Fidel Posted March 22, 2008 Report Share Posted March 22, 2008 Hi Steve, I have to admit that often, when I'm reading the board, I've had a few drinks.. without paragraph breaks, I find it difficult to read!!!! I'm more of a scanner when it comes to reading posts here.... and my laziness sometimes gets in the way of me reading your posts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian2 Posted March 23, 2008 Report Share Posted March 23, 2008 When a war is unpopular, only the negative acts by and large of the military is focused on, the opposite in popular wars. Allied in ww2 atrocities are pretty much swept under the rug because they were the good guys. The enemy of such a side get favorable treatment even if they conduct themselves against all rules of fairness in the war because their 'cause' is determined just, so they get a pass. At the risk of being labeled bias, the U.S. military conduct themselves pretty well by just about any standard. Yes, there are those that abuse things and bring disgrace to the uniform but its the exception rather the rule. The same can be said of just about all the western nations. The soldiers are humane given the conditions they find themselves in. I want our troops out of Iraq. I like Ron Paul's position of just ending a bad war and nipping it in the bud and pack up and leave. Not a popular stance in some circles but for me since the reasons we went in were proved false, we shouldn't stay for other reasons (bringing democracy to Iraq, etc.). Anyway, that said, I am proud of the overall conduct of the soldiers we have there. Facing an enemy and insurgents who will stoop to sending suicide bombers who are women or mentally infirmed has to be extremely hard. This is the same military that was in Bosnia and not much of a peep about any bad conduct there. As well as the first gulf war. Why? Perhaps because it was a popular war over there. I can't see how our conduct was seen as very good in those and the same military, sometimes some of the same troops from those prior conflicts, are used and they are now seen as blood hungry soldiers bent on killing innocents at every turn. Doesn't make sense to me. There you go Steve, no charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted March 23, 2008 Report Share Posted March 23, 2008 The war on terror is going to last longer then WWII did. Hard to believe that Ben Laden still survives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted March 23, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2008 Especially since he has reportedly kidney problems and requires periodic dialysis, which if true means he just about has to be near a hospital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian2 Posted March 24, 2008 Report Share Posted March 24, 2008 The Pakis have to be sheltering him. The ones in the North are real fighters and would be the backbone of the Pakistani Army. They would not have liked the Government caving in to Uncle Sam with the threat to bomb them back into the stone age unless they joined the War on Terror. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted March 24, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2008 That's what I've always believed. Certainly the most likely scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.