Topic One: Boys with Toys

Hey there people!
 
In my opinion, there are two different issues raised in your post, which can be very different. On the one hand, there's soldiers being killed everyday in Afghanistan and Iraq, and even though every human life lost is a tragedy, people should by now be aware that being a soldier implies that you put your life on the line every single day of your life. On the other hand, and this is where I disagree with you, it is surprising, at least, to read on the news that twelve soldiers were killed in Fort Hood, Texas (which is, by the way, the biggest base in the Northern Hemisphere). It is, as President Obama said, "horrifying to see that US soldiers can't feel safe, even when at their home country". If you are at a training camp, in your home country, and you still fear for your life, how are you going to cope with being at a foreign, hostile country? Every soldier must see his home country as a safe place to be, or else he will have nothing to fight for, and will ultimately lose his sense of self.
 
As Stalin once said: "One death is a tragedy. One million is a statistic.". We mustn't let ourselves fall into this evergrowing feeling of apathy concerning the death of soldiers. I'm not trying to say that I support either the Iraq or the Afghanistan wars, which I don't, but that every soldier was probably a cool dude that decided to put the wellbeing of his homeland over his own.
 
Have a nice week,
 
Pedro Barbieri

I agree that soldiers are exactly that: soldiers! Kill (and be killed) is part of their job. This should not come as a surprise for the media, politics and even the soldier’s families though modern warfare cannot be compared with the trench war fought on WWII (where more than 20 million soldiers died!). In Afghanistan, for example, there have been “only” 1500 coalition casualties since 2001 and some of these deaths are caused by common accidents or “friendly fire”. There is also the issue about the real reasons behind the modern wars. Soldiers are no longer fighting to defend freedom, oppression or any other noble cause. Thus, it comes as no surprise to me that rare and stupid deaths on behalf of questionable reasons still make the headlines and cause deep consternation on the soldier’s families.

A different issue is the incident with Major Hasan. Is this any different from the Columbine High School massacre that took place in 1999 where 12 students and a teacher were killed by two students?

Ricardo Sá

Hi everyone.
 
I guess having people wandering around with dangerous toys has unfortunately become a common scene. It is as common as it has turned into a profession. I must add it is a well paid occupation.
 
I do share the non-understanding of the fuss politicians make about casualties of war. The risk of death comes to soldiers as any other professional disease comes to other professionals. Take for example a vocal disease for an opera singer or a muscle strain for a soccer player. They’re part of the package. Take it or leave it!
 
Some years ago, children would proudly say “my dad is a teacher”, “my mom is a nurse”. Now-a-days, they can say “my dad’s a Rambo. He kills guys”. Let’s just hope he kills the bad ones.
 
Beatriz Oliveira

As Pedro Barbieri said, we mustn't forget to take into consideration the human side of soldiers. Adding to that, killing and being killed isn't always what being a soldier is all about. It might be part of it, but most of the job is to get things done avoiding using guns and killing people; only by that means will you earn the trust and support of local people, which is basically the goal of the whole mission in Afghanistan. By saying this, I don't want to say there are not situations where guns are essential - radicalism and negotiating don't get along very well -, I just want to highlight that being a soldier might not only be a choice of patriotism, but also of compassion by other human beings that live in feudal-like societies - but, then again, as Ricardo said, the war in Iraq had very dirty origins, and Saddam wasn't, for sure, one of them.

As far as the rampage is concerned - I like the term "rampage", it reminds me of Counter Strike - I think that the gunman wasn't the only guilty person. He was indeed disrespected by being sent to Iraq, especially when he accepted to go to Afghanistan, which obviously doesn't give him the right to shoot 40 people and killing 13 of them, which raises the question: should he have been accepted in the Army at first? Notice that I'm not only referring to his religion, but also to his personality, nor am I saying whether I think he should or shouldn't have been accepted. What I am asking is: how safe are Americans with guys like this in the Army?

“Give people guns, “they will kill people. Join the army, you might get killed.”

This is a very complicated issue but these are exactly the words to take in consideration . Usually this situations lead to an uncertain path that can tragically end in death.

On the one hand the easy legalization of guns in America promotes a wave of criminality, theft, violence and fear. People don’t understand that having a weapon leads to an uncertain consciousness of one being protected. “The protection” can, in factand itself,  become our worst threat. Weapons are, by Nature, "poisoned apples" that, unfortunately faint people forever.

On the other hand, joining the army leads, as it is said above in Mark's comment, to a career that can end in death, in case of participation in military conflicts. I think public celebrities and head government officials try to erase the facts for two obvious reasons: firstly, each side of the war believes it can defeat the enemy without casualties and secondly because they forget that at war, usually, the heroes and the villains do not exist ; it is all a case of positions (here a slight reference to Beatriz comment). A party takes a position and protects it as being the one and lonely truth.

Just a reference to the incident  about the massacre in the US base we can quote again Stalin speech. Sometimes an incident as this is undoubtly a tragedy but it can also be a statistic to the general cases of mayhem or sociopath crimes.

People die and people live. that is just how life is. Plain and simple. However, if one day you get to hold a gun in your hands, you surely have to know that someday that gun will be fired, weither it is defensivly or to acomplish a goal. but more important, if someday you fire at someone, expect to dodge bullets as well. And only dushe bags dont take their hats off at the end of the day in the name of those who died for a common cause.
Thankfully the president of the world's leading country is not a dushe, or the rest of the world would be in big trouble.
 

There is a famous saying here in Portugal which is something like: "Quem pela espada vive, pela espada morre.", in a very rough translation, "Who lives with the sword will die because of it." I guess that expresses the opinion of the majority of us (not quite mine though).