Anti-war letter angers soldiers

[Azure]

Originally Posted by HOZ

I know what you are getting at but.....umm yes they have. Just not the mass grave-kind.

Killing people isn't considered a war crime..if that is what you mean.

That is a soldier's job.

Collateral damage? Regrettable...but under most circumstances it can't be prevented.

[Flame On]

Stupid to send it to the soldiers or completely tactless and also stupid for not knowing it's the politicians that form policy which is in turn what sends them.
Dumb however you slice it.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Not acording to the Nuremberg trials.
'Just following orders' doesn't cut it anymore. Here's someone else's thoughts on the matter.

http://www.strike-the-root.com/3/schultz/schultz3.html

I didn't quantify that soldiers have to follow orders with the statement "except when they are ordered to mass murder innocent civilians", because I didn't think I had to.
But our soldiers are not being ordered to mass murder civilians, they are being ordered to the front. Big big difference.

I am not 100% sure, as I have never been in the military, but maybe someone who has or is in the military can answer the question. If your CO orders you or your unit to do something you feel as being morally unjust (ie: knowing murder innocent civilians etc), do you have the right to disobey that order?

[evman150]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The thing that makes these young soldiers better then these other people is that a soldier has to lay thier lives on the line everyday so that these people can write these letters.

This is so wrong.

These soldiers are not "laying their lives on the line" for me or you. They are laying them on the line for dick **** all. This is not WWI or WWII. Comparing it to those conflicts is an insult to the people who fought in those wars.

These poor souls are risking their lives for a cause that doesn't exist.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by evman150

This is so wrong.

These soldiers are not "laying their lives on the line" for me or you. They are laying them on the line for dick **** all. This is not WWI or WWII. Comparing it to those conflicts is an insult to the people who fought in those wars.

These poor souls are risking their lives for a cause that doesn't exist.

So should we have let it escalate for a few more years so that we didn't have any other choice but to start another world war?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by arsenal

I didn't quantify that soldiers have to follow orders with the statement "except when they are ordered to mass murder innocent civilians", because I didn't think I had to.
But our soldiers are not being ordered to mass murder civilians, they are being ordered to the front. Big big difference.

You said "They don't have a say". I say each person has a say. Glad you agree now.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by arsenal

So should we have let it escalate for a few more years so that we didn't have any other choice but to start another world war?

I think you're exaggerating the urgency of the situation just a BIT.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by evman150

I think you're exaggerating the urgency of the situation just a BIT.

At the point in time that we went in, possibly. That was about 5 - 6 years ago now. What if we didn't go in when we did. Let the Taliban rule, give safe haven to bin laden, to run the camps, orchestrate attacks, etc. What point would we be at now if we hadn't gone in when we did?

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

You said "They don't have a say". I say each person has a say. Glad you agree now.

They don't have a say in what battles to fight, or when they are to be deployed, and if they want to go or not.
I would say, 99% of the time, soldier's don't have a choice but to follow orders. That's assuming that thier CO is not a sociopath.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by arsenal

They don't have a say in what battles to fight, or when they are to be deployed, and if they want to go or not.
I would say, 99% of the time, soldier's don't have a choice but to follow orders. That's assuming that thier CO is not a sociopath.

Sure they do. Everyone has a choice. They may not like the consequences but the alternative is there.

[Rockin' Flames]

Originally Posted by evman150

This is so wrong.

These soldiers are not "laying their lives on the line" for me or you. They are laying them on the line for dick **** all. This is not WWI or WWII. Comparing it to those conflicts is an insult to the people who fought in those wars.

These poor souls are risking their lives for a cause that doesn't exist.

What do you mean the soldiers are not laying their lives on the line for nothing. I guess to you human rights in other parts of the world (such as Afganastan) mean nothing. In order to help Afganistan to rebuild the soldiers have to make sure the areas are safe from the Taliban.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by evman150

This is so wrong.

These soldiers are not "laying their lives on the line" for me or you. They are laying them on the line for dick **** all. This is not WWI or WWII. Comparing it to those conflicts is an insult to the people who fought in those wars.

These poor souls are risking their lives for a cause that doesn't exist.

Your right this isn't WWI or WWII or Korea.

WWI was a wasted war. that was bought into play, not as a defense for democracy or human right, but with the concept of imperialism, secret alliances, and the noble concept that war in some twisted measure was fun.

WWII was a war against evil, plain and simple, unfortunately in a lot of ways the allies sided with evil by working with Stalin. But Hitler and his territorial aspirations, and his murderous intents had to stop.

Korea was a battle between east in west in its purest sense, sparked by a lunatic.

Those wars were different, especially the second world war. then Afghanistan.

So what are the Canadian Troops fighting for.

1) To stop a regime that regularly supported terrorism, allowing it to grow and train and thrive like a malignant virus. The Taliban built camps, helped funnel finances, and sheltered Osama Bin Laden.

2) To stop a incredibly oppressive government where they executed people en masse in hideous fashion, forced woman to wear burka's and killed them for the most minor of crimes. Outlawed education to more then half of its population, stopped and then restarted the growth of poppies for the world wide drug trade.

3) Deposed a government that got its jollies by hanging people in a soccer stadium or pushing them off of a high diving board into a empty pool. This government believed in stoning, and when that didn't work, pulling walls down on its victims.

3) The Canadian troops are trying to create bubbles where girls can go to school, reconstruction is allowed to go un attacked. People have some say in thier government.

4) Our troops are trying to prevent a loss of life there by bringing in medical treatments, the restoration of electricity, and potable water.

Your right, in this war they're not fighting for our rights and freedoms and a better way of life over here, but they are over there. And to me, thats worth fighting for.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by evman150

This is so wrong.

These soldiers are not "laying their lives on the line" for me or you. They are laying them on the line for dick **** all. This is not WWI or WWII. Comparing it to those conflicts is an insult to the people who fought in those wars.

These poor souls are risking their lives for a cause that doesn't exist.

I guess that we shouldn't send any foreign aid either.. since those $s aren't making any different for me or you.

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Originally Posted by evman150

This is so wrong.

These soldiers are not "laying their lives on the line" for me or you. They are laying them on the line for dick **** all. This is not WWI or WWII. Comparing it to those conflicts is an insult to the people who fought in those wars.

These poor souls are risking their lives for a cause that doesn't exist.

You also realize that the Taliban made a direct attack North American soil, right? And that they had more targets within the U.S. and Canada? Other than that, no, they're not putting their lives on the line for me and you at all.

[ken0042]

And let's not forget that 24 Canadians were killed by the attacks of 9/11. link

To me, not acting would be like repeating the non-action taken when Germany invaded Poland in 1936 (or was it 1937?)

[evman150]

We have no right to say what is the right way of governing and what is the wrong way of governing.

One nation's "foreign aid" is another nation's "terrorism".

Step away from the situation and try and look at it without your nationalistic glasses on.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by evman150

We have no right to say what is the right way of governing and what is the wrong way of governing.

One nation's "foreign aid" is another nation's "terrorism".

Step away from the situation and try and look at it without your nationalistic glasses on.

So you're saying we 'should not' be helping these people?

We should also withdraw all foreign aid from Africa?

[habernac]

unlike Iraq, the Afghanistan conflict is a legitimate mission. So yes, our troops deserve our support. The people that write these letters directly to our boys are cowards, plain and simple.

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Originally Posted by evman150

We have no right to say what is the right way of governing and what is the wrong way of governing.

One nation's "foreign aid" is another nation's "terrorism".

Step away from the situation and try and look at it without your nationalistic glasses on.

So... I have no right to claim that Nazi Germany was wrong? I have no right to say Vietnam/Korea/Iraq were/are messes? Not my government, not my problem, right? Better to not get involved. I might make a Nazi German upset because in his mind, he was in the right and all Jews were a threat.

Yah, safer to err on the side of moral ambiguity, I guess.

[Cliche]

Originally Posted by evman150

We have no right to say what is the right way of governing and what is the wrong way of governing.

One nation's "foreign aid" is another nation's "terrorism".

Step away from the situation and try and look at it without your nationalistic glasses on.

Other people did not step away from their current situations and drove 3 airplanes into buildings and caused a fourth to crash taking all lives on board.

Although we have no right to say what is the right way to govern an individual country, it also stands to fact that we are there to fulfill a UN role as well, as the current security council has authorized troops to be in Afghanistan and to conduct operations.

The question then becomes which is the greater good, to let the situation stand as is, when a known enemy (nothing to say of reprisals) is allowed to have a place to collect resources to inflict structural damage on your own country, no matter the victims, or to effectively depose the current warlords (RE: Taliban gov't) and allow the people to choose out of the remaining populace who to install into government.