Today I heard what consider to be one of the dumbest statements I've heard in a while.
Some California House Rep claims that "she's pro-troop", but she demands immediate withdrawal of all US forces in the Middle East. She does not see any contradiction between the two positions... she love the troops, thus she does not want to see them in harm's way, "especially for some illegal orders".
What do you think soldiers do? "Make love, not war"? Soldiers fight! That's what they are trained to do! Don't tell me some blah blah about how some just went in for the scholarships. If they aren't prepared to go to harm's way when called, they should not have joined period! They knew the risks of being deployed. And they swore an oath to obey the chain of command, which includes the President of the United States at the top.
Which brings me to another topic: objectors.
I have no problem with conscientious objectors, if they are REALLY allergic to war. They would have stayed OUT of the military. I'm sure the government can find some place in the Peace Corp or other sort of civil service for you if you rather not serve in the military.
But those who joined the military, then refuse to go? (those who already went a couple times notwithstanding) Those are just cowards and should be sued by the US government to repay all the money and time spent training them, plus the loss of their use at times of need, if not dealt with by the military tribunal/court-martial.
They should be booted out, and ordered by the court to repay the government for lots and lots of money.
Which brings me to another topic: pacifism vs. terrorism
A lot of these objectors claims to have found Pacifism as a counter to the soldier's indoctrination/ orientation about fighting.
You have to keep in mind that so-called Pacifism assumes that your opponents are reasonable. If they are fanatics, then pacifism just gets you KILLED for no purpose. In other words, pacifists always loses. Their only hope is that there are so many pacifists that the terrorists got tired of killing them all, and found their heart, which is basically what happened to the Romans against Christians.
MLK jr. tactics worked because Americans are, above all, reasonable people, and recognize that equal rights only helps people, not hurting any one. Most people ARE reasonable, and tired to beating up on blacks just because.
Same with Ghandhi and the British Empire... British are reasonable, if a bit old fashioned and at least civilized.
However, you can't apply pacifism to the problem in Iraq or Afghanistan, and especially against terrorists. Terrorists are NOT, by definition, reasonable. No reasonable people will use terror to incite change. Attempt to apply pacifism to terrorists will only get you killed.
Fanatics / Terrorists are NOT reasonable. They plan on murder of dozens or thousands without an eyeblink, innocent or hostile, doesn't matter. Car bombs, kamikaze bombs, all the same to them. They don't even consider you as fellow human beings (purposeful distortion of the Q'oran, that says all non-believers are "infidels" and should be killed, even though "people of the Book", i.e. Christians, are specifically exempt) so they will kill you without an eyeblink. So how do you expect them to be reasonable and see your point of view?
And please don't tell me about Jesus. He died, remember? And had to be resurrected by you-know-who. We don't have that kind of "support network".
The only way to deal with terrorists is the Israeli way... kill the radicals who only knows how to kill and hope someone with more BRAINS than brawn rise to the top and actually negotiate a peace.