I just read an article on yahoo about how we need to keep those troops from the surge in country even longer then originally planed. That might be the dumbest thing I have herd in a while. I got into Fallija in Sept. of 06 and I saw the surge with my own eyes. Now we have units without an area of operation or any real mission rolling around the streets. Friendly fire incidents went up when this happened. Different units cannot communicate on there radios and once one shoot is fired everything is lost in the confusion. We need to work on pulling out and not moving deeper into the situation that we got our self into.
On the other note it is hard to do so when you’re R.O.E.’s, rules of engagement, are being dictated by people who are not getting shoot at. Who don’t know what your body feels like after an I.E.D. blows next to your truck. Take for instance, I am driving down the street when a rocket propelled grenade almost hits my truck. We see the man through the weapon in his car and get in and drive off. So what do you do? You hunt him down and kill him. Well, I know a man who did just that and now he is up on murder charges. MURDER CHARGES?!?!?! Yes, because as soon as he dropped his weapon and started running he was no longer considered a military target according to our R.O.E.’s. I am all for the war but not if they won’t let us do what needs to be done. We need to pull out or let us do what needs to be done.
You cannot kill an unarmed person, that is the rule. It helps to keep armies from killing POWs. Not every rule is perfect but this one has to stand, not for instances like you describe but for the much more important "surrender" situations.
Hunt him down and capture would be fine.
PAX
PS: This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated
- Mitch Hedberg (RIP)
Hahahaha wrote:You cannot kill an unarmed person, that is the rule. It helps to keep armies from killing POWs. Not every rule is perfect but this one has to stand, not for instances like you describe but for the much more important "surrender" situations.
Hunt him down and capture would be fine.
PAX
There is a big difference between a legitimate target and a POW. If someone has just fired a few pot shots at soldiers and is seen getting into his vehicle to drive away, even if he doesn't have the weapon in his hand anymore, he is still a legitimate target. If he shoots at the soldiers, then decides he want to surrender, its a totally different story, and different "rules" come into play.
This is a long rant, and it will no doubt piss plenty of you off. I am 100% against pulling out, especially considering that the people calling for it are typically the ones who have absolutely no military background, and have no idea what its like here. I'm tired of all the whining I see and hear in the media about "its a quagmire, too many have died, we're spending too much money". Please don't take this the wrong way, but less people have died in almost 5 years here than in some of the months in WW2 or Vietnam. I'm not trying to downplay American lives, its just that using "too many have died" is a ridiculous argument for a pullout, or even for a reason not to have come here in the first place. And no one seems to consider this, simply because the media only wants a bodycount to report with no comparison. Its a disgrace to all Americans who have paid the ultimate price to go touting "the government killed my son/daughter". Thats like saying "my son/daughter is an idiot and served their country". I'm tired of all the people who are "for the soldiers but against the war". How, may I ask? By not supporting the war effort, you are not supporting the soldier, and by supporting the soldier, you are most definitely supporting the war. I'm tired of hearing people say "we need to pull out because XYZ" when said person has no experience here, and has never been here, and doesn't even have any family here. What Bush said recently was right- Congress shouldn't be controlling us, they should be funding us. Giving us support to finish the job (and if anyone says there is no job to do, you can STFU too, since you obviously have no idea what you're talking about). If more funding was spent here than on deadbeats around the world looking for handouts from the US, we would have laser guns to use. Hell, we might even get training to be able to "will" the enemy into submission. All the "Sprawlmarts" of the country should stop being concerned with making a buck and more concerned with ending this war. The rich a$$holes that happily go through life like the whole world is a happy place should be supporting us. Its too bad there isn't that feeling of.....whats it called....oh yeah, caring... in the US. Why do you think WW2 was a victory? Support from the citizens and the country
as a whole. And why was Vietnam a flop? Lack of support from the citizens and country. Too many "peace protesters". They should be used as cannon fodder as far as I'm concerned. Now we have college kids protesting against stuff they don't even know about. Its sad. And yes, the ROE is terrible. Simply because its written by desk jockeys in Kuwait (which is NOT a combat zone, regardless of what anyone says). People who have no clue what actual combat is like and have never been shot at, or even heard a ricochet. My personal opinion- better to be judged by twelve than carried by six. Unfortunately, the media will blow it all out of proportion and make you seem like a vicious killer if you defend yourself. I'm sorry, but when did self-defense become illegal? Oh, thats right, when the ACLU and all the flaming liberals got involved. Lastly (and I've said this plenty of times here), the US military is VOLUNTEER. No one twists a recruits arm behind their back and forces them to enlist. There is no draft. Whenever a soldier/sailor/airman or marine enlists, they know exactly what they're getting into. Anyone that says differently needs to be smacked upside the head. Ok, I'm done ranting.
I fully expect a bunch of people to be blatantly ignorant and tell me I'm wrong on all these points, and you have your reasons, but you won't see me try to refute you. Just remember, unless you have actually been here, how can you have any opinions or idea "what its like" here, other than the biased media?
Hi GAM!
Good to see ya back James
IF the troop surge isnt' helping, it's due to 3 things:
- ineptitude of long-term planning from the beginning of the invasion
- Ineptitude of current adjusted planning,
- unwillingness on the part of the commander in chief to ask for help.
I forget what current troop levels are now, but they're at about half what the original plans were, and should really be increased up to the levels set out in the original invasion plan (as set out by Gen. Tony Zinni (ret) and Gen. Tommy Franks (ret?)). At this point there's little hope of securing the country because of troop levels, and the fact that the Iraqi military and police are currently being staffed by people that are not even as qualified as the deposed army and police.
Add to that the fact that the Iraqi Parliament is unwilling (to put it mildly) to put aside sectarian concerns and create and ratify their own constitution and the fact that the Bush administration is unwilling to do anything about it, and you have what you have.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Kill 'em all, let whichever god they pray to sort 'em out...
I know that seems a bit harsh but the United States has been shooting itself in the foot since day one by fighting a political war. If someone shoots at soldiers from the top floor of a building, they have to go floor by floor to find that person, all the while having to be careful of innocent victims. That shouldn't be, a tank should be brought in to level the whole building. If you're an innocent victim inside, too bad, you should've made sure you weren't housing enemy combatants. That's heartless? That's respecting the lives of our troops. The enemy looks like an average person until they begin shooting. Then troops have to get permission to return fire. That's
. If you're not an enemy combatant, then make sure you're not around one, that's how it should be. This war would've have been much more effective had we just bombed known terrorist areas to the ground and picked through the rubble. If you're not with us, get the hell of out of our way.
We're suppose to follow rules of war? Honestly, does anyone really believe that? Whichever enemy it may be, they don't care one bit about rules, so why should American soliders be held to them, effectively putting them at more risk? And when did prisoners of war get the same rights as a criminal in the United States? We should be able to hold them as long as we see fit. Why? Because they are an enemy combatant, enough said.
It's still funny to me how people join the armed forces simply to get their college payed for but still can't believe it when they're sent to Iraq. That's the chance you take instead of actually working your way through college so I have no sympathy especially when their parents complain on Good Morning America that it's the government's fault they're dead.
So what to you do with someone like me. I did not support the invation, I do not support the occupation in it's current form. I have tons of respect for the men and women who are over there doing the fighting, but I wish they weren't there. I know that the US cannot pull out and shouldn't at this point so I guess I stongly support a good exit strategy (and no, I don't have one).
I believe that when it comes to US interest Saddam was contained and the invation was not needed. I also know that now that they are in, they cannot simply leave, it's not that simple. So I still say I support the troops but not the war... But I guess in a way I do support the war provided they are working towards an end. It's complicated isn't it.
There is no Black and White, Only Grey.
PAX
PS: This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated
- Mitch Hedberg (RIP)
John W(Ranger1316) wrote:Kill 'em all, let whichever god they pray to sort 'em out...
oh brother...
Quote:
I know that seems a bit harsh but the United States has been shooting itself in the foot since day one by fighting a political war. If someone shoots at soldiers from the top floor of a building, they have to go floor by floor to find that person, all the while having to be careful of innocent victims. That shouldn't be, a tank should be brought in to level the whole building.
No, that's called MOUT operations. The whole reason you don't go in and level a structure (it takes more than a couple 500lb bombs btw) is because you do NOT WANT TO KILL CIVILIANS.
You make it sound like WWII... The bad guys aren't uniformed, and combat is NOT the same. If you enjoy the idea of slaughtering civillians like so much cattle, apply that in the USA first. There are areas in the US that are akin to warzone, so use it at home first.
Quote:
If you're an innocent victim inside, too bad, you should've made sure you weren't housing enemy combatants. That's heartless? That's respecting the lives of our troops. The enemy looks like an average person until they begin shooting. Then troops have to get permission to return fire. That's . If you're not an enemy combatant, then make sure you're not around one, that's how it should be. This war would've have been much more effective had we just bombed known terrorist areas to the ground and picked through the rubble. If you're not with us, get the hell of out of our way.
Put it this way: by that rationale, a cop could pop you in the forehead because you were next to someone that might have been speeding.
It sounds stupid, because it is stupid.
BTW, the problem with this war is that there was little to no intelligence on terrorists in Iraq... not to mention: there weren't all that many terrorists in Iraq to begin with that weren't Fedayeen Hussein troops. After the invasion and border security evaporated, that's when you saw an influx of Al-qaeda.
Quote:
We're suppose to follow rules of war? Honestly, does anyone really believe that? Whichever enemy it may be, they don't care one bit about rules, so why should American soliders be held to them, effectively putting them at more risk? And when did prisoners of war get the same rights as a criminal in the United States? We should be able to hold them as long as we see fit. Why? Because they are an enemy combatant, enough said.
Rules of War? Rules of Engagement... it's what you follow to make sure you're not going to cut down a herd of school children.
Quote:
It's still funny to me how people join the armed forces simply to get their college payed for but still can't believe it when they're sent to Iraq. That's the chance you take instead of actually working your way through college so I have no sympathy especially when their parents complain on Good Morning America that it's the government's fault they're dead.
Who cares why they join the military, if the executive branch sent them off to do a job without the right tools or enough troops, it's still the executive branch's fault that they f**ked up.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:No, that's called MOUT operations. The whole reason you don't go in and level a structure (it takes more than a couple 500lb bombs btw) is because you do NOT WANT TO KILL CIVILIANS.
You make it sound like WWII... The bad guys aren't uniformed, and combat is NOT the same. If you enjoy the idea of slaughtering civillians like so much cattle, apply that in the USA first. There are areas in the US that are akin to warzone, so use it at home first.
Why should we care about
Iraqi civilians at the expense of our own troops? You make it seem like they're just as important as our troops when they're nowhere close. This is not WWII but it's still a war that we should take just as seriously. Once again, nobody wants to see innocent American citizens die but Iraqi citizens are a different story and I'd like to know why they're just as important as American troops in your eyes.
Quote:
Put it this way: by that rationale, a cop could pop you in the forehead because you were next to someone that might have been speeding.
It sounds stupid, because it is stupid.
I'm talking about Iraq, not here at home. There is a big difference between how things should be handled in the United States and Iraq. Plus, I'm talking about violence against American troops, not someone snatching a purse.
Quote:
Rules of War? Rules of Engagement... it's what you follow to make sure you're not going to cut down a herd of school children.
Most people are treating them as rules of war, hence my use of the name. herd lol? Group...My point is a terrorist or enemy combatant wouldn't hesitate for even a split second if school children came between him and American troops so why should troops have to basically sacrifice themselves for at least a few children who are going to grow up hating them anyway?
Quote:
Why should we care about Iraqi civilians at the expense of our own troops? You make it seem like they're just as important as our troops when they're nowhere close. This is not WWII but it's still a war that we should take just as seriously. Once again, nobody wants to see innocent American citizens die but Iraqi citizens are a different story and I'd like to know why they're just as important as American troops in your eyes.
Because they are people and you don't needlessly slaughter people. Because the US went in there under the guise of freeing innocent Iraqi's from their dictator.. Remember? This is a "Humanatarian War" (biggest oxymoron ever said by the biggest moron ever), to liberate the people of Iraq....
Your racism is showing in blinding technicolour with those statements. You value life based on where it grew up or is it the colour of their skin, or maybe the language they speak?? Some other reason? Name it.
Keep in mind that the US is the invader in this case. I cannot think of one single instance where the invader was the good guy. Can you? Invading a land to defend against other invaders (WWII) doesn't count. Iraq had not been invaded by a foreign nation so that rationale does not apply.
Quote:
My point is a terrorist or enemy combatant wouldn't hesitate for even a split second if school children came between him and American troops so why should troops have to basically sacrifice themselves for at least a few children who are going to grow up hating them anyway?
Because we (yup, I'm alligning myself wih the US) are supposed to be better than that. Tactics like that are exactly why you went to battle in the first place.
Did it sound dumb to you when you said it?
PAX
PS: This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated
- Mitch Hedberg (RIP)
So John.... What value do you assign to invading troops? What value to yourself? What value to Iraqi people?
Do you understand that racism is out of style?
Why is your life, or that of a US citizen or troop worth more than the life of an Iraqi?
Do you feel that way about other cultures too?
PAX
PS: This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated
- Mitch Hedberg (RIP)
Hahahaha wrote:Because they are people and you don't needlessly slaughter people. Because the US went in there under the guise of freeing innocent Iraqi's from their dictator.. Remember? This is a "Humanatarian War" (biggest oxymoron ever said by the biggest moron ever), to liberate the people of Iraq....
Your racism is showing in blinding technicolour with those statements. You value life based on where it grew up or is it the colour of their skin, or maybe the language they speak?? Some other reason? Name it.
Keep in mind that the US is the invader in this case. I cannot think of one single instance where the invader was the good guy. Can you? Invading a land to defend against other invaders (WWII) doesn't count. Iraq had not been invaded by a foreign nation so that rationale does not apply.
I'm not talking about American troops walking down the street using Iraqi citizens as target practice. I'm saying that if innocent Iraqis are killed along with enemy combatants, so be it. I'd much rather read in USA Today that a few Iraqis were killed in the course of a skirmish than a few American troops were killed trying to shoot around innocent Iraqis when the enemy was mowing down the innocent Iraqis with no regard.
Call me a racist, that's fine. I just hold American troops in higher regard than random Iraqi citizens.
Quote:
Because we (yup, I'm alligning myself wih the US) are supposed to be better than that. Tactics like that are exactly why you went to battle in the first place.
Did it sound dumb to you when you said it?
PAX
It still make sense to me. I'm still more concerned about the lives of American troops than random Iraqi children. It sounds stupid to me that American troops should die at the expense of children that'll probably be shot anyway.
Racism is not entering into this. Bling patriotism and national elitism and fanaticism. yes.
Either way, it's still dumb, asinine, and archaic.
Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
OK, maybe it's not racism... He plainly values the life of an invader of the life of an indigenous person so... Let's turn it around for a second.
If an invading army occupied your area it would be OK for them to take out some civilians while cleaning up "the problem"??
PAX
PS: This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated
- Mitch Hedberg (RIP)
We abide by the Rules of Engagement; we abide by the Geneva Conventions; we treat prisoners the way we do, and protect foreign citizens the way we do because we are Men of Honor.
Men of Honor believe that all men are created equal; and that any life lost is a tragedy. To say that one man's life is worth less than ANY others' is to tarnish all who have died. That's not what warriors die for. That's not what Saint died for.
John W(Ranger1316) wrote:Why should we care about Iraqi civilians at the expense of our own troops? You make it seem like they're just as important as our troops when they're nowhere close. This is not WWII but it's still a war that we should take just as seriously. Once again, nobody wants to see innocent American citizens die but Iraqi citizens are a different story and I'd like to know why they're just as important as American troops in your eyes.
Why is one life any more or less valuable? I regard all life as equally valuable. I don't want to see a soldier or Joe Q Iraqi killed in vain. Terrorists, different story.
Quote:
I'm talking about Iraq, not here at home. There is a big difference between how things should be handled in the United States and Iraq. Plus, I'm talking about violence against American troops, not someone snatching a purse.
I'm talking about moral imperatives. You seem to have a skewed value scale that puts Americans' lives at a higher premium than anyone else's... that's chauvenistic patriotism otherwise known as jingoism.
You wouldn't want that happening in your home town, what exactly is so different about Iraq? My 6 year old nephew gets the idea of "walk a mile in the other guy's mocassins", why don't you?
Quote:
Most people are treating them as rules of war, hence my use of the name.
Fortunately, NOT the military in Iraq. Most people don't know sh*t about the rules of war, or the ROE.
Quote:
herd lol? Group...Quote:
No, I'm talking about a herd of kids... they generally don't follow any individual command structure when they're frightened enough.
Quote:
My point is a terrorist or enemy combatant wouldn't hesitate for even a split second if school children came between him and American troops so why should troops have to basically sacrifice themselves for at least a few children who are going to grow up hating them anyway?
There's a difference: American Troops are not the terrorists. Terrorists are KILLING MUSLIMS AS WELL. They're not there for maudlin ideals of heaven and allah, they're there because they're usually too stupid or too invested in their enterprise, they generally don't give a damn about others. The good thing is that US troops aren't there to start colouring outside the lines as you'd have them do.
Look, Dubya and the rest of the executive staff f**ked the dog on the invasion, the occupation, reconstruction and securing the country. The individual troops are there for whatever reason, and they're not getting the support they'd need to actually be effective in completing their goals. The whole reason that the former Yugoslav republics are at least stable (not in a civil war) is because NATO/UN troops amassed enough people and sourced local materials and labour to help rebuild and stabilize the countries... Iraqi is running 180 degrees from that course, and it's failing.
What you're proposing is to disgrace the hard work and sacrifice of soldiers and civilians that were there to do the right thing. You should be ashamed.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
ok this guy is making it seem as if american troops are worth more than iraqi civilians! lol give me one good reason/fact why this statement is correct..
a life is a life, wether its and american troop, or an afghan kid, there is no difference, they are both worth the same.
Orlandomon wrote:ok this guy is making it seem as if american troops are worth more than iraqi civilians! lol give me one good reason/fact why this statement is correct..
a life is a life, wether its and american troop, or an afghan kid, there is no difference, they are both worth the same.
For some crazy reason I believe losing an American soldier is much more horrible than losing an Iraqi civilian. American troops are proudly serving their country, which I happen to call home. I could care less about Iraqi civilians in relation to the troops. Why is that so hard to comprehend?
I guess you would be just as torn up over a random Afghan kid dying as you would your own mother since obviously their lives are worth the same...
So you mean that you shouldn't get upset about anyone getting killed.
Apparently, you don't believe that all people were created equal: how is it that you call yourself a proud American when you're not following the guiding principles set out in the Declaration of Independance?
Quote:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Want to rationalize how you're not a jingo AND a hypocrite?
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
An Iraqi life (or whoever else happens to be "in the way" on the "battelfield") vs an American soldiers life........
Thats a touchy one.
Are they equal? Absolutely.
Should civilians be spared at all costs? Definetely.
Is it always possible? Nope, and it never will be (until we have weapons that can selectively target)
There is no uniformed enemy here. They all look the same (meaning- civilian attire). Its pretty difficult to distinguish friend from foe unless there is a definitive give away. The guy is running away with an RPG, or has a detonator in his hand for example. The insurgents hide in populated areas instead of setting up "camp" somewhere outside the city. They are civilians for all intensive purposes. All their visible actions are meant to allow them to blend in with the population until they strike. Entire city blocks shouldn't be leveled in this case. Its a totally different style of war than anything else this big (there have been plenty of little conflicts and battles though). Another thing the US soldier has to deal with is media exposure. We have to "look good" while doing our job. We just can't do it. Everyone and their brother here has some sort of digital recording device, and most of us bring them with us wherever we go. Why? To get the god stuff on tape. Some stuff that gets recorded is shown to others, and eventually finds it ways to the media (if its "good" enough to sell). It typically gets taken out of context and blown out of proportion. Who suffers? The soldier who recorded it, even if they weren't intending anything bad to happen. It ends up sensationalized and they end up facing charges. Its a lose-lose situation no matter what you do. If you kill someone, you suffer (emotionally and/or legally), if you don't do whats necessary to protect yourself or your buddies, you suffer (emotionally and/or physically). It sucks.
Iraqis as a whole though, do not place as high a price on life as Americans (and most of the free world) do. Although this may seem like a reason for us to be able to kill them more easily, it shouldn't even be considered. No one should die needlessly like that. Its like a stray bullet in a gang shootout where the 6 yr old girl dies. Everyone feels terrible about and wants to undo it. But for Iraqis, its the way they've lived for generations. The Fedayeen were known for coming into cities and taking large groups (think in the hundreds here) of people away, never to be seen again. One can only imagine the terrible deaths theys died. So, the entire nation is desensitized to it. A dead Iraqi is just another dead Iraqi to them. Nothing special.
I proudly serve my country, and I would do anything necessary to protect myself, my buddies and my country. If involved in a firefight where a civilian went down, I would make every effort to save that civilian's life. At that point, race/color/religion/etc all goes out the window. Its just me and someones son/daughter/mother/father/brother/sister. We're all trained in field medicine (at least the basics, end some even get more as Combat Lifesavers), and I can't imagine why someone wouldn't use that skill to save a life if possible. We actually have an order of merit list that accompanies the ROE card for casualties. Iraqi civilians are right up there with US soldiers and US civilians. Me personally, my buddies get fixed first, since they can pick up their weapon and continue fighting if possible or needed, then the civilians. If we're not in combat, simple triage rules apply, the worst get fixed first.
John W(Ranger1316) wrote:I guess you would be just as torn up over a random Afghan kid dying as you would your own mother since obviously their lives are worth the same...
Nope, I usually am to jaded to let any death affect me. I will say this though: I honor someone that fights with honor for a cause they believe in--even if i may not necessarily agree with it. Most normal people, i may not weep for their death, but it is a tragedy.
However, Religious fanatics, Nationalist terrorists, Jingoists, and those blind patriouts who @!#$ their national colors...good riddance.
Thus, your average Iraqi citizen who doesn't @!#$ with anyone gets the same amount of condolence as an American or Canadian citizen that doesn't @!#$ with anyone.
Your soldier of any nationality that fights with some shred of honor gets honored.
Your average political scumbag, jingoist, terrorist, or religious huckster gets a dancefloor installed on their grave.
And your comparison between a random afghani kid and someone's mother, much like the french aristocracy before the revolution, simply won't wash. You're comparing someone random far away with someone we're genetically programmed to feel close to. Change your agrument to, say, "Some random afghani kid vs. some random kid from Idaho" and I'd treat them the same.
Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
I dunno. I'm kind of with John W(Ranger1316) in thinking that not all life is equally valuable.
I mean, I've said it before, but I value the life of my dog over, say, some random guy on the other side of the world.
Why? Because I have no connection to that person, and if they died, it would really have no consequence in my life, whereas if my dog died, I'd be devestated.
To say that one life is inherently as valuable as another, is retarded, because it's all relative. It's like clothing, money, or numerous other human concoctions--value is all relative.
Personally, I hate to hear news of people dying. It sucks, but it's reality. Let's not pretend that my life is "worth" more than that of your best friend.
Maybe you all mean that life is precious and that there is an intrinsic value to it, but like anything else, that value can vary depending on who's buying.
Well, it's understandable that you value someone close to you more than someone you don't know. So from a personal perspective it is relative, just keep in mind that there are billions more people that don't know you than do. Those random people in a far away lands also have people close to them that would be devistated at their loss.
In the end, it is all equal, see?
PAX
PS: This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated
- Mitch Hedberg (RIP)
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:So you mean that you shouldn't get upset about anyone getting killed.
Apparently, you don't believe that all people were created equal: how is it that you call yourself a proud American when you're not following the guiding principles set out in the Declaration of Independance?
Quote:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Want to rationalize how you're not a jingo AND a hypocrite?
I was just going to let this topic fade away since apparently most users in this thread have the whimsical belief that all life is equal in worth. Anyways...
Orlandomon stated a life is a life and my point is we all put different values on different lives whether we like it or not. If they were all worth the same then you would be equally torn up over the death of your mother or a random Afghan kid.
I've never implied that America is somehow incapable of making a mistake. The Declaration of Independence was hypocritical before it was even a finished document. Slavery was still a common practice at the time which, correct me if I'm wrong, made blacks worth less than whites. Whether that was right or not is irrelevant, blacks were below whites, thus whites were worth more.
But according to the Declaration of Independence, I am a hypocrite. I guess caring more about American troops than random people I'll never meet or care about makes me a jingo. It all really is relative, go figure.
Hahahaha wrote:Those random people in a far away lands also have people close to them that would be devistated at their loss.
In the end, it is all equal, see?
But why should we care about those people and who they care about? Better yet, I'm certain all of those random people would place more worth on their mother's life than even their very best friend, just like anyone would no matter what kind of relationship they have.
Degen/John: You're not talking about the value of life, you're talking about the value of your connection to that person.
If you'd both get that straight, you'd realize how assinine, and yet similar, your attitudes are to Terrorists.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
