For facebook users...

[BombTaxi]

Good point BT. I think there are way too many agitators out there but they are protected by our open societies.

They are protected - but they should be. Society is a debate, and it evolves by the resolution of the questions in the debate. If freedom of speech is denied, you end up with North Korea. If it is denied long enough and the population gets fed up with it, you get Iran. Neither of those are examples I would like my country to follow. Todays agitators may well be tomorrows leaders - and that isn't always a bad thing.

 

[Amsel]

They are protected - but they should be. Society is a debate, and it evolves by the resolution of the questions in the debate. If freedom of speech is denied, you end up with North Korea. If it is denied long enough and the population gets fed up with it, you get Iran. Neither of those are examples I would like my country to follow. Todays agitators may well be tomorrows leaders - and that isn't always a bad thing.

I most definantley agree that our 1st ammendment must be protected. I am a Constitutionalist for a reason.; I believe in it with all my heart.

As for agitators some may in fact be future leaders, but most of their followers are sheep that are naive in the extreme and will change their views somewhat as they gain more experience throughout life. Many agitators are agents of hostile countries and organizations. Reading through some memoirs of a couple of KGB officers really opened my eyes to this. This type of agitation was used very heavily against the USA by the USSR and continues even after the wall has come down. It has been quite effective over the last 30 odd years especially in Europe. I am not saying that those people are like this though, they are probably just young.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

They are protected - but they should be. Society is a debate, and it evolves by the resolution of the questions in the debate. If freedom of speech is denied, you end up with North Korea. If it is denied long enough and the population gets fed up with it, you get Iran. Neither of those are examples I would like my country to follow. Todays agitators may well be tomorrows leaders - and that isn't always a bad thing.

Absolutely correct. I just think they are idiots...

 

[proton45]

I just ignore them...people can think whatever they want too. This is America dam it!!!

I was raised during the 1960's, and the main thing I remember is the anger! People on the left where angry - people on the right where angry! Everyone one was so damn angry!!! ME, I don't believe in anger in politics. I don't believe in disliking someone just because they are "on the left" OR "on the right". I find that my politics don't fit in a box...I believe in a strong military, but I also believe in universal health care (as an example)... I LOVE the fact that I can be wishy washy between the two party's! I LOVE the fact that nobody is making me belong to a party or telling me what to think...I LOVE being American!!!

 

[Civettone]

I just checked it out on facebook. That group has over 4,000 members...
Then there's another group "petition to have "soldiers are not heroes" removed". They have over 600,000 members...

I did notice however that the group is targeted directly at the coalition forces. Because like in my previous post, I agree that not all soldiers are heroes, for instance North Korean soldiers or soldiers from an oppressive regime. But this does seem to be political.

I read the explanation and it seems it groups a whole lot of people with different opinions. Some just feel that soldiers are not heroes just because they wear the uniform (which makes sense as I explained above) to people simply hating coalition forces.

Supporters of the group generally agree that the wars that our armed forces are participating in at the present time and in recent years are unnecessary and unjust. Therefore we don't feel that we should be pressured into offering "support" to people fighting and killing innocent people for causes that we don't believe in.

We recognise that the government are mainly to blame but also think that members of the forces need to take responsibility for their own actions in choosing to support these causes. Soldiers have free will and the opportunity to not sign/re-sign up if they feel they are being asked to participate in an unjust war, so they also deserve a proportion of the blame if they choose to stay.

We also find it amusing how so many of those who claim to "protect our freedoms of speech" tell us to shut up, or be duffed up.

Soldiers are not heroes. They can be heroes, they can act heroically, they can do heroic things - but the act of putting on a uniform and agreeing to put your conscience in a lockbox for the next so many years does not make your life more important than others, it does not make your opinions and insights more worthy of respect than others, it does not exempt you from moral judgement. It does not make you a hero.

I pretty much agreed with most of it. But that last part was probably a bit over the top and the following text goes even much further and moves towards sheer hatred for soldiers. I'm not going to copy paste that because some might feel agitated by it.

In any case I think that soldiers as such aren't heroes but those who risk their lives to fight for their country or for what they believe in are heroes. Best example there are the many German decorated soldiers of WW2. In later years they were scuffled as nazis but we can now see them as guys doing what they thought was right even if the war was unjust like the last war in Iraq. Yet they remain heroes. That's how I see it.

Kris

 

[Amsel]

In later years they were scuffled as nazis but we can now see them as guys doing what they thought was right even if the war was unjust like the last war in Iraq. Yet they remain heroes. That's how I see it.

Kris

I am a bit confused over this statement. The Iraqis were liberated from a brutal regime and most people didn't think that as unjust.

 

[ToughOmbre]

Amsel is right. Optional, contoversial, ill-timed, poorly planned might be applied to our action, but whether you agree or not with the decision to invade Iraq, the war was not "unjust".

TO

 

[Civettone]

It was unjust in the sense of illegal according to international law.
Also, the war was never about or for the Iraqi people, it was because of political reasons. And sold to the public by claiming a link with Al Quaida and WMDs. Both were proven to be false. Enough reason to call it unjust (though I now think that's not the most appropriate word. To get rid of Saddam did seem to be the 'right thing to do'. But it was still illegal.

Kris

 

[Amsel]

Illegal? It was approved by our Congress so not illegal under US law which is what we go by. If it was illegal in the other allied countries then that is understandable as illegal and unjust for those allied coalition members.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I am staying out of this discussion, as I think there are some people that are looking at this in a not so educated and biased way. I will leave it at that.

I do however recommend that people be careful and not let this thread get out of hand. It is a topic that can turn sour very quickly.

 

[Butters]

Whether or not a war is illegal or 'unnecessary' is irrelevant in regards to the moral stature of soldiers -whether from liberal democracies or totalitarian states. Soldiers do not make the decisions about going to war. That responsibility lies with the politicians.

What makes a soldier a hero, is his or her personal conduct. Soldiers who willingly risk their lives, and behave in a morally responsible manner, even if that behavior results in the deaths of others, can be legitimately considered to be heroes.

JL

 

[Butters]

Amsel,

Are you aware that your 'Tytler quote', re: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship." - is merely something made up by an American industrialist?

Just curious...

JL

 

[Amsel]

I wasn't aware but always suspect quotes, hence no given name just quotation marks. Great quote though, especially these days. Thanks!

 

[Civettone]

Illegal? It was approved by our Congress so not illegal under US law which is what we go by. If it was illegal in the other allied countries then that is understandable as illegal and unjust for those allied coalition members.

Illegal to international law. International law also applies to the US as it does for every country, even those who are not a part of the United Nations.

National decisions play no part here. If the Iraqi parliament would have decided in favour of invading Kuwait, would that have made it legal ?


But back to the topic. Here's a question. What if a soldier takes a moral stand and decides not to go to war which he doesn't support. Doesn't that also make him a hero ? I'm sure most of you would say no but I don't know about that. I mean, they have to chose to leave the country and everybody they love.

Kris

 

[GrauGeist]

Illegal to international law. International law also applies to the US as it does for every country, even those who are not a part of the United Nations.

National decisions play no part here. If the Iraqi parliament would have decided in favour of invading Kuwait, would that have made it legal ?


But back to the topic. Here's a question. What if a soldier takes a moral stand and decides not to go to war which he doesn't support. Doesn't that also make him a hero ? I'm sure most of you would say no but I don't know about that. I mean, they have to chose to leave the country and everybody they love.

Kris

Tired of hearing the "illegal" and "criminal" crap regarding the U.S. (and coalition forces) in Iraq.

Read UN resolution 1441 and let's move on already...

 

[Civettone]

I've even studied it. Scholars in international (UN) law will confirm that there was no legal base for invading the country. Now let's move on already ...


Kris

 

[Amsel]

Legal?
Legal or not Iraq was invaded and Saddam was turned over to the people. A coalition force of allied nations defeated an enemy regime for the second time and for good. Isreal and Saudi Arabia will not be hit by scud missiles for awhile and Kuwait can breathe a bit easier. Legal or not legal depends on what your political persuasion is. If anything it has forced a deep rift in the NATO alliance and will force the US to look for alternative allies in the long run. The US has been at war for over 8 years against the religious zealots of the east and will no doubt continue to fight against these forces who spread religious intolerance and violent backwards societies. We have seen the roles reverse almost instantly after 9/11 from the Jihadists against the Jews and the west being turned into good guys and the jews and the west, bad. Anti-semitism is on the rise and the US maintains its stance and loyalties amid a world turning chaotic and violently pro-Jihadist. But the jihadists have been severely weakened and their huge networks put on the run. It has also been much more difficult for jihadists to kill Americans.

 

[Civettone]

I agree with most of what you said. But just two points:
- legal or not in international affairs does NOT depend on your political persuasion! It is clearly defined according to international laws and institutions. When it comes to national affairs, you're right.
- the US needs NATO more than NATO needs the US.

Kris

 

[Amsel]

When it comes to national affairs, you're right.
- the US needs NATO more than NATO needs the US.

Kris

A few years ago you were right in that assessment. Before 9/11 the US military was the most modern, powerful military machine in world history; but it had a soft underbelly. These last 8 years of war have allowed the US to gain the much needed experience to change that. The US and Isreal are geopolitically alone in this world and the US is starting to learn how to deal with it. NATO is obselete.

 

[Civettone]

I thought about what I said today when I was in the park and realized that I didn't express myself correctly. What I meant to say is that the US needs NATO more than the EU needs NATO.

But I am very anxious to see what will happen with NATO under Obama. He has made an effort to strengthen ties with the EU. Under Bush relations with most European countries were severed but Obama is incredibily popular in Europe. There has never been a US president who is bestowed upon with so much good will.

I'm also disagreeing to a certain extent about what you said about US not needing NATO. Currently there are roughly 70,000 soldiers engaged in NATO missions in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Iraq and off the Horn of Africa. From the 60,000 soldiers in the current ISAF mission in Southern Afghanistan most come from NATO countries without the US !

Kris