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.

 

US Military.... why?

page: 13
13
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperViking
 


International law may be a joke to you, but no more than your government and what it is using it's army for, is to me.
And what exactly in the Geneva convention do you find particularly hilarious?




posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65



And I've always loved people that don't want to fight, don't want to go into the military, that call Soldiers "tools".

I think that the US has a lot more freedom and democracy that most countries out there. Try protesting in North Korea and see what happens. Or try protesting in Iraq prior to Saddam getting the rope.

"A real man doesn't fight on command, he fights for himself". Just what do you mean by that? If your country is invaded and your government calls you up, you don't have to go? That's "fighting on command".

Peace is great, but you need to know that some people out there don't care about peace, unless it's under their rules. I'm not really inclined to want to be governed by Sharia Law any time in the near future, no matter how many people out there think it's no big deal if they start implementing it into Western society.

Saddam was a two bit dictator, not even in the same league as Hitler and Stalin. I'm glad he's dead, and I think the Iraqi people are the better for it.



The US has a little more freedom to protest than the countries you are talking about, but noone has defended these countries.
I agree that a free man fights for himself, if your country is occupied then you choose if you agree with them or not, much like the people in Iraq has, some will agree some will not.
Nobody's implementing sharia law in your country, but they should be able to do so in their own countries, like Iran, Saudi, Emirates. And on top of that, why isn't the U.S atacking Saudi Arabia, they have sharia lawas, is not a democracy, kills it own citizens. I think you know, but I'll tell you anyway: The Saudi's and The Bush family are chums. I to think the Iraqi people are better of without Saddam, but they should have gotten rid of himself just like you guys got rid of those slave owners back in the day. They asked for your help in the first Gulf war and was promissed help, but when push came to showe, the US pulled out leaving thousands of Iraqis who had stood up to the regime in the hands of saddams secret police. If you take a look at history I think you will see that the US has been behind regime changes before without the need to invade a country. So why this sudden need to be in the middle-east?



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkurkNilsen
reply to post by SuperViking
 


International law may be a joke to you, but no more than your government and what it is using it's army for, is to me.
And what exactly in the Geneva convention do you find particularly hilarious?


I find it hilarious that collective security is a theory still thought to be at all useful. It assumes that all nations will respond to the same threat in the same way, when they don't all share the same risk, so it's pointless. International law is entirely tautological. Nations follow it and cite it when it's in their interests to, and when it's in their interests not to, they don't. The problem is international law has utterly no authority.

I have a Master's in IR, so you'll have to excuse me if I'm passionate about it. International law is a total failure right now, and I think it'll be decades, at least, before it can ever be anything useful at all.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   
super, jerico, and luder, I would suggest that we back off a bit as I think the attitude is not entirely his fault.

Remember those awkward days of our youth, when hormones were raging, we knew everything about everything, we lived at home with our parents, and to compound our frustrations, we weren't getting any?

Recall how crappy an attitude we had, and irrational we were?

Remember how we'd argue with a stump just to argue?

So what do you say? Let's give the kid a break.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 



I've read some posts, agree with some and dissagree with some. You seem like an intelligent person, but it does seems like a very patronizing thing to say to someone, and it makes you sound very arrogant. That is in no way contributing to the discussion.
I can clearly see this guy defending himself against 4-5 people, and hi is doing a fine job. Even with a bit of name calling, but that seems to go bouth ways.
That someone is not agreeing with you does not make them wrong and you right. That was just uncalled for.

Blinky -



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
super, jerico, and luder, I would suggest that we back off a bit as I think the attitude is not entirely his fault.

Remember those awkward days of our youth, when hormones were raging, we knew everything about everything, we lived at home with our parents, and to compound our frustrations, we weren't getting any?

Recall how crappy an attitude we had, and irrational we were?

Remember how we'd argue with a stump just to argue?

So what do you say? Let's give the kid a break.


Sounds good, even tho this kid is smarter than I was. At 17, I was in the Air Force. I wasn't smart enough to live in my parent's basement!



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


I'm sick of reading the blathering insolence.

That's why I stopped responding to that first kid who was on here.

May as well.

Move on to better things.




posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Well, the kid's not dumb, he just has a different view point. The problem is he's either highly inexperienced (which I think is the case) or he's highly idealistic. Either way, it's trouble in the real world. Military folks can be just idealistic going the other way, I've seen my share of that, too.

People who wish the world was a different way are cute and all, but when it comes to actually getting things done...not so much.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperViking
 


You have a point.

Just forgot what it was like.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by SkurkNilsen
 


Rather than quoting, I'll just break my response up into sections.

1. I'm not arguing, merely standing by and expanding on what I had said two months ago since you tried to call me out on it.


2. The US military does cooperate with the UN and other countries to an extent. If anything we cooperate with the UN and international law more so than a lot of other countries. But following international law, the Geneva Conventions, or UN resolutions only goes so far when our guys practically have to be shot before they can even think of trying to save their own lives.

3. No, going to war under false pretenses wasn't cool. However, we didn't know at the time that they were false. Most people were all for going to war right after 9/11. It wasn't until we found out there actually weren't any WMD's in Iraq that people started to complain and by then it was too late. Which would you prefer that we went in and bombed the heck out of Iraq, found out there weren't WMD's and just left them with their country destroyed? Or stick around, help them rebuild, and train their military so they can stand on their own? Seems to me that it would have been worse if we had left them with nothing but rubble, but that's just me. Should we have gone in? Probably not. But we did. Can't just leave them with their country destroyed and no government or military to protect them from insurgents.

4. You're close. If one is in the military, one of the most important things to do is follow lawful orders. Not just any orders. And those who don't agree with the war aren't joining. Apparently there are plenty who do agree though since the Guard, and the Army too I think, have exceeded their projected numbers for 2010 already. So that tells me that there are plenty of people who don't have that much of a problem with the wars or the military.

5. There are many jobs in the military that seldom put people in a situation where they may have to kill someone. They have pretty much every career choice known to man, and over half of those have nothing to do with shooting anyone/anything or blowing stuff up. Now if you sign up and choose infantry, then yeah you're going to be in situations where you may have to kill someone. Can't say I've heard of any military lawyers being in combat though.

6. I'd say that there are very few if any who joined the military specifically to kill people for oil or heroine. And the people that our military are fighting are not innocent people. They are people who are trying to kill our troops. I can't blame a single soldier for killing someone else to save their own life or the life of someone else. They aren't just killing people on a whim.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
super, jerico, and luder, I would suggest that we back off a bit as I think the attitude is not entirely his fault.

Remember those awkward days of our youth, when hormones were raging, we knew everything about everything, we lived at home with our parents, and to compound our frustrations, we weren't getting any?

Recall how crappy an attitude we had, and irrational we were?

Remember how we'd argue with a stump just to argue?

So what do you say? Let's give the kid a break.



That's not gonna work doper, just because you and your army have the same twisted worldview doesn't give you the right to patronize and belittle my view by calling on the people with the same view as you to do the same. I have 4 people actively arguing against me, and I do my best to be on point, maybe I'm not all the time, maybe I even get a bit worked up and say stuff I shouldn't, but this is just low.
This to me just says that you are loosing the argument, or at least have nothing more to come with than romanticizing the feeling of comraderie you get in the army. I have no doubt you do get this feeling, but it has nothing to do with the US army doing the right thing or not.
If you take a look at my profile I think you'll see that my age is slightly above adolescent. And the "living with your parents, your not getting any" argument is simply pathetic (I'm a married man living in my own home, sure i try to lend a hand to my parents; helping them out with odd jobs and stuff they no longer are capable of, but wth, does it make me a sad person like the one you are describing? As for my intimate life with my wife, non of your buisness), I really think you can do better even if I will never agree with you. And the point is hardly to agree, is it? The point is to learn something new, I have, even from you.
I'll accept you calling me whatever you want, that's your right, but what do you hope to acomplish?

And can you please give me an example of my crappy attitude and irrationalism, I could say the same about you, especcially after this non-sensical and completely off topic post. Also give me an example I'm arguing for the sake of argument.
You are just showing yourself to be a completely arrogant douchebag coward calling on the ones who agree wholeheartedly with you to play the same game as you, no more, no less.

Nor knowest thou what argument
Thy life to thy neighbor's creed has lent.
All are needed by each one;
Nothing is fair or good alone.

-Ralph Waldo Emmerson



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 

#1: Ok, not arguing. My bad, wrong word for you maybe, I think you know what I mean if you want to.

#2: This is simply false, following international law has to do with not setting up torture prisons in countrys not under the Geneva convention. The only cooperation you have with the UN is that you simply aknowledge their presence in the area. About other countries following these is not part of this discussion.

#3 You say most people was for going to war after 9/11, this might be true for USA, but is not for the rest of the world. US government knew before the second gulf war that there was no WMD's in Iraq as stated by United Nations weapons inspectors that found no evidence of WMD's. Iraq has to my knowledge a close to 70 billion budget surplus and should be more than capable of taking care of themselves. And as I have stated in previous posts, US has stood behind regime changes in many countries before, includin Iran amongst many other, without the need to occupy any country. Why this need to be present in the middle-east, could it be something is beeing held from you?

#4 Following orders blindly, unlawfull or not is my meaning of what the US army is doing. I think many people not having any real opinion on what they are doing is joining the army or national guard, they are beeing fed lies on why and what they are doing. I think alot of people in the army would have alot of problems with the war if they had any idea what they are fighting for.

#5 Military lawyers, are part of the military structure facillitating the murders. Bush didn't kill anyone but still have the highest responsibillity as he lied to all US citizens. The CIA for lying to US citizens about the reason for going to war is also responsible along with the rest of the former US administration.

#6 Well thats what they are doing. And would the troops be under fire if they were not in Afghanistan or Iraq? Ofcourse you can't blame anyone for protecting themselves, but you can blame them for putting themselves in this position when there was never any reason to do so.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Skurk, Skurk, Skurk....

What are you talking about? While you sit in your closet clacking away like some mad man, you never ventured out to experience reality.

Fact- I have been awarded medals from the UN. We obviously worked under their umbrella. Not everything we do is with the UN. That's because we are our own country, not owned by the United (abomi)Nation thank you Dave Mustaine

Fact-You have no idea how correct or incorrect intel was regarding WMD's. You only know what the media tells you.

Fact-you have never been to Iraq. You have never served in the US Army. You have a couple of anecdotes you use to summarize the opinions of hundreds of thousands of soldiers.

Fact- A military lawyer is a soldier. He/she defends the position they are ordered to. They aren't part of anything.

What you fail to understand is that not all people think the way you do. I am a warrior. I'm more comfortable in the prone position with my observer calling out my shot than I am at a party drinking beer. When I'm not engaged in a mission, I'm bored. I would rather be surrounded by people that I know would give their lives for me than be in a place where I have nothing to fear.

Trust me, I've fought for things I didn't believe in. I hated it. At the end of the day, I had lost good friends and will never forget. It didn't quench my thirst for the opportunity to rectify the evils of the world by plying my trade in a most efficient way. That's what a warrior does. The war in the Middle East has gone on long wnough now that anyone that's there has joined or stayed knowing they would likely go. They aren't mislead, they are warriors engaged in battle. Don't belittle them by calling them stupid.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by exfed
 


Well said exfed!



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkurkNilsen
reply to post by Jenna
 

#1: Ok, not arguing. My bad, wrong word for you maybe, I think you know what I mean if you want to.


ok, this wasn't directed toward me. next.



#2: This is simply false, following international law has to do with not setting up torture prisons in countrys not under the Geneva convention. The only cooperation you have with the UN is that you simply aknowledge their presence in the area. About other countries following these is not part of this discussion.


How many more civilians would have died by Saddam's hand if the US had listened to the UN? The UN has been 'hand slapping' saddam's hand since the first gulf war. You people seem to forget that Saddam had broken numerous laws laid down on him BY the UN for 11 years. You also forget that Saddam was NOT allowing the UN to inspect for WMD's leading up to the war. You also seem to forget that Bush gave Saddam a final 1 week ultimatum before we moved in...show us what you have, or we're coming. If anything, the UN is just as responsible, if not, more-so than the US for what's going on there because they weren't doing a damn thing for 11 years while Saddam laughed the whole time.



#3 You say most people was for going to war after 9/11, this might be true for USA, but is not for the rest of the world. US government knew before the second gulf war that there was no WMD's in Iraq as stated by United Nations weapons inspectors that found no evidence of WMD's. Iraq has to my knowledge a close to 70 billion budget surplus and should be more than capable of taking care of themselves. And as I have stated in previous posts, US has stood behind regime changes in many countries before, includin Iran amongst many other, without the need to occupy any country. Why this need to be present in the middle-east, could it be something is beeing held from you?


At one point in time, even Russia came forward and said they believed Iraq had WMD's, and Russia wasn't exactly our friend at the time. Everyone seemed to have intelligence pointing toward the fact that Iraq had WMD's. This is just my opinion, but I believe there are still WMD's there...and the reason I think that, is because I have seen pictures of Iraqi fighter jets buried in the sand in Iraq. If they can bury a jet, they can damn well bury bombs...it's one big desert there, plenty of places to do that where they'll never be found. As far as the rest of the world not supporting us? Tell that to the 23 other countries who sent troops to help us out. I will grant you, most countries were opposed, but don't act like we're the only country on the planet who wanted this.



#4 Following orders blindly, unlawfull or not is my meaning of what the US army is doing. I think many people not having any real opinion on what they are doing is joining the army or national guard, they are beeing fed lies on why and what they are doing. I think alot of people in the army would have alot of problems with the war if they had any idea what they are fighting for.


I was in the Air Force for 4 years, and in that time, I don't recall ever blindly following orders. I have argued with people who outranked me on a number of occasions.

And what exactly are we fighting this war for? Were you in the meetings and councils that discuss this stuff? How do you know anyone is being fed lies? I'm not saying that we're not being fed lies, but I don't know, I wasn't there, and neither were you. You simply have an opinion, and in that case, your opinion is irrelivant, because we ALL have those.



#5 Military lawyers, are part of the military structure facillitating the murders. Bush didn't kill anyone but still have the highest responsibillity as he lied to all US citizens. The CIA for lying to US citizens about the reason for going to war is also responsible along with the rest of the former US administration.


Do you realize that the . of CIA when we went to war was appointed by Bill Clinton? Funny how no one ever mentions what a huge mistake it was to go to Bosnia.....



#6 Well thats what they are doing. And would the troops be under fire if they were not in Afghanistan or Iraq? Ofcourse you can't blame anyone for protecting themselves, but you can blame them for putting themselves in this position when there was never any reason to do so.


Again, there was a reason, and everyone believed it. Personally, I still believe it, but that's beside the point.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by SkurkNilsen
 

No, actually, I was giving the little yapping dog a chance to catch his breath.

Whatever.

And when it comes to name calling, that's just not nice.

Go **** in your hat.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by SkurkNilsen
 

No, actually, I was giving the little yapping dog a chance to catch his breath.

Whatever.

And when it comes to name calling, that's just not nice.

Go **** in your hat.


Ohh, thats a comeback man! respect to you for your fantastic debating skills, wow!



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by SkurkNilsen
 


1. I never fit neatly into any category, so no worries.


2. If you look up resolutions passed by the UN when we first went into Iraq, they agreed with us. And frankly, I'd rather we not obey every single word the UN says. Not everything they say is in our best interests and seeing as how we have our own government I think we are better off governing ourselves. Not to mention the fact that not every prisoner is being or has been tortured, to say they all have been is blatantly false.

3. Yeah, probably. It honestly wouldn't surprise me if many things are kept from public knowledge, or if most things released through the media only contain hints of truth. And when I said "most people" I was talking about the US. I live in the US so it would hardly make sense for me to try to claim I know what someone in another country thinks about anything.

Most people in the US were all for going to war at the beginning. The problem is, it has lasted too long. Had it been over after a few years there wouldn't be quite so much complaining about it now. And again I ask, would it have been better if we had just bombed everything and then left them with no government, no protection, and no homes? We created a mess, we should help clean it up.

4. After almost 8 years, it is highly unlikely that there is anyone who is currently in the military who didn't join or re-enlist knowing that we are in two wars. Anyone who has joined or re-enlisted and says they didn't know they would be going over-seas at some point is either a liar or an idiot, personally I think it's the former.

I have yet to meet a single soldier who blindly follows any order given to them, and I have met a lot of soldiers. Tell me, how do you know what they think they are fighting for? Have you spoken to a lot of US soldiers? Taken a poll from them maybe on why they think they are fighting and dieing in two wars?

5. How exactly is it that you know for a fact that they knowingly lied? It wouldn't surprise me, I'm just wondering how you know. It is entirely possible that Bush was told and believed there were WMD's in Iraq. It is entirely possible that the people who told him that believed it. Somewhere along the line someone lied, that much is obvious. But how do know that Bush and Co. did it knowingly?

6. That's your opinion on what they are doing. You think that's why they are there, but that doesn't make it reality. Most of the soldiers who are there or have been there didn't send themselves. They didn't just wake up one day and say "I think I'll go shoot some people in Iraq tomorrow, wonder how much a plane ticket is.." They joined or re-enlisted knowing that they would most likely end up there, yes. But it is hardly their fault that we are there.

Perhaps you should do some reading on what has to happen before they can defend themselves. They don't just hop off the plane and start firing indiscriminately as soon as their feet hit the ground. It's not innocent civilians they are defending themselves against.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Anyway, the military system is a corrupt and outdated system designed to defend the people in position against the opposistion. If you approve the military system, you approve to war. War is there to control the masses, so they dare not speak out.

The Bush-administration should hang just like Saddam, cause they are of the same kin.

Mike Hunt



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperViking
 


That International law is a joke, might be the American way of thinking. To me, it's ridiculous._javascript:icon('
')

We see now, 10 years after the balkan wars that warcriminals is charged and prosecuted in the Haag court. This is not due to the U.S. This could never be accomplished if we should do things the American way. The U.S. Military has one huge problem. It's built on Christian dogmas, and has the belief that if we kill them, they will never speak again. This is one of the hipocracies you fight for. It's for the same reason the romans killed Jesus 2000 years ago. This proves to me the hipocracy you are fighting for, and why is it so? Because of ignorant leadership. Ignorants never learn. They act and think primitively. This is what the military wants you to, because in a situation where your primitive instincts should rule, you must trust them. This does not give you the right to impose this primitivity on the world, as it's not comparable to the modern world at all. We now know that to kill a mindset we must reveal it's true intentions. And whatever intentions the U.S. military has, it's primitive.

Bush has now left the building. To clean up his mess, we must change the mindset of the greedy leaders, and start focusing on good decisions, made by competent leaders.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join