Black Dog Posted June 16, 2005 Report Share Posted June 16, 2005 I am very glad that your ignorant and selfish views were not prevalent in '39 through '45. If everyone thought the way I do, numbnuts, then the events of 1939 and 1942 wouldn't have happened. "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." -- Herman Goering Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eureka Posted June 16, 2005 Report Share Posted June 16, 2005 War is something very different from local mayhem. It is pictures that have been very prominent in arousing populations to support Jingoism and misplaced petriotism since the 19th. century. Pictures have been a major tool of propaganda and, with modern technology, have become overwhelmingly powerful. The kind of pictures we are talking about have been censored since they run counter to the pictures that gain support for elite wars. It is hard to gain popular support for the aggression against others when they are seen as victims of massacre and extreme cruelty rather than the monsters that they are depicted as in not sharing the political views of one's own leaders. The Nazis raised the use of pictures to a fine art in successful internal propaganda. It is the pictures of the reality of that war that have, as much as anything else, made populations rebel against war. The horrors that troops are exposed to and marauding thugs commit has little overall effect or affect. It is the psychology of the population that counts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 17, 2005 Report Share Posted June 17, 2005 Black dog: I question how many believe in the cause and how many joined th service for reasons other than killing Arabs. Do you honestly believe that there is a problem ...that American service persons are joining up only to kill Arabs....is that the reason the are having recruiting problems because everyone wants to sign up and kill Arabs... As for them being better people: give me a break consider others who've died in teh service of a cause they believe in (Mohammad Atta?)and ask if they are better people than most There is alot more to it than just believing in a cause, their goverment, Thier Country, thier patriotism, thier moral values, and thier up bringing all plays a big role on thier decision to join up and serve thier country. And it does make them a better person.... How about asking if their sacrifice was necessary? How about asking why these people are dying? How about asking yourself who gave you your rights to ask those questions...Soldiers gave you those rights Men and women that fought and risked thier lives to enusre our way of live remained as it is today....And yes it is not only your right to ask those questions but your responsabilty as a citizen to ask those questions of our goverment to ensure it is the right decision. With all that said what is your right to dishonour this soldiers death, by causing undo harm to his famly and friends. Lots of journalists have worked with insurgents and have been threatened accordingly. Al jazeera's Baghdad centre was bombed by U.S. forces on the eve of the invasion. But my point stands: the other side is not being represented by the western media. Threaten by whom ? and yes all media centers are legitimate targets during any military operation....BD your a smart guy, you can not tell me that you believe everything you see on the media....you and i know that if you want to get the full truth about what is going on in the world then you have to go to other sources...Arab TV shows another slant watch both and take the average... I'm not talking about the people in combat, but those whose only view of war is through their TV screen. My question is WHY does the public need to be exposed to highly graphic pictures like the one in question...The majority of the public does not want to see those pictures...nither does those vets returning from combat, or the families of the dead....Do we not show "them" any compasion or do we just tell them thanks for coming out oh by the way here is pictures of your husbands boots because that is all that we could find as he was blown up by an RPG....why are we doing this because the public has the right to know....we need to see those pictures so "we" know what wars effects are....When did we become so cold... All I am saying is that if our leaders are prepared to send people to die, they should be prepared to show the rest of us the results and let us decide if the death and destruction is worth it. They are showing you the results, Just not in extremly graphic pictures. And it's to late to decide anything once the death and destruction is started, you've made a commitment ,soldiers are paying for that commitment with thier lives , changing ones mind after the fact is telling those soldiers that their lives meant nothing. As for The public deciding ...If they don't already know that war has terriable effects before the decision to send troops over then something is wrong....then perhaps the public needs to get off it's a$$ and do something about that situation. They don't need extremly graphic pictures to do that... They didn't ask to die. they didn't ask to be used as props to further the cause of war (for what are slogans like "support our troops!" used for but to silence dissent ). If their deaths can stop further slaughter, then their sacrifice would be truely worth it. Soldiers already know the risks of war, slogans like "support the troops" are used to rally the people to show those that have agreed to fight for thier country that they are being supported and thier families are being looked after....you live in a nation that gives you the right to freedom of speach,ETC you can use that freedom any way you choose...but you do not have the right to judge "ANY" of those that have taken up arms to defend thier nation, or its ideals.... No and I never would. If my life, my family and my home were being threatened, I would fight. But never for country. You know why? Because the idea is bullshit. I don't believe that statement, everyone can be motivated to bear arms and fight for thier country..... The Americans getting killed and maimed in Iraq aren't losing life and limb for the good of their country. That was part of it, ask a recruit at the recruiting center (why are you joining ) Number one answer is (to serve my country, and for the adventure and to see the world) Ask a trained soldier why he is fighting Number one answer is (to protect is buddies, his section,his platoon,to ensure they make it back in one piece) They'll tell you out right it's not for his country or out of Patriotism.... When they get back home they will tell you the standard answer....I answered the call of my country and fought for my buddies... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 17, 2005 Report Share Posted June 17, 2005 BD, Most of these pictures should not be shown to the general public for one reason:Â Respect. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Without the picture, some just cannot understand the true cost of the war. So let me ask you this. Your loved one, say your ten year old daughter, is run over by a freight train. You don't have a problem with her mangled remains being shown in graphic, gruesome detail in all the newspapers, on TV, on web sites, etc. Because, after all, that would show the true cost of having level crossings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 17, 2005 Report Share Posted June 17, 2005 Eureka: War is something very different from local mayhem. It is pictures that have been very prominent in arousing populations to support Jingoism and misplaced petriotism since the 19th. century How is it different, we are talking about needless death and destruction are we not....then why is it we do not see extremly graphic pictures on these deaths below...we are talking about making the public more aware....making the world a safer place.... Below are a few statistics on death here in Canada and the US. It should be noted that these are for "ONE" year only In Canada: There were 2,778 deaths due to motor vehicle traffic collisions in the year 2001 - a rate of 8.9 deaths per 100,000 population.1,2 In 2000-2001 there were 24,403 hospital admissions for traffic-related injuries, corresponding to a rate of 79 hospitalizations per 100,000 population.3 Many victims are young and traffic collisions are a leading cause of premature death and long term disability. Motor veh accidents. Violent crimes causing death in Canada. Murders in Canada. ---The murder count for 1995 totaled 21,597, a total 7 percent lower than 1994 and 13 percent lower than 1991. The murder rate was 8 per 100,000 inhabitants. ---Based on supplemental data received, 77 percent of murder victims in 1995 were males, and 88 percent were persons 18 years or older. By race, 49 percent of victims were black and 48 percent were white. ---Data based on a total of 22,434 murder offenders showed that 91 percent of the assailants were males, and 85 percent were 18 years of age or older. Fifty-three percent of the offenders were black and 45 percent were white. ---Fifty-five percent of murder victims were slain by strangers or persons unknown. Among all female murder victims in 1995, 26 percent were slain by husbands or boyfriends, while 3 percent of the male victims were slain by wives or girlfriends. ---By circumstance, 28 percent of the murders resulted from arguments and 18 percent from felonious activities such as robbery, arson, etc. ---In approximately 7 out of every 10 murders reported during 1995, firearms were the weapons used FBI murder rates. American Deaths Since war began (3/19/03): 1714 1346 Since "Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03) (the list) 1577 1238 Since Capture of Saddam (12/13/03): 1247 1042 Since Handover (6/29/04): 848 713 Since Election (1/31/05): 282 241 American Wounded Official Estimated Total Wounded: 12896 15000 - 38000 My Webpage The horrors that troops are exposed to and marauding thugs commit has little overall effect or affect. It is the psychology of the population that counts. Judging by the above stats it seems that you guys picked the wrong cause ...figures seem to sugest that it is alittle safer in Iraq than on our own streets....and forget about the US.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakeyhands Posted June 17, 2005 Report Share Posted June 17, 2005 BD, Most of these pictures should not be shown to the general public for one reason:Â Respect. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Without the picture, some just cannot understand the true cost of the war. So let me ask you this. Your loved one, say your ten year old daughter, is run over by a freight train. You don't have a problem with her mangled remains being shown in graphic, gruesome detail in all the newspapers, on TV, on web sites, etc. Because, after all, that would show the true cost of having level crossings. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Theres a big difference Argus and that was a poor analogy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 17, 2005 Report Share Posted June 17, 2005 shakeyhands: Theres a big difference Argus and that was a poor analogy. What is the big difference ?, do those families not greive the same way,over thier lost one.... or do you believe that soldier does not have the right or for that matter earned the right to peace...to be buried by his family so they may carry on with thier lives... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted June 17, 2005 Report Share Posted June 17, 2005 Do you honestly believe that there is a problem ...that American service persons are joining up only to kill Arabs....is that the reason the are having recruiting problems because everyone wants to sign up and kill Arabs... No, if you read my quopte again, you'll see I said the majority joined up for reasons other than "the cause". Maybe it was financial, or maybe it was educational, but I wonder how many fighting in Iraq actually belive their leade's rhetoric. There is alot more to it than just believing in a cause, their goverment, Thier Country, thier patriotism, thier moral values, and thier up bringing all plays a big role on thier decision to join up and serve thier country. And it does make them a better person.... Really? i question how killing other human beings can possibly make anyone a better person. How about asking yourself who gave you your rights to ask those questions...Soldiers gave you those rights Men and women that fought and risked thier lives to enusre our way of live remained as it is today....And yes it is not only your right to ask those questions but your responsabilty as a citizen to ask those questions of our goverment to ensure it is the right decision. Wrong. Soldiers fight for the interests of those who send them to fight. Period. I can't thuink of a single army in the history of the modern world that wasn't told they were fighting for freedom. I prefer to think of those people- the unions, the civil rights advocates, the sufferagettes etc.- who battled entrenched privilege and authoritarianism to gain us so many of the rights we have today. And in almost every case, the tool use to suppress and squash these challenges to the establishment were-wait for it- soldiers. There's a reason that, in 1775, Thomas Jefferson wrote: "there are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." With all that said what is your right to dishonour this soldiers death, by causing undo harm to his famly and friends. That's assuming showing pictures of the dead coming home does "dishonour" the soldier's death. It's a fallacious question. Threaten by whom ? and yes all media centers are legitimate targets during any military operation....BD your a smart guy, you can not tell me that you believe everything you see on the media....you and i know that if you want to get the full truth about what is going on in the world then you have to go to other sources...Arab TV shows another slant watch both and take the average... Media outlets are not legitimate military targets, especially those outside the control of the parties to the conflict. Obviously I don't believe everything I see: what I see is breathtakingly one-sided. And really, I make an effort to make myself informed of the "other" side: how many others do that and how many more simply accept the dominant narratives of the western media? My question is WHY does the public need to be exposed to highly graphic pictures like the one in question...The majority of the public does not want to see those pictures...nither does those vets returning from combat, or the families of the dead....Do we not show "them" any compasion or do we just tell them thanks for coming out oh by the way here is pictures of your husbands boots because that is all that we could find as he was blown up by an RPG....why are we doing this because the public has the right to know....we need to see those pictures so "we" know what wars effects are....When did we become so cold... Just to clarify: no where did I suggest extremely graphic pictures should be broadcast. But neither should they be censored. They are showing you the results, Just not in extremly graphic pictures. And it's to late to decide anything once the death and destruction is started, you've made a commitment ,soldiers are paying for that commitment with thier lives , changing ones mind after the fact is telling those soldiers that their lives meant nothing. As for The public deciding ...If they don't already know that war has terriable effects before the decision to send troops over then something is wrong....then perhaps the public needs to get off it's a$$ and do something about that situation.They don't need extremly graphic pictures to do that... I honestly question your assertion that the public knows the cost of war...and if they do, I wonder how the constant drumbeat of pro-war sentiment and patriotic brouhaha affects that knowledge. That is: even if one acknowledges the costs of war, that fact alone is not neccesarily enough to override other factors that promote support for war. Soldiers already know the risks of war, slogans like "support the troops" are used to rally the people to show those that have agreed to fight for thier country that they are being supported and thier families are being looked after....you live in a nation that gives you the right to freedom of speach,ETC you can use that freedom any way you choose...but you do not have the right to judge "ANY" of those that have taken up arms to defend thier nation, or its ideals.... If you haven't been paying attention, the "support the troops" slogan is also widely used as a cudgel to stop people from questioning the war. Like Goering (who knew a thing or two about how to wage war and manipulate the populace) said, the best way to stifle dissent in war time is to brand those who oppose it "unpatriotic", which is an accusation often levelled against anti-war advocates. I don't believe that statement, everyone can be motivated to bear arms and fight for thier country..... I would fight for things that matter, not abstracts like "my country". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted June 17, 2005 Report Share Posted June 17, 2005 So let me ask you this. Your loved one, say your ten year old daughter, is run over by a freight train. You don't have a problem with her mangled remains being shown in graphic, gruesome detail in all the newspapers, on TV, on web sites, etc. Because, after all, that would show the true cost of having level crossings Ever watched one of those drunk driving videos? Ever wonder why they use graphic images in those types of public safety ads? Anyway, it's a stupid analogy because accidental death iis a social problem, not a political one. In other words: world leaders aren't sending people to die in front of trains. Below are a few statistics on death here in Canada and the US. It should be noted that these are for "ONE" year only Interesting, but your statistics only mention American casualties. I expect if most canadians lives in walled, armed compounds and only ventured out in patrols, our crime rate would be significantly smaller. But tell me: what is the mortality rate in Iraq for Iraqis (y'know, the people who were suppossed to benefit from this war)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 17, 2005 Report Share Posted June 17, 2005 Black dog: I question how many believe in the cause and how many joined th service for reasons other than killing Arabs The above is your quote is it not....how do you get the below meaning out what you wrote above.... No, if you read my quopte again, you'll see I said the majority joined up for reasons other than "the cause". Maybe it was financial, or maybe it was educational, but I wonder how many fighting in Iraq actually belive their leade's rhetoric. Hence why i asked you do you think there is a problem, that US service men are joining just to kill Arabs... as your comment suggests if you did not mean to suggest it why did you mention it. Do you honestly believe that there is a problem ...that American service persons are joining up only to kill Arabs....is that the reason the are having recruiting problems because everyone wants to sign up and kill Arabs... There is alot more to it than just believing in a cause, their goverment, Thier Country, thier patriotism, thier moral values, and thier up bringing all plays a big role on thier decision to join up and serve thier country. And it does make them a better person.... Really? i question how killing other human beings can possibly make anyone a better person. How does that make them a better person, Because they are willing to fight or defend all the rights and freedoms that you enjoy today, to ensure that you have them tommorrow....And they are willing to lay thier lives down to accomplish that...But hey, everyone is entitled to an opinion and if you don't see that as an unselfish act and one that is honorable then that is your opinion....I just would not express those views in front of vets or currently serving soldiers... Wrong. Soldiers fight for the interests of those who send them to fight. Period. I can't thuink of a single army in the history of the modern world that wasn't told they were fighting for freedom What interest did our country have in defeating the germans in WWI and WWII what interest did we have in korea....are you saying that those wars Canada should not have gotten involved...that those that died in them were wasted... I prefer to think of those people- the unions, the civil rights advocates, the sufferagettes etc.- who battled entrenched privilege and authoritarianism to gain us so many of the rights we have today. And in almost every case, the tool use to suppress and squash these challenges to the establishment were-wait for it- soldiers. Care to prove that, and provide me a link...Explain to me how Canadian soldiers have held back or destroyed any of your rights that you have today....If it not been for the acts of Canada's soldiers on the battlefields just what rights do you think the Nazi's would have gave you....The unions, civil rights advocates, etc were made up of alot of ex service men who fought for those very rights...and to ensure me and you held on to the rights we have now....Don't give me that crap that scholars, intelects gave you everything we have today....without freedom you would have nothing.... That's assuming showing pictures of the dead coming home does "dishonour" the soldier's death. It's a fallacious question. Is it tell me how the showing of this picture in question can be good for said soldier or his family and friends....if that was your son lying on that table would you want to see this picture...would you want it on the net .... Media outlets are not legitimate military targets, especially those outside the control of the parties to the conflict. Lets try to debate about something you know about....any and all media outlets are prime military targets,TV, Radio,and Print...as they are means of communication without them the enemy is limited to military communication which can easily jammed... plus has no means of cummunicating with the civilians to cause unrest, or unwanted attacks... And really, I make an effort to make myself informed of the "other" side: how many others do that and how many more simply accept the dominant narratives of the western media? Who cares what the other people are doing if they are not going to take the effort and inform themselfs then they deserve to be misled...but that does not give us the right to use this soldiers dead body to educate those that are to lazy to educate themselfs. Just to clarify: no where did I suggest extremely graphic pictures should be broadcast. But neither should they be censored. Explain to an old army guy how you can do both....and explain to me what censorship means to Canadains and why we have it.... If you haven't been paying attention, the "support the troops" slogan is also widely used as a cudgel to stop people from questioning the war. Like Goering (who knew a thing or two about how to wage war and manipulate the populace) said, the best way to stifle dissent in war time is to brand those who oppose it "unpatriotic", which is an accusation often levelled against anti-war advocates Like I said before that is your opinion, In my opinion ,it means support those that are doing the fighting and dying ...it does not mean that you support your goverments decision to go to war....those soldiers need that support as well as thier families... I would fight for things that matter, not abstracts like "my country". Like i said before, everyone has his or her own reasons why they join the military or why the sign up to fight....but they do... Interesting, but your statistics only mention American casualties. I expect if most canadians lives in walled, armed compounds and only ventured out in patrols, our crime rate would be significantly smaller. But tell me: what is the mortality rate in Iraq for Iraqis (y'know, the people who were suppossed to benefit from this war)? Please go to that site again, this time read the bottom portion it includes Civ cas and deaths...And i think you miss the piont of all those stats "more Canadains are killed in traffic accidents in one year than all the cas in Iraq....it also goes to show you that the US suffers more murders than all those killed in Iraq.... Why did i show you these ...to disbute why we do not publish extremly graphic photos of those events when it is clear that more people die here on our roads or are murdered ....if there ever was a cause that people need to be educated on it would be one of those two.... I also want to make it clear that i am not trying to negate any of those deaths that are happening in Iraq due to conflict...but to piont out that we do not use those type of pictures to educate a clearly larger problem , and why we should not use them to dishonour or cause undo harm to those family members or friends of this young soldier who has paid with his life.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted June 17, 2005 Report Share Posted June 17, 2005 The above is your quote is it not....how do you get the below meaning out what you wrote above.... It's easy: I question how many believe in the cause and how many joined the service for reasons other than killing Arabs This was in response to the assertion mad eby somebody that the soldiers dying in Iraq were dying "for a cause they believed in". Basically, I'm asking how many really believe in the "cause" and how many joined for financial, career, educational reasons (in other words, not to kill Arabs). Capice? Do you honestly believe that there is a problem ...that American service persons are joining up only to kill Arabs....is that the reason the are having recruiting problems because everyone wants to sign up and kill Arabs... The reason they are having recruiting problems is the people aren't willing to die for the cause. Maybe people are starting to figure out that, as Clint Eastwod said, "Dying ain't no way to make a livin'." How does that make them a better person, Because they are willing to fight or defend all the rights and freedoms that you enjoy today, to ensure that you have them tommorrow....And they are willing to lay thier lives down to accomplish that... That's my point: you say they are defending our freedoms. They say they are defending our freedoms. Our leaders say they are defending our freedoms. But are they really defending our freedoms? I mean, the soldiers of the Wermacht believed they were defending the freedom of the German people: does not make it so. In every case, the rhetoric of war is designed to obscure the reality. You must learn to separate the two. But hey, everyone is entitled to an opinion and if you don't see that as an unselfish act and one that is honorable then that is your opinion....I just would not express those views in front of vets or currently serving soldiers... Why? What would these blokes who, allegedly, are defending my freedoms, do if I were to exercise those freedoms? What interest did our country have in defeating the germans in WWI and WWII In World War 1 we were an imperial vassal drawn into an utterly pointless imperial squabble. In World War 2 we were responding to German aggression. In each case, our main purpose was to protect western interests and ensure our allies remained the dominant economic and political powers. what interest did we have in korea....are you saying that those wars Canada should not have gotten involved...that those that died in them were wasted... Korea, though under a UN fig leaf, was an operation desigtned to protect U.S. territorial intwerests from competition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted June 17, 2005 Report Share Posted June 17, 2005 continued... Care to prove that, and provide me a link...Explain to me how Canadian soldiers have held back or destroyed any of your rights that you have today....If it not been for the acts of Canada's soldiers on the battlefields just what rights do you think the Nazi's would have gave you.... Ever heard of the War Measures Act? The Winnipeg general Strike? the Northwest Rebellion? The state maintains its hegemony by force. the police and military are the insturments. The unions, civil rights advocates, etc were made up of alot of ex service men who fought for those very rights...and to ensure me and you held on to the rights we have now....Don't give me that crap that scholars, intelects gave you everything we have today....without freedom you would have nothing.... Revisionist history. Who created the ideals we build our society on (and fail to live up to)? Philosophers and thinkers. Not soldiers. Is it tell me how the showing of this picture in question can be good for said soldier or his family and friends....if that was your son lying on that table would you want to see this picture...would you want it on the net .... No it probably would be pretty traumatic for them, I agree. But again: its worth asking why theses pictures even exist. Lets try to debate about something you know about....any and all media outlets are prime military targets,TV, Radio,and Print...as they are means of communication without them the enemy is limited to military communication which can easily jammed... plus has no means of cummunicating with the civilians to cause unrest, or unwanted attacks... So, if iraqi insurgents kill U.S. journalists..that's not terrorism, but a legitimate act of war? Who cares what the other people are doing if they are not going to take the effort and inform themselfs then they deserve to be misled...but that does not give us the right to use this soldiers dead body to educate those that are to lazy to educate themselfs. Just because people can't or won't inform themselves doesn't mean they should not be informed. Explain to an old army guy how you can do both....and explain to me what censorship means to Canadains and why we have it.... By broadcast I mean they shouldn't be easily available (ie. shown on TV). But censorship is a slippery slope. I don't beleive in it. Like I said before that is your opinion, In my opinion ,it means support those that are doing the fighting and dying ...it does not mean that you support your goverments decision to go to war....those soldiers need that support as well as thier families... I agree. But that's not always how it is used. Please go to that site again, this time read the bottom portion it includes Civ cas and deaths...And i think you miss the piont of all those stats "more Canadains are killed in traffic accidents in one year than all the cas in Iraq....it also goes to show you that the US suffers more murders than all those killed in Iraq.... That's a lie. the statistics are incomplete. The Iraq Body Count's data is, by its own admission, not comprehensive. estimates range up to 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed. that doesn't count the number of insurgents or armed forces members killed on the Iraqi side. Also, you're abusing the statistsics. Iraq has a population of 26 million compared to almost 300 million in the U.S.A., thus the numbers aren't comparable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 17, 2005 Report Share Posted June 17, 2005 Black dog: Ever heard of the War Measures Act? The Winnipeg general Strike? the Northwest Rebellion?The state maintains its hegemony by force. the police and military are the insturments. I am familar with the War measures act, just as most Canadains. It's an act that provides the goverment with the powers to act in the best interest of the country....and it does temporily suspends some of the citizens rights that are grant to them key words are temporily and goverment ...you know the one that we all voted in...the one that can change the act if there was enough support by the people ...And it is the military that is general the instrument of implimentation...but that is not an example of soldiers taking away or destroying any rights that have been given to them ....it's an example of the Goverment ordering a temporily limitation...I'M not familar with the winnipeg general strike so i will not comment on it .....However the NW rebellion was an RCMP operation and again they were acting on the goverments orders as they were dealing with a threat... And they are instrments of the state to a piont...there has been cases were the military has acted agains'nt the state for the better of the country...Cuban missle crisses...prime example....Canadain military deployed against the wish of our goverment....I also believe that to be true today...Our military leaders will not obey orders that are unlawful or not in the publics best interest.... Revisionist history. Who created the ideals we build our society on (and fail to live up to)? Philosophers and thinkers. Not soldiers. Yes , you are in fact correct but that would be impossiable without the freedom to do so....IE it was extremly hard for thinkers to make any changes in the Nazi regime .... No it probably would be pretty traumatic for them, I agree. But again: its worth asking why theses pictures even exist. I think it is a medical picture, that some how the insurgents got a hold off... So, if iraqi insurgents kill U.S. journalists..that's not terrorism, but a legitimate act of war? It is geared more towards the installations and equipment ...but if said journalist was in the struture they would be collatoral dammage...To answer your question...Yes,terrorism or murder depending on why the killing was done...again journalists are not a form of communication... Just because people can't or won't inform themselves doesn't mean they should not be informed. Does this mean now we are bringing in town cryers...everyday at noon everyone can gather at the town center and listen to the news....I believe there are enough forms of media today that if one wants one can stay informed....or are we going to force them to watch or listen...... By broadcast I mean they shouldn't be easily available (ie. shown on TV). But censorship is a slippery slope. I don't beleive in it. How many times have you used a search engine looking for a certain topic and your search comes up with unrelated topics ...I once looked up dog food and ended up with 3 porno sites how the two are related i don't know but it happens ...my piont is family and friends of this soldier may accidently find these pictures or have them sent to them...we both have agreed they are extremly graphic and would cause them undo grief....so why have them at all...i know that anything and everything is available on the net....but there is a need for some controls ...as they have put on child porn etc etc...Censorship is a slippery slope and common sense must prevail... That's a lie. the statistics are incomplete. The Iraq Body Count's data is, by its own admission, not comprehensive. estimates range up to 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed. that doesn't count the number of insurgents or armed forces members killed on the Iraqi side. The problem with estimates is they are just that estimates, Unfortunatly accurate counts are not kept...even if we both agree that 100,000 is correct over 4 years those figures for Canadain traffic deaths are pretty close...and our popualtion base are very similar... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugo Posted June 17, 2005 Report Share Posted June 17, 2005 Pardon me here, you guys are having an excellent debate, but if I may butt in: There is alot more to it than just believing in a cause, their goverment, Thier Country, thier patriotism, thier moral values, and thier up bringing all plays a big role on thier decision to join up and serve thier country. And it does make them a better person.... How would a person trained to accept and use brutal, lethal violence in the pursuit of certain ends be a "better person"? Is the fact that the wives of soldiers are beaten by their husbands far more often than the wives of civilians indicative that these soldiers have become "better people"? When my grandfather returned from Dunkirk having watched most of his childhood friends blown to pieces in front of him by German artillery and aircraft and tried to forget it by spending the next six months constantly drunk, was he a "better person"? Are the soldiers who get drunk on weekend leave in barracks towns and assault civilians in bars "better people"? Was Ghengiz Khan a better person than Jesus Christ, Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr., because Ghengiz fought for his country and his people, but those cowards refused even to fight for themselves? What interest did our country have in defeating the germans in WWI and WWII I've asked this question of someone else and gotten no answer. Perhaps you can tell me the difference between these two scenarios. Government A rounds up civilians under threat of force, clads them in striped uniforms and sends them to near-certain death in concentration camps. It does this because it feels it is necessary to protect its own interests. Government B rounds up civilians under threat of force, clads them in khaki uniforms and sends them to near-certain death on a Normandy beach. It does this because it feels it is necessary to protect its own interests. what interest did we have in korea....are you saying that those wars Canada should not have gotten involved...that those that died in them were wasted... Every life lost in war is wasted. Every bullet fired and every bomb dropped is an impoverishment of the entire human race. There is nothing a man can do worse than murder, and war is simply murder writ a thousand times over. Explain to me how Canadian soldiers have held back or destroyed any of your rights that you have today....If it not been for the acts of Canada's soldiers on the battlefields just what rights do you think the Nazi's would have gave you The Nazis confiscated property. The US and Canadian governments confiscate property. The Nazis restricted freedom of speech. So do the US and Canadian governments. The Nazis made rules about who could marry whom. So have the US and Canadian governments. The Nazis believed that people of different skin colour or religious background should be treated differently from the majority. So do the US and Canadian governments. The Nazis outlawed certain modes of employment, as do the US and Canadian governments. The Nazis outlawed certain kinds of foreign trade, as do the US and Canadian governments. The Nazis outlawed foreign banking. Ditto for US and Canada. The Nazis artificially fixed prices and wages. Ditto again. The Nazis attempted to indoctrinate their youth with school programmes and extracurricular groups. Ditto again. The Nazis used national symbols as a tool for manipulation of the masses. Ditto again. The Nazi state was born of violence and conquest. Ditto the US and Canada. The only thing that really separates Nazism from our modes of government is the degree to which they do things, not the overall principle. Our governments have not rejected violence, force, theft, discrimination, slavery and so forth. So what would our lives have been like under the Nazis? Kind of like now, just to a greater degree. Don't give me that crap that scholars, intelects gave you everything we have today....without freedom you would have nothing.... How would you know? You've never enjoyed freedom. Some people have a taste of freedom in their own minds, think their own thoughts, but you don't even have that. those soldiers need that support as well as thier families... Would they not best be supported by trying to help them come home and live at peace? What good does it do them being in a place where death is hovering over their shoulder all the time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 17, 2005 Report Share Posted June 17, 2005 Black dog: The reason they are having recruiting problems is the people aren't willing to die for the cause. Maybe people are starting to figure out that, as Clint Eastwod said, "Dying ain't no way to make a livin'." He also said in the same movie...A soldiers job not to die for his country but to make the other SOB die for his.... That's my point: you say they are defending our freedoms. They say they are defending our freedoms. Our leaders say they are defending our freedoms. But are they really defending our freedoms? I mean, the soldiers of the Wermacht believed they were defending the freedom of the German people: does not make it so. Soldiers are not stupid people , and you give them no credit ..don't you think after the had everything they had lost in the WWI and started to invade France don't you think they would have known that they were no longer defending anything but instead invading europe... Why? What would these blokes who, allegedly, are defending my freedoms, do if I were to exercise those freedoms? There is no allegely, they will and have been defending all your rights and projecting Canada's values around the globe....Like it or not....as for the blokes, i'll leave that up to them....and your imagination...I would say i don't think they'd be happy ....and if you were looking to start a bar fight that would probablily do it... In each case, our main purpose was to protect western interests and ensure our allies remained the dominant economic and political powers I think the historical answer was Canada wanted to fight in europe so it could keep the fighting as far from Canada as possiable...WWI, the majority of Candians wanted the country to assit Britain or the mother land....WWII the same reason only more on Canada's terms and you can't tell me that Canada suffered economically during WWII Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moderateamericain Posted June 17, 2005 Report Share Posted June 17, 2005 wait you fail to realize is blackdog was probably smiling when he saw those picture, his hatred for the united states is near fanatical. Gosthacked:Without the picture, some just cannot understand the true cost of the war. History books are full of pictures of the dead and dying, (they are not as graphic as the ones shown on this insurgent site).... and they do have a shock value, they do show the price of war. What should really be shown in the media, is the devestation that is in Iraq due to the war. How many cities are just a total mess because of the invasion. These are the pictures that should be shown to the Amercian public and the rest of the world. You need to change the chanel, the media does cover all that you mentioned, Those pictures are much to graphic to be shown period.... and if its shock value you want why do we not show pictures of horrific traffic accidents put them on prime time so the families can really get a good image on what there spouse, father, mother, kids, looked like when they died...maybe we will all stop driving saving our resouces, and all those that die in traffic accidents.. over 1700 troops dead.over 10,000 wounded. Iraqi civilian casualties? From reports of 20,000 to 100,000. <------------- Were are those pictures in the news media? They to are available on the on the intra net,and those that are to graphic should also be banned...and censored for the same reason... The American population loves simulated violence, but cannot seem to handle REAL violence. Show those coffins, parade them around the square, in the name of Democracy and Freedom for the homeland. And tell them we are winning this war. Tell them we are doing all we can to help Iraq. And you can...handle real violence....those soldiers will be honored given a military funeral, and buried by thier families....that is all that should happen they have paid the ultimate price and should not be asked to be used to further your cause.... Are you American or Canadian? reason i ask is you use "Tell them (we) are doing all (we) can to help Iraq." We as Canadians have a past time of throwing rocks at glass houses (what are Canadains doing to help the people of Iraq) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 17, 2005 Report Share Posted June 17, 2005 Hugo: How would a person trained to accept and use brutal, lethal violence in the pursuit of certain ends be a "better person"? Are you saying that a person trained in lethal force is incapable of compasion... Are you telling me that the guys in my section over in Afgan that jumped out of an armour persoanal carrier...into a crowd to give out candies to children risking thier own lives is not capable of compasion....are you telling when our govermant backed out of funding a new hospital in our Area of operations and the soldiers dug into thier own pockets plus serveral funding drives that was not an act of compassion.... The Canadian military spends as much time and money teaching every soldier restraint and life skills as it does on war fighting skills.... Is the fact that the wives of soldiers are beaten by their husbands far more often than the wives of civilians indicative that these soldiers have become "better people"? Thats a pretty big claim i hope you can back that up with a link or two... The fact of the matter is that soldiers are not only responaible for civil offences under the crimanal code but also the military code of disipline ...beat your wife and you are found guilty you face two courts and two separate hearings and charges....I think you should research that alittle bit more.... When my grandfather returned from Dunkirk having watched most of his childhood friends blown to pieces in front of him by German artillery and aircraft and tried to forget it by spending the next six months constantly drunk, was he a "better person"? Your granfather was suffering from PTSD...and drinking was his way of handling it...today they are getting better at treating it...but it is still there...I think he is a hero....and you should tell him so... would it made any difference if he had been defending Canada on her shores or outside of his home town...he volenteered because he believed that the germanys needed to be stopped... Are the soldiers who get drunk on weekend leave in barracks towns and assault civilians in bars "better people"? No they are not, but are you impling that all soldiers do this or just a few...are you saying that the civilian population in your area does not get drunk on the weekends or don;t get charged with assualt... Was Ghengiz Khan a better person than Jesus Christ, Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr., because Ghengiz fought for his country and his people, but those cowards refused even to fight for themselves? I don't recall calling anyone a coward....or impling it what i did say however that soldiers were better people than the average person (just added that) because they have or agree to... risk thier own lives to ensure the majority of the population does not have to fight and can maintain their freedom ... I've asked this question of someone else and gotten no answer. Perhaps you can tell me the difference between these two scenarios.Government A rounds up civilians under threat of force, clads them in striped uniforms and sends them to near-certain death in concentration camps. It does this because it feels it is necessary to protect its own interests. Government B rounds up civilians under threat of force, clads them in khaki uniforms and sends them to near-certain death on a Normandy beach. It does this because it feels it is necessary to protect its own interests. Goverment A i take it was the Nazi's and they were not protecting any interests but cleansing Europe of the unwanteds....through chemical warfare,shooting straving, being worked to death, or beaten....If you can not clearly see the difference you really need to look at a history book ......or go to goggle and search death camps... Goverment B i have no idea who you are refering as i don't recall anyone being threaten with force to sign up...but perhaps you are one of those that perfer not to fight and can not understand why someone else would sacrafice everything they have for freedoms and rights . The only thing that really separates Nazism from our modes of government is the degree to which they do things, not the overall principle. Our governments have not rejected violence, force, theft, discrimination, slavery and so forth. So what would our lives have been like under the Nazis? Kind of like now, just to a greater degree. You are joking right....you need to open a book ....our lives would be kinda like now...ya as long as your not jewish, Jypsy, Russian or slavic, or of any other race other than white...and even then you had to be pure german...to be safe....Kinda like now...have you been outside of North America... every time i come home from an operations i kiss the ground....and thank God that i'm a Canadian. we have so much while others have so little....not only in pocessions but in rights and freedoms.... How would you know? You've never enjoyed freedom. Some people have a taste of freedom in their own minds, think their own thoughts, but you don't even have that. I as a Canadian have as much freedom as i can handle right now...and i'm sure that the kind lady in the white dress will be by shortly with your meds .... everything will be alright...stay away from the windows... I don't mean to mock you but what freedoms do i lack... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted June 17, 2005 Report Share Posted June 17, 2005 And they are instrments of the state to a piont...there has been cases were the military has acted agains'nt the state for the better of the country...Cuban missle crisses...prime example....Canadain military deployed against the wish of our goverment....I also believe that to be true today...Our military leaders will not obey orders that are unlawful or not in the publics best interest.... the military is unaccountable to the citizens It obeys the civil authorities it is subordinate to so long as it suits its interest to do so. (this is especially true in heavily militarized countries). So basically, we ar ebeing asked to put our faith in an institution that is outside even the paltry limits we place on other government bodies in the hope sthat they will never act against the people. That's a lot to take on faith. Ot hav eyou never heard teh phrase "military coup"? QUOTENo it probably would be pretty traumatic for them, I agree. But again: its worth asking why theses pictures even exist. I think it is a medical picture, that some how the insurgents got a hold off... I was refering to why these poor bastards were put in a position to have their faces blown off by people who, prior to a couple of years ago, posed no threat to them. Soldiers are not stupid people , and you give them no credit .. I'm not questioning the intelelct of military personnel, but i do question the critical thinking abilities of those who are conditioned to accept a certain worldview as a condition of their job. No offense. There is no allegely, they will and have been defending all your rights and projecting Canada's values around the globe.... That's sophistry. You already I know I don't believe the premise that they are defending our freedoms etc etc (n matter how freverently they believe it to be so) He also said in the same movie...A soldiers job not to die for his country but to make the other SOB die for his.... I hate to be pedantic, but that was Patton that said that. wait you fail to realize is blackdog was probably smiling when he saw those picture, his hatred for the united states is near fanatical. Personal attacks don't support your position one iota. Are you saying that a person trained in lethal force is incapable of compasion... That wasn't the question: the question was are people who "serve their country" better people than those who do not. Goverment A i take it was the Nazi's and they were not protecting any interests but cleansing Europe of the unwanteds....through chemical warfare,shooting straving, being worked to death, or beaten....If you can not clearly see the difference you really need to look at a history book ......or go to goggle and search death camps...Goverment B i have no idea who you are refering as i don't recall anyone being threaten with force to sign up...but perhaps you are one of those that perfer not to fight and can not understand why someone else would sacrafice everything they have for freedoms and rights Tell me, what would happen to someone who was conscripted, but refused to serve? In both world wars, IIRC, deserters and people unwilling to kill and die were impriosned or even killed by the state they were suppossed to be defending. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugo Posted June 17, 2005 Report Share Posted June 17, 2005 Are you saying that a person trained in lethal force is incapable of compasion...Are you telling me that the guys in my section over in Afgan that jumped out of an armour persoanal carrier...into a crowd to give out candies to children risking thier own lives is not capable of compasion. You're telling me that soldiers are better people. Why? Anyone can give candies to children. What makes soldiers better - that they'll spray people with bullets after giving the candy out? I say that makes them worse. Thats a pretty big claim i hope you can back that up with a link or two...The fact of the matter is that soldiers are not only responaible for civil offences under the crimanal code but also the military code of disipline ...beat your wife and you are found guilty you face two courts and two separate hearings and charges....I think you should research that alittle bit more.... My wife showed me the research in one of her women's magazines. They had done all the studies, and found that generally the military encourages wife-beating to go no further than the offender's C/O. Your granfather was suffering from PTSD...and drinking was his way of handling it...today they are getting better at treating it...but it is still there...I think he is a hero....and you should tell him so... Regardless, this doesn't answer my question. Was my grandfather a better person for being irreparably mentally scarred? No they are not, but are you impling that all soldiers do this or just a few...are you saying that the civilian population in your area does not get drunk on the weekends or don;t get charged with assualt.. You told me that soldiers were better people. I'm asking how this is, if you're telling me that one of their redeeming graces is that they start bar brawls at least no more than the average civilian. Goverment A i take it was the Nazi's and they were not protecting any interests but cleansing Europe of the unwanteds Why were they cleansing it if not in their own interests? The Nazi state identified itself as synonymous with the people it was cleansing Europe for. If you can not clearly see the difference you really need to look at a history book If you can see the difference so clearly, why can't you tell me? or go to goggle and search death camps... I've been to Dachau. How many death camps have you visited? Goverment B i have no idea who you are refering as i don't recall anyone being threaten with force to sign up (In the USA): Under art. 69 of the Law on Military Service, as amended in 1990, draft evasion and desertion are punishable by disciplinary and administrative measures. Draft evasion and desertion are further punishable under the 1986 Criminal Code. According to art. 206: "1. The penalty for anyone who is of military age but fails to fully comply with regulations on registering for the military draft, fails to comply with an induction order or fails to comply with an order to report for training, and has been the subject of administrative action but continues to commit the same violation, is from three months' to two years' imprisonment. 2. The penalty for this crime in one of the following cases is from a year to five years' imprisonment: a) If it involves self-inflicted injury or self-inflicted harm to one's health If it is committed during time of war c) If another person is drawn into committing the same crime." Draft evasion in aggravating circumstances is punishable by five to 10 years' imprisonment (arts. 259 and 260). Surrender to the enemy and unwarranted desertion from a unit during combat situation is punishable by death. (art. 256) The situation was much the same during WWII. So anyway, now that we've clarified a little, what's the difference between A and B, please? but perhaps you are one of those that perfer not to fight and can not understand why someone else would sacrafice everything they have for freedoms and rights . You're very confused. A soldier makes somebody else sacrifice everything he has for freedoms and rights. In fact, he destroys freedoms and rights. What freedom does a corpse have? What rights do you enjoy on a slab? I prefer not to fight because I'd rather be a victim and greet God with a clear conscience than a murderer who bought a few years more on this planet with somebody else's blood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugo Posted June 17, 2005 Report Share Posted June 17, 2005 Continued... You are joking right....you need to open a book ....our lives would be kinda like now...ya as long as your not jewish, Jypsy, Russian or slavic, or of any other race other than white I already made this point. The difference is that our government doesn't put bullets in anybody's head for being in an ethnic minority. They just treat them in different ways. Like I said, difference of degree, not principle, and the Canadian government certainly is not blind to gender, racial or religious differences. I as a Canadian have as much freedom as i can handle right now Evidently. and i'm sure that the kind lady in the white dress will be by shortly with your meds .... everything will be alright...stay away from the windows... I don't mean to mock you but what freedoms do i lack... These: the freedom to do what you want with your own body, the freedom to make contracts and partnerships with anyone you want, the freedom to trade with anybody you please, the freedom to refuse any proposed trade, the freedom to use your property as you see fit, freedom from aggression and violence, or the freedom to work for yourself and not as a slave. You lack all of these freedoms right now. You may have them partially, but when negro slaves were allowed to grow a little for themselves on the side, did that mean they weren't slaves anymore? we have so much while others have so little....not only in pocessions but in rights and freedoms.... Does that mean I have no business wanting more rights and freedoms? I should be happy with what the government gives me and go shut up like a good little slave, as you have? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 20, 2005 Report Share Posted June 20, 2005 Black dog: the military is unaccountable to the citizens It obeys the civil authorities it is subordinate to so long as it suits its interest to do so. (this is especially true in heavily militarized countries). The Military is accountable to it's goverment who the people have voted into power.( you and ME) Just as much as any other dept within the goverment. The cuban missle crisses was the only time that the CAF has acted outside of orders given by the Goverment in it's entire history.....It done so when the world was on the brink of Nuclear war...had they not acted the worlds fate "may" have been different today....in other words they believed that action was in the best interest of the people not thier own....( how would engaging Russian war ships been in thier own interest....) Do you really think that Canada's Armed forces are acting in it's best interest now, can you honestly tell me that with the state that our forces are in now....And would you say that the US of A is not a heavily militarized country, are you telling me that they are running the country or is Bush making all the decisions. So basically, we ar ebeing asked to put our faith in an institution that is outside even the paltry limits we place on other government bodies in the hope sthat they will never act against the people. That's a lot to take on faith. Ot hav eyou never heard teh phrase "military coup Has Canada's Dept of National Defense in it's entire history ever broke that faith...has it ever given you the opinion that one day it may break that faith ....Has it ever had a coup....No....it has not....Yes it is one of the most powerful depts within the Goverment and it does pocess the means to over throw that goverment ....However I think you over look the power of the People... if united they have more power than any military could muster.... i think in todays Canada your fears are misplaced... I was refering to why these poor bastards were put in a position to have their faces blown off by people who, prior to a couple of years ago, posed no threat to them. So you are saying that Sadam and his crew posed no threat to the world or the unstable peace in the area....Are you saying that we should have ignored sadam and all his actions...or are you saying that the world was a better place with Sadam in power.... I'm not questioning the intelelct of military personnel, but i do question the critical thinking abilities of those who are conditioned to accept a certain worldview as a condition of their job. No offense. Soldiers are conditioned to accept alot of things most deal with the survival of the group as a whole ....However other than that soldiers are as free thinking as you when it comes to worldviews....those views change as they gain experience, and see the results of those world views, we rarily get deployed to the worlds vacation spots, seeing the effects of war first hand over and over does that....The opinions i express here on this forum are mine and mine alone....and should not be considered the opinions of all or any soldiers in Canada's military.... That's sophistry. You already I know I don't believe the premise that they are defending our freedoms etc etc (n matter how freverently they believe it to be so) My piont is That soldiers believe they are defending your rights 24 hours a day 7 days a week and are at the call of thier goverment .. They know there are Canadians that believe other wise, or are currently acting agains't those believes for example the plow shares program ....they know that when they answer the call from our goverment it will be for all Canadians regardless of thier opinions or actions.... I hate to be pedantic, but that was Patton that said that. It was Pattons quote but clint did use it in the movie... QUOTEwait you fail to realize is blackdog was probably smiling when he saw those picture, his hatred for the united states is near fanatical. Personal attacks don't support your position one iota Was not my quote, But you know that ...it gets confusing when others read the post to avoid confusion in the future could you please post who the quote was from... That wasn't the question: the question was are people who "serve their country" better people than those who do not. No the actual question was: How would a person trained to accept and use brutal, lethal violence in the pursuit of certain ends be a "better person"? I got the impression that he believed that any trained soldier was unable to show anything but violence....hence my question... Tell me, what would happen to someone who was conscripted, but refused to serve? In both world wars, IIRC, deserters and people unwilling to kill and die were impriosned or even killed by the state they were suppossed to be defending. I think you'll find the below web sites answer that question, and address legitimate reasons not to fight....You don't have to kill anyone in combat but you have to show-up... Desertions are a completly different problem, and yes they have been imprisoned and Canada has excuted one person during the second War for desertion... There is no laws or regulations that state you must kill the enemy or for that matter anyone....The law is clear however that you must serve.... My Webpage My Webpage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted June 20, 2005 Report Share Posted June 20, 2005 The Military is accountable to it's goverment who the people have voted into power.( you and ME) Just as much as any other dept within the goverment. And if the military chooses to disregard the civilian oversight? What about those branches of the military (such as JTF2) that have no civilian oversight (interestingly enouh, this same branch has been highly active against Canadian citizens). The cuban missle crisses was the only time that the CAF has acted outside of orders given by the Goverment in it's entire history.....It done so when the world was on the brink of Nuclear war...had they not acted the worlds fate "may" have been different today....in other words they believed that action was in the best interest of the people not thier own....( how would engaging Russian war ships been in thier own interest....) That doesn't mean that the military is never going to act against the will of government or even at the behest of government against its own people. ....And would you say that the US of A is not a heavily militarized country, are you telling me that they are running the country or is Bush making all the decisions. What makes you think the interests of civil government and military in the U.S. aren't aligned? Has Canada's Dept of National Defense in it's entire history ever broke that faith...has it ever given you the opinion that one day it may break that faith ....Has it ever had a coup....No....it has not....Yes it is one of the most powerful depts within the Goverment and it does pocess the means to over throw that goverment ....However I think you over look the power of the People... if united they have more power than any military could muster....i think in todays Canada your fears are misplaced... The potential for abuse is there. I think, though, that the greatest dange ris the military acting as an insturment of government against the people. There are many examples of that. So you are saying that Sadam and his crew posed no threat to the world or the unstable peace in the area....Are you saying that we should have ignored sadam and all his actions...or are you saying that the world was a better place with Sadam in power.... Yes, yes and yes. Saddam was the head of a rinky-dink, broken down military that posed no threat to his immediate neighbours, let alone the world. Was not my quote, But you know that ...it gets confusing when others read the post to avoid confusion in the future could you please post who the quote was from... Ya I know, I should have attributed it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 20, 2005 Report Share Posted June 20, 2005 Hugo: You're telling me that soldiers are better people. Why? Anyone can give candies to children. What makes soldiers better - that they'll spray people with bullets after giving the candy out? I say that makes them worse. What event or incident are you basing this on ?....or are you making it up as you go along.....This discusion has been based on Canadian and US soldiers.... My wife showed me the research in one of her women's magazines. They had done all the studies, and found that generally the military encourages wife-beating to go no further than the offender's C/O. WTF....a womens mag ...thats it no publishers name no date, your joking me right...you've made a serious accusation here and this is the best you can do....Give me a break...Canadian soldiers are subject to all the laws you are, plus they are also subject to the Code of military discipline as well....Assault in any form is dealt with right away, and is not tolerated...Wife beating is considered an act of cowardice within the military... cowards do not make good soldiers... I would bet my pay check that the numbers for the military are well below the national avg...."Beating your wife is encouraged" must of missed that class...please refrain for making these blind comments without some valid research or proof.... Regardless, this doesn't answer my question. Was my grandfather a better person for being irreparably mentally scarred? Yes your grandfather is a hero...He stood up and answered the call of his country when others did not...He risked everything because he believed in that cause...to preserve our rights and freedoms we have today...Regardless of his scares he his a hero, and a much better person than most...we and this country owe him alot...regardless of what you may think of his deeds...Ask him if he thinks it was worth it...ask him if he would do it all over again...he is a better man than you or me...... I've been to Dachau. How many death camps have you visited? Yes as a young boy my father took us to see Dachau, and while i was posted to Germany i toured Natzweiler france and Bergen Belson Germany...plus one in that the serbs ran Yugoslavia. What does that prove....nothing... You're very confused. A soldier makes somebody else sacrifice everything he has for freedoms and rights. In fact, he destroys freedoms and rights. What freedom does a corpse have? What rights do you enjoy on a slab? I prefer not to fight because I'd rather be a victim and greet God with a clear conscience than a murderer who bought a few years more on this planet with somebody else's blood. I must be.. Soldiers don't start wars...they fight them...politions start wars...and have there citizens fight them....Soldiers don't destroy freedoms and rights they defend them....as for the enemies rights and freedoms they are protected under the genva convention ....if your opinon is to turn the other cheek then fine...I personally believe there is some things in life that are worth fighting over...rights and freedoms are one of them...Does that give you the right to judge me...or others... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugo Posted June 20, 2005 Report Share Posted June 20, 2005 What event or incident are you basing this on ?....or are you making it up as you go along.....This discusion has been based on Canadian and US soldiers.... Are you telling me that Canadian and US soldiers haven't killed a single person in the Middle East? All these Iraqi soldiers, insurgents, Taliban fighters etc. shot themselves? Is that the story here? The point is this: you say soldiers give out candy and that makes them better people than the average civilian. I say that the average civilian performs many acts of charity, most of them greater than giving out candy. However, the average civilian doesn't kill people. On balance, therefore, I judge soldiers to be worse human beings than civilians. WTF....a womens mag ...thats it no publishers name no date, your joking me right...you've made a serious accusation here and this is the best you can do....Give me a break Here's a link. Doesn't take long on Google to find a lot more. Yes your grandfather is a hero...He stood up and answered the call of his country when others did not No, actually he was ordered to show up and put on a uniform, or go to prison as a traitor to his country. He hoped that he'd be sent to a non-combat unit. Of course, once he was in uniform, he was told he'd go to an infantry unit, and if you desert the penalty is death. So he felt that probably being killed by Germans was better than certainly being killed by his own government. Regardless of his scares he his a hero, and a much better person than most You are still not answering the question. How is he a better person for being irreparably mentally scarred? I think that heroic people are heroic whether they're in the military or not. Think of firefighters, mountain rescue teams, etc. I don't see how taking heroic people and destroying their souls makes them "better people". Yes as a young boy my father took us to see Dachau, and while i was posted to Germany i toured Natzweiler france and Bergen Belson Germany...plus one in that the serbs ran Yugoslavia. What does that prove....nothing... It proves that, contrary to your previous accusations, I do actually know something about death camps. Are you going to apologise now, or just try and pretend it never happened? I must be.. Soldiers don't start wars...they fight them...politions start wars...and have there citizens fight them And yet you defend this system. It makes me think you have no problem with politicians picking fights and drafting young men to fight their battles for them. Soldiers don't destroy freedoms and rights they defend them Again you fail to answer my point. What freedoms and rights do corpses have? How does killing people defend rights and freedoms? How does it not completely violate the right and freedom to live free from aggression? as for the enemies rights and freedoms they are protected under the genva convention The "rules of war". How quaint. It takes a special kind of mind to take ritualized mass murder and apply rules to it, to decide what is honourable and what is not - as if there could be anything honourable about mass murder and human butchery. Not to mention that soldiers of all sides have a long and sordid history of not taking the Geneva Convention particularly seriously. Not just Abu Ghraib, not just Guantanamo Bay, the killings of unarmed men in mosques, but also the execution and torture of Viet-Cong prisoners, the destruction of civilian villages, the mass bombing of German, Korean, Vietnamese, Italian, and Japanese cities, and so forth. There's no honour amongst murderers. The Rape of Nanking wasn't particularly different from the a-bombing of Hiroshima. Auschwitz and Dresden are quite parallel. The difference is that at Auschwitz, the murderers were Nazi monsters, and at Dresden, the murderers were our Brave Boys in the Forces. Not to mention that the Geneva Convention effectively legitimizes murders and thus fails to protect the rights and freedoms of a very large number of "the enemy". Very silly, come to think of it, to decide an entire people is your enemy. The greatest evils in history came about because people judged others as members of a group, not as individuals. Does that give you the right to judge me...or others... I have the right to judge anyone I feel like. You don't have to respect it, and I imagine you won't. However, I advise you that one morning in old age you're going to wake up and realise there's blood on your hands you can never wash off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted June 20, 2005 Report Share Posted June 20, 2005 I must be.. Soldiers don't start wars...they fight them...politions start wars...and have there citizens fight them....Soldiers don't destroy freedoms and rights they defend them....as for the enemies rights and freedoms they are protected under the genva convention ....if your opinon is to turn the other cheek then fine...I personally believe there is some things in life that are worth fighting over...rights and freedoms are one of them...Does that give you the right to judge me...or others... AG, simply repeating a opinion (ie. "soldiers fight for our rights and freedoms") over and over again does not a convincing argument make. Obviously we don't buy it. So why not try to demonstrate how soldiers, in your view, defend freedom. I maintain that soldiers are the insturments by which the elite maintain their hegemony and prevent challenges to the established order. You haven't really shown otherwise. If anything, your statement that "politicians start wars...and have their citizens fight them" proves my point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.