Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.
I agree. And from that example, people such as myself think that the responsibility put on that soldier is enormous to the extent where he's given an impossible mission. How can anyone even reasonably sit there stationary on a turret watching cars with civilians drive around while he tries to figure out which one is harboring the "terrorist." It follows that *if* we're going to put an almost insurmountable burden on our soldiers, then the cause for which they are there has to be extremely clear. Furthermore, the desired outcome has to be well articulated and of the utmost importance.
|
Exactly.
I'm not blaming soldiers for shooting civilians when their own lives are at risk and they don't know who is the enemy.
Instead I blame the government for sending the soldiers over there when our interest in the matter is unclear.
That soldiers AND civilians are being killed means this issue is important, it should be discussed/debated why we are in Afghanistan, when we will be getting out, has it made a difference, what has been the cost, etc.
I'd rather we talked about it critically than just blindly support the troops. If a war isn't justified then why should any inquiry into it be turned into a support the troops mantra?
If journalists haven't found the real story, or aren't willing to tell it, or are being muzzled then something like wikileaks is the only way the public will ever seen the true story in a promptly manner, when the issue still matters and when things can still be done about it.