Originally Posted by QBNCGAR
....So, out of curiosity, let's say your company sends you on assignment to a major metropolitan area in the US that has a high crime rate. While there, you die - a victim of anonymous violent crime. Do you honestly believe the President, Vice-President, and other executives at your company are culpable for your death?
Remember, you accepted employment with them - you sought it actively, on a willing/professional/volunteer-for-pay basis. Also, realize that your company isn't in the business of killing/losing it's employees, because it's not profitable - death is to be avoided at all costs.
Your vehement anger and ire toward the President (et al) is based in a very murky set of ideals that conveniently dispose of facts and fair suppositions that cloud the perfect conspiracy you're trying to create. Namely, you think that the heightened death toll of American soldiers is one of their objectives - in fact, completely the opposite is true. If you were to consider your allegations from the perspective that our military is trying to minimize casualties rather than increase them, you may see how outrageous it is to call them murderers.
As such, if there was any validity to your message, it's been lost in the rhetorical insanity - to wit, you entitle this thread in such a way as to accuse three individuals of murder. Not accidental manslaughter, not negligent homicide - murder. You sir, are a very, very sick individual.
Fortunately, American soldiers have fought (and will continue to fight) for the rights of imbicillic ingrates such as yourself to freely say and do whatever you please.
Now, if you please, go get examined - fill your prescription and take it regularly.
Your analogy falls a little short - the company is in business for profit and the military is supposed to be in existence to protect America, its citizens and its interests. As such, the voluntary nature of the agreement between a company, which can be terminated at any point by the employee just by resigning, is not quite the same as the arrangement between soldiers and US Government. Those who would rather just come back cannot.
I think the part you intentionally miss in the accusation by FTL centers around the ill defined "mission" in Iraq. While it is true we are there and have screwed things up in a major way, and should be held responsible for the screwing up, and will look bad if we just admit it is so screwed up we can't fix it and leave, the "mission" is still very poorly defined, and is leading to more needless deaths on both sides while the slogan "victory in Iraq" is mulled over and a mission is identified.
We invaded Iraq under false pretenses. We will soon find out if it was a purposeful deception or whether it was just immensely poor judgement. But the rationale for invading, no matter what you would like to think, was to wrest WMD from Saddam's control and deny them to potential anti-American terrorists. That turned out to be smoke and mirrors BS, and when the smoke cleared and the mirrors were taken down, there were no WMD and we never actually debated what the next step should be. We were told deposing Saddam was good enough. In the USA that is not acceptable. Blame Bush and his pet Republican Party controlled Congress. And the gutless Democrats who went along for the ride without mounting any credible arguments to bring this whole Iraq invasion mission back to Congress for debate back in late 2003.
In the end, out of pure incompetence and arrogance, we endured 4 years of failed leadership by Bush in Iraq. The continued policy, without a clear definition that does not rely on slogans that convey no details, is equal to negligent homicide. By not demanding that Bush identify in clear and concise terms what the mission is, and how this mission will be carried out, we are all accomplices to this negligent homicide.
For those who find squeezing Mr. Bush for such details distasteful, and facing the criticism from inside America as well as from the rest of the world so disconcerting that the only reaction is to dismiss it or label it treasonous, ask yourself why? America is a great nation, but that greatness was not achieved by denying our mistakes. We have always confronted our actions and sorted out the good from the bad and tried to improve our performance. This means doing more of the good stuff and less of the bad stuff. If you can't see what is bad, acknowledge our failures and take appropriate actions, this process fails. When the process fails, America is harmed.
So, the accusation of murder is as a minimum, negligent homicide. Still a crime. I for one, have no idea what is meant by "victory in Iraq" for the US at this time. If I don't know what it means, I cannot justify American's being killed and killing others for that purpose. Do you know what Bush means with this slogan? If so, please enlighten us. Presuming you think you know what he means, how about telling us why you think he has it right this time as it sounds a lot like just more of what we were doing before, which didn't work at all.
I can tell you what I think needs to be done, and it is a binary decision making event. If we stay and try to fix what we broke, we need massive cooperation from the rest of the free world, and the neighboring Arab countries. If we cannot manage that task, garnering this support in terms of troop committments and funds, through diplomatic means (a skill set this administration is especially short on, possibly even barren) we should get the hell out tomorrow. This is a problem we made, but the solution is bigger than we can manage. We need help and we need it now, or we need to leave. 20,000 added troops is less than a 20% increase, if all 20,000 go to Iraq at the same time. If they are merely another 20,000 committed troops, that could mean a "boots on the ground" increase of less than 10,000. Which is less than 10% more. No case has been made that we were 10% short on troops. I think we are short by a factor of 5. This whole MBA driven military decision making is failing. Go look at what worked the last time we really did the job right. How many troops occupied West Germany in the immediate years following the end of WWII? What evidence do we have that we can do that job better using fewer soldiers in much more hostile, volatile and less well understood set of circumstances? Jim