To those of you that dont support the prez and his war on terror/IRAQ

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.

So i dont understand...youre saying that justification for the War in Iraq is because they dont
have palm pilots? Ok .... what a more substantial reason ... thank god, here i thought oil
may have a lot to do with it...

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

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 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.

Global Economy? Oh So you're saying we need a New World Order! a One World Government. ahh, you're sounding alot like our leaders, I'm sure they have a position for you somewhere, to be a tool for the Globalists.

People none of this is done for our own interests. Read up on PNAC(Project for a New American Century) Chaney and Rumsfield are members and they said in 2000 we need a Pearl Harbor like event to get people behind a war in the middle east, then in 2001 we get our "Pearl Harbor event" in 9/11. They've wanted to be in the middle east for decades. They've used or planned to use terrorism for decades as well. Operation Northwood is not a "conspiracy theory" it's a declassified document that talked about how our Government wanted to carry our a terrorist attack on our own homeland by flying planes into buildings, so that we could blame it on and go to war with Cuba. Do the research, none of it's made up it's all there. 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, must less in Iraq.

Truth hurts



[edit on 9-8-2005 by NoJustice]

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

No, you're right that MAY have happened...it could very well, but thats a pre-emptive measure
just as was eliminating the WMD that were in Iraq too. Since those were never found
apparently it was unjustified. Likewise, who knows if Saddam would ever have invaded
another country?

Ya know something, I think any Psychiatrist or Psychologist may tell you, if they've
worked with abused women (in particular) that they have a propensity for returning
to EXACTLY that type of lifestyle. Where they are abused, because while, they are abused
they feel "comfortable" in that setting. Take them out of their element and they dont know
how to live (as most of us would consider it). Perhaps the same mentality for the Iraqi's
were true. Although they lived under the tyrranical rule of Saddam, because they
were "comfortable" with it

True is a sad world if you have to get used to those things happening.

NWO get a grip. What wrong with a world goverment that looks out for everybody on the planet? I know everybody thinks that we are looking to run the world as only we see fit.

People need to get over all of are differences and look to the future. If we are to survive and move on the future we need to work together on a common goal.

Why don't we just send Bush, Rice, Rummy, Hannity, and Rush "i've taken too many pills" Limbaugh over there and see how they like it?!

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?

Sorry, let me answer the question. There is no assumption in the media, only bias as to which channel or news organization you may be watching. I don't feel as there is a unified stance on the issue. I for one feel that people are entitled to their own beliefs as long as they do not harm anyone else promoting their agenda.

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..................

Pyros, you’re making far too many generalizations and assumptions. And this is not a simple matter. In my personal case, the perps are either dead or in prison for life, ok? But I did not play an active role in the violent crimes that were committed against me.

I believe that our government played an active role in the violent crimes that were committed against the US. I believe that they played an active role in the development of the hatred against the US by the middle-eastern countries. That’s why I say I denounce both parties. It takes two to play the games they’re playing.

I was all for going into Afghanistan to get the dude who knocked over the buildings. But that didn’t happen, did it? He’s either dead by illness or out there running around hiding in mountains and our president, who promised to get him dead or alive doesn’t care.

I am not a peace-nik, nor do I think this world is a Utopia. Far from it. I do not “denounce violence, and war, and so forth.” I denounce all responsible parties in the cause and continuation of this war. I pronounce them as blameworthy and evil. I do not stand for either side! They’re both to blame. That’s all I’m saying.

Trust me, I no longer have a victim mentality. In fact I don’t usually use that word when talking about it and I only used it here because you did. Your assumptions about the reaction to victimization is incomplete.

This war has nothing to do with 9/11. It is not a rational way to fight against what happened on 9/11. Your writing sounds intelligent, but it sounds like you’ve bought the party line that this war is in some way retaliation for 9/11. You may accept that as fact, but I do not.

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..................

This is absolutely true WHEN you really know who the true perpetrator(s) is/are.
I think in the cases we're talking about, it's so multi-faceted and complex that by
eliminating only ONE subset of people or group is curing the symptom not the cause.
Holding ALL parties responsible and more importantly, making them all ACCOUNTABLE for
their actions on the other hand is where I think we all may have been going.
Especially if we were the victims of our own demise. Lets look at one other factor and
lets talk about Al-Qaida for a moment. They're glory hounds without a whole lot of resources.
Is it unreasonable to imagine that THEY (as an opposing point of view) might have in fact,
USED the 9/11 incident to their advantage as well? For their followers who were short on faith
of their potency they just staked claim to an event that may well have been out of the scope
of their potential. But by doing so it serves 2 purposes, gives credence to their potency and
gives the world a "bad guy" by which make claims of ALL related terror and the necessity
for continued arms funding, which was withering. In this for instance, everybody wins
except the small guy whom both sides consider "expendible" and the alleged "Leaders"
dont have to suffer any ill consequences. I mean, has OBL been found? Or any
of the high ranking Taliban for that matter? No. I may be crazy, but seems to me the only losers
are really us the average joe.

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 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]

Agreed. I feel really sorry for those guys/gals who've been decieved on the grandest scale this planet has ever seen.

***THERE WERE NO WINDOWS ON THE PLANE THAT HIT THE SOUTH TOWER. ** Whether you believe the thing about the missle pod or not, there WERE NO WINDOWS on the plane, folks. That was not a passenger jet, it was military. If you are reading this thread and are in the military, you'd know what a military plane looks like.

If you don't believe me, see "The Day the Towers Fell" its' a PBS documentary on the day. Slow down that footage of the second plane. Take a close look. Feel your heart break. Start asking questions. This is OUR planet, not theirs.

The Pentagon Plane was not a passenger jet, it was much smaller, loaded with explosives. ***Please, please wake up.****

www.pentagonstrike.co.uk...

[edit on 9-8-2005 by coney]

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 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.

If they refused to go and fight there wouldn't be a war. Thus taking his power away that aspect of it anyway.

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.

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.

Before you get attacked, I just wanted to let you know that I totally understand and support your point of view. So, just know that not everybody hates you for what you say.

Originally posted by umwolves123
you see our troops over there believe in this war 100%, i've seen it with my own eyes.

I don't believe you at all.

Were the miltary personnel involved in Abu Ghraib behind the war 100%? Are the increasing number of deserters and people taken out because of mental illness behind the war 100%?

Let us say that paid military personnel have principles like anyone else, and principles are not homogenous.

I am for our troops, but against the war in Iraq. And, yes, there can be both.

I feel that my government has lied to me about why they are sending our men and women over to Iraq. Not once, but several times. At first we were told that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction. The it was to "help combat terrorism". Then it was to "liberate the Iraqi people". Then it was to "promote democracy". Even if I was in the military at the moment, I would be questioning our motives as well.

It also saddens me that our government would make statements like "If you're not for the President, then you're not for the troops." or "If you're not for the troops, then you're not an American." I'm sorry, but that's NOT TRUE. Statements like that are nothing more than political maneuvers to get people to agree with whatever may be on the politicians agenda. If anything, our troops should be mad at our government for saying statements like that. I know I am. They're using those statements, and our troops, as propaganda to get laws passed or to get people to agree with them - much like they might use a child or a distressful incident. Nothing more. Politicians, like lawyers, are evil, and don't care who they hurt in the process to get their agendas across (In fact, if you think about it, most politicians are or were lawyers).

As far as our troops go, I have been, am, and always will be behind them 110%. Believe me, I would let 100 troops stay in my house long before I would let one politician anywhere near my property. I would also fight next to them to my last dying breath, even though I may not agree with what those who sit in nice, cushy, air-conditioned office - and might add have never been on the front lines - tell us to do.

I salute every man and women in the Armed Forces and will state that without you, there would be no U.S.

And, for the record, I was in the military.

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.

Like Benevolent Heretic I certainly do understand your point of view, and ABSOLUTELY dont
hate you for it...although I think its a stretch to say that I 100% support it and for only this
reason...you stated that "They voluntarily joined the military and knew that they could possibly be used to fight illegal wars."
They voluntarily enlisted, yes, but knew that they could possibly be used to
FIGHT ILLEGAL WARS? I highly doubt that part of it..I would guarantee from experience,
that IF they in fact, had that cognizance, they would not have enlisted. This is exactly why i DO
support them, because im not sure they have an understanding of what theyre really doing
or what effect theyre having...in years to come they will, and will probably look back
and think "my god, what have i done..how could i have been a part" yet, to blame them
for not realizing this in my opinion is as wrong as sending them under false pretenses.