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.

 

Support for the war and for the troops.. The same thing?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by JennaAnd when your choice is between two potential deaths how is that a choice?
that is the first really properly stupid question i have heard!!! seriously,ci'm nt going to dignify that with an answer, it degrades both of us.


The military doesn't say "hey, you can join, get paid, and decide if and when you go to war!"
no it doesn't, again, what is your point? as i said, the troops joined the military knowing they were getting themselves into.


They were both approved by Congress and signed into law by Bush.
domestic law doesn't apply to international conflict, congressional approval does not make a war legal. seriously, i told you this already.the UN charter

As shown above, it is not unlawful either here or through international law or the UN would have pitched a fit. As it stands they didn't. We were attacked, we fought back. That is not preemptive.
oh yeah, explain to me how exactly the state of afghanistan or the state of iraq attacked america. and none of your links work, but it doesn't matter, i know for a fact that the war wasn't authorised by the UN. it doesn't matter how you or anybody else tries to twist the wording of various resolutions, america failed to get a final resolution authorising an attack on iraq and it went in anyway. lets not attempt to re-write history on a site that attempts to deny ignorance.


They are fair comparisons as long as you ignore the fact that they had literally been brainwashed by a psychopath
peh, utter rubbish. if you knew anything about history you'ld know that eugenics was popular in much of the western world throughout the 30's and 40's, hitlers final solution was just the culmination of widespread beliefs. hitler didn't come up with the idea, he just took it to it's natural conclusion.


They are different entities. Not one and the same. If they were the military would be telling the government what to do but they don't because they can't. Once again, they had no choice and no one said a word until they decided that the definition had been broadened too much.
do you think that if you spout the same crap over and over again i'll just concede. i have answered this point in detail. while the government can issue orders to the military, and they can then filter down to the troops, the troops may choose to disobey those orders.


It may not be in their job description, but I would be surprised if they stood there and watched a civilian get shot and not do anything.
so they are not in iraq protecting the innocent, you agree?


I didn't say they control the country, police the country, stop training/recruitment of insurgents, etc.
what you said was "But we are and there is no honor in leaving innocent people in the hands of insurgents and crazies who will kill them for the slightest perceived wrong." if they don't control or police the country, and they allow insurgents to continue recruitment and training, they are being left in the hands of insurgents regardless of weather the US is in iraq or not.


I know many people who were not willing to go to war. They didn't want to leave their families and friends to go get shot at and shoot back. They didn't want to go and risk their lives. They did. Because if they didn't go, someone would get sent in their place and they didn't want to be responsible for someone else dieing in their place.
oh my word, thats the lamest excuse i've ever heard, i'm going to an illegal war so someone else doesn't have to. yeah right. do you buy that? do you realise they are killing at a far higher rate than they are being killed? do you have any idea how many people each of those troops have killed in iraq. they have gone to iraq and shot someone because they wanted to save somebody else from that experience, even though they knew it was wrong. do you buy that? do you support that.


Go ahead and say I live in a dream world. Doesn't bother me a bit. Much better than living in a cynical nightmare of my own construction where I blame people who didn't make these decisions while letting the ones who did run free to make more
i didn't say the government was right, i said the troops were as culpable for their crimes as the government is. yeah, you go ahead and bury your head in your dream world, ignorance is bliss and all that. why bother with cold hard reality. why bother to critise the crimes being committed in iraq by americans. support the troops, allow them to believe that the american people support this war.

i hope the bush admin do get charged with war crimes, i really hope they do, i hope all those soldiers realise they have been committing war crimes, i hope the american people realise they have elected and reelected a war criminal, i hope all that happens. america and the other willing cronies will live with the guilt of this war for a long time to come in the exact same way as germany has lived with ww2.




posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alethia
Do you hear that? That's a collective sigh of disbelief from truthers and debunkers alike here on ATS. It's astounding that you're trying to push such a statement on this board, and in this day and age.


I'm sorry I didn't realize by saying "we" you would assume I meant the government. Perhaps I should have clarified it since it was difficult to understand. Did you expect that to happen? Did anyone on this board who didn't have access to the security briefings or files before it happened expect it? Do you know anyone who didn't work in the pentagon, FBI, CIA, name-your-alphabet-here, etc who did expect it? I don't think so. No one I know expected it ahead of time. But then again, perhaps I am wrong and you did have access to the files ahead of time, in which case shame on you for not warning anyone.

Perhaps you can take my words and read them as they are written instead of reading things into it that aren't there to fit your opinions. Or perhaps you could ask for a clarification if you aren't sure you know exactly who I am talking about. I would be more than happy to clarify who I am talking about next time.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman

hitler joined the military, did that automatically mean he deserved support? what about those nazis turning the knobs in the gas chambers, did they deserve support? were they honorable by default? how about the guys in the ss? militery service is not honorable by default, honerable military service is honorable.


Ah, I was wondering when comparison between the Nazis and the US troops would start. In answer to these particular questions of yours no they didn't deserve support. However I think that there is little in common between the US troops and the Nazis. Just my opinion of course.

On to other things.

I feel that it is indeed possible to not support the war but support the troops. I personally feel that this war was a mistake however I feel that by blaming the troops themselves is a disservice to them and counterproductive. The government (and to a large extent a general stupidity at times with the general population) in my estimation is to blame.

How do I support the troops you may ask? It's simple really. I help keep them alive until they can return and not face the kind of dismissal from society that I faced when I returned from my term in the Army. How do I keep them alive? I help train them. I'm a mock Iraqi for the Army. My job consists of wearing Iraqi style clothing and interacting with troops as they undergo training prior to deployment. I have undergone body searches while through checkpoints, tried to smuggle in weaponry, laying on the ground acting like I was wounded to help teach them that it was ok to render help. Yes they are being trained to render assistance when they can. In short, I play act the general person that they are liable to meet overseas. I have also taught them a little bit about Iraqi society, a few words here and there, in short what it takes for them to learn how not to upset people and to help others. That is how I support the troops.

I don't like the war. I'll admit that. However I feel that these people deserve better than what I got when they leave the military. I feel that the average soldier deserves respect and treatment like a normal human being and nothing less when they leave. In the meantime I try to keep them alive.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
i didn't say the government was right, i said the troops were as culpable for their crimes as the government is. yeah, you go ahead and bury your head in your dream world, ignorance is bliss and all that. why bother with cold hard reality. why bother to critise the crimes being committed in iraq by americans. support the troops, allow them to believe that the american people support this war.

i hope the bush admin do get charged with war crimes, i really hope they do, i hope all those soldiers realise they have been committing war crimes, i hope the american people realise they have elected and reelected a war criminal, i hope all that happens. america and the other willing cronies will live with the guilt of this war for a long time to come in the exact same way as germany has lived with ww2.



So, according to you, all troops are criminals and should be tried for war crimes as an extention of what Bush, etc, have done?

Well, as I told another person here on ATS, you better hurry. I suggest you start north in Maine and work your way south, since winter is coming. Go door to door and make a citizens arrest of every man and woman that have been deployed in support of OIF.

Let me know how that works out for you.

And for "living with guilt", I sleep like a new born baby every night.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
that is the first really properly stupid question i have heard!!! seriously,ci'm nt going to dignify that with an answer, it degrades both of us.


As was claiming they have a choice, but I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt and ask for your reasoning.


no it doesn't, again, what is your point? as i said, the troops joined the military knowing they were getting themselves into.


No they more recent ones who joined (and by recent I mean the last 4-6 years) knew what they might potentially have to do, but none of them knew for certain that they would be sent overseas. I do find it odd however that you continually ask what my point is instead of responding to direct questions, and have no response to several of my statements besides "what's your point". Very odd indeed.


domestic law doesn't apply to international conflict, congressional approval does not make a war legal. seriously, i told you this already.the UN charter


And yet the UN has not punished the US in any way. They may not completely approve of the war, but I must point out they have done nothing to stop it. Seriously, I am aware of the difference between domestic and international law. They didn't say "Yeah, ok, do it." But they also didn't say "No, stop it. Get out of there." If they have please show me that, I may have missed it. The link to Chapter 1 of the UN Charter doesn't really have anything to do with it aside from telling me the purpose of the UN.


oh yeah, explain to me how exactly the state of afghanistan or the state of iraq attacked america. and none of your links work, but it doesn't matter, i know for a fact that the war wasn't authorised by the UN. it doesn't matter how you or anybody else tries to twist the wording of various resolutions, america failed to get a final resolution authorising an attack on iraq and it went in anyway. lets not attempt to re-write history on a site that attempts to deny ignorance.


I thought they worked. Sorry for that. Just tried to go to the un.org site instead of directly to the resolutions and the site must be down. Keeps giving me a message about a loop that won't end or something along those lines. Don't really know if it's a problem on my end or not though. Could always search for those UN resolutions on Google. I'm sure somebody has them. I already found them for you once though. Don't know what to tell you if the UN website is down.

When all of this mess started we were supposed to be going after al-Qaeda, not Afghanistan or Iraq. As I said, the original definition of terrorist was widened to include whoever the government wanted it to include. If I recall correctly, they were included in the "axis of evil" which apparently Bush decided so that he could go after anyone he wants to. Please show me where I said either Afghanistan or Iraq attacked the US. I recall saying that we were attacked but not by either of them. I even remember saying in this thread and others that we had no reason to go to Iraq. I do however believe we had every right to go after the people responsible for the attacks on 9/11. But that doesn't mean I agree with widening the definition to include anyone Bush and Co. don't like.


peh, utter rubbish. if you knew anything about history you'ld know that eugenics was popular in much of the western world throughout the 30's and 40's, hitlers final solution was just the culmination of widespread beliefs. hitler didn't come up with the idea, he just took it to it's natural conclusion.


And if you knew anything about our troops you'd know that they don't take part in eugenics and aren't out trying to exterminate an entire race of people, unlike Hitler and his group of idiots, for lack of a better phrase at the moment. But please continue trying to compare the two.


do you think that if you spout the same crap over and over again i'll just concede. i have answered this point in detail. while the government can issue orders to the military, and they can then filter down to the troops, the troops may choose to disobey those orders.


No, I'm hoping that perhaps you may realize that they aren't the same thing at some point. But it is becoming apparent to me that I am wasting my breath, or fingers as it were, trying to explain the difference between the two when I see no desire on your part to see them as being the seperate entities that they are. Please continue to believe that they are one and the same.


so they are not in iraq protecting the innocent, you agree?


That is not written into their job description as far as I know. Of course, I'm not in the military and haven't read their complete job description so I can't be sure. However, as I said I would be surprised if they just sat and watched while innocent people were killed. Haven't you ever done something while working that wasn't in your job description simply because it was the right thing to do? If not, I hope you don't work anywhere in a hospital.


what you said was "But we are and there is no honor in leaving innocent people in the hands of insurgents and crazies who will kill them for the slightest perceived wrong." if they don't control or police the country, and they allow insurgents to continue recruitment and training, they are being left in the hands of insurgents regardless of weather the US is in iraq or not.


Plain facts are: We are there, whether it's right or wrong. There are innocent people dieing. If we leave, the insurgents aren't just going to immediately stop blowing up buildings and shooting people.

Our troops are currently fighting side by side with the Iraqi military to stop the insurgents. Again I ask, how is that not helping stop the insurgents?

Insurgents turn themselves in to US and Iraqi Troops
US Bombs Iraqi Insurgent Hideouts

Google it. There are more examples.


oh my word, thats the lamest excuse i've ever heard ............ do you buy that? do you support that.


Yes, not wanting someone else to take the risk of dieing in your place is soooo lame. And yes, I do believe them. I wouldn't let someone else take my bullet either if I could help it.


i didn't say the government was right, i said the troops were as culpable for their crimes as the government is. ......... support the troops, allow them to believe that the american people support this war.


You sure haven't mentioned they were wrong either. All of your posts have been critical of the military, not the government. And what do you suggest instead of supporting the troops? Should we all protest their funerals and call them names? I'm sure that would be so much better than understanding that the war is wrong, but these people did not choose it.

Just a side note, can you not prove your points without calling mine a dream world? Just because we don't agree does not mean that my head is in the clouds and I would appreciate it if you could cease with the comments about where you think my head is. It does nothing to further your case.


i hope the bush admin do get charged with war crimes, i really hope they do


Me too, unfortunately no one has the guts to actually charge Bush and Co with anything. They just got re-elected. I'm sure that showed them they are wrong.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Deson
 


Sounds like you have an extremely interesting and important job!

And I agree, it is counterproductive to blame the troops for the governments mistakes. Makes about as much sense as blaming the cashier if your waiter drops food on you. (Not a perfect analogy, but the best I can do at the moment and I think my point is clear enough there.)



Originally posted by jerico65
Well, as I told another person here on ATS, you better hurry. I suggest you start north in Maine and work your way south, since winter is coming. Go door to door and make a citizens arrest of every man and woman that have been deployed in support of OIF.

Let me know how that works out for you.


Sounds like one heck of a job to undertake... I wonder if any of the citizens arrests would stand up in court... I'd imagine not, but hey you never know I guess.




top topics
 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join