Thoughts from a Vet

[The Imp]

Cos it's that simple landro

[Scott250]

some people are just very ingnorant of the fact of how they have there freedom and it was our military that fought for that freedom. and i'm not just saying it was the US military, in several cases it was a allied effort. and not all wars was over land. A lot was over inhumane acts, such as WWII, Cosavol, Vietnam, IRAQ. the exterminations of people due to there race or religion.

[Gallowmere]

Landro- You couldn't be more wrong. Roosevelt was itching like a heroin addict to involve this country in that conflict. The Japanese just gave an early excuse.

Scott- Your idea of freedom and mine must be totally different things. Have a look at the government crackdowns worldwide over things as simple as people voicing a dissident opinion, and tell me that we (the western countries) are at all free. I will say this one more time: we are not the world police, so your thoughts about Iraq, Vietnam, Nazi Germany, Pinochet's regime or anything else like that hold no weight. What they do to each other is none of our business anymore that what we do here is theirs'.

[The Imp]

/agree with Gallowmere. The morals of the west and the morals of the east are different. Neither is good nor evil, just different. We have no right to impose our western ideals on them. I don't blame soldiers though.

[Gallowmere]

I am forced to place that blame squarely on their heads. Why? When was the last time we had compulsory military service? Vietnam. What happened to most of the 'draft dodgers'? Blanket amnesty. People in this country who sign up to kill are doing so of their own volition. What are they even killing and dying for? Government imperialism. Hell, at least the suicide bombers are killing themselves and others for personal belief, not profit. Both are sick and wrong, but at least one comes with some kind of true self, and not a paycheck.

Basically, they have soldiers. We have mercenaries. Tough call on which is worse.

[Scott250]

suicide bommers are killing over regligion
and some get a lump sump of cash that goes to there families if they kill military personel

[Gallowmere]

That's a tough sell on me. There is no doubt that radical faith based views are a core part of their militarism. However, they have one thing going for them that we do not, when it comes to the morality of the situation: we invaded their home, not vice versa. When our military personnel are killed in ANY country other than the US, the inital fault of that death lies with the US, because again, we shouldn't be there. We are a foreign invader in their land. Them killing our troops is no different than if we here in America faced a 'Red Dawn' situation, and citizens killed enemy troops.

[Scott250]

thats why NATO was created, so we have a conbined effert to rectify issues

[Gallowmere]

You are missing the point entirely. It isn't about titles, factions, etc. It's about the fact that we have absolutely no business meddling in the affairs of other sovereign nations, period. Unless of course, they pose a direct threat to us. Not one of them has. We were hit by a stateless regime, the perpetrators of which died in the event itself, and we used it as an excuse to start killing anyone we disagreed with, on 'humanitarian' grounds.

[Scott250]

I didn't miss your point. I just don't share your view 100%.

But some of the military actions should of be ran through NATO and voted on. Those actions would of been approved anyway, but it's best to have that support first. And that politicle issues kept us in places longer than it should have.

[Gallowmere]

Of course they would have been approved. Look at Libya. That debacle has NATO written all over it. Just like every other military action recently, it's nothing more than western powers slapping around countries that they disagree with. Ghaddafi commited suicide a long time ago when he shamed the leaders of oil producing Arab companies into raising their prices. It's just pathetic that our government is allowed to use mafia-esque thought processes where foreign money is concerned.

[Bishop]

I didn't miss your point. I just don't share your view 100%.

But some of the military actions should of be ran through NATO and voted on. Those actions would of been approved anyway, but it's best to have that support first. And that politicle issues kept us in places longer than it should have.

Why should NATO be voting on actions in a country that is not a member state?

[Scott250]

Why should NATO be voting on actions in a country that is not a member state?

NATO is basically the police of the world consisting of 28 different countries.
With this day and age, there shouldn't be regimes that would slaughter there people over religion or ethnic cleansing. Which what was happening in Sirbia, Cosavol and Iraq. People cried for help and we responded and that's part of that responsibility of being part of that organization. Whether or not you think we should be in those areas, it's a responsibility.

[Bishop]

No, it is not a responsibility, it is tyranny. NATO is a defense pact and they cannot justify what they did.

[Landro]

NATO is basically the police of the world consisting of 28 different countries.
With this day and age, there shouldn't be regimes that would slaughter there people over religion or ethnic cleansing. Which what was happening in Sirbia, Cosavol and Iraq. People cried for help and we responded and that's part of that responsibility of being part of that organization. Whether or not you think we should be in those areas, it's a responsibility.

There are a lot of ruthless dictators in sub-Saharan Africa but I've yet to see NATO put an end to those regimes. Why? Because whatever those countries have to offer to NATO members, they can get without getting rid of those dictators.