Open your eyes

I have two pictures of troops in Iraq. One is a group of US soldiers, the other is a group of UK soldiers.

The US soldiers wear sunglasses and helmets. This gives them an impersonal and inhuman aura and seperates them from the other people. It's the same reason that some cops wear mirrored shades - because if you can't see his eyes it makes him look like an impersonal robot of justice.

The US soldiers also wear flak jackets - thus giving the impression that they expect to be attacked. they carry full battle load outs over the flak jackets. Basically they appear much as they must have done when they carried out the final assault on the Loyalist positions in Baghdad. They ride in Humvee's that are armed with either M60's or 50 caliber machine guns. In short they look like aggressive, unapproachable, dehumanised and battleready.

The British soldiers who I have a picture of are wearing their regimental beret. They aren't wearing any bodyarmour and they aren't wearing sunglasses. This is because their commanders KNOW that eye contact is the cornerstone of non-verbal communication. When British soldiers behave respectfully towards an Imam or a family patriarch, the locals can see this and it reassures them. It humanises the British soldiers in the eyes of the people they are there to protect.

The British soldiers ARE still armed with assault rifles. A couple of grenades are visible inside web pouches. They are very nearly as battle ready as their American counterparts - but they do not reek of testosterone and unshed blood. They travel the local area on foot, mingling with the people they are there to protect - they say good morning and nod to people they recognise. They are followed by curious children who do not get run over, or shot, as a consequence of this curiosity.

A hearts and minds war is a popularity contest between your forces and the guerrila's. Both of you must get the local people onside to determine who will win. You cannot win in SPITE of the local people, you win because of them.
 
Drelin said:
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I feel much happier after Romans 13 told me that Hitler's authority was established by God. I take it you're all for abortion, Whitestone? Hey; the governement is an extention if God's divine authority. If you do the right thing, you've nothing to fear. Really, you can't provide verses like this for one topic and blatantly ignore them in others.
Click to expand...
How am I ignoring them, they were not initially part of the thread?

God put Rom. 13 in the bible for a reason, what those specific reasons are I do not know.  His ways are not our ways.

Do I condone abortion No, but I do not feel it is right to take the law into my own hands and murder a abortion doctor.  I would much rather help the legitimate organizations to fight a legal battle in the area of abortion.

As for Hitler, I would put him a similar boat as Pharaoh.  God let them come to power for a reason, again what that reason is I don't know.

The right thing is following the word of God.  I will concede that the Lord has used instances and people to serve His purpose even though they had no intention of doing so.  However for us as Christians we cannot say we are serving the Lord if we intentionally and willingly disregard what God has commanded.

If you find biblical fault with what I have said please tell where the verses are so I may be educated.

Whitestone
Click to expand...
 
Eon, cool post! very insightful.
cool.gif
 
2 cents worth: even with the war and what has happened, shuoldt we stand by our president who needs encouragement whether or not we agree with his methods?? think of it this way: sayur boss gave ur rival a promotion that u felt u deserved, well its ur bosses job to do what he thinks is best to further the company and he feels that the company will grow by promoting the rival over u, shouldt u be happy with the fact that when the company grows whether or not from that promotion, that u will propaply get a raise and possibly a better promotion?? as a whole we must stand by our president and what he thinks is best.
 
There are several problems with you analogy.  First, I'm not upset that Bush got elected President.  I'm not sure really what happened in the election process, and I'm not entirely sure many people can say that they factually know.  When he started his Presidency, I did find it amusing that when he gave speeches, he couldn't pronounce many of the words in them.  I also thought it was kind of sad that he was the one chosen as the best person for the job.  Representing our best to the leaders of other countries and to the world.  That I'm not too upset about.  I am of the belief that Bush was a figure head.  Perhaps less so than he is now, hes been doing alot better with his speeches and stuff.  I'm really alright with him being a figurehead.  If the people behind him running this country make intellegent, and wholesome choices, then we would be in good shape.  But I'm not a fan of what is being done not only on the war on terror, but back here at home.  First of all its not entirely Bush's fault that the economy went into a depression near the beginning of his term.  It started to slide near the end of Clinton's term and continued to fall from there.  His ecconomic theory, I do not like in general.  I did like the stimulus packages, they are good for the short term, at that point we did have a surplus.  But we used up that surplus, and fell further into debt.  Another thing is that I didn't like how he tried to give the airline businesses money to pay their employees.  I think in that place we should have done laissez-faire (an ecconomic concept created by Jean Baptiste Say) (yes, yes, most people believe it is Adam Smith that created the concept.  It is refluted by a simple arguement:  Adam Smith isn't French.  He did however make the concept famous.)  Laissez-faire loosely translates to "leave alone."  And thats what I think we should have done in that case, let supply and demand work themselves out.  I also think that the additional security precautions are inane.  First of all, random screenings, and random baggage checks aren't very practical, besides if somebody did attempt to hijack an airplane, my assumption the passengers would attempt to stop them or die trying. (I'm sure terrorists realize this too.)  Another problem I have with that involves this little ditty of an article.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2....nd=true
Please read that before continueing.  I find the allegations outrageous, and am shocked, but not so suprised.  By handing him over to a government that is known to torture people, we are no better than those that torture others.  Its like we give approval to his suffering!  And we say the US doesn't torture people... for all i know we could have suggested that he be tortured.  Thats the other thing, the patriot act, This violates the 4th and 6th ammendments to the constitution clearly!  It violates the 4th ammendment by expanding the methods on which we define unreasonable search and seizure.  I have work to do and have to wake up early, so I won't elaborate on that, but it violates the 6th amendment by allowing for a person to be held for an indefinate ammount of time without a trial!  also I quote from a webpage: http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]When the legislative proposals were introduced by the Bush administration in the aftermath of September 11th, Attorney General John Ashcroft gave Congress one week in which to pass the bill -- without changes. Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, managed to convince the Justice Department to agree to some changes, and members of the House began to make significant improvements. However, the Attorney General warned that further terrorist acts were imminent, and that Congress could be to blame for such attacks if it failed to pass the bill immediately.

Extensive and hurried negotiation in the Senate resulted in a bipartisan bill, stripped of many of the concessions won by Sen. Leahy. Senator Thomas Daschle, the majority leader, sought unanimous consent to pass the proposal without debate or amendment; Senator Russ Feingold was the only member to object.

Minor changes were made in the House, which passed the bill 357 to 66. The Senate and House versions were quickly reconciled, and the Act was signed into law on October 26, 2001.
Click to expand...

  Anyway, the 2 problems I have with your analogy are: 1:  If we all get behind him and support him, regardless of how well we think he does his job, we are no better than the people who didn't stand up when Hitler took power.  In fact I think we are worse for it because they didn't have freedom of speech.  If they stood up for what they believed, they probably would disappear.  Freedom of speech was given us so that we might stand up for what we believe (in most cases) only fearing the opinions of our peers.  This is a right I will use as long as it is available.  I will stand up not only for what I believe is right, but against what I believe is wrong.  
2.  The other problem is that i don't think that Bush being in charge ensures a good future for this "company."  I think hes leading it down the path to Chapter 7.

Sorry for grammar and spelling errors in the arguement. Its late and I have a report to write and probably another that I'm forgetting about... Yes yes I did forget about it. One of them's only a page long, its a "reflection" and the other isn't going to be long, but you get the idea. I should probably proofread those or something.
 
Atown, that'd be a pretty good analogy, only, you live in a democracy. The whole idea is that you elect people who you think are going to do a good job, and if you don't like what they're doing, you pick somone who you think would do a better job. It's your responsibility to either support him or not, based on what you think of his performace.
 
You are right Drelin, we live in a democracy and the president of a company is elected into their position. So, I don't see why you have a problem with Atowns analogy.

Fleck, I am not an American, so I am not 100% sure, but, didn't you mean chapter 11?
 
fleck the links didt work... and also we do live in a democracy and we should support bush to the fullest and even then we are allowed to kick him out during the election year. and the difference between bush n hitler is that we work for freedom, hitler worked for death among the inferour
 
Well, that's up to you Atown. Personally, I see it as being important to voice concerns with government policy and activity at all times... not just during elections.
 
The second link worked but here is the first again.. I thought i fixed it... I thought i checked it.http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2....printer

If that doesnt work the URL is www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A522-2003Nov4?language=printer

You missed the point, Bush is taking away our constitutional rights, and I do believe after september 11 Bush was granted even more power over the military and congress and such.  But it didn't matter at the time that the Patriot act was passed because congress was "supporting Bush to the fullest."  What I was saying is that Adolf and George did/ are doing very similar things.  Hitler worked for death among the inferior eh?  Well I think Bush is also working for death among the inferior.  What i mean is the way that Hitler used racism against the jews, and other races, is like the way Bush uses religion to work for death among the inferior.  But of course we aren't the bad guys they are, I mean, it says in the Koran that Islamics should destroy western culture right?(as interpreted by extremist sects)  Well according to the Nazi propaganda, some "unabbriged" versions of the old testment teachthe jews hate all other races and impress the need for them to be destroyed.  So really they didn't have a choice but to fight them, it was a life or death struggle that the Jews forced them into!  Making statements to the effect of, "Jews have the devil's blood."

It sounds like the propaganda that we are using against islamic sects, calling them "evil" saying that we didn't really have any choice but to invade Iraq.
 
what a sec who says we're fighting against a different religeon?? if i remember correctly, alot of my islamic friends disagree with the acts of terrorist and are just extremists who are making true believers in islam look bad. and seeing it as we arent the bad guys is a very odd thing when all things are considerd. we just have a different outlook on life and how it should be managed, but does it make it "right"
rock.gif
and quick thing: whats the patriot act again?
 
The patriot act, or the section that I was reffering to most of the time basically states that somebody can be charged with terrorism by using methods that violate the fourth ammendment, unreasonable search and seizure, and be held without trial for an indefinate amount of time, which violates our 6th ammendment, our right to a speedy trial.

You should still read the story in the washington post. Its quite interesting.
 
hmmm to give up 2 rights about something that doesnt really apply to my daily life and be safer OR let terrorist run free without check in the USA. now honestly i do admit gettin searched is a hasle, each time my dad goes to the airport he gets searched (even before 9/11) and i mean EVERY time. and if a person has a concealed weapons permit i doubt they would misuse it. think bout it, people whith conclead permits can only have that if they have an absolute clean record
 
If you aren't scared at being refused the right to trial and refused the right to walk without fear of search and seizure based on ethnic profiling then I'M scared.

It basically means that a cop can stop and search you for no reason and, as a result of that search (not finding anything just as a result of carrying it out) can imprison you without trial for an indefinite period of time.

It scares the willies out of me.
 
And if you don't trust anything the media says, there actually probably isn't a war in iraq. No what happened in that article did actually happen to an innocent man. There are probably dozens of other people that it's happened to that didn't get out to tell the tale. Its an example of how the laws that were put in place are very scary. So according to these laws, even for posting on these forums, they could track my IP, search my computer files, and even come to my house and arrest me and hold me without trial.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]It scares the willies out of me.
Click to expand...

Indeed, especially when people question those practices and Rumsfeld reassures everyone by saying that those at Guantanamo Bay aren't, in fact, detained indefinitely, but are really POWs in the war-on-terror, and that they will be released once the war concludes. It's so absurd that I'd laugh if I wasn't so terrified.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]If you trust everything the media says. Well, you're extremely naive.
Click to expand...

If you trust everything the government says, then you're extremely naïve.
 
some things i will believe the media (like live speech from bush on tv) other things i wont (j lo n ben are gettin married etc. then again who cares??) and sure the gov has done some really stupid things to void the trust as a nation however, we are the greatest nation in the world becuase of it. Bible says in romans 8:28: all things work together for the good for those who love God and are called according to His purpose. and since i love God and i believe i am walking in his will and purpose, live prolly gonna be prety good in any case with what has happend with the gov.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]sure the gov has done some really stupid things to void the trust as a nation however, we are the greatest nation in the world becuase of it.
Click to expand...

America's the greatest nation in the world because it's government has done stupid things and abused the trust of it's people? That's an interesting take on history.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top