lol....I dont see why you are telling me to relax, but okay. Anyways, I know he can say whatever he wants, believe whatever he wants, and I can't do anything to stop him...but that dosn't mean he can **** and moan about how its unfair in Iraq...It's War. It's almost as if he was expecting war to be some kind of vacation where the country who hates you will all of a sudden love you. If he dosn't like the situation he is in, then he should have thought about that when he signed up to be a marine...And also, all of the freedoms dont give him the reason to whine about it on National T.V.<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If he is such a bad soldier, why is he still there?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So are you saying that he is good soldier?
<!--QuoteBegin--Mullet+Jul 20 2003, 08:37 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Mullet @ Jul 20 2003, 08:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> lol....I dont see why you are telling me to relax, but okay. Anyways, I know he can say whatever he wants, believe whatever he wants, and I can't do anything to stop him...but that dosn't mean he can **** and moan about how its unfair in Iraq...It's War. It's almost as if he was expecting war to be some kind of vacation where the country who hates you will all of a sudden love you. If he dosn't like the situation he is in, then he should have thought about that when he signed up to be a marine...And also, all of the freedoms dont give him the reason to whine about it on National T.V.<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If he is such a bad soldier, why is he still there?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So are you saying that he is good soldier? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> He's already said it, you can't do anything about it, stop worrying about such a minor thing as a man holding an opinion...
<!--QuoteBegin--Infinitum+Jul 20 2003, 03:46 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Infinitum @ Jul 20 2003, 03:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Mullet+Jul 20 2003, 08:37 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Mullet @ Jul 20 2003, 08:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> lol....I dont see why you are telling me to relax, but okay. Anyways, I know he can say whatever he wants, believe whatever he wants, and I can't do anything to stop him...but that dosn't mean he can **** and moan about how its unfair in Iraq...It's War. It's almost as if he was expecting war to be some kind of vacation where the country who hates you will all of a sudden love you. If he dosn't like the situation he is in, then he should have thought about that when he signed up to be a marine...And also, all of the freedoms dont give him the reason to whine about it on National T.V.<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If he is such a bad soldier, why is he still there?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So are you saying that he is good soldier? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> He's already said it, you can't do anything about it, stop worrying about such a minor thing as a man holding an opinion...
Your making a big deal out of nothing.
Don't sweat the small stuff. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we suppose to be discussing what WE think about this subject on this thread? If it's no big deal, then don't post. And if you don't like what I post, then I suggest you don't post anything.
....Now I really do see why discussions was closed.
<li> Technically, this was never a war. The United States haven't declared a war since WW2. Thus, the legislation binding a soldier unquestioningly to his orders is not in effect. Soldiers have thus every formal right of expressing their opinion. <li> Even if you don't follow the juristic interpretation, G.W.Bush, the commander in chief, these soldiers highest superior, declared an end to the combat a few months ago. The soldiers in Iraq are an occupation / peacekeeping force. They are <i>not in a war mission</i>. <li> The fact that they're still in heavy combat with partisans does thus clash with the purpose they were told their assignemnts were supposed to have.
In the beginning, there was the rule that "The soldiers shooting at Iraqians won't be the ones enforcing the law in Iraq.", that soldiers who were in combat wouldn't be used for peacekeeping. When the situation in post-war Iraq turned out to be more difficult than expected, the combatant units were ordered to remain in the Iraq and got peacekeeping assignments.
[edit]<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If it's not war, then what is it? "War in Iraq" had to mean somthing... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm talking about the legal bases. The lack of a proper declaration of war leaves a lot of international jurisdication that was put in place for that eventuallity out of effect. According to international law, this was a 'conflict', a kind of prolonged skirmish.[/edit]
So if country number one attacks country number two and 1 doesn't aknowledge it as war, it isn't? Even if 2 would declare war? Is it legal(in bases of international law and 'stuff') to attack other country? Bah, whatever.
Ontopic: The US soldiers in Iraq can whine as much as they want but they signed up for it so they just have to carry out their orders. Imo of course.
The soldier that asked for Rumsfelds resignation has every right to hold an opinion. What he does not have is the right to voice that on international television. Discuss it with your c/o, sure, but as a representative of your particular wing, you toe the company line. End of.
That soldier is probably the best soldier there could be. Soldiers do not only fight and follow orders, they have to have their own morale values. Being asked about something he gave his opinion and everything else would be a disaster. Why should he be allowed to praise Rumslefd, but not criticse him? If he feels betrayed by this man, if he feels he has been lied at, it's just his duty to give his honest commentary if he's being asked.
In your logic, Iraqi soldiers wouldn't be allowed to criticise Saddam either, or German soldiers criticising Hitler.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> That soldier is probably the best soldier there could be. Soldiers do not only fight and follow orders, they have to have their own morale values. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, agreed. They don't have to express them, however.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Being asked about something he gave his opinion and everything else would be a disaster. Why should he be allowed to praise Rumslefd, but not criticse him? If he feels betrayed by this man, if he feels he has been lied at, it's just his duty to give his honest commentary if he's being asked. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Categorically not. He lost that right when he enlisted. He is serving (under) Rumsfeld. He can express doubts through his chain of command, not through CNN, or he can request a transfer, quit etc.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> In your logic, Iraqi soldiers wouldn't be allowed to criticise Saddam either, or German soldiers criticising Hitler. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Um, yes? If you sign up to represent the interests of your country as defined by the incumbent executive, you do that, and do it without public complaint. Morality is a seperate issue, see above.
<!--QuoteBegin--[tbZ]BeAst+Jul 20 2003, 03:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([tbZ]BeAst @ Jul 20 2003, 03:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If you sign up to represent the interests of your country as defined by the incumbent executive, you do that, and do it without public complaint. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> So if I signed up during Clinton, my interests would be defined by him? I like his definitions of interest. I shoulda enlisted! :-P
As for this whole issue...
Ignoring the justification for the war (which I beleive there was plenty of)... Its a tough job, but we're in there now, and we need to see it through to the end. A priority has to be set to cycle troops out, but it should not be done at the expense of Iraqi security. I'm all in favor in seeing increased pay for troops who stay longer- these men and women should be compensated for their commitment.
<!--QuoteBegin--Jammer+Jul 20 2003, 10:24 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jammer @ Jul 20 2003, 10:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Its a tough job, but we're in there now, and we need to see it through to the end. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> THANK you. We don't want this turning into another Afghanistan...
BadKarmaThe Advanced Literature monsters burned my house and gave me a 7Join Date: 2002-11-12Member: 8260Members
<!--QuoteBegin--Brave Ulysses+Jul 20 2003, 04:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Brave Ulysses @ Jul 20 2003, 04:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Jammer+Jul 20 2003, 10:24 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jammer @ Jul 20 2003, 10:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Its a tough job, but we're in there now, and we need to see it through to the end. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> THANK you. We don't want this turning into another Afghanistan... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Or Vietnam for that matter.
I think we can draw some comparisons to Vietnam here. For instance, you can look at the opinion of the average American. If the troops think that America isn't behind them and their buddies are dying and they don't know how long they are going to be in this godforsaken place and where is the next ambush coming from....... It's a lot tougher to be a frontline grunt than most people realize.
<!--QuoteBegin--Gadzuko+Jul 20 2003, 06:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Gadzuko @ Jul 20 2003, 06:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I think we can draw some comparisons to Vietnam here. For instance, you can look at the opinion of the average American. If the troops think that America isn't behind them and their buddies are dying and they don't know how long they are going to be in this godforsaken place and where is the next ambush coming from....... It's a lot tougher to be a frontline grunt than most people realize. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I thought that came as a given. Imagine yourself out somewhere. "We do it for our country!" you cry. But then someone tells you no-one wants you there and your own people don't give a toss about you there. You wouldn't feel good now, would you?
The vietnam comparison is worthless. Vietnam was a full war that was being opposed. This is an occupation/nation-building thing. Vietnam was a loss as a result of the homefront, not militarily. The president(s) was afraid to up the ante military (to win) as a result of public dislike. Bush seems to be ignoring public opinion on the military, and is letting soldiers run the war. Thats good.
<!--QuoteBegin--Jammer+Jul 20 2003, 11:46 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jammer @ Jul 20 2003, 11:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The vietnam comparison is worthless. Vietnam was a full war that was being opposed. This is an occupation/nation-building thing. Vietnam was a loss as a result of the homefront, not militarily. The president(s) was afraid to up the ante military (to win) as a result of public dislike. Bush seems to be ignoring public opinion on the military, and is letting soldiers run the war. Thats good. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I think you misunderstood my post. I wasn't saying anything about the military situation, or how well or not well we are doing. I was comparing the psychological effects of the war on the troops, which I think is a valid comparison.
Although, the two situations are similar militarily. We've learned how to deal with guerilla warfare from our botched experiences in Vietnam, just not the psychological aspects of it.
<!--QuoteBegin--Gadzuko+Jul 21 2003, 12:54 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Gadzuko @ Jul 21 2003, 12:54 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I think you misunderstood my post. I wasn't saying anything about the military situation, or how well or not well we are doing. I was comparing the psychological effects of the war on the troops, which I think is a valid comparison. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The psychological effect on the troops is also not similar. The Vietnamese were extremely good at terrorising soldiers to the point where the US and other armies simply wiped out entire villages. In Iraq this has not occured and although the troops are fatigued, it is nowhere near the same situation as vietnam. Vietnam is also an entirely different war ideologically to this one.
The reason that Vietnam failed wasn't because the American soldiers had any psychological failure, it was the intense pressure from the homefront in America. Eventually the president simply recalled the troops, even though they were technically winning the war (The problem was they had to repeatedly capture the same places multiple times=IE weren't holding ground).
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Although, the two situations aren't similar militarily.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<i>Fixed</i>.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We've learned how to deal with guerilla warfare from our botched experiences in Vietnam, just not the psychological aspects of it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Comments
He's already said it, you can't do anything about it, stop worrying about such a minor thing as a man holding an opinion...
Your making a big deal out of nothing.
Don't sweat the small stuff.
He's already said it, you can't do anything about it, stop worrying about such a minor thing as a man holding an opinion...
Your making a big deal out of nothing.
Don't sweat the small stuff. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we suppose to be discussing what WE think about this subject on this thread? If it's no big deal, then don't post. And if you don't like what I post, then I suggest you don't post anything.
....Now I really do see why discussions was closed.
/me sighs
<li> Technically, this was never a war. The United States haven't declared a war since WW2. Thus, the legislation binding a soldier unquestioningly to his orders is not in effect. Soldiers have thus every formal right of expressing their opinion.
<li> Even if you don't follow the juristic interpretation, G.W.Bush, the commander in chief, these soldiers highest superior, declared an end to the combat a few months ago. The soldiers in Iraq are an occupation / peacekeeping force. They are <i>not in a war mission</i>.
<li> The fact that they're still in heavy combat with partisans does thus clash with the purpose they were told their assignemnts were supposed to have.
If it's not war, then what is it? "War in Iraq" had to mean somthing...
[edit]<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If it's not war, then what is it? "War in Iraq" had to mean somthing... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm talking about the legal bases. The lack of a proper declaration of war leaves a lot of international jurisdication that was put in place for that eventuallity out of effect. According to international law, this was a 'conflict', a kind of prolonged skirmish.[/edit]
Ontopic: The US soldiers in Iraq can whine as much as they want but they signed up for it so they just have to carry out their orders. Imo of course.
Its called in the reade "career limiting".
In your logic, Iraqi soldiers wouldn't be allowed to criticise Saddam either, or German soldiers criticising Hitler.
That soldier is probably the best soldier there could be. Soldiers do not only fight and follow orders, they have to have their own morale values. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, agreed. They don't have to express them, however.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Being asked about something he gave his opinion and everything else would be a disaster. Why should he be allowed to praise Rumslefd, but not criticse him? If he feels betrayed by this man, if he feels he has been lied at, it's just his duty to give his honest commentary if he's being asked.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Categorically not. He lost that right when he enlisted. He is serving (under) Rumsfeld. He can express doubts through his chain of command, not through CNN, or he can request a transfer, quit etc.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
In your logic, Iraqi soldiers wouldn't be allowed to criticise Saddam either, or German soldiers criticising Hitler.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Um, yes? If you sign up to represent the interests of your country as defined by the incumbent executive, you do that, and do it without public complaint. Morality is a seperate issue, see above.
So if I signed up during Clinton, my interests would be defined by him? I like his definitions of interest. I shoulda enlisted! :-P
As for this whole issue...
Ignoring the justification for the war (which I beleive there was plenty of)...
Its a tough job, but we're in there now, and we need to see it through to the end. A priority has to be set to cycle troops out, but it should not be done at the expense of Iraqi security. I'm all in favor in seeing increased pay for troops who stay longer- these men and women should be compensated for their commitment.
THANK you. We don't want this turning into another Afghanistan...
THANK you. We don't want this turning into another Afghanistan... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or Vietnam for that matter.
I thought that came as a given. Imagine yourself out somewhere. "We do it for our country!" you cry. But then someone tells you no-one wants you there and your own people don't give a toss about you there. You wouldn't feel good now, would you?
I think you misunderstood my post. I wasn't saying anything about the military situation, or how well or not well we are doing. I was comparing the psychological effects of the war on the troops, which I think is a valid comparison.
Although, the two situations are similar militarily. We've learned how to deal with guerilla warfare from our botched experiences in Vietnam, just not the psychological aspects of it.
The psychological effect on the troops is also not similar. The Vietnamese were extremely good at terrorising soldiers to the point where the US and other armies simply wiped out entire villages. In Iraq this has not occured and although the troops are fatigued, it is nowhere near the same situation as vietnam. Vietnam is also an entirely different war ideologically to this one.
The reason that Vietnam failed wasn't because the American soldiers had any psychological failure, it was the intense pressure from the homefront in America. Eventually the president simply recalled the troops, even though they were technically winning the war (The problem was they had to repeatedly capture the same places multiple times=IE weren't holding ground).
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Although, the two situations aren't similar militarily.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<i>Fixed</i>.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We've learned how to deal with guerilla warfare from our botched experiences in Vietnam, just not the psychological aspects of it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I do not think so, and nor does history.