U.S. killing more civilians

[henk4]

i work here,buddy

according to your profile you are from Kenya, implying your own colour. Yet I would strongly advise you to refrain from certain words.

[DesmoRob]

i think everybody should serve in the military. it gives you pride in your country, it allows you to serve for the citizens of the country, and it lets you understand the ideals your country prides itself on.

I thought the point of being in the military nowadays was to serve corporations, not civillians.

Don't hate me for saying this, and correct me if I'm wrong. The impression I've got from the US government so far is that they need oil, and they'll do anything to get it. Anyone or anything standing in their way of it is an enemy, and to justify killing them, they label them terrorists. Just my opinion.

[cmcpokey]

I thought the point of being in the military nowadays was to serve corporations, not civillians.

Don't hate me for saying this, and correct me if I'm wrong. The impression I've got from the US government so far is that they need oil, and they'll do anything to get it. Anyone or anything standing in their way of it is an enemy, and to justify killing them, they label them terrorists. Just my opinion.

its sad that you think that. as a member of the aremd services i work for the people. you can construe that to be the government, and thats fine. theoreticaly the government serves at the will of the people. they elect their representatives, and they then handle the running of the country. if those representives are representing corporations instead of their consituency, then i guess in an indirect way, yes i am working for them. however, that is only if you look at it all in a really f'd up way.

about the oil thing, i don't think that everything is about oil, granted there is a lot of things going on behind closed doors about why we are furthering this fight, and i am sure oil is one of them. realistically, any of the countries we are fighting in will take huge resources to access their potential, and with the violence and instability, few corporations would risk that. as of this juncture, we are not looking to exploit iraq for oil, we are just trying to get them to use their resources so they can self sustain. right now they can not, and are drawing huge sums of money from the US's coffers.

[SlickHolden]

On no, They are terrorist and there are plenty of them out there looking too reek havoc on anyone for there beliefs, It's just such a war has got more of them out in the open, And many are not sure now if there fighting for peace survival or Bush's dumb arse.
Worst thing too ever hit the light of day is "Collateral Damage" Everytime someone gets hurt hunting a head "bad guy" and innocent people get hurt you just get the feeling if they get the guy it's going too be said, Oh well collateral damage. Why because 1 guy too them that could kill 1000's is worth killing if a few innocents loose there life's. That is what gets them in the shit all the time.
They don't try and kill people but they don't have a order set in place like the Australian forces, Only engage if the target is 100% clear. Not 99.9% no chances it's all on the target and nothing else is too be hit or abort.

[Matra et Alpine]

cmc, the problem is that in a democracy by representation then when the ground rules change dramatically it SHOULD refer back to the voters by referendum. So voting in a leader who then positions the country to go to war is unsound democracy as nobody voted for a leader to TAKE them to war. Granted the American psyche will "support the nation" in times of war and so a re-election is on

[cmcpokey]

cmc, the problem is that in a democracy by representation then when the ground rules change dramatically it SHOULD refer back to the voters by referendum. So voting in a leader who then positions the country to go to war is unsound democracy as nobody voted for a leader to TAKE them to war. Granted the American psyche will "support the nation" in times of war and so a re-election is on

well, in some ways it as taken to referendum in the 04 election, and the country pretty much said "we're okay with it." the 06 election said the opposite. while the country wants to get out of iraq, it does not seem possible at this time to do that.

tell me that if we were to pack up and leave iraq and afghanistan right now, and then they were to crumble into even more chaos than already exists, that you would say that the US did a good thing.

i dont think you, i, or anyone could. it woudl be even more irresponsible than starting it to begin with. other countries, such as australia, voted against it, and they are for the most part gone. so we had to soak up more. the state we are in, we can not control the country in a martial law state. even wth the current increase in troops, we wont be able to. we dont want to run it as a martial law state, we want the iraqis to take care of their own country, but who knows when they will be able to.

the sum up: so despite the fact that we want out, the world wants us out, the military wants out, the american citizens want out, we can not do it. not now, and not for th forseeable future.

[F1_Master]

I thought the point of being in the military nowadays was to serve corporations, not civillians.

Don't hate me for saying this, and correct me if I'm wrong. The impression I've got from the US government so far is that they need oil, and they'll do anything to get it. Anyone or anything standing in their way of it is an enemy, and to justify killing them, they label them terrorists. Just my opinion.

Why does everyone think the US is after oil if one of our members just showed we get most of our oil from Canada and Mexico before the Middle East?

[Quiggs]

Time for the weekly bash America thread already? I'm down.

America sucks. Bush sucks. Iraq sucks. Somalia sucks.

[henk4]

America sucks. Bush sucks. Iraq sucks. Somalia sucks.

another quality post and soooo true.

[Matra et Alpine]

well, in some ways it as taken to referendum in the 04 election, and the country pretty much said "we're okay with it."

I gave my view on why I think that happened. US nationalism and most of the lies still suppressed. Not now.

tell me that if we were to pack up and leave iraq and afghanistan right now, and then they were to crumble into even more chaos than already exists, that you would say that the US did a good thing.

IF they had waited for the UN approval. IF they had a declared exit strategy before entereing. IF the understood Iraq factions. IF they hadn't continued being gung-hon in last election. IF he hadn't just announced he wants to send MORE rather than try to find a resolution. IF his ego didnt' get in the way of his policies ( or that's how it looks ). IF he understood the word "united" in UN !!
So that's those "IF"s out of thre way.
Didnt' suggest "Pack aup and leave".
BUT a bit of honesty and admitting of the mistakes and lies would VASTLY increase the standing of the coalition forces. THEN openly engage ALL parties in discussions on the future - so "terrorists" of all hues invluded - and even consider partition and work to have the UN be the overseer workign for the future.

we want the iraqis to take care of their own country, but who knows when they will be able to.

I believe that most Americans fo want that.
Just that Bush wants it to be a government molded in his beliefs.
Real democracy doesn't work like that.

not for th forseeable future.

I agree if nothing changes in the current admistrations attitude and actions.
Look at Ireland to see what can happen when a government puts its ego aside

[SlickHolden]

Time for the weekly bash America thread already? I'm down.

America sucks. Bush sucks. Iraq sucks. Somalia sucks.

Only cigars in the oval office