Good point, BM, although we're both now so far in speculations that it's become a question of personal preference in what to believe ("Is he more interested in the imediate militaric advantage?" "Is he more interested in creating anti-war sentiments amongst the US population?").
Anyway, I'm having school from eight to six today, so I won't be able to respond to much for the time being. The question I'm about to ask can thus be answered with all the precaution and recherche necessary: Mons, you keep implying that 'you' will create a democratic environment in Iraq. Who is 'you'? Which source will that democratic system have? The American government? The Pentagon? The Iraqi opposition? Who?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Mar 24 2003, 04:18 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Mar 24 2003, 04:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> [edit]<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->btw. didn't know you were also from Germany, Nem <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ye gods! Noch so ein Verrückter...[/edit]
----------------------------------------------
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->btw. didn't know you were also from Germany, Nem <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sure he'll be overjoyed to hear <i>that</i>.
^_^ <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Did I miss something?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Short answer: Yes, about a year in here. Long answer: Not really, it was just a pretty screwy way of patting you on the back.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Good point, BM, although we're both now so far in speculations that it's become a question of personal preference in what to believe ("Is he more interested in the imediate militaric advantage?" "Is he more interested in creating anti-war sentiments amongst the US population?").<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very true . . . pretty much every opinion one can form on this situation is based upon so many layers of disinformation, distraction, second-guessing, and double-crossing, that it pretty much aches to try to consider it all at once.
"Well, they <i>say</i> it's not all about oil . . . but maybe because it's so ludicrously, ridiculously shallow for it to be all about oil, it is, because they assume that we'll think that there <b>must</b> be a deeper, more terrifying reality to the situation. Or then again, maybe he <i>does</i> have womd, and they can't tell us the specifics, because they've already been passed on and it's so horrifying that our society would grind to a halt . . . . "
And on . . . and on . . . . and on. I keep promising myself that one day I'll have a solid, formed, coherent opinion about all this.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ehhhhh, how exactly would a small camp of terrorists that attack Kurds have survived living in kurdistan all this time without Iraqi protection?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ansar el-islam is probably under the patronage of the Pasdaran, the Revolutionary Guard of Iran. <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Annnnnd, somehow 80 teenage revolutionaries are now representative of 300 million arabs? Ok.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, I'm afraid they do represent the public opinion of the majority. How else can you explain the huge support for the intifada, and the growth of al-qaeda? Just a few more lunatics who haven't seen the light yet? <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->People of the Islamic faith are Muslims not Islamists that isint even a word. It makes me want to bang my head on my desk<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href='http://i-cias.com/e.o/islamism.htm' target='_blank'>Islamism</a> refers to the political arm of the Islamic faith. I know that there are many secular muslims, particularly in the western countries and in Turkey, but the traditional Islam has never made a distinction between state and religion, and that isn't going to change any time soon.
<!--QuoteBegin--Twex+Mar 25 2003, 03:06 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Twex @ Mar 25 2003, 03:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ehhhhh, how exactly would a small camp of terrorists that attack Kurds have survived living in kurdistan all this time without Iraqi protection?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ansar el-islam is probably under the patronage of the Pasdaran, the Revolutionary Guard of Iran. <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Annnnnd, somehow 80 teenage revolutionaries are now representative of 300 million arabs? Ok.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, I'm afraid they do represent the public opinion of the majority. How else can you explain the huge support for the intifada, and the growth of al-qaeda? Just a few more lunatics who haven't seen the light yet? <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->People of the Islamic faith are Muslims not Islamists that isint even a word. It makes me want to bang my head on my desk<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href='http://i-cias.com/e.o/islamism.htm' target='_blank'>Islamism</a> refers to the political arm of the Islamic faith. I know that there are many secular muslims, particularly in the western countries and in Turkey, but the traditional Islam has never made a distinction between state and religion, and that isn't going to change any time soon. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <i>Probably</i> under that arm? Should I trust you, or are you going to throw me a documentation bone here.
Huge support of Al-Qaeda? Last I heard, it had about 2000 members out of 5 billion humans. Anyone can say they support things, but scarely any actually do anything except open their fat yaps. Millions of people take part in St. Patty's day parades every year, do they immediately go off to fight for the IRA?
Islamism has no direct dictionary relevance to politics of any kind. It simply means 'of or pertaining to islam', and that's all. Crack open a dictionary folks, you'll impress smart girls more.
If that's the case, fair enough. Just understand that in common ( and dictionary) American English usage, it has no such meaning. I wait for his further points on the terror camp and my Leprachaun analogy <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 24 2003, 04:19 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 24 2003, 04:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And yes Nem, the Left has failed Iraq. See the salon.com article posted earlier, it explains it far better than I ever could. The Left's entire existence is supposedly based on freedom from oppresion and removal of dictatorial jackboots smashing civil and human rights. To allow Iraq (and the much of the mideast) to continue to operate as it does now is to condone that type of behavior. That does not make Bush right for wanting to protect American interests, but an enormous good is coming out of it, and making up for the US' own apathy to teh area for 70 years. Where were the Left's protests when Iraq gassed the Kurds? Invaded Iran? Invaded Kuwait? Nowhere - only the Left's inherent hatred of the US brings it out of the coffee houses and headshops. Utter hypocricy. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> While I respect you a lot Monse that has to be one of largest steaming piles of crap I have seen on this forum. I quick google search returned hunderds and hundreds of protests about all of those things.
Can I see some links? I'd love to see some signs of 100,000 protesters in NYC or London demanding that someone free the Iraqi's from oppression. I'm not being sarcastic at all, I really want to know that humanity is not dead.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 25 2003, 08:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 25 2003, 08:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Can I see some links? I'd love to see some signs of 100,000 protesters in NYC or London demanding that someone free the Iraqi's from oppression. I'm not being sarcastic at all, I really want to know that humanity is not dead. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If you're seeking hundreds of thousands of protesters you're going to be disappointed. People tend to protest about things the think they can change and as such most protests are directed at their respective governments. Perhaps I was cheating by including rallies (you know, for relief funds to send to the kurds or whatnot) but even without those you'll find protest condeming the action and protest demanding US or UN action. It's a mistake to lump "The Left" together since it tends to be one of the most highly splintered and opinionated groups as you're likely to find.
You may have noticed I didn't provide any links but rest assured thats because I'm too much of a lazy **** to compile them. Just do a google search.
<b>::EDIT:: On the specific issues of the gassing of the Kurds you're going to find a lot of protests since it happened back when the US was still supporting Saddam. Like I said, protests tend to be on thing you can change. ::EDIT::</b>
I hear you. My point was 500,000 people marched in Damascus yesterday to protest the US attack on Iraq. I am 100% sure they did not mass 500,000, or 500 people when Iraq nerve gassed 6000 kurds, or unknown 10's of thousands of Iranians. Ditto for the protesters in London. And Berlin. And everywhere else dripping in sanctimony and piousness. If you're going to protest 'evil', at least be even-handed enough to protest mass-murder from weapons of mass destruction used on babies in addition to the so 'obviously' fascist american police state, which everyone who has never been there imagines it to be.
To paraphrase myself again and again to the world:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Probably under that arm? Should I trust you, or are you going to throw me a documentation bone here.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The assessment came from<a href='http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/3549071620/qid=1048660387/sr=2-1/ref=sr_aps_prod_1_1/302-6509312-4039255' target='_blank'> this book</a> by Peter Scholl-Latour I'm reading. Of course in German <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->. The author has been reporting from the Middle East for decades now, and I find his opinions convincing. <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Huge support of Al-Qaeda? Last I heard, it had about 2000 members out of 5 billion humans. Anyone can say they support things, but scarely any actually do anything except open their fat yaps.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's a truism. How many supporters of the USA would actually risk their lives for them? Obviously the supply of fresh suicide bombers is large enough not only for al-qaeda but also for the palestinian cause. Doesn't that show that both sides in this clash of cultures can field enough men to arm their weapons and hurt their enemy? <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Islamism has no direct dictionary relevance to politics of any kind. It simply means 'of or pertaining to islam', and that's all. Crack open a dictionary folks, you'll impress smart girls more.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Looks like you're right, the term is much more loosely defined in English.You English speakers should better hurry up and draw a clear line between muslims and islamists before they get mixed up again. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
I often wonder how much influence language has on war and peace. Could the common language be the reason why USA, UK and Australia agree with each other again? Could bin Laden and Saddam be perceived as almost inhuman enemies if they spoke English?
We should all learn <a href='http://www.esperanto.org/' target='_blank'>Esperanto</a> and get along with each other.</wishful thinking>
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 26 2003, 09:12 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 26 2003, 09:12 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I hear you. My point was 500,000 people marched in Damascus yesterday to protest the US attack on Iraq. I am 100% sure they did not mass 500,000, or 500 people when Iraq nerve gassed 6000 kurds, or unknown 10's of thousands of Iranians. Ditto for the protesters in London. And Berlin. And everywhere else dripping in sanctimony and piousness. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, Saddam is a bad man and his reign in Iraq is a bad thing. However, where is the evidence that Saddam is currently a threat to anyone? The stuff you talk about is a thing of past. If they are the basis of this current invasion, the real hypocrites of this situation are to be found in the head of United States. You can judge a country only so far with historical evidence. Snake's head should have been cut in 1991. It wasn't and the window was closed. Current invasion should have been based on the current evidence of Saddam doing something similar as the examples you mentioned.
What the people I symphatize are protesting against, is the lack of evidence against Saddam and the dangerous example this war sets? How do you stop Israel from doing a pre-emptive strike against Syria?
And why didn't people protest when Saddam was gassing kurds? Because they are lazy, because they don't think Saddam would give a shait if they protested or not and in the scope of things, it was an internal affair of a single country. Yes, it was horrible, but what would protests have done? Would Saddam have changed his vile ways just because the world is protesting against him? The world is full of evil and atrocities committed by regimes of many countries.
US invasion in Iraq is a feasible target for protests. - It is an international matter and therefore in the scope of things, more significant than internal affairs. - Aggressor is a democracy and therefore more suspectible to international protesting - Aggressor is the world's sole superpower and therefore its future policy affects practically the whole planet.
I'm going to give the NSA a tip about a possible Al-Quaeda sympathizer at the adress of the next person who calls its rethorical opponents 'hypocrites'. (Pacifism can make your threats pretty imaginative.)
Further points about protestor attitude and protest turnouts are to be directed <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=28&t=26547&st=30' target='_blank'>here</a>. Thanks in advance.
I'd rather not use that thread for discussing protesting, as it was originally started as some bizarre conspiracy theory thread about police brutality, and the whole thread is tainted now.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We should all learn Esperanto and get along with each other.</wishful thinking> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Woo, Twex is an ally of mine now! See previous thread on the metric system <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> .
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And why didn't people protest when Saddam was gassing kurds? Because they are lazy, because they don't think Saddam would give a shait if they protested or not and in the scope of things, it was an internal affair of a single country. Yes, it was horrible, but what would protests have done? Would Saddam have changed his vile ways just because the world is protesting against him? The world is full of evil and atrocities committed by regimes of many countries. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ahhhh, almost a complete and honest answer - certainly more so than most people's in this forum so far. But it leaves out one crucial thing - people like to criticise and protest against the USA and other powerful western governments. In fact, if this was Russia attacking iraq with our reasons I'll wager you would not really see many protests in europe or the US, because no one cares about Russia attacking people (I use Russia as an example due to Chechnya, but many others would apply). It's not just laziness, it's an inherent desire to attack the evil capitalist western states. It's also interesting to point out that I'm sure the Iraqi's would protest their treatment too if they weren't so scared of being executed and their families tortured and 'disappeared'. So much for sticking up for people that cannot stick up for themselves. People seem to think that the US is some sort of bully for attacking Iraq, but the real bully IS the iraqi government. Anti-war protesters are the bully's stooges, trying to stop someone from doing the right thing (after years of doing the wrong thing in the area, and finally making ammends for it - I could go on about the mideast situation and europe's primary responsibility for its roots again, but I won't, as Nem will kill me).
Your final three bullets are quite valid, and I would just add: -US is involved, and many Leftists and 'anti-X' have a knee-jerk hatred of it which overrides all common sense or empathy for the plight of others.
As for 'what has Saddam done lately', go read Amnesty International's thousands of pages on Iraq. That's plenty enough for me.
On to Twex:
Ok, so you have the opinion of an author. I was kind of hoping for an intelligence report, or somewhat-impartial news info, or something less motivated by book sales at least. I'm not being mean, just was hoping for something a bit less biased.
I still believe my (somewhat silly) St. Patty's day analogy is valid. Most people do nothing. As for supporters of the US cause though, I can name about 350,000 US and British supporters of the cause in the gulf right now risking their lives, every one of them a volunteer.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Woo, Twex is an ally of mine now! See previous thread on the metric system <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, you got me scared for a moment, but apparently you want Esperanto to replace all natural languages. That's silly, it was designed to be a common secondary language, a tool for peaceful understanding worldwide. Natural languages can't achieve that, because the foreigner is always at a disadvantage. This discussion, for example, puts you at a clear advantage, since we Teutons are forced to use your confusing language. Fortunately the power of our arguments compensates for that. <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And why didn't people protest when Saddam was gassing kurds?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> My answer is they didn't expect any better from a scumbag like him. The large protests against the USA show a great disappointment with them. Protestors had hoped that the USA were the good guys, and were let down. Protests also show that the USA are not yet considered a hopeless case that isn't worth leaving the warm house for. <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ok, so you have the opinion of an author. I was kind of hoping for an intelligence report, or somewhat-impartial news info, or something less motivated by book sales at least. I'm not being mean, just was hoping for something a bit less biased.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> pffft, now he's biased of all a sudden. You'd rather trust the CIA than a journalist who has travelled the Middle East for decades, talking to the people there and reporting what he sees? Ok, so it's just a guess of his, but he has less of reason to lie than US officials who link terrorists with whatever person happens to be on the top of their Most Wanted list. First it was al-qaeda who sponsored them all, now it's Saddam, villain extraordinaire. :rolleyes:
I'm with Twex on the last point. The author (or journalist, if you prefer the term) risked his reputation and job a few times when he tried to report about war crimes (of both sides, keep the 'anti-americanist' labels at home). Also, if you're regarding book sales as a bias big enough to discredit a source, we can close the Discussion forum right now, because then, <i>any</i> source would start to become unbelievable.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 26 2003, 09:41 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 26 2003, 09:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As for supporters of the US cause though, I can name about 350,000 US and British supporters of the cause in the gulf right now risking their lives, every one of them a volunteer. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Ahem. Are you seriously suggesting that the US & UK commanders posted sign-up sheets and let the troops choose whether they wanted to go to Iraq or not?
I suspect many of those 350,000 didn't envisage going on this sort of mission when they signed up for the military. Such as that chap with the hand-grenade.
I'd not try to make statements about the motivations of that guy. There could've been some thousand reasons why he did it, and we don't know one.
It is however true that many soldiers are less than happy to go there. Some girls in my class are dating soldiers in Heidelberg - who didn't exactely jump in the air when their units were moved.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->pffft, now he's biased of all a sudden. You'd rather trust the CIA than a journalist who has travelled the Middle East for decades, talking to the people there and reporting what he sees? Ok, so it's just a guess of his, but he has less of reason to lie than US officials who link terrorists with whatever person happens to be on the top of their Most Wanted list. First it was al-qaeda who sponsored them all, now it's Saddam, villain extraordinaire. :rolleyes: <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Since you yourself stated I had no way to read the book (it's in german, you said), I had no way to know anything about it. All I knew was it's one guy out of 5 billion people saying this, and I don't have any corroberation. Just a guy that wants to sell books. Settle down guys.
English is, at its base, a germanic language. So blame yourself, confusing boy <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> .
And for KMO, spoken like a non-veteran. When you sign up for the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines in the US armed forces, you volunteer for service. You are not drafted. You sign an oath saying roughly 'I agree to the principles of my government and will follow them and the President'. So yes, you volunteered for a war in the mideast whether or not you think you did. Any bellyaching from troops about being sent there is, in my mind as a veteran (and especially as a Marine), is pathetic and weak. Suck it up, or don't join up. It does not matter one **** where the troops envisioned going, and I can say from experience that most of them (at least Marines I served with) were and are hoping to kick Saddam's face in.
Edit: Including the 150 Danes. GG Immac. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
As for the nutjob with the grenades, you and I have no real info on that. It would be prudent if you reserved judgement. From what I've heard so far, the guy was a shytebird and a derelict, and you get plenty of those without having political motivation.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 26 2003, 11:39 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 26 2003, 11:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> When you sign up for the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines in teh US armed forces, you volunteer for service. You are not drafted. You sign an oath saying roughly 'I agree to the principles of my government and will follow them and the President'. So yes, you volunteered for a war in the mideast whether or not you think you did. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Agreed. They don't really have any cause to complain, they should have known they could have been sent anywhere to do anything when they originally volunteered.
But conversely, you can't fairly hold them up as "supporters of the US cause". I think you'll find they're just following orders - you can't infer their support or otherwise for this particular mission.
As you know, just following orders is not an acceptable reason to do anything. I direct you to the Nuremburg Trials. The men and women follow these orders because they are lawful and they believe in them. Few people remember this, but a few people (several dozen) in the US Armed Forces decided to declare themselves conscientious objectors right before the 1st Gulf War, and were removed from the area. While they were most certainly cowards and hypocrites ('Yes, I would like a free education and 3 squares a day in the Army - oh wait, we're going to fight? I don't believe in that'), they had an out. I have heard of no such behavior in this war.
There is no way in the US Armed Forces to 'force' someone to fight - all you do is refuse. Refuse enough times and you will be dishonourably discharged. It's just that simple. I dealt with a few cases of it myself in my time as an NCO.
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Mar 26 2003, 05:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Mar 26 2003, 05:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It is however true that many soldiers are less than happy to go there. Some girls in my class are dating soldiers in Heidelberg - who didn't exactely jump in the air when their units were moved. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Are any of these girls against the war? Have any of the soldiers been harassed because they have German girlfriends?
Interesting how following your conscience ultimately leads to dishonour...
Does that mean every soldier is expected to take full moral responsibility for everyone they kill? Because that's the consequence if you can't blame your actions on orders.
This also means that all calls to support the soldiers regardless of political opinion are rubbish. If it's the choice of the soldiers to fight this war, they can be criticized and held responsible personally for this decision, just like Bush&Co. Is that intended?
Don't get me wrong, I would <i>welcome</i> such direct responsibility, because I've always found it difficult to differentiate between murder and a kill (or is it really called 'frag'?) during a war. Philosophically of course, the legal distinction is obvious.
<!--QuoteBegin--Twex+Mar 26 2003, 04:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Twex @ Mar 26 2003, 04:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Interesting how following your conscience ultimately leads to dishonour... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If your moraly against war dont join. Why do you think your learning how to use a rilfe? "WTH YOU EXSPECT ME TO SHOOT PEOPLE!?!"
If your so moraly against you get dishonourably discharge. Its not that big of deal if your so moraly against this.
Comments
Anyway, I'm having school from eight to six today, so I won't be able to respond to much for the time being. The question I'm about to ask can thus be answered with all the precaution and recherche necessary:
Mons, you keep implying that 'you' will create a democratic environment in Iraq. Who is 'you'? Which source will that democratic system have? The American government? The Pentagon? The Iraqi opposition? Who?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Mar 24 2003, 04:18 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Mar 24 2003, 04:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> [edit]<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->btw. didn't know you were also from Germany, Nem <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ye gods! Noch so ein Verrückter...[/edit]
----------------------------------------------
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->btw. didn't know you were also from Germany, Nem <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sure he'll be overjoyed to hear <i>that</i>.
^_^ <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did I miss something?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Short answer: Yes, about a year in here. Long answer: Not really, it was just a pretty screwy way of patting you on the back.
Very true . . . pretty much every opinion one can form on this situation is based upon so many layers of disinformation, distraction, second-guessing, and double-crossing, that it pretty much aches to try to consider it all at once.
"Well, they <i>say</i> it's not all about oil . . . but maybe because it's so ludicrously, ridiculously shallow for it to be all about oil, it is, because they assume that we'll think that there <b>must</b> be a deeper, more terrifying reality to the situation. Or then again, maybe he <i>does</i> have womd, and they can't tell us the specifics, because they've already been passed on and it's so horrifying that our society would grind to a halt . . . . "
And on . . . and on . . . . and on. I keep promising myself that one day I'll have a solid, formed, coherent opinion about all this.
Ansar el-islam is probably under the patronage of the Pasdaran, the Revolutionary Guard of Iran.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Annnnnd, somehow 80 teenage revolutionaries are now representative of 300 million arabs? Ok.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, I'm afraid they do represent the public opinion of the majority. How else can you explain the huge support for the intifada, and the growth of al-qaeda? Just a few more lunatics who haven't seen the light yet?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->People of the Islamic faith are Muslims not Islamists that isint even a word. It makes me want to bang my head on my desk<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://i-cias.com/e.o/islamism.htm' target='_blank'>Islamism</a> refers to the political arm of the Islamic faith. I know that there are many secular muslims, particularly in the western countries and in Turkey, but the traditional Islam has never made a distinction between state and religion, and that isn't going to change any time soon.
Ansar el-islam is probably under the patronage of the Pasdaran, the Revolutionary Guard of Iran.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Annnnnd, somehow 80 teenage revolutionaries are now representative of 300 million arabs? Ok.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, I'm afraid they do represent the public opinion of the majority. How else can you explain the huge support for the intifada, and the growth of al-qaeda? Just a few more lunatics who haven't seen the light yet?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->People of the Islamic faith are Muslims not Islamists that isint even a word. It makes me want to bang my head on my desk<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://i-cias.com/e.o/islamism.htm' target='_blank'>Islamism</a> refers to the political arm of the Islamic faith. I know that there are many secular muslims, particularly in the western countries and in Turkey, but the traditional Islam has never made a distinction between state and religion, and that isn't going to change any time soon. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<i>Probably</i> under that arm? Should I trust you, or are you going to throw me a documentation bone here.
Huge support of Al-Qaeda? Last I heard, it had about 2000 members out of 5 billion humans. Anyone can say they support things, but scarely any actually do anything except open their fat yaps. Millions of people take part in St. Patty's day parades every year, do they immediately go off to fight for the IRA?
Islamism has no direct dictionary relevance to politics of any kind. It simply means 'of or pertaining to islam', and that's all. Crack open a dictionary folks, you'll impress smart girls more.
Heh. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
If that's the case, fair enough. Just understand that in common ( and dictionary) American English usage, it has no such meaning. I wait for his further points on the terror camp and my Leprachaun analogy <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
While I respect you a lot Monse that has to be one of largest steaming piles of crap I have seen on this forum. I quick google search returned hunderds and hundreds of protests about all of those things.
If you're seeking hundreds of thousands of protesters you're going to be disappointed. People tend to protest about things the think they can change and as such most protests are directed at their respective governments. Perhaps I was cheating by including rallies (you know, for relief funds to send to the kurds or whatnot) but even without those you'll find protest condeming the action and protest demanding US or UN action. It's a mistake to lump "The Left" together since it tends to be one of the most highly splintered and opinionated groups as you're likely to find.
You may have noticed I didn't provide any links but rest assured thats because I'm too much of a lazy **** to compile them. Just do a google search.
<b>::EDIT:: On the specific issues of the gassing of the Kurds you're going to find a lot of protests since it happened back when the US was still supporting Saddam. Like I said, protests tend to be on thing you can change. ::EDIT::</b>
To paraphrase myself again and again to the world:
'It's the hypocrisy, stupid!'
The assessment came from<a href='http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/3549071620/qid=1048660387/sr=2-1/ref=sr_aps_prod_1_1/302-6509312-4039255' target='_blank'> this book</a> by Peter Scholl-Latour I'm reading. Of course in German <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->. The author has been reporting from the Middle East for decades now, and I find his opinions convincing.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Huge support of Al-Qaeda? Last I heard, it had about 2000 members out of 5 billion humans. Anyone can say they support things, but scarely any actually do anything except open their fat yaps.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's a truism. How many supporters of the USA would actually risk their lives for them? Obviously the supply of fresh suicide bombers is large enough not only for al-qaeda but also for the palestinian cause. Doesn't that show that both sides in this clash of cultures can field enough men to arm their weapons and hurt their enemy?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Islamism has no direct dictionary relevance to politics of any kind. It simply means 'of or pertaining to islam', and that's all. Crack open a dictionary folks, you'll impress smart girls more.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Looks like you're right, the term is much more loosely defined in English.You English speakers should better hurry up and draw a clear line between muslims and islamists before they get mixed up again. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
I often wonder how much influence language has on war and peace. Could the common language be the reason why USA, UK and Australia agree with each other again? Could bin Laden and Saddam be perceived as almost inhuman enemies if they spoke English?
We should all learn <a href='http://www.esperanto.org/' target='_blank'>Esperanto</a> and get along with each other.</wishful thinking>
Yes, Saddam is a bad man and his reign in Iraq is a bad thing. However, where is the evidence that Saddam is currently a threat to anyone? The stuff you talk about is a thing of past. If they are the basis of this current invasion, the real hypocrites of this situation are to be found in the head of United States. You can judge a country only so far with historical evidence. Snake's head should have been cut in 1991. It wasn't and the window was closed. Current invasion should have been based on the current evidence of Saddam doing something similar as the examples you mentioned.
What the people I symphatize are protesting against, is the lack of evidence against Saddam and the dangerous example this war sets? How do you stop Israel from doing a pre-emptive strike against Syria?
And why didn't people protest when Saddam was gassing kurds? Because they are lazy, because they don't think Saddam would give a shait if they protested or not and in the scope of things, it was an internal affair of a single country. Yes, it was horrible, but what would protests have done? Would Saddam have changed his vile ways just because the world is protesting against him? The world is full of evil and atrocities committed by regimes of many countries.
US invasion in Iraq is a feasible target for protests.
- It is an international matter and therefore in the scope of things, more significant than internal affairs.
- Aggressor is a democracy and therefore more suspectible to international protesting
- Aggressor is the world's sole superpower and therefore its future policy affects practically the whole planet.
I'm going to give the NSA a tip about a possible Al-Quaeda sympathizer at the adress of the next person who calls its rethorical opponents 'hypocrites'. (Pacifism can make your threats pretty imaginative.)
Further points about protestor attitude and protest turnouts are to be directed <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=28&t=26547&st=30' target='_blank'>here</a>. Thanks in advance.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We should all learn Esperanto and get along with each other.</wishful thinking> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Woo, Twex is an ally of mine now! See previous thread on the metric system <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> .
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And why didn't people protest when Saddam was gassing kurds? Because they are lazy, because they don't think Saddam would give a shait if they protested or not and in the scope of things, it was an internal affair of a single country. Yes, it was horrible, but what would protests have done? Would Saddam have changed his vile ways just because the world is protesting against him? The world is full of evil and atrocities committed by regimes of many countries.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ahhhh, almost a complete and honest answer - certainly more so than most people's in this forum so far. But it leaves out one crucial thing - people like to criticise and protest against the USA and other powerful western governments. In fact, if this was Russia attacking iraq with our reasons I'll wager you would not really see many protests in europe or the US, because no one cares about Russia attacking people (I use Russia as an example due to Chechnya, but many others would apply). It's not just laziness, it's an inherent desire to attack the evil capitalist western states. It's also interesting to point out that I'm sure the Iraqi's would protest their treatment too if they weren't so scared of being executed and their families tortured and 'disappeared'. So much for sticking up for people that cannot stick up for themselves. People seem to think that the US is some sort of bully for attacking Iraq, but the real bully IS the iraqi government. Anti-war protesters are the bully's stooges, trying to stop someone from doing the right thing (after years of doing the wrong thing in the area, and finally making ammends for it - I could go on about the mideast situation and europe's primary responsibility for its roots again, but I won't, as Nem will kill me).
Your final three bullets are quite valid, and I would just add:
-US is involved, and many Leftists and 'anti-X' have a knee-jerk hatred of it which overrides all common sense or empathy for the plight of others.
As for 'what has Saddam done lately', go read Amnesty International's thousands of pages on Iraq. That's plenty enough for me.
On to Twex:
Ok, so you have the opinion of an author. I was kind of hoping for an intelligence report, or somewhat-impartial news info, or something less motivated by book sales at least. I'm not being mean, just was hoping for something a bit less biased.
I still believe my (somewhat silly) St. Patty's day analogy is valid. Most people do nothing. As for supporters of the US cause though, I can name about 350,000 US and British supporters of the cause in the gulf right now risking their lives, every one of them a volunteer.
Well, you got me scared for a moment, but apparently you want Esperanto to replace all natural languages. That's silly, it was designed to be a common secondary language, a tool for peaceful understanding worldwide. Natural languages can't achieve that, because the foreigner is always at a disadvantage. This discussion, for example, puts you at a clear advantage, since we Teutons are forced to use your confusing language. Fortunately the power of our arguments compensates for that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And why didn't people protest when Saddam was gassing kurds?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My answer is they didn't expect any better from a scumbag like him. The large protests against the USA show a great disappointment with them. Protestors had hoped that the USA were the good guys, and were let down. Protests also show that the USA are not yet considered a hopeless case that isn't worth leaving the warm house for.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ok, so you have the opinion of an author. I was kind of hoping for an intelligence report, or somewhat-impartial news info, or something less motivated by book sales at least. I'm not being mean, just was hoping for something a bit less biased.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
pffft, now he's biased of all a sudden. You'd rather trust the CIA than a journalist who has travelled the Middle East for decades, talking to the people there and reporting what he sees? Ok, so it's just a guess of his, but he has less of reason to lie than US officials who link terrorists with whatever person happens to be on the top of their Most Wanted list. First it was al-qaeda who sponsored them all, now it's Saddam, villain extraordinaire. :rolleyes:
Also, if you're regarding book sales as a bias big enough to discredit a source, we can close the Discussion forum right now, because then, <i>any</i> source would start to become unbelievable.
Ahem. Are you seriously suggesting that the US & UK commanders posted sign-up sheets and let the troops choose whether they wanted to go to Iraq or not?
I suspect many of those 350,000 didn't envisage going on this sort of mission when they signed up for the military. Such as that chap with the hand-grenade.
It is however true that many soldiers are less than happy to go there. Some girls in my class are dating soldiers in Heidelberg - who didn't exactely jump in the air when their units were moved.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->pffft, now he's biased of all a sudden. You'd rather trust the CIA than a journalist who has travelled the Middle East for decades, talking to the people there and reporting what he sees? Ok, so it's just a guess of his, but he has less of reason to lie than US officials who link terrorists with whatever person happens to be on the top of their Most Wanted list. First it was al-qaeda who sponsored them all, now it's Saddam, villain extraordinaire. :rolleyes: <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Since you yourself stated I had no way to read the book (it's in german, you said), I had no way to know anything about it. All I knew was it's one guy out of 5 billion people saying this, and I don't have any corroberation. Just a guy that wants to sell books. Settle down guys.
English is, at its base, a germanic language. So blame yourself, confusing boy <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> .
And for KMO, spoken like a non-veteran. When you sign up for the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines in the US armed forces, you volunteer for service. You are not drafted. You sign an oath saying roughly 'I agree to the principles of my government and will follow them and the President'. So yes, you volunteered for a war in the mideast whether or not you think you did. Any bellyaching from troops about being sent there is, in my mind as a veteran (and especially as a Marine), is pathetic and weak. Suck it up, or don't join up. It does not matter one **** where the troops envisioned going, and I can say from experience that most of them (at least Marines I served with) were and are hoping to kick Saddam's face in.
Edit: Including the 150 Danes. GG Immac. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
As for the nutjob with the grenades, you and I have no real info on that. It would be prudent if you reserved judgement. From what I've heard so far, the guy was a shytebird and a derelict, and you get plenty of those without having political motivation.
Agreed. They don't really have any cause to complain, they should have known they could have been sent anywhere to do anything when they originally volunteered.
But conversely, you can't fairly hold them up as "supporters of the US cause". I think you'll find they're just following orders - you can't infer their support or otherwise for this particular mission.
There is no way in the US Armed Forces to 'force' someone to fight - all you do is refuse. Refuse enough times and you will be dishonourably discharged. It's just that simple. I dealt with a few cases of it myself in my time as an NCO.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are any of these girls against the war?
Have any of the soldiers been harassed because they have German girlfriends?
Does that mean every soldier is expected to take full moral responsibility for everyone they kill? Because that's the consequence if you can't blame your actions on orders.
This also means that all calls to support the soldiers regardless of political opinion are rubbish. If it's the choice of the soldiers to fight this war, they can be criticized and held responsible personally for this decision, just like Bush&Co. Is that intended?
Don't get me wrong, I would <i>welcome</i> such direct responsibility, because I've always found it difficult to differentiate between murder and a kill (or is it really called 'frag'?) during a war. Philosophically of course, the legal distinction is obvious.
If your moraly against war dont join. Why do you think your learning how to use a rilfe? "WTH YOU EXSPECT ME TO SHOOT PEOPLE!?!"
If your so moraly against you get dishonourably discharge. Its not that big of deal if your so moraly against this.