Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

Freakzilla wrote:US Soldiers do not intentionally kill civilians and as a veteran I take it as a personal insult when you imply that.

You know what I've got to say about that.

What you meant to say was, it is not the official policy
of the US government for its troops to intentionally kill civilians.

US soldiers have intentionally killed civilians, with and without orders,
in every conflict the nation has ever been involved in. Occasionally it
gets found out, and the government wails & gnashes its teeth.

Then those incidents are downplayed and left out of the history books
and everybody forgets about it. Until it happens again.

(and note I, personally, make no moral judgements about any of that shit.)

SandRider wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:US Soldiers do not intentionally kill civilians and as a veteran I take it as a personal insult when you imply that.

You know what I've got to say about that.

What you meant to say was, it is not the official policy
of the US government for its troops to intentionally kill civilians.

US soldiers have intentionally killed civilians, with and without orders,
in every conflict the nation has ever been involved in. Occasionally it
gets found out, and the government wails & gnashes its teeth.

Then those incidents are downplayed and left out of the history books
and everybody forgets about it. Until it happens again.

(and note I, personally, make no moral judgements about any of that shit.)

Of course, you are right. It happenes. They really try to weed out the psychos but I guess sometimes it doesn't come out until the stress of combat.

How do you train to kill and remain sane? I'm thankfull everyday that I didn't have to kill anyone, enemy combatant or civilian.

Freakzilla wrote:

SandRider wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:US Soldiers do not intentionally kill civilians and as a veteran I take it as a personal insult when you imply that.

You know what I've got to say about that.

What you meant to say was, it is not the official policy
of the US government for its troops to intentionally kill civilians.

US soldiers have intentionally killed civilians, with and without orders,
in every conflict the nation has ever been involved in. Occasionally it
gets found out, and the government wails & gnashes its teeth.

Then those incidents are downplayed and left out of the history books
and everybody forgets about it. Until it happens again.

(and note I, personally, make no moral judgements about any of that shit.)

Of course, you are right. It happenes. They really try to weed out the psychos but I guess sometimes it doesn't come out until the stress of combat.

How do you train to kill and remain sane? I'm thankfull everyday that I didn't have to kill anyone, enemy combatant or civilian.

I generally give individual soldiers that have killed civilians the benifit of the doubt that there was a good reason, or it was unavoidable. There's a military legal system for investigating that kind of stuff (I'm not getting into whether I think they do a good job or not, not the issue here) and I don't think it's within my bounds to criticise people who arefighting a war for doing something wrong, when I've never been in anything resembling that situation. Not that I excuse it, far from it, I just think there are people who have the authority to judge right and wrong in those situations, and I'm not one of them. I'll criticise things in general, but not in specific, I don't have the perspective for it.

I imagine it's much different from when I was in the Army. Not once did they train us on how to deal with civilians. But then, we still had the Russians to think about. I'm glad I'm not there now, things were much simpler when the bad guys wore uniforms.

Here was the issue :

returning Vets told stories of being ordered to torch peasant villages.
("We destroyed the village in order to save it")

returning Vets told stories of those operations gone bad.

the Army and the US government called those Vets liars.

the media went on a feeding frenzy of "crazy Vet" stories ....

&etc.

I brought this topic up only because I want you younger men to
understand what really happened in the GI Movement. Check
out the Sir, No Sir film, read around on the VVAW site - and
know that at the time, this was all common knowledge. There
was a grassroots, huge underground movement within all branches
of the military to STOP the war in Indochina. There were tens of
thousands of returning Vets who openly protested the war and the
Army's treatment of its soldiers, esp. the black soldiers. This was
a HUGE and important thing, and everyone in the country was
talking about it.

Then ask yourself what your perception of the "anti-war" movement is.
What have you been taught and what have you absorbed from media ?
How many of you were aware of the Winter Soldiers ?
How many of you were aware that the reason the bombings in Cambodia
were suspended was because a group of Air Force intelligence officers
decided it was illegal and wrong and stopped processing the information
needed to plan the runs ?

&etc.

Freakzilla wrote:It's a moot point because Obama has already given the Taliban a date they can come back (troop withdrawl).

I know there are always innocent bystanders, but we try our best not to cause them.

Unlike our enemies who target innocent civilians.

But we should just give them a hug, right?

I take it you'd rather us stay there? And how would we pay for this? Tax breaks?

Isn't this against the very nature of conservatism? If we hold their hands long enough they will become dependant upon us and we will never get out. So do conservatives now endorse a government state? I guess McCain does.

So many contradictions in right-wing minds

No, I think we should have had an occupation and exit plan before sending the first troop there.

Freakzilla wrote:No, I think we should have had an occupation and exit plan before sending the first troop there.

Agreed. Better for planning would have saved a lot of things.

Freakzilla wrote:No, I think we should have had an occupation and exit plan before sending the first troop there.

I agree, but don't forget that the Iraq war was meant to be prolonged for as long as possible. Cheney and company never had a real exit strategy, because the only reason they went in was to secure a gigantic amount of oil that's under the surface there. Can't have people like Saddam controlling that much oil! They might benefit from it! And guess what, there's even more in Iran.

It's true, they were only there to secure oil. They had America's interests in mind, but they're so stupidly short-sighted and afraid of change, that they figured the only way to keep the US powerful is to continue to consume most of the world's oil. They felt that sending young men and women over to fight and die was a better alternative to renewable energy resources, since all their oil buddies' enterprises would eventually become phased out. they're all greedy, naive idiots who lied to the public and the world.

Afghanistan was a vaguely valid war but it was only a segue into Iraq. Notice how Bush didn't seem to care much about finding Osama bin Laden by the end of it all. He was much more focused on Iraq, wasn't he? Why is building a democracy in Iraq suddenly more important than finding the evil-doers who caused 9/11? Hmm, maybe because bin Laden isn't really a threat, and the Bush administration damned-well knew it, despite constantly reminding you that you're in danger?

Afghanistan is definitely justified IMO. It's an appropriate proportional response to what happened. Doesn't matter if we capture Bin Laden or not. We have to respond to an attack like that upon our allies. At least that's the way I look at it. The whole tangent into Iraq was dubious at best.

GamePlayer wrote:Afghanistan is definitely justified IMO. It's an appropriate proportional response to what happened. Doesn't matter if we capture Bin Laden or not. We have to respond to an attack like that upon our allies. At least that's the way I look at it. The whole tangent into Iraq was dubious at best.

I agree that it was justified, but I think there is a possibility that it really was just a "segue" into Iraq as far as the US gov was concerned. Either way though, I agree, we had to go and stand with the US on that one. I think we should stay... but I'm not in charge.

I was damned proud when Chrétien refused (loudly) to go to Iraq though, one of my few patriotic moments. (I think we should probably get in there now though when the US is pulling out).

I agree. It was one of those rare moments in Canadian politics where our leaders refused to go to war in Iraq not because they wanted to be petulant detractors of American policy, but because it was not justified for us to do so and because it was the right thing to do for Canadians. Of course, pissing off Ann Coulter in the process was just the icing on top of the cake

I don't believe the Afghanistan mission is done and I think we should commit to staying. I'd like to see more definitive leadership in the region, but I believe it's worth staying to defeat the Taliban. If for no other reason that to kick over their ant hills. To me, the war in Afghanistan makes more sense than the war on drugs.

GamePlayer wrote:I agree. It was one of those rare moments in Canadian politics where our leaders refused to go to war in Iraq not because they wanted to be petulant detractors of American policy, but because it was not justified for us to do so and because it was the right thing to do for Canadians. Of course, pissing off Ann Coulter in the process was just the icing on top of the cake

I don't believe the Afghanistan mission is done and I think we should commit to staying. I'd like to see more definitive leadership in the region, but I believe it's worth staying to defeat the Taliban. If for no other reason that to kick over their ant hills. To me, the war in Afghanistan makes more sense than the war on drugs.

Holy crap, don't think we've ever agreed this thoroughly.

A Thing of Eternity wrote:Holy crap, don't think we've ever agreed this thoroughly.

It's the end of the world. A perfect time to see Watchmen

GamePlayer wrote:I agree. It was one of those rare moments in Canadian politics where our leaders refused to go to war in Iraq not because they wanted to be petulant detractors of American policy, but because it was not justified for us to do so and because it was the right thing to do for Canadians. Of course, pissing off Ann Coulter in the process was just the icing on top of the cake

I don't believe the Afghanistan mission is done and I think we should commit to staying. I'd like to see more definitive leadership in the region, but I believe it's worth staying to defeat the Taliban. If for no other reason that to kick over their ant hills. To me, the war in Afghanistan makes more sense than the war on drugs.

You and I are of the same cloth my friend. When Jean said no to Cowboy I was so proud to be Canadian. I think most can agree that we need to stay in Afganistan and to be blunt, kill those muther fuckers faster then they can breed. I am a lefty liberal but take pride in sending our troops to kill bad guys. The mission in Afganistan will continue, both right and left wings support it for the most part. We need to kill all of them and dont stop in till the idea itself is dead. The Jihad must die and all those who support it. I would like to see NATO stop fucking around and let the boys go hunting. And to those boys I say "Good Hunting"

Baraka Bryan wrote:

A Thing of Eternity wrote:

GamePlayer wrote:I agree. It was one of those rare moments in Canadian politics where our leaders refused to go to war in Iraq not because they wanted to be petulant detractors of American policy, but because it was not justified for us to do so and because it was the right thing to do for Canadians. Of course, pissing off Ann Coulter in the process was just the icing on top of the cake

I don't believe the Afghanistan mission is done and I think we should commit to staying. I'd like to see more definitive leadership in the region, but I believe it's worth staying to defeat the Taliban. If for no other reason that to kick over their ant hills. To me, the war in Afghanistan makes more sense than the war on drugs.

Holy crap, don't think we've ever agreed this thoroughly.

I totally agree too...
WHAT THE FUCK IS HAPPENING TO THE WORLD!?!??!!

I hope that beyond 2011 we stay there in a non-combatant role since by then the US will have a much greater presence. We have been leading the charge there for years now and need to stay and ensure there is development and progress on all fronts.

shit make it 3, so whats this mean liberals and conservs all on the same page? oh canada!

A Thing of Eternity wrote:

GamePlayer wrote:Afghanistan is definitely justified IMO. It's an appropriate proportional response to what happened. Doesn't matter if we capture Bin Laden or not. We have to respond to an attack like that upon our allies. At least that's the way I look at it. The whole tangent into Iraq was dubious at best.

I agree that it was justified, but I think there is a possibility that it really was just a "segue" into Iraq as far as the US gov was concerned. Either way though, I agree, we had to go and stand with the US on that one. I think we should stay... but I'm not in charge.

I was damned proud when Chrétien refused (loudly) to go to Iraq though, one of my few patriotic moments. (I think we should probably get in there now though when the US is pulling out).

Only as diplomats and nation builders, not as "shock and Awers"

SwordMaster wrote:

A Thing of Eternity wrote:

GamePlayer wrote:Afghanistan is definitely justified IMO. It's an appropriate proportional response to what happened. Doesn't matter if we capture Bin Laden or not. We have to respond to an attack like that upon our allies. At least that's the way I look at it. The whole tangent into Iraq was dubious at best.

I agree that it was justified, but I think there is a possibility that it really was just a "segue" into Iraq as far as the US gov was concerned. Either way though, I agree, we had to go and stand with the US on that one. I think we should stay... but I'm not in charge.

I was damned proud when Chrétien refused (loudly) to go to Iraq though, one of my few patriotic moments. (I think we should probably get in there now though when the US is pulling out).

Only as diplomats and nation builders, not as "shock and Awers"

Not sure what you mean there - I meant in a peace keeping capacity, to help out the native military and police until the country gets out of the hole. I think someone other than the US might have a better chance getting the trust of the locals, just because many have obviously developed some bad prejudices against the US troops (probably wrongly in most cases but that doesn't really matter).

A Thing of Eternity wrote:

SwordMaster wrote:

A Thing of Eternity wrote:

GamePlayer wrote:Afghanistan is definitely justified IMO. It's an appropriate proportional response to what happened. Doesn't matter if we capture Bin Laden or not. We have to respond to an attack like that upon our allies. At least that's the way I look at it. The whole tangent into Iraq was dubious at best.

I agree that it was justified, but I think there is a possibility that it really was just a "segue" into Iraq as far as the US gov was concerned. Either way though, I agree, we had to go and stand with the US on that one. I think we should stay... but I'm not in charge.

I was damned proud when Chrétien refused (loudly) to go to Iraq though, one of my few patriotic moments. (I think we should probably get in there now though when the US is pulling out).

Only as diplomats and nation builders, not as "shock and Awers"

Not sure what you mean there - I meant in a peace keeping capacity, to help out the native military and police until the country gets out of the hole. I think someone other than the US might have a better chance getting the trust of the locals, just because many have obviously developed some bad prejudices against the US troops (probably wrongly in most cases but that doesn't really matter).

Main issue I have with any Canadian there in a military capacity is that they will be seen as American and shoot at.

I think that nation needs a civil war to reduce the bullshit between the factions. Civil war is normal for any nation to go through. Saddam held it off for years with an iron fist. Also who ever wins the civil war will need to rule with an iron fist. The world would be much better off with Saddam still in power.

I dont care who wins, and after its done I dont care who rules. They are Iran's little bitch now, now matter how you try and save them.

Baraka Bryan wrote:

A Thing of Eternity wrote: Holy crap, don't think we've ever agreed this thoroughly.

I totally agree too...
WHAT THE FUCK IS HAPPENING TO THE WORLD!?!??!!

*stares in total, utter, inconceivable disbelief*

"No, it's not possible..."

I think I'm just gonna give up.

I start a topic on Vietnam Veteran War Protesters
and it still ends up being about Canadian politics ...

SandRider wrote:I think I'm just gonna give up.

I start a topic on Vietnam Veteran War Protesters
and it still ends up being about Canadian politics ...

Sorry Sandrider. If it makes you feel better, I learned a bit about how messed up that war was last semester (and a fair bit in highschool as well). I think my prof called it "the beginning of the fall of the American empire" or something to that effect. What I know about it makes it sound like a good example of war for the wrong reasons with the wrong methods.

SandRider wrote:I think I'm just gonna give up.

I start a topic on Vietnam Veteran War Protesters
and it still ends up being about Canadian politics ...

Yah its still in the topic of war, but your right man, sorry for hijacking it again

SwordMaster wrote:

SandRider wrote:I think I'm just gonna give up.

I start a topic on Vietnam Veteran War Protesters
and it still ends up being about Canadian politics ...

Yah its still in the topic of war, but your right man, sorry for hijacking it again

SwordMaster, I've been trying to ignore this for a while but I can't anymore, it's driving me nuts. Sorry. You're looking for the word you're (pun!), not your.

EDIT: I'm no master of spelling myself though...