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.

 

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

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Hey I have two cents!

Since this just became a general discussion of the Iraq war I wanted to respond to the whole thread.

// I find it interesting the American psyche that states that being against a war is against the troops. //

Anybody who states that as you say is a moron! There is nothing unpatriotic about disagreeing with political decisions, especially war. Whats unpatriotic is making up a bunch of nonsense, villanizing those trying to do good and blowing stupid things out of proportion in a malicious way. Many dont agree with the decisions made, but its quite another thing to hope Iraq fails because it proves Bush wrong and you right.

// But at the same time the US has alienated itself a lot by killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Iraq. //

Okay, I guess if you count everyone shooting and making bombs "innocent". Ive heard them referred to as "civilians" before but not "innocent". Even then your number is way wrong.

// The US military is a meat puppet of evil corporate oil interests and war profiteers //

That one was out of style in the 60s

// By the way, Iraq had schools, hospitals, and elections during Saddam's rule. //

And they dont now? Have you ever seen a ballot cast for Saddam? It has one name-- Saddam's. They even fill in the check for you, you just put it in the box.

// I reakon we should all buy these shirts //

Done!

// sorry that troops have to lose their lives over the lies and vicious greed of other people //

So if your theories are correct, Bush should be the richest man in the world after he gets out of office. Oh no, he was doing this to make money for his friends! And some money they must be making!

People use money to buy power, not so much the other way around.

And the "lies" thing... I suppose you're talking about the chemical gas you guys are so proud we didnt find... Would you lie in a game of poker, saying you have a full house, when your cards will be checked a moment later? And is it a lie to say Saddam had poision gas ? Before the war, what would you have put money on? How much time was he given to ditch anything he didnt want the Americans to find?

// I stand with you and denounce all responsible parties in the cause and continuation of this war! //

So you're denouncing the Americans trying to stop a bunch of stupid-asses from blowing up random Iraqi civilians? How progressive.

// 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?! //

Bush, Rice and Rummy have been there. Hannity is a complete moron. You got me there. And "too many pills" is MY nickname!

// They voluntarily joined the military and knew that they could possibly be used to fight illegal wars. //

Illegal because you dont like it, or because the UN passed only one resolution threatening use of force and not two? And are you really willing to abide by "laws" Castro and Chirac set for us?




posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 11:02 PM
link   
For the record, I support the war in Iraq and the troops there 100%.

My only real concern with this issue is that the majority of those who area against the war spend far too much time criticizing the war (especially on here) and far too little time making supportive statements of the troops and/or their mission.

Sadly, I think when our troops hear all of this opposition to the war it can undermine moral. I think a way to combat that is for those against the war to continue to stress that while they don't support the war itself, they are behind our troops completely. I think that largely because of Vietnam, where a lot of those who were against the war took it out personally on the soldiers themselves, our men and women in uniform may feel that there is no distinction between then and now. Obviously there is a difference. While many are against the Iraq war, they have learned the lessons of protesting the Vietnam war and what it did to our soldiers' morale.

I hope everyone can understand what I'm trying to say here. Basically if you're against the war but still for the troops themselves, then you need to take that extra step to let the soldiers know that you're behind them. Whether you want us in Iraq or not, anyone who wants us to lose (at least those who live in Coalition nations) is a sick S.O.B. in my book.

So next time you make a post about how much George Bush is the devil and the war in Iraq was a mistake, be sure to also state your support for the troops. They're the ones putting their lives on the line regardless of the American people's support for their mission and regardless of what party the President at the time is a member of.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar

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.



you may not believe me brother, but you werent there were you?! you didnt see and didnt fight among those men and women as i did, so DO NOT TELL ME WHAT THEY BELIEVE AND DONT BELIEVE!

[edit on 9-8-2005 by umwolves123]



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 11:29 PM
link   
.
When we invaded Iraq in March 2003 it had ZERO WMDs.

When we sat by as Saddam murdered Kurds and Rebelling Shiites it had the same or more WMDs than when we invaded.

While Saddam is a reprehensible fascist,
When did every virtually unarmed fascist around the world become the US's concern? We certainly supported and helped arm him in the past.

This was a war sold on lies and sponsored by Corporate oil interests and war profiteers such as Haliburton.

The minutemen in Arizona are unpaid volunteers taking up the task of an actual invasion of the nation's territory. That's patriotism.

The troops in Iraq are being paid to do a job. [By definition isn't that a mercenary?] They were sent on this mission by a corrupt government.
Will people be waving a flag when i go to work at the print shop? When you are unwittingly employed by evil, that is probably forgivable. But at somepoint you are not smart enough to see it for the evil it is, that does at some point fall on your shoulders.
The tool of evil has at some point to be considered a connected part of that evil.

Evil hiding behind the efforts of service personell should not be used as a shield for a policy of evil.
.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 11:33 PM
link   
Dude I'll give you that some people over there support the war but I know for a fact that not all do. Many people I work with at my job have been to Iraq and returned and I can think of none who don't believe this war was a mistake. I suspect the military is every bit as divided as our country is over this war they are just not allowed to state their own personal opinions so no definite statements can be made.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Hey everyone,

thank you very much for responding to my thread. there have been a lot of great comments posted. i would like to say however, that this IS NOT a thread to get people to come over to your side of an issue. in fact it was for me to see if people who dont support the war support the troops, and still love their country. so while i think its great that other people have posted who support the war in iraq, i mainly made this thread in hopes of sheading some light on the assumptions made for the people that dont.

so again, please this thread was not made to talk about the nitty gritty pieces of the war, or who was right and who was wrong, its about, those who oppose the wars feelings on the troops and the country.

I for one support our president. but i also feel that a bad image has been created against people on ATS that dont support the president and the war. and so i just wanted to give those people a chance to say whether that image was correct or not. so please keep that in mind when you are posting.

thanks to all the people that have posted on the thread, and felt comfortable enough to post your feeling about such a touchy issue. Please keep the posts coming, just make sure they follow the guidelines i made for this thread. i dont want it getting off track and become some giant debate.


Thanks

and kind regards,
DigitalGrl



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 11:59 PM
link   
I don't support the war but i support 99% of our troops. The 1% i don't support are the ones involved with Abu Graib and the raping of the Iraqi women and our female troops. The new photos and film that the Government doesn't want released shows some horrible things. Some troops will take the Iraqi mens wife's and daughters into another room and rape them so that the husband/father can hear.

They think it is an interogation technique but i think it is utterly disgusting. Our own female troops have to be under gaurd when they go and shower because there is a very serious rape problem. The army really needs to check who the hell they let join. If i was a dad i would never let my daughter join if she couldn't even be safe with our own troops.

We need to get our troops out of Iraq because we can never beat the insurgents. They will fight for as long as they have to and that just means more dead soldiers. It is up to us to get them out safely and convince Bush of the fact that the war can't be won. He is a stubborn bastard and all he sees is the oil and he wants to have it all to himself and his buddies.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rasputin13
For the record, I support the war in Iraq and the troops there 100%.

My only real concern with this issue is that the majority of those who area against the war spend far too much time criticizing the war (especially on here) and far too little time making supportive statements of the troops and/or their mission.

Sadly, I think when our troops hear all of this opposition to the war it can undermine moral. I think a way to combat that is for those against the war to continue to stress that while they don't support the war itself, they are behind our troops completely. I think that largely because of Vietnam, where a lot of those who were against the war took it out personally on the soldiers themselves, our men and women in uniform may feel that there is no distinction between then and now. Obviously there is a difference. While many are against the Iraq war, they have learned the lessons of protesting the Vietnam war and what it did to our soldiers' morale.

I hope everyone can understand what I'm trying to say here. Basically if you're against the war but still for the troops themselves, then you need to take that extra step to let the soldiers know that you're behind them. Whether you want us in Iraq or not, anyone who wants us to lose (at least those who live in Coalition nations) is a sick S.O.B. in my book.

So next time you make a post about how much George Bush is the devil and the war in Iraq was a mistake, be sure to also state your support for the troops. They're the ones putting their lives on the line regardless of the American people's support for their mission and regardless of what party the President at the time is a member of.


Thats exactly the point of the delineation...to support the troops while NOT supporting the war
To say that one DOESNT support the war wont affect a soldiers morale..especially if the war is justified
to say you dont support the TROOPS there will, though.
Then again, I think youre viewpoint is seriously flawed in one major respect..
if in fact, the war is illegal or unjustified, then honestly even if NO ONE supported the troops
who gives a damn about morale...would you NOT convict a murderer because you would
be worried it hurts his/her feelings? Somehow i doubt it.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 12:40 AM
link   
.
BTW the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism are two SEPARATE things.

Iraq was stable.

Now it is a source of recruits, available training ground, source of money, and a recuiting poster for Anti-American terrorism.

Supporters of the war in Iraq support terrorism.
It fuels and funds it.

Has Bush made any effort to locate, acquire, contain nuclear materials around the world?
No.
Bush has no interest in halting terrorism.
It is the only thing that has sold his corrupt administration to a naive American public.

Bush and many of his supporters live for terrorism.
It is there reason for geting up in the morning.
Without terrorism they would have a focus for their aggressions.

Without terrorism Bush would be a rogue cowboy in the whitehouse.
With it Bush is a rogue cowboy in the whitehouse with a gulible public behind him.
.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 01:38 AM
link   
slank while your comments are appreciated....

i have stated several times that what you are posting, has nothing to do with the content intended to be in this thread that i created.

there are plenty of other threads where one can debate the credibility or whether or not the wars are necessary...

this however is not what i created this thread for. please...reread my begining post and the second request i placed in this thread for people to stay on the topic.

i do not want this to be a debating ground.

Kind Regards,
DigitalGrl



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by umwolves123
you may not believe me brother, but you werent there were you?! you didnt see and didnt fight among those men and women as i did, so DO NOT TELL ME WHAT THEY BELIEVE AND DONT BELIEVE!

[edit on 9-8-2005 by umwolves123]


There are those vets here who were in Iraq and have come back completely against the war. Their opinions are well documented here at ATS. So, are you going to tell them what they believe and don't believe? At least they acknowledge that there are troops who are for the war (duh), yet you cannot acknowledge them and their stance?

This board just goes around in circles. It is getting tiring. Wake up to your ignorance and deny it.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 07:39 AM
link   

The actions of a few at Abu Graib, should not reflect on the 360,000 other troops involved.


Yet ALL muslims get condemned ALL THE TIME because of the actions of a few deluded nutcases (who are by definition not Muslims (blowing yourself up for any cause = political , not religious act))


Double standards anyone ?

[edit on 10-8-2005 by XyZeR]



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by DigitalGrl
im 19 as most of you know, so i dont have much experience with war, a couple of my friends are over in iraq, but thats as close as i come to it. and there has been so much BS being thrown on both sides so i just wanted to bring up something....

For those of you that dont support the war on terror or the war in iraq, i have a question for you.

i think that its been assumed by alot of people, not just here but in the outside world that the people that dont support the current wars that america/britan etc..is undergoing that they inturn dont support our troops.

well i went to either shead light on or put an end to that assumption.

While i may disagree with people that agree with the micheal moore etc...i certianly dont hate them, and would really like to know how they feel about the men and women you go out their and fight for their country.

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?

* and please this is not a thread to bash people who dont agree with the wars, its a place to share their opinons on these assumptions.*

[edit on 10/01/2004 by DigitalGrl]

Thats incorrect...
Some one can support the troops and not support the war...I am a living contradiction to your claim.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 10:34 AM
link   
My girlfriends father recently finished a tour of duty in Iraq for over a year and a half. His job was to patrol the highway to Baghdad Int'l in a Buffalo and disarm all of the IED's that have caused so much havoc. He joined the army when he was 17 with false papers because he desperately wanted to serve in Vietnam. He did not go, but stayed in the reserves working as a civilian. In 2003 he was sent to Iraq

His story now is that his base is being shut down and his division is being "disolved". He has been told to find "other work". At 53, with no college education, he is fairly limited. No pension. No retirement. Loss of benefits.

I LOVE our troops. I support them for what they are doing. My heart will always beat in tune with their bravery and sacrifice.

I DO NOT agree with this war that irresponsibly put these men and women in this position.

I DO NOT agree with the complete hypocrosy this government shows when they hide behind statements of "If you don't support the war, you don't support the troops". Then they turn around and cut combat pay, cut salaries, cut housing allowances for the remaining families and can still sit here and tell us that they "support our troops". There are military families being forced to rely on food banks because they cannot buy food. Support?

If no one disagreed with the wars, our troops would never come home.

[edit on 10-8-2005 by TruthWithin]



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthWithin
My girlfriends father recently finished a tour of duty in Iraq for over a year and a half. His job was to patrol the highway to Baghdad Int'l in a Buffalo and disarm all of the IED's that have caused so much havoc. He joined the army when he was 17 with false papers because he desperately wanted to serve in Vietnam. He did not go, but stayed in the reserves working as a civilian. In 2003 he was sent to Iraq

His story now is that his base is being shut down and his division is being "disolved". He has been told to find "other work". At 53, with no college education, he is fairly limited. No pension. No retirement. Loss of benefits.

I LOVE our troops. I support them for what they are doing. My heart will always beat in tune with their bravery and sacrifice.

I DO NOT agree with this war that irresponsibly put these men and women in this position.

I DO NOT agree with the complete hypocrosy this government shows when they hide behind statements of "If you don't support the war, you don't support the troops". Then they turn around and cut combat pay, cut salaries, cut housing allowances for the remaining families and can still sit here and tell us that they "support our troops". There are military families being forced to rely on food banks because they cannot buy food. Support?

If no one disagreed with the wars, our troops would never come home.

[edit on 10-8-2005 by TruthWithin]

"I LOVE our troops. I support them for what they are doing. My heart will always beat in tune with their bravery and sacrifice."

O.K, let's analyze what you're loving.

"I DO NOT agree with this war that irresponsibly put these men and women in this position."

Before this war, the war was only an idea. Ideas don't force anyone to do anything. Something had to physically move those men and women to Iraq, and something had to force them to kill people.

That's right, these troops, these men and women, are the ones who physically moved themselves to the Middle East, Iraq, and who physically chose to kill people, thus starting the war.

The war didn't place them anywhere; they created the war and they placed the war into reality. That's a great thing you love.


"I DO NOT agree with the complete hypocrosy this government shows when they hide behind statements of "If you don't support the war, you don't support the troops". Then they turn around and cut combat pay, cut salaries, cut housing allowances for the remaining families and can still sit here and tell us that they "support our troops". There are military families being forced to rely on food banks because they cannot buy food. Support?"


Great, then you want our troops to come home. You support our troops but you don't support their mission.

Why do you support people doing things that you don't support?

I can see how it is a possibility, but the chain of logic that leads to it is irrational and fallacious. The only thing that could cause that "rationale" is an unlogical, emotional patriotism.

Realize that by supporting the troops you are still supporting their mission and so you are supporting the killing of people. Call it murder if you want.

Either way, you are supporting killing.




[edit on 8/10/05 by RedDragon]

[edit on 8/10/05 by RedDragon]



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by umwolves123

you may not believe me brother, but you werent there were you?! you didnt see and didnt fight among those men and women as i did, so DO NOT TELL ME WHAT THEY BELIEVE AND DONT BELIEVE!




Your problem is that you put all troops into a 100% category called "they". Sweeping generalizations are a common enough error. Not all troops in Iraq support the "war", period.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by DigitalGrl


i do not want this to be a debating ground.

Kind Regards,
DigitalGrl



... and yet you are posting in a Discussion Forum.

Good luck!



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthWithin
He joined the army when he was 17 with false papers because he desperately wanted to serve in Vietnam. He did not go, but stayed in the reserves working as a civilian. In 2003 he was sent to Iraq.
...... At 53, with no college education, he is fairly limited. No pension. No retirement. Loss of benefits.



Ok. I have to ask.

He joined up, and was a reserve. Correct? Then over thirty years later was sent to Iraq. What did he do in the meantime?

Don't misunderstand me - it's a sad situation. But I'm not seeing how "The Military" (in whatever guise) is even remotely responsible for him not educating himself further, or not having a career inbetween that joining up at 17, and being called into duty 30 years later.

Sorry if I'm missing part of the equation?



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone

Originally posted by Rasputin13
For the record, I support the war in Iraq and the troops there 100%.

My only real concern with this issue is that the majority of those who area against the war spend far too much time criticizing the war (especially on here) and far too little time making supportive statements of the troops and/or their mission.

Sadly, I think when our troops hear all of this opposition to the war it can undermine moral. I think a way to combat that is for those against the war to continue to stress that while they don't support the war itself, they are behind our troops completely. I think that largely because of Vietnam, where a lot of those who were against the war took it out personally on the soldiers themselves, our men and women in uniform may feel that there is no distinction between then and now. Obviously there is a difference. While many are against the Iraq war, they have learned the lessons of protesting the Vietnam war and what it did to our soldiers' morale.

I hope everyone can understand what I'm trying to say here. Basically if you're against the war but still for the troops themselves, then you need to take that extra step to let the soldiers know that you're behind them. Whether you want us in Iraq or not, anyone who wants us to lose (at least those who live in Coalition nations) is a sick S.O.B. in my book.

So next time you make a post about how much George Bush is the devil and the war in Iraq was a mistake, be sure to also state your support for the troops. They're the ones putting their lives on the line regardless of the American people's support for their mission and regardless of what party the President at the time is a member of.


Thats exactly the point of the delineation...to support the troops while NOT supporting the war
To say that one DOESNT support the war wont affect a soldiers morale..especially if the war is justified
to say you dont support the TROOPS there will, though.
Then again, I think youre viewpoint is seriously flawed in one major respect..
if in fact, the war is illegal or unjustified, then honestly even if NO ONE supported the troops
who gives a damn about morale...would you NOT convict a murderer because you would
be worried it hurts his/her feelings? Somehow i doubt it.


I don't even know where to begin. Is English a second language for you, or do you just have horrible grammar? I'm having a lot of trouble comprehending what it is that you're trying to say. You may want to re-read your replies before you post them from now on.

I'm not trying to make fun of you or anything, it's just hard to have any kind of sensible discussion or debate when we can't understand any points your trying to make. I haven't the slightest idea how my statements can be compared to the conviction of a murderer and his/her feelings.

All that I was trying to say is that those who are so vocal in their disgust with the War in Iraq should spend a little more time, especially in their posts here on ATS, distinguising their disgust with the war from their support for the troops. I think that you're trying to say that troops' morale is not effected by a lack of support for their mission. I think that's debatable, but that's not something that I was even trying to say, so I'm not sure where that came from. I was saying that its difficult for troops, IMO, to DISTINGUISH between people's lack of support for the war and their lack of support for the troops. If the troops come home and read about or see on the news all these people calling their war "illegal" and a "disgrace" and so on, they may take it as though the people are against them as well. In most cases, they're not. But my main point is that those who are against the war and for the troops should make the extra effort (for the sake of the troops and their morale) to let them know that they are behind the troops 100% regardless.

Even if the war is illegal or unjustified, as you said, I think we should always care about troop morale. Low morale can result in casualties. Regardless of the mission they're on, we don't want any American troops to ever die. For you to say "who cares about morale" in that case is pretty cold-hearted and arrogant, in my book. To me, this war was legal and justified. Congress gave the President authorization for the war, thus making it legal in the only place the legality of it really matters (The United States.) The war was justified by Saddam's violation of 16+ United Nations sanctions, his firing on coalition jets patrolling the No-Fly Zone on a daily basis, his violation of human rights and subsequent murder of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children, his violation of UN sanctions, his ordered attempted assassination of former President Bush, his support of terrorists in Israel and beyond, and so much more. But then again, the author of this thread doesn't want us arguing about that! But you started it!

Please work on your grammar and I'd love to discuss this with you further.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 06:39 PM
link   
your right. i shouldnt say "they" and say 100% that is an illogical number and an assumption. but i can say that the majority of the men and women i've known support the war because they support the missions they face every day...for us everything boils down to one thing....not really fighting for the pres. or building schools but it really just boils down to fighting for the man next to you...honestly that's all you have over there.

someone said earlier that "saying you dont support the war does not harm moral", i must disagree, saying you dont support the war as i put it earlier is like saying you dont support what i'm there for, and saying you dont support me....it does reflect on our moral greatly just to let you know.

you can say all day long there is a difference between the two, but to the people who count, IE the men and women who are there giving their lives and sacrificing dinners at home and wedding, and friends, and birthdays, and seeing their child being boren, there is no difference. i cannot say 100% of us believe that but i can say "many" of us do.

WE NEED YOU ALL, just as much as you need us. please dont forget that.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join