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.

 

"The Troops Don’t Defend Our Freedoms"

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Well as a formed military wife ( My husband is retired now ) once a soldier always a soldier, once a Marine always a Marine.

But is something my husband agree with now, Iraq was not a very smart move.

The brainwashing comes to the indoctrination that is given to the soldiers during training, they belong to the military while they are serving and their priorities lies with the commanding in chief and the decisions he makes.

So in other worlds soldiers do what they are told to do and they believe what they are told to believe any confrontation of believes while serving is deemed and act of treason if they express them publicly as to affect their fellow soldiers and the nation.

That is life in the military services, your respond to the president of the US directly ( At least the Marines)


So when a soldier is told that he is fighting for his nation and for the freedom of his nation is not reason to beleive otherwise.



[edit on 30-10-2005 by marg6043]




posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 07:28 PM
link   

they belong to the military while they are serving and their priorities lies with the commanding in chief and the decisions he makes.

Are you speaking in general, is that for all the military? My priorities lie with my family, friends and baseball (go braves)...not the Marine Corps or Bush. In fact, I can't wait to get out....how's that for brainwashing



So in other worlds soldiers do what they are told to do and they believe what they are told to believe any confrontation of believes while serving is deemed and act of treason if they express them publicly as to affect their fellow soldiers and the nation.

Act of treason???? I don't know of any troops that think that...Im sure many do though. All my friends and even a few of my bosses know how I feel about Iraq and all that other crud....and even a few of them agree. Ive hardly been charged with treason.


That is life in the military services, your respond to the president of the US directly ( At least the Marines)

Yeah....only a couple more years left, WAHOO! freedom, oh sweet freedom!! (no sarcasm)



So when a soldier is told that he is fighting for his nation and for the freedom of his nation is not reason to beleive otherwise.

I believe otherwise and so do many others....where do you come up with this stuff???




[edit on 30/10/2005 by SportyMB]


cjf

posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dronetek
I joined because I wanted money for school, but also because my family has always served. Withouth the money for school, I would probobly still have served.


I respect that and understand your statement and reasons; however….

What I was initially questioning was the ‘opinions’ as quoted:

..’most needing money for college’…. Generally this fits many US college students in or out of the services. The service in not the only option in fund sourcing for college, it is a cognitive choice among literally hundreds.

‘high school drop-outs that have no place to live’… which is incorrect and the statement can not be sourced as fact.

persons ‘mainly living with depression’ and have no where to go…c'mon!

All of the above were mentioned specifically to incite, insult and diminish the creditability, character and abilities of those that serve or have served based upon nothing more than nonfactual distortions and blow-hard rhetoric.

.



posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Well as a GW one vet myself, I sure as hell didn't go to liberate Kuwaiti's.
I went because it was my job at that time, you do as told or you take the consequences.

Re-read what I wrote and notice the word "or", thanks.


Did those of us that served in the real-world Gulf War 1 simply do it because we were told to or could it be because we were re-gaining the freedom of a nation and people, otherwise called Kuwait?!





Most of us didn't even know what was going on until we were in it.
Nobody came to us and said OK we're shipping out tomorrow to go liberate Kuwait.
We weren't told anything in fact. All we knew were the rumours just like everyone else.

The situation had been building for how long?
The troops being sent to Saudi Arabia and surrounding countries were ongoing for how long?
Barracks had no TV's that you and others could watch to become more informed?
I do not believe that any commander to squad leader had to come right out and say that "we" were going over to staging areas in Saudi Arabia, etc. to regain/retake/liberate/free Kuwait, to regain it's freedom. It would seem quite self-evident that such was the purpose, especially in relation to how the news was portraying such a large scale, multi-national operation and war.




So you can't speak for ALL vets either.

No, I certainly do not. This, you are quite correct.
But in objectively looking back on your time in Gulf War I, you never once assumed that with the liberation of Kuwait, freedom was regained and successfully defended? Never once? You simply shot and killed for the mere sake of "it was my job"? The bigger picture and implications missed entirely, eh?





seekerof

[edit on 30-10-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Very interesting article Souljah, but with you never having served you are dead wrong to say all troops are Brainwashed. I know for a fact that I am not.

I joined because I wanted to since I was a little boy. Hell that is why I just re-joined. I just love the military. is that Brainwashed? Nope.

Soldiers do have the ability to deny an order if it is an order that goes against what they are trained to do. Any veteran here should know that.

I also can not believe that someone that is about to be sent over to the GW1 that they had no clue as to what was going on. Either they were not paying attention or they were hiding below a rock.



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 12:09 AM
link   
So at least try to make an attempt to know what the arguement is about. Instead of argueing for ignorance sake, look at the words no one bothered to post.

Slight variations depend on service and enlistment or commission status.



"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."


The bold words represent the first obligation, which BY THE WAY, is what the topic of this thread is about. "The Troops Don’t Defend Our Freedoms", is IGNORANT and obvious proof of being so. The CONSTITUTION is what we have made an oath to SUPPORT and DEFEND. It is in the first line, unmistakeable.
Only some one who is not aware of it, would make such a mistake, something a civilian would do. The italicized words are who the oath taker will be obligated against. The underlined words "bear true faith and allegiance to the same", are to the CONSTITUTION. All of this is before the President is even mentioned, or in other words preceading him, the order of the words in the oath are important. Because it is in that order the oath has priority, understanding that is important.

Common sence, is not very common.

Oath of enlistment



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Re-read what I wrote and notice the word "or", thanks.


Nooo I don't believe I missed the "or" at all, just telling it from my angle.
I'm sure every vet had different reasons and had a different view or where more informed on what was going on.
I can only speak for myself.

And no, the build up didn't start till after we already left to go. We were already floating on the high seas when it was all over the TV back home.
The morning we left was when the first press coverage hit the papers and we didn't come home till a couple of months after it was over.
I was also just out of Boot, so if anything was in the press before I wouldn't have seen it anyway.
Of course we eventualy new what was going on, or at least the default version.
But we were just too busy to really think much about it. 12 hr 7 days a week shifts on the flight deck doesn't leave much time to watch TV. We didn't have civy TV on the boat anyway, just Armed forces news that we never got to see. During work time the TV in the shop only showed the flight deck cameras, and I was on the flight deck 90% of my shift anyway.
We didn't really find out the full implications of what we were doing till after it was over.

All we really new was we were at war and we had a job to do.
And I do to a certain extent regret not knowing more than just we were bombing Baghdad to liberate Kuwait. I still have guilt for what I was a part of. But having said that at the time would I have refused to go? I doubt it, I made the choice to join and was just out of boot camp. I can now hopefuly make some emends by helping to open peoples eyes to the hypocracy of all this mess. Or maybe I'm just waisting my time *shrug*?



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 08:04 AM
link   
Thank you all for contributing your opinion in this thread.

Every One of them is much apprechiated.

Now, let's get back to the business.

I see the Majority of you have a problem with the "Brainwashing" part of my post. Firstly, I was talkinga bout ALL TROOP, meaning every soldier in the World, and now meaning all US armed forces. How quickly you started defending them and the fact, that soliders are Not brainwashed. I typed the word like this - "Brainwashed" - where the meaning of it, gets a different spin. Bottom line is, that when you join the Armed forces - ANY Armed forces - they have to strip your mind and Re-build it again. They have to remove your old mind patterns, your old ways of thinking, and "Install" new ones, they ones that are used by military. Thinking patterns that involve obeyeing orders coming from a superior officer - and every bit of the training that an averege future soldier has to go throught, is designed so that they begin to Follow orderd WITHOUT thinking about them OR Questioning them. That is how the military functions. If the General gets an order from the Supreme commander of Armed forces, and starts to question it, lives could be lost. If the Colonel does the same, when he gets the order from the General, same thing happens. In Boot camp marines yell "KILL!" 50 or 100 times a day - now how inspiring is that?

Soliders have to follow orders, and they are not allowed to question them. And if the order comes, that a house in downtown Baghdad holds terrorists, and they have to break down the door and take some little childs father away, not knowing if they got the right house, or the right man. What if it was a case of Bad Intelligence? What about pilots, that drop 2000 pound bombs on a House that is "supposed" to be hiding several "insurgents"? And the soliders, that fire artillery shells in the middle of an urban area, hoping that they got the right cooridnates - when few yards away, there could be children playing football (or soccer for the Americans
)? Bad Intel? They claim that there are terrorists in that building, but it could be a school... Still, a soldiers HAS to follow orders, and has nor privledge of questioning the authority. His TRAINING was supposed to make sure, that he does as he is told. An averege civilan, could not perform such action -> meaning, that an averege man (or woman) with non-military way of thinking, would first ask himself: "Hey, maybe that building is a school? What if I hit some children? What if I shoot some civilans? What if we got some bad Intel?" But a solider does not have that Right or Priviledge: when the order comes, saying "SHOOT!", he has to shoot at the "Target", no matter what that target is.

And troops that are right now in the army - any army - do not have the priviledge of the "Civilan way of thinking". Nope. The military lifestyle, the constant indoctrination from their superiors and the constant pro-war, pro-army propaganda makes them really Belive that they are Liberating somebody, and bringing Freedom and Democracy. They do not get both sides of the Story - just the "Army Side". And that the problem here - Obedience. Man and Woman blindly follow - because they were trained to - and the Army is the extensions of the Goverment. When talking about current US goverment and its president, then the armed forces are the extension of Bush's words. And if the Goverment is not about defending Freedoms (Patriot Acts I & II) or about Liberating other Countries or about spreading Democracy - but it is about Pure and Simple Imperialism - then the Armed forces are nothing more then Imperial Troopers, bred to kill, trained to follow orders and that is what they do best. I do not blame them for that, that is their Job, their lifestyle, their bread and water, their entire lives depend on that. If they do not follow orders, they loose their "job" - and that means, they might loose their lifestyle. And they can not afford that.

And what happens when the soldiers end the service to his country?

Years later you realize that you and those you served with were
used, so that some industrialists could sell a new weapons system or
could continue to produce an old one. You have a drawer full of
medals and a mind full of horror, while the politicians and the
defense contractors have money in the bank and homes here and
abroad.

You will however, remember all the things you did without question.
Those innocent deaths and the cries of children will stick right
with you. You will constantly remember those in your unit who gave
their all or maybe their limbs.


Let me end this with a quote by mister Howard Zinn:

"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is that numbers of people all over the world have obeyed the dictates of the leaders of their government and have gone to war, and millions have been killed because of this obedience. . . Our problem is that people are obedient all over the world in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves, and all the while the grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem."

Thank You.



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Advisor,
I'd just like to point out that just because someone takes an oath does not mean that they abide by it. At all...

Case in point:
.....................
The Presidential Oath of Office

The oath to be taken by the president on first entering office is specified in Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
......................

In fact, I'd be willing to wager that most servicemen would have to look up their oath (as would the pres) to know what they said and I'd go even further to wager that 90% or more inlisted men couldn't repeat the oath they took, nor would they be able to say whether or not they were sworn to uphold the Constitution. But 100% know that they have an allegiance to the CinC.

I'm also curious about exactly what it is that we civilians 'can't understand'. Can't understand what? What it means to take an oath? What it means to make a commitment? To serve? What is it exactly that we can't understand? Being in the service? OK. So what? You can't understand what it's like to be a woman. What's the point? Does that mean you have no knowledge about women or can't speak about them?

This thread isn't about ragging on soldiers, so there's no need to take a defensive posture. I'd venture to say we all support every honorable soldier that's out there. (correct me if I'm worng, people)

This thread is about just what you have posted. That even though the troops take an oath to defend the Constitution, when that contradicts the president, they follow the president every time because the Constitution has no power to punish them or discharge them.

That's in the first paragraph of the first link. Also:



“But we can’t refuse orders of the president. He’s our commander in chief,” say the troops. “It’s not our job to determine what is constitutional or not. We deployed to Iraq, like it or not, because the president ordered us to do so.”


If you forget for a moment who started this thread, and all that implies, (you know I love ya, Souljah) and look at the actual content without being defensive about it, there really is a lot of thought-provoking information here.

Just wanted to make sure that you all know that nobody is putting down the soldiers. But it would be nice is they refused to shred the Constitution even though that's their CinC's favorite pastime.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 11:10 AM
link   
BH,

What your suggesting is that the troops disobey orders because its un-constitutional, who will prove them that it IS constitutional?

You and I both know that the intel services control how countries are shaped, how thier forces fight, where and when they fight.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
BH,

What your suggesting is that the troops disobey orders because its un-constitutional, who will prove them that it IS constitutional?


Well if everything was working as it should, a soldier would have military support, but we all know how that's working these days (See Abu Ghraib). I'm not saying there aren't consequenses for standing up for what one believes in. There are. Especially in difficult times like these.

As I said, the Constitution isn't going to come after them and put them in jail for shredding it. I know they're in a tough spot and I'm not judging them for following their orders or anything. I'm just saying it sucks.

But don't forget (From the Declaration of Independence):

"That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government...
...
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

That's where we're failing. That's where we fail the soldiers. We are observing our government being destructive to the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and we're not stopping it. They're using the military for selfish reasons and we're letting it happen.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Well if everything was working as it should, a soldier would have military support, but we all know how that's working these days (See Abu Ghraib).

Thing is, did those soldiers that commited those acts get punished or did they get let off?
And does a soldier know what exsactly is "unconstitutional"?


I'm not saying there aren't consequenses for standing up for what one believes in. There are. Especially in difficult times like these.

The point is, if you do stand up your disrupting effectivly how the army works, even if its wrong.
Is doeing the wrong thing the right thing do?


As I said, the Constitution isn't going to come after them and put them in jail for shredding it. I know they're in a tough spot and I'm not judging them for following their orders or anything. I'm just saying it sucks.

Everything sucks BH,



But don't forget (From the Declaration of Independence):

"That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government...
...
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

That's where we're failing. That's where we fail the soldiers. We are observing our government being destructive to the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and we're not stopping it. They're using the military for selfish reasons and we're letting it happen.


But who defines whats selfish?
By "throwing off the government" you could be conducting a selfish act yourself...



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Thing is, did those soldiers that commited those acts get punished or did they get let off?


So far, the lowest man on the totem pole gets put in jail. So, Lyndie England (or whatever her name is) is in jail because she followed procedure set down by Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld got off.



And does a soldier know what exsactly is "unconstitutional"?


Well, if he takes an oath to uphold it, shouldn't he know?



The point is, if you do stand up your disrupting effectivly how the army works, even if its wrong.


Somebody needs to do that. Somebody needs to disrupt how the Army is working in this 'war'. It's disobeying the Geneva Conventions. It's holding prisoners without charge and torturing people. We're acting a bully and shredding what dignity the US has left in the view of the world. Yes. Somebody should disrupt that crap!

And who defines what is 'selfish? When I'm talking, I do.

Those who still think Bush is in Iraq for (what's the reason this week?) Oh yeah, spreading democracy, I guess they don't think the gov't is acting selfishly. I guess we shall see...



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
So far, the lowest man on the totem pole gets put in jail. So, Lyndie England (or whatever her name is) is in jail because she followed procedure set down by Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld got off.

Thats what they said at nuhremburg, (exscuse spelling, trying to type one handed while eating mars bar..)



Well, if he takes an oath to uphold it, shouldn't he know?

Heres a better question, do YOU know the entire constitution?
Or just bits of it?



Somebody needs to do that. Somebody needs to disrupt how the Army is working in this 'war'.

Somebody needs to do a lot of things..


It's disobeying the Geneva Conventions.

Last time I checked we punished those who done so..


It's holding prisoners without charge and torturing people. We're acting a bully and shredding what dignity the US has left in the view of the world. Yes. Somebody should disrupt that crap!

Your asking the armed forces to fight decently, can you fight decently?


And who defines what is 'selfish? When I'm talking, I do.

Thats the point, you define whats selfish, thats not what the person next to you may or may not think.




Those who still think Bush is in Iraq for (what's the reason this week?) Oh yeah, spreading democracy, I guess they don't think the gov't is acting selfishly. I guess we shall see...

Well he wont be there next year..



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 03:04 PM
link   
ADVISOR

Thanks for your post and to clarified what so many civilians and perhaps some in the military seems to avoid or have not knowleage off.

One of the things my husband after 22 years in the services has notices is the lack of respect and the now easier way that individual soldiers can voice their opposition.

My husband thinks that the military has gone soft.

The code of conduct was my husband's bible I still have a few of the littler military Bibles as I used to call them around.

He is an old school soldier that never questioned his commander in chief actions and his priorities were with his nation, nation first and family second.

Is many things going on in the world now a days and one mistake of a war doesn't make for the lack of respect that soldiers have now when it comes to the leader of the nation they serve under.

During my 22 years as a Marine wife my husband never said anything wrong against his commanding in chief and after 6 years of being retire for the first time he has something to said about the Iraqi war.

When a nation's military forces lose respect of their leader we as a nation become a nation in trouble.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Thats what they said at nuhremburg, (exscuse spelling, trying to type one handed while eating mars bar..)


mmm... mars...




Heres a better question, do YOU know the entire constitution?
Or just bits of it?


That is not a better question. I didn't take an oath to uphold it. The only oath I've taken in my life, I could repeat to you word for word. And I have upheld it and I know everything I need to kow to do that.



Your asking the armed forces to fight decently, can you fight decently?


A. This has nothing to do with me. I'm not in the military. You keep putting it back on me to take tht focus off the issue.
B. All I'm asking is for the armed forces (and the US government) to live up to their own standards that they set.



Well he wont be there next year..


That's wishful thinking. Even BushCo says we'll be there for maybe 10 years. Where are you getting that we'll be out next year? The fact is we've been there for nearly 3 years.

[edit on 1-11-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
mmm... mars...


Wish I had one now
Starving.



That is not a better question. I didn't take an oath to uphold it. The only oath I've taken in my life, I could repeat to you word for word. And I have upheld it and I know everything I need to kow to do that.

I think it is, (sorry if your not american ) but I'm assumeing you are american then dont you get taught the pledge of alliegance to the US and the constitution?

Plus, do you expect



A. This has nothing to do with me. I'm not in the military. You keep putting it back on me to take tht focus off the issue.

I'm not , I'm not asking you in person, I'm simply asking can you fight "decently"?


B. All I'm asking is for the armed forces (and the US government) to live up to their own standards that they set.

I believe they do live up to them, to the letter I believe. Those that do the act get punished.



That's wishful thinking. Even BushCo says we'll be there for maybe 10 years. Where are you getting that we'll be out next year?

Ah, well you said "we" not "him" , he's out next year and somebody else will be the big chief of the US.


The fact is we've been there for nearly 3 years.
[edit on 1-11-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]

It takes longer than that to rebuild a country.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 07:47 AM
link   

And does a soldier know what exsactly is "unconstitutional"?


He/she has to know or making it his/hers bussines to know. Ignorantia Iuris Nocet ring a bell?



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 08:00 AM
link   
Benevolent Heretic;

Thank you for pointing that out. A huge problem, it is, people not being serious or careing. The very definition of oath is as a promise, a pledge of ones word. It doesn't end after a term of service, one can not take it back. That would be as breaking a promise, to do so would say that your word is no good.

It would be like a knight of old, swearing to protect and then turning his back on those he gave his word to. Remember Robert the Bruce, in Braveheart, yes that is how it is, he broke his word to William and every one knows how that hurt Will. There may be more people "these days",
who do not take their word seriously or intend to, but a many do, and always will.

Marg, I too remember the old Army, I enlisted when they still said, "BE ALL YOU CAN BE". In a couple more years there will be those who won't even know those words, and what they represented, let alone mean.

On top of the oath, in the Army there are;

"Values"

Loyalty = Bear true faith and allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, the Army, your unit and other soldiers.

Duty = Fulfill your obligations.

Respect = Treat people as they should be treated.

Selfless-Service = Put the welfare of the nation, the Army, and your subordinates before your own.

Honor = Live up to all the Army values.

Integrity = Do what is right, legally and morally.

Personal Courage = Face fear, danger and adversity (Physical or Moral).


&

"Soldier's Code"


I am an American soldier, a protector of the greatest nation of earth, sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

I will treat others with dignity and respect, and expect others to do the same.

I will honor my Country, the Army, my unit and my fellow soldiers by living the Army values.

No matter what situation I am in, I will never do any thing for pleasure, profit, or personal safety which will disgrace my uniform, my unit, or my country.

Lastly, I am proud of my Country and it's flag. I want to look back and say that I am proud to have served my country as a soldier.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ADVISOR
"Values"
Duty
Respect
Selfless-Service
Honor
Integrity
Personal Courage

"Soldier's Code"


THAT is the military I know and hold in highest regard and respect. It's one of the saddest statements of our time that these values and standards are nearly nonexistant in today's military. It's all about winning at all costs. Torture? you betcha! If it gets the job done. Where is the honor and respect in torture? How much personal courage does it take to clip electrodes to a man's genitals?

And it's not just the military. These values are hard to find anywhere, in my experience.

Thanks for understanding my point, Advisor. Sorry for the rant. It's a personal affront to me.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join