Officer of Engineers

The authority is implicit in your vote either for or against a candidate. Like I stated before, the Iraq War was not on any election agenda. When you're voting, you're not only voting on the issues but also on the man. And you have to trust that the chosen man would do well.

The issue is moral authority. We do not have a vote on whether or not to goto war and given the very nature of military operations, a vote is not a good idea.

We in uniform gave and recieve the moral authority to commit and suffer lethality because the safety and the honour of our countries are under threat. We only ask that our leaders think long and hard before committing to lethality. Once a life is lost, it can never be given back.

And when we make mistakes, damn well stand up and admit to them.

__________________
Chimo

Confed999

I agree, and if you're willing to toss in the reasonable safety of others, I've got an amen. The mistakes part is quite important, but it's also something most of us need to work on.

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

Praxus

Last time I checked you derive right and wrong from logic and by extension reason. How can it not be about something that was derived from the very thing you claim it is not about?

It is contradicting so one of the premises is wrong. So it is either about logic or it's not about right and wrong.



A code of ethics, essentially morality is required for a civilized society to exsist.

Blademaster

Yes a code of ethics is required for a civilized society. But there s a fine line between practicising ethics and forcing your version of morality on others.

Leaders and people have made this mistake of crossing the line.

When they cross the line, they should take the blame.

Officer of Engineers

Hitesh,

We're doing exactly that when we goto war. War is the ultimate expression of forcing your version of things onto the enemy and even onto you, especially if you have not voted for the candidate who decided for war. Case in point, did Bush not force the Iraq War down the throats of anti-war Democrats?

Confed999

What about compassion? Faith? Hope? Love? Learned morality?

If someone has something you want, the easiest logical way to get it, is to take it. Is that right or wrong?

If you see a bus bearing down on a person crossing the street, the logical thing to do is to not risk yourself for someone else's foolishness. Is that right or wrong?

From the example much of this thread came from, if Iraq hates Iran then logically we can get them to fight for us. Is that right or wrong?

With logic we're stuck with, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". Is that right or wrong?

Two people debating any issue will use logic to further their side of an argument. What one is on the right side of the argument, and what one is on the wrong side?

For me the answer to all of those examples is WRONG. Alot more than logic is required for me to determine right or wrong, I have to use my heart.

Confed999

I submit the only reason Dems are against the war is that they weren't in office when it started. If they were, we would be talking about anti-war Republicans. The partisan politics in this country are nothing but pettiness.

Ray

I am not too clued up on the US elections but I learnt froma friend of mine that Kerry was in an anti war demonstration and he chucked somebody else's medals outside the White House as if it were his own!

Note, I HEARD it. If that be true, I would chuck him into the Pacific or the Atlantic. Being a true believer in democracy, I would give him the choice. Sad if he was that slimy!

That way, Bush with all his infirmities, is at least steadfast in his aim!

As an 'international observer' of the scene, Bush scares me withis gung ho stuff, but if what Kerry did is true, he revolt my sense of morality and decency!

Do forgive me, if I am wrong. Just a gut feeling.

Notwithstanding, the issues on which Bush went to war, is flawed. Even Powell admitted today (as per our newspapers), that the intellegence was flawed.

What revolts me further is charrred bodies being dragged down the street and such bodies being beaten by slippers! Disgusting.

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

Ray

Colonel,

Bush shoved it down the throat of the actual international community. Taht too without the smoothening effect of castor oil or Mobil Oil!

A little bit of patience and clever convincing, the UN would have supported the show. Then, there would be none of this acrimony and heart burning and washing dirty linen in public!

The Administration was too hasty. I just hope it doesn't turn out to be another Somalia. Imagine those pigs have no decency. Dragging a dead and charred body down the street and beating such bodies with slipper. I am inflamed at the lack of decency.

War maybe a dirty game, but decency cannot be lost sight of. One can be a self styled 'warrior' for his cause, even if it is dubious, but not a savage!

Gio

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ke...ssing_incident
Seems like what you heard is accruate.

Ray

Gio,

Thanks.

I will be honest enough to say that while I still don't like anyone throwing his or somepne else's medals like that since it is an insult to the country that gave the medals (one's own country normally gives the medals) and is not acceptable, yet I am glad he was man enough to admit that it was not his own medals that he threw.

Officer of Engineers

Sir,

I am going to do you an injustice by trying to explain cultural differences of which I may not totally understand your culture (both military and civilian) correctly.

The Iraq War was coming. If not now, at least within 10 years. The Air War has lasted 12 years. The pissing contest lasted long enough and with the advent of 11 Sept, the Americans wanted the pissing contest to end one way or another.

Unlike India, our thinking has always been decisive force, not attrition (for a lack of a better word). We don't want to continually be able to withstand and to repulse attacks. We want to finish the job once and for all. Thus, why you see us willing to risk assualt pioneers/engrs in breach ops instead of husbanding them as a reserve.

14 days would have added 3000 troops to the fight (Canada being caught with its own compromise). 30 days would have added 15,000 (the 4th Infantry Division would have repositioned from Turkey).

Even without the French, Russian, and Chinese approval (automatic UN vetoes), observing the compromise would have added flags and troops to the US cause.

Sir, you and I have both see Man's Inhumanity to Man. I'm not surprised by this. In fact, I expected it. Chinese students lynched Chinese police and troops at the mere RUMOUR of a crackdown at Tianamen Square. Croat ass wipes burned their rape victims alive. The Iraqis are just as low life scum as the rest of humanity.

Sir, I am sure you're well aware of Canadian snipers taking groin shots in counter-sniper activity in the FRY (Former Republic of Yugoslavia). I can tell you that I was decent only for so far. We found those young rape victims who were burned alive. Their bodies were still hot that they melted the body bags. Once we found who was responsible. We gave them one chance to surrender. They obliged us by not surrendering. We blew a hole in the wall and started tossing grenades and I didn't care how many were tossed.

My point, Sir, is that unlike India and the InA (we would have march to Islamabad after the attack on your Parliment), we would tolerate attrocities only so far before responding with over overwhelming force. That is our military culture. Decide the action in our favour. Unfortunately, we never quite look beyond to those consequences after the action.

Confed999

Thank you, a thousand times thank you, for all you had to see and do.

Ray

Colonel,

Possibly we too would have solved the Indo Pak problem long back. Why it was not done was economically we were not strong then and the US backed Pakistan, which was a part of the CENTO and SEATO. The western nations also forced India to stop the war within three weeks since Pakistan's economy could sustain a war for that period alone. It happened in 1965 and it happened in 1971.

We were also getting economic aid from the US.

The RAND analysis on Indo Pak geo poltical and strategic scenario is interesting on this subject as also the period Pakistan can sustain a war.

Notwithstanding the strong US backing of Pakistan India under Mrs Indira Gandhi, liberated East Pakistan which became Bangladesh in 1971, in spite of the 7th Fleet steaming up the Bay of Bengal under the orders of Nixon. Therefore, it is not that we cannot take things to its logical conclusion.

India would not be be in the interet of India to march onto Islamabad as suggested by you. Pakistan is not economically viable. India has enough woes and there would be chaos if India had to also look after the poor multitudes after marching on to Islamabad. We have our hands full already. A strong and stable Pakistan is India's best bet. A hungry stomach is a devil's workshop (forgive me for this tweaked metaphor).

At present, the nuclear threat is alive, During the Kargil War Pakistan used the nuke blackmail. I reckon the geo political situation has changed and so the US told Pakistan to back off and that it would be sorted out if they used the nuke. It is this political irresponsibility of the Pakistani leadership that put it during that time in the international doghouse and for the first time the Western countries supported India against Pakistan. This was also the turning point of the warming of Indo US relationship also.

In so far as Iraq is concerned, the US should have first taken on the Taliban and brought stability there and then taken on Iraq. Now it has bitten more than what it can chew. It is similar to the German's violating the Principles of War - Selection and Maintenence of Aim wherein the German veeered off to Kiev when the original intention was to march onto Moscow in WW II leading to their retreat thereafter having become a spent force by the time they reached Moscow.

You are entitled to your views and none can grudge that. However, Saddam did not have WMD nor was he connected with the Taliban. In fact the Los Angeles Times survey shows Iraq as the third most democratic state amongst the Moslem nations. Saudi Arabia the 18th. This I learnt from the Late Edition show compered by Wolf Blitzer yesterday on the CNN. The same show also showed a discussion of three former National Security advisors - Henry Kissinger, Sandy Berger and one Lt Gen whose name I forget on Iraq. 600 US soldiers I beleive have been killed, but then that is a small number actually.

Ray

Originally posted by Ray
War maybe a dirty game, but decency cannot be lost sight of. One can be a self styled 'warrior' for his cause, even if it is dubious, but not a savage!

***********************************

Colonel,

War or no war, I was horrfied to see the Iraqis drag the charred dead body of the US security contractor and then a young boy smashing the body with a slipper in the similar fashion as what they did to the statue of Saddam brought down. That to me is savage behaviour.