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.

 

I Once Dreamed of Liberty (Op/Ed)

page: 13
22
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2006 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006

Peaceful people have their place because they think of all the moral implications in the world. They are the ones who care for the sick and wounded; they think of the laws and the ethics behind them; and they are champions for those who cannot fend for themselves. They think about the hungry. They resist any type of battle. They sacrifice themselves for the cause of not confronting another human being for the sake of serenity. Yet, they are most brutalized, looked down upon and scourged humans on earth because of their unwillingness to take the easy path to war. And as a result, they show their bravery in the face of aggression because they are willing to take a stand opposed to the most bloodiest conflict.
....................


Really? how is that so when "all the peaceful people in the western world" want to leave the people of Iraq to fend for themselves?....




posted on May, 25 2006 @ 12:39 AM
link   
Wasn't Iraq a sovereign nation, Muaddib? I mean, it is a piece of land. It had its own leader. It even had a place in the U.N., I believe.



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
If this is so, semperfortis, how do you explain the My Lai Massacre or the 15 Iraqi civilians killed by the Marines? How do you explain the soldiers who had looted the treasures out of the Iraqi museums? What about the treatment in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo? Do you think that these were the acts of "brave men and women"? Should we support these soldiers as patriots too? Or should we view them as malcontents as well?

Or should we turn a blind eye to acts of aggression especially committed in times of battle? Should we look for the higher cause in a war when we know that civilians on foreign soil are being harmed for no good reason?

All I can say is that these comments reflect the two types of people in the world. And depending where you fall, how will you view the actions committed above?

Peaceful people have their place because they think of all the moral implications in the world. They are the ones who care for the sick and wounded; they think of the laws and the ethics behind them; and they are champions for those who cannot fend for themselves. They think about the hungry. They resist any type of battle. They sacrifice themselves for the cause of not confronting another human being for the sake of serenity. Yet, they are most brutalized, looked down upon and scourged humans on earth because of their unwillingness to take the easy path to war. And as a result, they show their bravery in the face of aggression because they are willing to take a stand opposed to the most bloodiest conflict.

War-like people are the ones that act on their aggression as a result of a cause; they are the ones who singularly think that their killing serves a higher purpose without any thought. They employ their special talents of battle on those who are singled out to be the enemy. And of course, they believe that they are sacrificing themselves for the highest significance.

The strange thing is both think that they are patriots. But when the soul of each type of person is weighed, which one will tip to the side in the wrong direction?

[edit on 24-5-2006 by ceci2006]


By peaceful I assume you mean pacifists. And surely you are not saying that NO ONE that is in combat ever cares for the less fortunate? That is absolutely ridiculous to the extreme.

For you to have "lumped" soldiers, combat vets, medics and field nurses into one all "war-like" category is shocking and it takes a lot to shock me.


All soldiers dream of a time when there is no need for their talents, yet that time is definitely not now. Unlike pacifists, soldiers do not live with their collective heads under ground. We realize that there are people out there that do not care if you are "peace loving", "flower children" or not and will slit your throat and never look back.
We understand there are tyrants out there killing literally millions of "their" people and we go out and do one thing. "STAND IN THEIR WAY"
Stand in their way while our own country men call us killers, radicals and war mongers. Stand in the way of tyrants while pacifists sit home and eat mcdonalds and complain because war is not a perfect science and people must die so that others can live free.

Not being a perfect science means that bad and wrong things will happen. Just like accidents on the freeway and murders and cable outages. It is NOT perfect, but you know what? It is pretty darn good.

I will NEVER stop vehemently defending those FANTASTICALLY brave men and women over there fighting and dieing so that maybe, just maybe one day the Iraq people will ALL be free enough to post on here with us and complain about their soldiers.

Yes, there is a place for Pacifists. Absolutely. but OMG!! to ever lump the people putting there lives on the line so that we can type back and forth to each other so that one day maybe all people can, into a negative group is beyond understanding!
I was defending the soldiers on here one day when some one told me to stop because I was paid in the Marines!!! Yea all of 720.00 a month. A full one third of what I make now a WEEK!!! No Soldier does it for the money, not for the glory, (it is very dirty and not glorious at all) but for the country. For a higher purpose, something more than they are. NO ceci, I will never accept nor back off when anyone ever degrades the people that have fought, are fighting or will fight so that we can all sit around and complain.



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 02:58 AM
link   
SO - nice podcast (I'm a late arrival). And great music from Benevolent Heretic!

Further to the idea of losing liberties, you might like to check Unconstitutional, a video that documents the recent erosion of liberties.

And as far as the subject of datamining goes, I found a really cool article and posted it in this thread, where, despite receiving applause from the moderators, at the moment (takes out onion) it's languishing all on its own without a single reply! (Sniffle)

The article rocks: using proper statistics with sums and everything, it demonstrates rather conclusively that datamining, which we are assured is necessary to protect us from those evil terrorists, is absolutely useless for that purpose. On the other hand, if you want to keep an eye on, for example, how many people would like to see Bush impeached, then it's just the ticket.

Enjoy.



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 04:56 AM
link   
semperfortis:

I do agree with you that our soldiers should be cherished for the huge burdens we put on their shoulders. However, I think that maybe we put too much on them sometimes. You think we don't need to leave Iraq because the job isn't done. When will it be done? Or is there even a goal set that's foreseeable? I don't know what it is that our forces are trying to set up over there that's so important as to require our constant guard, but maybe you could enlighten me?

I find it unsettling that there are soldiers that are so eager to go off and do what they've been taught to do. Something like that should not be enjoyed. Maybe I've misconstrued your views, and if so, I'm sorry. I just see these past few posts as being biased towards the soldiers and what they're doing. People are ALL fallible, no matter who they think they are. Soldiers are just doing what they're told, despite whatever anyone says. It's a simple fact that they do what they do because they have to do it. They contracted into the military for various reasons, but I bet most of them pre-9/11 weren't planning on going to war. No normal person wants war. Anyone that does shouldn't be a soldier. To be a soldier should be a humbling experience, not an ego-boosting one. They're the last bastion of hope that stands between we the people and the enemy.

Yes, we need to support our troops, but to what end? Do we support them for what they're doing? Or do we support them because we want them to come home safe? I think it's one in the same really. Like I've already said, no one wants to see people die, but there need to be people skilled in the arts to be able to handle it when the time comes.

It's my opinion that we should bring them home because there's not much more we can do there, and if there is, why is it taking so long? When this country was founded, we only had France's and Spain's help in setting up our country. It took a few years yes, but we did the majority of that on our own, as a group. Why is it so impossible for the people of Iraq to do the same? Can't they figure out what to do by themselves? Why do they need to be coddled like little babes? I fail to see the need for the soldier to be ever-present in every facet of their existence. All that Iraq is being used for right now is a staging ground for the War on Terror so that they don't come over here. Or so that's what they're telling us anyway.

All I ask is for everyone to use a little more reason when they think about why we're REALLY there, and don't listen to all the hype that the government spits out. Listen to what the soldiers themselves say, as that's where the truth lies. Semper, I want you and Maud to know that I understand where you get the deep feelings for our troops from. I myself feel the same way for the most part. We just choose to take a slightly different side on the issue of Iraq is all. I hope you can at least understand why it is that some of us ask for our troops to come home. I think the war's been over for a long time now, and the only reason that it's been drug out for this long is because there's something that we're not being told.

I only wish I could put into words what I see.

TheBorg



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 05:11 AM
link   
You do not have to be a pacifist to be opposed to war, or niave. There is most certianly a time and a place to defend yourself (and your nation) but it should be an act of last resort, not first choice. We chose to attack Iraq, we did not have to and despite all the protestations to the contrary Bush was itching to attack, he never gave diplomacy or the inspectors a real chance because he didn't want to he was dissing the inspectors from the moment they stepped foot on the ground and was impatient with them every step of the way. Only Muaddib now believes Saddam still had WMD so regardless of how you cut it, an unprovked war makes us the aggressor and as such, wrong.



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 06:01 AM
link   
Borg, Thank you for that and for expressing it as your opinion.

Yet it is not my opinion, for this is the real world and my opinion stands.
To say that the soldiers should not feel eager to do their duty is perfectly OK on my part, yet here I sit a much more mature man then the 20 year old college graduate who had just entered the Marines and could not wait to throw my hand up to volunteer for any mission that came "down the pike."

"The greatest gift a man can give is to place his body between wars desolation and his beloved home."

I can never fault them for their patriotic fervor. It is by nature a young mans duty and they are out there doing it. Gone are the days when each man felt obligated to devote a significant portion of their lives to the service of the military. When rousing songs of patriotic energy sprang from every speaker on the block. Gone even are the streets of the city lined with American flags in memory of 9/11. Now all that is left are the questioners, doubters and a few brave and young men and women. Patriotism and pride in the power of ones country has become non-vogue and unpopular. Much like the flat-top and penny loafers.
Still I remember when it was with a sense of pride that we talked about our military might and how quickly we crushed the Hun and Hitler. There was a momentary surge when Reagan defeated communism, but it too was short lived and quick became unpopular.
I fear only one thing. That we eventually become so enamored with our own ability to accept this, while the rest of the world revels in the power of their nations, that we are quickly and completely over-run. Some on here would make unqualified statements about Americans being able to defend themselves. Oh how very naive that is. Check out Colonel Dave Grossman's book titled "On Killing" to see how very absurd that is and not even worthy of my return comment.
The modern military has learned many many things in it's history. One of which is how to create and excellent soldier and killing machine. To even imagine a civilian population could stand against them is completely laughable. The only resort would be to follow the Islam-o-fasists with their homicide bombers and IED's and car bombs. I have personally known men that make Rambo look like a sissy. But that is neither here nor there.
A feeling of pride in anyone's craft is as natural as sunshine and I can not deny them that.
Again Borg, I appreciate your opinion, I in many ways agree and still in many do not. But hey, that is what ATS is all about right?



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 06:26 AM
link   
First I would like to say that you don't have to go to war to love what your country was about (or now what it is suppose to be about). Also I personally know soliders who are over there fighting for the people of Iraq and thats why they are over there. I am glad to see that they care, but that doesn't change the fact that they are trying to save freedom by killing. Then I know solider who aren't over there to fight for freedom, they are just there because they were told "free education" when they were done, and to them I don't look down on them cause "ya gotta get by".
But then I know a couple soliders that aren't there for either. They are there to kill people. I quote one of them "I have, and always will vote republican, they are more likely to start wars. That means I get to kill people." I tried to ask him why, or better understand, and all I got was him wanting to kill and torture people.

There is simply no need to fight a war that never needed to be fought. You need to remember who deserves freedom and who doesnt. These people didn't fight for their freedom, we did. It is not our job to make nations free. In order for a people to appriciate freedom, they have to be willing to fight for it. Rise up when it may seem the hardest. We fought one of the most powerful nations on the planet, back when we were just a bunch of colony farmers. We were more then willing to die for it.

You want to defend home, then wait till the battle is at us. You cant predict who will attack, or why. All you can do is defend yourself when defending is called for. 9/11 was in no way an excuse to invade two countries half way around the world. You want to defend us, keep our borders secure, regardless of attack. Stop them from coming in. I have no problem with taking every last soldier in iraq out of iraq and putting them on the entire border of the US (after an iraqi government is established). Every air port, every port, every piece of connected land. Defend that. We have 12 million illegal immigrants that prove your not protecting our boreders.

Now I dont necessarily have a problem with self defense, because thats the only true way you can call it defending yourself. But what we are doing is not defending our country, its murder.



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Anyways, I apologize for going off topic, but i hate it when people exagerate and lie.


If you're refering to me, I'm not aware of any point when I exagerated or lied. If you could point it out, I'd much appreciate it.

As for an American insurgency, would you be an insurgent? When there are armed soldiers at every street corner? When you are shot for being out past curfew? Or would you be content because there is cleaner water in your town, or less crime on the streets?



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420


If you're refering to me, I'm not aware of any point when I exagerated or lied. If you could point it out, I'd much appreciate it.



You obviously exagerated or lied when you said, and I quote:


these are just people who have lost all of their freedoms and are now fighting back.


Insurgents and terrorists are not just "people who have lost all their freedoms.... Many of the insurgents have killed Iraqis, they put roadside bombs which kills citizens, and Iraqi citizens have fought against them...so yeah, you exagerated or knowingly lied.

[edit on 25-5-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 10:10 PM
link   
hey Muaddib, maybe he would prefer they lost their freedoms to Saddam when he was gassing them by the hundred of thousands.

What was the VERY conservative estimate again? Over 1 million of his own people exterminated?

Ah but we are the bad guys.

Do these posters have any logic at all?

Common sense appears to have fled this post.



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 10:42 PM
link   
semperfortis,

Well, after reading both Muaddib's and your responses, I think that there are two versions of what liberty means in this country. But the question is, are your views of liberty more accurate? Or are the views of those opposing you more correct?



[edit on 25-5-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Insurgents and terrorists are not just "people who have lost all their freedoms.... Many of the insurgents have killed Iraqis, they put roadside bombs which kills citizens, and Iraqi citizens have fought against them...so yeah, you exagerated or knowingly lied.


Insurgents and terrorists? Thats a mighty step to put them in the exact same category for the purpose of this arguement.

I will once again bring up the scenerio of an occupying force controlling our neighborhoods here in the US. If someone is willing to side with the occupying army, what will they be called? What were they called in WWII when people were willing to sell out others to the Nazis? Collaborators!!!

I have to say, with no two ways about it, right now the US is occupying another state with the ultimate goal of either monetary gain or military advancement. I will, for the sake of this arguement, forgo the monitary gains of this war. I ask you, before the gulf war, what was the military benefit of occupying Iraq?

[edit on 25-5-2006 by Rasobasi420]



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 01:21 AM
link   
semperfortis:

You're right when you say that there is no greater deed a man can do than to die for a friend, but I must ask you something. What is the point in dying for said friend when they don't know why you're dying, let alone who you are? There is also another old saying that states that "Freedom is never free". In Iraq's case, they've not had and still don't seem to have any desire to run their own country. So are they really free? They can't do anything without us.

How much longer will it take? Again, I keep trying to puzzle out what it is that they could POSSIBLY be taking so long in doing over there. Have you any idea what they are doing? All I hear is the junk the media spits out. Maybe you have information that could shed some light on the 'battleplan' as it were, that they have in mind for the ongoing occupancy by our troops.

Also, I wouldn't be so quick to discount the average US citizen as a soldier. Remember who started this country. Yes, it's true that over time new technology has come along that has made the soldier virtually untouchable, but I'm sure there are people that are just as capable as any of these soldiers that you speak of to take care of themselves. Underestimating the people is what got Great Britain into so much trouble, remember? There are also several occasions where farmers have rebelled with nothing more than picks and shovels, and won small victories. It's the sheer will to survive sometimes that's the impetus for the creation of true warriors. I affectionately use the old adage "The Warrior Within" when it comes to this aspect of human nature.

Again, I encourage you to remember that you should NEVER underestimate people's innate abilities to survive. Should someone attack us on this continent with a land invasion, it's my opinion that they'd be shutout inside of 48 hours. Any remaining opposing forces would be extinguished inside of a week. And since the majority of our skilled troops are overseas fighting, the local fighting would be left to us the citizens.

Regardless of what I may say, I still have the best intent for my troops. They are as much mine as they are anyone else's. And I love them all just the same. Eagerness to die isn't something that should be embraced, as that leads to unnecessary casualties. What should be embraced is the willingness to survive to see another day of freedom for the people back home, not those in Iraq. Everyone says that our soldiers are fighting for our safety when they're not. They're fighting for the Iraqi people's safety. We're completely fine over here. People need to be getting the correct facts about this War, not the skewed ones that the government wants us to hear.

I'll let you respond before I say anymore, as this has gotten lengthy enough as it is.

TheBorg



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 02:40 AM
link   
Thinking about your comments again, semperfortis, I must say that I too honor and respect the troops.

But I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of what I said. When I said that world was divided by "war-like" and "peaceful" people, I meant in general.

But however, I have more questions for you.

The questions about the soldiers who have committed wrongs at wartime was a separate question. However, you seem to say that their acts are a part of battle. Should we ignore their acts for the higher cause of war? I mean, both the My Lai Massacre and the 15 civilians killed in Iraq are heinous acts. Are you saying that we have to still honor the endeavors of these soldiers as patriots despite what they do? Their acts of atrocity are the ones that I meant in terms of describing "war-like" people. They fall in the same camp as those who torture others at Abu Ghraib. Don't these acts deserve to be punished?

It is acts like these that make me question the behavior that is conducted by our military in wartime generally. You say that things happen at wartime. But how do these young men and women deal with it? There must be some training involved. Because no one is innately desensitized to graphic bloodshed and killing like that without feeling some sort of emotion.

Because for the soldiers who witness the atrocities of war, they have to come home. And of course, we have to make sure we care for them after engaging in a lengthy, stressful situation as battle. Because if we don't, we have more homeless vets on the street. These are the true patriots. They endured the worst of the war while fighting for our country, yet when they come home they cannot get care because the government cut funding for VA services.

How can we not question our country when it does not employ proper care for the soldiers who are wounded mentally and physically in the war?

I have more thoughts about how to answer what I meant for "peace-like" people, but I am going to do it in a future post.



[edit on 26-5-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
Thinking about your comments again, semperfortis, I must say that I too honor and respect the troops.

But I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of what I said. When I said that world was divided by "war-like" and "peaceful" people, I meant in general.

But however, I have more questions for you.

The questions about the soldiers who have committed wrongs at wartime was a separate question. However, you seem to say that their acts are a part of battle. Should we ignore their acts for the higher cause of war? I mean, both the My Lai Massacre and the 15 civilians killed in Iraq are heinous acts. Are you saying that we have to still honor the endeavors of these soldiers as patriots despite what they do? Their acts of atrocity are the ones that I meant in terms of describing "war-like" people. They fall in the same camp as those who torture others at Abu Ghraib. Don't these acts deserve to be punished?

It is acts like these that make me question the behavior that is conducted by our military in wartime generally. You say that things happen at wartime. But how do these young men and women deal with it? There must be some training involved. Because no one is innately desensitized to graphic bloodshed and killing like that without feeling some sort of emotion.

Because for the soldiers who witness the atrocities of war, they have to come home. And of course, we have to make sure we care for them after engaging in a lengthy, stressful situation as battle. Because if we don't, we have more homeless vets on the street. These are the true patriots. They endured the worst of the war while fighting for our country, yet when they come home they cannot get care because the government cut funding for VA services.

How can we not question our country when it does not employ proper care for the soldiers who are wounded mentally and physically in the war?

I have more thoughts about how to answer what I meant for "peace-like" people, but I am going to do it in a future post.



[edit on 26-5-2006 by ceci2006]


No I guess I did not get it out the way I meant it ceci. Sorry.
1st, those Soldiers that commit crimes should be punished as the criminals that they are. Military punishment is traditionally more severe than civilian and should be used to take care of the Soldiers that abuse the authority given to them.

As for the desensitization, well, did you see Columbine? Or any of a hundred other such happenings? It is happening all over with or without a war.

As for the VA, I have never heard of anyone not getting care if they wanted it. NOT doubting you, just have no information on that.

As far as mentally, well I suffer from PTSD because of the Marines and I always will. It became, for me, Clinical Depression, and I have had to deal with it. Your question is one I have been asking sense the war started. These guys are going to come back here "messed" up and we have to be ready for that.

GOOD questions ceci, wish I had the answers.



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 09:18 AM
link   
what I dont get is why you believe we should be spreading our way of life, and why we have to fight other people to spread it. Many people in our countries history died for freedom(and Im not talking about wars like vietnam, iraq, and such) They died to make this nation a free society as a whole. So if freedom came at the price for us, why should any other nation not have to pay the same price?

If they want to be free they will do everything in their power. Sadam could gas them, but after awhile, when the country collapses because theres not enough people to power the country, the reign of his terror is over. They have the capability to have a free society, but they have to want it, and prove they want it.



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Wow....what an argument.... "If they wanted freedom they should have let themselves be gassed even more and when not enough people are living in the country the killing done by Saddam would end"......


I can't even believe anyone in their right mind would say or consider this...

Anyways, did you forget that there were many reasons given why we should have gone to war with Saddam's regime, including the fact that Saddam was promoting and funding terrorists including those who killed or would kill Israeli and American citizens?....

BTW grim...did you know that even during the battles fought for the declaration of independence people came to what was to become the United States from other countries to help our forefathers fight against the British?...

What are kids learning in school these days?


[edit on 26-5-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
hey Muaddib, maybe he would prefer they lost their freedoms to Saddam when he was gassing them by the hundred of thousands.

What was the VERY conservative estimate again? Over 1 million of his own people exterminated?

Ah but we are the bad guys.

Do these posters have any logic at all?

Common sense appears to have fled this post.


Semper, some of the claims made here are just.... I can't even find the warts, i mean words to describe them...

Oh, btw some of the estimates were up to 4 million, counting the over 500,000 children who died through the peacful process that so many around here wanted to continue... and then some members here also have to exagerate and claim that over 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed by the coalition, when the real numbers say differently.... Then again they also forget to mention that insurgents and terrorists wear civilian clothes and their arms are taken away hence there is no real way to know who is a civilian and who is an insurgent/terrorist... and they forget to mention also that the counts include people who have been beheaded, killed by roadside bombs etc, all of those killed by insurgents and terrorists...


Civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq

Min = 37918 Max = 42288

www.iraqbodycount.org...


BTW if you go to the following site, it even says how many of those people died.

www.iraqbodycount.org...

[edit on 26-5-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 09:00 PM
link   
plain and simple, if they arent willing to fight for it and uprise, they dont deserve it. Doesnt matter how many have to die, if they arent willing to die for it, and the other guy is willing to die for a dictatorship, then guess who is going to win? the guy willing to die for it, because the one who sacrifices the most is going to end up winning it. Mainly because the other side is going "whoa im not willing to get killed over this" so they give up. if both sides are willing to kill and die for it, then a war is what your going to see, especially if no compromise is made.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join