Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone

[queequeger]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Then again, you're not putting your life on the line. An air conditioned office in Georgia is a far cry from a combat zone.

So my word doesn't matter because I didn't draw the bad lottery ticket? It wasn't my choice to be here anymore than others IN country choose to be there. In fact the military has a funny way of doing the exact OPPOSITE of what you ask from it. Ask any other members past or present

Meanwhile in most of the real world it's the Serengeti Plain, eat or be eaten. The disorder is all around you. And in certain places, it's nuclear. You don't like the current conflict... because you don't like its politics. Yeah well I didn't vote for the guy either but this was one way to go about cleaning up the middle east and Bill Clinton might well have taken the same approach, although he would have made sure France was paid off properly before going to the UN.

So... what does the local carjacking have with the military? And what armed conflict are we involved in with Syria or ROK? And it should be pointed out that this was NOT a way to clean up the middle east, it might have been if it were done properly, but all its done is messed things up WAY worse.

I can't wait for a D to be President so people like you (omg that's a terrible phrase to use) will sober up and recognize that. (what a terrible thing to say)

You said it yourself, Bill Clinton might have done the same thing. I have no doubt that any Democratic president elected will still use force. And I love how everyone says that democrats are 'anti-military,' but guess what? Over the past 20 or so years, the highest increase in pay per soldier was under a democratic president. He did a much better job with the military than the president before him, or the president after him. Also, if you remember, the guy that was president during WWII... democrat.

My point was that I'm not SURE about the usefulness of the military. Mostly because I'm what you call a global thinker. In the end, what's best for the entirety of humanity is far more important than what's best for the US... this is because I'm not arrogant or prickish enough to think that those things are one in the same. There are a LOT more people on the planet than are in the US. And in my opinion, what we are doing is NOT in the global interest, it was done ONLY with personal interest. And THAT is something that most democratic presidents wouldn't have done.

P.S. Don't assume that I'm a democrat or that I agree with them all. I'm a liberal for sure, but I'm not part of some amorphous lump of 'those kind of people' anymore than you are. In fact, I'm NOT in favor of a withdrawal from Iraq. I just don't want to be directly involved in the killing anymore.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by queequeger

So my word doesn't matter because I didn't draw the bad lottery ticket? It wasn't my choice to be here anymore than others IN country choose to be there. In fact the military has a funny way of doing the exact OPPOSITE of what you ask from it. Ask any other members past or present

No no, not at all, but birds of a feather. My point is, being stateside in the Air Force, is different from the Marines or Army in Iraq, is different from the National Guard, or Navy, in either place.

The people that sign up for the Marines or Army, knowing they are going to be grunts, especially during a war, are probably not motivated by the tuition money as much as the people that join the Air force or Navy with a needed skill. The grunts are taking a bigger risk, putting more on the line, also.
Scoffing at their sacrifice doesn't diminish it.

The Guards that signed up in peace time, one weekend a month, two weeks in the summer, for extra income and the benefits, took a crap shoot and lost. Because they knew the risk, doesn't diminish the sacrifices they are making over there. The fact they shouldn't be there in the first place, doesn't either.

[richlevy]

I agree with Q (how's that for a tag) that mixing up carjacking and military is a bad, bad idea.

The reason that the Posse Comitatus Act was passed was that our country's two experiences with military peacekeeping, the pre- and post- Revolutionary War period and the Reconstruction following the Civil War, were so significant that it was felt that a law had to be passed to further define limits implied in the Constitution.

The military are not 'cops with different color uniforms'. Their rules of engagement are significantly different from those of police. A cop who shoots an unarmed 12-year-old in broad daylight, for example, is in more trouble than a soldier who does the same in a war zone. This isn't to say that similar situations don't occur. The police in London responsible for the Stockwell shooting will not individually face charge for effectively shooting the wrong guy because he was wearing a bulky coat, wasn't white, and lived near suspected terrorists.

One of the most effective tool terrorists have is getting cops and soldiers to start killing civilians. It's even more effective when they are perceived as getting away with it.

No police officers will face criminal charges over the death of Jean Charles de Menezes, the Crown Prosecution Service said yesterday.
He was shot dead at Stockwell Underground station, south London, last July by anti-terrorist officers who mistakenly feared that he was a suicide bomber.
The Metropolitan Police will be prosecuted under health and safety law over "operational errors" in planning and communication which fell short of criminal offences.

"In order to prosecute those officers, we would have to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that they did not honestly and genuinely hold those beliefs. In fact, the evidence supports their claim that they genuinely believed that Mr de Menezes was a suicide bomber and therefore, as we cannot disprove that claim, we cannot prosecute them for murder or any other related offence."
He added: "I considered the actions of all those involved in the operation to see how it was that an innocent man came to be mistaken for a suicide bomber.
"I concluded that while a number of individuals had made errors in planning and communication, and the cumulative result was the tragic death of Mr de Menezes, no individual had been culpable to the degree necessary for a criminal offence."

In effect, if enough people are responsible for the death of a civilian, than none of them are guilty.