GAAC ALERT! Democrat National Convention begins

[_ajax18]

Greater love hath no hippie, that he judgeth and enforceth the death of American soldiers in order to save more enemy civilians. Way to teach by example oh great and self righteous leftist.

[_chonguey]

Greater love hath no hippie, that he judgeth and enforceth the death of American soldiers in order to save more enemy civilians. Way to teach by example oh great and self righteous leftist.

Call me crazy, but wasn't it Conservatives/Republicans that sent our troops in to harms way in the first place based on manipulated intelligence and overblown claims of imminent threats?

More than anything else, THAT enforced the death of American Soldiers.

Reich-Wingers have no shame.

[_GoodK]

Call me crazy, but wasn't it Conservatives/Republicans that sent our troops in to harms way in the first place based on manipulated intelligence and overblown claims of imminent threats?

Crazy.

[_GoodK]

Greater love hath no hippie, that he judgeth and enforceth the death of American soldiers in order to save more enemy civilians. Way to teach by example oh great and self righteous leftist.

I just realized that this comment was directed my way. I think you could have come up with something a little more clever, but hey...

Just so you know, I don't mind the war in Iraq - I actually support it, to an extent.

But, and I'm running the risk of sounding like a complete dick for saying this, I don't feel all that bad for soldiers that die in combat.

They sign up voluntarily, get a portion of all of our paychecks, and get honored and respected for serving. No one forces them to go.

So, if you are going to take the easy way out and join the armed forces, or if you genuinely want to join for your own reasons - go for it. Collect your paycheck and your insurance. Have a good time. Just don't expect the rest of the country to worship the idea that you are actually out doing what we are paying you to do.

[_Angus McAwesome]

You m ake some damned good points there, GoodK. See, that's the part of how things work when you have an all volunteer military like we do. You sign the contract because it's what you want to do, no one forces you to join the military, you're not required to in order to be a "good" citizen, and hell, our military might even be better off if they'd be even more selective then they alreayd are about who they allow to join.

Pros: In exchange for signing that contract you get a paycheck, health care, and they even spring for higher education and benefits if you get hurt and can't be a soldier any more. So you get free room and board, you get paid, you don't have to pay for health insurance, and you get your college taken care of in exchange for four or six years of you doing a job for them.

Cons: Once you sign that contract you no longer have any real say about where or when you might be called to go to war. If the current President says "Gee, Durkadurkastan needs to get beat down", then you get to go to Durkadurkastan. You can refuse to go, of course, but doing so has a LOT of fairly harsh negative consequences. But hey, you signed the papers, you took the pay and the benefits, so now it's time to go earn it.

That's how the deal works. If you can't handle the fact that you might be called on to go to war then you really shouldn't sign that contract.

[_ajax18]

Isn't Obama calling for more troops? I don't see how they're going to do that without a draft. Once I figured out the country valued enemy civilians more than its soldiers I have no interest to serve this country whatsoever. No amount of money or health insurance is worth your life, or even your leg. I don't think I'm the only person in this world who understands this. I used to feel patriotic and believed in America as a nation but not anymore. If we can't show anymore loyalty to our service men than this, we're not a nation, not by any means. We're just a state with some rules, but not one people like we used to be.

I don't feel all that bad for soldiers that die in combat.

At least you admitted it. I just wish the democrats would be more clear on this but from the way soldiers vote, it seems they already know. Even Harmony didn't see our soldiers as just mercenaries.

[_ajax18]

That's how the deal works. If you can't handle the fact that you might be called on to go to war then you really shouldn't sign that contract.

Most young men who sign this contract don't understand that our government values enemy civilians over them. They won't take the guns away from these people. They won't even put snipers outside their barracks to keep them from lobbing mortars into their bunks. I'd have snipers along every road looking for someone placing a bomb. Well, actually I'd do a lot more than that were we one people. It's like Angus said, soldiers are just another commodity like beans, defaced, not even human, just a commodity. All this for some health insurance. Most young men do not understand this. I call the contract unconscionable.

Nevertheless as I pointed out above. I don't think anyone in their right mind would sign such a contract. And I think they're having a tough time finding people to do it. And I don't think we're going to be able to win these wars on mercenary power alone. We're going to run out of money to incite people to do this. People are going to get tired of dying for not much better of a living.

[_ajax18]

I just realized that this comment was directed my way. I think you could have come up with something a little more clever, but hey...

It wasn't a trap. It was a genuine gripe about leftist policy.

Just so you know, I don't mind the war in Iraq - I actually support it, to an extent.

So does Obama. Now that he knows he's got a good chance of winning the election, he's already preparing us to continue the long bloody occupation. He doesn't really care if the soldiers die in battle either. He's just not free to state it clearly like you are.

And what extent is that? Is it to the extent that Democrats promote the conflict rather than Republicans? Why wouldn't you be a fan of GWB going into Iraq then? I sure haven't heard many democrats say that. That's a first.

They sign up voluntarily, get a portion of all of our paychecks, and get honored and respected for serving. No one forces them to go.

From the way things look our paychecks aren't going to do that very well anymore if they ever did.

So, if you are going to take the easy way out and join the armed forces

It never looked very easy to me.

Just don't expect the rest of the country to worship the idea that you are actually out doing what we are paying you to do.

Do you really think soldiers are fairly compensated with dollars, cents, and a pat on the back? To me it takes something other worldly to motivate you to go into a conflict like that. You can't even think that fighting well will get you home in one piece like mercenaries of old. Who dies in a modern war is much more up to chance.

[_ajax18]

Yes the Republicans got us into Iraq, but it's the Democrats who tie their hands and make it not worth fighting. The liberal left lost us the Vietnam war. I'd also conscript everyone of those bastards complaining about war crimes and judging men who had been in horrible situations to save the very people trying to destroy them. If you don't like the way it's being done, go do it yourself. Ladies and gentlemen of the Viet Kong, I present your new opponent, GI Jane!"

If my brother was in a POW camp (and as Americans we should be brothers but sadly with people like Good K in office we're just mercenaries) I would torcher, I would kill, I'd do whatever I had to do to get him out. I'd hope they'd do the same for me, and at one time they would have, until the damn liberals took the government over.

That's a big reason I respect John McCain. I don't agree with him on everything. But if any man has the right decide how we handle these situations, it's him. I think he'll do a better job protecting our soldiers and untying their hands.

And no, I personally wouldn't have went into Iraq in hindsight, unless I was willing to truly fight the war. Even brutality doesn't work in occupied countries unless you just exterminate the population. Even the ancient Jews understood this. Long term occupation isn't going to work either.

[_Angus McAwesome]

Most young men who sign this contract don't understand that our government values enemy civilians over them.

The problem with that is there is no such thing as "enemy civilians". Once they shoot at our troops they become combatants and are now legitimate targets. The hard part now comes in trying to isolate and kill the enemy combatants without causing unnecessary harm to the surrounding civilians. We can't just arbitrarily say "oh, the guys that shot at us are in that apartment complex that also houses fifty families, let's just blow the entire structure and call it a day". You do that and you'll turn more and more of those civilians against you, creating more enemies to fight, less people willing to work with us to find and stop the people that are fighting us, and generally make the job a lot harder then it has to be.

Also, it's not our government that values the 'enemy civilians". It's our own citizens. Remember the fuss over Abu Gharib? That was just over the mistreatment of a few prisoners. Imagine what the political fall out in just our country would be if CNN, MSNBC, and FOX all aired live footage of a lot of dead women and children because we started unrestricted bombing campaigns on neighborhoods simply because a couple of assholes with AKs and RPGs MIGHT have fired at Americans from inside it (ok, maybe not FOX news... They'd probably all sport massive hard-ons and call it a stunning victory in the "War on Terror").

They won't take the guns away from these people.

That's because most of the time those civilians have a weapon they're authorized to have for self-defense, i.e. we told them they could have it. This allows the friendly civilians to keep the enemy combatants from just walking into their homes and setting up firing positions, kidnapping people, etc. and tends to make the civilians feel safer, which in turn makes them more cooperative. Without those weapons you could end up with another situation like we had in Fallujah, were the enemy had essentially taken an entire city hostage and we were forced to retake and pacify the city at great cost.

They won't even put snipers outside their barracks to keep them from lobbing mortars into their bunks. I'd have snipers along every road looking for someone placing a bomb. Well, actually I'd do a lot more than that were we one people.

Snipers are damned expensive to train and equip, very specialized as a set of skills, and they'd be wasted on what you're suggesting. Besides which, how exactly are snipers, a line-of-sight weapon platform, supposed to engage a non-line-of-sight threat like a mortar crew that's several kilometers away (i.e. they have no line of sight to the mortar crew and even if they did the mortar crew is well outside the range of their rifles)?

Just do what we already do and use a competent officer with a radio to direct counter-battery fire.

It's like Angus said, soldiers are just another commodity like beans, defaced, not even human, just a commodity. All this for some health insurance. Most young men do not understand this. I call the contract unconscionable.

If you don't understand that by the time you're done with your pre-contract MEPS physical then you're to dumb for the military.

Nevertheless as I pointed out above. I don't think anyone in their right mind would sign such a contract. And I think they're having a tough time finding people to do it. And I don't think we're going to be able to win these wars on mercenary power alone. We're going to run out of money to incite people to do this. People are going to get tired of dying for not much better of a living.

I have a better idea... Let's stop going invading countries with less force then we need to take, hold, and occupy the place. Let's stop electing presidents that can't even remember the history of the last 70years so they know not to pull the same mistakes that people have already made (Hello, the Russians already showed us how much of a pain in the ass occupying an Islamic country is and they had a lot less restrictive ROEs about shooting civilians then we do and used more troops to do it to boot). Goddamn, I could toss out tons of ideas that would be a lot more effective then your suggestion of "“F” it, let's just kill everyone and then call the place peaceful".