It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Anti-War Groups Protesting US Troops Instead of Decision-Makers

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corinthas
The point is:

Without an army the decision makers could agree to war all they want, but not have their tool of slaughter at their disposal.
We need to educate those that are suckerd into becoming proffesional killers.


Suckered????

Let's see....
Free education. Check.
Job training for career after service. Check.
Great benefits. Check
Travel the world for free. Check.
Get paid to do it. Check.

I WISH I could be a sucker.....




posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 12:44 PM
link   
While I could not protest against soldiers who are conscripted into battle as with the Vietnam Conflict, I see no issue with protesting soldiers who willingly go to war. Especially those who should know by now that the war they are in is not for the defense of the United States. Its my opinion, however unpopular, that those who submit themselves voluntarily to this conflict have a duty to remove themselves from it by any means possible even if it means jailtime. Deserters, cowards, whatever you want to call them hold far more respect in my eyes than any soldier willingly staying in Iraq and Afghanistan at this time.

[edit on 18-3-2005 by Frith]



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frith
While I could not protest against soldiers who are conscripted into battle as with the Vietnam Conflict, I see no issue with protesting soldiers who willingly go to war. Especially those who should know by now that the war they are in is not for the defense of the United States. Its my opinion, however unpopular, that those who submit themselves voluntarily to this conflict have a duty to remove themselves from it by any means possible even if it means jailtime. Deserters, cowards, whatever you want to call them hold far more respect in my eyes than any soldier willingly staying in Iraq and Afghanistan at this time.

[edit on 18-3-2005 by Frith]



Fair enough, but isn't it possible that many of those citizen soldiers might not agree with you? Isn't it possible that many regular citizens might not agree with you? After all Bush was re-elected. These soldiers who may or may not agree with you are not going to be affected one way or the other by the protest. When called upon they will go. Politicians on the other hand
get nervous when voters call them out. I don't agree with you and you could protest and scream till you are blue in the face and not change my mind. Politicians are notorious for taking whatever side is popular at the moment. They make the policies, they have the power to bring the soldiers home. Change the policy because you are not going to change the soldier.
Vietnam was a great example of what I am saying. Once the Politicians got nervous, the soldiers came home. There will always be people ready to fight for any cause no matter how unjust it may seem. To kill a snake you don't grab it by the tail, you cut off it's head.

[edit on 18-3-2005 by Yorga]



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yorga
Fair enough, but isn't it possible that many of those citizen soldiers might not agree with you? Isn't it possible that many regular citizens might not agree with you? After all Bush was re-elected. These soldiers who may or may not agree with you are not going to be affected one way or the other by the protest. When called upon they will go. Politicians on the other hand
get nervous when voters call them out. I don't agree with you and you could protest and scream till you are blue in the face and not change my mind. Politicians are notorious for taking whatever side is popular at the moment. They make the policies, they have the power to bring the soldiers home. Change the policy because you are not going to change the soldier.
Vietnam was a great example of what I am saying. Once the Politicians got nervous, the soldiers came home. There will always be people ready to fight for any cause no matter how unjust it may seem. To kill a snake you don't grab it by the tail, you cut off it's head.

It has come to my attention over the years that recent wars, perhaps all wars, end only when it becomes unprofitable for them to continue. This was the case with the Vietnam Conflict and the reason the U.S eventually pulled out. It was not due to protests. Just a simple lost cause for businesses that could no longer find profit in maintaining the war that eventually forced the pullout. One way to stop war profitability is to whittle away at the very solders fighting in the conflict area either through actual violent attrition or through demoralization through protests. When soldiers no longer feel the need to fight business can no longer operate in the conflict zone due to having no protection. I see absolutely no problem in demoralizing soldiers who voluntarily put themselves into the position of being the violent arm of western business ventures and not of actual national defense. Unpatriotic or whatever you want to call it, thats fine by me.

If the U.S. wants to make a new mercenary international police force, they can do so, but do not use our armed forces for crap like this.

[edit on 18-3-2005 by Frith]



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 02:43 PM
link   
One way to stop war profitability is to whittle away at the very solders fighting in the conflict area either through actual violent attrition or through demoralization.

[edit on 18-3-2005 by Frith]


I respectfully disagree with your entire synopsis of the affairs of vietnam but this one statement grabbed my attention. Are you advocating violence directed to the men and women of the military for following orders simply because you do not agree with current government policy?



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yorga
I respectfully disagree with your entire synopsis of the affairs of vietnam but this one statement grabbed my attention. Are you advocating violence directed to the men and women of the military for following orders simply because you do not agree with current government policy?

Absolutely not. Just pointing out why the eventual pullout from Vietnam took place. It was through violent attrition which scared off business. Peaceful protest demoralization doesn't work as well, but its the only thing I would do.



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 01:40 PM
link   
On November of 2004, Americans went to the polls. Bush was re-elected by the majority. The re-elected President Bush is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Being a soldier is a time honored profession. Some of our greatest Presidents and leaders served in the armed forces. The young men and women that wear the uniform will go where their Commander in Chief sends them. They will fight and some will make the ultimate sacrifice because it is thier sworn duty to the United States. Protesting these individuals serves no purpose. In any conflict there are dissenting voices.
But we are ruled by the majority vote not by dissention. If you must protest then do it with your vote, write your congressman and put pressure on the politicians. Work to change popular opinion. You and those that think like you are in the minority as much as you would like to think different.




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join