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.

 

Bring the troops home, why ?

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by RRconservative
 


Not worthy?
Whats that all about?
Im just trying to have a discussion,I never claimed to be anymore worthy than you.We are all equals here.

You said
"We are winning...let's quit! "
------------------------------------
How are we winning?Nothing has gotten any better,Iraq's still a mess and our soldiers keep dying.

You said
"Stay in Iraq and finish the job. The job of stabilizing Iraq and handing over complete control to a fully functioning Iraqi government which would stabilize the region. "

"Terrorists feed off of weakness, and instead of keeping terrorists on the defensive, they will claim victory, and will be emboldend to pull off more terrorists attacks against the U.S. worldwide and here in the U.S.

A U.S. defeat in Iraq is a victory for terrorists. Whose side are you on?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace the word terroist with communist and Iraq with Vietnam and we have all the same propaganda we heard during the Vietnam war.
And all we did there was lose many American lives and left anyways.And did Vietnam fall to communisum?Did Vietnam fall apart?Arent they now one of the bigger trading partners with the U.S?

You said
"Leaving Iraq in defeat would means hundreds of thousands of deaths and give complete power of the region to terrorists worldwide. "
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keeping our troops there longer will give the same result,hundreds and thousands of deaths,of Iraq civilians and our troops.

And to answer your question,whos side am I on...
Im on the side of the families who have lost loved ones,im on the side of my country,who has grown tired of losing lives.
The only reason this war is dragging on isnt for fear of terrorisum.Its to continue to make powerful people richer off of the lies and blood of our soldiers.




posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by RRconservative
 


Well my hats off to you for serving,I wasnt aware.
You have my respect and gratitude and my thanks.



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative

Originally posted by Ihatealiens
I have just pulled out some old cd's and was enjoying listening to them then I came across this track www.youtube.com... which I have copied from you tube it relates to the song 19 by Paul Hardcastle,. Listen to it and it may give you some reasons for not being in Iraq or going even further and entering Iran or god forbid anywhere else.


Sorry but entertainers do not influence me on political issues. He wrote a catchy tune that repeats the average age of a Viet Nam soldier, 19, about a thousand times, and I'm sure he made a heck of alot of money from it.



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative

Originally posted by Ihatealiens
I have just pulled out some old cd's and was enjoying listening to them then I came across this track www.youtube.com... which I have copied from you tube it relates to the song 19 by Paul Hardcastle,. Listen to it and it may give you some reasons for not being in Iraq or going even further and entering Iran or god forbid anywhere else.


Sorry but entertainers do not influence me on political issues. He wrote a catchy tune that repeats the average age of a Viet Nam soldier, 19, about a thousand times, and I'm sure he made a heck of alot of money from it.


58,226 american soldiers died or are missing in action and there were 350,000 casualties from the iraq war and there were an estimated 2.000.000 vietnamese deaths all as a consequense of a pointless war instigated by politicians. I think Paul hardcastle was pointing out the tragedy and loss of so many lives in a pointless and unjustified war in the lyrics of the song, yes no doubt he made money from it but dont you think those same politicians in this era are not gaining financial reward from the so called war in iraq, there are 48,000 security contractors in iraq working for private companies growing rich on the back of us policy dont you think theres some palm scratching going on here. Halliburton has already raked in more than $20 billion from the Bush-Cheney Administration for work in Iraq, Cheney continues to hold 433,333 Halliburton stock options. Thats politics and politicians for you.

Politicians make stupid political statements such as that statement made by Mr Bush i.e "mission accomplished". Since that stupid political statement 3669 further american servicemen have died.

However here we are again more servicemen dying more profits being accumulated by the very people who want the war to continue and probably to be expanded to Iran. Its a funny thing greed isn't it, it clouds the though processes.



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Ihatealiens
 


Apologies fro the error - I meant to say 58,226 american soldiers died or are missing in action and there were 350,000 casualties from the Vietnam war not the Iraq war.



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by RRconservative
 


Wouldn't it have just been easier to not have destabilized Iraq in the first place?

And I was unaware that the job of any branch of the US armed forces is to bring political stability to any region. I was under the (Apparently false...) impression that their job was to defend the United States from foreign threat. As it stands now, they're doing abysmal work, whichever of those jobs you want to assign to them. Iraq is about to split into three countries, at least two of wich will leap into war with each other, our hired guns are keeping Baghdad unstable through random violence, and our nation isn't any more secure for any of this, because the people who actually attacked us are being allowed to regroup and re-fund in Afghanistan.



posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 10:41 AM
link   
there are a lot of foxes in here ...


anyway, I agree with a lot on here. defensive force, not world police or humanitarian force. Imagine how secure our borders would be if our million world wide troops came home and stopped illegal immigration and played catch and release with the current illegals in the country (with some discretion).


Bring the troops home to their families, let them do their job on U.S. soil like it was suppose to be. If there is a world war type conflict, then, we evaluate both sides and what led to it and pick who is just in the conflict.


No reason for our citizens to be dieing in another country just because they wear a spiffy uniform. Especially for a war that was unconstitutional ... shouldn't they be resisting by saying their utmost duty is to protect and uphold the constitution, so, violating that is a bigger offense than violating an order from a law-breaking commander-in-chief?



posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by FreeThinkerIdealist
 


Soldiers should not be called on to provide police services. Then again, police should not be allowed to pretend they're a branch of the military, either.



posted on Oct, 12 2007 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Anyone who thinks "we are winning" is a fool.

After 5 years of fighting, the military/political situation is still the same as May 2003:
* The Iraqi forces continue to be useless, they cannot operate on their own or control that country, they can't even hold the capital city-Baghdad.
* The Iraqi government which hides in the fortified "greenzone" (they can't venture outside of it for long or they'll be dead) does not control these security forces-which are corrupt and infiltrated by milities and insurgents.
* The US is holed up in the "green zone" which is the only part of the country that you don't have to worry about a roadside bomb or ambush, it is rocketed and mortared daily.
* The US has recently had to increase it's force level by 30,000; they will now have to reduce back down having accomplished basically nothing.


The one thing RR is fooled into believing is progress is actually a sham:

Tribes and insurgent groups are making alliences with the US Military to fight Alqueda: Although there has been some cooperation, all these insurgent groups continue to attack the US forces AND they have used their cooperation with the US to conduct sectarian violence. The US is actually cooperating with groups that attack them and aresworn to overthrow the government in Bagdad that the US installed! The shiite militias have been annoyed by US cooperation with groups like 1920's and have increased attacks.

This war will continue w/o end; harming Americas middle class and costing billions in debt until it breaks both America's military and it's economic success..it must end in the next few years; it cannot go on like this for 5 more years when 65% of Americans and pretty much all Iraqi's want the US out!


Originally posted by RRconservative
How's this for the newest anti-war motto....

We are winning...so let's quit!

If you want the troops to come home, let them finish their job! Otherwise the situation will worsen, and we will have to go back.


[edit on 12-10-2007 by pkspeaker]



posted on Oct, 13 2007 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist
Imagine how secure our borders would be if our million world wide troops came home and stopped illegal immigration and played catch and release with the current illegals in the country (with some discretion).


That's a cop/border guard job, not a job for the US military.



Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist
Bring the troops home to their families, let them do their job on U.S. soil like it was suppose to be.


I like to think of Iraq as a big terrorist bug zapper, and I'd rather be fighting them there, and not in downtown Lubbock, TX.


I agree that many mistakes were made in Iraq. Tommy Franks went there with a very lean force. They kicked major ass, but they weren't big enough to handle the occupation of the country afterwards.

I think we only paid lipservice to the transition after the war and the power vaccum that was created and that Sadr stepped into, we screwed up by disbanding the Iraqi Army, the 4ID (and others) were using some heavy handed, conventional Army mindset and tactics that weren't needed, and some other things.

There are good things being done in Iraq. Unfortunately, the MSM would rather concentrate on US deaths (not mentioning how many bad guys we stuffed into bags that day) or civilians that are killed (and the US doesn't intentionally go about killing civilians, regardless about what you might read here and on other forums. Bad guys use them to create an illiusion of normality for anyone observing them, and a shield to protect them when the fighting starts). Anything good is simply put down as "US/Bush propaganda", which is a discredit to the troops there.

It doesn't matter at this time what brought us to Iraq. Did they have WMDs? Maybe. I saw a boat load of traffic crossing the border between Iraq and Syria. I'm sure that it wasn't Mom and Dad Iraqi taking a weekend trip. Something was being moved.

Saddam and his sons were #birds. They deserved what they had coming to them. They tortured and murdered their own people like it was going out of style. I'm glad they're dead, but we need to stay there and make sure that the new government can run itself and country.

It really all boils down to one main point:

We broke Iraq. We need to stay and fix it. Victory or Death. Simple as that.



posted on Oct, 13 2007 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65
Victory or Death. Simple as that.

And we see why your logic is not at all applicable to a republic or any sort of people that wishes to be prosperous.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 06:01 AM
link   
Of cource the thing about a bug zapper is the bugs never stop coming..but the war in Iraq does much more damage to the US military and the long term American economy (helloe-houseing market crash, inflation, steeper rents!) than it does to this endless army of insurgents that blow up american vehicles and shell their bases everyday, in fact the US military can't really do any damage to it, considering it's individules packed with weapons strapped on their backs, and add to that the fact that they have these safe havens in Iran and Syria where they can always regroup and send another battalion thru to launch attacks..

And here we see this other ridiculous falacy often heard from conservative pundits-this notion that you fight them there and so you won't have to fight in downtown Lubbock..obviously these 'terrorists' that would attack the US will not be insurgents fireing AK-47s, rocket propelled granades..it would be a single bomb or 9/11 type attack, the Iraq war only increases the chances of this as the American war on that country murders 700,000 of their people and expells 2,000,000 .. that supports the logic of the terrorist that would come to America with a suitcase nuke or hijack a plane or whatever..there is no conceivable way the Iraq war reduces the risk of such things.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 09:11 AM
link   
Why is securing our border a 'cop' job?

If we are worried about terrorists sneaking in and carrying devices with them, then, would it not be national security and part of the 'war' on terror to close our borders and patrol them with troops? Of course, allowing legal traffic through.

Border guards should be at border crossings ...

that is, unless you want to call of the war on terror altogether, then that is fine. No war, no terrorists, no need to stop terrorists that don't exist anymore from crossing the border.


I see things being picked and chosen for impact and agendas ... just listen, don't think ... the media and servants of the public are playing an excellent game of chess with the public ... words plays, positioning of pawns ... it is all quite beautiful in a demented way.


But, think what you want, for you are free to do so. I am not sitting here fretting about it, I live my life in happiness, I feel for the troops risking their lives and the innocents that are dieing by 'mistake' ... I have sent letters and such, so I have done what I can ... I will let you do what you feel is right.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
And we see why your logic is not at all applicable to a republic or any sort of people that wishes to be prosperous.


I have the logic of someone that's been in the fight since October 2001. I believe in total victory against the enemy. I believe in fighting a war until it's won, not trying to appease the people that are trying to kill us.

Freethinkeridealist: It's always been a "cop job" to secure the border. I have no problem militarizing the border, but I'm sure a bunch of people would have a fit if we did.

And I agree with you 100%; things are being cherry picked by the media. "5 US troops killed today" is always plastered on the newspaper, but not that Civil Affairs opened a school, or that Special Forces stood up a trained unit. Or that when those 5 troops were killed, they killed 20 of the enemy and wiped out a terrorist cell in the process.

pkspeaker: Of course they have safe havens in Syria and Iran. Of course, if the military has a press conference about that, everyone freaks and geeks and screams, "Bush wants to expand the war to Iran!!!!"



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65

And I agree with you 100%; things are being cherry picked by the media. "5 US troops killed today" is always plastered on the newspaper.



Good, and let them b*stards in the US Republican Party, and the British Labour Party that started this mess die a death of one thousand cuts.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65
I have the logic of someone that's been in the fight since October 2001. I believe in total victory against the enemy. I believe in fighting a war until it's won, not trying to appease the people that are trying to kill us.


excuse me, but the people of iraq trying to kill american soldiers aren't trying to kill US. they're only trying to kill the people invading their country that blew everything in it to hell.

if they left and apologized for the wanton destruction, things would probably cool off towards americans.



And I agree with you 100%; things are being cherry picked by the media. "5 US troops killed today" is always plastered on the newspaper, but not that Civil Affairs opened a school, or that Special Forces stood up a trained unit. Or that when those 5 troops were killed, they killed 20 of the enemy and wiped out a terrorist cell in the process.


and nobody speaks of the 30 civilians killed in the same attack...
that's also cherry-picked by the media
nobody points out that when we attacked a hospital in fallujah, we committed a direct war crime that resulted in the deaths of civilians... which would lead to a punishment by death to the president under the US war crimes act.
nobody brings that up at all
nobody mentions how the iraqis level of nutrition has been going down
or how many are starving

we just hear about what we care about, how many of our people are dying

well, screw OUR people, i want to know how many people died total. our people are important, but they aren't more important than any other people



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

excuse me, but the people of iraq trying to kill american soldiers aren't trying to kill US. they're only trying to kill the people invading their country that blew everything in it to hell.

if they left and apologized for the wanton destruction, things would probably cool off towards americans.


Sure. And the Iranians and Syrians, who are there stirring up trouble, will just apologize and head back home, too. Right??


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
and nobody speaks of the 30 civilians killed in the same attack...
that's also cherry-picked by the media
nobody points out that when we attacked a hospital in fallujah, we committed a direct war crime that resulted in the deaths of civilians... which would lead to a punishment by death to the president under the US war crimes act.
nobody brings that up at all
nobody mentions how the iraqis level of nutrition has been going down
or how many are starving

we just hear about what we care about, how many of our people are dying

well, screw OUR people, i want to know how many people died total. our people are important, but they aren't more important than any other people


Civilian casualities are always reported by the media. What isn't reported is that the insurgents use civilians as shields. Since day one of this war, US forces had to contend with the enemy firing on troops while wearing civilian clothes, firing from hospitals, mosques, etc. That hospital in Fallujah was suspected of having spotters on the roof.

The press doesn't report US casualities because they care. They do it because they love to show how bad things are and how "futile" it is to fight in Iraq. If they cared about the troops, on the front page of the papers would be the story of Lt Michael P. Murphy, SFC Paul Smith, or Corporal Jason Dunham.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 08:51 PM
link   
The real reason Bush doesn't expand the war to Iran is that the US is militarily contained in Iraq, if they try to attack these 'safe-havens' in Iran, Iran will unleash devastating missile attacks which would break the US military in Iraq..the only thing stopping Bush from attacking Iran is Bush and his military advisors, just like how the US could not attack China or Russia during the Vietnam war.. since the end of WWII there is no 'total victory' against the enemy and it's just a matter of time before Iraq has to be lost.


Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by Johnmike
And we see why your logic is not at all applicable to a republic or any sort of people that wishes to be prosperous.


I have the logic of someone that's been in the fight since October 2001. I believe in total victory against the enemy. I believe in fighting a war until it's won, not trying to appease the people that are trying to kill us.

pkspeaker: Of course they have safe havens in Syria and Iran. Of course, if the military has a press conference about that, everyone freaks and geeks and screams, "Bush wants to expand the war to Iran!!!!"





posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by pkspeaker
The real reason Bush doesn't expand the war to Iran is that the US is militarily contained in Iraq, if they try to attack these 'safe-havens' in Iran, Iran will unleash devastating missile attacks which would break the US military in Iraq..the only thing stopping Bush from attacking Iran is Bush and his military advisors, just like how the US could not attack China or Russia during the Vietnam war.. since the end of WWII there is no 'total victory' against the enemy and it's just a matter of time before Iraq has to be lost.


Sorry, wars don't have to be lost. They can be won, like this one can.

Iran will launch a devastating missile attack which would break the US military? Hmmmm....don't think so. Iran isn't that stupid. Would it hurt the troops in Iraq? Yep, sure would. Then we would hand Iran their butt in a hubcap. Then things would really escalate out of control.

People fail to realize that the US military, or any military for that matter, aren't looking for a war to fight. We usually get pitched into it by the politicians.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 10:38 AM
link   
From my perspective... A military should ONLY be used defensively and to protect ones own soil, or maybe to assist your allies in a major crisis.

Lets face it, Iraq was NOT a threat to America. The troops there are being used for some one else's profits, not to defend the country.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join