I read your post and so far you have accused me of being mentally challenged, functionally illiterate, a murder and not really being a Soldier oh almost forgot needing mental help.
Yeah, diagnosing social or other "personality" disorders is not my strength, and, after reviewing your posts from the beginning it is clear you have been trying to taint the argument against those who have made our flawed policy as an assault against those in the military asked to implement that same flawed policy. I have been careful to distinguish the two roles, and you are hell bent on trying to make them indistinguishable. I may have missed the mark when I was suggesting what your condition might be - it seems just hankering for a confrontation seems to be all that is ailing you.
On the first count I'm sure you said we were murdering women and childern. and I quote..Ahhh, so in your own words, if you perceive "what needs to be done" is murdering women and children in Iraq (seems we have already done this, and are directly responsible for setting the conditions for insurgents to continue that practice at a much accelerated rate), or beheading, or whatever, so be it.
excuse me for reading your statement or did you mean something else with this? If this isn't what you meant then please clarify for my mentally challenged ass. This also runs right along with calling me a murder.
First, the response you have quoted was written in response to a specific suggestion by someone else that, when deciding whether or not a policy of torture or barbarism was suitable for America, the only criteria to be considered was "what needs to be done." This was not your post, and my response was not directed to you, and, taken in context of the entire discussion it was clearly not accusing soldiers of murdering women and children, although innocent women and children have been killed by our military in pursuit of those flawed policies. I specifically did not lay the responsibility at the feet of the soldiers ordered to carry out the "mission" and anyone who reads my posts knows if that was my intention it would have been stated clearly. I used the word "We" to put the responsibility on Americans as a whole and it is up to us to influence our elected representatives to change the policy if we object to it. I also separated the "or beheading, or whatever" from the statement of fact concerning the deaths of innocents as a consequence of our policy, by the punctuation I used. That was meant to separate the latter from things we have done, and leave the latter to be the items a policy of pursuing only "what needs to done" without any moderation by the American conscience might add.
It was never stated that soldiers are purposely increasing civilian losses, merely that significant civilian Iraqi losses have been incurred carrying out the US national policy issued from the White House. All to make the point that regardless of the intent of the policy makers, the sons, daughters, wives and husbands, or brothers or sisters of the "accidentally killed" Iraqis are suffering the same loss as relatives of 9-11 victims in the USA. Yet there is no recognition of this horror we have inflicted on the Iraqi people - even a suggestion that it is on par with the 9-11 event we experienced. In fact, it has lasted nearly 5 years and purposefully or not, our policy is ruining Iraq, while 9-11 was a one day event that pales by comparison. Unless you value human life differently depending on the nationality of the humans and all these unintended consequences just roll off your back because it is along the way to getting done "what needs to be done." I did not suggest this was your perspective either, as this discussion was not in response to your post.
So without reading into my comments something to scratch that itch you have to make criticism of the policy an assault on the troops, my only intent to piss you off was when I suggested you can't read, or had some ulterior motive for taking things I wrote out of context. Seems you can read but are suffering from some chip on your shoulder. Understand, even guys like me are grateful for your service - I just wish we weren't consuming your energy, ability and dedication on such a poorly conceived policy.
I will add at this point I am a Soldier I have done my duty, I'm still doing my duty and will continue to do so.
As for repeating a 60's mantra I apologize I wasn't alive in the 60's I didn't come on the scene till the second half of the 70's so I missed that one. My apologies for lumping you together with the tree hugging hippies of the 60's.
As for have I murdered anyone no I haven't have I killed insurgents in combat yes does it keep me up some nights? Yes I wouldn't be human if it doesn't.
So while you play keyboard quarter back some of us are out there making the decisions and completing the mission.
Oh and remember I can say anything I like to you it's covered by the first amendment.
Glad to hear you don't enjoy killing other humans. Makes you human too. There was some doubt for a while.
I read your post though and it's my uneducated opinion that you called the US Military murders so tell that to any Soldier Sailor Marine or Airmen to their face and see the response you get see if it's different then mine.
I think I clarified that if I intended to say I thought any soldier, sailor, marine or airman was a murderer, I would have used way fewer words as that is a much simpler point to try to make than the one I tried to make. I suggest you coat that sensitive spot with this stuff I use on my feet after a few days in my ski boots at the beginning of the season. I think it goes by the trade name "Tough Skin" and it should make the criticism of our national policy easier to keep distinguished from attacks on soldiers for carrying out that policy. Or not. You can continue to enjoy what you do. It is your right as an American. Jim