What kind of war is that where you cannot fire at civilians?! That just takes all the fun out of it. On top of that, you can't torture prisoners. i know you said "interrogate", juvie, but I get your meaning.

There's no joy left in war anymore when you can't kill innocent women and kids and you can't torture POWs.

I want nothing to do with it anymore.

Hi Rick,

Do you know what the spanish word culero means?

John McCain was tortured and has the broken bones to prove it

No detained enemy combatants have been tortured and their medical condition proves it.

You go on living in your dream world while other brave men and women walk your slack.

Hopefully, your family wont be exposed to the dangers of the plans in progress that KSM

revealed while be waterboarded

Jack Rogers , 2nd Inf, 7th Inf, US Army ret

This sort of dovetails into the whole Israel thing, doesn't it?

Oh, please, Eric. Get over your sanctimonious self. The point is that in the heat of battle, soldiers should not be expected to make judgment calls regarding who's a "civilian" and who's a "militant"....especially in these wars, when the enemy is not uniformed. It's ludicrous. It's so easy for you to sit safely in the comforts of your own home, not having to worry if the guy across the street is a "good guy" or a "bad guy" and shake your head at civilian casualties, decrying the U.S. military as "evil"...People like you really have your priorities mixed up. Nobody condones the killing of civilians in a time of war, but at the same time, civilian casualties are inevitable. Do you really think that if the war were on U.S. soil, that the Taliban would think twice about killing innocent civilians? No, and they've proven that they don't care.

Jill, did you see the video?

that wasn't the "heat of the battle". they were standing around talking on their phones.

And I DO expect the professional soldier who valiantly protects us to make that judgement call. One - because it is the right thing to do. And, second, each civilian killed by a US soldier hurts the war effort by creating more ill will to the allied cause.

"Kill them all, let God sort them out" is not a winning strategy.

Jill,

Making tough judgment calls is precisely the job US soldiers are well paid to do. They volunteered and should be willing to do whatever it takes to protect America's long term security. If that means putting themselves in greater danger to protect potential innocent lives (including Afghan lives) then US soldiers should do exactly that. If anyone isn't prepared to die rather than kill an Innocent civilian then they should not VOLUNTEER for military service.

Sorry, but to believe that they should be expected to make a judgment call on the ground with an enemy who is not uniformed requires them to be at the mercy of the Taliban. I suppose if they don't make a move to blow themselves and the soldiers up, then they can be regarded as civilians. By then, it may be too late.

They are there to kill the enemy. Make no mistake about that. The US Soldier is "well paid" (psshh) not to make "judgment calls" about whether the person is innocent or not.

Rick, to have a "kill them all, let God sort them out" strategy is to drop a bomb and have NO regard for any human life. That's NOT what I've said. I'm saying that if my loved one is in a battle zone, and he feels threatened by someone who may or may not be an "innocent civilian", I want him to shoot and protect himself.

You guys are really good at making the intellectual and sanctimonious arguments, but you're completely out of touch with reality.

And RedStateRed, the very presence of the US Soldier in a battle zone means that they are necessarily "putting their lives in greater danger to protect potential innocent lives." Duh.

Jill,

You want your loved one to commit murder of an innocent because they "feel threatened"? I wouldn't want any of my loved ones to kill an innocent just to save themselves from a perceived threat. If my loved one is in the combat zone then I expect them to lay down their lives for the ideals they claim to defend rather than betray those values by murdering a civilian. Most wars in history haven't had clearly identifiable uniformed combatants, get over it. And no, being in a war zone does not automatically mean soldiers are putting their lives in greater danger to protect potential innocent lives. If in that war zone soldiers kill anyone who makes them "feel threatened" then they are callously putting their safety ahead of the safety of innocents and the success of the mission.

RedStateRed, yes, I happen to feel that if the life of a US Soldier is threatened, they should take out the enemy. I, for one, do not put the lives of potential Taliban fighters ahead of the troops that are defending MY freedom. You are showing your ignorance on this matter, as US soldiers are ordered to shoot to kill if *gasp* even an innocent civilian doesn't follow commands.

You act like I'm saying that if someone looks at a soldier in the wrong way and "feels threatened" (love the way you put those words in quotation marks throughout your post in order to make some sort of implication), I'm saying that's fine. That, however, is NOT what I'm saying. I'm saying if they feel their lives are legitimately threatened, shoot and kill. That is not murder, RedStateRed, that is self-defense.

You say "callously putting their safety ahead of the safety of innocents and the success of the mission." You act like soldiers are selfish or something. How dare they go into a battle zone to protect the country that I love and perhaps kill a civilian (it's gonna happen, after all)! I mean, the nerve of them! Please. RedStateRed, just a question, but do you even know anyone who is fighting over there? Do you have a loved one over there?

Continue on with your pseudo-intellectual drivel. War is a messy affair, RedStateRed....perhaps YOU should get over it.

Jill,

Your questions reveal an age old trick. If I answer no to either of them I must not know what I’m talking about. That is not true. I need not have a loved one in Afghanistan to have a valid point about the way the war is being waged. I do know soldiers in the fight. As for loved ones, you and I differ totally on who we consider a loved one. I don’t love my family enough to ask them to kill innocents for my freedom and I have as much compassion for innocent children and non combatants as my own mother. You and I fundamentally disagree on what it means to fight a war. Yes war is ugly but people with your attitude (not unlike the attitude of our enemies) not only create wars but ensure they are as ugly as possible. Calling me psudo-intellectual is cute but I don't think that an anti-intellectual is qualified to use that term. If being an intellectual is something you dislike then feel free to continue avoiding intellectual thought.

RedStateRed, your arguments are completely detached from reality. You would rather our soldiers die because they may not be sure that the person that they are ordered to kill is an enemy fighter or not? Seriously? No soldier would agree with that ridiculous point of view.

It's nice that you attempt to paint me as an uncompassionate person throughout your post, RedStateRed, but you couldn't be farther from the truth. If my family member or loved one's life is threatened, regardless of the location, you better believe that I want my family member to survive. Perhaps we do disagree on who we consider a "loved one"; while I am concerned for the plight of others on this earth, my family comes first. Sorry, that's just the way I am. If feeling like you love everyone on this earth equally makes you feel like a better person, have at it.

For whatever reason, you're mischaracterizing my post as perpetuating the idea that I am perfectly fine with, for example, soldiers storming into a neighborhood and shooting willy-nilly. You refuse to acknowledge that I have said, on multiple occasions, that that is NOT what I am saying.

Oh, and your little comment comparing my train of thought to the "attitude of our enemies" was likewise cute, RedStateRed. By the way, how would you describe my "attitude"...you know, the one that, as you say, creates wars and ensures that they are as ugly as possible? From my point of view, my attitude is that if a US soldier feels legitimately (take notice of that key word there, RedStateRed) threatened, they should shoot. They should not be saddled with the expectation that they need to "guarantee" that they are not shooting a so-called "innocent civilian". What is so wrong with that "attitude" in a time of war?

Oh, and like your hero, Barack Obama, I was against the war from the start (which, apparently, to the left means I'm likewise qualified to be President! Yippee!!). I do not like war; but I at least recognize the realities of war.

Continue to categorize me as an "anti-intellectual", but you're (surprise) wrong about that one too. And my questions were not intending to be any trick, let alone an "age old trick". I was genuinely curious.

"Traitors who spill secrets whether their intent is good or bad should be courtmartialed, tried and convicted and upon conviction spend the rest of their lives in prison isolated from any other human contact other than guards."

Daniel Ellsberg?

The Pentagon Papers, officially titled United States–Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense, was a top-secret United States Department of Defense history of the United States' political-military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967. Commissioned by United States Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara in 1967, the study was completed in 1968. The papers were first brought to the attention of the public on the front page of the New York Times in 1971.^[1] A 1996 article in the New York Times said that the Pentagon Papers "demonstrated, among other things, that the Johnson Administration had systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress, about a subject of transcendent national interest and significance".[2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers