Saddam Hussein Hanged

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

That's like saying most of the garbage men do their job because they want the environment to be tidy and not because they are paid to do it.

---

Yes, exactly, that was my point. Military service is a profession like any other in the US, is it not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gannex

studiose, I think you're misunderstanding the word "volunteeer". It doesn't mean unpaid, it means that you chose to do the job, rather than being forced to do it. So the US forces are composed of people who are BOTH professional AND volunteer.

I just want to put in a word for the US military, since they have been discussed here in derogatory terms, which pains me, to be honest. Over the years, I have worked with hundreds of US military aviators, both grizzled old-timers who spent years in the skies over Vietnam, and starry-eyed midshipmen at the US Naval Academy, keen, naive, idealistic kids. Almost to a man, these have been outstanding individuals, the kind of people you would be proud to have as a brother-in-law or as godparent to your children. Some of these men that I knew have died in service of their country, and I can tell you that none of them risked their lives for anything other than the highest motives. You could fairly argue that they have at times been misguided and badly led, but those I worked with were never evil, vengeful or hate-filled, and I think that fair-minded people should remember that, when discussing the sometimes terrible consequences of US military interventions. No one regrets those terrible consequences, when they happen, more than the US service personnel on the ground.

---

The US soldier is NOT the thug that some of you would portray him as. Nor is the airman or sailor serving the US military. He/she sign up for reasons that are more motivated by love of country than for the pay. The pay is not horrible, but it isn't great either. It is a job that is seen as rewarding in that the soldier feels he is trying to serve his nation and democratic principles at all times. Whether you agree with the US foreign policy is immaterial, I can tell you that 99% of those who serve in the US service believe that in the end, they are on the side of right, and if they didn't, there would be mass dessertions or people avoiding following orders such as what happened in the last stages in Vietnam. The soldiers are held to a standard of conduct, and when they violate it, they are punished for it. They are held to a standard that Saddam would never respect, and most of you are willing to ignore to serve your arguments, rather than the truth.

No, disagree with the war in Iraq all you like, but please, spare me the rhetoric about how bad the Americans are......

Last time I looked, they are often the first ones ready to spend a lot of money such as the US Navy sending a carrier group out of its way in Indonesia to assist in aid following the tsunami. The Americans always try to do the right thing, even if it is arguable that it may not be. I don't trust too many nations with that privledge....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

The US soldier is NOT the thug that some of you would portray him as. Nor is the airman or sailor serving the US military. He/she sign up for reasons that are more motivated by love of country than for the pay. The pay is not horrible, but it isn't great either. It is a job that is seen as rewarding in that the soldier feels he is trying to serve his nation and democratic principles at all times. Whether you agree with the US foreign policy is immaterial, I can tell you that 99% of those who serve in the US service believe that in the end, they are on the side of right, and if they didn't, there would be mass dessertions or people avoiding following orders such as what happened in the last stages in Vietnam. The soldiers are held to a standard of conduct, and when they violate it, they are punished for it. They are held to a standard that Saddam would never respect, and most of you are willing to ignore to serve your arguments, rather than the truth.

No, disagree with the war in Iraq all you like, but please, spare me the rhetoric about how bad the Americans are......

Last time I looked, they are often the first ones ready to spend a lot of money such as the US Navy sending a carrier group out of its way in Indonesia to assist in aid following the tsunami. The Americans always try to do the right thing, even if it is arguable that it may not be. I don't trust too many nations with that privledge....

---

Mark, no offence, but you're beginning to sound like an old record, fighting against wind-mills that exist only in your head. :\

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by studiose

I don't know enough about this to pass judgement, but I understand that the American forces in Iraq have developed a reputation for erring on the side of brutality, which is hardly helpful under the circs.

---

I know. Of course there are some bad apples, and the Iraqi conflict has placed stresses on the men and women that you and I can hardly conceive of. Some have broken under the pressure. With hundreds of thousands of troops out there, there are going to be some awful incidents. But on the streets of New York, there are awful incidents. No one concludes from those, that New Yorkers generally are brutal thugs. Nor should they conclude that, in my opinion, about American troops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by studiose

On the whole, however - yes, I also believe that the US army is a noble organization comprised of fine people.

---

Thank you. They are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Bush was given bad advice in your eyes, fine, but lets not change the reality that Saddam did everything he could to jerk the UN around. .

---

I never disagreed to that :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

As for the 53 for me, 90 against me crack, I would rather be standing with most of the 53 on a moral ground. While Canada was part of the 90 "against", at least Canada has a cordial relationship with the US and also is dedicated to democratic principles. I am not sure about all of the 90 being so dedicated to human rights..

---

We all know that after 911 it was closer to 140 for and 3 against. Too late now, but what went wrong?
What a waste of moral ground :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Eki, yes, it is my contention that most of your biases are based on the fact that Finland has never been overseas fighting for anything. That is fine, Finland has that luxury. Finland is also 5.5 million people so a form of universal service is a necessity. That said, unless Putin loses his mind, Finland has as much chance as being threatened in a direct attack as Canada does, that is to say, NOT at all.

---

And who is threatening the US? Canada, Mexico or maybe Cuba? Not even the Germans and the Japanese couldn't reach the mainland US and they were closer than the Middle East. Now you probably mention the 9/11 attacks, but that was one lucky shot that can more effectively be avoided with better airport security and international police co-operation than with military invasions to countries half way across the globe. And the motive for the 9/11 attacks were mainly the US troops in the Middle East and their unconditional support to Israel. Some adjustment in the US foreign policy to a more moderate direction could help much more than any military operation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

That's like saying most of the garbage men do their job because they want the environment to be tidy and not because they are paid to do it.

---

No, It is a job to take out the trash, and thank god someone does it. That said, you don't join the Army just for a job. Some do, but rarely do they stay past one term. How about all those who are in the reserves/national guard who are serving? They do it willingly while holding down a job. It often hurts their civilian career.

See, when you don't have a voluntary service Eki, you have people there against their will. Finland forces everyone to serve, the US doesn't. I could use the argument you have LESS rights than Americans because of it. I wouldn't because unlike you, simplistic arguments hold no water with me. I know that every nation has its own reasons and values to enforce and defend, and when they don't grossly violate human rights, I can understand them. In Iraq, there was no nice gentle princple of defense being a reason. Saddam and his henchmen were all about control of their nation, oppression and in the end, if left unchecked conquest of his neighbours. I am not making it up, the proof is in the history of the area in the last 27 years....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gannex

But on the streets of New York, there are awful incidents. No one concludes from those, that New Yorkers generally are brutal thugs.

---

Really? I thought most people did. :p :

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donKey jote

I never disagreed to that :)


We all know that after 911 it was closer to 140 for and 3 against. Too late now, but what went wrong?
What a waste of moral ground :(

---

I agree, a lot of nations forgot what they were in support of. That said, I undestand the waste of moral ground....Bush didn't handle himself well,but that doesn't necessarily mean his motives were wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

That's like saying most of the garbage men do their job because they want the environment to be tidy and not because they are paid to do it.

---

I'm not saying, Eki, that people who enlist in the US armed forces do so simply because they want to make the world a better place. Of course not. Each person enlists for his or her own reasons. All I am saying is, first, that they are paid, second, that they are volunteers in that they choose to take the job, and third, that they are not, except for a very few unusual cases, motivated by evil, hatred and a thirst for violence.