funks 1 #1 September 17, 2004 This in response to the woman who was heckling Laura Bush and was subsequently arrested. She was apparently wearing a shirt that said Bush killed her son. This seems to be an ongoing complaint by people that have lost loved ones in the war, more and more are saying that bush "killed" their loved ones. Shouldnt they blame their loved ones death on their loved ones choice to join the military??? Isnt that what the military is there for? To go to war and for people to die for their country, isnt that what people understand can happen when they join the military? This is not about the war being right or wrong. This ladies son chose to join the military knowing damn well that he could be shipped off to war if the situation called for it. I guess a cops family should blame their police chief if the cop is shot by a robber??? Isnt their an assumed risk in joining the military knowing damn well that your primary purpose is to support this country and to go to war if called upon? So, with that said, are these people correct in blaming Bush for the deaths of their family members? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #2 September 17, 2004 The problem is that: "This ladies son chose to join the military knowing damn well that he could be shipped off to war if the situation called for it. " Many people don't believe the situation called for it. QuoteIsnt their an assumed risk in joining the military knowing damn well that your primary purpose is to support this country Many people don't believe that the war in Iraq supports this country. "I guess a cops family should blame their police chief if the cop is shot by a robber??? " They should if the police chief orders him to go into an area outside of their jurisdiction, with a lack of adequate support and without adequately assessing the risks involved and when other options were available that wouldn't have put that officer at risk. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #3 September 17, 2004 Was Clinton responsible for the deaths of the troops in Somalia? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #4 September 17, 2004 Yes. Not direclty, and not solely. But he shares the responsibility. Same goes for Bush. Edit to add.... I shudder to think of what would happen if we had a commander in chief who didn't feel responsible for the safety of those serving under his command. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #5 September 17, 2004 QuoteYes. Not direclty, and not solely. But he shares the responsibility. Same goes for Bush. So, is this all a really stupid question in the first place or not? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #6 September 17, 2004 yes and no. when someone joins the military, they sign up knowing they might die. our government, in turn, has an obligation to make sure they are responsible when risking our troops lives and don't do it unless it is very necessary. the responsibility is shared. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #7 September 17, 2004 Quote So, is this all a really stupid question in the first place or not? Can you find an example of a not-stupid question on here? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #8 September 17, 2004 QuoteShouldnt they blame their loved ones death on their loved ones choice to join the military??? Isnt that what the military is there for? To go to war and for people to die for their country, isnt that what people understand can happen when they join the military? It's a natural reaction. Isn't anger one of the X steps of grieving? She's angry that her son is gone and looking for someone to blame. Soon she'll make peace with her loss and realize that her son died doing what he signed up to do. QuoteSo, with that said, are these people correct in blaming Bush for the deaths of their family members? No. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #9 September 17, 2004 NO He volunteered to join the military. Also the Gov. doesn't normally send people on suicide missions. They do their best to keep their soldiers alive and destroy the enemy. He was not sent out with the intention of getting killed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #10 September 17, 2004 QuoteQuote So, is this all a really stupid question in the first place or not? Can you find an example of a not-stupid question on here? You got me there... Most are pretty stupid and pointless. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianmdrennan 2 #11 September 17, 2004 Sorry dude, but I can't say I agree. While I am opposed to the war, if I had joined the military I must expect that I can be shipped off, even if it's something I don't believe in. That is a risk you accept if you join the military. Did Bush kill her son? No. Her son's decision to join the military killed him. Blues, IanPerformance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #12 September 17, 2004 Quoteyes and no. when someone joins the military, they sign up knowing they might die. our government, in turn, has an obligation to make sure they are responsible when risking our troops lives and don't do it unless it is very necessary. the responsibility is shared. Haven't there been times in war, in this country and others, when certain troops were used as a diversion, or decoy, not to be fully supported with backup, while other troops were sent on to accomplish a true objective? I have to believe that sometimes troops are used as cannon fodder just to draw the enemy's attention in another direction while "more important" troops go on to accomplish a real, important mission. What of those "sacrifice" troops? Will anyone tell me this is never done, or never has been done? -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #13 September 17, 2004 like I said, it is the responsibility of the government to be responsible when risking the lives of our troops. If a decoy strike is the way to go, so be it, but it needs to be done with care and responsibility. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #14 September 17, 2004 Quotelike I said, it is the responsibility of the government to be responsible when risking the lives of our troops. If a decoy strike is the way to go, so be it, but it needs to be done with care and responsibility. True, and if the parents don't believe the politicians would have sent their own children in to Iraq, they are bound to feel anger. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #15 September 17, 2004 QuoteShouldnt they blame their loved ones death on their loved ones choice to join the military??? Isnt that what the military is there for? To go to war and for people to die for their country, isnt that what people understand can happen when they join the military? we have a War?? where? when did this happen.....____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #16 September 17, 2004 Quotelike I said, it is the responsibility of the government to be responsible when risking the lives of our troops. If a decoy strike is the way to go, so be it, but it needs to be done with care and responsibility. So, would the distraught, irate mom of a soldier whose life was "spent" serving as a decoy so that some other squad could accomplish an objective be reasonable or unreasonable to go and blame anyone up the chain of command (all the way to the President, who didn't necessarily give that specific order in the first place)? Blue skies -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #17 September 17, 2004 it would depend on whether or not everyone in the chain of command acted with the necessary care that one ought to have when risking human life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funks 1 #18 September 17, 2004 Quotelike I said, it is the responsibility of the government to be responsible when risking the lives of our troops. If a decoy strike is the way to go, so be it, but it needs to be done with care and responsibility. There is nothing "caring" about a war. No offense but perhaps that is one reason why a woman may never be president. She would be to concerned with making sure the soldiers were tucked in properly every evening before going nighty night. Soldiers are nothing more than pawns. They sign up to be told what to do with the full understanding that they may die in their profession of choice. They choose to do so. Besides, Bush probably doesnt have half a clue what is going on on a daily basis with the troops. There are so many layers below him that actually make day to day decisions. Bush is nothing more than a scapegoat for these families that have had loved ones die. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #19 September 17, 2004 Quoteit would depend on whether or not everyone in the chain of command acted with the necessary care that one ought to have when risking human life. I'm talking about a dire decision in wartime to send a group out KNOWING that there is 99% probability they will die, but doing so in the hope that their deaths will buy time or distraction so that a larger, more important (tactically, anyway) group may escape or whatever. I'm talking about maybe even sending them out with damaged rifles with empty magazines, because the serviceable weapons are desperately needed by the group that is to survive. These kinds of decisions have to have been made historically in warfare. I wonder if you think that the survivors of the sacrificed troops would be justified in being angry, or if you would recognize that in war, all bets are off about who survives -- it's WAR -- and no one who enlists really has a "right" to expect to come home safely. Wars are fought by people willing to sacrifice their lives to keep those who don't fight safe and free. (Or, if you're an Iraqi insurgent killing American liberators, safe and not free.) -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #20 September 17, 2004 QuoteSoldiers are nothing more than pawns. They sign up to be told what to do with the full understanding that they may die in their profession of choice. They choose to do so. True. Maybe what the world needs is for no one to be willing to be a soldier, told what to do even though it may mean his death. Oh, and love, sweet love. (The world needs that now -- there's just too little of it.) -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianmdrennan 2 #21 September 18, 2004 QuoteOh, and love, sweet love. (The world needs that now -- there's just too little of it.) Ok, where is the real Jeffrey and what have you done with him? Blues, IanPerformance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #22 September 18, 2004 QuoteQuoteOh, and love, sweet love. (The world needs that now -- there's just too little of it.) Ok, where is the real Jeffrey and what have you done with him? Blues, Ian He fades in and out. I'm in control, now! Muuaaahahahahaaa! -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #23 September 18, 2004 QuoteSoldiers are nothing more than pawns. . good thing your not a military leader, that line of thinking went away shortly after waterloo.... War is not chess. Fighting War like a chess game where you trade your peices away is a good way to lose and a colossal waste of resources...____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #24 September 18, 2004 QuoteQuoteSoldiers are nothing more than pawns. . good thing your not a military leader, that line of thinking went away shortly after waterloo.... War is not chess. Fighting War like a chess game where you trade your peices away is a good way to lose and a colossal waste of resources... War itself is a colossal waste of resources. Millions of tons of material that is designed to destroy itself? You tell me. The only trouble is, sometimes it's necessary, when someone starts fuckin' with ya. No one wants to have to go to war... Blue skies, -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #25 September 18, 2004 i'm not disagreeing that war is sometimes necessary. However treating your assets, your soldiers as if they are simply material that is to be traded away in exchange for your enemies is a piss poor way to conduct it. If you have little or no pieces left at the end of the game you might have won that engagement, but you have nothing left with which to fight the next. US military doctrine has long since evolved beyond such primitive thought.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
