3 ms·

I think that means you're not supposed to go walk up to them an shoot them while they're wounded. But, how do you aim a 30MM cannon from a moving platform to t

by clammer 17y ago

I think that means you're not supposed to go walk up to them an shoot them while they're wounded. But, how do you aim a 30MM cannon from a moving platform to target only unwounded combatants? And in Iraq what is the difference between a civilian and a combatant as far a dress goes? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying if both of us had to go to Iraq, I'd probably come home alive (having killed a lot of people, probably some innocent people in the confusion) and you'd come home in a box because you assumed everyone was nice and wanted to buy you a beer...until they shot you. In other words, in a war, my life means more to me than a civilian's who has a 50/50 chance of being a combatant. Again, this is why we shouldn't be there.

CWuestefeld 17y ago
I debated voting this down, but since it was already at -2 I didn't. And only the last sentence saved it. It seems that you're entirely too willing to throw out morals for expediency. If you really believed that the killing is bad, you ought to not enlist, or if you're conscripted, get conscientious objector status to avoid being in a place where you'd need to kill. And the same goes for anyone else who has moral qualms about what's going on there. If you go there willingly, knowing what's going on, you can't use the exigencies of the situation as an excuse, as they're perfectly foreseeable.
- clammer 17y ago
  That's fair. >If you really believed that the killing is bad, you ought to not enlist I really do believe that. I even donated thousands of dollars to a POTUS candidate that would have gotten us out of Iraq as soon as he took office. Sadly, 98.5% of Americans still wanted this war, since they voted for Obama or McCain. >It seems that you're entirely too willing to throw out morals for expediency If the expediency should mean the difference between my life or death, than yes. I'm just being honest here. In war, I'd kill anyone who I thought was a danger to me, but then I wouldn't go to war unless it was for self defense. >If you go there willingly, knowing what's going on, you can't use the exigencies of the situation as an excuse, as they're perfectly foreseeable. That's a good point, but why apply it to just the soldier, why not our Presidents? Wasn't it entirely foreseeable that innocent people would die by going into or staying in Iraq. Isn't it entirely foreseeable that the money we send the government is going to pay for all this to happen? The reason I defend these heli pilots is 1) because the situation they were in was far more complicated than most people here will admit, 2) they probably didn't sign up to kill innocent people, just like I didn't pay my taxes to pay for the bullets.
  - rbranson 17y ago
    > Sadly, 98.5% of Americans still wanted this war, since they voted for Obama or McCain. Blatantly wrong. You are throwing away the rest of your point with this garbage.
    - clammer 17y ago
      No, I looked it up...98.5% of people voted for McCain or Obama. You must think I'm wrong in some other way...please explain. Getting out of Iraq wasn't part of either candidate's platform. So, how was I blatantly wrong?
      - rbranson 17y ago
        You are drawing a false conclusion. Even if 98.5% voted for McCain or Obama, this does not mean 98.5% support the war. It just means that 98.5% voted for a candidate that supports the war. I do not support the war, yet I voted for Obama. That fact alone spoils your conclusion.
anigbrowl 17y ago
In other words, in a war, my life means more to me than a civilian's who has a 50/50 chance of being a combatant. At the same time, your life in a gunship as the operator of a 30mm cannon is also rather more secure than that of of wounded individual reduced to crawling on the ground, or of unwounded people who choose to assist the wounded individual rather than first trying to secure the area (eg taking a shot at the helicopter). Of course it is difficult to weigh such subjective factors in an objectively dangerous situation but that is part of the training for a professional rather than conscripted military force, IMO. Did not vote on your comment - don't agree with your perspective but it seems like a sincere effort to further rather than stifle debate.

by clammer 17y ago

CWuestefeld 17y ago

I debated voting this down, but since it was already at -2 I didn't. And only the last sentence saved it. It seems that you're entirely too willing to throw out morals for expediency. If you really believed that the killing is bad, you ought to not enlist, or if you're conscripted, get conscientious objector status to avoid being in a place where you'd need to kill. And the same goes for anyone else who has moral qualms about what's going on there. If you go there willingly, knowing what's going on, you can't use the exigencies of the situation as an excuse, as they're perfectly foreseeable.

clammer 17y ago
That's fair. >If you really believed that the killing is bad, you ought to not enlist I really do believe that. I even donated thousands of dollars to a POTUS candidate that would have gotten us out of Iraq as soon as he took office. Sadly, 98.5% of Americans still wanted this war, since they voted for Obama or McCain. >It seems that you're entirely too willing to throw out morals for expediency If the expediency should mean the difference between my life or death, than yes. I'm just being honest here. In war, I'd kill anyone who I thought was a danger to me, but then I wouldn't go to war unless it was for self defense. >If you go there willingly, knowing what's going on, you can't use the exigencies of the situation as an excuse, as they're perfectly foreseeable. That's a good point, but why apply it to just the soldier, why not our Presidents? Wasn't it entirely foreseeable that innocent people would die by going into or staying in Iraq. Isn't it entirely foreseeable that the money we send the government is going to pay for all this to happen? The reason I defend these heli pilots is 1) because the situation they were in was far more complicated than most people here will admit, 2) they probably didn't sign up to kill innocent people, just like I didn't pay my taxes to pay for the bullets.
- rbranson 17y ago
  > Sadly, 98.5% of Americans still wanted this war, since they voted for Obama or McCain. Blatantly wrong. You are throwing away the rest of your point with this garbage.
  - clammer 17y ago
    No, I looked it up...98.5% of people voted for McCain or Obama. You must think I'm wrong in some other way...please explain. Getting out of Iraq wasn't part of either candidate's platform. So, how was I blatantly wrong?
    - rbranson 17y ago
      You are drawing a false conclusion. Even if 98.5% voted for McCain or Obama, this does not mean 98.5% support the war. It just means that 98.5% voted for a candidate that supports the war. I do not support the war, yet I voted for Obama. That fact alone spoils your conclusion.

anigbrowl 17y ago

In other words, in a war, my life means more to me than a civilian's who has a 50/50 chance of being a combatant. At the same time, your life in a gunship as the operator of a 30mm cannon is also rather more secure than that of of wounded individual reduced to crawling on the ground, or of unwounded people who choose to assist the wounded individual rather than first trying to secure the area (eg taking a shot at the helicopter). Of course it is difficult to weigh such subjective factors in an objectively dangerous situation but that is part of the training for a professional rather than conscripted military force, IMO. Did not vote on your comment - don't agree with your perspective but it seems like a sincere effort to further rather than stifle debate.