Father of Fallen Soldier Says White House Turned Down Request for Obama Phone Call

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,175
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'19 BMW M240i
the family certainly thought it should atleast get an apology.
The Senator (Congresswoman? Can't be bothered to look it up) responsible for the botched letter did apologize.


I think some of the comments in this thread regarding the deceased soldier are a little close to the bone. You should remember that he isn't just a statistic, a number, or an expendable Government asset. He was a fellow man, a son, I dare say a husband as well as a father. His family will be understandably devastated by their loss.

Your views on political morality aside, comments such as:


Regardless of context, make my piss itch. Show some respect, and find a way to express your opinion that doesn't take a dump on the memories of thousands, upon millions of people killed in worldwide conflicts.
That's why I wrote "on a political scale". Politically, a soldier is a government asset. The feelings of family, friends, fellow humans are a different matter.
 
Last edited:

Nocturnal

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2008
Messages
695
Location
UK
Car(s)
'88 Toyota MR2 NA + '92 Mazda RX7 FD
That's why I wrote "on a political scale". Politically, a soldier is a government asset. The feelings of family, friends, fellow humans are a different matter.
It's why I also wrote "regardless of context". It's a little like saying "no offence" before then going on to insult them; it's not a get out of jail free clause which magically makes the statement valid and unhurtful.

As a serving member of the Armed Forces, I found your comment disrespectful. I don't expect you to suddenly drop to your knees and worship the ground I walk on, because simply put, I'm not in the Armed Foces to appease people like you. I do it for the few men and women that would do it for me (namely the ones I serve beside), and the ones who can't do it (such as my family).

Lest we forget, that soldier ultimately died so that you could type about how 'politically' worthless he was to human existence. Had you been let near a computer long enough to type something like that if you were born in Iraq, I dare say you would've been executed without trial shortly afterwards. That man, and people like him, have shaped the world we have today through generations of killed and wounded. Don't tell me he's 'nobody' on a political scale, without men like him, we'd still be sat in a cave being scared of the animals outside.

By all means argue the rights and wrongs of the Presidential decisions; although it's a decision made by people mightier than ourselves (and probably the President), I'm not going to bother speculating as to why the family didn't receive a phone call, or whether it was morally incorrect to do so. But YOU were the only one to drag the soldiers memory across the ground enough to evoke me to comment. The US Armed Forces are a damned good set of people, and the work they're doing in Afghanistan at the moment is vital to stabilising the area, and we certainly couldn't do it without them.

Apologies to everyone else for the tirade. I don't normally get wound up on the internet!
 
Last edited:

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,175
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'19 BMW M240i
As a serving member of the Armed Forces
You of all people should know this then: Soldiers are the pawns of politics/leaders, whether the cause is good or bad.

Lest we forget, that soldier ultimately died so that you could type about how 'politically' worthless he was to human existence.
"Politically worthless" and "worthless to human existence" are two entirely different things. I commented on the former, not on the latter.
His worthiness to human existence depends on your point of view. You could say soldiers like him make our world a better place, you could say soldiers like him help wipe out nations, people, religions. Depends on your point of view.

The US Armed Forces are a damned good set of people, and the work they're doing in Afghanistan at the moment is vital to stabilising the area, and we certainly couldn't do it without them.
While you're mentioning Afghanistan, why is it vitally important to stabilize the area? At least partially because foreign nations have used the region as their toy. Again, the political pawns (read: soldiers) have to do the footwork while the leaders sit back and treat them just like that, politically irrelevant pawns. That's politics for you.
 

Nocturnal

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2008
Messages
695
Location
UK
Car(s)
'88 Toyota MR2 NA + '92 Mazda RX7 FD
You of all people should know this then: Soldiers are the pawns of politics/leaders, whether the cause is good or bad.
That's a VERY condascending view of the Armed Forces. While ultimately, we are expected to do things that narrow-minded individuals such as yourself simply couldn't comprehend, the days of conscripting students and sending them to the meat-grinder are long gone. We're not a bunch of sheep, being sent to our death by men wearing cloaks behind dark curtains, playing Governments against each other like puppets. I've never met anyone who didn't want to be in theatre, and I've never met anyone (including a brave man from 2 Para who lost both arms and legs to an IED) who didn't come home feeling proud of what they did, and wishing they could go back to do more. You'll find most soldiers are in theatre because they've volunteered to be there, not because they've been told to be there.

I'm sure you'd be annoyed if I said civilians are all sheep, being herded around and controlled by the media, being kept in check by Government agencies. There are fair arguments to validate this statement, but I wouldn't argue it because I'm not ignorant enough to brand an entire set of people with such a sweeping generalisation. People are different, regardless of whether they carry out the same job under orders.

"Politically worthless" and "worthless to human existence" are two entirely different things. I commented on the former, not on the latter.
You were wrong, regardless of how you try to backpeddle and pedant to win the argument. That soldier represents all soldiers, whether they're serving, retired, missing or dead. Politically, Obama has committed suicide by snubbing the very people who fight and die for him. This clearly hasn't gone unnoticed, given the fact it provoked enough anger to warrant a journalistic news article, and I dare say countless threads online like this one. I'd put a fair bet that in the next few weeks (if he hasn't already), Obama will go out of his way to show his direct support for the Armed Forces; be it through a visit to theatre, releasing more funding, or simply a visit to an Operational unit. You argue simple politics, I argue simple PR. The Presidency is, in effect, a business. Bad publicity isn't good.

His worthiness to human existence depends on your point of view. You could say soldiers like him make our world a better place, you could say soldiers like him help wipe out nations, people, religions. Depends on your point of view.
Evidently, you have absolutely no idea how the world outside your front door works. Wake up. This isn't the 1960's, and this isn't a debate between free love and the iron fist of Democracy. The world is a nasty place. I know the cliche is (excuse the irony here) that without soldiers like him, we'd all be speaking German. The truth is, without people like him, we'd probably all be dead. For every person that fights for 'right', there are another dozen people who will fight for 'wrong'. The human race is a violent one; we have a history of bloodshed which dates back as far as the earliest drawings of man-kind. Whether you like it or not, there are brutal conflicts going on all over the globe. We can't fight all of them, nor should we. But we have stopped numerous Genocides. I'm not going to argue the Government is pink and fluffy, there are some things which happen which are probably best left unknown. However, I will say this. Every Nation, people, and religion wiped out in history, has allowed us to meet at this point, in a free-speech debate, on an online community. You ought to thank your stars that your life has thus far allowed this to happen. Had you been born in Sierra Leone, Bosnia, Burma, or the majority of Nations outside the EU and US, you'd either already be dead, or you'd be fighting to survive every day for the most basic of amenities.

That's not down to God, that's not down to the people around you. That's down to men like the Sergeant who go out to horrible places and fight on your behalf.

While you're mentioning Afghanistan, why is it vitally important to stabilize the area?
Do you actually have any idea about the history of Afghanistan, and why we're there, or is this a deliberately leading question in yet another attempt to annoy me?

At least partially because foreign nations have used the region as their toy. Again, the political pawns (read: soldiers) have to do the footwork while the leaders sit back and treat them just like that, politically irrelevant pawns. That's politics for you.
Oh wait, thank God, you just don't have a clue.

I'd highly recommend reading this. It's a Wiki history of Afghanistan, but hopefully you'll be able to procure from the information that Afghanistan holds a key position for many reasons, and that while the West may have almost characatured Bin Laden into some loveable scamp, the man was responsible for slitting the throats, and skinning thousands of civilians. You should also note that Afghanistan has effectively been a powder-keg of violence for thousands of years.

If nothing else, I would hope that you might learn that we are not at war with Afghanistan. We are there (assigned by the UN, no less) to form an International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). We're there to help the Afghan National Army and Police forces fight off the Taliban, a dominantly-Pakistani orientated tribe who were responsible for imposing strict Islamic laws which effectively led to the house-arrest of all females, and the massacre of Civilians across the country.

To summise, imagine that suddenly, your Government has decided it doesn't like you anymore because of the way you dress. Systematically, it then starts exterminating not only the people who dress like you, but anyone who has been your friend, as well as your family. It does this for no other reason than 'it can', with no prior warning, and no mercy. It doesn't just kill these people, it makes examples of them by deliberately making the deaths brutal and horrific, to deter anyone who might rebel. Your Nation is divided, you've lost contact with anyone you've ever known, and you're struggling to survive because you have no way of finding food or water.

I pray that never happens, and you think that it never will, because your leaders are more 'civilised' than everyone elses. But if it does, you'll be praying to God himself to provide you with people like that Sergeant. Your notion that men like him destroy entire civilisations will soon dissolve. Men like him, stop other men destroying entire peoples. This might seem a bit dramatic and hyperbolic, but I think it's time you realised that life isn't easy, and that the above is a daily occurence (for reasons just as stupid) for millions of people.
 

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,175
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'19 BMW M240i
the days of conscripting students and sending them to the meat-grinder are long gone. We're not a bunch of sheep, being sent to our death by men wearing cloaks behind dark curtains, playing Governments against each other like puppets.
I like your optimism.

I've never met anyone who didn't want to be in theatre, and I've never met anyone (including a brave man from 2 Para who lost both arms and legs to an IED) who didn't come home feeling proud of what they did, and wishing they could go back to do more. You'll find most soldiers are in theatre because they've volunteered to be there, not because they've been told to be there.
Be that as it may, this has nothing to do with the political role of a single soldier. Don't confuse human interaction, feelings, pride, or anything related to that with politics.

I'm sure you'd be annoyed if I said civilians are all sheep, being herded around and controlled by the media, being kept in check by Government agencies.
No, I'd agree with you. Replace all with mostly and you're there. See how the media, in this case Faux News, attempts to shape the view of the public by their agenda with the way they report this story?

Politically, Obama has committed suicide by snubbing the very people who fight and die for him.
I'll wait for the revolution then. Funnily, I've heard that phrase over and over, yet he still is politically alive. Weird kind of political suicide.

This clearly hasn't gone unnoticed, given the fact it provoked enough anger to warrant a journalistic news article, and I dare say countless threads online like this one.
Tons of things cause a "journalistic" (after all, it's Faux News we're talking about) news article and countless threads online.

I know the cliche is (excuse the irony here) that without soldiers like him, we'd all be speaking German.
Without soldiers like him there would be no reason to assume you would all be speaking German. Who dropped bombs on the UK in the 40s? Soldiers.

Every Nation, people, and religion wiped out in history, has allowed us to meet at this point, in a free-speech debate, on an online community. You ought to thank your stars that your life has thus far allowed this to happen.
Let me see if I understand you correctly. Wiping out a nation, people religion has allowed me to debate freely? :no:

I'd highly recommend reading this.

If nothing else, I would hope that you might learn that we are not at war with Afghanistan.
While you're reading Wikipedia, note how they say there still is a war in Afghanistan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present) "Status: Conflict ongoing"
Even old Merkelpants calls it a war, despite the iffiness of having German troops involved in a non-defensive war.

We are there (assigned by the UN, no less) to form an International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).
You're there because your big brothers across the pond decided to start a war of aggression that was not sanctioned by the UN. Having a UN mandate to clean up the mess rocks, go you!

To summise, imagine that suddenly, your Government has decided it doesn't like you anymore because of the way you dress. Systematically, it then starts exterminating not only the people who dress like you, but anyone who has been your friend, as well as your family. It does this for no other reason than 'it can', with no prior warning, and no mercy. It doesn't just kill these people, it makes examples of them by deliberately making the deaths brutal and horrific, to deter anyone who might rebel. Your Nation is divided, you've lost contact with anyone you've ever known, and you're struggling to survive because you have no way of finding food or water.
Funnily, my Government decided to do just that not too long ago. Guess what political tool they used to implement a major part of that strategy - soldiers.
 

Nocturnal

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2008
Messages
695
Location
UK
Car(s)
'88 Toyota MR2 NA + '92 Mazda RX7 FD
This is becoming a little pointless, as it's pretty clear you have no intention of withdrawing your disrespectful statements or opinions, and instead the way you argue your ignorance is simply staggering.

I like your optimism.
I like the way you selectively quote my posts to ignore the points I've made, or even to take them out of context so that you can clutch at straws and try diverging the conversation. A little like this:

Be that as it may, this has nothing to do with the political role of a single soldier. Don't confuse human interaction, feelings, pride, or anything related to that with politics.
No, I'd agree with you. Replace all with mostly and you're there. See how the media, in this case Faux News, attempts to shape the view of the public by their agenda with the way they report this story?
I assume by mostly, you're not including yourself? Of course not, because you're a visionary; you see the world for what it really is, and are the most informed, intelligent and insightful person on the planet...just like everyone else thinks they are. Except you're not, you have no idea about the way the world works, and with the astounding level of ignorance you've shown me so far, I'd wager you're either still a student, or haven't been in the real world long. You actually strike me as the sort of person who doesn't watch the news because it's too "main-stream", and instead gain any knowledge you might have from conspiracy theories and computer games. Your huge post-count despite being part of the forum only a few months longer than myself backs me up on both counts.

I'll wait for the revolution then. Funnily, I've heard that phrase over and over, yet he still is politically alive. Weird kind of political suicide.
There will be no revolution, because the media will find a new story, and millions of idiots just like you will forget it ever happened. The story will be confined to websites like this, and within a year people will probably argue against you that it happened in the first place. Such is the way of people, and effective use of PR.

Tons of things cause a "journalistic" (after all, it's Faux News we're talking about) news article and countless threads online.
Things which people perceive as causing debate will always cause news. This is a little bigger than Mrs. Adams finding her cat up a tree.

Without soldiers like him there would be no reason to assume you would all be speaking German. Who dropped bombs on the UK in the 40s? Soldiers.
So where do you draw the line between soldiers and terrorists? The pay-cheque? The badge they wear? The cause they fight for? Do you think that if the Armed Forces suddenly quit and became shelf-stackers for Tesco, that worldwide peace would instantly prevail?

Just so you know, those soldiers who dropped bombs on the UK in the 1940s were also responsible for one of the largest accounts of genocide we've ever seen. Soldiers like the Sergeant were among those who stopped it. Funny how history repeats itself?

Let me see if I understand you correctly. Wiping out a nation, people religion has allowed me to debate freely? :no:
How do you think you came to be able to worship God? Speak English? Have the right to freedom of speech? Do you think it's because you have some divine right that puts you above people born in war-torn conflict zones? Seriously, read a history book. As ignorant as most of your points have been, this was the one which had me physically gasp at the computer screen. How uninformed you really are.

While you're reading Wikipedia, note how they say there still is a war in Afghanistan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present) "Status: Conflict ongoing"
Even old Merkelpants calls it a war, despite the iffiness of having German troops involved in a non-defensive war.
I know how pedantism is your favourite past-time, so it pleasures me to point out to you that it's a counter-insurgency, not a war, regardless of what you're drip-fed by CNN.

You're there because your big brothers across the pond decided to start a war of aggression that was not sanctioned by the UN. Having a UN mandate to clean up the mess rocks, go you!
I love how you use 'you' and 'your' to infer that we're stupid and ignorant for following our closest ally into conflict (even though we committed forces to the UN and not the USA, but that's irrelevant, eh?), and yet ignore that 42 other countries signed the treaty and contributed military forces to Afghanistan, including your own. This has VERY little to do with the US agenda; they've simply contributed the largest force and most money to the region, which is why they have the most control.

Funnily, my Government decided to do just that not too long ago. Guess what political tool they used to implement a major part of that strategy - soldiers.
Again, I don't see your point. You're arguing against soldiers while ignoring that it was soldiers who stopped them.:rolleyes:

It also depends how you define a soldier. Are the Police soldiers? You could argue that they are; they're a Government agency who fight to control land. So if we get rid of all soldiers and Police, then who stands against gangs? What about when enough of these gangs get together, do they suddenly become an army and therefore soldiers? Where does that leave us?

You seriously have a lot to learn. Your naievety and ignorance at 24 is, frankly, shameful.
 
Last edited:

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,175
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'19 BMW M240i
I like the way you selectively quote my posts to ignore the points I've made, or even to take them out of context so that you can clutch at straws and try diverging the conversation.
Thanks.

I assume by mostly, you're not including yourself?
You assume wrongly. I'm quite certain that much of my own life is influenced by media and shaped by government agencies.

You actually strike me as the sort of person who doesn't watch the news because it's too "main-stream", and instead gain any knowledge you might have from conspiracy theories and computer games.
I do watch the news, actually also the most main-stream news show you can watch on German TV. I don't play a lot of computer games, currently I'm using an on-board Radeon HD4200 - go figure. Conspiracy theorists make me laugh.

Your huge post-count despite being part of the forum only a few months longer than myself backs me up on both counts.
Participating in an online forum is a bad thing now, after all those things brave fighting men and women have done to give me that opportunity? :think:

There will be no revolution, because the media will find a new story, and millions of idiots just like you will forget it ever happened. The story will be confined to websites like this, and within a year people will probably argue against you that it happened in the first place. Such is the way of people, and effective use of PR.
Make up your mind. Either you say having a story reported by some news organization and having it discussed online is political suicide, or it is completely irrelevant. Can't be both.

Also, no need to call me an idiot. You may disagree with me, obviously. Insulting is just bad manners.

So where do you draw the line between soldiers and terrorists?
That is exactly my point. Soldiers invade some country, at home they are celebrated as heroes. Abroad they may be considered terrorists that wreaked havoc on an entire nation or region.

Just so you know, those soldiers who dropped bombs on the UK in the 1940s were also responsible for one of the largest accounts of genocide we've ever seen.
Exactly my point again. Not every soldier does good on every scale.

How do you think you came to be able to worship God?
How dare you assume I believe in such stuff?

Have the right to freedom of speech? Do you think it's because you have some divine right that puts you above people born in war-torn conflict zones? Seriously, read a history book. As ignorant as most of your points have been, this was the one which had me physically gasp at the computer screen. How uninformed you really are.
Most of my rights were not gained by soldiers doing what their leaders tell them to do. A major step towards democracy was soldiers being bad boys, right here in my home town: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sailors'_revolt_in_Kiel
If they had been good soldiers and done what their admirals told them, who knows what might have happened instead. One thing's for sure, they would have sailed out against an overwhelming enemy and valliantly perished. Woo for soldiers obeying stupid orders.

I know how pedantism is your favourite past-time, so it pleasures me to point out to you that it's a counter-insurgency, not a war, regardless of what you're drip-fed by CNN.
I don't watch CNN.

If you want to be pedantic, look at a Merriam-Webster definition for the term war - "a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism". I'd say that's a big checkmark when considering the current state in Afghanistan.

I love how you use 'you' and 'your' to infer that we're stupid and ignorant for following our closest ally into conflict (even though we committed forces to the UN and not the USA, but that's irrelevant, eh?), and yet ignore that 42 other countries signed the treaty and contributed military forces to Afghanistan, including your own. This has VERY little to do with the US agenda; they've simply contributed the largest force and most money to the region, which is why they have the most control.
I don't agree with German forces fighting a non-defensive war. Additionally, it violates our constitution. The politicians just avoided calling it like it is when sending the troops to avoid the legal kerfuffle.
You committed forces to the UN to clean up a mess caused by the US. Tomato Tomahto.
The war has very much to do with the US agenda, for example on September 10th 2001 the US planned to "seek to overthrow the Taliban regime through more direct action" if political pressure failed. To me, that sounds like a plan for a war of aggression.

Again, I don't see your point. You're arguing against soldiers while ignoring that it was soldiers who stopped them.:rolleyes:
My point is, on a political level soldiers are the pawns of the leaders - scroll back a few posts, I wrote that at least once before. Depending on your point of view soldiers are used for good or for bad. Political pawns.

You seriously have a lot to learn. Your naievety and ignorance at 24 is, frankly, shameful.
Apparently I'm not the only 24-year-old in this thread with na?vety and ignorance - else you would open your eyes to the reality of politics.
 

Nocturnal

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2008
Messages
695
Location
UK
Car(s)
'88 Toyota MR2 NA + '92 Mazda RX7 FD
This is going to be my last post in this thread; we're getting no-where, and I'm not quite sure how to get through to someone who has no sense of irony, and rather than take any points on-board, simply repeats themselves over and over again.

It wasn't a compliment.

You assume wrongly. I'm quite certain that much of my own life is influenced by media and shaped by government agencies.
But yet despite the fact that's it's seen as almost heinous these days by the general public to oppose your Nations Armed Forces, you're still quite willing to openly post about how stupid we all are? Nice. :rolleyes:

Participating in an online forum is a bad thing now, after all those things brave fighting men and women have done to give me that opportunity? :think:
I'm not quite sure how you think the world we live in has come to be. If you think the world was suddenly created, and everyone had access to facebook, and only evil, stupid people were born in horrible places because they deserved it, well you have a lot to learn. The world we know has been shaped by millenia of violence. The reason you have the rights you do today, is because soldiers have fought for those rights. You were lucky to be born in the Nation you are, and this is a point I've been trying to get across in numerous posts now (and yet you still keep missing it...).

Not all Nations are united, most aren't. In these countries, rights to freedom of speech are forbidden. There isn't enough money for technology, like computers. Surprisingly enough, in countries where they're struggling for water, there aren't high-speed broadband cables laying in the desert.

If this isn't a clear enough picture for you yet...the reason you're able to sit there and call soldiers worthless on the internet, is because those soldiers have fought to protect the rights you have become accustomed to; the rights so many other people are denied. I'm not quite sure how to say this any clearer; if you're struggling to grasp this now, then to be quite honest I'm not sure how you even manage to muster up the common sense to get out of bed on a morning.

Make up your mind. Either you say having a story reported by some news organization and having it discussed online is political suicide, or it is completely irrelevant. Can't be both.
I never contradicted myself, I merely cited how useful a tool effective PR is. You keep mentioning the word 'politics', and really, the policies in place have little to do with how people see the Government of any country. What keeps the man in power is PR. If a president/PM has a particularly terrible run, then this will be used by their opponent in negative PR, so the two can be linked.

Also, no need to call me an idiot. You may disagree with me, obviously. Insulting is just bad manners.
Pot, meet kettle? Knowing full-well that I'm a soldier, you have gone on to insult everything I believe in and belittled the memories of people I have served beside who are no longer with us, along with some of the bravest people I know. Not only this, but you have offended generations of people who do something other with their lives than sit on the internet complaining about the world. These are the people who take action so that you don't have to. If soldiers didn't volunteer to fight, do you think your Government would simply abandon any plans for expansion it might have? Or do you think you would be forced to fight? Frankly, calling you an idiot was polite. I have far more words in my vocabulary that I'd normally use to describe you, but I was trying to keep this civil.

That is exactly my point. Soldiers invade some country, at home they are celebrated as heroes. Abroad they may be considered terrorists that wreaked havoc on an entire nation or region.
Finally, we're getting somewhere. This becomes entirely complicated when the Nation soldiers "invade" isn't united, as I mentioned before. More often than not, this Nation won't simply have two opposing sides, but several. As a coalition force, we can only support one of those sides, and generally it will be the side of the Government calling in UN support (such as Afghanistan).

To that end, if we "invade" a Nation to support one of those sides (the side voted for by the people - the Government), but 4 other sides are opposed to our involvement (largely because this stops them taking power by force), are we in the wrong for intervening? Should we, perhaps, just leave the rest of the world to it? What happens in 5 years time when a nuclear weapon is detonated in Berlin because the side we didn't stop is looking to expand their territory and ultimately gain more money?

We fight to a VERY strict set of rules; the Geneva Convention. Unfortunately, those we fight don't. These rules are often ridiculous in times of combat; we're not allowed to engage an enemy unless they first engage us. If an enemy drops their weapon and retreats, they're no longer a viable target, regardless of whether they've just killed the majority of your squad. Contrastingly, the enemy will detonate an IED, wait for the emergency services to arrive (usually civilians like the Red Cross), and then detonate larger secondaries.

We fight to these rules, because without them, we're no better than they are. As I've repeated over and over again, without soldiers, there would still be war. There just wouldn't be anybody to fight against them. There will always be people who fight for good, and others who fight for gain. Sometimes that line is blurred.

In Afghanistan, the progress is clear. The tribe responsible for overthrowing the Government in '96 and murdering civilians has now been forced largely into Pakistan and Yemen. The Afghan people are glad to be rid of the regime, and we're opening thousands of schools, as well as providing electrical power to the region. The ANA and ANP are on their way to becoming strong enough to repel the Taliban when it inevitably invades again.

How dare you assume I believe in such stuff?
I didn't. Stop getting pissy about little things while ignoring the bigger picture. I couldn't care less whether you believed in God, a giant Octopus with Barbara Streisands face, or aliens. What I do care about, is your perception of people who sacrifice themselves in your name. I don't care whether you respect me, but it saddens me to think you're potentially spitting in the face of your ancestors because you don't know any better.

I don't agree with German forces fighting a non-defensive war. Additionally, it violates our constitution. The politicians just avoided calling it like it is when sending the troops to avoid the legal kerfuffle.
Politicians lie? Say it ain't so!

You committed forces to the UN to clean up a mess caused by the US. Tomato Tomahto.
Wrong. The British have had direct military involvement in Afghanistan for over a century. There have been various times where we have pulled out, but soon gone back in again. Afghanistan was/is a major trading route through Asia, and is strategically very important. Whoever controls it, controls the trade route, not to mention the Opium fields (over 90% of the WORLDS heroin trade can be sourced from Afghanistan). With someone like the Taliban in charge, where do you think this money would go? New Schools? Internet access for everyone who hates soldiers? Or weapons? Given the rest of the world, and the Taliban history, it's a fair assumption to say that civilians would generally either be conscripted by force, or killed.

The war has very much to do with the US agenda, for example on September 10th 2001 the US planned to "seek to overthrow the Taliban regime through more direct action" if political pressure failed. To me, that sounds like a plan for a war of aggression.
Indeed it did, by trying to force a UN policy through which ultimately failed. Sensing the danger of not getting directly involved and the consequences this would have, we all went in anyway. You see, the Taliban don't refuse to slit the throat of an innocent woman just because the UN have written a letter asking them politely not to do it.

My point is, on a political level soldiers are the pawns of the leaders - scroll back a few posts, I wrote that at least once before. Depending on your point of view soldiers are used for good or for bad. Political pawns.
And my point is, there is no "political level", only life. If you look at Vietnam on a political level, the US killed 980'000+ NVA soldiers while losing "only" 54'000 of their own, surely that's an astounding victory?

Apparently I'm not the only 24-year-old in this thread with na?vety and ignorance - else you would open your eyes to the reality of politics.
The reality of politics is (and I'm sure I've said this OVER and OVER again!) the world revolves around a handful of very powerful men. We all live under the veil of democracy, but in reality we're all under control, just as we have been for thousands of years. For us, this control is somewhat relaxed, and we have a very high standard of living. I love nothing better than going out taking photos, or driving my car out in the country on a nice day with my fiancee. However, there are a lot of places in this world that, by the age of 24, I would either be fighting for survival, or I'd be dead. Whether that was through some terrible regime, epidemic illness, or shortage of food and water.

Whether you like to admit it or not, your Nations history in conflict and warfare has allowed you this standard of living, and the same goes for every Nation on the planet. Your geographical location plays some part, but had another Nation found it strategic, they would have invaded you and forced your ancestors elsewhere, meaning YOU would have been born elsewhere.

The point you seem to consistently miss, is that without soldiers, what happens? When does a group of men become a gang? When does a group of gangs become an army? When does a man become a soldier?

So, as I've said before; if we suddenly dismiss all our Armed Forces, where does that leave us? Do you honestly think that the world will suddenly fall into harmony? Or do you think it will fall into anarchy?

There will always be men who take what they want through fear and violence. There will always be men willing to fight against them to protect those who can't protect themselves. I don't just attribute thise lifestyle to soldiers, but to care-workers, nurses, emergency services; people who sacrifice large proportions of their own lives to help others.

One of my favourite quotes aptly sums my stance on this up:
"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." - Winston Churchill

And another I found:
"There are evil people in this world who will do violence upon you and your family without a second thought. Those who accept that can prepare for it. Those who deny it will always call for help from "rough men" at the moment of truth." -Anon.

Frankly, whether you support me or not makes no difference. I'm VERY proud to call myself one of those "rough men", and to serve alongside some of the greatest people I'm ever likely to know.
 
Last edited:

tigger

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Messages
5,737
Car(s)
'88 Vic Wagon, '92 Honda VFR
Sure it matters. How can you fault the man for supposedly not calling this family if you don't have anything to compare his actions to? :?
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
12,943
Sure it matters. How can you fault the man for supposedly not calling this family if you don't have anything to compare his actions to? :?
It shouldn't matter. Its like saying "Geo Metro is a shitty car"; "yeah, well its better than a Yugo". So fucking what? Its still a piece of junk car! It pisses me off how often when you criticize Obama, people say "yeah, well Bush was an idiot". What does that have to do with anything??


Why are you bumping this thread?
Oh noes! A three week on-topic bump!
 

nomix

True Viking
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
7,293
Location
Norway
Car(s)
Tend do walk the 40 meters from my bed to lecture.
Does it matter? Bush isn't the sitting President, just like Clinton isn't the sitting President, just like Lincoln isn't the sitting President. Why are you trying to make this about someone else?
I'm sorry for going off topic, but I have yet to try the 18 year old Glenlivet. How is it? I seem to remember it's a relatively smooth whisky in its 12 year old guise, but how is it at 18?
 
Top