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.

 

Why do so many think supporting the war is supporting our troops?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astygia
Relevant in this case, yep.

Wrong answer.
Wishful thinking, as well.





The first gulf war is not this war. As is obvious, Saddam was the crazy glue holding that place together.

Did you serve in the 1st Gulf War? Notice that "history" denoted the conflict as a "war," hello?





Iraq had no WMD, was not part of the destroy-America campaign, and had no ties to al-Quada.

And your on a conspiracy site when its evident that you believe everything you read?




If you think a war on terrorism can be won, you're living in a dream world which will only end when you're considered the terrorist.

Did I say it could be won?

Furthermore, dreams are relative.




As to why I support them and denounce the war..I guess it's all a matter of perspective.

Apparently so, and yet you still use absolutes and assumptive rhetoric to support your perspective. Ironic.




I am curious, how many of those polled were in Iraq or Afghanistan, how many had ever been to either, or if they were even combat arms for that matter. I would wager not many.

About as curious as I am over your assumptive assertions? About as curious as I am as to why you provided no supporting information?




Regardless, I was speaking assumptively. So I'll give you that.

Okie dokie.




I DO NOT in any way, shape, or form support going AWOL, fragging commanders, or murdering anyone in the battlefield or administration or anywhere, and I hate that you lump me in with those assholes. If you've ever fully read anything dealing with the military that I've posted in, you'd know that this is as far from my position as you can get.

Okie dokie x 2.
And yet, you support the troops but not their mission.
Kind of like saying you support the efforts of police officers but not when they have to arrest people, etc, or that you support firefighters and their efforts to put out fires but not their efforts to save lives, huh?




Do us all a favor and don't post assumptively, YES?

Assumptive statements deserve like in kind in my book.




I denounce this war that's killed so many Americans, that was based on intelligence that was known to be weak at best, that was being planned before there was even a reason for it, that is still going even though it's known as fact there was no reason for it, that the administration STILL CANNOT ADMIT was a mistake and expects us all to just forget, that is becoming unwinnable because the administration is still trying to fight a "nice" war, that began with a rejection of proper military outfitting and instead relied on Rumsfeld's best guess, I could go on.

Yes, of course.
Rebutting you further would be like me simply walking up to a wall and hitting it with my head, over and over and over and over.
Worth rebutting? No. Your arguments for symbolically supporting the troops but not their mission are repetitive and redundant. But then again, you are entitled to your "perspective," correct?




I respect you for having served, but this doesn't make your rhetoric any less WRONG,

...or your service and rhetoric making what you claim anymore RIGHT, eh?




....and your logic, especially lumping me in with the traitorous assholes who act happy at the thought of killing officers, is infuriating.

About as "infuriating" as you claiming assertively that 99% were against? Gotcha...





I posted that earlier example because officers are just more political, whereas most of my NCOs aren't afraid to call a spade a spade. It was true, but was also for the sake of levity.

Ah....





I suggest you think about the post, the poster, and your response before snapping off something that sounds witty, since a given topic is more sensitive for some than another topic might be.

As I suggested to another member within this topic: Follow your OWN advice, you think?


[edit on 8-10-2006 by Seekerof]




posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Ill assume your talking BS then.
I find it hard to believe 65 out of 100 troops on the ground still support the war that they are in.

Would you settle for 60%?!
www.usatoday.com...

Use your favorite search engine next time instead of showing that you have no clue as to how to operate such, maybe?




When its so obvious that its going to sh1t.
Im sure they support each other, and that they are patriotic.. but for them to believe they are there for the right reasons and are needed there to complete there goal of keeping the US Safe? I find is a load of cr@p.

But thanks for playing seeker, again your posts speak lengths.

Keep talking partner.
Your only indicating and proving the obvious....



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 11:17 PM
link   
December 2004?
C'mon dood I thought u were serious



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 11:19 PM
link   
And even If I was in your league of mental in-efficiency..

60%?

a segmant over HALF believe in the fight they are doing?

If this was just, and respectable and people had faith in the mission.. they'd ALL be behind it.

6 out of 10 people isnt something to boast if ur the leader of the US army.



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
December 2004?
C'mon dood I thought u were serious

I see your internet skills are beyond lacking?
Here's the point of this whole conversation between you and I:
You have yet asked your anti-war brother-in-arms for proof of his assertions, nor bothered to check his assertions, yet are condemning mine? Ironic, but further, indicates the true nature of yourself: pathetic.

Support has dropped but is still above 55% among the troops.
www.estripes.com...



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
If this was just, and respectable and people had faith in the mission.. they'd ALL be behind it.

BS.
Historically, even when war was 'justified,' over the mid-to-long term, there was never full support (ie: "they'd ALL be behind it"), never. WWII is prime example.
Another assumptive assertion, brought to all of us by Agit8dChop. Brilliant.



[edit on 8-10-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 11:28 PM
link   
well jee's sorry there seeker.
But if you need to get personal because uve FAILEd twice now to show your claim of 65% well.. its like a baby crying after the lollypop was taken away huh ?
So 23% think they should stay to fix the problem.
mm nope.. still not 65% saying they believe in it yet..
im still looking gimme a min.
22% say they should be gone within 6 months.... mmm nope.
Or what baout this

The poll also shows that 42 percent of the troops surveyed are unsure of their mission in Iraq, and that 85 percent believe a major reason they were sent into war was “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the Sept. 11 attacks.” Ninety-three percent said finding and destroying weapons of mass destruction is not a reason for the ongoing military action.
I asked for your proof because of exactly what has just happened.
You failed to show it, yet your happy riddiculing people.

Plus after time, im sure you know my thoughts and I know your thoughts on this matter.

buttt, much like the way of this war is going, your slowly losing the side of the argument..

Its bogus mate.
Wake up, stop kidding yourself and trying to change others.. because clearly You were WRONG when you said 65%..

you tried backing it up with a 60% claim from 2004.
then a 55% claim from March 2006.

got anything recent?

I know how to use the internet, I can gaurantee much more than you mate, but i dont like to brag! I just like to prove people wrong.

Keep looking, and when you find that magical 65% proof let me know! ill gladly apologise!



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Agit8dChop,
Found that source link for 99% against yet?

[edit on 8-10-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Wrong answer.
Wishful thinking, as well.


So you feel that as a service person who claims to have served during wartime, your opinion on manners of war has NO more bearing than someone who's never served?

Speak for yourself.





Did you serve in the 1st Gulf War? Notice that "history" denoted the conflict as a "war," hello?


No point, hello?



And your on a conspiracy site when it evident that you believe everything you read?


Don't blame ATS, blame the press for reporting it, allied government officials for stating it, and low-ranking US officials for grudgingly confirming it. Or is that not enough for you? It wouldn't be in this case, would it?




Did I say it could be won?

Furthermore, dreams are relative.


Supporting the war on terror and supporting those charged with fighting it are two different things.




Apparently so, and yet you still use absolutes and assumptive rhetoric to support your perspective. Ironic.....About as curious as I am over your assumptive assertion? About as curious as I am as to why you provided no supporting information?


The 99% was assumptive, and exaggerated, as I've already stated. What's ironic that you're still arguing about it.



Okie dokie x 2.
And yet, you support the troops but not their mission.
Kind of like saying you support the efforts of police officers but no when they have to arrest people, etc, or that you support firefighter and their efforts to put out fires but not their efforts to save lives, huh?


I never claimed to not support the troops' mission. They have many missions: sweeps, patrols, convoy duty, training the new police and defense forces, etc. I hope they get the proper armor and backup to do so. I hope no more or killed and injured...my hopes are pipe dreams.

I do not support a war that from the very beginning was wrong on several levels.

Had you seen actual combat you'd know the difference between a mission and a war.



Yes, of course.
Rebutting you further would be like me simply walking up to a wall and hitting it with my head, over and over and over and over.
Worth rebutting? No. Your arguments for symbolically supporting the troops but not their mission are repetitive and redundant. But then again, you are entitled to your "perspective," correct?


It seems like you rebutting me would be impossible, since your posts are devoid of substance. The only thing you're hung up on is an obvious exaggeration in which I said 99%. Get over the 99%, is this like the one time per decade you're right about something and that's why you can't let it go?

And I've earned my perspective, that's not for you to even attempt considering.



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 11:32 PM
link   
narp, but then i didnt state it and claim i had proof

proof which u say u had, which u used to riddicule a fellow poster yet have failed to present.
not because u cant find it.. but because it isnt out there.

Keep baiting man.. your wrong, enough said.im moving onto the korean threads now. I dont like wasting my time on your attempts at debunking seeker.

[edit on 8-10-2006 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astygia
So you feel that as a service person who claims to have served during wartime, your opinion on manners of war has NO more bearing than someone who's never served?

Speak for yourself.

As I am doing...





No point, hello?

No point as you did not serve in the 1st Gulf War or that you have nothing further to counter with?




Don't blame ATS, blame the press for reporting it, allied government officials for stating it, and low-ranking US officials for grudgingly confirming it. Or is that not enough for you? It wouldn't be in this case, would it?

Um, not blaming ATS, but simply the assumption that you believe everything you read. I remember Allied government intelligence services spouting off that they KNEW Saddam had WMDs and ties to terrorist organizations. Apparently, you were somewhere else when the all-knowing media reported such?




Supporting the war on terror and supporting those charged with fighting it are two different things.

Is it?
You support the troops but not their mission?
I have asked this already of you...




The 99% was assumptive, and exaggerated, as I've already stated. What's ironic that you're still arguing about it.

If it was assumptive, then why did you post it up so that others would believe it? You working for the media now--printing garbage lies knowing that many will believe them. Nice act to follow, huh?





I never claimed to not support the troops' mission. They have many missions: sweeps, patrols, convoy duty, training the new police and defense forces, etc. I hope they get the proper armor and backup to do so. I hope no more or killed and injured...my hopes are pipe dreams.

Pipe dreams are relative, especially to a soldier, as you and I both should know, correct?




I do not support a war that from the very beginning was wrong on several levels.

I will respect that, though it can be debated, and has within ATS, till we are both blue in the face.



Had you seen actual combat you'd know the difference between a mission and a war.

Another ASSUMPTIVE ASSERTION?
Ex-pararescue here. Do not think I have seen no combat, buddy.
Spare me your continued rhetorical assumptive assertions, k?!




It seems like you rebutting me would be impossible, since your posts are devoid of substance. The only thing you're hung up on is an obvious exaggeration in which I said 99%. Get over the 99%, is this like the one time per decade you're right about something and that's why you....

I will get over a number of things when you cease with your assumptive assertions. :shk:




And I've earned my perspective, that's not for you to even attempt considering.

Oh lord....
....how many more assumptive assertions will you make, huh?



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 11:52 PM
link   
ASSUMPTIVE ASSERTION?
Mate im still waiting for your 65% claim..
Some time a bit more recent than 04 too.
Dont u just hate us tulip walkers?

I like the way you feel the need to repeate the 2 words over and over and over.
Is this somethign you learn in school?
'' how to get your point noticed, even tho you havent a clue what your on about ''

I could clearly see 99% was an exaturation to make a point, could you ? or do you chose what to take with a grain of salt as long as it gives u ammo for your statements?

But you attacked it with your CLAIM of 65%.. no you wouldnt be using an assertive assumption there would ya ?

U refused to back that information up because he wouldnt back up his OBVIOUS over extended point..

but u tried with a 60% claim from 04, then a 55% claim from march.. and now ur just out right ignoring it.

Sigh..

you anti-tulip walkers... tsk tsk tsk pa--the--tik.

[edit on 8-10-2006 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
ASSUMPTIVE ASSERTION?
Mate im still waiting for your 65% claim..
Some time a bit more recent than 04 too.
Dont u just hate us tulip walkers?

Far closer than that 99% quoted by you anti-war "tulipwalkers," huh?




I could clearly see 99% was an exaturation to make a point, could you ? or do you chose what to take with a grain of salt as long as it gives u ammo for your statements?

Yet, though you knew it was deceptive and blatantly an "exaggeration," because it supported your anti-war view, you never challenged it, but yet you are on ATS, a site that DENIES ALL IGNORANCE, which includes challenging the posting up of decepetive and blatantly inaccurate information. How ssccchhhweeeeet.....not. Fine example you set as long as the deception suites your purpose and perspective....




But you attacked it with your CLAIM of 65%.. no you wouldnt be using an assertive assumption there would ya ?

5% is within the margin of error on some polls, hello? I did not claim a date for that 65, 60 or 55%+ did I? :shk:




U refused to back that information up because he wouldnt back up his OBVIOUS over extended point..

Yet, you did not challenge his "over extended" assertion...ironic, huh?




but u tried with a 60% claim from 04, then a 55% claim from march.. and now ur just out right ignoring it.

Umm, that 55%+ was for March 2006..............................!



you anti-tulip walkers... tsk tsk tsk pa--the--tik.

Was it not a post up by you that you harped to me about "baiting"?
Follow your own advice x 2, yo?!

[edit on 9-10-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 12:05 AM
link   
Yeah but it was painfully obvious he wasnt using 99% as a stated fact.. where in turn you did.

Well jee's why not go back to march 03 where im sure you can have a much higher number then seeker?

and Id say more so 10%.. being u said 65, and in march it was 55...
thats 10.. isnt it ?

I didnt challenge his because obvioulsy theres a few more braincells in my mind that said to me ' ok, he's simply using his creative techniques to over extend a number which he expects even the most unfortunately brain cell deprived people to understand he was stating it as fact..

But.. its alright if you didnt see that seeker.. your a special person


ahh Im sorry mate..im just having a good day!
and enjoy poking fun at people whom get so damn serious that they need to make assumptions, then when they cant prove there assumptions, and they are proved WRONG.. they simply move to attack on other points.

so ignore if u please your right I should take my own evidence.
forgive me, I will never show you the error of your ways again.

Obviously you cant handle it.
Apologies Astygia I feel ive taken the wind outta ya sails..
but i just love teasing kids with candy!


[edit on 9-10-2006 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
I didnt challenge his because obvioulsy theres a few more braincells in my mind that said to me ' ok, he's simply using his creative techniques to over extend a number which he expects even the most unfortunately brain cell deprived people to understand he was stating it as fact..

Ummm, no.
"Creative technique" is a liberal PC excuse for covering for a blatant inaccurate lie because it suited your own bias and perspective.




But.. its alright if you didnt see that seeker.. your a special person


More "baiting" there sport?




ahh Im sorry mate..im just having a good day!
and enjoy poking fun at people whom get so damn serious that they need to make assumptions, then when they cant prove there assumptions, and they are proved WRONG.. they simply move to attack on other points.

Here's a thought: "Deny Ignorance"?




so ignore if u please your right I should take my own evidence.
forgive me, I will never show you the error of your ways again.

Your choice. I have been here long enough to have dealt with people attempting to point out the error of my ways for quite some time. Your nothing special.




Obviously you cant handle it.

PC version and interpretation for you getting mishandled by me, huh?





Apologies Astygia I feel ive taken the wind outta ya sails..
but i just love teasing kids with candy!


Got a whole bag for those like you.
When found, whether it fits my bais or perception of reality or not, I will challenge blatantly obvious informational distortions and misfacts, something you only do when it does not suite your purpose, bias, creedo, and perception.


[edit on 9-10-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 12:23 AM
link   
Hey man, you can use all sort of meaningless definitions.
If you couldnt see the obvious, then thats your problem.
If you chose to make baseless assumptions and not follow them up with the proof you say you have.. well that just paints further reputation.

either way, when ever u find proof for your statement please post it.
And no... 2004, and march 06 releases do not count.
Some people understand whats going on in todays world.. rather than use there anti-tulip walker perspective and live in the days when people were following blindly, only because there duped.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 12:26 AM
link   
To support soldiers is to support war period. You may think this war is unjust(it is) but you cannot support the soldiers without supporting the war. What are you supporting? The soldiers are killing Iraqis you support this but you don't support the war? that is the war. The soldiers aren't standing still, you are supporting what the soldiers are doing to protect themselves and carry out their orders right? So you are supporting them killing Iraqis. Again is that not the war? Now I don't support the war and I don't support the troops either. Is their no accountability for the lies your president and his administration told? don't they answer to anyone? I am sorry for the soldiers over there but such is the life of a pawn and if any of them believe in heaven and hell guess where they might be headed. It's not America's war its the president's war so they would have gone to hell for George Bush.
BTW if you support this war you might as well kill your neighbour, you don't know what he could be planning to do to you



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 06:33 AM
link   
That is totally bogus logic (which goes to show that just because logic can prove anything, doesn't mean the conclusions are correct)...I am for example a veteran...I wish all our men and women in uniform well and hope they all come home safely... That does not mean defacto that I support this war in Iraq or our president because I imphatically do not.

I am a firm believer in the notion that the military should be used rarely and not spun around like a six shooter by some tin can cowboy in a spagetti western, but when it is used, it should be used with enough manpower and supplies to do the job and do it correctly...neither of which this administration has done.

Whoever in this administration thought that we could invade and occupy Iraq on the cheap should be dropped off unprotected in Sadr city ALONE.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
That is totally bogus logic (which goes to show that just because logic can prove anything, doesn't mean the conclusions are correct)...I am for example a veteran...I wish all our men and women in uniform well and hope they all come home safely...

they will come home safely at the expense of Iraqi lives, you wish them well at the expense of Iraqis, see? The war is illegal/immoral so what the troops are doing is also illegal/immoral. You support the illegal/immoral actions of the troops but not the illegal/immoral war? What's the difference?

[edit on 9-10-2006 by Elijio]



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Elijio

Originally posted by grover
That is totally bogus logic (which goes to show that just because logic can prove anything, doesn't mean the conclusions are correct)...I am for example a veteran...I wish all our men and women in uniform well and hope they all come home safely...


they will come home safely at the expense of Iraqi lives, you wish them well at the expense of Iraqis, see? The war is illegal/immoral so what the troops are doing is also illegal/immoral. You support the illegal/immoral actions of the troops but not the illegal/immoral war? What's the difference?

[edit on 9-10-2006 by Elijio]



again that is false logic. I do not support this war period. I do not want to see ANYONE die from it, Iraqi or American. The war is illegal and immoral but the soldiers are just doing exactly what they have been trained to do....follow orders....I wish the troops home safe and unharmed but I do support anything that is done over there.

You probably have never served in the military our you would understand the sheer weight to obey orders.

[edit on 9-10-2006 by grover]




top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join