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.
Originally posted by Astygia
Relevant in this case, yep.
The first gulf war is not this war. As is obvious, Saddam was the crazy glue holding that place together.
Iraq had no WMD, was not part of the destroy-America campaign, and had no ties to al-Quada.
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.
As to why I support them and denounce the war..I guess it's all a matter of perspective.
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.
Regardless, I was speaking assumptively. So I'll give you that.
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.
Do us all a favor and don't post assumptively, YES?
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.
I respect you for having served, but this doesn't make your rhetoric any less WRONG,
....and your logic, especially lumping me in with the traitorous assholes who act happy at the thought of killing officers, is infuriating.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Agit8dChop
December 2004?
C'mon dood I thought u were serious
Originally posted by Agit8dChop
If this was just, and respectable and people had faith in the mission.. they'd ALL be behind it.
Originally posted by Seekerof
Wrong answer.
Wishful thinking, as well.
Did you serve in the 1st Gulf War? Notice that "history" denoted the conflict as a "war," hello?
And your on a conspiracy site when it evident that you believe everything you read?
Did I say it could be won?
Furthermore, dreams are relative.
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?
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?
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?
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.
No point, hello?
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?
Supporting the war on terror and supporting those charged with fighting it are two different things.
The 99% was assumptive, and exaggerated, as I've already stated. What's ironic that you're still arguing about it.
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.
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....
And I've earned my perspective, that's not for you to even attempt considering.
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?
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.
you anti-tulip walkers... tsk tsk tsk pa--the--tik.
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..
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!
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...
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]