Miran94 wrote:

What om earth is memorial day and if its for the American troops who died in Iraq, I'll never celebrate it.

Uh...

Before I go making any assumptions on intelligence/age, where do you live and what grade are you in? =P

Miran94 wrote:

Also its horrible to celebrate the soilders death for killing civilians thats just terrible.

Way to completely miss the point.

These kinds of days are definitely not celebrations, and the remembrance is not limited to soldiers - at least not the way I observe them.

We don't observe Memorial Day in Australia (obviously), but we do have ANZAC Day, which (according to what I know of Memorial Day at least) is somewhat similar. It commemorates the day on which the ANZAC (Australian and New Zealand Army Corps) forces landed at Gallipoli in the Second World War, but it's since taken on a more general significance applying to all wars. It's a day of remembrance, not celebration; this is often summed up by using the phrase "lest we forget".

Some people, like you, criticise it for glorifying war. But I don't think it necessary does. ANZAC Day (and Memorial Day) is what you make it. When asked to pause for a moment's silence and reflection on ANZAC Day, I am reminded of the pointless brutality of war; not only the sacrifice of the soldiers, but also the suffering of the civilians who got in the way. Lest we forget how terrible war really is.

digitalmouse wrote:

CaptFalcon33035 wrote:

We know that they were funding terrorist activity and therefore were terrorists themselves.

interesting since the 'terrorism' of 9/11 was caused by people from Eygpt and Syria (among others), and we haven't touched them. go figure.

Well it is definitely true that the people in Iraq have nothing to do with 9/11, but uh....I've never heard of Egypt and Syria brought up in such conversation. All I remember is that 9/11 was done by those in Afganistan.

You don't necessarily have to be violent to want to blow things up. <_<

But yes, on a video survey I saw on the news or military channel or something, many of the boys just said they wanted to blow things up. What better place to do that than the army?

Darkdemonrad wrote:

"You don't deserve to be an American." Apparently free speech, and the right i'm given to believe what I want is dead. You're so right, i'm so sorry my opinion on 98% of wars is that they're stupid, and anyone dumb enough to get involved in the millitary, and take others right to life is wrong.

I was trying to get at the statement was completely un-American, what with our nationalistic values and such. I wasn't attacking your opinion on wars being stupid or any of that CRAP. I was attacking your opinion on Soldiers not deserving our respect. They do.

"They're dieing for us." Don't pin these deaths on me, they're dying for Bush and our goverment, though mainly the self-serving, bull-headed, and arrogant Bush. I hate that man, though don't wish death upon him, just impeachment, and removal from office.

We live in America where you can do something about it. However, with the war going on, I don't see him leaving office even after the next election. I could be wrong, though.

"However, about Iraq and Afghanistan, those terrorists could have done so much more had we not declared war so soon on them." Hah, they're killing more Americans, now then ever. Their American kill counts are 5 times higher thanks to our war efforts on them, but you're right, they totally would have done "so much more." Who says killing a soldier is any better than a civilian.

Meaning more terrorist attacks. They might have killed more people, but another good, planned out attack in NY or Chicago or any other major cities could certainly go over what's happening now. They'd also think that they were infallible seeing as how we didn't act upon it. Then it'd be like they owned us, and we'd get attacked left and right. Or, y'know, something similar to that story.

"You can blame your government for that one, not our troops. The fact is, America really had no place in both World War I and World War II, but we had to fight to "protect democracy." In World War II, Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and America declared war on Japan, not Germany. As Americans were fighting Japan, Germany just kept on provoking the government to send in troops, and soon they joined the war in Europe. Americans did not belong in these wars, but aren't you glad that they joined 'em? " The only reason I threw in the World War clause was to make an attempt at redemption, so the republican bible-thumpers wouldn't. Sure, it was propaganda-ish, though I did it also in part so my post wouldn't be deleted due to, radicalism. Though, i'm sorry it led you astray in your argument.

I don't think your post would be deleted due to radicalism, because it was already pretty radical.

"We know that they were funding terrorist activity and therefore were terrorists themselves. Iraq, as we all know, had some great resources we could use as well." Well I hear asia also has "... some great resources we could use as well. So how about we invade them. Justification of war for any reason, is wrong.

Asia wasn't funding terrorist activity against us, were they?

"Our soldiers died to liberate those people of their oppressive leader and their oil." Our soldiers also died slaughtering thousands upon thousands of iraqis, while serving the greedy american's goverment desire to gain acess to oil. Though yes, they saved some people. I'm not justifying terrorism, though by invading terrorist countries and slaughtering them due to our advanced technology, if anything that lowers our goverment and the dogs blindly following the millitary below where the terrorists stand. After all, they're just following what their religion tells them to do.

No, those are just some radical dudes. Their religion does not tell them to bomb Americans. They are taking it way out of context.

Also, on the question of "Who says killing a soldier is any better than killing a citizen?"
Well, it's just like you said, citizens did not have a choice to die in the armed forces, a soldier does. Civilians are not aggressive, soldiers are. Soldiers can be killed by cause of self defense in war, civilians usually can't.

International defense is important and you can't let anyone become too powerful (nationally, such as dictatorship). It doesn't only bring instability nationally, but an instability internationally. You can't say our soldiers don't help and you can't say they don't deserve respect.

CaptFalcon33035 wrote:

We live in America where you can do something about it. However, with the war going on, I don't see him leaving office even after the next election. I could be wrong, though.

Uh, two terms is the Constitutional limit, and the war doesn't involve the American sovereignty. If Bush stayed in power for a third term, I can assure you most of the world would accuse him of despotism or worse, and if he tried to stay in power for a fourth term the rest of the First World would probably actively seek to sever ties with the now dictatorial United States. =P

Incidentally, the U.S. Presidents have about a one-in-eight attrition ratio due to assassination. George W. is the eighth President since the last assassination. =P

International defense is important and you can't let anyone become too powerful (nationally, such as dictatorship). It doesn't only bring instability nationally, but an instability internationally.

Quoted for comedic value.

"However, about Iraq and Afghanistan, those terrorists could have done so much more had we not declared war so soon on them." Hah, they're killing more Americans, now then ever. Their American kill counts are 5 times higher thanks to our war efforts on them, but you're right, they totally would have done "so much more." Who says killing a soldier is any better than a civilian.

Meaning more terrorist attacks. They might have killed more people, but another good, planned out attack in NY or Chicago or any other major cities could certainly go over what's happening now. They'd also think that they were infallible seeing as how we didn't act upon it. Then it'd be like they owned us, and we'd get attacked left and right. Or, y'know, something similar to that story.

Attacking Afghanistan was the right thing to do. The United States needed to pick a target in response to the September 11th attack, because failure to do so would indeed give the image that the United States was completely lax.

However, attacking Iraq was unprovoked over vastly exaggerated reasons, stating the existence of intercontinental missiles which could threaten American soil, yet Iraq had at most the capability to attack only as far as Bosnia and obviously wasn't making use of this attack capability. Iraq was definitely in violation of its sanctions, but America going all gung-ho on someone that wasn't even a threat to them or democracy wound up doing more harm than good, both to its own people as well as to the world stability. The rest of the U.N. is saying "I told you so."

CaptFalcon33035 wrote:

Describe "more than healthy."

Experimentation on neighbourhood pets, frogs, and/or law enforcement officials. ;-)