I see you really believe what they want you believe. That countries like Iraq, Iran etc really are evil, and an exaggerating big military machine is needed just to show superiority.
With all this superior power, with all these latest, state-of-the art weapons the USA possess (and Iraq doesn't), how comes that the war in Iraq is still running, and the miliitary still needs to recruit cannon fodder? That the USA still need to "advise" the young people to join military instead of giving them a future in civil life?

Are you actually condoning a nuclear strike or carpet bombing as opposed to our attempts at minimizing causalities?

Having served in military myself when I was young, I have only one advise for the youth: refuse to listen to those recruiters if you haven't joined military yet, and refuse to take orders and desert asap if they have already talked you into joining, if you don't want to return home dead or as a wreck!

Imagine my surprise at having someone like you suggesting illegal activity to the youth of the world. How long before you start preaching about the benefits of substance abuse?

---

With all this superior power, with all these latest, state-of-the art weapons the USA possess (and Iraq doesn't), how comes that the war in Iraq is still running, and the miliitary still needs to recruit cannon fodder?

A ground war with the inability to readily distinguish between friend and foe is the issue. It could be over in a matter of days if a "shoot first and ask questions later" policy were adopted, but that is what's called Genocide, which quite interestingly your country had no issues with 70 years ago... I don't advocate that, but if you want to keep poking around that line of thinking, it is a valid counter-point.

I'm neither condoning genocide nor carpet-bombing. I even do not condone any war at all, except when the country I'm living in is invaded. And for the accusation to advise illegal actions: to me, the moral law "Thou shalt not kill" is superior to any order given to me by an officer. And shooting at persons who are not shooting at you is KILLING, no matter war or peace. Bombing is even worse: That's killing people wo are entirely unable to defend themselves.
So I even change my advise to all young people: If you don't want to be a killer, refuse to serve in a military that will send you to other countries and orders you to kill their civil citizens!

In my opinion, it's easy to distinguish friend from foe. Everyone who don't raise their weapon against me is NOT my enemy even if I'm told they are. I rather consider those who would order me to shoot at civilians my enemy.
I've already told my former superior that I would have turned around and aimed my gun at the person giving me the order to aim my weapon at unarmed (or even obviously unarmed) civilians if I had been in a situation like that. He didn't like that idea, but knowing me he knew I would have done so no matter what happened to me then.

---

Account frozen...

I'm neither condoning genocide nor carpet-bombing. I even do not condone any war at all, except when the country I'm living in is invaded. And for the accusation to advise illegal actions: to me, the moral law "Thou shalt not kill" is superior to any order given to me by an officer. And shooting at persons who are not shooting at you is KILLING, no matter war or peace. Bombing is even worse: That's killing people wo are entirely unable to defend themselves.

Yeah, well that very same religious crap you're using to defend your stance also teaches an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

So I even change my advise to all young people: If you don't want to be a killer, refuse to serve in a military that will send you to other countries and orders you to kill their civil citizens!

Guess what genius, military service isn't a requirement over here, it's a choice every single current member of the US military made of their own freewill.

In my opinion, it's easy to distinguish friend from foe. Everyone who don't raise their weapon against me is NOT my enemy even if I'm told they are. I rather consider those who would order me to shoot at civilians my enemy.
I've already told my former superior that I would have turned around and aimed my gun at the person giving me the order to aim my weapon at unarmed (or even obviously unarmed) civilians if I had been in a situation like that. He didn't like that idea, but knowing me he knew I would have done so no matter what happened to me then.

So not only did you previously advise the youth of the world to commit crimes, you now allege to have threatened the life of one of your superiors.

Seems to me that on top of everything else, you're full of crap too.

---

I'm neither condoning genocide nor carpet-bombing. I even do not condone any war at all, except when the country I'm living in is invaded. And for the accusation to advise illegal actions: to me, the moral law "Thou shalt not kill" is superior to any order given to me by an officer. And shooting at persons who are not shooting at you is KILLING, no matter war or peace. Bombing is even worse: That's killing people wo are entirely unable to defend themselves.

Yeah, well that very same religious crap you're using to defend your stance also teaches an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

So I even change my advise to all young people: If you don't want to be a killer, refuse to serve in a military that will send you to other countries and orders you to kill their civil citizens!

Guess what genius, military service isn't a requirement over here, it's a choice every single current member of the US military made of their own freewill.

In my opinion, it's easy to distinguish friend from foe. Everyone who don't raise their weapon against me is NOT my enemy even if I'm told they are. I rather consider those who would order me to shoot at civilians my enemy.
I've already told my former superior that I would have turned around and aimed my gun at the person giving me the order to aim my weapon at unarmed (or even obviously unarmed) civilians if I had been in a situation like that. He didn't like that idea, but knowing me he knew I would have done so no matter what happened to me then.

So not only did you previously advise the youth of the world to commit crimes, you now allege to have threatened the life of one of your superiors.

Seems to me that on top of everything else, you're full of crap too.

I didn't threaten him. I told him way after my service, when we talked about several nasty situations that happened back in 1988/89, that I would have turned my gun at him if he had ordered me to shoot at civilians.
If I were full of crap (what I'm not, according to people who are far more qualified to judge that than you), then thanks to the military service that I, in opposite to you, had to attend.

I even did agitate against military before, and quite effectfully. When my step-sons came into the age to attend their military service, I talked them into attending alternative service instead - that way they were not bound to serve elsewhere abroad, but could actually serve our country by doing good. And I talked all parents of my step-children's class-mates into doing likewise. Even despite the salary of a soldier who was sent to serve in, let's say, Namibia is much higher than the salary of one who attends social service in his home town instead, my efforts were successful. Between 2002 and 2005, no boy and no girl from the school where my step-kids were studying went to attend military service but chose alternative services instead - thanks to their parents who listened to me.

---

Account frozen...

In my opinion, it's easy to distinguish friend from foe. Everyone who don't raise their weapon against me is NOT my enemy even if I'm told they are.

Are you really this dense? It is too late to do the distinguishing phase once the weapon is up and has likely been fired. This is exactly what is being done, not firing until being fired upon, and is why any kind of ground-based "Civil War" will have problems, as the opposition knows that you can't be 100% accurate at telling them apart going by how they look.

In my opinion, it's easy to distinguish friend from foe. Everyone who don't raise their weapon against me is NOT my enemy even if I'm told they are.

Are you really this dense? It is too late to do the distinguishing phase once the weapon is up and has likely been fired. This is exactly what is being done, not firing until being fired upon, and is why any kind of ground-based "Civil War" will have problems, as the opposition knows that you can't be 100% accurate at telling them apart going by how they look.

There's no need anymore for this Civil war anywa: saddam is out of the way, the old regime is gone, the US troops are overdue to leave the invaded country since years ago.
I'm just convinced that ALL wars (except when being attacked and invaded) are a)100% unnecessary and b) 100% avoidable. They can be avoided by the art of diplomacy or by intelligence actions - and that easily, if the governments only wanted to. But these measurements would also avoid those huge profits for the military industry, so they are not chosen as an option - and recruiters are sent out to feed the youth with lies to get more cannon fodder...

---

Account frozen...

There's no need anymore for this Civil war anywa: saddam is out of the way, the old regime is gone, the US troops are overdue to leave the invaded country since years ago.

I have my moments when I debate this. See, the Kurds were encouraged by us to start an uprising back in 1991, then we bailed on them and they were left with no support and Saddam's forces easily regained control and killed thousands.

I don't know what the "answer" is, but an immediate and full withdrawl is likely not going to be the "correct answer".

The issue over there is that people simply will not try to get along. There have been centuries, perhaps millenia, of fighting. Iraq is in a weakened state. If we pull out, there are several possibilities, one of which is an invasion by Turkey in the North, coinciding with an invasion by Iran and Syria. I think that you can see where this would not be very ideal for the world as a whole, but perhaps you think that a united Arab front would be "good" to counter American influence via threats upon oil reserves and Israel...?

and recruiters are sent out to feed the youth with lies to get more cannon fodder...

Again, I had the choice to pursue a career in the Nuclear Power Officer Candidate program. I initiated that sequence of events by voluntarily taking the ASVAB. No matter what you may think, if I had even made it to Lieutenant, let alone Lieutenant Commander, Commander, or Captain, I could easily get a job with any of the major power companies here in the United States, or just a "simple" teaching job at a university... In a sub, I would not be "cannon fodder", unless dealing with other subs or destroyers / minefields, and the last time I checked, the only fleet with potentially matching skills and capabilities would be the Russian fleet.

There's no need anymore for this Civil war anywa: saddam is out of the way, the old regime is gone, the US troops are overdue to leave the invaded country since years ago.

I have my moments when I debate this. See, the Kurds were encouraged by us to start an uprising back in 1991, then we bailed on them and they were left with no support and Saddam's forces easily regained control and killed thousands.

I don't know what the "answer" is, but an immediate and full withdrawl is likely not going to be the "correct answer".

The issue over there is that people simply will not try to get along. There have been centuries, perhaps millenia, of fighting. Iraq is in a weakened state. If we pull out, there are several possibilities, one of which is an invasion by Turkey in the North, coinciding with an invasion by Iran and Syria. I think that you can see where this would not be very ideal for the world as a whole, but perhaps you think that a united Arab front would be "good" to counter American influence via threats upon oil reserves and Israel...?

and recruiters are sent out to feed the youth with lies to get more cannon fodder...

Again, I had the choice to pursue a career in the Nuclear Power Officer Candidate program. I initiated that sequence of events by voluntarily taking the ASVAB. No matter what you may think, if I had even made it to Lieutenant, let alone Lieutenant Commander, Commander, or Captain, I could easily get a job with any of the major power companies here in the United States, or just a "simple" teaching job at a university... In a sub, I would not be "cannon fodder", unless dealing with other subs or destroyers / minefields, and the last time I checked, the only fleet with potentially matching skills and capabilities would be the Russian fleet.

I understand you, and yet I am convinced that you could have got this professional education in civil companies as well. The main lie of the recruiters is (I heard that myself when overhearing a recruiting discussion) that you can only get the best professional education and the chance to work in that profession if you are willing to join military. That poor guy I overheard was intersted in cars, not in shooting - he wanted to become mechanic. "Join us, and we give you the opportunity to not only learn he skills but also to work as a mechanic for sure," was the content of what the recruiter told him. Huh? Why shouldn't that be possible as well when remaining a civilian?
That guy and I discussed later and remained penpals when I left the States (I was on vacation over there as I told before). Last time I heard of that guy was a short note of his parents that he died abroad in one of these wars back in the 90s.

---

Account frozen...

I didn't threaten him. I told him way after my service, when we talked about several nasty situations that happened back in 1988/89, that I would have turned my gun at him if he had ordered me to shoot at civilians.

Well maybe you do have a shred of common sense even if you choose to hide it most of the time.

If I were full of crap (what I'm not, according to people who are far more qualified to judge that than you), then thanks to the military service that I, in opposite to you, had to attend.

LOL...tell me again how much "better" your country is than America...

I even did agitate against military before, and quite effectfully. When my step-sons came into the age to attend their military service, I talked them into attending alternative service instead - that way they were not bound to serve elsewhere abroad, but could actually serve our country by doing good. And I talked all parents of my step-children's class-mates into doing likewise. Even despite the salary of a soldier who was sent to serve in, let's say, Namibia is much higher than the salary of one who attends social service in his home town instead, my efforts were successful. Between 2002 and 2005, no boy and no girl from the school where my step-kids were studying went to attend military service but chose alternative services instead - thanks to their parents who listened to me.

Military service isn't for everyone, and personally I promote education over service as well. The difference is that yesterday you were promoting desertion which IS wrong.

---

I understand you, and yet I am convinced that you could have got this professional education in civil companies as well. The main lie of the recruiters is (I heard that myself when overhearing a recruiting discussion) that you can only get the best professional education and the chance to work in that profession if you are willing to join military. That poor guy I overheard was intersted in cars, not in shooting - he wanted to become mechanic. "Join us, and we give you the opportunity to not only learn he skills but also to work as a mechanic for sure," was the content of what the recruiter told him. Huh? Why shouldn't that be possible as well when remaining a civilian?

No one said it was impossible, they're called options, and that's plural indicating there are multiple options for gaining the skills one needs to succeed in life...military service is just one.

---

They can be avoided by the art of diplomacy or by intelligence actions - and that easily, if the governments only wanted to. But these measurements would also avoid those huge profits for the military industry, so they are not chosen as an option - and recruiters are sent out to feed the youth with lies to get more cannon fodder...

Thorin, you amaze me! Diplomacy? Didn't Neville Chamberlain try that in 1938 & again in 1939 - Wasn't Munich famous for that diplomacy?

In an earlier post, you also stated that the bombs on Hiroshima & Nagaski uneccessary?

Do the following names mean anything to you?

Belsen, Treblinka, Buchenwald, Auchswitz & countless others. Gemany isolationist? Don't make me laugh! Twice in 31 years, Germany destroyed the youth of the day. Britain has become too soft & lazy. Without the US, Europe would not have had 63 years of peace.

There are times when I think the yanks are out of order, but that can also be said regarding other nationalities.

What's with all this "USA Bashing"

---

What's with all this "USA Bashing"

Like I said earlier, it's "trendy"...

Then God help us all when, not if, but when another major war erupts. These so called "Trendies" will be the first to run & hide saying it's not their war. What would have happened if these "trendies" grandparents said the same in their day?

---

Then God help us all when, not if, but when another major war erupts. These so called "Trendies" will be the first to run & hide saying it's not their war. What would have happened if these "trendies" grandparents said the same in their day?

They did...initially... That's why Hitler was able to advance as far as he did... Isolationism was in full swing here from 1938-1941. It is possible that millions more lives were lost because of the isolationism... I'm not advocating going to war willy-nilly either. That is an extreme position; the polar opposite of isolationism.

Honestly, IMO, if Europe would try to get involved and if that area of the world would just start trying to play nice with each other instead of making bombs explode in various areas on a daily basis, our military wouldn't be involved, other than perhaps as a supporting role.