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.

 

To those who have served ... you're not all heroes

page: 27
96
<< 24  25  26    28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkurkNilsen

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by SkurkNilsen

As to paramilitary CIA funded terrorist organisations, what about al-qaida/taliban? What about Bin Laden who was a CIA tactician(I say was because he has been dead for some time)? How about Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple, what about MK-Ultra? Experimentation on their own people by the U.S government, in the spirit of nazi-Germany perchance?



Cap, you're so far out in the woods here, there just ain't no finding your way back into civilization.

CIA funding of al-Qaeda and the Taliban? Bin Laden a CIA tactician? Those I can speak to personally, and they are LIES, of the lowest order. Not even logical. Because of that, all the rest of your assertions are suspect.

Have fun with those paranoid delusions of yours, but please, stay out there in those scary woods. If you come back here, you'll only scare the children.


Ridicule and namecalling....
I guess that is to be expected... After all this is a conspiracy forum.
Have a nice day


I note with satisfaction that you couldn't refute what I said on the matter, and that my refutation of your original premise therefore stands.

[edit on 2009/11/13 by nenothtu]




posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
Violating WHICH Constitutional provision?


Congress has not made a formal declaration of war through legislation. We do not acknowledge U.N. or other approval as we are Americans. Congress must approve it legally, no one else.


It's not "murder". Murder is an unjustifiable homicide. Just because YOU are against it, doesn't make it objectively "unjustifiable". I'd reccommend taking it to a court somewhere, preferably one with jurisdiction, to decide on the matter of justifiability. Good luck with that.


You can excuse the "it's not murder" thing all day long. You can't deny you are taking the life of another. Semantics can't help you there.


I've heard this lame claim over and over again, and have asked the same question each time. I'll now ask it of you - who knows, you may be the one finally able to answer it!

What specific statute has been violated that would make this war "illegal"?


A formal declaration of war has not been issued.



An added "bonus" question just for you, since you had a value-added phrase up there, is how does the conduct of this war invalidate the Geneva Conventions? I'm sure there are a few soldiers over there that would just LOVE to hear that they aren't bound by Geneva Conventions any more.

Of course, the enemy never HAS been bound by them, which seems a bit unfair.


See my first reply, secondary to that if Obama truly is not eligible to be President despite the fact the issue is being swept under the rug. Then in ADDITION to my first reply if war was declared it wouldn't be under the Geneva protections if he is ineligible to be President. It is YOUR responsibility as a soldier to demand proof positive your "supreme leader" is allowed to be President. I respect the soldiers refusing orders until this is cleared up.

And you're right the enemy typically isn't bound by them. Welcome to being the "supreme moral authority" of the world. We need to be bound by them. But the reality is there is no power greater than us to bind us to them.


How very presumptuous of you, to think you can determine motivation for another, sight unseen.


I'm not speaking to your reasons for being there personally. I'm speaking to the reason you were deployed there. Like it or not but people above your paygrade ar putting YOU into these situations for foreign interetes.



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Bin Laden was NOT a "paid fighter", he came to Afghanistan with his own money - well, his share of his daddy's money. He actually REFUSED CIA assistance. Matter of fact, he wasn't much of ANY sort of "fighter", paid or not, against the Russians. He only went into combat one time that I'm aware of, just so he could say he did, and even then hung back and claimed to be "directing" the battle. Bin Laden never had any sort of "rank". He was just a rich guy who mostly did construction in Afghanistan, although he did that very well. Sucked as a fighter, though.

Taliban was NOT paid by the CIA, they didn't even exist when the CIA was there. The Taliban was not formed until after the Russians and the CIA had both left the theater. It was formed and fostered by Pakistani ISI in the early 90's, and didn't rise to prominence until the mid-90's. The objective of the ISI was to gain de-facto control of the Afghan Government, but the mujahideen had other ideas, and went to war against the Taliban too, since they were foreigners as much as the Russians were. The Taliban never controlled more than 60% of the country, and was at constant war with the mujahideen to maintain even that much.

Nope, they're barking up the wrong tree with that CIA-AQ connection. They need to study the timeline better. Seems they got that BS from Brzinski, which really makes me laugh that they fell for it. Has any one ever paid any attention to some of the OTHER stuff he's said? LOL


If you believe everything they serve you that is entirely up to you, but Bin Laden was supported by the U.S.
Taliban was as well, not only as Taliban, but earlier as the mujahedin.

Next I guess you are going to deny that Sadam got weapons and funding from the U.S.A.......

Jeez louise



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by SkurkNilsen

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by SkurkNilsen

As to paramilitary CIA funded terrorist organisations, what about al-qaida/taliban? What about Bin Laden who was a CIA tactician(I say was because he has been dead for some time)? How about Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple, what about MK-Ultra? Experimentation on their own people by the U.S government, in the spirit of nazi-Germany perchance?



Cap, you're so far out in the woods here, there just ain't no finding your way back into civilization.

CIA funding of al-Qaeda and the Taliban? Bin Laden a CIA tactician? Those I can speak to personally, and they are LIES, of the lowest order. Not even logical. Because of that, all the rest of your assertions are suspect.

Have fun with those paranoid delusions of yours, but please, stay out there in those scary woods. If you come back here, you'll only scare the children.


Ridicule and namecalling....
I guess that is to be expected... After all this is a conspiracy forum.
Have a nice day


I note with satisfaction that you couldn't refute what I said on the matter, and that my refutation of your original premise therefore stands.

[edit on 2009/11/13 by nenothtu]

What are you refuting?
You are simply denying it, saying it ain't so and resorting to namecalling, and take in to doubt my mental abilities.
I stopped using these kind of tactics in pre-school when I developed a large enough vocabulary to not needing to do so.

You do not really deserve any kind of answer as long as you resort to these kind of methods, if you can not voice your opinion as an adult I suggest you keep them to yourself.

All I did was to raise above your childish accusations of mental instability and wish you a good day.

Have a good day



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   
As far as the troops are concerned, this sums it up...


We did our best
To let ‘em know we care
For every last one of ‘em
That’s over there
Whether we belong over there, or not
They’re our boys and they belong over here
Somewhere
I hope they all come home
To stay
In peace


Johnny Cash~




[edit on 14-11-2009 by LadySkadi]



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by mryanbrown

Originally posted by nenothtu
Violating WHICH Constitutional provision?


Congress has not made a formal declaration of war through legislation. We do not acknowledge U.N. or other approval as we are Americans. Congress must approve it legally, no one else.


Authorization for Use of Military Forces Against Iraq

Similar congressional authorization is available for the "War on Terror".




It's not "murder". Murder is an unjustifiable homicide. Just because YOU are against it, doesn't make it objectively "unjustifiable". I'd reccommend taking it to a court somewhere, preferably one with jurisdiction, to decide on the matter of justifiability. Good luck with that.


You can excuse the "it's not murder" thing all day long. You can't deny you are taking the life of another. Semantics can't help you there.


It's not "semantics", it's a legal definition. "Semantics" would be your search for something, ANYTHING, to support your view that all killing is murder by default.




I've heard this lame claim over and over again, and have asked the same question each time. I'll now ask it of you - who knows, you may be the one finally able to answer it!

What specific statute has been violated that would make this war "illegal"?


A formal declaration of war has not been issued.


See above.




An added "bonus" question just for you, since you had a value-added phrase up there, is how does the conduct of this war invalidate the Geneva Conventions? I'm sure there are a few soldiers over there that would just LOVE to hear that they aren't bound by Geneva Conventions any more.

Of course, the enemy never HAS been bound by them, which seems a bit unfair.


See my first reply, secondary to that if Obama truly is not eligible to be President despite the fact the issue is being swept under the rug. Then in ADDITION to my first reply if war was declared it wouldn't be under the Geneva protections if he is ineligible to be President. It is YOUR responsibility as a soldier to demand proof positive your "supreme leader" is allowed to be President. I respect the soldiers refusing orders until this is cleared up.

And you're right the enemy typically isn't bound by them. Welcome to being the "supreme moral authority" of the world. We need to be bound by them. But the reality is there is no power greater than us to bind us to them.


The Geneva Conventions are a treaty. Treaties are a contractual matter between the signatory parties. If both parties to a conflict have not signed them, they apply to neither. If both parties HAVE signed them, matters of legality or illegality are addressed by treaty obligations.

As was proven in Angola, under certain circumstances folks like me can be shot out of hand by practically anyone under the Geneva Conventions with no repercussions whatsoever.




How very presumptuous of you, to think you can determine motivation for another, sight unseen.


I'm not speaking to your reasons for being there personally. I'm speaking to the reason you were deployed there. Like it or not but people above your paygrade ar putting YOU into these situations for foreign interetes.


I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I've fought in this current Iraqi War. I have not. I had the opportunity to go, but declined the offer. It wasn't out of any misguided questions as to the "legality" of it, it was because I thought then, and still do, that the invasion of Iraq was a boneheaded strategic move at the time. Iraq was already pretty well contained for the moment, but the invasion caused the military to be spread too thin, and caused us ("us" as in America, not the military) to take our eyes off of the ball, which should properly have been al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Now with that said, I'll also say this. When I DO choose to go off on foreign adventures, I know precisely why I go. I don't care a fig what the motives are of those who pay the freight to get me there, as long as I know what I'M doing is the right thing. I don't affect their motives any more than they affect mine.

Uncle Sam takes a dim view of the individual pursuit of foreign policy, but he sometimes facilitates it nonetheless.

Now that you know who and what I am, I'll just sit back and take the expected flaming.



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkurkNilsen

Originally posted by nenothtu

Bin Laden was NOT a "paid fighter", he came to Afghanistan with his own money - well, his share of his daddy's money. He actually REFUSED CIA assistance. Matter of fact, he wasn't much of ANY sort of "fighter", paid or not, against the Russians. He only went into combat one time that I'm aware of, just so he could say he did, and even then hung back and claimed to be "directing" the battle. Bin Laden never had any sort of "rank". He was just a rich guy who mostly did construction in Afghanistan, although he did that very well. Sucked as a fighter, though.

Taliban was NOT paid by the CIA, they didn't even exist when the CIA was there. The Taliban was not formed until after the Russians and the CIA had both left the theater. It was formed and fostered by Pakistani ISI in the early 90's, and didn't rise to prominence until the mid-90's. The objective of the ISI was to gain de-facto control of the Afghan Government, but the mujahideen had other ideas, and went to war against the Taliban too, since they were foreigners as much as the Russians were. The Taliban never controlled more than 60% of the country, and was at constant war with the mujahideen to maintain even that much.

Nope, they're barking up the wrong tree with that CIA-AQ connection. They need to study the timeline better. Seems they got that BS from Brzinski, which really makes me laugh that they fell for it. Has any one ever paid any attention to some of the OTHER stuff he's said? LOL


If you believe everything they serve you that is entirely up to you, but Bin Laden was supported by the U.S.
Taliban was as well, not only as Taliban, but earlier as the mujahedin.


I'm not prone to believe anything "served up" to me without critical examination. I base my opinion on actual observation, on the ground, in Afghanistan, in the 80's. I was mostly around Jalalabad and the Khyber Pass area, with a just couple of months in the Panjshir Valley with Ahmad Shah Masud's people.

Bin Laden was somewhat south of my usual haunts. He was NOT supported by CIA, contrary to what's been "served up" to you, which you apparently lap up without so much as a second thought. He, as a matter of fact, REFUSED any CIA "assistance", as I have previously stated.

The Taliban did not even exist then to BE supported by the CIA. Their genesis is as I have stated previously.



Next I guess you are going to deny that Sadam got weapons and funding from the U.S.A.......

Jeez louise


Why would I deny that? Saddam was the "fair-haired boy" for a while, until his megalomania got the best of him, and he went off on his own tangent. Even at that, he was buttoned up after the First Gulf War, and this last invasion was ill-timed, from a strategic standpoint. I said that when they first went in, and I stand by that assessment even now.

Ill-timed does not equate to "illegal", however. It just wasn't all that bright.

"Jeez louise
" indeed.

[edit on 2009/11/14 by nenothtu]



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkurkNilsen
What are you refuting?


This:


Originally posted by SkurkNilsen
As to paramilitary CIA funded terrorist organisations, what about al-qaida/taliban? What about Bin Laden who was a CIA tactician(I say was because he has been dead for some time)? How about Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple, what about MK-Ultra? Experimentation on their own people by the U.S government, in the spirit of nazi-Germany perchance?



Which I refuted here:


Originally posted by nenothtu

CIA funding of al-Qaeda and the Taliban? Bin Laden a CIA tactician? Those I can speak to personally, and they are LIES, of the lowest order. Not even logical. Because of that, all the rest of your assertions are suspect.


Which you so far have failed to answer, other than to throw out an unsupported smoke-screen. Because of that, I stand by this:



Originally posted by nenothtu

I note with satisfaction that you couldn't refute what I said on the matter, and that my refutation of your original premise therefore stands.


Any further questions?

Have a nice day, and thanks for playing.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
...


Long story short, approval to deploy troops is not a declaration of war. You should read up on "The Wars Powers Resolution".



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by mryanbrown

Originally posted by nenothtu
...


Long story short, approval to deploy troops is not a declaration of war. You should read up on "The Wars Powers Resolution".


Long story short, "Authorization for Use of Military Forces" Amounts to more than a mere "deployment", which is done every day, to nearly everywhere, without any use of force.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by Obinhi


To be fair, they do have some merit, bin Ladin was a paid fighter against the russians when they invaded back in the 80's. the Taliban was also paid by the CIA, and Bin Laden did raise to a higher rank, as he was loaded with cash. The relationship with the CIA stopped after the USSR fell.


That's a big, fat, ponderous NEGATIVE on all of the above.

Bin Laden was NOT a "paid fighter", he came to Afghanistan with his own money - well, his share of his daddy's money. He actually REFUSED CIA assistance. Matter of fact, he wasn't much of ANY sort of "fighter", paid or not, against the Russians. He only went into combat one time that I'm aware of, just so he could say he did, and even then hung back and claimed to be "directing" the battle. Bin Laden never had any sort of "rank". He was just a rich guy who mostly did construction in Afghanistan, although he did that very well. Sucked as a fighter, though.

Taliban was NOT paid by the CIA, they didn't even exist when the CIA was there. The Taliban was not formed until after the Russians and the CIA had both left the theater. It was formed and fostered by Pakistani ISI in the early 90's, and didn't rise to prominence until the mid-90's. The objective of the ISI was to gain de-facto control of the Afghan Government, but the mujahideen had other ideas, and went to war against the Taliban too, since they were foreigners as much as the Russians were. The Taliban never controlled more than 60% of the country, and was at constant war with the mujahideen to maintain even that much.

Nope, they're barking up the wrong tree with that CIA-AQ connection. They need to study the timeline better. Seems they got that BS from Brzinski, which really makes me laugh that they fell for it. Has any one ever paid any attention to some of the OTHER stuff he's said? LOL


Dorry to drag this out, What are your sources on the whole 'Who was paid by who" thing? In this case a report by CNN and Wikipedia may not be the whole story. Having spoken and plaied cards with a few spooks down range I do think that I know a bit about what went down back then, even if I dont really know whats going on now...



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Obinhi

Dorry to drag this out, What are your sources on the whole 'Who was paid by who" thing? In this case a report by CNN and Wikipedia may not be the whole story. Having spoken and plaied cards with a few spooks down range I do think that I know a bit about what went down back then, even if I dont really know whats going on now...


No problem. I think I've already posted as to my "primary" source, but I'm sure ample evidence for refutation can be found in a simple Google search, if you care to trust internet info. It could go either way using the internet as a source, as there are plenty of agendas to go 'round.

If you've played cards with spooks who were operative in that AO back then, then here's some things you can confirm from them:

Most of the "spooks" were working in Pakistan, specifically Peshawar was a veritable den of spooks at the time. Very few actually went into Afghanistan. Those tasked with that onerous duty were what the spooks call "knuckle-draggers", some Agency employed, some working on contract because they had certain language and cultural skills and abilities. For example, the muj generally rejected out of hand any "volunteers" who were not muslims, or couldn't pass as muslims to the trained eye. Cultural Sensitivity. They had to know Islam inside and out, whether they actually believed or not. They had to pass muj muster.

The guys who actually went in-country had first hand knowledge of certain events, but the Peshawar Spook Factory alumni should be able to confirm to you that bin Laden rejected CIA money specifically, and any money that smelled "American" however laundered it may have been. The laundering process generally carried the money through several cut-outs, most of it going from U.S. to Saudis then to Pakistani ISI, then on to the mujahideen.

They can also tell you most likely that the U.S. bought lots of foreign arms, like Egyptian and Chinese AK's, to supply the muj with, which were picked up in Pakistan (Peshawar and Darra adam Khel usually) and then donkey-backed into Afghanistan to the end users. The main bit of American kit used in that war were U.S. Stinger missiles, because no suitable foreign substitute could be found at the time for plausible deniability. The first Soviet aircraft to be shot down with one was a Soviet Mi-24 Hind helicopter, in a test run, near Jalalabad. As I recall, it took several shots, but got the job done to the satisfaction of all.

They can also confirm that the Taliban did not exist in those days, and al-Qaeda was but a gleam in bin Laden's eye. They can confirm that the Taliban originated as an ISI operation in Pakistani madrasas with the objective of gaining "Pakistani" (actually ISI) operative control of Afghanistan's government, after the Soviet withdrawal. Bin Laden was a "money man", an "organizer" far more than he was a fighter of any sort.

Simply confirming these few facts with any Spook sources you may have should provide ample evidence to you that I know whereof I speak, and it has the added simplicity of bypassing the internet Rumor Mill altogether, and going straight to the primary source.

I was going to give you a Nom de Guerre to give them for confirmation, even had it all typed out, and thought better of it, over an open forum. Those days were long ago, and that ID is dead now, may he rest in peace.

I'd truly hate for them to start looking for his grave and trying to dig it up.

[edit on 2009/11/15 by nenothtu]



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I could point out some holes in almost everything here. However I wont, I dont have the time, and I dont think you would belive me anyway. I will have to leave this as you are wrong, but since I cannot prove you wrong in a way that will satisfy you, we'll just have to wait for the history channel special in 25 years.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Ok, i'll bite...

I don't considder my self a hero, I have not been in combat nor have I done anything heroic, however I did freely volunteer for the Army and the Army lifestyle is not a very pleasant one, I work 0530 to 1730+ routinely, we have 4 days of physical training in a typical week, we run 3 of those days and one day we conduct muscle failure (working out till your muscles give out on you basically).

You get people in your face yelling at you because they had a bad day and all you can do is agree with them you are an idiot/POS/whatever...

ALL service members have made sacrefices, some have made the ultimate sacrifice, some have jumped on grenades to save their buddies, excuse me but they ARE heroes, all service members deserve respect for willingly put them selves in danger, the military is a dangerous job no matter if you are in garrison or in combat...

I highly suggest to do your time in the military, your mind will be changed.

Sometimes I may not be so proud to put on my uniform but I wear it for everyone that has worn it before me and I honor the ones that gave their lives for one of us on the battle field.

Please do not throw salt in our wounds, service members have it rough enough, show some respect.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
Ok, i'll bite...

I don't considder my self a hero, I have not been in combat nor have I done anything heroic, however I did freely volunteer for the Army and the Army lifestyle is not a very pleasant one, I work 0530 to 1730+ routinely, we have 4 days of physical training in a typical week, we run 3 of those days and one day we conduct muscle failure (working out till your muscles give out on you basically).

You get people in your face yelling at you because they had a bad day and all you can do is agree with them you are an idiot/POS/whatever...

ALL service members have made sacrefices, some have made the ultimate sacrifice, some have jumped on grenades to save their buddies, excuse me but they ARE heroes, all service members deserve respect for willingly put them selves in danger, the military is a dangerous job no matter if you are in garrison or in combat...

I highly suggest to do your time in the military, your mind will be changed.

Sometimes I may not be so proud to put on my uniform but I wear it for everyone that has worn it before me and I honor the ones that gave their lives for one of us on the battle field.

Please do not throw salt in our wounds, service members have it rough enough, show some respect.



You are right on the money with that one. Some NCO's care and some don't right now I feel lucky to have a great nco that has been to combat and cares about his soldiers. I look at all the other ones around me in different squads and platoons and think I am glad that's not my NCO i'd probably have an article 15 for not letting him treat me like #. But the soldiers go through way more than civilians do. They put there lives on the line everyday because they don't know whether they are going to Afghanistan or not. But it will most likely happen.

I mean why sit around and think whether the war is unjust or not when you can enlist and voice your opinion and help? Everyone here that is complaining isn't or hasn't been enlisted in the Armed Forces Of America to voice there opinion and hasn't been in a soldiers shoes. Now don't take that statement out of proportion or the wrong way.

No disrespect or anything. But soldiers work hard every day and go through a lot for wanting to do right for there country. We put up with sometimes silly rules and regulations. Each Unit has different ones as well.

Sometimes depending on where you are your freedoms can be taken away and have non like civilians do depending on your commander. If one soldier gets in trouble on the weekend for underage drinking or fighting the company and unit can all get called back in after hours and stand in a long formation waiting for everyone to come back on post just because of that one soldier.

Sometimes we do get treated like children and sometimes its for a good cause, and sometimes its for a #ty cause and it can all be from one soldier or incident.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by jca2005
 





I mean why sit around and think whether the war is unjust or not when you can enlist and voice your opinion and help? Everyone here that is complaining isn't or hasn't been enlisted in the Armed Forces Of America to voice there opinion and hasn't been in a soldiers shoes. Now don't take that statement out of proportion or the wrong way.


So here goes the you have no right to dissent or to complain until you have served argument. Not everyone is physically or mentally able to serve and some would rather serve their country or community in a way that doesn't risk their life or which doesn't involve killing enemy combatants and terrorists. Is that so wrong? Even a Janitor or a farmer is serving their country or community and they rarely get the same respect an enlisted man does.

I was thinking of enlisting as an MP and my friend who is infantry was giving me sh*t about it. So what is the deal, unless you put yourself in the greatest amount of possible danger you don't deserve respect?

Sometimes those who take part in dissent and who work in a normal job are the most valuable members in a society. They keep it in check and they support the economy. Not everyone has to go that extra mile in order to have the right to dissent. In fact everyone has that right. The right of free speech is universal in this country and maybe you are the one that doesn't deserve to complain about those who use it.

I would rather be a citizen who contributes to the economy in a purely positive way and who uses his right to free speech to keep his society in check than an elisted man who is brainwashed into supporting his country's foreign policy regardless of justification.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Transhumanist
reply to post by jca2005
 





So here goes the you have no right to dissent or to complain until you have served argument. Not everyone is physically or mentally able to serve and some would rather serve their country or community in a way that doesn't risk their life or which doesn't involve killing enemy combatants and terrorists. Is that so wrong? Even a Janitor or a farmer is serving their country or community and they rarely get the same respect an enlisted man does.


Hey Transhumanist I do apologize to you and everyone else here. I did not mean it in that context. I just simply meant the ones who put the soldiers down that know very little about the Army and what they go through. Yes I made that decision that's on me.

I didn't mean that you don't have the right. I simply mean some civilians shouldn't complain about the military or the soldiers. And yes some people are just physically or mentally incapable and that's not their fault. This is a free country and everyone has the right to free speech. But they shouldn't have a right to put soldiers down.

And there is nothing wrong with being an MP. They do alot of infantry work overseas. They have it just as rough. Especially having to deal with idiots on and off post when they get in trouble.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by jca2005
 


Well I will disagree with you that people shouldn't have a right to put down soldiers. It makes them look like a jackass and if they can live that down, then it's on them. The nice thing about free speech is it keeps itself in check. An openly racist person has a right to be that way at the expense of never having a high profile job and being ostracized by the community.

My problem isn't with the individual soldiers. I know you don't always have a choice on where you are stationed and what your mission objectives are. A man who wants to defend his homeland while putting himself through college gets sent to an unjust war and it's not his fault.

My problem is with the soldiers who go through mental gymnastics to justify what they do while discouraging dissent and critical thinking.

I do respect the servicemen and women because they do have it rougher than just about anyone but I don't respect the lack of critical thinking that goes on in the military although I know there isn't a whole lot of room for that other than in combat.

I decided not to enlist after a long deliberation about Afghanistan. Taking down the taliban should be done but at the same time no one in the military is talking much about the War in the Congo. And yes I know that is the politicians fault and not the troops. Wanting to liberate people is a noble cause but you have to question the motives of the occupation. Is it to liberate people or to liberate a Unocal pipeline?

To quote Henry Kissinger: Soldiers are


"dumb, stupid animals to be used" as pawns for foreign policy.


I don't think most soldiers are either stupid or animals. But the sad truth is that they are pawns in foreign policy and are treated as such by politicians.

[edit on 16-11-2009 by The Transhumanist]



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Obinhi
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I could point out some holes in almost everything here. However I wont, I dont have the time, and I dont think you would belive me anyway. I will have to leave this as you are wrong, but since I cannot prove you wrong in a way that will satisfy you, we'll just have to wait for the history channel special in 25 years.


Oh no, please, don't hold back. You're welcome to poke as many holes in "everything here" as you are able to do. It's an ideal opportunity to make me eat crow if you can do that.

I welcome the attempt.

You may BELIEVE I'm wrong, but you are absolutely honest when you say you can't PROVE me wrong. You are also quite correct when you say I wouldn't "believe" your assertions, mainly because of what I KNOW.

That's because I'm not wrong, not because you lack time to invest in presenting your evidence.

In 25 years, I'll likely not still be alive to watch your History Channel "documentary", so when that time comes, you can more than likely manufacture any history you want to for the cameras, without fear of refutation.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 03:08 AM
link   
Yes not all American people who enlist are hoeros not even all who went to Iraq and Afghanistan and this is the reason why













The top level did'nt asked these grunt soldiers to do all this, they did it on their own for the "fun" of it and funny thing is they got away with it with a minor slap on hand. So saying all who goto war and enlist are heros is pathetically ridicolous. Shame on US Govt. & US Army.

Isn't it the same kind of treatment for which Nazi Germans were prosecuted for War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity? Not even 1 of them was brought to justice for the crimes they committed(war crimes, tortures, crimes against humanity). These uneducated, low life scum have noone to blame but themselves and the army who failed to bring them to justice.



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 24  25  26    28  29 >>

log in

join