Bring the Boys Back Home

Originally posted by Seekerof

I fully will respect your right to disagree, but will also implore you to re-read what I said? [emphasis added by me]

Originally posted by Seekerof
...but you certainly do not see me, nor anyone else on this board that has family and friends over in Iraq or Afghanistan, using this board as an activism mechanism...

I did read and understood what you said. And I have seen people who have friends and/or family over there speak out strongly for the war and use their family member's opinion to point out the 'rightness' of this war.

If one is going to participate in activism, then why use family and friends as a crutch or activism launch pad?

Why not? People are different. Some people wish to mention their family members, some don't. I don't know why it matters to you. Some people mention their own prior service, some mention their family's service. It doesn't change the opinion one way or the other. I know when my nephew was over there, it was part of the reason I wanted the troops sent home. Surely not the entire reason, but it's a personal reason and it's valid and it's justified to mention.

So has been my brother's service in Vietnam. I have a right to mention them.

As regards the difference between activism and opinion, I'm not really sure of the difference in your mind. We have the right to voice our opinion more than once and you and I both certainly have done that. A repetition of opinion doesn't necessarily equal 'activism'. In fact, American Heritage lists the definition of activism as:

The use of direct, often confrontational action, such as a demonstration or strike, in opposition to or support of a cause.

The thread starter hasn't mentioned a march, rally, demonstration or other activity, just voiced his opinion, so I'm not sure when it becomes activism to you...

But when activism is allowed/permitted in this forum and not strictly deterred evenly and fairly, then an example is set, and further stands starkly and directly in opposition to what was laid out by Springer in the above linked stick'd WOT thread, IMHO.

You may have a point here. However, my guess is that under your watchful eye, 3/4ths of the WOT threads would have to be moved along with this one. Perhaps we should leave it up to the mods.

You might try using the complaint function if it really bothers you.

Its not a simple question of when the Coalition should leave. What people fail to grasp is that Iraq only exits on a map. Political boudaries are meaning less in the Middle East people are probaly more loyal to there tribe then there country.

As for the argument that the media undermined US efforts in vietnam I have never heard anything so absured. Americans are unable to admit that there country was defeated in Vietnam. Want proof I have never heard my Dad or any other non american vietnam veteran blame the media.

[edit on 29-12-2005 by xpert11]

Thank you all for meaningful replies.

What we have here is a convergence of opinions, freedom of expression.

I can say what I think, and you can reply.. That is a discussion forum.

Again I say, just because I am a staff member does not exclude me from having an opinion on this or any issue here at ATS.

I am bound by the same terms and conditions of use that each and everyone who posts here is. Any moderator can do as they see fit with this thread.

I have learned something in my life, It is always better to say what you have on your mind when you feel inspired to do so. I do not have any regrets.

You can throw the rule book at me all you wish, it will not change me, my opinion or what I have done here.

I am a person, a member of this grand community and I too have something to say.. Like it or not.. Deal with it!

Someone here said that the word “boys” was wrong... Really?

I am 40, and from what I have seen most of the Boys and Girls “over there” are quite young... Some of them left their homes and families after playing a video game.. 18, 20, 25 ... when is a child fully grown?

If my opinions have offended you or otherwise made you think outside of your protected and manipulated box... I am very sorry... sue me.

As I said before, it is all words.. That is all we have here. If words hurt you or your agenda.. Well maybe you need a break. If I am too real, or cross a line here I am sure I will be shown the door.

This is a war on terrorism forum, and my opinion is as relevant as yours or anyone’s!

If you disagree with me.. I can respect that. And admire you for replying as some of you have done.

This war is wrong, was wrong and needs new direction before it is too late.

It is time to make major changes. We must think of the future and not only today.

Those who serve us have earned our respect and admiration, they are our heros.. But they are fighting for a cause that is slipping into ambiguity.

Bring them home, I say again.

It is not my decision, only my opinion.

[edit on 29-12-2005 by UM_Gazz]

Now I am not as eloquent or even as sharp as some of you board members. I haven't been a member long so if I sound as if I am naive or out of the loop, please forgive me when I ask this question. Why in all that is sane did we not take Sadam out of power in 1991?!! Don't give me oh that wasn't our objective then. Or it would have torn apart the coalition by angering the Arabic members. Come on the whole world including all the coalition members knew of Sadam's threat and possible continued threat to the region as well as his human rights violations. The coalition destroyed the Iraqi war machine...we should have taken him out of power. Then we could have arranged for the Arab coalition members to take him into custody, establish order in Iraq, and help form a new Iraqi government. Just my middle age ramblings but I look at the Gulf War, the present war, the war on terrorism... and all I can I ask is WHY?!!!


---warpfactor9

P.S. I bet there are many Iraqis wondering why we didn't finish the job in 1991 and felt betrayed.

This war is wrong, was wrong and needs new direction before it is too late.

Look, wrong or right that all depends on how we view things, however, right or wrong this war has to be won, brining the troops back immediately is not going accomplish that. If you respond with the Howard Dean line of thought then there is nothing more I can say about the issue.

[edit on 29-12-2005 by WestPoint23]

warpfactor9 I wonder the same thing myself failing to take Saddam out in 1991 was pretty stupid to say the least. I would vote for Way Above Top Secret but I dont have have any votes left.
Cheers Xpert11.

Originally posted by warpfactor9
Why in all that is sane did we not take Sadam out of power in 1991?!!

As much as it pains me to say it, it's because W's father was an internationalist wimp with no vision!

hello all and welcome to my rant. im new and yadda yadda but ive read for freakin months now.. if not a year or so...

people forget that it is not the people that do anything with starting these wars and environmental disasters, its government. i dont know how to say it in such a simpler way.

all we people do is just go to school to get a job that pays us a good salary so we can live a happy life. we have nothing to do with exercising conflicts and struggles within politics. our protests and demands dont do a god damned thing, and our votes dont. hell, you even learn that in your 8th grade american gov class if not earlier that WE do not elect anyone. we elect an amount of officials to elect our so called president.. (side note.. its been a legend that anyone can be president.. heh, look.... we got bush for christs sakes..) but besides that, who took us to war? not us. not even his stupid *SNIP*. a president is basically a spokes person for the congress.. and the judicial committee or house of delegates (i forget but regardless) who go lifetime contracts in power before replacement. Our government has taken everything we originally started out on to being equal and fair, to being the complete opposite. "the government who controls least rules best." though who am i to say we have or have ever had a fair government. i am forever ashamed to be an american based on THE FACT that we committed genocide on the native americans (properly called indians) because of a spot of land and coal mining rushes. - or, because we were a bunch of rebels of the bristish gov. much as jesus was a philosophical criminal alas robin hood.

yeah, call me out wrong for everything ive said, but think about it. since when has your individual vote, or comment left on a message board, or sign posted in fornt of te white house actually made a difference? remember when hoover was the president and he had the ww2 vets tear gassed for benfiti protesting? here it is all again. a bunch of *SNIP* money hungry *SNIP* with the power of a god, (how fair is the real god if this is in the flesh?) making us all pay for their mistakes, and thei aggression towards each other. apparently with iraqw, the people actually do have more control then their government considering they have no government. think about it, and they are wiping their *SNIP* with us.

call me an asshole, but im just a very angry veteran of this rediculous war, and i received no jusitification for my fifteen (8 months most = bullpoo) months over in iraq. as far as im concerned. *SNIP* this political system, and *SNIP* anybody who believes in anything with this keeping us free. ive seen more frinds die playing a god damn game of cards, hell, even my boy eric getting shot in the back by a twelve year old kid.

FOR SHOWING HIM A PICTURE OF AMERICAS VERSION OF SPIDERMAN!!!
*SNIP* them, and *SNIP* them too. thanks. this poo is my post war therapy.

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: WOT Posting Conduct – Please Review Link.

Mod Note: Warnings – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: You Have An Urgent U2U- Click Here.


[edit on 29/12/2005 by Mirthful Me]

"This is an enemy without conscience -- and they cannot be appeased. If we were not fighting and destroying this enemy in Iraq, they would not be idle. They would be plotting and killing Americans across the world and within our own borders. By fighting these terrorists in Iraq, Americans in uniform are defeating a direct threat to the American people. Against this adversary, there is only one effective response: We will never back down. We will never give in. And we will never accept anything less than complete victory."

-- President George W. Bush
United States Naval Academy
Annapolis, Maryland
November 30, 2005
www.whitehouse.gov...


This point's to one of the most important facets of the Iraq war, The Islamofascists have the fight bought to them, instead of masses of them conducting Terrorist attack's worldwide, including mainland USA.

Keep the Terrorists fighting in there homelands instead of bombing our homelands.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You may have a point here. However, my guess is that under your watchful eye, 3/4ths of the WOT threads would have to be moved along with this one.

Yeah, your right. I have moved quite a few out of this particular forum, among a few other forums. Having been a moderator for almost two years, my time has past, and yes, I most definately should abstain from calling things out, but then again, just as activism is seen as merely giving opinion, I should most definately abstain from giving my own opinion and perspective on this matter of created activism threads guised as opinion, correct, Benevolent Heretic?

Perhaps we should leave it up to the mods.

Yeah, most definately, but then again, it was a mod, entitled to his own opinion, that started this thread, despite seemingly being contrary to what was laid out by Springer in the stick'd WOT thread concerning what is acceptable in the WOT forum.

You might try using the complaint function if it really bothers you.

For?
I am near certain that it will amount to a non-issue, simply allowed to continue; that there is no such thing as activism occurring within this very forum, much less by a staff member.

At any rate, from here on out, I give my word that I will abstain from posting to such like WOT activism threads in the future. That will probably work best for everyone.






seekerof

[edit on 30-12-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
Thank I am a person, a member of this grand
community and I too have something to say

I agree with you. If this is a 'community' then you should
be able to express your opinion just as others do. I've
seen some people express just opinion and nothing else.
You should be treated the same way. As long as you
post that it's OPINION and are clear about it, then I
think that's fine.

The question should be are we a discussion board or are
we a discussion community. There is a difference. Community
implies something 'more'. Community is where you get threads
such as what we had at Christmas telling folks about one
member having a difficult time with Cancer. If this place is just
a discussion board, then that shouldn't have been posted.
If it's a community, then it should have been, and YOU should
be allowed to express yourself as you have.

Community implies a certain amount of intimacy.

Someone here said that the word “boys” was wrong... Really?

That would be me. And yes, your use of the word
was incorrect. Really.

I am 40, and from what I have seen most of the Boys and
Girls “over there” are quite young... Some of them left their homes
and families after playing a video game.. 18, 20, 25 ... when is a
child fully grown?

I'm even older than you are. Our age has nothing to do with it.
To the 60 year olds we are seen as 'kids'. But of course we aren't,
are we? It doesn't matter that they may or may not be 'quite young'
and it matters not what they were doing the day before they left
for the military. (the day before I went in the Army I was crochetting
a blanket - so what?) A child is considered fully grown at at 18. Some
states consider people younger than that to be adult enough to stand
trial as adult in court. For us parents (my daughter is 9) she will
NEVER be fully grown in my eyes. But that doesn't change the
fact that these men and women ARE grown ups and are there
serving our country because they generously chose to do so.

If my opinions have offended you or otherwise made
you think outside of your protected and manipulated box...

They did neither. You neither offended me nor made me think outside
a box on this issue because I'm not stuck in one.

Those who are against this war on terror like to misuse the english
langauge and call our soldiers, airman and sailors - children. They are
not. I was correcting a misuse of terminology being used. It's just
that simple.



[edit on 12/30/2005 by FlyersFan]

Originally posted by warpfactor9
Why in all that is sane did we not take Sadam out of power in 1991?!!

Because even though we were able to do so, George Bush (41)
decided to go by what the UN said to do, which was to kick Saddam
out of Kuwait and not to go any further. Yep. We have Gulf War II
because of the United Nations and because the president at that
time decided to listen to what those corrupt yahoos said.
It was mandated by the UN and the American president listened.
Too bad. If we had done things correctly (not listening to the UN
and following what we knew was right), none of this would be happening.

I bet there are many Iraqis wondering why we didn't finish the job in 1991 and felt betrayed.

You betchya. When we went in back in 1991 there was an uprising in
S. Iraq. The people fought against Saddams regime and they expected
we would back them up. We didn't. We didn't because the UN said
we couldn't go any further. Those people all died and Saddam and
his terrorist regime remained in power until G.W. (43) came along and
finished what we should have done to begin with. Amazing thing is
the UN STILL didn't want us to go in and liberate Iraq! Guess they
didn't want to turn off the free money pipeline they were getting from
Saddam in the Oil for Food scandal.

Originally posted by Seekerof
Yeah, your right. I have moved quite a few out of this particular forum, among a few other forums. Having been a moderator for almost two years, my time has past, and yes, I most definately should abstain from calling things out, but then again, just as activism is seen as merely giving opinion, I should most definately abstain from giving my own opinion and perspective on this matter of created activism threads guised as opinion, correct, Benevolent Heretic?

For the record Seekerof, when I post in this or any forum here I am doing so at my own risk.. Like it or not.. If I am in violation of any of the terms and conditions of use, I am sure another moderator, super or admin. will jump in and take action.

What bothers me is your focus on activism... You seem to be side-stepping the real issues. You are free to post a reply in kind to anything I or anyone posts here within the same limits we all have. Why not confront the issues you feel are wrong and debate them?

You'd rather attack me, claim that I am agenda driven, or show me the rule book?

Why are you no longer a moderator Seekerof?

Again I will say to you and anyone who reads this... If what I have posted here has upset you... I am sorry!

I will not be moved or changed, however through a civil discussion here, maybe we'd all learn more.

Like anything and everything we do in life, some will get it.. some will not!



UM_Gazz

[edit on 30-12-2005 by UM_Gazz]

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
Why are you no longer a moderator Seekerof?

Because I resigned?
Because I was steeping on toes?
Because I called it like I saw it?
How about you reveal COSMIC discussions to the general ATS populace and tell us all why I am not a moderator, k?

What bothers me is your focus on activism... You seem to be side-stepping the real issues. You are free to post a reply in kind to anything I or anyone posts here within the same limits we all have. Why not confront the issues you feel are wrong and debate them?

No disrespect UM-Gazz--moderator--but it is you who is side-stepping the issue here. May I encourage you to read [linked below] what you are otherwise calling discussion and opinion, while I am calling it, in my own opinion, what you are blantantly doing repetitively: 'activism' of your own political stance.

This forum is NOT a political debate forum. It is NOT a place for anyone to attempt to get their party's agenda pushed forward.

Is not what you have asserted in your original topic not political discussion, and knowing it would be debated?

This forum IS for the DISCUSSION of the war on terror, the North Korean/Iran situation, the war in Iraq from a Conspiratorial perspective.

Is not your topic outright political in nature? Is it conspiracy related?

If you read your post and it isn't ON TOPIC don't post it. If you start a new thread and it doesn't do anything but spew YOUR political agenda/stance or criticize the political agenda/stance to which you are opposed DON'T post it.

Effective IMMEDIATELY
Seems pretty self-evident to me what I am calling you on, whether one wants to label it 'activism' of your own political views of this war, or your opinion.






seekerof

[edit on 30-12-2005 by Seekerof]

First of all Seekerof, I have an opinion on this war, after reading a letter from my Nephew I posted it... about the war.. in a War on Terrorism foum.

If I was wrong in doing so, I am sure someone would have let me know.

YOU are the only one taking issue with it in this way.. Fine!

If that is the way you want to deal with what I have posted... OK!

I can deal with that.. My opinion for now still stands.. and you can deal with that as well.. It is Obvious there is not any point in continuing this off topic discussion with you here.

I am not baiting here, I did not take a political position... I am not seeking to disrupt this or any forum in ATS.. I posted what I thought, It is my opinion on this war... Right or wrong? .. Only time will tell.

Have a great new year Seekerof!



Gazz

Thirdly, your mention of leaving Iraq hanging to "rise and fall on its own" at this juncture in time is very reminiscent of the cut and run policy advocated in Vietnam. How ironic.

And we all, particularly those of us who were there for it, know what a resounding military and political success that party was ...