thank you wailer ... EDIT TO REMOVE INSULT.
what an ignorant postulation. let's examine it. you object to any adjustment of our foreign policy to mitigate aspects of our international behavior within the middle east which fundamentalist moslems identify as the reasons to commit acts of aggression against our interests. you don't even examine whether such modification could be accomplished without jeopardizing our foreign policy objectives. an example is the withdrawal of our military from saudi soil, which was identified as one of the fundamentalists' bases against us. in fact, that has been accomplished, altho at the insistance of the house of saud rather than by our own state department. so, even if a reasoned and acceptable adjustment could be taken you would object. hopefully you now see why "idiocy" came to mind while reading your statement, wailer.
let's continue to look at your supposition. nothing other than military action to eliminate the terrorists' abilities to attack us is the methodology you would have us follow. not a very well deveoped strategy to be certain. now, to implement your strategy, you have to know the identity and constant location of every terrorist on the planet. only then will you be in a position take a military action against them ... this assumes their locations are those which will allow such military engagement (unless you decide to go israeli and take out civilian targets with impunity at the same time).
do you have any idea of the magnitude of the intel and military organizations needed to conduct the war on terror in the manner you have prescribed?
if it is possible, you should re-think your concept, because you have obviously missed the fact that you have chosen ... like many of our chickenhawk "leaders" ... to wage war against an ideology. try to imagine, if you can, how difficult it is, realistically, to ramp up for a war against ideas and beliefs. only those with an IQ less than triple digits would willingly subscribe to such a cause. yes, that speaks volumes against the intellect of the American public because our nation has willingly been led into war against fear. it happened before during the mccarthy era, but people were apparently much smarter then because it did not take nearly as much time or with as much cost of lives and treasure to figure out that misdirection when compared to the dicknbush war against fear.

__________________
“Mayor Palin fails to have a firm grasp of something very simple: the truth.”

[Frontiersman editorial, 2/7/97]

The people didn't recognize a worthy cause from fear mongering. They voted Bush in again. Bush could come out and declare he took the nation to war with lies and distortions and people would still back him. Does the fault ly with the people who supported Bush again or are they just ignorant victims of propaganda, like the servicemen in the military who hear the propaganda all the time?
But what will it take before the majority of America wakes up and realizes they were wrong. Wrong in their efforts to destabilize, and assassinate and oust elected officials abroad. Wrong in their support for CIA killing squads and government hired mercenaries. Wrong in their support for US led and US sponsored terrorism. Wrong in their support for illegal invasions and wars. It has to start with individuals whether that individual is a politician, a civilian or a soldier.
But the government will sometimes counter that (ie: The Draft). Or they can cleverly cook up some new inventive ways of propaganda or fear mongering, although the old standbys work just as well.

__________________
America's Enemies Are Not Mine

All wars represent a failure of diplomacy

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” - Stephen Roberts.

Who said them isn't important. It's a test to see if one recognizes propaganda. Nice strawman though.
Why not anyone in the world. Free speech isn't reserved for US citizens only.
We were talking about everyone's right to free speech.
My statement is not inaccurate because it was directed at all people. If a soldier has to serve their country no matter what because of an oath I can still claim that he was brainwashed by propaganda to join the military in the first place.
Yes they are deserters but I would still call them heroes for being able to use their own minds and knowing the difference between right and wrong.
How so? You made a comment about anyone children believing that they could get their way. You made no comment as to who you were making that assertion about and since you quoted me I suspected you were talking about me.
I said most Americans in my statement and you took that to mean I was talking only about soldiers? I think it is you bringing up the strawman.
No, but you can personally feel anyway about him what you want. If he decided not to follow orders to torture prisoners in Abu Graib you can either agree with him or not. He may have broken the rules that were ordered to him but judge him with your own conscious and not the government's.
It's an analogy that everyone is afraid to answer because it correlates to exactly what I said.
But if the war took a turn where the orders to kill children came about do you personally feel a soldier should stop following orders.

__________________
America's Enemies Are Not Mine

All wars represent a failure of diplomacy

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” - Stephen Roberts.

Huh!?!?


The invasion was carried out with no mandate from the UNSC.

It was illegal

Resolutions concerning the Iraq invasion of Kuwait in 1991 are irrelevant

What part of that don't you understand?

__________________
Have you ever stood toe to toe with someone that was intent on kicking your arse? C-D-P

No - no problem at all. Article 39 of the UN Charter:
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

The US and it's allies sought a resolution to enforce Resolution 1441 - they did not receive it. They then acted illegally without UN sanction.

The Security Council did not sanction the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

__________________
Have you ever stood toe to toe with someone that was intent on kicking your arse? C-D-P

I can sort of see this one from both sides.

On the one hand, it doesn't make much sense to criticize the military in general, 'cause most of them are less responsible for their actions than we are, in a real sense. They're the enforcement arm of the policies determined by the politicians that we all vote for (or at least tolerate). We get them into whatever mess they're in, and they pay the price for our mistakes, so picking on them just seems mean, too.

On the other hand, to what extent does a soldier following orders endorse a disastrous policy? They're willing to put their life on the line to protect America, and logically, that should include refusing to follow an order to, say, torture someone. Will they be in deep poop? Probably. But they didn't sign up to be soldiers in order to not be in deep poop, did they?

I think that, as a culture, we do over-glorify the military. You'll see it in all the summer blockbusters and all the prime-time TV shows -- the military is there to save you, the military is the only way you can be saved, the military is unstoppable and virtuous, etc. Gets a little crazy sometimes.

And we glamorize war. And conflict. And competition. And ruthless aggression.

Are we a warrior culture? I don't know, honestly. Looking at the average American on the street, I'm thinking, not so much. Do we have warrior ideals? Well, we seem to have been given a thorough education in warrior ideals, at least ... but are they sticking? Where's the code of honor? Where's the martial artistic tradition? Where's the philosophical training that's supposed to go into making a warrior? These things seem absent -- even actively disdained by American culture. You can't have a code of honor and be ruthlessly out to win at all cost at the same time, y'know?

As to individual soldiers ... well, I just don't see much merit in picking on them. They suffer through a war as much as anybody, and more than most, and it's not like it's their fault they've been given a certain set of orders in the first place. That would be our fault.

But they shouldn't be deified, either. There are a lot of Americans who make just as big a sacrifice as any soldier ever has, and for just as noble a set of ideals. Being a soldier is most certainly not the only way to take a beating, or sacrifice your life, for your country.

Article I of the U.S. CoC (Code of Conduct)

Article I ~

I am an American, fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.

Of course with recruiters all over the nation hitting the well higher than normal quotas and re-enlistments at all time highs, that should tell you how the nation feels about the war, without regard to radical leftist propaganda to the contrary...

Its almost comical how you folks whitewash the whole oil for food conflict of interest.The UN is to determine the threats in countries where they are hip deep in scandal? When they are dealing directly with the leader of the country? lol.

UN sanctions the 'occupation' tho,go figure.

__________________

Moreover we as a sovereign nation require no approval from any entity to act in our own best interests. The UNSC does not guide or mandate our actions and we are accountable to no international ruling body.

__________________