Bruce, I like that, but you know what I've found even if you do mind it doesn't matter.......... That's what so great about life you can choose your fights...........or not!!!!!!!!! :)

First of all...
BZT, wrong, try again :female:

Flattery will get you nowhere ;)
In a way, this is true. , but it also means that you're joining and training with a force whose purpose is to kill other people, whether you're out in the field shooting them, shooting a missle from a plane, monitoring intel to point out where the opposition is or making sure the ones who ARE out there killing in the field are fed, watered, clothed and armed and can continue to go out and kill some more. Drafting is a bit different, as it's not your choice, but not by much. In the end, you're still expected and required to pull the trigger.

I wouldn't want that decision either.

I was under the assumption you were talking about during wartime, so I mean any unborn during the time of war, whatever stage it might be in. Though I don't quite get what you mean....a child still in its mother wouldn't actually experience much of the horror of war unless the mother was somehow injured or killed.

You're not alone. There's a few billion of us in the same boat. 'S a pretty big boat.

I have to say that when it came to Vietnam, one could make a case that many of our war dead WERE innocents because they were drafted against their will. Even today, I feel that many of our young enlisted men are innocent. They don't read a bunch of scholarly magazine articles or engage in deep intellectual debates. They believe the lies that our government tells them -thus does the government make a mockery of a soldier's integrity. :mad:

To the Marines of Fallujah:

Kick ass and come home.

We wont allow the same treatment of US mil personel as from the Vietnam era. Iraq is not Vietnam no matter how hard some try to make it the same.

We're proud of you. Do the doin' and come home.

Touche :beer:

I apologize for the gender discrepency..and I disagree flattery has gotten me somewhere. I'm not sure where. However, thats another one of those grey areas. When a soilder is drafted or volunteers. He swears to do whatever to protect the interest of the U.S...... So if one volunteers; lets say for the sake of argument and there is no war going on at that time, if a war begins and he follows orders just as a person drafted is he less innocent than the draftee?

(I don't know how this discussion got going in the "image of the day" thread, but...). Look, BT, ever sit down and talk honestly with a young soldier? I mean without bringing in a lot of pre-concieved notions or judgementalism to the discussion.They feel they are doing the right thing - protecting their country and their people. They BELIEVE this with all their hearts. They did not sign up for our military because they are sociopaths who want an acceptable avenue to go out and be allowed to kill people. You or I may think they are mistaken in what they are doing. We may be right or we may be wrong. Ultimately, only time and history will reveal the truth, and that truth will only be what it is percieved to be by people who have their own blinders on and are limited in their understanding by the society and the age they live in. Most of our active duty military believe they are doing what is right and honorable, and it takes considerable courage to go out and face down an enemy army. I feel that the current war in Iraq is very wrong. I do not fault the soldier who fights for his country, however. I fault the politician who tells us lies and uses brave men as cannon fodder for some personal political agenda of his own.

Put like that, I'd say so. Like I said before, the job of a country's military is basically to kill other people in the name of that country's defense or offense. If you volunteer for that job, you volunteer to take on that responsibility. You're telling them "Yes, I will shoot that other man dead if you tell me I have to." So even without having picked up a gun, you've lost a little something there.

Side note, Don't mistake what I consider a loss of innocence as a measure of how good or how bad a person is. That's a whole other can o' beans.

I think you're all making a major mistake in paradigm here. You're laboring under the assumption that any war, ever, has had an absolute good side and an absolute evil side. There are no angels in war, ever. Our forces are not absolutely good, because we do, indeed, kill people who are not fighting against us, whether it is intentional, accidental due to poor planning, or simply an inevitable part of war. Nor is the other side absolutely evil: most ground terrorists are driven either by vengeance for a lost loved one, or they want the right to truly self-govern (to be allowed to choose, not simply choose from a list of "approved" candidates). The idea that there is an absolute good side and an absolute evil side to a war (and the inevitbale follow-up, that we're on the good side) is simply a psychological defense mechanism put into place by the people at home to justify the money and lives pissed away in the war effort. An unfortunate side-effect of this mental construct is that it blinds us to the fact that the only people who truly benefit from war, or at least the people who inevitably benefit most, are the priests and traders. One satisfies his ego (I will use the male pronoun because, lets face it guys, men are behind this shit a high enough percentage of the time to justify rounding up) and spreads the "message of God" to the heretics/infidels/pagans and increasing his own power, wealth and status of the world, and the other simply sells supplies to at least one side (sometimes both) to increase their power, wealth and status. As far as the ground soldiers go, know that most of them did not join the military because they wanted to; usually they join because of a financial need (people who don't *need* to join the military, but do anyway, rarely serve as the grunts). For the most part, these people are not fighting for grand ideals or to save the world. They're fighting because if they don't kill the funny-looking guy with the gun, he's going to kill them or their good friends. This was a mistake the peace movement made in 'Nam: we failed to recognize that the low-ranking soldier is an honorable man doing what he must during extreme times. Even those who committed atrocities in Vietnam and/or Iraq (though somehow I doubt anyone managed to commit atrocities in both wars. If one does exist, I applaud his persistence.) were simply responding to the horrific pressures placed upon them by these times. The peace movement's problem lies not with the common soldier, but with the massive systemic failures that forced the soldiers into combat.

As for the soldiers' protest, I agree with it wholeheartedly. I've agreed with it since we first went to Afghanistan.

Innocent my fuckin ass. Wake up and smell the coffee! There are no innocents. We are all guilty of standing up and fighting for what we believe in. If you are not guilty, then you are a pushover "pussy". How bout them apples?
Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out!!!!!!!
capnhowdy,USMC :mad2:

You're joking right? Your profile says you're a freelance artist, either you're joking or you need to update it.

Not joking, jag.......... There is no such thing as an "ex" marine. Have a good day! :)

Enough about innocense. However. I do pray we keep a military no matter how guilty some consider them to be............. I'm afraid if we don't; we may not have enough cans to put those beans in!!!

We'll always have a military. By hook or crook, subjugation or legislation, our gov't will keep one intact somehow. No worries about that.