Marine Leaves Because of Moral Reasons....

[Sapper Woody]

On the other hand, why would a "moral" person participate in killing non-combatant Afghan people? Would Jesus accept the excuse of "collateral damage?"

Firstly, you act as if an innocent person dying is a common occurence. Secondly, you assume that we are agressive in our pursuit of targets. Neither one of these is the case. It's only those cases that are reported in the news.

I am in a position where I am generally ahead of the "front lines". My platoon is the one who clears the way for infantry and marines to get where they need to go in order to conduct operations.

Every single mission brief we have, and I mean that literally, EVERY SINGLE mission brief we have we are told the ROE and EOF. ROE stands for "Rules Of Engagement" and EOF stands for "Escalation Of Force". We are told that we may only fire upon targets when they have proven themselves to be an immediate threat by pointing weapons at us or actually shootin, and if we are sure that there will bo no civilian casualties. If there is the possibility of CivCas, we are NOT to fire, but instead we "button up" and move on.

 

[mandym]

On the other hand, why would a "moral" person participate in killing non-combatant Afghan people? Would Jesus accept the excuse of "collateral damage?"

Maybe you should sit their from your recliner and call the President and let him know how the conflict in Afghanistan is going. I am quite sure he could use your input.

 

[freeatlast]

On the other hand, why would a "moral" person participate in killing non-combatant Afghan people? Would Jesus accept the excuse of "collateral damage?"

Bill if you look into scripture God had entire nations wiped out, women and children, babies. Sometimes association makes one just as guilty as the one doing the evil. So yes God does accept collateral damage. As for our own Military leaders I feel they have lost their way and go too far and put our own troops in much to much of harms way for political correctness.

 

[ktn4eg]

Firstly, you act as if an innocent person dying is a common occurence. Secondly, you assume that we are agressive in our pursuit of targets. Neither one of these is the case. It's only those cases that are reported in the news.

I am in a position where I am generally ahead of the "front lines". My platoon is the one who clears the way for infantry and marines to get where they need to go in order to conduct operations.

Every single mission brief we have, and I mean that literally, EVERY SINGLE mission brief we have we are told the ROE and EOF. ROE stands for "Rules Of Engagement" and EOF stands for "Escalation Of Force". We are told that we may only fire upon targets when they have proven themselves to be an immediate threat by pointing weapons at us or actually shootin, and if we are sure that there will bo no civilian casualties. If there is the possibility of CivCas, we are NOT to fire, but instead we "button up" and move on.

What he said!

 

[saturneptune]

What he said!

Ditto, and no, I am not a fan of Rush.

 

[billwald]

>Bill if you look into scripture God had entire nations wiped out, women and children, babies. Sometimes association makes one just as guilty as the one doing the evil. So yes God does accept collateral damage. As for our own Military leaders I feel they have lost their way and go too far and put our own troops in much to much of harms way for political correctness.

SIDEBAR - Thus the historical heretical argument that The God of the OT is different god from the God of the NT.

 

[billwald]

Sapper Woody

I respect your position but don't understand it. Do you think that Afghanistan is a serious threat to the US?

I don't think any country in the world would be a serious threat to the US if we would bring all the troops home and defend our national borders.

 

[Don]

Sapper Woody

I respect your position but don't understand it. Do you think that Afghanistan is a serious threat to the US?

I don't think any country in the world would be a serious threat to the US if we would bring all the troops home and defend our national borders.

Fundamental flaw: we're not at war with Afghanistan, we're at war in Afghanistan.

The threat is not Afghanistan; it's who uses its terrain to train, plan, and influence others to threaten the US and others.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Yeup. Troops were sent to Afghanistan because the then government plainly stated it would not even consider extraditing persons involved with the September 11 attacks. The last time the US was involved with this type of operation was Pershing chasing Pancho Villa all over Northern Mexico.

Fundamental flaw: we're not at war with Afghanistan, we're at war in Afghanistan.

The threat is not Afghanistan; it's who uses its terrain to train, plan, and influence others to threaten the US and others.

 

[freeatlast]

>Bill if you look into scripture God had entire nations wiped out, women and children, babies. Sometimes association makes one just as guilty as the one doing the evil. So yes God does accept collateral damage. As for our own Military leaders I feel they have lost their way and go too far and put our own troops in much to much of harms way for political correctness.

SIDEBAR - Thus the historical heretical argument that The God of the OT is different god from the God of the NT.

I am not sure who makes that argument but I certainly don't. He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

 

[freeatlast]

Fundamental flaw: we're not at war with Afghanistan, we're at war in Afghanistan.

The threat is not Afghanistan; it's who uses its terrain to train, plan, and influence others to threaten the US and others.

[SIZE=+0][SIZE=+0][SIZE=+0][SIZE=+0]Yes that is certainly the propaganda that is being used to calm the people of this country. However if that was true this would have been over by now. The claim was to get Bin Laden and we did that, but there is no way we are going to wipe out or stop al-Qaida by what we are doing. In fact our actions have now angered the Taliban who we onvce supported and now we have to fight two factions. Unless we wipe out Pakistan the problem will not be fixed and even then there are other countries who harbor these people. So we have again entered into another unjust war that we have lost at great expense of lives and dollars.
One symptom of an unjust war is one that we enter into with no real plan to win and we have done just that. Another is when we leave the threat will be no less to us then when we started. That is unjust.

[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]

 

[Don]

[SIZE=+0][SIZE=+0][SIZE=+0][SIZE=+0]Yes that is certainly the propaganda that is being used to calm the people of this country. However if that was true this would have been over by now. The claim was to get Bin Laden and we did that, but there is no way we are going to wipe out or stop al-Qaida by what we are doing. In fact our actions have now angered the Taliban who we onvce supported and now we have to fight two factions. Unless we wipe out Pakistan the problem will not be fixed and even then there are other countries who harbor these people. So we have again entered into another unjust war that we have lost at great expense of lives and dollars.
One symptom of an unjust war is one that we enter into with no real plan to win and we have done just that. Another is when we leave the threat will be no less to us then when we started. That is unjust.

[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]

Your post explains exactly why what I posted is true, and why we haven't "won" or completed this war. We have people who are allegedly "calling the shots" who are treating this as a conflict over territory, when the true conflict is about ideology. We don't target Afghans; we target Al Qaeda, Taliban, and terrorists. But they may be Afghans; or Pakistanis who look just like Afghans; or Iranians, or Syrians, or Saudis, or any of a number of other middle eastern countries. They may be in Afghanistan, or Pakistan, or Iran, or other cuntries. Our war is not with Afghanistan; it's just the unfortunate locale where the fight started.

Sorry, but I can't help myself (this is NOT directed at you, FAL):
You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line"! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha...

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This is from IMDB's Princess Bride entry:

Sorry, but I can't help myself (this is NOT directed at you, FAL):

You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line"! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha...
Vizzini stops suddenly, his smile frozen on his face and falls to the ground dead

 

[Don]

Was wondering who'd be the first to recognize the quote....

...but it was something we kept saying to each other the entire year I was over there....

 

[AresMan]

As the depression sets in, the military will be the best (only?) option which will pay the bills for many young people.

If that were the case, we would be in serious trouble.

The military is an overhead cost in terms of a balance sheet. It does not produce goods and services that actually benefit all society; it is a cost for security.

You need to get rid of the Keynesian fallacy that "full employment" and "spending" are the factors of growth. It is productivity (useful goods and services) that grow an economy, not merely a job with a paycheck. There was full employment on a slave plantation. There was full employment in the Soviet Union. We could easily achieve full employment by employing half of society to dig ditches and the other half to fill them again. Everyone would get a paycheck, but because there would be no goods and services being produced as a result, the money would be worthless.

Keynes' propagation of the Paradox of Savings and demand-side economics has poisoned the minds of otherwise intelligent people. These ideas are destructive to an economy and ultimately evil.

 

[AresMan]

Bill if you look into scripture God had entire nations wiped out, women and children, babies. Sometimes association makes one just as guilty as the one doing the evil. So yes God does accept collateral damage. As for our own Military leaders I feel they have lost their way and go too far and put our own troops in much to much of harms way for political correctness.

And when otherwise rational Christians use history pertaining to the theocratic nation of Israel for which God had a specific plan, and dispensational theology gone berserk to justify endless occupation of Middle Eastern countries for fears of terrorists, we lose big time.

Just because we read the history in the Bible that God commanded the Israelites to clear out the Promised Land, does not mean we can just "play God" and assume we can do the same thing when we do not have special revelation from God Himself that this is OK.

Also, would we appreciate it if China decided to occupy the U.S. indefinitely with their military because an environmental extremist terrorist group attacked some Chinese plant for pollution? Of course not. Why should we expect innocent citizens of other countries to love having troops from an outsider nation monitoring what they do with no foreseeable end?

The prudent thing to do is to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal and set bounties on terrorist leaders, causing the people of these nations to do some of the work for us. Less bloodshed, less resentment from those who appreciated the U.S. at first, but are now getting tired of the police state from outsiders.

 

[freeatlast]

And when otherwise rational Christians use history pertaining to the theocratic nation of Israel for which God had a specific plan, and dispensational theology gone berserk to justify endless occupation of Middle Eastern countries for fears of terrorists, we lose big time.

Just because we read the history in the Bible that God commanded the Israelites to clear out the Promised Land, does not mean we can just "play God" and assume we can do the same thing when we do not have special revelation from God Himself that this is OK.

Also, would we appreciate it if China decided to occupy the U.S. indefinitely with their military because an environmental extremist terrorist group attacked some Chinese plant for pollution? Of course not. Why should we expect innocent citizens of other countries to love having troops from an outsider nation monitoring what they do with no foreseeable end?

The prudent thing to do is to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal and set bounties on terrorist leaders, causing the people of these nations to do some of the work for us. Less bloodshed, less resentment from those who appreciated the U.S. at first, but are now getting tired of the police state from outsiders.

I was answering a statment not offering proper solutions to world problems or our current actions.

 

[kyredneck]

And when otherwise rational Christians use history pertaining to the theocratic nation of Israel for which God had a specific plan, and dispensational theology gone berserk to justify endless occupation of Middle Eastern countries for fears of terrorists, we lose big time.

Just because we read the history in the Bible that God commanded the Israelites to clear out the Promised Land, does not mean we can just "play God" and assume we can do the same thing when we do not have special revelation from God Himself that this is OK.

Also, would we appreciate it if China decided to occupy the U.S. indefinitely with their military because an environmental extremist terrorist group attacked some Chinese plant for pollution? Of course not. Why should we expect innocent citizens of other countries to love having troops from an outsider nation monitoring what they do with no foreseeable end?

The prudent thing to do is to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal and set bounties on terrorist leaders, causing the people of these nations to do some of the work for us. Less bloodshed, less resentment from those who appreciated the U.S. at first, but are now getting tired of the police state from outsiders.

Generally agree with you.

"...no foreseeable end..."

I wish Ron Paul would have been given the chance to do just that; to break this viscious cycle of the self perpetuating war economy that Ike warned us of.

 

[billwald]

After WW2 the military threatened us with the "domino" theory of communism. Now it is the domino theory of Islam. Bah, humbug!

After Islam is corrupted with consumer goods it will be some other enemy. Probably Russia, again. I think the US and Russian armies are cooperating to keep both countries under military control.

 

[Don]

That would be the same corruption that just saw two men arguing over the same woman; and since they couldn't find an agreement, they declared the woman an adulteress and executed her?