Soldier: Honor troops like Va. Tech dead

[mawilson 2,133]

I don't. Soldiers willingly signed up for the gig. The risk factor is part of the job -- they

rolled the dice and accepted it. The students didn't expect to die in their classroom

when they signed up.

and no funerals for police or firemen killed in the line of duty either eh?

i agree with the nco

and you the man, cb, for your post

Are you kidding me? Of course full-honor funerals for the soldiers, just saying it's totally different when civilians die.

[Ban Hammer 13,641]

I don't. Soldiers willingly signed up for the gig. The risk factor is part of the job -- they

rolled the dice and accepted it. The students didn't expect to die in their classroom

when they signed up.

and no funerals for police or firemen killed in the line of duty either eh?

i agree with the nco

and you the man, cb, for your post

Are you kidding me? Of course full-honor funerals for the soldiers, just saying it's totally different when civilians die.

it's a possibility that such may occur. everyone knows that. still, being in the military is less hazardous than some other occupations.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't. Soldiers willingly signed up for the gig. The risk factor is part of the job -- they

rolled the dice and accepted it. The students didn't expect to die in their classroom

when they signed up.

and no funerals for police or firemen killed in the line of duty either eh?

i agree with the nco

and you the man, cb, for your post

Are you kidding me? Of course full-honor funerals for the soldiers, just saying it's totally different when civilians die.

it's a possibility that such may occur. everyone knows that. still, being in the military is less hazardous than some other occupations.

I'm not sure I see why that would happen.

Perhaps the flag isn't flown at half mast for the troops because on some level it might be interpreted as a sign of weakness... Or detrimental to morale somehow... Who knows.

[mmarlo 1]

CB, I don't know where to begin. How about the fact that the level of violence in Iraq has increased exponentially in our time there, we have alienated Muslims around the world and through our own actions brought worldwide support for the grievances of an extremely marginalized al Qaeda group, and we have increased the likelihood of a terrorist attack on the US through our own use of violence, as the CIA predicted before the war on Afghanistan and Iraq.

There are appropriate ways to respond to terrorism, but our government has fought terrorism with terrorism, which only results in further violence, resentment and hatred toward Americans (when in fact the resentment should be directed at our leaders), and unnecessary death and destruction. George Bush's world police has nothing to do with ensuring anyone's safety or spreading any freedom or democracy.

Mussolini, Hitler, and Japan's leaders claimed such noble intentions as they were invading the Sudetenland, Ethiopia, and Manchuria. The British colonial empire also made noble claims as they were bringing peace and prosperity to the uncivilized.

We don't judge our leaders on their words, we judge them on their actions, and our leaders actions are in sharp contrast to his words, as he supports democracy only when its convenient and brings peace only by accident.

[Ban Hammer 13,641]

I don't. Soldiers willingly signed up for the gig. The risk factor is part of the job -- they

rolled the dice and accepted it. The students didn't expect to die in their classroom

when they signed up.

and no funerals for police or firemen killed in the line of duty either eh?

i agree with the nco

and you the man, cb, for your post

Are you kidding me? Of course full-honor funerals for the soldiers, just saying it's totally different when civilians die.

it's a possibility that such may occur. everyone knows that. still, being in the military is less hazardous than some other occupations.

I'm not sure I see why that would happen.

Perhaps the flag isn't flown at half mast for the troops because on some level it might be interpreted as a sign of weakness... Or detrimental to morale somehow... Who knows.

even in training, people get killed, erekose.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

CB, I don't know where to begin. How about the fact that the level of violence in Iraq has increased exponentially in our time there, we have alienated Muslims around the world and through our own actions brought worldwide support for the grievances of an extremely marginalized al Qaeda group, and we have increased the likelihood of a terrorist attack on the US through our own use of violence, as the CIA predicted before the war on Afghanistan and Iraq.

There are appropriate ways to respond to terrorism, but our government has fought terrorism with terrorism, which only results in further violence, resentment and hatred toward Americans (when in fact the resentment should be directed at our leaders), and unnecessary death and destruction. George Bush's world police has nothing to do with ensuring anyone's safety or spreading any freedom or democracy.

Mussolini, Hitler, and Japan's leaders claimed such noble intentions as they were invading the Sudetenland, Ethiopia, and Manchuria. The British colonial empire also made noble claims as they were bringing peace and prosperity to the uncivilized.

We don't judge our leaders on their words, we judge them on their actions, and our leaders actions are in sharp contrast to his words, as he supports democracy only when its convenient and brings peace only by accident.

George isn't that good with "the words" either - hence the continued reliance on slogans and sound-bite rhetoric. All of it is meaningless at the end of the day, and I agree its the actions that speak louder than the words. I'm just not sure what to think when I hear others using those soundbites repeatedly and verbatim. It seems to me that contrary to all the complaints about "liberal media" a good many people don't seem to mind being told what to think.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't. Soldiers willingly signed up for the gig. The risk factor is part of the job -- they

rolled the dice and accepted it. The students didn't expect to die in their classroom

when they signed up.

and no funerals for police or firemen killed in the line of duty either eh?

i agree with the nco

and you the man, cb, for your post

Are you kidding me? Of course full-honor funerals for the soldiers, just saying it's totally different when civilians die.

it's a possibility that such may occur. everyone knows that. still, being in the military is less hazardous than some other occupations.

I'm not sure I see why that would happen.

Perhaps the flag isn't flown at half mast for the troops because on some level it might be interpreted as a sign of weakness... Or detrimental to morale somehow... Who knows.

even in training, people get killed, erekose.

I meant in reference to the comment about "no funerals for police and firemen killed in the line of duty". I'm not sure why that would happen - considering that the flag doesn't go half mast for them when they lose people. But they still get "service" funerals.

[CountryBoy 0]

CB, I don't know where to begin. How about the fact that the level of violence in Iraq has increased exponentially in our time there, we have alienated Muslims around the world and through our own actions brought worldwide support for the grievances of an extremely marginalized al Qaeda group, and we have increased the likelihood of a terrorist attack on the US through our own use of violence, as the CIA predicted before the war on Afghanistan and Iraq.

There are appropriate ways to respond to terrorism, but our government has fought terrorism with terrorism, which only results in further violence, resentment and hatred toward Americans (when in fact the resentment should be directed at our leaders), and unnecessary death and destruction. George Bush's world police has nothing to do with ensuring anyone's safety or spreading any freedom or democracy.

Mussolini, Hitler, and Japan's leaders claimed such noble intentions as they were invading the Sudetenland, Ethiopia, and Manchuria. The British colonial empire also made noble claims as they were bringing peace and prosperity to the uncivilized.

We don't judge our leaders on their words, we judge them on their actions, and our leaders actions are in sharp contrast to his words, as he supports democracy only when its convenient and brings peace only by accident.

I get your point now .. if they aren't within our borders, don't worry about it. (but they are .. remember the fact that the pilots that crashed the jets on 9/11 were trained here over a number of years) Let the radical (insert your favorite religous extremists) terrorist organizations do what they want to the rest of the world as long as they leave US alone. (hmmm, what were we doing to provoke them that day?) and hey, if they kill 3000 or so of our citizens in one single act then we'll cry a little bit, but we'll get over it. The main thing is we should do our best not to alienate anyone, especially not an organization that is well known to be one of the leading contributors to the terrorist existence in the world today. What was I thinking? Geez .. let's impeach him tomorrow.

Naw, I'll stand behind him .. he is one of the few truly honorable men in Washington today. He said what he was going to do and by golly I believe him.

BTW .. the day the towers went down, what did you think we should do? I personally don't want to live in fear of losing a loved one in a similar manner knowing that my leaders, the leaders of the greatest country in the world, did nothing to eliminate these threats.

CB

[RaspberrySwirl 20]

Naw, I'll stand behind him .. he is one of the few truly honorable men in Washington today. He said what he was going to do and by golly I believe him.

BTW .. the day the towers went down, what did you think we should do? I personally don't want to live in fear of losing a loved one in a similar manner knowing that my leaders, the leaders of the greatest country in the world, did nothing to eliminate these threats.

CB

If by eliminating those threats you mean, wiping out an entire region. Then yeah, he's doing a swell job!!!

And GWB as one of the few truly honorable men in Washington today, I would joke about it but I think you're being serious and it makes me cringe thinking about how there are people out there who still believe GWB is anything but a stupid looking, greedy hand puppet.

[mmarlo 1]

You've certainly bought the rhetoric of our fearless leader, and you definitely don't get my point.

The fact that the catastrophic human tragedy of 9/11 occured gave us no right to kill many times more innocent civilians in other countries, particularly one that had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq literally had nothing to do with 9/11, and there was scant evidence at the time of the invasion of Afghanistan that the Afghans had anything to do with it, either. The best intelligence reports were that there was a "belief" that the plan was hatched in Afghanistan, even if all the important legwork took place in Europe, which it did. (Side note: we bombed Afghanistan because we said they wouldn't turn over terrorist suspects to us. In a tragic irony, we happen to be withholding a known terrorist, Luis Posada, who bombed an airliner and in a separate incident attempted to assassinate Castro in a bombing that killed many other civilians, from extradition to Venezuela and Cuba on the laughable grounds (in light of our policy of extraordinary rendition) that he might face torture in those countries. In fact, this terrorist, a known flight risk, was just released from prison in Miami. If we apply the principle of universality--an elementary moral principle--and hold ourselves to the same standards as we hold others, by the same logic, both Cuba and Venezuela should be entitled to bomb us.) Instead, we did the only thing that could have strengthened al Qaeda, and we have succeeded in doing so admirably, to the detriment of our security and the security of innocent civilians throughout the world. You keep saying that GWB and his administration is working to eliminate the threats of terrorism, but in fact by all measurable estimates, and by the own intelligence reports of the CIA, they have increased the threat of terrorism within our borders substantially. That doesn't make me feel any safer. They may be "working hard", but they are hardly working to protect us, spread freedom, or promote democracy.

[CountryBoy 0]

You've certainly bought the rhetoric of our fearless leader, and you definitely don't get my point.

The fact that the catastrophic human tragedy of 9/11 occured gave us no right to kill many times more innocent civilians in other countries, particularly one that had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq literally had nothing to do with 9/11, and there was scant evidence at the time of the invasion of Afghanistan that the Afghans had anything to do with it, either. The best intelligence reports were that there was a "belief" that the plan was hatched in Afghanistan, even if all the important legwork took place in Europe, which it did. (Side note: we bombed Afghanistan because we said they wouldn't turn over terrorist suspects to us. In a tragic irony, we happen to be withholding a known terrorist, Luis Posada, who bombed an airliner and in a separate incident attempted to assassinate Castro in a bombing that killed many other civilians, from extradition to Venezuela and Cuba on the laughable grounds (in light of our policy of extraordinary rendition) that he might face torture in those countries. In fact, this terrorist, a known flight risk, was just released from prison in Miami. If we apply the principle of universality--an elementary moral principle--and hold ourselves to the same standards as we hold others, by the same logic, both Cuba and Venezuela should be entitled to bomb us.) Instead, we did the only thing that could have strengthened al Qaeda, and we have succeeded in doing so admirably, to the detriment of our security and the security of innocent civilians throughout the world. You keep saying that GWB and his administration is working to eliminate the threats of terrorism, but in fact by all measurable estimates, and by the own intelligence reports of the CIA, they have increased the threat of terrorism within our borders substantially. That doesn't make me feel any safer. They may be "working hard", but they are hardly working to protect us, spread freedom, or promote democracy.

So you believe that it is ok to target terrorism as long as we only go after those responsible for 9/11? The other terrorists have a get out of jail free card? And you would still have Saddam Hussein reigning in terror?

Do you think that the soldiers in Iraq are picking "innocent civilians" out of a crowd and having target practice? Mothers and children? Or people that are an actual threat? Are the members of our military that callous?

I guess what I need to know is, if there is a better way of targeting terror .. what is it?

I will opt not to discuss the politics of the Luis Posada issue, I am not in agreement with the actions taken regarding his release on the 19th. However, it seems very likely that he would be among many friends in Miami (the ones that have had the good fortune of escaping Castro's regime).

[mawilson 2,133]

If by eliminating those threats you mean, wiping out an entire region. Then yeah, he's doing a swell job!!!

How so? Wiping out the entire region would definitely solve the problem, but he's not doing that.

The region is alive and well and happily enriching uranium.

[Portlander 0]

I do agree. Certainly the soldiers signed up for the job - but think bout that... they signed up for a job they might get killed at. All politics aside for whether a war is justified, thats awfully brave and the fact of the matter is that the soldiers mostly do it out of a sense of duty. Soldiers who die ought to get extra attention precisely because they volunteered for it.

I agree about american casualties of war getting more attention, the Iraqi civilians in senseless tragedies, and about the profit driven LIBERAL media

The LIBERAL media would love nothing better than to report the US casualties of war. however, you may have ehard something about how BushCo have CENSORED pictures such as the coffins.

I would also suggest that treating the injured soldiers with respect also is a worthy topic. Again, if you have been following, you will find out that George Bush's appointees for the military health care system have precisely the same about of experiences as "Brownie" from Huricaine Katrina fame (remember that guy? his prior experience was selling race horses)

So whats happening to the soldiers now? They are getting holed up in moldy rat infested rooms where the MEDIA CAN'T GET TO THEM.

Moreover, they are getting LIED TO about what forms they sign, and many are getting discharged WITHOUT PENSION when they get injured. Their medical treatment gets held up because their status is indefinite, and they get told that if they sign this paper saying they are mentally unfit, they are eligible for the medical treatment promised to thm when they signed up. This would be for things like missing legs, etc. They sign statements that they are mentally unfit for duty, and they get discharged WITHOUT PENSION. They leave the service owing the Pentagon thousands. Thanks Bush!

Gee! They don't report that on FOX News!!!

[mmarlo 1]

So you believe that it is ok to target terrorism as long as we only go after those responsible for 9/11? The other terrorists have a get out of jail free card?

I think all terrorists should be held accountable for their actions, whether the terrorists are Saudis, Irish, Indonesian, Zimbabwean, American, etc.

And you would still have Saddam Hussein reigning in terror?

Of course Saddam Hussein shouldn't be reigning in terror. Those currently in power and their mentors should not have supported him when he was committing the atrocities for which he was hanged. Our leaders have no problem supporting a dictator when it suits their interests. They had no problem with Hussein, Suharto, etc., and it wasn't like they remained silent and let these guys do bad things; we provided them with material support during their worst crimes. Yes, this is the "honorable" man you love so much, his cronies, and his father's cronies. They have no problem with many repressive regimes around the world, today or in the past. Democracy is only promoted when it is convenient. It's not just Republicans to blame, however, as the horrific embargo only strengthened and centralized Hussein's power and caused more suffering for Iraqi civilians.

Do you think that the soldiers in Iraq are picking "innocent civilians" out of a crowd and having target practice? Mothers and children? Or people that are an actual threat? Are the members of our military that callous?

I'm sure in general most of our troops only do their job and of course try to limit harm to civilians as much as possible, but the military strategy and the weapons use does involve in my view, and certainly in most of the victims' countrymen's views, an unnecessary loss of life. For example, the use of cluster bombs does not discriminate between terrorist and civilian. Nor do the tactics employed recently in the bombings in Somalia, or ones I read about in Pakistan, where we blew up houses that may or may not have killed one or two al Qaeda operatives, but also killed a dozen or more civilians. It is tragic that these other civilians died, but what is worse from an even more practical point of view is that it's difficult to explain the concept of "collatoral damage" to the victims, to other Somalis, or Pakistanis. In the case of the bombing in Pakistan I have in mind, the following day 100,000 people marched on Islamabad in protest. We may have killed one or two al Qaeda operatives (in an organization that is designed to allow lower ranking members to easily take the place of higher ranking members), but we certainly added fuel to the flames and may have directly encouraged hundreds or thousands of others to directly support the terrorists. In Somalia, the customs of the local ethnic groups require the death of one of its members to be avenged, either through some kind of reparations payments or by killing the killer. So, from a strategic point of view, we are only creating a greater problem and we're killing civilians along the way.

I guess what I need to know is, if there is a better way of targeting terror .. what is it?

There are other ways to deal with terrorism. One important way is to stop participating in it. This lesson was learned by the British in dealing with the IRA. Northern Ireland may not be the greatest place in the world today, but the situation is a lot more peaceful after both parties began addressing each other's grievances without violence. One of the main grievances against the United States is that we have meddled in Middle Eastern affairs for so long while undermining democratic states, like Iran before we installed the Shah, while supporting brutal tyrants, like Hussein in Iraq, and repressive regimes like the one in Saudi Arabia, and by consistently blocking peace attempts concerning the establishment of a Palestinian state (see the long veto record in UN resolutions, Jimmy Carter's book, the work of Norman Finklestein, etc).

Edited April 25, 2007 by mmarlo

[Portlander 0]

So you believe that it is ok to target terrorism as long as we only go after those responsible for 9/11? The other terrorists have a get out of jail free card? And you would still have Saddam Hussein reigning in terror?

What do you think about someone who has blow up ships in Miami Harbor (in Miami, Florida) with rocket launcher, and has downed commercial airliners full of passengers?

Most people would call him a terrorist. We just let him out of jail last week and refuse to extradite him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles