Skip to main content

Reply to "Support the troops...."

quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
First, to clarify something. AudioGuy, the ordinary German troops in WWII I don't think were subject to any war crimes prosecution, unless individual troops actually did commit atrocities outside of the actual combat theater. It was the SS troops, however, who did. The SS was more than just the regular German army; they were the paramilitary arm of the Nazi party...


It is my understanding that the Ger. army was the army - although they had dif div's of the army, they all were still in the army. Some fought on the front lines, some protected Hitler, some ran the con. camps, some made the volkswagons, some drove the trains, etc. If a jewish con. camp victim saw someone today that they recognized, it would not matter what their rank or position was in the army, there would still be a vehicle for them to be prosecuted.

quote:
It would be like if the neo-cons ever started a professional paramilitary group outside of the regular military.


Those bitch-ass, sissy MF's don't have the heart.

quote:
As for the "support of troops" issue... For me there's a different issue now. I support the troops, and I probably would anyway, but right now, whether we like it or not, it is imperative that they do their job and do it effectively. What Bush did...


Ultimately, this was a climate that was created by his father, not when he was prez, but when he was cia dir. I believe that this whole "take over Iraq" plan was hatched way before any of will ever really know.

Many people on this site have made some very good arguments - on both sides. I, however, am still torn. Members of the military are "just doing their jobs", but the job they are doing is beyond the scope of their employ - through no fault of their own. I guess that I could "support the troops" if, 1. the people who made the war decisions had a stake in what was going on, i.e. children/family in the military who were really in harm's way... 2. The "leaders" of this country were honest about their intentions/rationale for going to war... 3. the "leaders" were consistant in their policy making throughout the world - in Somalia they lost a few helicopters (black hawk down) and had a man dragged through the street (not insignificant events) and they pulled out. No concern for leaving the gov. destablized, no concern for the "people of the country" , no concern about "democracy", etc., yet we loose troops everyday in Iraq.

quote:
My opposition to the war in Iraq is limited to the actual starting of it. Now that it began, nothing but disaster will result if we can't get some stability there...


Disater already has struck. In the form of 1000's of lives.

quote:
And the Iraqis will never be able to do it themselves, one, because the insurgency is too determined, two, because Iraq is too fragmented, and three, because the USA has destroyed Iraq's infrastructure...

...we simply can't afford to let that place fester under the disaster that this jackass president of ours created. There is absolutely no possible sequence of events from this point forward that will undo the damage done...


If you believe the theory behind 9/11, then you realize that M. Atta, the supposed ringleader, started taking flying lessons in 1991, at approx 23yrs old - that would mean that the rest of the hijackers would have been children. What do you think is going through the minds of Iraqi children today?

There will be no end to conflict in Iraq.


quote:
...unless America succeeds at fixing Iraq (if we're even trying to). That's why I support the troops wholeheartedly.


If Iraq had no oil, there would be no fixin'.
×
×
×
×