Cowards

I believe the main reason for the diplomat's objection to serving in Iraq (at this point in time) was that it's tantamount to a death sentence.

If memory serves, not long after the insurgency surfaced UN diplomats were killed and so were red cross workers. The UN pulled it's mission out and as far as I know has not reinstated it. Journalists were also kidnapped and killed.

So, the concern of the diplomats is valid. They would be prime targets for bombing, kidnapping, beheading, et al just because of their propaganda value to the muslim world and to show the US can't protect anything from their onslaught.

If a group of these diplomats were massacred would the US replace them with more fodder or tough it out?

I, for one wouldn't volunteer, but if called would serve or resign.

However, at this juncture I think it foolhardy for the US Department of State to put these people in harms way when there is not any real need for them, yet.

Well except not ONE has been killed there yet. Not one has been kidnapped. Not one has "had a death sentence" there yet. And they have been serving there the whole time.

As for the UN they got attacked and killed because they refused to take adequate security measures. Refused to allow the US military to guard or help them and relied solely on Iraqi contractors for protection.

It is simple, these people actively sought out work at the State Department and I am quite sure they knew going in or learned shortly after signing up the duty required services in dangerous areas of the world. It always has and until the return of Jesus as King it always will. They don't want to serve, fine, QUIT. Publicly whining about the job they all thought was cushy enough until ordered to actually do the job is bullshit. Trying to use public opinion to protect them from preforming a job they signed up for is unethical and ignorant. It is cowardly.
 
No need. Thanks for the arrogant response to a simple and polite question.

This from a person that has been here all along, seen the arguments, seen the information , likes to argue politics in the US. And responds by asking an ignorant question that was really a joke.
 
This from a person that has been here all along, seen the arguments, seen the information , likes to argue politics in the US. And responds by asking an ignorant question that was really a joke.

You thought I was joking? Okay, I can see how you could interpret it that way. No, I wasn't joking, nor was I having a lend of anyone. I didn't even think of trawling through all the political crap that google would have tossed up if I'd tried to search on Bush, ANG etc.
I nearly blurted out "Thunderchief" and F105 came into my head but, me being me, thought I'd be a dill if I came right out with it. So I asked. But no, I wasn't trying to be a prick. I'm not a pilot but I have an interest in aircraft and I remember reading a book about Thunderchiefs ("Thuds", again if memory serves) in Vietnam. Again from memory I think they were the only aircraft that had a single crew member which could be armed with nuclear ordinance. But I could be wrong.

Excuse me, I'll just chuck a bucket of water on these flames and leave it at that.
 

Forum List

Back
Top