NationStates Jolt Archive

apnews.excite.com/article/20060527/D8HRQV2G0.html

Soldier Gives His Purple Heart to Student




May 26, 9:46 PM (ET)




SYRACUSE, N.Y. (AP) - A soldier said he was only showing his gratitude when gave his Purple Heart to a 13-year-old student being honored for winning a contest for writing letters to American troops.

"It's important what these children do for us in sending these letters," said Staff Sgt. Phillip Trackey, after giving away the medal he received for injuries in Iraq. "The letters mean so much to us. So I thought this was a big way of giving something back to them."

Trackey and a group of fellow Fort Drum soldiers were attending a ceremony Thursday at West Genesee Middle School for seventh-grader Fatima Faisal, of Camillus, who was being honored as a regional winner in the Veteran's of Foreign Wars' Letters to the Front contest.

After Faisal received her prizes, Trackey stood and held up his Purple Heart for everyone to see. Then, he pinned it on the girl's blouse.


Fatima said she didn't know what to say or do.

"I'm touched. I'm speechless," Fatima said. "This is the sweetest thing ever."

Faisal's letter was chosen the best out of more than 300 letters written in the age 12-18 category in the Central New York region. The national contest was to write letters to servicemen and servicewomen starting with the line, "Dear Service Member, I just wanted to say thanks for ..."

Teacher Donna Mahar said she has her seventh-grade classes participate in the yearly contest. About 60 of her pupils wrote letters, she said.

In her letter, Faisal said, "...I give you great respect because you had a choice to join the military and because of your bravery and courage you decided to join."



For winning the contest, Faisal received a T-shirt, a certificate and a $50 savings bond.

But the Purple Heart was the top prize, Faisal said, adding she hoped to mount it in a frame to hang in her room.

"When he gave it to her, I was getting chills," said Nadia Faisal, Fatima's mother. "I told her 'Oh my gosh, Fatima. You should treasure it forever.'"

Trackey, of Glens Falls, said he received the medal for the shoulder and head wounds he suffered when a bomb went off near him in Baghdad in January 2005. Trackey said his Purple Heart was just collecting dust at home.

ak.imgfarm.com/images/ap/PURPLE_HEART_PRIZE.sff_NYSYR101_20060526174403.jpg

NO, this story did not make the local paper. Wonder why?

<snip>


NO, this story did not make the local paper. Wonder why?

So why do you think it didn't make the local paper?

NO, this story did not make the local paper. Wonder why?
Because it's venerating war...

I wonder if this was a class assignment, or an option for the students to do.
I wonder if the whole class wasnt told to write to a soldier and say nice things etc..

Kinda making them pro-war , aint it?

Kinda making them pro-war , aint it?
Just a bit...

Just a bit...


Then I call shenannigans!

I take it y'all don't think a case could be made for being pro-war...

How many pro-war 12 year olds can there be?

How many pro-war 12 year olds can there be?

Lets ask that child soldier who just killed five men over there.

Lets ask that child soldier who just killed five men over there.


Let me rephrase:

How many American 12 year old children have enough information to make educated, clear opinions on important world political events?

How many 12 year olds are mature enough to fully understand that?

Unless the kid comes from Kosovo, or Rwanda or something and was given a gun and told to kill anyone who shoots at you, thus taking personal opinion away.

How many American 12 year old children have enough information to make educated, clear opinions on important world political events?

The same could be asked about the American soldiers. In practice all it boils down to is that the children must be indoctrinated to believe that the enemy is a different type of being than its friendly next door neighbours. That one does not need to care when they die.

Most adults manage that attitude quite nicely.

I take it y'all don't think a case could be made for being pro-war...
Yeeeehhaaaaawwww obviously not. Revenge attacks on countries which never posed a threat are stupid.

"Look daddy! I'ze gone and won in Iraq!"
"Well done, son. Shame about the tragic loss of life on both sides, but that's God's plan, eh?"

Yeeeehhaaaaawwww obviously not. Revenge attacks on countries which never posed a threat are stupid.

"Look daddy! I'ze gone and won in Iraq!"
"Well done, son. Shame about the tragic loss of life on both sides, but that's God's plan, eh?"

It appears you're not interested in seriously considering the question. Unfortunate.

NO, this story did not make the local paper. Wonder why? [/B]
Uhh...The story was about a girl in syracuse. And if you bothered to read the article you posted, you would have noticed it was taken from "The Post-Standard", which is a local syracuse paper, as evinced by it's web address:
http://www.syracuse.com/poststandard/

It was also an Associated Press story, which means it's available world-wide.

But hey, why let facts get in the way of your prejudices, eh?
Anything to prove the 'Liberal media' hates American soldiers, right? Even if you have to make it up yourself, or ignore facts to suit.

It appears you're not interested in seriously considering the question. Unfortunate.
Urmm yes I did... in the top bit of the post...

And no, I don't think there's ever a genuine case for war, unless the enemy has armed troops actually blowing your country up. Being attacked by four people who all died in their planes' explosions is not being invaded.

Urmm yes I did... in the top bit of the post...

Really?

Yeeeehhaaaaawwww obviously not. Revenge attacks on countries which never posed a threat are stupid.

That hardly strikes me as serious consideration.

And no, I don't think there's ever a genuine case for war, unless the enemy has armed troops actually blowing your country up. Being attacked by four people who all died in their planes' explosions is not being invaded.

And even if it did constitute an invasion, it wasn't as if those four people were agents of the Iraqi government, so the point seems rather moot.

It is sad how it seems that kids are made to think war is good. I personally believe that they are taught to support the troops, who risk their lives every day for a stupid act from a stupid president, and not supporting the war in itself. It also sucks how the government have to brainwash their troops (slaves) just get what the government wants. We civilians have to lose a loved one just because he/she was fighting the wrong enemy for all the wrong reasons...

And even if it did constitute an invasion, it wasn't as if those four people were agents of the Iraqi government, so the point seems rather moot.
I meant in general. If a Canadian suicide bomber attacked Wimbledon or something, I don't think that it would be particularly fair to attack Canada.

On the other hand, if the Canadian army mobilised and took over Cornwall and declared it a part of Canada, as well as pushing into Devon, then it'd be reasonable to force them out. Pursuing them to Canada would be taking things much too far, though.

Obviously, a Canadian attack isn't a very likely prospect, but it's just an example.

I take it y'all don't think a case could be made for being pro-war...

On the contrary; I think I could probably argue very excellently about pro-war situations. I could use historical references, modern-day happenings, and all sorts of ideals and theories in the discussion too. Impressive, neh?

On the other hand, if the Canadian army mobilised and took over Cornwall and declared it a part of Canada, as well as pushing into Devon, then it'd be reasonable to force them out. Pursuing them to Canada would be taking things much too far, though.

Don't worry; I'll keep my crazy fellow citizens from invading your country. I'll just invite em over to have a beer, and we'll be cool. :cool:

On the contrary; I think I could probably argue very excellently about pro-war situations. I could use historical references, modern-day happenings, and all sorts of ideals and theories in the discussion too. Impressive, neh?

Very. :) I'm glad someone understands that it's possible to argue a pro-war position.

Though personally I'm not much for the pro-war point of view.

Don't worry; I'll keep my crazy fellow citizens from invading your country. I'll just invite em over to have a beer, and we'll be cool. :cool:

Keep your beer. I'll bring my tequila. :D

Though personally I'm not much for the pro-war point of view.

Oooo...sounds like we could have a long, drawn out argument here...! :eek:
Na, just kidding. But hey, you ever want ta debate pro-war VS anti-war, I'm all for it. You seem to have your side picked; I'll gladly take the other stand. :D

Keep your beer. I'll bring my tequila. :D

Sounds like a plan. A good one, mind you. :cool:

Don't worry; I'll keep my crazy fellow citizens from invading your country. I'll just invite em over to have a beer, and we'll be cool. :cool:
I'll bring the gin and tonic, and some fish and chips. Then we can talk stereotypically about stereotypical things.

"So I bought this new pistol, right, and I was like "youz guys get away from my automobile, or I'm go'n shoot you dayd"
"The weather's looking a bit poor, chaps, is it not? And I simply loved the empire."
"Like the puck was in the net, eh? Like... jah... that's what hockey's aboot."

I'll bring the gin and tonic, and some fish and chips.

You're bringing fish & chips? Well, looks like I'm following you to the ends of the earth! :p

"Like the puck was in the net, eh? Like... jah... that's what hockey's aboot."

The puck was so in the net, by the way.

You're bringing fish & chips? Well, looks like I'm following you to the ends of the earth! :p
Oh noes! But it's my actual favourite food! (although I have haddock not cod, because I don't want cod to become extinct)


The puck was so in the net, by the way.
So sorry, man. I didn't really know what I was, like, talking aboot, eh?

Oh noes! But it's my actual favourite food! (although I have haddock not cod, because I don't want cod to become extinct)

Well, seeing as it is my favourite food as WELL, we might just have to engage in Mortal Kombat sometime. You know, to fight over who gets the meal and whatnot. Bring lots of spare blood, now! ;)

Well, seeing as it is my favourite food as WELL, we might just have to engage in Mortal Kombat sometime. You know, to fight over who gets the meal and whatnot. Bring lots of spare blood, now! ;)
The NHS hasn't got too much to spare, sorry...

But I reckon I could make fish and chips with some home-made chunky chips. Mmmm...

First of all, apologies to DesignatedMarksman for deviating from his original topic to this. :p

And to Yootopia...home-made chunky chips!? All I need now is your address, so as I can kidnap you and make you my chef-slave. :D

I think this is a fantastic story. While I am Canadian, and I don't support the war, I do respect the people who enlist and dedicate their lives to the military in any way, shape, or form, even the people who only enlist in the reserves have a lot of courage. I'm only pro-war when there are really good reasons (I know 'really good reasons' are subjective, so don't bother pointing that out) but I have a deep respect for anyone willing to put their life on the line for their country.

There's a difference between respecting the soldiers and respecting the war, after all.

I think this is a fantastic story. While I am Canadian, and I don't support the war, I do respect the people who enlist and dedicate their lives to the military in any way, shape, or form, even the people who only enlist in the reserves have a lot of courage. I'm only pro-war when there are really good reasons (I know 'really good reasons' are subjective, so don't bother pointing that out) but I have a deep respect for anyone willing to put their life on the line for their country.

There's a difference between respecting the soldiers and respecting the war, after all.

Hearing you say this really makes my heart skip a beat, you know that? I am relieved beyond belief that there are people in my own country who support our men and women overseas. As I am in the process of enlisting and joining the full-time troops, myself, and what you said here really means something to me. Thank you.

I wonder if this was a class assignment, or an option for the students to do.
I wonder if the whole class wasnt told to write to a soldier and say nice things etc..

Kinda making them pro-war , aint it?
Not really. Supporting the troops isn't the same as supporting the war.

Hearing you say this really makes my heart skip a beat, you know that? I am relieved beyond belief that there are people in my own country who support our men and women overseas. As I am in the process of enlisting and joining the full-time troops, myself, and what you said here really means something to me. Thank you.
Aww, you're very welcome! And bravo! I wouldn't be brave enough to join the military, but I know how much it takes to do so (I've known a few people who have joined up), and I don't see how anyone could disrespect that, really, especially when the ones who disrespect it are usually (not always) part of the "too scared to do it themselves" group.

Children led to fellate the military. Warms the cockles of your heart.

Not really. Supporting the troops isn't the same as supporting the war.


Youre right, its not.
But how many 12 year old kids can make that distinction?

Children fellating the military. Warms the cockles of your heart.


You make that sound so creepy, it gives me the willies.

Children led to fellate the military. Warms the cockles of your heart.

In all honesty, I have seen very, very few children who even discuss war, let alone endorse it. I don't think there are very many war-loving twelve-year-olds in the world, regardless of where we all live.

(By the way, nice word use. Cruel, but effective, if readers know what the word means.)

Youre right, its not.
But how many 12 year old kids can make that distinction?
A lot more than you seem to give them credit for. They're not told to write about how the war is great, they were asked to write a letter to the soldiers saying what they would thank the troops for. That's nowhere near teaching them to support the war brainlessly, but I think it should be common sense to thank the people who put their lives on the line, even if neither they nor you truly support the cause, to protect the people at home as best they can.

In all honesty, I have seen very, very few children who even discuss war, let alone endorse it. I don't think there are very many war-loving twelve-year-olds in the world, regardless of where we all live.

They all start out somewhere, and a perfect start for these people seems to be to instil the curious notion that the military is honourable, and worthy of veneration and support. Supporting the tools of war, and supporting the war itself are not far from one another.

(By the way, nice word use. Cruel, but effective, if readers know what the word means.)

Ah, the quirkiness of the language we call English.

Not really. Supporting the troops isn't the same as supporting the war.
Well, i suppose that depends from whose perspective you're looking at the whole subject. I wouldn't be surprised if the Pentagon had come up with the idea in the first place to lift moral, so in a sense (and from their point of view) sending letters from children thanking soldiers could be more than supporting the war, it could be part of the war effort.

A lot more than you seem to give them credit for. They're not told to write about how the war is great, they were asked to write a letter to the soldiers saying what they would thank the troops for. That's nowhere near teaching them to support the war brainlessly, but I think it should be common sense to thank the people who put their lives on the line, even if neither they nor you truly support the cause, to protect the people at home as best they can.


I can say I support the troops while opposing the war, but Im an adult, and understand the situation with an adult comprehension.
I dont think many 12 year olds can.
To know why you should oppose a war, and yet, be grateful to the men and women who serve, is something most children simply havent developed yet.

Hell, some never do.

Aww, you're very welcome! And bravo! I wouldn't be brave enough to join the military, but I know how much it takes to do so (I've known a few people who have joined up), and I don't see how anyone could disrespect that, really, especially when the ones who disrespect it are usually (not always) part of the "too scared to do it themselves" group.
I would rather be shot by a firing squad than pick up a gun to take someone's life. You tell me who's the coward: The person who is prepared to die to avoid killing others or the person who is prepared to kill others to stay alive?

A lot more than you seem to give them credit for. They're not told to write about how the war is great, they were asked to write a letter to the soldiers saying what they would thank the troops for. That's nowhere near teaching them to support the war brainlessly, but I think it should be common sense to thank the people who put their lives on the line, even if neither they nor you truly support the cause, to protect the people at home as best they can.

I agree wholeheartedly.

They all start out somewhere, and a perfect start for these people seems to be to instil the curious notion that the military is honourable, and worthy of veneration and support. Supporting the tools of war, and supporting the war itself are not far from one another.

Soldiers are more than simply tools of war. They are humans too, albeit ones in a very dangerous line of work. They didn't join the military to start a war. They know that enlisting constitutes the responsibility to fight one, if the need should arise, but these men have joined the military to protect their country and their families. They aren't the aggressors; I doubt we would would have seen very many Western soldiers in the Middle East throughout the past few decades if it weren't for the agendas of the political minds driving the country.

"The letters mean so much to us. (...)"
Of course they do. These letters gives them break from killing innocent people... :rolleyes:

I would rather be shot by a firing squad than pick up a gun to take someone's life. You tell me who's the coward: The person who is prepared to die to avoid killing others or the person who is prepared to kill others to stay alive?

I respect your refusal to take life, but don't you dare start calling soldiers cowards. How dare you. Perhaps you don't like killing, but have you thought that maybe - perhaps - soldiers don't like it either? They pick up the sword to protect the ideals and freedoms that we enjoy here in the Western world. They don't take life to keep their own.

Soldiers are more than simply tools of war.

I beg to differ. They are the cannonfodder used to project power, and are quite expendable, it seems.

They are humans too, albeit ones in a very dangerous line of work.

Wouldn't it be grand if they were human enough not to do the bidding of their overlords?

They didn't join the military to start a war.

Then they must have been stupid, especially in the case of the US military, to think that's not what militaries do.

They know that enlisting constitutes the responsibility to fight one, if the need should arise, but these men have joined the military to protect their country and their families.

Alas, that's not what they're doing in this case.

They aren't the aggressors;

Oh, the US military very much is nowadays.

I doubt we would would have seen very many Western soldiers in the Middle East throughout the past few decades if it weren't for the agendas of the political minds driving the country.

The political mind is nothing without the people willing to do its bidding. The responsibility of those who do the bidding is not lessened by letting someone else do their thinking for them.

They pick up the sword to protect the ideals and freedoms that we enjoy here in the Western world. They don't take life to keep their own.


except they really arent doing any of that in Iraq, are they?

Iraq is under martial law, essentially, with a government that is on the brink of civil war, thanks to the instability we imposed by overthrowing its former government.

They arent defending America, or our way of life over there.

I respect your refusal to take life, but don't you dare start calling soldiers cowards. How dare you. Perhaps you don't like killing, but have you thought that maybe - perhaps - soldiers don't like it either? They pick up the sword to protect the ideals and freedoms that we enjoy here in the Western world. They don't take life to keep their own.
What ideals? Oil?

I would rather be shot by a firing squad than pick up a gun to take someone's life. You tell me who's the coward: The person who is prepared to die to avoid killing others or the person who is prepared to kill to stay alive?
I think you're a little confused as to my meaning. I don't support the war, I used to on some level, but I can't really anymore since it's been excuse after excuse as opposed to reason after reason. I do, however, support the people who are willing to fight it. I'm not asking you to agree, I'm not telling you why it's wrong not to, I'm sorry if I came across that way, but it takes courage to join the military, I've known people who have done so, and I really respect them. I can't explain why any more than I can explain why I believe what I do in other areas of my life, I just have a respect for the people who are willing to do that for their country, even when the causes behind it are questionable.

Quote:
Soldiers are more than simply tools of war.

I beg to differ. They are the cannonfodder used to project power, and are quite expendable, it seems.

Expendable? Please direct your opinion to any number of families who have lost a husband, father, wife, or mother in the Middle East. I'm sure your views will likely conflict.


Quote:
They are humans too, albeit ones in a very dangerous line of work.

Wouldn't it be grand if they were human enough not to do the bidding of their overlords?

Ah, overlords. They do what their higher-ups tell them to, but if I'm correct, that is exactly the way any sort of business or organization works.


Quote:
They didn't join the military to start a war.

Then they must have been stupid, especially in the case of the US military, to think that's not what militaries do.

Militaries do not start wars. Countries start wars. (Unless, of course, a country has been overrun by it's own military and implanted with a militaristic dictator, but that is a completely different situation.)


Quote:
They know that enlisting constitutes the responsibility to fight one, if the need should arise, but these men have joined the military to protect their country and their families.

Alas, that's not what they're doing in this case.

Alas, that is still why they enlisted. They didn't take a vote on where to attack next; the government decided.


Quote:
They aren't the aggressors;

Oh, the US military very much is nowadays.

The US military? The entire thing, eh? Well, that is quite amazing. Every soldier in the military wanted to go to Iraq to possibly die, instead of remaining in the States where all they have to do is stand guard as a preventative measure? Well, thank you for letting me know.


Quote:
I doubt we would would have seen very many Western soldiers in the Middle East throughout the past few decades if it weren't for the agendas of the political minds driving the country.

The political mind is nothing without the people willing to do its bidding. The responsibility of those who do the bidding is not lessened by letting someone else do their thinking for them.

When President Bush was running his political campaign to get elected, did he broadcast images or ideas of going to war in the Middle East? No, obviously not. He wouldn't have been popular enough to win, especially if everyone knew what was coming.

They pick up the sword to protect the ideals and freedoms that we enjoy here in the Western world. They don't take life to keep their own.
The US army is thriving thanks to thousands of unemployed and criminal youths. These boys and girls don't join to protect ideals and freedoms, they join to save their sorry lives from poverty or jail sentences. And please, save me from the hypocritical speech of superior western ideals and freedoms; it's stained with double standards....

What ideals? Oil?

...I am quite sure that this war has escalated beyond wanting to keep America's cars running. Check up on the price tag per month this war is costing America. I doubt that would be able to be recovered with a friendly, oil-rich country in the Mid-East.

The US army is thriving thanks to thousands of unemployed and criminal youths. These boys and girls don't join to protect ideals and freedoms, they join to save their sorry lives from poverty or jail sentences. And please, save me from the hypocritical speech of superior western ideals and freedoms; it's stained with double standards....

When did I ever say our ideals are superior? Besides, I am quite sure that most Americans are quite pleased with the level of freedoms they enjoy. That is worth protecting, isn't it? Surely not all Americans are completely cynical.

Militaries do not start wars. Countries start wars. (Unless, of course, a country has been overrun by it's own military and implanted with a militaristic dictator, but that is a completely different situation.)

"America" is a shorter way to say that... ;)

"America" is a shorter way to say that... ;)

*sigh...* lol, I hate you now. I already have to rebuke everyone who doesn't like the war in the Middle East on this thread already, (even though I don't support it myself,) now don't you start with the whole "Bush = Hitler" thing...:D

Not really. Supporting the troops isn't the same as supporting the war.
True...
But it's not like the majority of americans support the troops either. Sure, they'll say they do, and they'll buy the ribbons and whatnot to make themselves feel less guilty, but they won't make any sacrifices and they won't really support the troops.

I do, however, support the people who are willing to fight it. I'm not asking you to agree, I'm not telling you why it's wrong not to, I'm sorry if I came across that way, but it takes courage to join the military, I've known people who have done so, and I really respect them. I can't explain why any more than I can explain why I believe what I do in other areas of my life, I just have a respect for the people who are willing to do that for their country, even when the causes behind it are questionable.
Supporting soldiers should be - first and foremost - the role of their family members and friends, not of school children they don't know. I don't think it's wrong to support friends and family members, if they have made that choice, I just hate it when someone implies that a pacifist is a coward... My brother is in the army and, as much as I hate his choice, I respect it just as he respects my contempt for war.

*sigh...* lol, I hate you now.
Because of just one post? You are to kind... :)

now don't you start with the whole "Bush = Hitler" thing...:D
Of course not, that would give Hitler to much credit... :p

Of course not, that would give Hitler to much credit... :p

I will shoot you in the foot and then myself in the head. Good day. ;)

Supporting soldiers should be - first and foremost - the role of their family members and friends, not of school children they don't know. I don't think it's wrong to support friends and family members, if they have made that choice, I just hate it when someone implies that a pacifist is a coward... My brother is in the army and, as much as I hate his choice, I respect it just as he respects my contempt for war.
I didn't mean to imply that all pacifists are cowards. It's not as though I'm idolizing the military and glorifying them. I am implying that some (SOME! Not all) of the people who are vehemently anti-war are partially only doing so because they're too scared to even consider being able to do something like go to war. Not all pacifists are cowards, but there are some who are. Not all anti-war people are cowards, but some are. I never intended to imply that all of one or the other are cowards, and I apologize if it came across that way.

I will shoot you in the foot and then myself in the head. Good day. ;) And now you act like an American soldier. Are you sure you are Canadian? :p

Expendable? Please direct your opinion to any number of families who have lost a husband, father, wife, or mother in the Middle East. I'm sure your views will likely conflict.

It is not me who renders them expendable. It is their own foolishness coupled with that of their overlords. So, it is not I who needs to direct my opinion towards them - they need but look at themselves.

Ah, overlords. They do what their higher-ups tell them to, but if I'm correct, that is exactly the way any sort of business or organization works.

Any sort of business doesn't make you kill people. Any sort of business that does deserves nothing but contempt, in lieu of this blindingly halfwitted obedience.

Militaries do not start wars. Countries start wars.

"Guns don't kill people. Holes in people kill people." Who puts the hole there?

(Unless, of course, a country has been overrun by it's own military and implanted with a militaristic dictator, but that is a completely different situation.)

Yes, play the little responsibility game - render them even more the cannonfodder they are ultimately meant to be. Automata without any minds of their own, not men or women enough to hold responsibility for their actions, their choice to divulge their life to end other life. For they are innocent when killing - "they were just following orders." If only that excuse had worked in Nürnberg...

Alas, that is still why they enlisted. They didn't take a vote on where to attack next; the government decided.

And they did the bidding.

The US military? The entire thing, eh?

Yup.

Well, that is quite amazing. Every soldier in the military wanted to go to Iraq to possibly die, instead of remaining in the States where all they have to do is stand guard as a preventative measure? Well, thank you for letting me know.

They went nevertheless. "I didn't want to do it, but they told me to, and so I did it, because they told me to. I am not a man - I hold no responsibility for my actions. It is government, I say. Government."


When President Bush was running his political campaign to get elected, did he broadcast images or ideas of going to war in the Middle East? No, obviously not. He wouldn't have been popular enough to win, especially if everyone knew what was coming.

And yet things transpired as they did. These people were stupid, or immoral enough to do his bidding. And now you're being fed, and are feeding yourself, the notion that they are honourable for it, while at the same time they are to have no responsibility. Quite the cognitive dissonance.

And now you act like an American soldier. Are you sure you are Canadian? :p

American soldiers shoot other people in the feet before killing themselves? No wonder the world doesn't like them so much!

And, uh, I THINK I'm Canadian...we weren't annexed when I wasn't looking, were we? :(

Expendable? Please direct your opinion to any number of families who have lost a husband, father, wife, or mother in the Middle East. I'm sure your views will likely conflict.
Fass probably meant that they are expendable in the eyes of the government.

Alas, that is still why they enlisted. They didn't take a vote on where to attack next; the government decided.

The US military? The entire thing, eh? Well, that is quite amazing. Every soldier in the military wanted to go to Iraq to possibly die, instead of remaining in the States where all they have to do is stand guard as a preventative measure? Well, thank you for letting me know.

You still can't escape the fact that most of the troops in Iraq support the war. Why else would they vote Republican in such great numbers?

Supporting soldiers should be - first and foremost - the role of their family members and friends, not of school children they don't know.
No, supporting soldiers should be, first and foremost, the role of the government that employs them.

American soldiers shoot other people in the feet before killing themselves? No wonder the world doesn't like them so much! ...which is not such a bad thing, is it? :)

And, uh, I THINK I'm Canadian...we weren't annexed when I wasn't looking, were we? :( As far as I know, you're still Canadian then. ;)

It is not me who renders them expendable. It is their own foolishness coupled with that of their overlords. So, it is not I who needs to direct my opinion towards them - they need but look at themselves.


You seem to like that word, overlords...unfortunately, 'boss' works much more appropriately. If people didn't listen to whomever they were employed by, the world would be anarchy. Wouldn't that be enjoyable?


Any sort of business doesn't make you kill people. Any sort of business that does deserves nothing but contempt, in lieu of this blindingly halfwitted obedience.


Pharmaceutical companies...?
Anyway, as far as I can tell, my own country's soldiers are not in the business of killing. Fancy that, eh? No, as the creators of the concept of Peacekeeping, we are simply honouring family tradition. The violence-preventing representation of Canada and America alike have helped many countries around the world, without a single shot being fired. Unfortunate that we can bring stability to a nation just by being there...the warlords will be so upset.


"Guns don't kill people. Holes in people kill people." Who puts the hole there?


Okay...how many times do I have to go over this same topic? A military - while under direct control of it's government - has NEVER started a war on it's own. They do as they're told, obviously, as that is the purpose of a military in the first place. To obey the government, which is created to represent and obey the people. Now, if the military is starting all these wars and killing people recklessly, I think that it is fair to say that the majority of the country wishes it to be so. Otherwise, they wouldn't be there killing innocent babies, right?


Yes, play the little responsibility game - render them even more the cannonfodder they are ultimately meant to be. Automata without any minds of their own, not men or women enough to hold responsibility for their actions, their choice to divulge their life to end other life. For they are innocent when killing - "they were just following orders." If only that excuse had worked in Nürnberg...


Every man and woman has to take responsibility for their own actions. Everything they may do while in the military will be with them for life...the good and the bad. They're willing to accept this fact. If there were no military in America, I believe the chances are quite high that the country would not exist. They are there to protect the nation, and if the current leadership dictates that they must go and influence their prescence somewhere else to secure safety for the good of the country, then that's what they'll do. Not that the orders they recieve are always right or just, but they must obey, regardless.



Yup.


Nope.


And yet things transpired as they did. These people were stupid, or immoral enough to do his bidding. And now you're being fed, and are feeding yourself, the notion that they are honourable for it, while at the same time they are to have no responsibility. Quite the cognitive dissonance.


Therefore the entire majority of the American people were stupid or immoral enough to elect George W. Bush as their newest President. Twice. Without him, this war would not have started, and the soldiers would not need to be risking their lives in the Mid-East. Risking their lives to help a people who, by all accounts of public opinion, rarely seem to want to be helped. These men and women in uniform have earned respect, even if not for their actions. They have earned respect by following the wishes of the American people, and, in over two thousand cases, following it to their deaths.

Oh, and out of curiosity, have you ever heard of a Military Justice system? It isn't there for show, you know. Soldiers who commit crimes that are unnacceptable are severely reprimanded and punished. Fighting against Iraqis who happen to be shooting at them is not considered a crime; raping a vulnerable Iraqi woman, however, is.

As far as I know, you're still Canadian then. ;)

*phew*

No, supporting soldiers should be, first and foremost, the role of the government that employs them.
Meh... as if they cared...

Uhh...The story was about a girl in syracuse. And if you bothered to read the article you posted, you would have noticed it was taken from "The Post-Standard", which is a local syracuse paper, as evinced by it's web address:
http://www.syracuse.com/poststandard/

It was also an Associated Press story, which means it's available world-wide.

But hey, why let facts get in the way of your prejudices, eh?
Anything to prove the 'Liberal media' hates American soldiers, right? Even if you have to make it up yourself, or ignore facts to suit.


My defense is that it was late and I was tired. Very tired.

M'bad.

I think it's a good idea for the kids to write the soldiers serving over in Iraq. So you're telling me it's not a good idea for children to write soldiers because children aren't capable of making an informed decision as to whether the war is justified or not? :rolleyes:

Those kids are gonna be the next generation of soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors. Maybe there is a young boy who was interested in the army who now wants to be a soldier when he grows up-that ain't a bad thing.

And as my dad always said, "God blessem',we need many more".

No, supporting soldiers should be, first and foremost, the role of the government that employs them.

Gov'ts can't provide moral support.

Because the morale of troops is the biggest issue facing the world? Yeah, I'd feel pretty darn miserable if I was running around killing innocent civilians in the name of some sort of Bush doctrine that nobody really understands. Even more miserable than the millions of AIDS-orphaned Africans or all the people facing genocide in Darfur, I'm sure.

I think it's a good idea for the kids to write the soldiers serving over in Iraq. So you're telling me it's not a good idea for children to write soldiers because children aren't capable of making an informed decision as to whether the war is justified or not? :rolleyes:

Those kids are gonna be the next generation of soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors. Maybe there is a young boy who was interested in the army who now wants to be a soldier when he grows up-that ain't a bad thing.

And as my dad always said, "God blessem',we need many more".

It's a bad thing if you're a pacifist.

Because the morale of troops is the biggest issue facing the world? Yeah, I'd feel pretty darn miserable if I was running around killing innocent civilians in the name of some sort of Bush doctrine that nobody really understands. Even more miserable than the millions of AIDS-orphaned Africans or all the people facing genocide in Darfur, I'm sure.

:D

It's the biggest issue to me, an American citizen. Those men are more important than whatever else goes on in the world. (To me)

It's a bad thing if you're a pacifist.

8 years ago that boy way me. However, I snapped out of it.










I'm gonna become a Marine. Someday.

I wonder if this was a class assignment, or an option for the students to do.
I wonder if the whole class wasnt told to write to a soldier and say nice things etc..

Kinda making them pro-war , aint it?
Teacher Donna Mahar said she has her seventh-grade classes participate in the yearly contest. About 60 of her pupils wrote letters, she said.
Contest... so not mandatory.

and saying nice things to soldiers makes them pro war?

next think you'll say is that the teacher is forcing militarism on kids.

it's a nice feel good story about the impact simple letters can have to people far from home.

:D

It's the biggest issue to me, an American citizen. Those men are more important than whatever else goes on in the world. (To me)

Then you're not only arrogant and self-involved, but also extremely sexist (women are soldiers, too). Want some pictures of dying African children? Here you go:
http://www.ryanspencerreed.com
Try the one about the people experiencing grief. Do you feel a little pity for them, or are they nothing more than worthless foreigners to you?

8 years ago that boy way me. However, I snapped out of it.


I'm gonna become a Marine. Someday.

Evidently, you weren't a real pacifist, because a real one doesn't "snap out of it." A real pacifist learns a little more about peace and forgiveness in every moment of every day.

Evidently, you weren't a real pacifist, because a real one doesn't "snap out of it." A real pacifist learns a little more about peace and forgiveness in every moment of every day.

No, I meant snap out of joining the army and joining the USMC.

Then you're not only arrogant and self-involved, but also extremely sexist (women are soldiers, too). Want some pictures of dying African children? Here you go:
http://www.ryanspencerreed.com
Try the one about the people experiencing grief. Do you feel a little pity for them, or are they nothing more than worthless foreigners to you?

Chill out man, when I say Men I am talking about the general military ranks, and even today it's overwhelmingly male. Just like the word "Guys". OMG!!!11! OH NOEESSS! YOU SEXIST CHAUVINIST BIG0T!!!11!!11!!! WOMAN HAT3R!!11!!!!

My fiance was raised in a home where her mother had many lovers and her brothers were half brothers. One of her last memories of her mother is that of her attempting to drown her. (She was from Costa rica, BTW)

This summer I am hoping, god willing, to go on a missions trip to costa rica and work at an orphanage. I love helping Kids because it's one of those Gifts God have given me and I hope to use it.

No, I meant snap out of joining the army and joining the USMC.



Chill out man, when I say Men I am talking about the general military ranks, and even today it's overwhelmingly male. Just like the word "Guys". OMG!!!11! OH NOEESSS! YOU SEXIST CHAUVINIST BIG0T!!!11!!11!!! WOMAN HAT3R!!11!!!!

My fiance was raised in a home where her mother had many lovers and her brothers were half brothers. One of her last memories of her mother is that of her attempting to drown her. (She was from Costa rica, BTW)

This summer I am hoping, god willing, to go on a missions trip to costa rica and work at an orphanage. I love helping Kids because it's one of those Gifts God have given me and I hope to use it.

You just told me that the emotional state of US troops is your biggest concern in life. Whether or not you go to Costa Rica to spew your religious views all over disadvantaged people is not of concern. It's your priorities I was talking about.

EDIT: And as far as the sexism goes, one word can me more than a 5 page essay, in the right situation.

Then I call shenannigans!
Where have I heard this before?

Contest... so not mandatory.

and saying nice things to soldiers makes them pro war?

next think you'll say is that the teacher is forcing militarism on kids.

it's a nice feel good story about the impact simple letters can have to people far from home.
The quote says the teacher "has" her kid enter, so from the sound of it she makes them enter, or sets it as work and punishes them if they don't etc.

In terms of making kids pro-war, in essence they're asking the kids to write and thank the soldiers, logical implication that the soldiers in Iraq are donig something that the children owe/ should be thankful to them for. logical Implication, the war in Iraq is benefiting said children. logical implication, war in Iraq is good thing.

The problem being that it is highly disputed whether that is the case. To make a larger jump would be to say that it implies that the soldiers were protecting America, but you can decide if you think that's logical or not.

The quote says the teacher "has" her kid enter, so from the sound of it she makes them enter, or sets it as work and punishes them if they don't etc.keep an open mind. she may had told them and sent their letters in, but the word "has" does not infer no choice.

In terms of making kids pro-war, in essence they're asking the kids to write and thank the soldiers, logical implication that the soldiers in Iraq are donig something that the children owe/ should be thankful to them for. logical Implication, the war in Iraq is benefiting said children. logical implication, war in Iraq is good thing.again, making leaps and bounds to the conclusion. War does not equal the soldiers. that's like saying anyone supporting the Firefighters also supports arson (by your logic.)

The problem being that it is highly disputed whether that is the case. To make a larger jump would be to say that it implies that the soldiers were protecting America, but you can decide if you think that's logical or not.normally that is the American Soldiers first duty, to defend American soil and interest (including American citizens and property abroad) their second is to go where they are sent and/or needed.

keep an open mind. she may had told them and sent their letters in, but the word "has" does not infer no choice.

again, making leaps and bounds to the conclusion. War does not equal the soldiers. that's like saying anyone supporting the Firefighters also supports arson (by your logic.)

normally that is the American Soldiers first duty, to defend American soil and interest (including American citizens and property abroad) their second is to go where they are sent and/or needed.

Actually, by Forsakia's logic, supporting FireFighters would be supporting the putting out of fires.

You just told me that the emotional state of US troops is your biggest concern in life. Whether or not you go to Costa Rica to spew your religious views all over disadvantaged people is not of concern. It's your priorities I was talking about.

EDIT: And as far as the sexism goes, one word can me more than a 5 page essay, in the right situation.

But does that mean I cannot do anything else? No.

But does that mean I cannot do anything else? No.

Here's the essential question: If you could either ensure the health and happiness of American troops or cure AIDS, what would you do?

Here's the essential question: If you could either ensure the health and happiness of American troops or cure AIDS, what would you do?

You know my answer. Keeping their spirits up while they do our 'dirty work' is important.

You know my answer. Keeping their spirits up while they do our 'dirty work' is important.

So you'd let millions die? That is all I needed to know.

"A righteous man would willingly die if he knew his death would improve the world"- Confuscius

analyze this algorithmically.

So you'd let millions die? That is all I needed to know.

Well, on second thought, if we did have a cure for AIDs.......

Maybe we could get africa to get it's act together and stop it's ceaseless wars. Maybe.

Whirled peas.

Something tells me that it will be a very long time before Africa gets its act together and stops all the infighting. Every guy with an AK47 thinks he can't take on the world and wants to rule the continent. "Attention passengers. Please prepare for our landing in Tanzania. I'm sorry, it is now called New Zanzibar. Excuse me. It is now called Pepsi Presents New Zanzibar."

Something tells me that it will be a very long time before Africa gets its act together and stops all the infighting. Every guy with an AK47 thinks he can't take on the world and wants to rule the continent. "Attention passengers. Please prepare for our landing in Tanzania. I'm sorry, it is now called New Zanzibar. Excuse me. It is now called Pepsi Presents New Zanzibar."Where'd you get that from? Stormfront?

Where'd you get that from? Stormfront?


Sad as it is...he's right.

Sad as it is...he's right.About the whole continent? Hardly.
Texans and New Yorkers have more in common than what many people simply refer to as "Africans" do. Mugabe being a dictator in Zimbabwe has little to do with the deepening of democratic processes in Nigeria.

Where'd you get that from? Stormfront?

"Attention passengers. Please prepare for our landing in Tanzania. I'm sorry, it is now called New Zanzibar. Excuse me. It is now called Pepsi Presents New Zanzibar."

This? It's a Simpsons paraphrase.

"Attention passengers. Please prepare for our landing in Tanzania. I'm sorry, it is now called New Zanzibar. Excuse me. It is now called Pepsi Presents New Zanzibar."

This? It's a Simpsons paraphrase.
More the bit about anyone with an AK 47 trying to rule the continent.

More the bit about anyone with an AK 47 trying to rule the continent.

It is a quite ignorant of African politics and diversity, I'll grant you that, but I don't the the author was going for more than regurgitating a sound bite from some USian pundit he heard on on-line radio.

About the whole continent? Hardly.
Texans and New Yorkers have more in common than what many people simply refer to as "Africans" do. Mugabe being a dictator in Zimbabwe has little to do with the deepening of democratic processes in Nigeria.

Okay. Perhaps SA is the only semi-stable place in the whole continent. On a whole, Africa has more internal problems than pretty much anyone else. It's not a wonder why they haven't been able to completely outstroke America and the west with all those resources they have.

More the bit about anyone with an AK 47 trying to rule the continent.

Nearly the entire continent has arms, and fantasies just as big too.

Okay. Perhaps SA is the only semi-stable place in the whole continent. On a whole, Africa has more internal problems than pretty much anyone else. It's not a wonder why they haven't been able to completely outstroke America and the west with all those resources they have.Gold doesn't do you much good sitting in a mine. What a lot of people ignore is the fact that most of the resources can't be used by locals because of a significant lack of infrastructure. The few places that did well and still do comparatively well were the ones where Europeans decided to settle permanently and in large groups. That led to a better development of infrastructure to meet the needs of the population instead of just the companies that got the resources out.
Now of course, the only ones able to afford getting at the resources are nonlocal companies, which don't really invest in much other than the infrastructure needed to get the resources out.
There's more to Africa than just South Africa, and one could well consider Tunisia as stable. Or Egypt for that matter.