Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

An Iraqi boy takes cover behind an American soldier.

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 30 2007 @ 08:33 PM
link   
I hold the insurgents more responsible for the bloodshed than I do the Coalition. Who are the ones who chose to fight there battles in city streets, in markets, and in apartment buildings? The insurgents did. They are the ones who force urban combat upon us and they are the ones responsible for the un-neccessary civilian deaths that follow. They are also the ones deliberately targeting innocent people in daily car-bomb attacks. They are the ones trying to destroy a rising democracy.

That people would still support these monsters speaks volumes about their own character and motivations.



[edit on 30-5-2007 by Langolier]




posted on May, 30 2007 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Oh so you mean, because they defend them selves from their own homes they are to blame for the civilian casualties?



Insurgency is most commonly used to describe a movement's unlawfulness by virtue of not being authorized by or in accordance with the law of the land. When used by a state or an authority under threat, "insurgency" implies an illegitimacy of cause upon those rising up, whereas those rising up will see the authority itself as being illegitimate. In cases of rebellions, the term insurgents refers to those who are not part of the decision-making entity that has the ability to make laws.


So if it's not approved by the US officials it's illegal? Kinda seems like world domination ideology to me.



posted on May, 30 2007 @ 09:31 PM
link   
I have to be honest...some of the posters on this site make me absolutely sick!...what a bunch of double standards.

So, here is how the double standard goes...

Poor kids- We (me too) join the military because we need education, training etc.., otherwise we end up serving at Mcdonalds or some other piece of crap job, In joing the military we obtain the means to make our lives better, rise above the station to which we were born. But we do have to take orders..

Rich kids- They get to go to college on mom and dad's dime, protest "the man" and his robot killers, form associations with other rich kids and go on to influence the world at the corporate level. They end up being the decision makers of the future.

Who sends the poor kids to war...the damn rich kids parents and in turn some day the rich kids themselves...

It's B.S. to sit here and listen to someone (someone who has never sworn an oath to protect a damn thing in their life) call me and all other verterans "sanctioned killers" for the govt., when it's the same rich elite who send us to protect their monetary interets.

Protest yourselves!!!...the military is just a scapegoat for the elite...use it when it suits ...blame it for all societal ills when it does not!



posted on May, 30 2007 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Maybe the most appalling part of this debate is the holiday that was celebrated this past Monday in the USA. For those that are unaware, it was Memorial Day. A day of rememberance for the soldiers that have fallen in battle or served and have passed on of natural causes. Many countries have similar days.

My grandfather served in WWII as artillery. Held the rank of Sgt. and fired the cannon. He was asked which ear he wanted to become deaf in because you couldn't plug both ears and fire the gun. He fought in the Battle of the Bulge as well as a few other battles. One of his favorate sayings was that wasn't spagetti supper with Eisenhower but it was alright.

I never saw a Memorial Day Parade standing beside my grandfather as he always dutifully wore his DAV cap and marched with the VFW and DAV the three miles of the parade route to the cemetery to solemnly participate with the other veterans in honoring the fallen and gone. Other than that he never talked about the war. I never knew his rank until he had passed and talked with other vets that were his friends. The only exception was that one day took out all his medals and gave them me and explained every last detail of what they were and why they were rewarded. The three bands that were on the badge of the 3rd Army Division, the different ribboned bars of battles and campains he was in. His medal of Valor that was awarded and story behind it. How an enlisted men cap medallion had a brass shield behind it and that an officer's did not. He even let me hold his Purple Heart and said that it would one day be mine as well, but he had promised my Uncle Ron that he would have it first. All that he asked was that I didn't tell mom and dad that he given them to me. we never spoke about it again. But that day, he tested me several times to make sure I knew what everything was.

It was only when he started coughing up blood six months later that we found out that he had cancer in both lungs. He had hidden it from everyone for the past 6-7 years. His favorite TV show was the Waltons. Having grown up in the mountains of Virginia (born 1912) he said it was like they had a TV camera in one of his neighbor's houses. That is until one of them was drafted into the war. That was the only time I ever saw him cry. He never watched the Waltons again. He enjoyed All in the Family but it was Sanford and Son that made him laugh the hardest. Fairly progressive for a southern rural white man to have deep respect for Red Foxx in the 1970's as a comedic actor. Considering in his lifetime he witnessed the country going from horse and buggy and oil lamps and Jim Crow laws to men walking on the moon and living in space on Skylab and equality for all. Both of my parents worked so I spent five days a week with him and it was tough losing your best friend a month before turning 10 years old.

Protest the ideaologies of war or a a particular war, but don't demonise the soldier as an object of war like a bomb or tank. They are very much human beings with lives wide and far removed than how you encounter them.

Forgive spelling, grammar, and lack of paragraph structure. The emotions in recalling all that held stronger sway than the need for clarity.



posted on May, 31 2007 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by deadbang
It's B.S. to sit here and listen to someone (someone who has never sworn an oath to protect a damn thing in their life) call me and all other verterans "sanctioned killers" for the govt., when it's the same rich elite who send us to protect their monetary interets.


Another one who has taken it upon himself to jump the gun and make it personal against me.

As I have tried to say, I was following on from what some other poster said and doing a logical exercise.

LOGICALLY, soldiers ARE sanctioned to kill. Pretty hard to deny that, no matter which way you try to go.

Translating that into some sort of hatred for all things military/US is way, way off the mark, as I have also tried to explain.

If you can't see that and get all snotty about it, then I'm sorry.

Not one of you seem's to have read what I said after that first paragraph, which would actually put what I said into context and make you realise it wasn't in any way shape or form an attack on anyone.

Grow up



posted on May, 31 2007 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
Thats such a lovely picture. It gives me goosebumps thinking about it. Its just a damn shame that if we hadn't been there for all the wrong reasons that picture would never exist and that kid would have been in school instead of ducking behind a US soldier and being in that position.

What you just said reminds me of the saying:
The reason we hear no good news in Iraq about building schools is because we are actually rebuilding the schools we blew up in the first place.



posted on May, 31 2007 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Langolier
I hold the insurgents more responsible for the bloodshed than I do the Coalition. Who are the ones who chose to fight there battles in city streets, in markets, and in apartment buildings? The insurgents did. They are the ones who force urban combat upon us and they are the ones responsible for the un-neccessary civilian deaths that follow. They are also the ones deliberately targeting innocent people in daily car-bomb attacks. They are the ones trying to destroy a rising democracy.

That people would still support these monsters speaks volumes about their own character and motivations.



[edit on 30-5-2007 by Langolier]

The fact that they're fighting us over in Iraq and not in the U.S even after we've invaded them suggests what?

It suggests that they never had the capability to even hurt us in the first place. We're the ones that picked the fight with them- we're bad guys. We choose to fight them over in Iraq.



posted on May, 31 2007 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by deadbang
I have to be honest...some of the posters on this site make me absolutely sick!...what a bunch of double standards.

So, here is how the double standard goes...

Poor kids- We (me too) join the military because we need education, training etc.., otherwise we end up serving at Mcdonalds or some other piece of crap job, In joing the military we obtain the means to make our lives better, rise above the station to which we were born. But we do have to take orders..

Rich kids- They get to go to college on mom and dad's dime, protest "the man" and his robot killers, form associations with other rich kids and go on to influence the world at the corporate level. They end up being the decision makers of the future.

Who sends the poor kids to war...the damn rich kids parents and in turn some day the rich kids themselves...

It's B.S. to sit here and listen to someone (someone who has never sworn an oath to protect a damn thing in their life) call me and all other verterans "sanctioned killers" for the govt., when it's the same rich elite who send us to protect their monetary interets.

Protest yourselves!!!...the military is just a scapegoat for the elite...use it when it suits ...blame it for all societal ills when it does not!

What exactly prevented you from attaining a scholarship and going to college? I know many people at my college who came from desolately poor backgrounds but managed to catch up with the rich kids through sheer hard work.



posted on May, 31 2007 @ 03:39 AM
link   
I think among the US military ranks of foot soldiers there are also good examples.
There are some of them that will make kids beg for water while driving in a humvee while the kids run after the vehicle , and there are some that do feel the need to help kids such as this kid.
But it's war , it's kill or be killed, so it really does not mater, orders are orders, some get upset and they become insurgents and shoot at US soldiers, US soldiers shoot back, so no mater how good you are as a person in a war you are forced to fire your weapon.
Alot of people lost some one dear in the war and became insurgents, regardles if it was an accident, mistake it does not mater, so no mater how good intended a soldier is he will have to kill or be killed.
Not really the soldier's fault, it's the fault of the policy maker, the fault of who sent there troops.
This war is like an old pregnant woman giving birth to insurgents, even the general in charge of the command in iraq said that this war can't be won with force.
But there are people that just don't understand or don't value human life, people that play video games and dream they can do what they do in the video game...become a marine and blow some one's head off, sort of people that can't live with out an enemy, with out enemies their life become pointles and of course there are the others that think going there they can make a difference but those are not that many.



posted on May, 31 2007 @ 08:02 AM
link   
Marge,

my original statement "This is just a smattering of the sectarian Shia/Sunni violence in Iraq being instigated, supported, and funded by Iran/Syria.


Wrong, if you are aware of the history of the region before Saddam and during Saddam you know very well that the Sunnis in power oppressed the Kurds and Shiites.


I'm aware of the history of the region and know there has been sectarian violence between ethnic groups and the opposing muslim sects for a long time. I know Saddam was Sunni, Sunnis are/were are a minority in Iraq and Saddam through the Bath Party used torture and murder to keep the Shia majority in check. I also understand that now that there is a power vacuum, Iran and Syria, but Iran primarily is exploiting this power vaccum
to help the shia exact revenge on the Sunnis and Bathists, as well as to forward their own (Irans) political aims of being the regional political and military powerbase.


My statement "Marge why do you dismiss the notion that many Iraqis (mostly Sunni)"


Wrong again.....Shiites are majority in Iraq and also in Iran with shared tribal links.


Thanks Marge but you misunderstood my statement, I was simply pointing out that most of the Iraqis who favor a US presence are Sunni, not that Sunnis are a majority of the population.



posted on May, 31 2007 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky

Thanks Marge but you misunderstood my statement, I was simply pointing out that most of the Iraqis who favor a US presence are Sunni, not that Sunnis are a majority of the population.



Bit about face there chap.

Shia initially welcomed the invasion, whereas the Sunni have always been against it. As of now, the Shia are starting to get testy as well. Down south near Basra, British forces are facing increasing attacks daily now, whereas originally, it was fairly peaceful.



posted on May, 31 2007 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Intrepid, wanting to install a democratic government is a far cry from wanting to install some Mullah controlled theocracy.


From who's point of view?


From anyone's point of view.

One is obviously perferrable over the other if you're a highly religious and submissive individual, or you're a member of a society that manages to balance religious faith with a degree of democratic egalitarianism and personal liberty, however Speakers assertion that the two forms of governance are very different is undeniable.


[edit on 5/31/2007 by darkbluesky]



posted on May, 31 2007 @ 09:05 AM
link   
I can't believe that the soldiers can justify what they are doing by saying that they are "just following orders"! Why did they agree to go to Iraq in the first place? If it had been me, I would have refused. Its not like they didn't know that it was wrong. Surely, if they have any sense of what is right, they could have thought it through and seen that going into someone else's country in force is WRONG. The Iraqis have no choice but to fight an urban war...the US is far superior in military strength and the Iraqis are not fools. Fight them in confined spaces where their big weapons are useless and you may just have a chance of making an impact on the "infidels" (i.e. the Western invaders). The Boers did this very well against the British during the Anglo Boer War.



posted on May, 31 2007 @ 09:34 AM
link   
I watched a show yesterday on the history channel titled "From Babylon to Baghdad" and it went through the history of the region all the way to like 1600BC and its amazing how the land has been fought over ,invaded,taken over, destroyed and rebuilt through the centuries. That land in the middle East has never been right.. It has never been without turmoil or been a peaceful country. Its been taken over by everyone from Alexander the Great to Chingis Khan. The British had control for a long time and tried the same thing we are are trying right now. They tried to help them establish a government and to be a modern country but the country revolted and bucked the system every time. Maybe the country will NEVER be a happy friendly country no matter what we or any one else does. How in the world does America think we are going to do what has been tried for thousands of years is beyond me.



posted on May, 31 2007 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by RedDragon

Originally posted by Freezer
Did the soldiers make the decision to go into wars?

That the soldiers didn't make the decision to go into war is another common misconception.

Of course they decided to go to war. Wars can't be fought without soldiers so the soldiers are obviously the people ultimately responsible for the war and all the resulting death since they were the ones that actually carried it out. Politicians and generals write words on paper but the soldiers are the ones with the guns and bombs shooting and bombing people.
[edit on 5/30/07 by RedDragon]


Thats not really what I meant. The soldiers agreeing to help fight the war and believing its the right thing to do is not the same as physically making the decision for the US military engaging in war.



posted on May, 31 2007 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

I haven't seen this. Care to elaborate on this? I think we DID learn that lesson from Viet Nam.


Have we?

Lets go to this story...

FORT WORTH, Texas -- The owner of a local convenience store tells NBC 5 he has fired an employee who mistreated a customer who is also a U.S. Marine.

The firing comes in response to protests at the store as well as an e-mail campaign circulating throughout Dallas/Fort Worth. The e-mail, written by Heather Dowell, tells of her brother's treatment while visiting the store.

According to Dowell's e-mail, her brother, Jason Young, attempted to make a purchase at the One Stop Grocery and Grill on 8th Avenue in Fort Worth. The clerk allegedly asked if Young was a Marine, and when he replied yes, the clerk left the counter and never returned.

Outraged, Dowell began the e-mail campaign calling for the boycott of the store.

On Tuesday, several people protested the store as the e-mail continued to make its rounds.

According to the store owner, the incident was a misunderstanding and the employee in question was fired.


Now when reports of atrocities committed by Army and Marine personnel, civilians with radio and tv tends to view the personnel as a bunch of murderers. Just like during Vietnam War when many Americans have tvs and watching news of civilians getting killed in the war, they blame the troops, airmen, sailors, etc.

Are we seeing it again?



posted on May, 31 2007 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by hippichick
The soldier is armed with a rifle. A rifle is hard to bring to bear on an object behind you hanging off your waist. The kid knows this and knows that he is safe from this soldier. Also the US soldiers are less likely (but not always) to fire on one of their own and so he is safe (temporarily) from US fire.



Now that I look at the picture again, you are totally correct! It looks like the soldier just couldn't get a clear shot with the child behind him.

/sarcasm off



posted on May, 31 2007 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Bit about face there chap.

Shia initially welcomed the invasion, whereas the Sunni have always been against it. As of now, the Shia are starting to get testy as well. Down south near Basra, British forces are facing increasing attacks daily now, whereas originally, it was fairly peaceful.


Stu,

It may seem to be a minor distinction but you're talking about the invasion in terms of initial Sunni resistance, I'm talking about the occupation. Of course the ruling Sunni class would be against the initial invasion. However once The US, the UK and others were in country and the majority Shia began targeting Sunni, the Sunni became advocates of the US/UK forces staying until the Sunnis could gain a foothold in the government and find a way to protect themsleves.

The Shia obviously welcomed the initial invasion which was geared toward removing the oppressive Sunni/Bathist government. Now that there is a majority Shia government in place most Shia want coalition forces out. Partly because they want to establish full autonomy, and partly because they blame much of the ongoing insurgency borne violence on the continued presence of the US/UK forces.



posted on May, 31 2007 @ 11:40 AM
link   
I saw that too, Digital.

The land was once home to great civilizations. That's why I found it funny that the British had to "bring" civilization into the region.
And, if what the one dude said about Tulagu (I think), the leader of the Mongols, was right, they're going to hate the US for a LONG time.



posted on May, 31 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Well its a great propaganda pic, thats for sure


Its not fair to lump all soldiers in the "rabid mad dog killers" category, any more than its fair to label all muslims as terrorists.

Technically though, the soldier is being very unprofessional by letting the kid get so close to him and I'm suprised some of our right wing posters haven't picked up on this because he could have been a decoy or a suicide bomber (its a matter of choice convenience by our more right wing friends that the picture suits their purpose instead of pointing out the more obvious dangers of the situation). If shots were being fired the soldier has made no attempt to take cover or minimise his aspect to the danger and present a better position to fire back from. by standing as he is doing he's making himself a target, and the child could be caught in any fire that comes his way.

(Side note - I've noticed the phrase "installing democracy" on a few threads recently. Just how big of an oxymoron is that?)






top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join