should democracy really be limited to a vote every 2 or 4 years? Maybe I chose to vote for a party that promised to stop babies dying and feed everyone in the world. Then, after 18 months of office, they decide to kill everyone who's left handed. Do I have to accept their decisions because I voted? Or because I didn't but the majority did? When we elect someone it tends to be on their central policies, or some that are close to our hearts. But once in office can they do as they like? Many parties do, by U-turning on their election manifestoes etc. as soon as they're in. Personally I think that democracy is compramised as soon as you have political parties. Wasn't democracy supposed to be about a local group electing an individual who represented them, and who would come back to ask their opinions. Now the reprasentative does as his party tells him 99% of the time, so instead of the will of millions being channelled into the decision process you have the will of the central cabinate dictating their will to the millions. And if you don't like it, you can vote for the other side instead who are just as bad. I say, ban political parties & make all deligates independants.
Folks, debating over right and wrong is just going to drive up blood pressures. Especially if you are in the eastern US and just dug out of 20 inches of snow. The Middle East will always be a hot bed of unrest until the jewish lose their hatred of arabs and vice versa. This has been going on since the jewish were kicked out of Egypt. What made it worse was when the UN created Israel. We have to support our troops because they have to follow the orders of our Commander and Chief. Lets remember everyone, this is a volunteer army now. No draft. So, they chose to be there.
I must say though, GW did a fine job a turning our hate for bin Laden into a hate for Iraq.
And, if we have any doubts about whether or not Iraq has chemical weapons, ask all of the Iranians he gassed during that war or the Kurds he gassed in the 90's
My $.02. Just some disjointed rambling.
Originally posted by mwmillerIf that oath conflicts with one's moral duty, then one ought not follow the oath.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following oath is taken by all personnel inducted into the armed forces of the United States, as found in the US Code, Section 502.
I, _________, do solemnly ...[text shortened]... rders are just or unjust.
regards, Marc (US Navy, retired)
The following is for all the pacifists who contributed to this thread that happen to be playing a board game based on war :
93 World Trade Center bombing in NYC: killed 6, injured 1,000
Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down & punished.
'95 bombing in Saudi Arabia: killed 5 U.S. military personnel
Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down & punished.
'96 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia: killed 19, injured 200 US
military.
Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down & punished.
'98 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa: which killed 224, injured 5,000
Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down & punished.
'00 bombing of the USS Cole: which killed 17 & injured 39 US sailors
Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down & punished.
Maybe if Clinton had kept those promises, an est. 3,000 people in NYC, DC &
in flight who are now dead would be alive today
Originally posted by britt2001bAnd all these terrorists are hiding in Iraq, correct? Pure nonsense.
The following is for all the pacifists who contributed to this thread that happen to be playing a board game based on war :
93 World Trade Center bombing in NYC: killed 6, injured 1,000
Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down & punished.
'95 bombing in Saudi Arabia: killed 5 U.S. military personnel
Clinton promised that ...[text shortened]... ose promises, an est. 3,000 people in NYC, DC &
in flight who are now dead would be alive today
Here is a quote from one of bbarr's previous postings in this thread :
"What better way to support the troops than remove them from an unjust conflict where they will be ordered to claim the lives of innocents?"
Do you actually believe our military will be ordered to kill innocents?
Do you believe that the leader of Iraq has not issued this order on his own people?
Every single attack plan released by the US government outlining how an attack on Iraq would occur begins with a bombing campaign of Baghdad. Baghdad is not made up entirely of military personnel, it is primarily civilians. Approximately 50% of the population of Iraq is under the age of 15. So an order to begin bombing Baghdad would in essence be an order to murder civilian children. Less than 10% of the munitions used in the Gulf war were "precision guided munitions" or smart bombs. While these bombs are useful in preventing civilian casualties, they are prohibitively expensive, and the military only maintains a limited supply of them. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that in the event of an invasion of Iraq, the military would be forced to use conventional "stupid" bombs that cannot discern a military and non-military target.
So yes, the short answer is that in the event of a war, the military would be ordered to kill civilians. While it may be easier to drop bombs on them from far away than to stab them with a bayonet, the net result is the same.
-mike
Originally posted by britt2001bdo you honestly believe that attacking countries reduces attacks on your own country? It doesn't seem to be working too well in the West Bank does it? And that is just one of hundreds of examples of retaliation escalating the problem.
The following is for all the pacifists who contributed to this thread that happen to be playing a board game based on war :
93 World Trade Center bombing in NYC: killed 6, injured 1,000
Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down & punished.
'95 bombing in Saudi Arabia: killed 5 U.S. military personnel
Clinton promised that ...[text shortened]... ose promises, an est. 3,000 people in NYC, DC &
in flight who are now dead would be alive today
I'm not saying that we should stand idly by and allow ourselves to be attacked, but violence begets violence. How about trying to find out what is causing the differences between the conflicting sides & trying to resolve that?
Your statement that we are contradicting ourselves because we are playing a game based on war is silly. It detracts from anything real you might have to say to make such weak links.
And as for believing that US soldiers won't kill innocents - of course they will. There has never been a war where innocents haven't suffered & died, intentionally or not.
Originally posted by britt2001bYes, U.S. soldiers will be ordered to conduct conventional bombing campaigns. Conventional bombs do not distinguish between military and civilian personnel.
Here is a quote from one of bbarr's previous postings in this thread :
"What better way to support the troops than remove them from an unjust conflict where they will be ordered to claim the lives of innocents?"
Do you actually believe our military will be ordered to kill innocents?
Do you believe that the leader of Iraq has not issued this order on his own people?
No, Saddam Hussein is a monster. We should not have helped him to power in the first place, nor supplied him with weapons for the past couple decades. Regardless of that, why do you think we have the right to determine how Saddam ought to be handled? If you take international law seriously, then our imperative is to work with the U.N. to find a solution, not try to cram our particular blend of greed/hysteria/vigilantism down the world's collective throat.
From belgianfreak :
"Your statement that we are contradicting ourselves because we are playing a game based on war is silly. It detracts from anything real you might have to say to make such weak links."
This is a chess site!
I will reserve my real statements for a real site!
Originally posted by britt2001bAnd all these terrorist attacks are linked to Iraq how? The terrorists responsible for the actions you describe are much more closely linked to our supposed ally Saudia Arabia than Iraq. Bombing Iraq will have a doubtful effect on ending terrorist attacks against the US,or anywhere else in the world, and could well increase the number.
The following is for all the pacifists who contributed to this thread that happen to be playing a board game based on war :
93 World Trade Center bombing in NYC: killed 6, injured 1,000
Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down & punished.
'95 bombing in Saudi Arabia: killed 5 U.S. military personnel
Clinton promised that ...[text shortened]... ose promises, an est. 3,000 people in NYC, DC &
in flight who are now dead would be alive today
You are right, Clinton could have done more. Thankfully George Bush bombed Afghanistan into oblivion, and that prevented the terrorist attacks in Bali and the Phillipines that claimed hundreds of lives. Oh wait, those attacks DID happen, even though the US launched a massive retalliation for 9/11. So golly gosh darn, the connection between massive retaliation and ending terrorist attacks sure seems murky.
If we are going to invent fantasy universes, where we can claim to know the alternative outcomes to events, I'm going to claim the Clinton administration's cautious approach saved millions of lives by preventing a coordinated terrorist nuclear attack against the US that wiped out DC, NYC, Chicago, Houston and San Francisco in 2000. After all, I too can make up whatever sort of alternative "what would have happened otherwise" scheme I want. Maybe if Clinton had acted more agressive, 9/11 wouldn't have happened; or maybe if he had acted more agressively 9/11 would have happened years earlier. I try real hard not to second guess alternative universes.
And guess what else? Know all those armor piercing shells we used in the last Gulf war and in Afghanistan? The ones that can go through heavy armor and hardened bunkers because we use a really really dense material, namely depleted uranium? They are very effective and do what they are supposed to, excellent weapons that way. But the uranium is not so completely depleted. And gosh, know all the talk about the terrorists now having enough low grade radioactive material to put into dirty bombs? Gosh, wonder if they got that low grade radioactive material by collecting spent radioactive shells? Gosh, think maybe this is going to come back and haunt us by making all of NYC unihabitable for 1000 generations? Gee, isn't one of the wonderful things about the universe the fact that we just never know all the repercussions of our actions?
Originally posted by willatkinsThere are probably some in Germany too,...Bombs Away! I guess you mean that there are terrorists hiding in Iraq with the complicity of the Iraqi government. But there is no evidence to suggest this, contrary to the speculations of Colin Powell. Our own Joint Chiefs of Staff are on record doubting any link between Al Quida and Iraq.
All of them? No. Some of them? Absolutely.