Wayne

 War is hell-thats why sane people avoid it.

S##t happens-especially during armed conflict and this is an example.

You cannot imagine the just horrible S##t that happens during war!

Been that way forever-aint gonna change anytime soon.

Best to keep it down to a dull roar ,as they say.

John

I agree with 7475!

The frame of mind, actions and atrocities that occur during/because of war are like living in a Twilight Zone............where rules that apply outside of war no longer apply.

Our code of ethics and respect for human life often takes a back seat. 

Killing another human being, outside of self defense under almost all circumstances is a crime that, if convicted of it, will usually result in a long sentence to prison.

War is the exception. Killing people that you oppose is sometimes the objective. The saddest part of most wars is that those fighting and dying in them are almost never the ones that decided to have the war. So you have huge numbers of "disposable" humans on both sides, fighting a war over some principle or issue that the most powerful humans representing that idea(s) have decided is important enough to sacrifice  these lives for. 

In the United States, this has resulted in the  loss of the lives of many in wars and military actions in the Middle East that have paid no dividends. Overall, we have made more situations worse vs making them better. 

Countries like Iran that sponsor terrorism and are a global threat, especially if they would acquire nuclear weapons should be confronted. Unfortunately, this could require military actions, like assassinating a key military leader planning more life taking attacks. Or taking out nuclear facilities at some point if no deal to stop their uranium enrichment can be made and they are close to having a bomb that could kill countless people. 

However, the wars in Afghanistan/Iraq and other stuff from the past 6 decades accomplished nothing. Wasted money, wasted lives of brave, patriotic US soldiers(deaths from the other side were just as sad for their families-who had no say in the war).

Information that we get from our country, usually paints a one sided picture, intended to justify our presence over there to the American people. Propaganda. This is how the Iraq was was sold.  In what universe, would our government be over there and tell us reasons for why they should not be over there?

Of course they will try to convince us that we are the good guys and they are fighting evil/the bad guys. In some cases this is true. Iran is an evil country. Most of the people living  in Iran are not evil but their government and its objectives are evil in many ways........so this part of the story is based on truth. 

Wayne, I believe that we have a right to know the entire truth. Whether its good or bad. Our tax dollars are what fund these wars. Our sons and daughters are the ones risking and losing their lives fighting there. 

With regards to them hating us.  

1. How would we like it if another country decided to tell us what political system and rules we should follow to the point of them forcing it on us and having a military presence in the US or Canada? No way would this be tolerated and the nation doing it would be despised. The US has, many times in the past,  toppled regimes so a new leader that they liked could take over.  Even if we had good reasons/or it was justified on paper, do we have the right to dictate to other countries what their politics  and who their leaders should be?

2. Many countries have corrupt leaders and bad governments. Actually, we should look at the current corrupt, partisan politics going on right here in the US and appreciate that the US has interfered illegally  with foreign elections more than any other country in the world by a wide margin(but we pretend that Russia has the franchise on it) and wonder how we can be taking this moral high ground position...............when, we are worse than any county for abuses?

Hypocrites!

3. So of course we are giving the people over there plenty of reason to hate us. Then, they are not the "love your neighbor, love your enemy" type society to begin with...........more like, never forgive your neighbor if they cross you and crush your enemy, especially if they are Jewish for instance. 

A recipe for complete failures, over and over and over. 

What do you think things would be like if the US and West NEVER had a military presence in the Middle East and never toppled and replaced leaders and just let them go on with minimal engagement to influence their politics/governments?

For sure they would still have had many wars within the factions that fight with each other. 

Would there have been a need for ISIS, Al Qaeda or these terrorist groups?

Not likely. The biggest purpose has been to strike back against the non Muslim world for what it's doing to the Muslim world. Strike back as in to  "respond" to our military and other interferences in the Middle East. 

We went over there first and picked the fights.  Their response is completely unacceptable since it intends to take the lives of innocent people in terrorism.............those people don't follow ethical principles when fighting a war.

But we actually started it decades ago.  My opinion is that we need to minimize our footprint in the Middle East. Using military force may be justified under some conditions. 

One other thing.

Our military leaders did not get to be military leaders by having a long record of being strong advocates of peace never advising military actions except  as a very last resort.

They went to military school and had training to to be good at using strategies to DEFEAT the enemy. That is what they are good at. The don't have "peace training" school (even though most of them know and consider peaceful terms if it makes more sense for obtaining a winning position)

As a chess coach to 3,000 kids for the past 25 years, for some of these guys, its almost like a chess match in some ways. 

If you have ever been to a state championship in chess at the high school level or elite level for adults and look around, you will note that over 95% of those competing are men.

Why is that?

Women are very smart too. Smarter than men in many areas. Why are there less than 5% of them competing at the highest level in the sport for the brain? It's not football or a sport where men are physically superior. 

It's because the male brain works differently than the female brain. Not just analytical thinking differently but men are very VERY attracted (by their nature) to games that feature one side that has an army that uses strategies to out maneuver the other side/army and defeat them. Crush them in fact!

Having testosterone with the added aggression makes it even worse but its built into many males brains. A war is almost a natural way to express that desire/attraction to this predisposition.  Wars can be justified of course and are not just games between men from 2 opposing countries but the number of wars is probably several orders of magnitude higher than the number of wars that would have taken place if women were holding every position in the leadership ranks and government.

That's not to say that we don't have women generals, as they represent 7.1% of the generals but one can say that these women generals, like their male counterparts are the best in the business at commanding armies. That's why they are generals. 

And they don't command them to build houses for the homeless or walk old ladies across the street (-:

They command them to be prepared for battles and to fight battles.  It's what they do.

So when you have generals giving the president(s) advise on a potential military situation, they discuss military options and why/how they can win. That's what they have just spent their entire lives doing..........getting many thousands of soldiers ready for situations/confrontations/battles that they can win. 

War is a terrible thing.  But it's not always the worst thing.