Isn't Bush just like Bin laden when it comes to committing youngsters to their deaths?

Question

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o

Rocky - if you weren't bakced by nukes and the massive military-industrial-complex that funds your invasions of other's countires, you too would have little options and would ultimately resort to fighting by any means necessary.

You probably can't relate because it is not the USA who has been invaded for oil, but it is the USA who has invaded...

for oil.

Answer 1

blind faith........its everywhere

Answer 2

If the US invaded Iraq for Oil then why is Gasoline so expensive. Because the war has nothing to do with OIL
If it did then we would have the entire Army Corps of engineers fixing the refineries and Oil Fields

Answer 3

Who is this big boogie men you talk about ?

What country would even think to take on the USA,
you have more threat from Russia in the cold war

What you think they are just going overthrow your government, in a couple of days, and take over the USA
Give me a break
The only terror in the USA is the fear that is bestowed upon you by your lusterless,incompetent president

Answer 4

Committing? Interesting way of putting it. Sound like a Democrat to me. Lest you forget that this is an all volunteer military. We (I've been in the Army for 23 yrs) are here to defend the rights and freedoms of all Americans. Including your right to free speech(of which we in the military give up some of that right) to say what you want.

Answer 5

If Bush is to Bin lLaden then US soldiers are to insurgients and suicide bombers would be the analogy to what you're saying. And no, Bush has nothing to do with the military recruiting process and promises nothing extraordinary for their service. Our men and women are in the armed services because the wanted to be and chose to be on their own accord, not by leadership propaganda.

Answer 6

Well.. you gotta hand it to the muslim jihandists.. they fight with poor weapons.. against an army with all the best technology.. they know they're gonna die but they fight to keep their own country..

Not far different from US soldeirs.. who are happy to fight and die except US soldeirs are not fighting to save anything or keep anything.. they're fighting for bogus propaganda reasons.. like stealing oil for the rich..

So one up for the jihadists really.. at least they have a reason to fight.. US soldeirs are fighting for the sake of beign warmongers and thieves..

What ever happened to diplomoacy and democracy anyway???

When did bombs ever solve problems??

Bush has commited thousands ot death.. and for what????

We'll never know the truth until he is removed, along with all his ilk.. and then we can re-write the history books correctly..

Soldeirs are no different to jihadists as far as I am concerned..

and I'm so sick of hearing that soldiers fight for ME and my free speech.. what a load of CRAP!! like the patriot act allows free speech.. like Yahho answers allows free speech... give us a break.. sodleirs only ever defended the ultra right wing extremeists who have hijacked soceity for themselves.. and turned the rest of us into working slaves who now drink recycled sewerage and food laden with chemicals.. and thanks for the health care too.. thanks to the war in iraq a lot of sick people will die or suffer due to lack of funds.. what a load of CRAP!!

Answer 7

is it possible to reason with people who think like this?

bush
-is the president of a nation
-wants no one to die and pays to protect his soldiers
-is not involved in recruiting anyone

laden
-is the head of a terrorist orginization bent on bringing about the apacolypse by starting a war
-straps explosives to young men and blows them up along with as many other people as possible
-has made recruiting videos

....that one was too easy. ...if youre arguing bush and laden are the same i dont think reason is going to work

Answer 8

From my point of view, as someone who serves, I would have to say no, Bush isn't like Bin Laden when it comes to the deaths of young Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen.

For this, I would like to focus on a main difference, the difference between military operations and terrorist operations.

In a military operation, right behind the goal of completing the objective in a mission, is to goal of ensuring that you make every attempt to ensure that you and your teammates return alive. The military does not, in most circumstances, send people to die. From a personal standpoint, you want to avoid death due to the detriment to morale that could cause to military members. If you also look at it from a fiscal standpoint, if a member of your team is killed in action, you have to find a trained replacement, etc. Therefore, deaths of military members, if avoidable, is desired.

However, in a terrorist cell operation, especially "suicide bombings" or hijackings, the personnel performing this mission have committed to their own death in order to complete the objective.

Of course, you can't really use the volunteer factor to make any argument towards this case. Our country has an all-volunteer force, I volunteered for my job in the US Navy. Terrorist operatives also volunteer, because of their devotion to their cause.

So, really you can only look at the circumstances in reference to the deaths, Military organizations seek to avoid deaths of their members, Terrorist organizations view death as something required to complete their objective.

I hope this answer leads you to coming to your own conclusion.

- Addendum, even though you're baiting me, I feel like biting:

You still haven't properly challenged my point. Even though the US is backed by a massive war machine, that does not change the reasoning behind preventing military casualties. A military will always attempt to prevent the death's of one's members in order to obtain the most return for their training dollar. As I said before, a dead military member means another one has to be trained, grow accustomed to the mission, and fulfill the objective. No military would, in their right mind send men off to complete their mission by dying, this actually depletes the pool of military aged men significantly (not making a sexist statement, but potential military strength is still counted by the number of males, 18-26, living in a country.)

It does not take as much training to train someone with a bomb strapped to their chest. and cause massive collateral damage.

Answer 9

I guarantee you that Bush is responsible for more civilian deaths than Bin Laden........more than the terrorists.

He is a beast.

Answer 10

No. bin Laden is telling youngsters that Allah will reward them for killing people who don't believe the way they do. Anyone who doesn't believe the way they do deserves to die.

Answer 11

When you are more mature revisit your own question.