05-07-2004, 06:34 AM
The way I see it, thereâs "war" time and "peace" time.
In Wartime, to me this is where we bomb the living hell out of the enemy and kill indiscriminately to lay waste to the enemyâs moral.
In Peacetime, to me this is where we enforce our will upon this nation and crush the remaining few who still oppose us.
The difference? The difference is the amount of firepower and the size of the opposition. 'Peace' is in fact 'war' when we occupy a hostile nation! It would seem America is the worldâs police!
So, in a state of 'peace', it can only be concluded that American soldiers will do what they have to do to protect themselves from the enemy. If the enemy is gunned down but still alive and able to shoot a weapon, you can bet they will probably do so again. How can America ensure peace without enforcing it? They can't be soft and understanding to the musings of extremists or the rights of religious fanatics, nor the freedom of thousands who oppose the American invasion. They canât listen to what the country or its neighbors want, or any other country for that matter. No, they must be hard handed and deal out a swift justice, setting right what is wrong in that country. Make sense to you? Nope, didn't think so. Doesnât make any sense to me either, but neither does this war.
I'm sure this war had more to do than anybody expects, but was it justified? For the reasons given by the lying Bush administration, hell no! It is because of this administration I donât trust or believe that I don't see any actions our military takes in Iraq to be justifiable by any means. All I see is us crushing innocent Iraqis, their lives and their freedom, which ironically we are trying to instill a Democracy. Maybe Sadam and his Generals needed to go, but why an all out war? Ever ask yourself that? Why not send special OP's to take him out? I remember in the first Iraq war, the CIA said they had the opportunity to "take Sadam out," but the first Bush told them not too. There had to be some reason to start this war, and it definitely was not for the reasons stated by the Bush administration. Why are they spending so much of our money now on that country instead of letting them rebuild? Do they fear warlords or maybe they think the country will revert to its same old ways? If the latter was true, then why try to change the entire countries beliefs? Wouldnât that require also âchangingâ the surrounding countries beliefs as well? I could see how America must look like a threat to the eyes of all eastern countries, if not every country in the world.
Why why why? I suppose the answer will never be known, but to get back to the original point, I think in a war like situation, even one called 'peaceful', it is necessary to take whatever means deemed appropriate to protect yourself and your men. If that means killing unarmed women and children who "might" be strapped to the teeth with bombs, so be it. If that means shooting a wounded gunman until he's dead or torturing Iraqis by making them stand on a chair and shocking them, so be it. I'm glad I'm not in Iraq right now, thatâs for sure. I can rant and rave all I want, but my voice will never make a difference in the scheme of things. What I'm trying to say is that the soldiers are justified in protecting themselves how they deem necessary, but the war is not justified, making any actions by the soldiers, IMO, illegal in a world court.
In Wartime, to me this is where we bomb the living hell out of the enemy and kill indiscriminately to lay waste to the enemyâs moral.
In Peacetime, to me this is where we enforce our will upon this nation and crush the remaining few who still oppose us.
The difference? The difference is the amount of firepower and the size of the opposition. 'Peace' is in fact 'war' when we occupy a hostile nation! It would seem America is the worldâs police!
So, in a state of 'peace', it can only be concluded that American soldiers will do what they have to do to protect themselves from the enemy. If the enemy is gunned down but still alive and able to shoot a weapon, you can bet they will probably do so again. How can America ensure peace without enforcing it? They can't be soft and understanding to the musings of extremists or the rights of religious fanatics, nor the freedom of thousands who oppose the American invasion. They canât listen to what the country or its neighbors want, or any other country for that matter. No, they must be hard handed and deal out a swift justice, setting right what is wrong in that country. Make sense to you? Nope, didn't think so. Doesnât make any sense to me either, but neither does this war.
I'm sure this war had more to do than anybody expects, but was it justified? For the reasons given by the lying Bush administration, hell no! It is because of this administration I donât trust or believe that I don't see any actions our military takes in Iraq to be justifiable by any means. All I see is us crushing innocent Iraqis, their lives and their freedom, which ironically we are trying to instill a Democracy. Maybe Sadam and his Generals needed to go, but why an all out war? Ever ask yourself that? Why not send special OP's to take him out? I remember in the first Iraq war, the CIA said they had the opportunity to "take Sadam out," but the first Bush told them not too. There had to be some reason to start this war, and it definitely was not for the reasons stated by the Bush administration. Why are they spending so much of our money now on that country instead of letting them rebuild? Do they fear warlords or maybe they think the country will revert to its same old ways? If the latter was true, then why try to change the entire countries beliefs? Wouldnât that require also âchangingâ the surrounding countries beliefs as well? I could see how America must look like a threat to the eyes of all eastern countries, if not every country in the world.
Why why why? I suppose the answer will never be known, but to get back to the original point, I think in a war like situation, even one called 'peaceful', it is necessary to take whatever means deemed appropriate to protect yourself and your men. If that means killing unarmed women and children who "might" be strapped to the teeth with bombs, so be it. If that means shooting a wounded gunman until he's dead or torturing Iraqis by making them stand on a chair and shocking them, so be it. I'm glad I'm not in Iraq right now, thatâs for sure. I can rant and rave all I want, but my voice will never make a difference in the scheme of things. What I'm trying to say is that the soldiers are justified in protecting themselves how they deem necessary, but the war is not justified, making any actions by the soldiers, IMO, illegal in a world court.
"The true value of a human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which he has attained liberation from the self." -Albert Einsetin