 Quote: |
Originally Posted by alfred e bush Quote: |
Originally Posted by sgtdmski Quote: |
Originally Posted by Dylan My friend Charlie who joined the army last year had to buy his own bullet proof vest, or body armour. I forget which.
At any rate, his mom bought it for him, and paid a small fortune for it. That's just silly. Not everyone can afford it, and it set his family back quite a bit. We should be taking better care of our soldiers. Some of them are my friends.
That being said, I don't really think the army is a positive thing. Soldiers kill. Soldiers are trained to kill. That is their function. We aren't talking about charity workers here. The real question is whether that killing is ethical, reasonable, and justified.
Personally, I don't think so. My friends have other opinions. Everyone should be cool about it, and do what they think is right. I respect my friends for their conviction, and for pursuing what they feel is an expression of patriotism, even if I don't believe in violence on a personal level.
Oh, and Sarge... If you think that we went into Iraq to 'liberate' people, you are incredibly naive.
We are allies with Kuwait, where they put electric drills through people's skulls on a regular basis. We are on friendly terms with China... Well... Do I even have to explain what's wrong with China? We helped fund the ousting of the democratically elected president of Haiti in favor of dictatorial oligarchs.
If the US went into Iraq to fight for freedom, I have a bridge to sell you.
That being said, saying that it is all about oil and money is an oversimplfication. | First, you friend more and likely had his family purchase the upgrade to the body armor. The flak vest was made to protect the chest and back, but it had one glaring shortcoming, it left the side exposed. The company that makes the upgrades has fallen behind in staying up with the current demand for equipment, and it has not pulled inventory from others sources to fulfill the military need. Was it a short coming for the army not to have this in advance, that is questionable, the need for the added protection has been the result of the IEDs and was not as important during the initial combat. But, combat is not a scientific experiement, and you can not always foresee the things that you may need as the mission changes.
Your premise about soldiers is correct, they are trained to kill. Yet through it all, somehow they maintain their humanity. The same soldiers who kill the enemy, are somehow able to then provide security, medical care, and help rebuild that which they just destroyed. Quite an amazing group.
You question whether it is ethical, reasonable or justifiable, that depends on how you look at the situation. Is it ethical, reasonable and justifiable to under the guise of sovereignty continue to alow a leader to kill, torture, and maim his people. As a free society is it ethical, reasonable and justifiable for us to be secure in our liberty while others are not?? Is it ethical, reasonable and justifiable for us to celebrate ourliberties while others live in oppression? Clearly the United States stands as the sole remaining super power. The question is what are we going to do with our power and responsibility? Are we going to help spread freedom and liberty to others or act like turtles and remain in our shell???
I am not naive enough to believe that the sole reason we went into Iraq was to liberate the people, however, that is the result of our actions. I know that the went into Iraq for many different reasons, including our policy of regime change, to help secure our own country, and for oil and money. But the question remains do overlook the fact that as a result of our actions the Iraqi people are now liberated??? Thats being naive.
dmk | liberating someone to weak or stupid to do on their own.....makes this just another social program | The Iraqis aren't any weaker or dumber than Americans. They just lack infrastructure, stability, and amenities, since we destroyed theirs.
Sarge... Take a look at the news. Does the "liberation" look like its going well?
The fact of the matter is, that there are plenty of organizations that do all of the good things you described without fucking everything up in the first place.
The Army is not a force of good. It is just a force. I know that since you have military experience, you want to think that what you were doing was some sort of amazingly good thing, but really, it's not. I'm not saying the army is evil or anything. The armed forces are just a tool of the executive to achieve objectives. They are only as bad or as good as the executive. Bush has been doing a pissy job with our foreign policy. Whether it's leaving finding Osama bin Laden up to the Pakistanis, or involving us in a useless, expensive quagmire in Iraq, Bush has not been doing a good job.
On another note, the army is only as good as its soldiers. On one hand, you have people like my friends (or at least I like to think so) who are doing their best, and trying to do good things. On the other hand, you have Lindy England (you know, the chick the Abu Grahib pictures). It's not the army that is good or evil. It's the people, and not even as a collective. |