Americans in general are selfish mofos. I am saying selfish to the point where we refuse aide or help, but when the burder becomes to great for use to bare we generally become disgruntled and things happen.


I have never said wether I agree or disagree with going to war. I simply posed a question.

Everyone is selfish mofos. If America is so selfish, how come they are the biggest aid donor to developing nations (though, I don't agree with America's policies or the WTO and other policies).

at the moment Saddam would of died, the powervoid would of made it a lot less bloody to send in UN peace troops to assure a proper election.


Hrm to believe the EU intelligence reports or to believe american propagande on such issues. I think I'll go with EU intelligence.


He was fired under pressure of the white house (threatened to revoke their right to go to those press meetings in the white house)


Your bases for this argument is even lame. Did you know Catholic church forbids women to study anything but homemaking for ages to? This didn't stop a lot of countries to allow them to learn anyway.

I assure you, a friend of mine went to Iraq a few years ago. She didn't have to cover her entire body either (unlike some countries) and there where women going to university.

Here's BBCs version of his rise to power:

http://news.billinge.com/1/hi/events/crisi...omacy/53756.stm

And no, the moment Saddam would've died, the United Nations would've discussed about it for six months before choosing what to do, then take six months to get ready to do it.

And, is your friend an Islamic follower, in the Middle East? Yes, Catholic church forbid women to do that ages ago, for ages, this is the modern world, and Islamic women were not allowed to go to school.

I'll just say I voted yes. Political arguments on the net are so... well they don't ever result in anything and are mostly a waste of time.

Most of what Silvanus has said is accurate and I agree with, though I'm pro-Bush/American Policy.

I also think he's wasting his time trying to convince the unconvincible.

We'll just leave it at that.

BBC's version doesn't mention anything about America's involvement, nor would they know anything about it when it was written since military intelligence like that doesn't get spread to news groups here, it would be a diplomatic nightmare.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/09/1445208

I didn't accually read it but someone refered me to it.

My friend happened to of gone there to give a lecture on medicine. And she was quite clear it where muslim girls.

Let me get this straight... Saddam comes to power in 1979, Iraq and Iran go to war during the mid 1980s, Reagan funds both the Iranians and the Iraqi's with weapons to help ensure mutual destruction and this is how America 'put saddam in power'?

Sounds more like good old fashion cold war espianoage and double dealing ment to run the Soviet Union into bankrupcy.

It's only one of the many accually. There are records of financial support to Saddam before that.

Wonder why you find that so suprising considering America also made terrorist numero uno.

Once again, you are quoting a complete biased website (I'll admit, first one I quoted was biased, I had no idea where it actually came from).

And let's put it this way: there is a difference between supporting a regime and creating one. We supported Iraq, but did not put Saddam in power, Saddam rose to power on his own without American involvement.

Wrong target

Silvanus, I think your quoting the wrong post.. or I'm confused.

For America to have put Saddam in power would mean that Carter was the one who put him there, not Reagan, was the only point I was making.

Nice that you call an american indepent news radio station biased. But yes it's a media institution, if you want hard facts, join the the military, to to one of their intelligence agencies and hope you can high clearence.

also a nice quote I agree with

“Iraq was not a breeding ground for terrorism. Our invasion has made it one,” Senator Ted Kennedy said October 16, 2003.2 “We were told Iraq was attracting terrorists from Al Qaeda. It was not.”

I quoted the wrong post, sorry about that Vissy.

And Anisu, are you on the EU security council, in a high ranking intelligence position?

I have a high clearance and can access intelligence reports classified under 'restricted' yes.

Really?

Isn't that nice that they allow someone over the internet to even say that. Truly, your security must be excellent over there.

Well, let's see who Google is written for:
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=...off&qt_s=Search

Uh oh... the atheists and scientologists! I knew there was a bias in those search results when every query sends me to L Rob Hubbard's biography.

What about ReligiousTolerance.Com?

http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=...off&qt_s=Search

Eep! The scientologists control it as well! Guess that means that any information about the other religions aside from Scientology are completely biased and unusable.

Ok, finally, who runs the BBC?

http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=...com&qt_s=Search

It's the Dr Who fanatics!!

I'm coming into this a bit late, but since this is, erm, my field, I thought I'd add my ineffectual comments to the bin.

You're absolutely right that soldiers are not unquestioning grunts, that we are in fact human beings just like the rest of you. And you're also right that doing wrong because we're ordered to doesn't excuse us from
responsibility from said actions. There is, in fact, VERY clear and concise regulations on the matter, basically boiling down to that if we, as soldiers, disobey any order given that violates an article of the military code, we are cannot be held accountable for failure to obey a direct order. Rape, just in case you're unaware, is a violation.

It's a stroke of irony how the American public views their own military. It's a very... fickle thing. Is it true that there are immoral people in the military? Yes, I'd have to say so. Some of the court martials you've no doubt heard about support this. Is it true that there a select few in command positions that abuse their rank and their power? Probably so, though I've not personally encountered it yet. It's ironic though, because as a whole, our military, whether by choice or by discipline, lives what most would call a very moral life.

The kicker is that mistakes that military people make are mistakes out of basic, normal human behavior... Civilians view soldiers as almost a foreign race... people they can't understand... but think about it, most of the junior enlisted (Not NCO's or officers) are under 25 years old. How many kids between 17-25 go through that period without making AT LEAST one poor choice? I'm willing to bet not many. I'm fairly sure that everyone drank underage at some point, yes? Maybe school was messing you up, your significant other cheated on you, whatever.

Now, take yourself at that age, go to a hot, foreign place, and listen to bullets hiss by your helmet... listen to mortar rounds exploding 1/2 mile away 22 hours a day. I think that would drive everyone to a drink, no? Underage drinking is punishable in the military... it can ruin your career. And for that reason, a lot of these 18-20 year olds just out of high school... the same ages that I've seen at keggers running around being idiots, aren't drinking, are focusing on their job, and just hoping they see their families again.

That's why I think Americans should support their troops no matter where their political feelings lie. The kid on the battlefield who just graduated high school, who raised his right hand and took and oath to defend his country men while they slept, the same kid who's 18 and already seen people shot, who has had countless sleepless nights, who has chose to forego the privileges and rights that his friends, family, and fellow citizens have, has had to become a man almost overnight. I've seen 20 year olds lead 12 man teams. How many of you would have been willing to take responsibility for the lives of 12 other people at that age? It's not being a manager at a restaurant. It's not even opening your own business and being responsible for 12 people’s jobs, we're talking their very lives.

It's funny, I've wasted all this time typing this out, when just today, someone who has a lot of military experience, a man whom I greatly respect, gave this very example. He said, "When someone comes up to me and asks me why I do it... Why I follow the commands of men in suits who may have never walked in my boots... I just smile and walk away. Because they'll never understand. They've never been down that road, and because of that, will never know the answer."

The answer is simple and at the same time indescribable. We do it because when we look to our left and our right, we see people brave enough to stand up to the call. We see people who are willing to sacrifice everything in the pursuit of defending an ideal. These words are ineffective at describing why, really. I could rephrase my thoughts a thousand different ways and still not hit the mark. He's right, sadly. Those who haven't been, cannot understand. You can read and watch when a small minority of an enormous force travels the wrong path, and goes against the morals and discipline that was instilled in them.

We're just like any celebrity or political figure. Bush is the most prominent member of the Republican Party, so all Republicans must be stupid and poor decision makers. Jessica Simpson is shallow on so many levels, so all tiny little pop singers must be the same way (Ok, I really can't defend that one.) My point is, and we're told this all the time, your eyes are on us. We're under the microscope as far as PR goes, and when something goes wrong, it's pushed into the lime light. Why? Because it's "Sensational and Shocking!" news.

Does the man from Podunk, Idaho who rapes a woman, the first rape he's ever committed, make national news? No. Why? Because he's Joe Blow, 40 year old blue collar man working in a steel mill. Who cares? But the minute PFC Blow, 19, misguided, gets drunk at a party and rapes a girl, it's the most shocking thing since Stalin killed hundreds of thousands of people in the 30's. It's on CNN for a week. They milk it dry. Both cases, for the victims, are equally tragic... neither one is less wrong then the other. Both should be punished.

But, because we wear the uniform, the nation automatically holds us to a higher standard then 40 year old Joe Blow, and rightly so. We hold each other to higher standards. We try to keep mistakes from happening. But not everyone can handle the military. Not everyone has the strength of character to not drink beyond control. To say no to a commanding officer when given an improper order. To not drink and drive. The second they choices that don’t adhere to the standards of a professional soldier, they no longer are one.

I'm don't want you to sympathize with killers and rapists just because they're in the military. We hate them just as much as you do, probably more so as they make all of us look like killers and rapists. But for the other 99% of the fighting forces - lend a hand. Or at least don't label them because their appointed boss is someone you don't like. Or because a few soldiers screwed up big time.

And for the argument about what we knew and didn't know, about intel and all the jazz, well, I like I said, it happens to be my field. And it's again, one of those things you'll never understand the why or how of unless you do it, mainly because no one can tell you. Distrust your political leaders if you want, try to elect ones you think will do right. Intelligence professions just gather information. Those people you elected are the ones deciding what to do with it.

Since most of you probably read the first and the last paragraph of this unneeded long post, skipping the middle, here's and oldie but a goodie: The End of the World

Regards,

- Bastion

Well said.. Nothing but respect for you and your mates. No matter how much the press demonizes you and your fellow soldiers, just remember there's a lot of us who respect and admire the things y'all do.

Respect for our fighting men should cross ideological boundaries, but rarely does.

I find that one of the saddest aspects of war. That young kids must see and commit such atrocities in the name of their 'ideals'. It's such a terrible gift to our youth.

I am happy to support our troops if they are defending our country. I am not so unconditional when it is aggression and occupation that they are engaging in.

Edit: And I'm not American, so I'm only talking about the... 300 or so (?) I think we have over there.