English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

19 answers

It was a good enough excuse for the Nazis.

2006-12-11 14:44:11 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 6

In a way you really have to think about it..

I mean if a man purposely enlisted just to help George Bush kill then no it is not an acceptable excuse.

If the man enlisted to back up his comrades, serve his COUNTRY, and etc.. Then yes it's an acceptable excuse.

But the man in power has the gun, and you do what the guy with the gun say. In 2 years that man with the gun will go out.
Plus we never really know, maybe US Troops don't like the war but they like the look on Iraqi's kid when he plays with them, there are things there that the media is not showing us, and there are things there that the media shapes and molds it for us to hear. The government won't report happy news, horrible accidents, just casualties..

Why don't you go there and find out for yourself, no sarcasm, seriously. Take a look yourself so when you come back you can tell people of your experience and have reasonable backup to your opinions.

And who says we are destroying Iraq? We never saw anything there, that is unless you served. I personally am against the war, yet I support the troops out there enduring the sacrifice they are putting to defend America's interests in times of war and peace. I don't like the war because of it's cause, not because of the troops fighting it.

2006-12-11 14:58:37 · answer #2 · answered by Shadowfox 4 · 0 0

Kate, you need to understand the distinction between a lawful order and an unlawful order. In the case of an unlawful order (prisoner abuses, etc.) then no. It is not an acceptable excuse according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (military law governing soldiers.) But as the Commander in Chief, the Constitution gives the president lawful authority to send soldiers into combat.

2006-12-11 14:56:26 · answer #3 · answered by lizardmama 6 · 0 0

Whatever if you have not Been in the Military then you have no clue what goes on. We are trying to help Iraq and you just see Destruction. What about all the Good Men and Women that have lost there lives while you sit at home in you're nice warm bed!!!!

2006-12-11 14:53:36 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 3 0

Grow up and if you are an adult --- get an education.
Your bias against the United States is blinding.

The only destruction happening in Iraq at this time are suicide bombers, missile attacks, road side bombs and car bombers. Or are you blaming the troops for that activity now?

2006-12-11 14:55:27 · answer #5 · answered by Akkita 6 · 2 0

If you had military knowledge you would automatically know that, yes, it is commanders orders that troop's must follow. If they don't they risk being dishonorably discharged and lose all of his or her benefits. Not to mention the possibility of being imprisoned. Hope you understand this and not get offended by it.

2006-12-11 14:53:18 · answer #6 · answered by onAhhroll 3 · 0 0

Well Kate, you are on a roll tonight ! You and the mainstream press do not acknowledge the many positive aspects of the war in Iraq. You are a real trip.

2006-12-11 14:47:19 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

At this aspect the shortcoming of this warfare ought to nicely be blamed on the democratic congress, because of the particular incontrovertible reality that they are restricting the supplies to our infantrymen, alongside with the actual incontrovertible reality that they have got guidelines of engagement. i comprehend this because I somewhat have relations there and associates who've come lower back and reported that they don't look to be allowed to shoot them. even with the undeniable fact that you're on to at least something with the failure of this warfare falling onto the subsequent president. It befell to Nixon for the duration of his couple of minutes as president. He inherited the warfare and replaced into blamed for the failure, at the same time as in reality it replaced into Johnson who despatched our troops over there to wrestle in a civil warfare. Kennedy presented the conflict, even with the undeniable fact that it replaced into Johnson who initiated the deployment. We had no rationalization for being there, because it replaced right into a civil warfare. We were no longer preserving any pastime of ours, it replaced into purely that the manufactures the following who made the heavy kit for the military were going broke because there replaced into no warfare occurring, so there replaced into no choose for kit and they were going broke, so Johnson eager to deliver all those boys over there and die so as that all those manufactures ought to get rich.

2016-11-25 21:59:50 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Soldiers just follow orders unless the instructions are plainly not legal.

2006-12-11 14:45:30 · answer #9 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 2 0

troops sign up for the military to defend their country, they do what their told to do because they are doing what they believe is right for their country. you can't really blame the troops for doing what their told.

2006-12-11 14:48:59 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Yes, it's what they signed up for. Even if they do or don't believe in the war it's not there fault.

2006-12-11 15:26:05 · answer #11 · answered by NA 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers