It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Doomed from the Start?

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 07:18 AM
What exactly is it about users of these boards and in our daily lives who seem to be 'warmongers', constantly wishing war on other nations/hostilities. Many of the posts on these boads (if not most) constantly give comparisons of army sizes, who would win wars etc.. But why?

Is this some kind of inbuilt dominant 'tribe' reaction from our primitive days? Are we set to destroy ourselves and the world? Why are people looking at the bad aspects of other coutries and put themselves in the shoes of the other nation.. Who actually wants to die in a war that has nothing to do with you and has been declared above your head.

I think it is quiote funny how people slag off the administration yet set over a war with Iran they are fully with it.. seems abit fickle but that is IMHO

Another good example is the user from Iran, who again seems to be quite patriotic but on many posts he seems to be against 5-6 people all basically saying he and his people will die.. since when ahs this got something to do with him as a person.. please don't discriminate against the user but the Government and even then I wouldn't wish war on them.

So the point of my post?? Well why are we actually like this? As time goes on and weapons get bigger and 'better' is it really a good idea to have such views on other countries? This warmongering needs to stop or atleast stop gettin so personal.

It is purely my opinion.. but if i see another thread comparing the US to Iran I think i'm going to lose it!

posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 07:43 AM
Yeah, humans can be pretty dirty cretins.

There has recently been a ban on all the "Vs." posts, such as 'what wld hapen if a su-33 dogfightd a f-15????', but a fair few of them still manage to slip around the net. I see no point to these silly threads, most of them started by obsessive high-school students, I am sure.

But I don't think it is possible to stop this 'warmongering,' or even prevent it from getting personal. Wars effect people, and people don't like that, so they attack other people. And although ATS is not a prime example of this, you can still see it here.

posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 12:22 PM
I would suggest that you find some history on Charles Lindburg and the America First political party.
Lindburg was not in favor of America getting into WW2 and spoke out loudly with this movement ..The America First party. Lindburg was very isolationist concerning Americas involvement in foreign affairs/wars.
Not many to day know of this movement or Charles Lindburgs involvement in it but history repeating itself over and over makes those who do know of this think Lindburg had a point.


posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 01:34 PM
A lot of it is fear based, I suspect. For example, Americans have never felt the tramp of the enemy boot upon their own land. Every time they're involved in armed combat, it occurs in someone else's land. They're aware on some level (although they may attempt to repress it) that what goes around, comes around sooner or later. Along with such awareness may be an element of guilt, conscious or otherwise, about the fact the US inflicts so much suffering on others whilst avoiding same, first hand, at home.

In childhood, Americans may find themselves wondering what would happen if the 'enemy' arrived on US soil and dished up some of what the US has inflicted on them. For a child raised in bomb-free. rubble-free suburbia, such thoughts would cause considerable anxiety. Attempts to distance himself from such feelings of fear and insecurity might foster in the child the seeds of isolationist attitudes, such as: " We're safe here. No one can get to us. We're far away from everything. The bad guys don't have good enough planes or ships -- they can't reach us. Our planes and ships are the best in the world. WE are the best in the world. We can beat everyone. "

The child might see graphic footage of dead and dying Iraqi children on the tv news for example. Children quite often identify strongly, in such situations. The child might ask its parent: " Is he (Iraqi child) really hurt? Did it hurt him when his legs were blown off?" The child may betray considerable concern and anxiety, which the parent may attempt to quickly dismiss by remarks such as: " You betcha! ". On the other hand, the parent may himself be uncomfortable with the facts, in which case he may reply: " Nah -- he wouldn't have felt it. Too quick."

The child may persist however: " But Dad .. he's crying, look. It's hurting him. Why did the soldiers shoot his legs off ? He's just a little kid like me ".

" He got in the way, son." the father may reply, intent upon discouraging this line of discussion with which he himself is non too comfortable, " He was throwing rocks at US troops, son. He might even have had a gun, you know. He's the enemy. If he had the chance, he'd kill you quick as look at you. He'd kill your brother Randy if he could. You wouldn't want that, would you? You wouldn't want Randy to get hurt over there, or get killed even. It's war, son. That's why our men have to kill them. We're trying to give them their freedom, but they're too stupid and stubborn to understand that. They don't even have toilets over there, son. That's how ignorant they are. No schools, no toilets, no god. If we don't kill them, they'll come over here and kill us. They'd kill me and then they'd kill mommy and you and little Jake here."

" Would they kill our dog and our rabbits too, Dad?"

" They sure would, son. They'd kill 'em and eat 'em, quick smart."

" But you'd stop them, Dad, wouldn't you? " very nervous now.

" Don't you worry about that, son. They won't be coming here. Randy
wouldn't let them. That's why he's over there now, fighting for our freedoms and to make sure they can never get over here to harm you and mommy and grandma.

So the child (and many adults) have an underlying anxiety about the capabilities of 'the enemy' (regardless of who that enemy may be at any given moment). It compensate and quell their fears, they engage in bravado. They need to believe that the US is invincible, superior, safe from retaliation at home.

War's not really real, if it's on tv. Those amputees and wounded can't really feel anything because the god-like US surgeons have injected them with generous doses of pain-killer. And anyway, they're the godless, unwashed and worthless enemy that refuse to appreciate the freedoms 'our boys' are trying to hand them.

To create further reassurance that he/she is safe on the couch, many demonise the enemy (to compensate for feelings of guilt and empathy) and create a new world-map in their minds, in which the US rises like The Land of Goodness out of limitless oceans which protect and isolate it from the rest of the world 'way over there somewhere'.

They constantly reassure themselves by discussing the superiority and limitlessness of US resources. Discussing these in detail can develop to the point it's like a nervous tic. When anxiety rises, it can be dealt with by detailing fire power, rocket and troop numbers, etc., because these are what the individual relies upon for his sense of security.

The ultimate fear-queller is discussing the blows that the US is capable of delivering to that damn enemy which causes such fear and interferes with the individual's enjoyment of life. Fighting a war vicariously in this way helps build the individual's courage and confidence.

If/when armed combat takes place upon US soil, it's likely to result in reduced agression within its populace. When you've seen blood running down street gutters and have had to pick pieces of your family out of the burning remnants of your home, it tends to make war the last option, rather than the first .... 'pre-emtive strike' would be something only a suicidal politician would suggest, after that.

posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 01:43 PM
Valid point but I could argue that 'peaceniks' those of the opposite persuasion are just as dangerous too. They believe that everyone is our friend or could become our friend if we just accomodate them... Every dispute can be resolved with words of kindness or compassion and everybody just wants to get along.

Ah so nice if it was like that in real life but it isn't. That is why the military kooks are useful so that they go to war and peaceniks can stay home and have their little demonstrations to make themselves feel morally superior.

posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 01:50 PM
I didn't want this post to purely attack Americans, I feel just as strongly about Iranian posts. Nobody seems to realise that real peaople die. They wake up go to school/work, come home and bam hit these threads with information about how good we are and how invincible, if there was a war i'm sure many people would be happy and/or feel smug yet is it them fighting? Are they going to write about the glorious victory after months fo writing about the build up to war, of course they are.. and after?? Well go to bed in a nice central heated home with a loving family and a nice white picket fence.

All I am trying to say is that the realities of war need to be seen first instead of this (sorry to say) but childish comparing 'my dad is bigger than yours' or 'If you mess with me i'll get so and so on you' all these people do is cause further personal inflictions on other users who have to read the same dribble over and over.

posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 01:56 PM
Denythestatusquo -- These military 'experts' are not doing the fighting though are they. It is so easy to say yes we'll march over and invade you and post on the Internet how we are going to war with the next 'terrorist country'.. I'm guessing you do not have any family currently serving in the army then?

I do not want my family fighting in another war and it really is disheartening reading someone sitting at home basically handing out threats to another person from another country.

posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 02:10 PM
' ..... someone sitting at home basically handing out threats to another person from another country '

The way Bush, Cheyney, Rumsfeld etc. have and still do.

Yet where were they when they had the chance to show what they were made of?

Didn't Cheyney dodge the draft five times in succession? And Bush wasn't even prepared to fulfil his obligations in the reserves.

There'd be far fewer wars if warmongering braggarts were required to lead by example ... from the front, like the leaders of old.

new topics

top topics


log in