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.
Originally posted by Racer5
The war is about more than oil. Most states-countries that are not in the high tech world will always be looked on as a 3 world country. We needed, the world needs to have a stable middle east. He was never going to let the Iraq people be free. In order to have a"stable world" they need to be connected to the rest of the world. They dont need to worrying about if and when he would kill them.
What about the mass graves, the gas he used on his own country men. How long could the world let this go on. Like it or not we are the only superpower left. Nobody else was will to step up to the plate.
The world need to move to a "global economy". This means there also has to be a policeman to enforce the rules. I don't see the UN a great job at this.
Originally posted by Pyros
The introduction of violence into a persons life has a funny way of dramatically changing the way that persons thinks and acts. Just ask anybody whose ever been mugged, or a victim of a violent crime.
Originally posted by Racer5
The war is about more than oil. Most states-countries that are not in the high tech world will always be looked on as a 3 world country. We needed, the world needs to have a stable middle east. He was never going to let the Iraq people be free. In order to have a"stable world" they need to be connected to the rest of the world. They dont need to worrying about if and when he would kill them.
What about the mass graves, the gas he used on his own country men. How long could the world let this go on. Like it or not we are the only superpower left. Nobody else was will to step up to the plate.
The world need to move to a "global economy". This means there also has to be a policeman to enforce the rules. I don't see the UN a great job at this.
Originally posted by Racer5
Palm pilots...funny. ok how about he has been killing Iraq's for years..100 of thousands people dead. How long could this have gone on? The UN didn't want to do anything about it. How long before he invade another country? Who was going to stop him..the French
again, the assumption, in the media and everywhere else has been if you dont agree with the war then you dont support the troops and are unpatriotic.....i dont think thats necessarly a fair assumption until we here it from the people themselves..
so those of you that dont agree with the war....is this assumption correct or not?
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Originally posted by Pyros
The introduction of violence into a persons life has a funny way of dramatically changing the way that persons thinks and acts. Just ask anybody whose ever been mugged, or a victim of a violent crime.
I have been a victim of an extremely violent crime. More than once. So you can step down from your pulpit. Just because you may react one way to violence, doesn't mean that it's the right way or that everyone should react the way you do.
I hold people responsible for their actions. I denounce all responsible parties in the cause and continuation of this war. If you think that puts me in a fantasy world, you're free to think that.
Originally posted by Pyros
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Originally posted by Pyros
The introduction of violence into a persons life has a funny way of dramatically changing the way that persons thinks and acts. Just ask anybody whose ever been mugged, or a victim of a violent crime.
I have been a victim of an extremely violent crime. More than once. So you can step down from your pulpit. Just because you may react one way to violence, doesn't mean that it's the right way or that everyone should react the way you do.
I hold people responsible for their actions. I denounce all responsible parties in the cause and continuation of this war. If you think that puts me in a fantasy world, you're free to think that.
OK. So let me get this straight. I'll over-simplify, for the sake of the argument: You have been victimized by a violent crime(s), and your solution to this action is to denounce it? How is justice served? How is the next crime prevented? By convincing the perpetrators of the crime to behave? Talking them out of it? Be nice enough to them and maybe they will stop seeing you as a potential victim, and see your for the potential friend you could be someday?
The world is not a utopia, and people are not rational. My point is that there are two possible reactions to victimization. The first is the continuation of the victim mentality, where feeling of pity, self-doubt, and grief are perpetuated. Denunciations will not stop the mugger from robbing you again. You will be robbed again, as the criminal will see you as an "easy mark". Eventually you will either walk a different route, carry less money, or seek the protection of an escort. Unwittingly, you will change the way you lead your life, because you are a victim unwilling to confront.
For most people, however, the resultant reaction to being victimized is to empower one self, seek justice against the perpetrators, and send a message to the world that you will no longer be a victim. So its all well and good to denounce violence, and war, and so forth, and lay blame at the feet of those who are responsible on both sides. But violence, controlled by society, is usually the only thing that can counter....violence.
Yes, it is oversimplification, and there are so many facets to geo-political warfare. But the basic concepts remain intact. While not completely an innocent, we were nevertheless a victim, and our society has an unconcious desire to show the world that we refuse to be a victim. This war is an externalization of those feelings, in some ways. Walk quietly and carry a big stick..................
Originally posted by NoJustice
Think about what that means, and stop just nodding you head to what the Government and the media tell you to nod your head to. 9/11 was an inside job.
Despite all this I still support the troops. I feel very sorry for them though as I say there's no telling what's being done to them by our own Government, much less in Iraq.
[edit on 9-8-2005 by NoJustice]
Originally posted by DiRtYDeViL
I don’t support the troops. If the troops would stop fighting Bush would have no power. They are no different in my eyes then Nazis that fought for Hitler.
Originally posted by deltaboy
Originally posted by DiRtYDeViL
I don’t support the troops. If the troops would stop fighting Bush would have no power. They are no different in my eyes then Nazis that fought for Hitler.
wat the heck that suppose to mean? i dont remember American troops heading to Washington and overthrowing Clinton and intalling Bush to power. u think the President or any other past Presidents depends on military forces to hang on to power? maybe Pakistan.
Originally posted by Ponderosa
You have to support the troops. They don't have a choice, they have a job to do, one that can cost their lives and the lives of others. They put their lives on the lines so people like you, or me for that matter, dont have to.
I dont support the war in Iraq, but it wasn't the troops decision to go there. With regards to the troops, it really doesnt matter whether they should or shouldnt be there, they are there and that isn't going to change. I do believe that the president and their government shouldnt put them in harms way unless its absolutely neccessary (as Michael Moore put it).
People who blast those who don't support the war as not supporting troops or of being unpatriotic are just trying to draw away from facts that make the war seem illegitimate. Maybe because they do believe the war is necessary, or because if it isnt then it means their family, friends, countrymen are dying for nothing. To be opposed to the war and to support the troops in that war are two seperate things, and you can have one without the other.
Originally posted by RedDragon
No, I don't have to support the troops. They voluntarily joined the military and knew that they could possibly be used to fight illegal wars.
Originally posted by umwolves123
you see our troops over there believe in this war 100%, i've seen it with my own eyes.
Originally posted by RedDragon
Originally posted by Ponderosa
You have to support the troops. They don't have a choice, they have a job to do, one that can cost their lives and the lives of others. They put their lives on the lines so people like you, or me for that matter, dont have to.
I dont support the war in Iraq, but it wasn't the troops decision to go there. With regards to the troops, it really doesnt matter whether they should or shouldnt be there, they are there and that isn't going to change. I do believe that the president and their government shouldnt put them in harms way unless its absolutely neccessary (as Michael Moore put it).
People who blast those who don't support the war as not supporting troops or of being unpatriotic are just trying to draw away from facts that make the war seem illegitimate. Maybe because they do believe the war is necessary, or because if it isnt then it means their family, friends, countrymen are dying for nothing. To be opposed to the war and to support the troops in that war are two seperate things, and you can have one without the other.
No, I don't have to support the troops. They voluntarily joined the military and knew that they could possibly be used to fight illegal wars. On top of that, they have killed people, which I consider to be the greatest crime. Even after joining the military, they could have deserted. Instead, they have to support the monster that is killing so many people. They are the monster.
Make no mistake about it. George Bush may have ordered them to kill people. However, they are the ones actually killing people. It wasn't an excuse for the executioners in the holocaust and it isn't an excuse for our troops now.