and berate a pacifist. you need help if i were you i would seek someone fast because you may hurt yourself while typing from one side than the other.