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.


Are the soldiers who protect America bad?

page: 15
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 03:03 AM
reply to post by JaxonRoberts

Oh my god are you really as ignorant as to even DARE to suggest that the events of WW2 are anything like this ?
Pathetic !!! Let me let you in on a secret buddy. Everyone who went to war in WW2 on the allied side, knew that largely speaking, there was a really , and I mean overwhelming chance, that the allies would loose. Not to mention, during WW2 there was a REAL threat that the nazis would and were taking over the world.
Lets just take stock of that. Because heres a little fact you might be deliberately ignoring for your own reasons: The war we are fighting now, is against an enemy who simply cannot take over the world, by reason that they cant keep from blowing each other up for long enough to make a decent hash of it. Now thats a fact, and you can blow gas about it as long as you want , but dont you DARE sully the name of every honourable soldier who died and fought the second world war. That war WAS just, all the ones since havent been ... period.

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 11:29 AM

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
More broadly, who is braver, the person who sees a threat & goes to fight, or the person who can live with the threat & seeks a negotiated solution?

The one who fights to neutralize that threat, of course. The one who tries to 'get along' or 'live with' a threat is at best a fool, likely a coward, and at worst a traitor to his own kith and kin.

There's a reason threats are so... threatening.

[edit on 2009/6/25 by nenothtu]

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 11:37 AM

Originally posted by Drexl
So, I was speaking to the knife weilding maniac that had just stabbed 5 innocents in a blood frenzy . Why'd you do it ? , I Said . He said the knife is to protect himself ," if i did not carry this knife , who is to say who would would attack me . It is a defence , by it's nature it is an object to deter assailants ' . But these people have never assailed you I said ? . ' No, but it could happen that in some certain situations, it could come to pass that this here knife is my protection could well save my life ' . So , how do you equate stabbing 5 innocents with your protection, I replied ? Well he said , I had the notion these people might have wanted to knife me too , but after I killed them , there was no knife on their bodies afterall , but it is for my protection , you see ? Oh , and they had a full wallet on them too , and I needed to pay my bills .

[edit on 21-6-2009 by Drexl]

You sure have some strange friends. MY advice is for you and your friends to stay out of MY neighborhood.

None of you could survive here.

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 02:57 PM
Your not going to send Saints to Kill...

It's ridiculous why people are so surprised when a Solider commits a crime of any sort. What do they think it takes to kill?

You have to have a few moral imbalances to be able to raise a rifle towards someone with the intent of killing them and actually do it...

The whiners should shut up or be put into active duty on a tour, and then come back and tell us all just how morally perfect one must be in a War zone...

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 03:33 PM

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
reply to post by jerico65
Have you read the rest of this thread? We are talking about courage because mf_luder seems to be claiming that the military should be absolved of their responsibility for perpetuating the designs of an evil regime because they are courageous, whereas I am saying that whilst American troops may well be quite brave, they have little on those who oppose tyranny with whatever comes to hand & nothing @all on those who do so with nothing but their body & conviction that their willingness to be killed will eventually overcome those who would kill them's willingness to carry on their oppression. Furthermore, if courage is the yardstick by which we should measure whether a person is good or bad, since almost every enemy US troops have faced were either poorly equipped, badly fed &/or exhausted by prior conflict, we could conclude that those enemies were braver & thus more in the right. Dragon skin sucks? Better than a shirt tho, eh?

That was a hilarious post! I laughed until my guts hurt.

The bit about folks going up against their oppressors with nothing but their bodies and a willingness to die? That's not 'brave', that's suicidal! In my experience, most suicidal folks were so because they lacked the courage to face life as it comes at them.

If your suicidal folks are so brave, where were they on the battlefield, sticking flowers into enemy gunbarrels? Either they lacked the courage to put their convictions into action, or I just missed it.

"Courage" isn't the yardstick to measure good or bad people, and no one said it was, other than that slime-monger that posted a youtube video, and then insinuated that soldiers are cowardly, thus bad people.

That wasn't you, was it?

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 04:03 PM
reply to post by TrueBrit

My friend, the first rule of fighting is to know your enemy.

You are making the same mistake that others do. You're misidentifying the real enemy here.

Yes, even Britain's true enemy.

Whose soldiers are these? Whose directives are the following? What are their clearly stated goals?

You answer those three questions, and you'll know your enemy.

And he's right in your own midst right now as we speak.

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 05:54 PM
I volunteered for the US Army 2.5 years ago and I did this for many reasons, one of the reasons is that I love this country and I would do anything for it, I don't support the war in Iraq and I think we have no good reason to be in Afghanistan anymore but we are doing good things over there.

I served in Korea for a year away from my wife and family and right now i'm in Fort Sill assisting the brave young men that enlisted to serve in the US Army.

While some may have joined for a bonus, some may have joined for a steady job, most of them have heart and know they may die in the line of duty in their uniform.

Some of them are foreigners like my self, i'm from the Netherlands.

I will never follow an order that is unconstitutional or immoral, while some aspects of the war might be immoral, we ARE doing good things overseas, dont let stories of marines throwing puppies off a cliff taint your whole view of the military.

I am proud to serve the US Army, I am pushing my self every day to be all that I can be.

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 09:47 PM
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 09:55 PM
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

First of all, you have to realize not everybody knows what you know! At one point even you yourself knew nothing about the NWO, the 9/11 crap and everything else. I joined the military because I wanted to serve and protect good and honorable things! And second, who is going to protect you if the NWO really does take control? I am goint to take a wild guess that you have no knowledge of the M-4 carbine, m9 Beretta, MK19, any combat tactics, vehicle drills, camo tech, explosive awareness etc. There is a reason that ALL veterans that are getting out of the military are on the "terrorist watch list" its because we make up the 2% of the population that has the mental and physical ability to fight back, AND we joined the military and sacrificed our lives for the constitution that is being destroyed at this very moment. Don't confuse me as your enemy, I just may be your savior.

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 10:54 PM
When USA invades other countries, it is not called war. War is when two armies are fighting.

There are no armies attacking USA, therefore to say that soldiers protect or fight for USA is illogical. What USA armed forces are doing is - acquiring resources outside USA borders.

There is nothing to be proud off or hate about USA soldiers - they are just doing the job big international corporations are interested in - getting hands on foreign resources by all means. And that is why they are being paid.

posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 01:37 AM
i dont think that american soldiers are bad, just that overall america is bad when extended outside of its borders.
individually americans seem almost canadian in attitude until you get a group of 3 or more together in the one place then they become irrational....

the usa needs regime change more that any other country.

posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 01:40 AM

Originally posted by WEOPPOSEDECEPTION
I tell ya, I'm darn proud if you go get your legs blown off for Bush, invading a country that never attacked the USA. Darn proud! keep up the good work.

You probably don't know this, since they probably don't run a news scroll on American Idol, but Bush ain't the top dawg any more.

Open your windows and look around, there's a whole world out there, and your whippin' boy ain't running it any more.

posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 01:43 AM

Originally posted by Drexl

Originally posted by mf_luder
reply to post by Drexl

The US Army is trained to take cover when explosions start going off, especially if there is the off-chance it is artillery. Sure, those kids you found that video of were scared and cowering - but they were doing like they were supposed to... waiting for the explosions to end.

Theres no guarantee they have even come out yet . I feel sorry for their wives and girlfriends if they ever make it home . Shut that cupboard door too loudly , and you won't be getting this crew out from under the kitchen table for at least a week .

[edit on 24-6-2009 by Drexl]

My girlfriend said she feels sorry for YOU, never having had a man in your life and all.

Gotta love that woman. She knows which end wags and which end bites.

[edit on 2009/6/26 by nenothtu]

posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 02:13 AM
reply to post by TrueBrit

First of all, take a Xanax. Did you even read my post, or the one I was responding to??? Let me refresh your memory as to what I was responding to and the relevence to WWII:

Originally posted by Kombatt98
USA now(since 1870-) is evil and genocidal, so any soldier who protects it is evil .

Notice that it says since 1870. I do believe that WWII falls into that category, as do the other examples I pointed out. I said nothing about the current wars. And let me tell you something buddy, don't you DARE to lecture me on WWII! My father, and all of my friends fathers growing up fought in WWII. My mother's first husband was KIA liberating Italy from Mussolini's iron grasp, and is buried there! I got my info first hand about WWII, from those who fought it.

I do not agree with the war in Iraq, but the war in Afghanistan is completely justified! If you protect those who killed over 3,000 innocent civilians who's only mistake was going to work the morning of September 11th, then you deserve what you get. They were given ample opportunity to avoid war, and they responded with a stiff middle finger!

And Al Quaeda may not be able to take over the world, but if they get their hands on one of "Dear Leader's" nukes, or one of the countless missing former Soviet Union's nukes, they will not hesitate to use them. Care to have one of them go off in London???

Apparently, the picture I placed on the bottom of the post you so obviously cherry picked from applies to you as well!

[edit on 26-6-2009 by JaxonRoberts]

posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 08:30 AM
reply to post by mf_luder
Apologies for lateness: RL in the way!

Really, name calling? How old are we again?
Please quote where I've called names. I've been careful to talk about your posts, not you personally, for 2 reasons: 1) it's respectful, 2) ad hominem (@the man, rather than his argument) is often the 1st choice of those whose own position lacks substance. You however began by calling people fat, lazy, cowards etc. Yeah, how old are we?

You're taking one piece out of my entire post and using that one piece to form the basis of your argument.
It was for brevity. Indeed you did say, "For anyone who would etc." & what are we to take from that? That you simply posted your rant in this thread in the random hope that someone who does fit the stereotype might @some point pop in & read it? No. You were making a sweeping generalisation of those who criticise military personnel. The "for those" was just a very transparent veil over the insults. Perhaps this is why you went on to assume I was doing the same.

So far, you're the only one who has directly called me on it - yet you keep insisting that you don't fit the stereotype I called out.
So what is your malfunction?
My reasons for debate & whether anyone else joins in are irrelevant, but I have already told you: I sincerely disagree. It is not malfunctional nor pissy to debate ideas, it's a cornerstone of freedom. Also irrelevant is what I feel when posting here, but if you must know, not "tingly giddiness": frustrated sadness. Still, if you feel it is relevant, did you get a nice ego-stroking from characterising yourself as a "BIG BAD US ARMY SOLDIER" (in caps no less)? Btw, I haven't said you shouldn't express your opinion. In fact, twice when you threatened to quit, I expressed my displeasure. But back to it: do you have any evidence to back up the claim of cowardice, even if the accused fits your stereotype?

posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 09:30 AM
reply to post by jerico65
You & I seem to be mainly off-topic, but a few points: there are many forms of civil disobediance other than marching with placards & we did see people resist Hussein, that's why he gassed them (NB this is a trap set to further my argument, Mods, so whilst it may appear to be more off-topic stuff, all will become clear).

Soldiers don't murder in combat and comparing them to felons is asinine.
I used the word "murder" in relation to felons; "kill" where soldiers could be involved, but if it was ambiguous, I apologise. Certainly, killing during a legal war is not legally murder, but since we are focussed on Iraq, was the invasion & thus subsequent occupation legal? The UN Sec. Gen. @the time said not. So my comparison is "asinine"? Perhaps you could answer my earlier question then:

Re: felons - what other group that kills people in a collective exercise should I have used to compare to then?
Any non-asinine comparison will do.

Grouping [support personnel] all together with the triggerpullers is also asinine. And as I pointed out, those supporting are also doing a lot for the civilians in the region...
Asinine again? & yet the principal of collective responsibility for the outcome of joint enterprise is a well established tenet of law. So what if some personnel are clearing up the mess made by others? If your country was invaded, how much care for the wounded would it take to make you forget the dead? How many schools & wells would buy-off your patriotism? Is the answer to both not, "None. No. Never. Not while I draw breath."?

posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 09:48 AM
reply to post by Bunken Drum
Sorry, edit function not working properly. Kofi Annan says US lead war illegal:

posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 11:22 AM
I am having a hard time understanding how my freedom is being protected. This seems to be the buzz phrase of the conservative. I really don't see how America's invasions will keep our democracy intact. Could these religious zealots really overthrow our goverment? I don't see how this could occur. The only consequenses of our military buildup has been a loss of freedom for us. Please explain how my freedom is being protected. It seems a chain of events would have to occur in order for me to lose my freedom. How is our military stopping this chain of events?

posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 12:12 PM
reply to post by nenothtu

My big, tough, evil ass sits here typing this with tears in my eyes, not because of your opinion, but rather because of the memory of the men you malign.
Are you serious? Let me: I sit here with an itch under my foreskin, not because... oh whatever. What does it add to the discussion? Are we supposed to take your blubbing as evidence that what you say is right? Or evidence that you're so emotionally invested in your opinion that you couldn't tell right from wrong if it handed you a handkerchief? I'll get to the rest shortly...

posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 12:40 PM
reply to post by nenothtu

The one who tries to 'get along' or 'live with' a threat is at best a fool, likely a coward, and at worst a traitor to his own kith and kin.
I see. Well, in the last 60 years the USA has been without doubt the most belligerent nation on earth. If it wasn't fighting in a particular conflict, it was arming 1 or both sides & often fomented the trouble to further foreign policy. Therefore, by your logic, the other 19 out of 20 of humans should press for vastly more military spending & enlist so that we can end the threat by keeping the USA within its' borders. Or invade perhaps? In either case, the USA would nuke us, regardless of Mutually Assured Destruction. This is the threat we "live with". Are we fools, cowards or traitors, or is trying to peacefully reign the USA in both better & since we must live with the fear of further 'full spectrum dominance' whilst persevering, braver too?

top topics

<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in