Unreported Innocent Iraqi Civilian Casualties

Lets put it this way fox as to the question of what the military does or does not due. Well hmm lets stick a bunch of 18 year old kids in an area where they can be killed because they had no better option out of high school then going into the military. Why no better option? Well a certain supposed great leader named clinton thought it would be great to sign a bill called NAFTA taking away all decent paying jobs for fresh out of highschool kids.
Back to the soldiers. Ok these same baby faced kids are placed in an area where they are lied to and shot at by the same people they are trying to make an area safe. Now, these kids are repeteadly shot at, and blown up by the people they are protecting. Then, they are lied to by those same people when those people say "no i dont know anything about that mortar attack that killed your best friend matt, oh and pay no attention to that umbrella stand that looks like a mortar yet it doesnt rain here and we dont have umbrella's". Your telling me you wouldnt get mad if your best friend who would take a bullet to the face for you did just that because some guy your trying to give a better life for him and his kids lied to you about shooting at you and your buddies? Sit there and tell me you wouldnt get mad and I will never believe another single thing you ever post and I will make a new thread everyday saying how much you lie. Now if those same said kids who have been scrubbing baby's blood off thier clothes because some al-quadi thought it would be awsome to blow up a car in a market, have guns, are being lied to, know damn well that guy standing infront of them is the culprit and they have had enough of protecting people whole dont want a better life, shoot him? Are you really going to be shocked. If you ask those guys why they keep going bacl there they will tell you one of two reasons. One the government forced them too, or two they want to try and make sure the buddy next to them comes home alive. They dont give a damn bit crap about anyone Iraqi, they care about thier comrade. Now lets take that same group of kids who came from nothing much in the U.S. and put some young hairless leutenant over them who just freshly graduated from west point, who has had a padded life because thats about the only way you get into west point. Put this so called Leautenant over them giving them orders and he has no clue on what is truely going on. This is the exact same scenerio for what went on in Vietnam. Fox, it doesnt take a rocket scientist to put the dots together. Sure, I bet there has been war crimes committed by some of the u.s. soldiers and yes they will be delt with. Or, maybe those same soldiers are just good enough to cover thier track's. But atleast they are not going out and bombing innocent people, they are killing the ones who would do that. That is the difference you dont get and didnt get when we debated the isreali/palestine war. I never said it was right or wrong, but there is no right or wrong in war. It is freakin war and you want to come home alive and you want your buddy to come home alive. End of story that what counts. And you will kill anything and everything that will come in that way by any means necessary after a time of being induced to that kind of atrocity.
So when you sit there om your little computer saying how soldiers are bad, the us is bad it twists my boxers into a thong cause quite frankly sir, I would ask for a refund from everyone of your schools, cause you havent learned a damn thing about this world or people.
 
Nothing "oxymoronic" about it given our present day political germain...

... of course, you would not have said that if you understood the "real" meaning of the term "liberal" as applied to historical contexts.


cheers,

It's not like you, RN, to be so condescending;) - i do know a bit about history, honest
a big difference in political speak between the UK and US appears to be that in the US liberal is a potential insult or dirty word
whereas in the UK most mainstream politicians could be described, and would probably describe themselves as liberal

quoting from wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal

Liberalism refers to a broad array of related doctrines, ideologies, philosophical views, and political traditions which advocate individual liberty. Liberalism has its roots in the Western Age of Enlightenment, but the term has taken on different meanings in different time periods.

Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights. It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power (especially of government and religion), the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected.


that, to me at least, doesn't easily tally with the concept of narrow-mindedness :dunno:
 
a big difference in political speak between the UK and US appears to be that in the US liberal is a potential insult or dirty word
whereas in the UK most mainstream politicians could be described, and would probably describe themselves as liberal
The problem is that no politician in the US OR the UK who subscribes themselves to the "liberal" label actually ascribe to the points you thoughtfully presented. Namely:
liberalism emphasizes individual rights. It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power (especially of government and religion), the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected.
(emphases mine) [The emphasis on free enterptise is very telling = the US is NOT a free enterprise "capitalist free market" system.. .for example]

Most UK politicians who subscribe to the "liberal" term TODAY are no where close to classic liberalism... but closer to fundamental Socialism. In fact, "classic Liberalism" has a new label in today's society - libertarianism.

that, to me at least, doesn't easily tally with the concept of narrow-mindedness :dunno:
To you maybe.

To me, a "liberal" today is as much antithetical as the "conservative".

The "Republicans" and the "Democrats" are two sides of the same coin - they both represent "Government power". Republicans support the "Warfare State" while the Democrats support the "Welfare Stare".

Both parties are against the tenets of classical liberalism and the founding principles of my country.


cheers,
 
well - it's an interesting discussion, but i can't be bothered going in depth about 18th century UK ( or US for that matter ) political theory - i'm just about to have my dinner :D

PS: Wikipedia is not a "reliable" source of factual information.

i knew that already RN - i'm not a completely numbskull :confused:

i know that wikis are written & edited by members and are therefore a bit unreliable, but wikipedia is useful, particularly for a quick info search relating to a discussion here - i'm sure lots of us use it


cheers, b
 
Actually those supposed "liberal freethinkers of the 60's" Ha they got us to where we are today. So in and of itself my point is made about narrow minded liberals. The 60's "hippie" generation is the "me, me, me" generation.
 
I dont know fox, my parents were from the hippie 60's era but werent hippie's, they didnt raise me in a mememe lifestyle durring the 80's and my kids are not being raised the mememe 00's. So to be honest I dont real think much of what other people due, I show by example.
 
Top