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.


Words for the insurgents to remember, and know if they didn't.

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 02:15 PM
These are also words for all Americans and allies to remember, for these words were not said with a light spirit, they were said with a purpose.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
-John F. Kennedy

Let it be their warning, we will NOT, cut and run!

posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 04:20 PM
At least not as long as there is a buck to be made!

Never confuse compassion with cowardice; never confirm foolishness by denying fallibility.

A strong arm can be broken. A strong character, what I believe President Kennedy was alluding to in his speech, never yields to fear.

posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 04:32 PM
A smart man knows when to quit and cut his losses. Public opinion wont support a continued coalition presence in Iraq and rightly so. Anyone who isn't a Neo Con political hack is feed up with the endless stream of bungles and leaders who are removed from reality.

Aside from the above military force should never be used if you don't have any clear strategic objective.

[edit on 23-12-2006 by xpert11]

posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 04:38 PM
A really smart man knows that cut and run defines a weakness that will be further exploited down the road.

Leaving Iraq, doesn't define an end to anything.
Only the new beginning for an enemy that becomes further emboldened.

posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 04:48 PM
Let me just point out the context, in which he said those words, so that the clarity is well understood. Keep in mind, the highlighted text is my doing for point made;

In his Inaugural address on January 20, 1961, President Kennedy presented the American public with a blueprint upon which the future foreign policy initiatives of his administration would later follow and come to represent.
The Kennedy Doctrine

In my opinion, that holds the same intention today, as it did when he said it. Flip flop and cut n run, are the same evils in my view. To me, it is un American to just leave those Iraqis hanging, we would be no better than any other coward. Staying the course, of getting them back on their feet is the mission now. NOT leaving them high and dry, but doing for them what is right.

If the US left, there would be such a vacuum that any wanna be ruler/tyrant with half a following could jump in and Re Saddamize the whole Country. How would any of you feel then, if in ten years or less, we had to go back and clean up yet again, one of our unfinished messes?

I, would feel down right rotten, and be ashamed of such piss poor performance.

[edit on 23-12-2006 by ADVISOR]

posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 05:11 PM

Originally posted by spacedoubt
Leaving Iraq, doesn't define an end to anything.
Only the new beginning for an enemy that becomes further emboldened.

Of the 11 or so insurgent groups just which enemy are you referring to ?
Heres the problem we have heard all the before around 40 years ago. This flawed thinking sucked the US and its allies into the jungles of Vietnam.

Now I don't want another another generation of veterans to face hardships in exchange for no gains. Its true that coalition forces aren't the primary target in Iraq but that dosnt solve the underlying problem.

Iraq cannot continue to exist as a state because it was never one to begin with instead it was a product of British and French backstabbing after the first world war.

The domino theory has been repackaged for the ME but its still BS. For proof you need to go back before America became involved in Vietnam. The British with aid from commonwealth nations defeated a communist insurgency in Malaysia. Now if the domino theory had been corrected the British would have prevented the communist take over of Vietnam.

I'm sorry for going a bit off topic but it was needed to explain the flaws in current thinking of those who think its a good idea to stay in the middle of a civil war. Unless Iraq is partitioned along tribal lines the country will fall like a pack of cards after Coalition forces leave its only a matter of time. You cant expect local security forces who are of lesser quality then Coalition forces to contain or defeat the insurgency.

Advisor having noble intentions is no good if you put political ideology ahead of all else and you botch any of the plans that you do have.

[edit on 23-12-2006 by xpert11]

posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 05:32 PM
Not off topic, right on, please I insist.

Going by your example, Australia was not a nation of it's own in the beginning as well. They were a prison colony, but look at em today. Enough said?

To go back into the Nam figures, from 1960 to 1975, the years of our proclaimed involvement, approximately 58,239 Armed Forces members were KIA. That is 3,882 per year, over 15 years!
Not in three years as we have lost (which is actually "Updated December 23, 2006. Total 3,186 (2,950 in Iraq, 231 in Afghanistan and 1 at Guantanamo of non-hostile cause)" since 2003.

There is just no comparing, in the combat sence. So PLEASE, don't even try to drag that dead horse into this. As for "POLITICAL", of course, all wars and conflicts are political, who else started the war for crying out loud. No one else but those evil "poli tics", that's who.

How can we make this war less like, "Nam" as some say. Let the Army and Marines fight it their way. Not the way pencil pushing, chairborne think it should be.

posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 06:15 PM
The comparison between Australia and Iraq dosnt hold any weight because the convicts who were transported to the new colony were split along tribal and religious lines and the natives weren't put in charge of running the place.

I need to make this clear I was comparing the political thinking behind staying in Iraq and the Vietnam war rather then the conflicts themselves. One must be able to separate the political logic and a war itself in order to get to the bottom of this mess. In terms of the actual conflict on the ground Iraq and Vietnam are very different but the political motives behind the wars are very much the same.

I will try and explain it in a way that might make more sense.
Two bank robbery's take place . The motive in both cases is the same the desire to acquire cash.
However both robbery's took place in different locations and different methods were used to rip off the bank.

The motive behind the robbery's is the political thinking behind Vietnam and Iraq.
The individual robbery's are the Iraq and Vietnam conflicts on the ground.

I never brought up the coalition casualties in Iraq and quite frankly I'm lost as to why you brought it up as a response to my post. But for the record I think that Coalition casualties have been quite low due to modern medical tech and the fact that Coalition forces aren't the insurgency's primary target.

Tell is it really to much to expect governments not to send people who are serving there countries on idealogical crusade's that turn into quicksand for those who are serving ?

Advisor you are of course correct about the pencil pushers and anyone else who interferes in the everyday running of a war.

[edit on 23-12-2006 by xpert11]

posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 07:33 PM

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
-John F. Kennedy

When he spoke those words, I doubt very much he had anything in mind like the global deception perpetrated by Bush, Powell & Co. and the ongoing disaster that is the Iraq "war". I think Kennedy would be rolling in his grave if he knew what was being done to his beloved America.

posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 06:44 PM
I agree,

Its amazing that such a free, enjoyable, honest and respected standing in the world for the good people of america, can be irrepairabley damaged, so quickly by 1 man and his greed.

Looking at the great history of the USA,
Looking at the powerful countries it defeated, the powerful leaders evil, it destroyed.. no one was able to bring the USA to its knees........

No.....You have one of your own to thank for that.

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 24/12/2006 by Mirthful Me]

posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 08:15 PM
The US is there to exploit Iraq.

It's not just the oil. To take just one, example, Monsanto managed to get Paul Bremer to enact "order 81", which pretty much forces Iraqis to use Monsanto seeds. It's now illegal for Iraqis to save and use their own seeds in agriculture.

The PSAs (Production Sharing Agreements) that the oil companies have managed to get with the puppet Iraqi government give the Iraqis a pitiful share of their oil profits.

There is plenty of other legislation like this that, surprise surprise, doesn't much get into the news. Nonetheless it is there, and the Iraqis know it.

That, plus the appalling "security" situation", is why pretty much every Iraqi wants the US to leave.

And why the US, despite all the talk of "cut and run", will not.

Please, let's not be deluded by talk of freedom and democracy. That's not what it's about, and it never was. It's about making money out of Iraq, and out of the American taxpayer.

But actually, the best thing that the US could do, even with the country in chaos, is to leave. That's simply because they are a cause of the strife and chaos, and will always be so. It's not cowardice, it's just realism. Finally facing up to the fact that they've ruined a country, and while "china shop rules" (you broke it, you buy it) work in china shops, whole countries are more complicated than that.

And, overwhelmingly, the Iraqis want the US out.

It's not cowardly, it's just realistic.

posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 08:29 PM
But Rich, surely leaving Iraq just makes america all the more unsafe.
Afgha was merely some scattered camps with lil or not experience in fighting directly against americans.

Now majority of the country is against the americans, all with experience and knowledge on how to tackle them.

surely leaving Iraq would leave the door open for further attacks inside the US?

I dunno,
I honestly cannot say what i believe in the quesiton of pulling out.

I hate to think of the soliders on the ground, struggling, losing there minds... for no reason...
but pulling out, will surely bring back the bad things 10fold in the decade to come.

christ i get so angry, how the hell did we get to this point, where the only options left are bloodshed and suffering, or a future of bloodshed and suffering.

[edit on 24-12-2006 by Agit8dChop]

posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 10:16 PM
The thread's premise is that we fight in Iraq for liberty.

That quote didn't much cut it for the first 3 reasons for this war, and I imagine it won't for the next 3. Or next 2, considering the 4th reason now, apparently fighting against the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the middle-east.

The only thing for sure, is that nothing is sure about this war.

posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 10:41 PM


Ha! That's funny!

The US will most likely not pull out simply because a capitalist system needs to constantly expand to work, and Iraq is a large, wide open market for a lot of major corporations. Bush and Co. will never turn down easy (to them) money.

Also, as George Carlin said, there are the sexual ramifications.

posted on Dec, 25 2006 @ 02:25 AM

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
-John F. Kennedy

What part eludes to decieving the American people for the reasons we are at war?

What part of this speech has to do with pre-emptive invasion and subsequent holy war, murder, war crimes and genocide perpetuated by us(US)?

What part mentions killing 3000 US service people, an estimated 250,000 Iraqi civilians? (Its sad the mentality that we have, that we know EXACTLY how many US casualties/injuries we've endured. But can only guess at how many Iraqi's have lost their lives or have been injured.)

There are other and more peaceful ways which I'm sure JFK would have bestowed upon us with his great mind. Other ways to bear burdens, meet hardships, oppose fows, support friends to ensure the survival of liberty!

Face it! We've been duped!

We've been fooled and lulled into a sleepwalking country of fear. Made up and reinforced buy false flag attacks i.e. the first WTC attack, 7/7, 9/11 among others I suspect. Reinforced by religous intolerance, which in actuality the common themes of the koran and the bible originate from early forms of sun/moon worship and the changing of the seasons. (Astrotheology)

"War on Terror" How do you wage a war on terror or terrorists? Terror is a basic emotion. How do you fight, let alone win a war on an emotion?
Someone needs to explain that one to me. Please!

Just think of the computer infastructure we could have placed in Iraq with the almost $2 Trillion we've spent killing folks. We could put internet capabilities to educate, enlighten and spread liberty that way. For $2 Trillion we could have supplied computers with fiber optic networking to every single Iraqi citizen.

This is just one non violent way to spread our so called democracy and preserve our waning freedoms.

We need to realize we don't have to kill people to free them!

posted on Dec, 25 2006 @ 02:45 AM
Oh you haven't seen anything yet. Wait until we head into Iran, that will make this look like a picnic. Don't fool yourselves, we are on a collision course with Iran as things stand at the moment.

By the way, is there an update on the second battlegroup heading for the persian gulf?

I don't think we are leaving the middle east anytime soon. In fact, Id bet we are about to head into Iran. I think Bush thinks he is alexander the great.

posted on Dec, 25 2006 @ 03:29 AM
Glad your happy about it.
See how much your laughing when your sent in, because your president has ruined another country.

posted on Dec, 25 2006 @ 04:54 AM
Just a point of curiosity here... How many of you folks posting opinions, both pro and con have either:

a. Served in your respective country's military?

b. Plan to serve in your respective country's military?

c. Feel totally disinclined to be a physical presence in your country's military?

posted on Dec, 25 2006 @ 07:16 AM
I did. Urban warfare is the nastiest kind of war soldiers can be involved in, especially when the locals are trying their best to kill you. Look at Stalingrad, Berlin. Cities chew up armies. We would have been better off leaving Saddam in place and backing him against Iran like we did in the 80s. Read what Scott Ritter has to say on the subject of Iraq.

posted on Dec, 25 2006 @ 07:20 AM
If indeed Iran is the next frontier,
I believe we would of had Saddam and Iraq on our side.
as for the military question, I have never served.
Ive looked at it, but being I dont live in my native country I am unable to join the local forces, and I have craeted too much of a life for myself here, to just pack up and head home to join the services.

I would love to wear a uniform, and experience the brothership of war...
but right now isnt the right time.

it'll come...

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in