There is a difference. If one is in military service they have no choice but to go where they are sent. Terrorists listening to Wahhabis and chanting Allah Akbar have a choice
How do you know they have a choice? most of the time they come from unpriveliged, uneducated backgrounds.
The difference is one is the aggressor, while the other is defending his country. Action, reaction, don't invade other lands, you won't get yourself blown to smithereens. Simple, and easy.
That is evil as well, I never said it was okay for them to die and Americans to live. All of this death is wrong. But killing more people is not the answer to the problem. Sorry that I'm a ridiculous liberal.
That is hateful.
You're more detached from reality than a liberal in this case, i'm sorry.
A foreign army is invading your land, what do you do? have them over for lunch?
Making the aggressor and the aggressed upon equal is your mistake here.
I just don't get it. Being a soldier if anything is a pretty noble occupation. You're serving your country, sometimes by putting your own life at risk. What the country decides to do isn't really something they have a choice over.
And that NATO example you posted was great. It's not like what they did was necessary or anything.
The Iraq was is a little different. There was no initial need to go there, I can't disagree with that. But hey, the soldiers have about as much choice about ending up there as the Iraqis do. And before you guys get started on that "America sucks" speech, every middle eastern/arab I've met here loves America. No shit. Never had anything bad to say.
They might love America as a country, as a people. Nobody loves the American government though. I work in an American university, and the Americans over here are the nicest people i know. I have no problems with Americans, or America(planning a visit there this year actually). My problem along with Nzoric and the vast majority of the worlds population is with the American government and its foreign policies.
As for being a soldier being a noble occupation, by that same logic, actually defending your own country from foreign invasion is even more noble.
"Risking their lives" If thats your criteria for an occupation being noble, then these suicide bombers who attack the US army in Iraq go even further and sacrifice their lives. So by your own logic, you should consider these suicide bombers even more noble.
So being a soldier isn't noble but strapping a bomb to ones self and killing innocents in a mosque is?
Nobody said anything about that being noble
I think a soldier serving his country to protect and keep his/ her country safe is nowhere near the same thing as a bomber killing innocents or driving a passenger plane into the twin towers.
Nobody said anything about that either. Its kind of the same thing though, both are killing innocent people in lands foreign to them. Both do not deserve any sympathy, a foreign invador and a terrorist killing innocent people in foreign lands in the name of religion.