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.

 

letter to Musab al-Zarqawi

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 03:37 PM
link   
I found this letter today on 2b2k and I would like to share it with you all.

john

(WOT) Force Recon wrote Marine Hassoun's kidnappers a letter...
This is an e'mail from the Force Recon Marines Association.

______________

From: XXXXX
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 08:37:43 EDT
Subject: [ReconMarines] Letter to the Terrorists in Iraq

This letter is for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, ''Islamic Response,'' and the rest of the so-called "insurgents" in Iraq. I obviously do not have an e-mail address for these vermin, so I am forwarding this letter to my entire address book in the hope you good people will forward it to as many people as possible, and that eventually through the miracle of the internet it somehow ends up in the hands of the intended recipients. Thank you all for your assistance.



To the terrorists currently operating in Iraq:

I see that you have captured a U. S. Marine, and that you plan to cut off his head if your demands are not met. Big mistake. Before you carry out your threat I suggest you read up on Marine Corps history. The Japanese tried the same thing on Makin Island and in a few other places during World War Two, and came to regret it. Go ahead and read about what then happened to the mighty Imperial Army on Tarawa, Iwo Jima and Okinawa. They paid full price for what they did, and you will too.

You look at America and you see a soft target, and to a large extent you are right. Our country is filled with a lot of spoiled people who drive BMWs, sip decaf lattes and watch ridiculous reality TV shows. They are for the most part decent, hard working citizens, but they are soft. When you cut off Nick Berg's head those people gasped, and you got the media coverage you sought, and then those people went back to their lives. This time it is different. We also have a warrior culture in this country, and they are called Marines.
It is a brotherhood forged in the fire of many wars, and the bond between us is stronger than blood. While it is true that this country has produced nitwits like Michael Moore, Howard Dean and Jane Fonda who can be easily manipulated by your gruesome tactics, we have also produced men like Jason Dunham, Brian Chontosh and Joseph Perez. If you don't recognize those names you should. They are all Marines who distinguished themselves fighting to liberate Iraq, and there will be many more just like them coming for you.

Before the current politically correct climate enveloped our culture one of the recruiting slogans of our band of brothers was "The Marine Corps Builds Men." You will soon find out just how true that is. You, on the other hand, are nothing but a bunch of women. If you were men you would show your faces, and take us on in a fair fight. Instead, you are cowards who hide behind masks and decapitate helpless victims. If you truly represented the interest of the Iraqi people you would not be ambushing those who come to your country to repair your power plants, or sabotage the oil pipelines which fuel the Iraqi economy. Your agenda is hate, plain and simple.

When you raise that sword over your head I want you to remember one thing. Corporal Wassef Ali Hassoun is not alone as he kneels before you. Every Marine who has ever worn the uniform is there with him, and when you strike him you are striking all of us. If you think the Marines were tough on you when they were cleaning out Fallujah a few weeks ago you haven't seen anything yet. If you want to know what it feels like to have the Wrath of God called down upon you then go ahead and do it. We are not Turkish truck drivers, or Pakistani laborers, or independent contractors hoping to find work in your country. We are the United States Marines, and we will be coming for you.

Axxx Bxxxxx
MSgt USMC (Ret)
USMCstories

524 shall be thy number and the lot will tremble at their sight!




posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 04:54 PM
link   
The letter was well spoken. Im not a Marine but I believe in the MSGTs tone of voice. It does not amaze me that you have received no posts. I'm discovering that most of the individuals who do post lack in patriotrisim.
they want everything that our nation can provide but are unwilling to sacrifice for these possessions.
I see alot of these so-called Americans traveling in there expensive SUVs on there way to LosVegas and living in there gateded communities. I'm just an average Joe American who at one time fought for this nation and allowed these individuals the fruits of there labor.
If it were not for individuals like the MSGT and thousands of other military members our nation and our way of life would not have endured.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 05:07 PM
link   
I would say that sums it up quite correctly....Semper Fi!!!!

The enemy fails to realize that when they continue their barbarity they might
make the meek cry "get out of there, it's our fault this is happening", but
there is also the warrior mentality the MSgt so ably explained and I would not be surprised if these criminals have a chance to see these WARRIORS in the not too distant future.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Not a bad letter at all. I was a Marine and I have a lot of respect for my brothers who fight in Iraq. At the same time, I think it needs to be pointed out that this letter speaks much more to Americans than to terrorists. It reads like a propagandist chainletter more than a true message to the terrorists. That suits me fine though. Our fellow Americans are the ones we need to be talking to. A simple pull of the trigger will suffice for our enemies.
I hate to question a patriotic statement, but it was in fact pretty partisan, and somebody had to state the facts.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Yes, this letter is very interesting, and deserves more reads. At one point I had thought about joining the marines and was very serious about it. I am an advocate of freedom as allowed under the natural law, not US law. But I decided not to join because I wouldn't want the US jerking me around. I'd fight for the people any day. But for the lying in the administration, I don't think so. It's good to liberate people, but there is the question of the WMDs and the actual threat of Iraq to Americans. In Iraq, I believe we are fighting for them directly, and the US indirectly to prevent anything that may pose a problem in Iraq for the future.
I don't understand the wrath of God thing, because the terrorists believe the same thing - that they will impose the wrath of God on the infedels, just seems kind of stupid.
And do the Marines really expect a handful of terrorists to show their faces before a large portion of the US Army, thats an automatic death sentence. Its not surprising the terrorists use guerilla tactics, thats the only way they can be effective. If they were cowards, they wouldn't be fighting at all!

I just wonder if someone can define patriotism, becuase in my book, the unpatriotic are those who just don't care and try to subvert our war of life. But the people who post who you may think are unpatriotic are mad that our leaders lied to us, established Unconstitutional laws, that our citizens/brother/sisters/parents are getting killed in Iraq, and of course the devastation of 9/11. The first two is not what this country was founded on, the third is questioned as to whether we needed to over there, and the last is anger at how this could have happened.
So you see, these people want to return America to what it really stood for. How can you call them unpatriotic? They care about this country as much as anyone and want it to be their Utopia. Once again, the unpatriotic are the indifferent and those who try to COERCE the government in getting their way.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by SIRR1[/i

You, on the other hand, are nothing but a bunch of women. If you were men you would show your faces, and take us on in a fair fight. Instead, you are cowards who hide behind masks and decapitate helpless victims.


This is so true. They are nothing but cowards hiding behind their masks. Have you seen a picture of Zarqawi without his beard and "headress"? He looks like a pathetic school teacher. (No offense to teachers!) He only is a "man" when he holds an innocent, helpless person and has a sword or gun and his MASK! COWARD!!!!



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 09:58 PM
link   
As the wife of a Korean/Viet Nam era Marine, I have to add my "Semper Fi"

Joey
He's a lot older than me LOL



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 11:09 PM
link   
My father fought in Korea.

I have friends who were in Granada, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.

Too true that we are a soft country.

And our borders are so indefensible.

I just hope that one day, before it is too late, we decide to remove all the freebies we extend to foreign "students" that we will not even provide our own citizens, just to see them here at school in the U.S. cheering to pictures of 9-11, as we pay for their housing, schooling, and business start-ups.

When the plans were discovered that illustrated there were attacks planned for California and other sites as well on 9-11, I could'nt help but wonder how views in the "Far Left State" would have changed had these people lost loved ones also.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by SIRR1
You, on the other hand, are nothing but a bunch of women. If you were men you would show your faces, and take us on in a fair fight.


I know some women who would love to kick al-Zarqawi's arse - and will do it too, given half a chance.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by DirkPitt2004
My father fought in Korea.

I have friends who were in Granada, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.

Too true that we are a soft country.

And our borders are so indefensible.

I just hope that one day, before it is too late, we decide to remove all the freebies we extend to foreign "students" that we will not even provide our own citizens, just to see them here at school in the U.S. cheering to pictures of 9-11, as we pay for their housing, schooling, and business start-ups.

When the plans were discovered that illustrated there were attacks planned for California and other sites as well on 9-11, I could'nt help but wonder how views in the "Far Left State" would have changed had these people lost loved ones also.



Yea, lets get rid of all the foreigners because there awl baaad, mm kay. Give me a break, no one likes to see people die. What kind of foreigners in the US are cheering to 9/11 pictures? And how do you equate the far left state with supporting the actions of 9/11? I really do not understand what the hell you are talking about.


What makes people soft in this country? That they have nice things like most other people. That they don't want to see people die needlessly (prove to me Saddam was a direct and immediate threat to the US)?

Oh no, I get it now, all of you believe that if you are not over fighting in a war, then they should stay at home and shut the hell up about the war...Well, you know what, someone who is soft wouldn't say a word. These people actually have the balls to stand and tell you straight to your face, "I do not believe in this war"



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
What makes people soft in this country? That they have nice things like most other people. That they don't want to see people die needlessly (prove to me Saddam was a direct and immediate threat to the US)?


There are a lot of people who don't understand this, and I'm not sure I can explain it to anyone who hasn't gone through an experience that took them from being soft and changed them. For me, the experience was a 3 months stay at "hotel hell", Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego.
I consider many people to be soft because they have so much difficulty accepting harsh reality. They can not made a painful decision and stick to it. They do not easily overcome a probelm and move on. They do not look far enough beyond comfort and safety, or individualism. They do not DENY IGNORANCE of the hard issues in reality, and they will not maintain a difficult position on those issues, but instead they indulge in the fantasy of quick fixes, which although they do not work, allow that individual to go on in safety, ignorant of the problem which continues to ravage others.
Before my drill instructors introduced me to hard standards, nobody really pressed me over a mistake- I could shrug it off and ignore it and do it again. I could be lazy, shirk responsibility, and shrink away from the consequences as well. I could live in a self-destructive way, and nobody would question me. I could focus on myself and not think about other people.
Once Drill Instructor Gunnery Sergeant Houchins got his hands on me, a mistake would go away until I learned from it and was DETERMINED never to make it again. There was no escape from work and responsibility, and I learned that it's easiest to just get it done right. I was forced to take care of myself, and I found that I like it. Most importantly, I learned that it wasn't just about my own comfort- because everything I did affected 72 other recruits instantly and directly. The principles of bootcamp reflect the world as a whole, and that is why Marines (although they do not hold a monopoly on the trait) are strong and effective, while the general population is not necessarily so.

This brings us to the justification of the Iraq war. Saddam didn't need to be a direct threat to America. That's a pretty tall order to fill. Who can be a direct threat to the most powerful nation on Earth? Saddam was a POTENTIAL threat, and he was LOOKING for ways TO BECOME a threat. He was a direct threat to Kuwait, to the Kurdish people, To the Shi'ites, To Israel. He was a plague on his people- For his sake they starved and stagnated, because his government could not be trusted with money! Who favored Saddam? Bin Laden didn't. The majority of Iraq didn't. Kuwaitis didn't. Most governments in the region, save for the Ba'ath regime in Syria, didn't. Those who wished to do legitimate business with Iraq didn't. But Germany, France, and Russia DID. The UN, which is increasingly becoming exposed for massive corruption, DID. Only those who were involved in illegal and immoral deals which deprived the Iraqi people of the revenue from their own oil were in support of Sadam. No strong person, who is willing to forsake the ease and comfort of peace and profit for the JUSTICE of restoring Iraq's wealth to its people and removing this threat from the world, could fail to see the merits of the war in Iraq. No soft person could fail to prefer peace, and continued profit through corruption.
The war on Iraq IS NOT pure. There have been coverups of great wrongs, including US and Soviet arms dealing from the cold war, US and Soviet involvement in the Iraq-Iran war, secret conflicts of interest and injust awarding of contracts especially involving Dick Cheney, botched planning, and errors in judgement, among others. These things are open to criticism, and hopefully subject to justice- Especially that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld should be removed from their offices. These facts are not, however, a valid arguement against the removal of Saddam itself.



Well, you know what, someone who is soft wouldn't say a word. These people actually have the balls to stand and tell you straight to your face, "I do not believe in this war"


A soft person would say MANY words. Who, no matter how soft, would fail to speak up when their comfort was at stake? It is the stance they take that makes them soft. The fact that they take a stance at all does not mean they aren't soft, it simply means they aren't comatose.
That being said, these people DONT have the balls to make their case to my face. They look terrified, they accuse me of wanting to kill for pleasure, and they take their leave of me without offering an intelligent arguement. Believe me, I've tried to get a straight answer out of these people. If you want to embarrass a peace-nik, go up to him when he's in a group of 3 or less discussing this issue, and pin him down on the issue. He'll fall apart, and if his friends don't come to his rescue (which they probably won't) you'll never get an answer.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 07:21 PM
link   


This brings us to the justification of the Iraq war. Saddam didn't need to be a direct threat to America. That's a pretty tall order to fill. Who can be a direct threat to the most powerful nation on Earth? Saddam was a POTENTIAL threat, and he was LOOKING for ways TO BECOME a threat. He was a direct threat to Kuwait, to the Kurdish people, To the Shi'ites, To Israel. He was a plague on his people- For his sake they starved and stagnated, because his government could not be trusted with money! Who favored Saddam? Bin Laden didn't. The majority of Iraq didn't. Kuwaitis didn't. Most governments in the region, save for the Ba'ath regime in Syria, didn't. Those who wished to do legitimate business with Iraq didn't. But Germany, France, and Russia DID. The UN, which is increasingly becoming exposed for massive corruption, DID. Only those who were involved in illegal and immoral deals which deprived the Iraqi people of the revenue from their own oil were in support of Sadam. No strong person, who is willing to forsake the ease and comfort of peace and profit for the JUSTICE of restoring Iraq's wealth to its people and removing this threat from the world, could fail to see the merits of the war in Iraq. No soft person could fail to prefer peace, and continued profit through corruption.
The war on Iraq IS NOT pure. There have been coverups of great wrongs, including US and Soviet arms dealing from the cold war, US and Soviet involvement in the Iraq-Iran war, secret conflicts of interest and injust awarding of contracts especially involving Dick Cheney, botched planning, and errors in judgement, among others. These things are open to criticism, and hopefully subject to justice- Especially that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld should be removed from their offices. These facts are not, however, a valid arguement against the removal of Saddam itself.


That's not my point. My point is that there would not have been the support there was for war if we were told up front that Saddam was not a major threat. We were manipulated by 9/11 and fed the lie that Saddam would be targeting US interests.
What you are talking about is a totally different thing. Your reason is to bring stability to the Middle East. That was an underlying cause overshadowed by Bush's intent to garner support for the war by establishing a direct threat.
My idealogy is not to rush into war so fast. We should have exhausted diplomatic relations and carried out special ops. We went in there with a full ground invasion and dropped bombs all over Iraq. There seems to be this great concern about not assinating dictators, but none for respecting the Geneva conventions. So anyway, I think we are on the same page about that.



A soft person would say MANY words. Who, no matter how soft, would fail to speak up when their comfort was at stake? It is the stance they take that makes them soft. The fact that they take a stance at all does not mean they aren't soft, it simply means they aren't comatose.
That being said, these people DONT have the balls to make their case to my face. They look terrified, they accuse me of wanting to kill for pleasure, and they take their leave of me without offering an intelligent arguement. Believe me, I've tried to get a straight answer out of these people. If you want to embarrass a peace-nik, go up to him when he's in a group of 3 or less discussing this issue, and pin him down on the issue. He'll fall apart, and if his friends don't come to his rescue (which they probably won't) you'll never get an answer.


But see once again, I do not understand how you can consider people against the war soft. They are either misguided, or don't believe enough in the cause to fight (or the Administration), or both. As far as people that are peaceful, you can sure change how peaceful some of them are by threatening them with injury or life.
It seems you are trying to portray soft people as having fear as well; I can tell you, there are a lot of peaceful (religious) people that aren't afraid of dying yet they would let you throw them around without fighting back.

Yes, there are people who will call you names and then run away frightened, OK, they are soft, but the way some people like to portray soft people is ludicrous. Once again, misguided, don't believe (cause/administration), or both.

[edit on 29-6-2004 by Jamuhn]



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Just in case anyone was curious, that e-mail was wriiten by author and retired Marine, Alex Bufalo. He is available for hire for speaking engagements at schools, churches, company motivation, etc.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
That's not my point. My point is that there would not have been the support there was for war if we were told up front that Saddam was not a major threat.


I agree! A large portion of the population WOULD NOT support a war simply because it saved untold thousands from torture and targeting by chemical weapons, as was done to the kurds. A large portion of the population would not take on the unpleasantry of war to restore Iraq to its people and make it possible to improve the wretched conditions which were caused by sanctions designed to render Saddam harmless.
You make my point for me. American people are soft, because they will not take the difficult right over the easy wrong!



What you are talking about is a totally different thing. Your reason is to bring stability to the Middle East.


No, my reason is to ensure the freedom of the Kurds and Shi'ites in Iraq, and relieve the poverty which sanctions to control Saddam brought on that whole country. Another reason is to prevent Saddam from instigating a war with Israel which could take thousands of lives on both sides. "regional stability" is a synonym for opening oil lines. There is oil in afghanistan, and in Alaska for that matter, and the US has the technical expertise to KILL the petroleum market in a decade or so if we devoted resources to it. So can you really argue that I'm about "regional security", when friends of mine (and for a time myself) were the ones who would be fighting for it, when it was not even important?



My idealogy is not to rush into war so fast. We should have exhausted diplomatic relations and carried out special ops. We went in there with a full ground invasion and dropped bombs all over Iraq. There seems to be this great concern about not assinating dictators, but none for respecting the Geneva conventions. So anyway, I think we are on the same page about that.


I agree with you there. A full ground invasion should have been preceeded by 10 years of sanctions, diplomacy, limited precision bombing, etc. Oh wait...


Yes, we are violating a treaty which is intended to ensure humane conduct between nations. I thought that was a given... we're talking about war remember? The Geneva conventions should be seen as general guidelines to be followed in the absence of extenuating circumstances. War can't be made humane, but it can be brought to an end by exploiting every advantage, even prisoners.



They are either misguided, or don't believe enough in the cause to fight (or the Administration), or both.


Misguided! Excellent point! They don't believe in the cause enough to fight: obviously so. That's what makes them soft! They won't take a stand against what is obviously wrong, and which they openly admit was wrong, and even deserved to be removed. The administration... BINGO! There is the major cause: politics! War is a very controversial subject, as it should be (The motives must always be examined, because war is not desirable to anyone) and it can be easily used for political purposes. Bill Clinton used force against Saddam too. Most Democrat politicians didn't want to stop the war in my humble opinion. They wanted to oppose Bush and see the good deed done anyway. Afterward they could take Bush down over it and reap political gains while continuing the job on their own terms. Win win for the left, but it required the APPEARANCE of being soft and of being corrupt perhaps. Many of their constituents actually ARE soft though, so this did not have a negative effect.



It seems you are trying to portray soft people as having fear as well; I can tell you, there are a lot of peaceful (religious) people that aren't afraid of dying yet they would let you throw them around without fighting back.


I'm not saying that "soft" people are always physical cowards. I observe that the soft segments of American society are not willing to give nor to gamble. They horde, because they seem to be afraid of adversity or disharmony of any kind. Let them be warned that we often lose what we love the most. Those who refuse to work may never retire. Those who refuse to fight may be murdered. Those who refuse risk loss can never collect winnings.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 02:24 PM
link   
i think the terrorist cut or decapitated the wrong head they should consider another head how about that

okays let be serious here.most of the muslim a straight to jihad follow the order of ALLAH or GOD.compare to the JAP in ww2 is much deferrence they only follow their own majesty so when their own king surrender without any question and most of all the JAP ARMY lose in spirit.
so back to the muslim they want to waste a time here the more they doing jihad is much more better. like now a days the more USA invest in war the more dollar in thousand or million they will get paid you konw by who

p/s think propely here dont make a mistake again or else



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 03:15 PM
link   


So can you really argue that I'm about "regional security", when friends of mine (and for a time myself) were the ones who would be fighting for it, when it was not even important?


But that doesn't mean all the troops aren't misguided or don't believe in it. I don't know every single troop over there so I can't speak in generalities as you do.

Your assertion is that we should have gone over there to save these people, i.e.stability. OK, but I don't understand how you can call the people who don't believe in the war soft if they believe it simply is not our problem. Because after all, it is not our problem. But, recently we have been picking and choosing which genocides we wish to stop. Other genocides exist in the world by the way. Many of the people you consider soft would drop everything they are doing and fight in a heart beat if we were under attack. Just because you believe in solving other people's plight doesn't mean those who don't agree with you are soft.
All the banners I have seen saying God Bless Our Troops have another slogan on them. Freedom Isn't Free. What does this imply? That we are securing our own freedom. But in reality, as you say, we are going over there to free those people. How many people know this about the war? Yet, you wouldn't call them soft because they blindly follow your side.



Yes, we are violating a treaty which is intended to ensure humane conduct between nations.


Except not the one I'm talking about, taking out the dictators and administration and establishing stability with less forces. It's not like the CIA hasn't engineered coup d'etats in the past! If it fails, we know about the current chem attacks that would have happened and everyone is happy with the war's justification. That's the only way it could fail, is if bio weapons were used again. Oh, so you'll say, we'll send innocents to their death. Well, the people dying would be soldiers, rather than the sleeping families killed with bombs. And even if they didn't fail, rather when they start fighting, we go in there to stabilize the region. But all in all I am mad Bush is manipulating our fears from 9/11.

And oil, ok, so we need the oil, good justification, instead of paying for it, we steal it, nice. First you talk about helping out the Iraqi citizens, but then its ok to steal what's theirs. Oh, but they will get the oil pipelines back one day, oh, when is that, or will brown and root's Iraqi subsidiary manage it because Iraq won't nationalize it...



I observe that the soft segments of American society are not willing to give nor to gamble. They horde, because they seem to be afraid of adversity or disharmony of any kind. Let them be warned that we often lose what we love the most. Those who refuse to work may never retire. Those who refuse to fight may be murdered. Those who refuse risk loss can never collect winnings.


There you go generalizing again. I agree that there are too many SUV gas-guzzling drivers out there. But its just too easy to generalize people like you seem to be doing. The fact is, you go on your experiences and try to portray them as absolute truth, when in fact, they are far from it...

I do see where you are coming from and I think a better word would be "selfish," maybe I'm just particularly touchy about the soft thing. Like McFly and chicken...

[edit on 30-6-2004 by Jamuhn]



posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 03:58 AM
link   


But that doesn't mean all the troops aren't misguided or don't believe in it. I don't know every single troop over there so I can't speak in generalities as you do.


Our troops volunteered to fight for their country. Most of the troops I have known understand what this means. I certainly understood what it meant. Nobody ever made any mystery of it to us. As a matter of fact, my senior drill instructor told us which of us he thought would die in Iraq. Let's not push the issue off on "our poor troops". It's disappointing that they aren't a little meaner sometimes, but they're mean enough.. they can cope.



Your assertion is that we should have gone over there to save these people, i.e.stability. OK, but I don't understand how you can call the people who don't believe in the war soft if they believe it simply is not our problem. Because after all, it is not our problem. But, recently we have been picking and choosing which genocides we wish to stop. Other genocides exist in the world by the way. Many of the people you consider soft would drop everything they are doing and fight in a heart beat if we were under attack.


I continue to object to terming life and liberty as "stability". As I have pointed out, stability is a common synonym for "the ability to buy their oil", and that is not my interest. That phrasing is deceptive and subverts the true aim of my arguement.
I am aware there are other genocides, and if you wish to make those the subject, I BELIVE THEY SHOULD BE STOPPED. I believe the UN should be helping us enthusiastically, but I believe that about Iraq as well. I know it's not our problem. If it was OUR problem, then even soft people would fight it. My point has nothing to do with "our problems" and everything to do with the right thing to do. A soft person (we can call them selfish if you wish, because that is a very accurate description) will seldom fail to fight when it is good for him, but will not do the right thing when it's uncomfortable for him. That's why I call selfish people soft. I also call them buddyf*ckers... but that's not even a word outside of the marine corps.



All the banners I have seen saying God Bless Our Troops have another slogan on them. Freedom Isn't Free. What does this imply? That we are securing our own freedom. But in reality, as you say, we are going over there to free those people. How many people know this about the war? Yet, you wouldn't call them soft because they blindly follow your side.


I didn't make up those cliches and I don't own those bumper stickers. You'll have to take that up with the economic patriots who import red white and blue bumperstickers from China.
By the way, many of the people who support this war are soft and selfish as well. Those who don't know the troops, don't know the issue, but feel all warm and fuzzy inside that their mighty nation is kicking butt are worse than just selfish- they are ignorant patrons to warmongering. I'm just glad that their ignorance, for the moment, is supporting a decent cause. It's a shame that I know they are sunshine soldiers and fairweather patriots who will shrink from doing the right thing if they lose the perception that it's going well. I'd prefer to have knowing and reasoned support, but I'll stop short of looking a gift horse in the mouth.



Except not the one I'm talking about, taking out the dictators and administration and establishing stability with less forces. It's not like the CIA hasn't engineered coup d'etats in the past!


Not against a firmly established dictatorship who installs his own family at the head of the military. Besides, there was a coup during the gulf war. An Iraqi General told a CIA contact that he would move his division against Saddam, and needed US support. The US didn't respond to their CIA operative in time, so finally the general had to go ahead on his own. he was defeated and forced into exile. Who the hell would turn for us now? Not all wars are grenada. We didn't do this perfectly, but the perfect way actually would have involved MORE troops, but for a shorter time. Your idea wouldn't work.



But all in all I am mad Bush is manipulating our fears from 9/11.


Fair enough. I'm wary of him too, and I outright oppose him on most domestic issues, especially homeland security. To be honest though, if I were president I'd decieve the holy crap out of America to get the right thing done. They'd be calling Nixon "honest rick" (or maybe straight dick, haha) by the time they learned the extent of my BS, but I'd get a hell of a lot done!



And oil, ok, so we need the oil, good justification, instead of paying for it, we steal it, nice. First you talk about helping out the Iraqi citizens, but then its ok to steal what's theirs. Oh, but they will get the oil pipelines back one day, oh, when is that, or will brown and root's Iraqi subsidiary manage it because Iraq won't nationalize it...


Where did you read that? I never advocated that America should take Iraqi oil. I believe that you have misconstrued a point where I was trying to illustrate that my concern was not "regional stability". I believe that America needs to put Iraqi oil back in the hands of the Iraqi people ASAP. Iraq has plenty of needs, we shouldn't expect to face a tarrif there, so there's plenty of money to be made in free trade without raping them of their oil. This can be a mutally beneficial relationship. I believe that the policy of the United States should be to enable Iraq to nationalize their oil production if they so choose, on extremely favorable terms, so that Iraq can not fail to profit from its oil and grow as a nation. A successful Iraq is worth it's weight in gold to the United States in political perception and influence.



There you go generalizing again. I agree that there are too many SUV gas-guzzling drivers out there. But its just too easy to generalize people like you seem to be doing. The fact is, you go on your experiences and try to portray them as absolute truth, when in fact, they are far from it...


Fair point. I tend to trust my experiences, especially when they reflect a very clear trend in polling and media coverage. I can't claim these reflect society to the last man, but there are many people who hold the same views as the soft/selfish viewpoint would be likely to support, and the arguements behind those views, which appear to be very prominent (in fact they seem to be planks of the democratic platform) exemplify the soft/selfish attitude that I've been talking about. In other words, democrats do not tend to be soft, but softs tend to be democrat, and as it follows that many democrats are soft. That being said, republicans do not tend to be ignorant patrons of warmongering, but ignorant patrons of warmongering tend to be republican... (and they too are a breed of softies.)

Stereotypes and generalizations are not all encompassing, but sometimes they are born of observation.



posted on Sep, 21 2004 @ 09:33 AM
link   
This is just my opinion. First they (Al Abu Musab al-Zarqawi) were fighting against the Soviet Union for oil. And the U.S. were helping them. Now all of a sudden when they defeat the Soviets, they are fighting against the same people who trained them. I think it's all about oil. We are suppose to protect this country. Not waste precious lives on liberating another country who don't want to be liberated. Lets face it. The majority of them hate us. Saddam may have killed his own people true enough. He was a beast. But he did have it stable. Sometimes it's necessary to kill to bring peace.

I believe all people are created equal. No life is more precious than the other. The Iraqis are fighting for what they believe in and America is fighting for what they believe in. G-d is the Judge. He knows our intentions. The life that I feel more sorrowful for is the women and children who are caught up in the middle of all of this. They have no weapons, they just die for trying to live in peace.

G-d hates a prideful boaster whoever he/she may be.

G-d bless all the righteous...

Peace



posted on Sep, 21 2004 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by SIRR1
Corporal Wassef Ali Hassoun is not alone as he kneels before you. Every Marine who has ever worn the uniform is there with him, and when you strike him you are striking all of us.


SIRR1

Thank you for sharing this letter with all of us at ATS. This one sentence alone should be the sentiments of all Americans. I am grateful and thankful that I was born and raised in a country, where we don't cower to the demands of those who seek to instill fear in our citizens by committing such heinous acts.

It is every man's duty, to protect our citizens who aren't capable of defending themselves. Our women and children should be protected with our lives, so they can carry on the American dream. That dream is to live a life, free from fear, and from any potential threat to take that dream from them. It is better to die, fighting for the principles on which this great nation has been founded, than to live under a constant state of oppression that certain individuals would have us to live.

Throughout our country's history, many a good and brave men, have sacrificed their lives fighting for the rights of not only themselves and those who are living, but the lives of all those yet to be born. Since we are their posterity, we, as men should be willing to sacrifice our lives, for the rights of our children and our children's children, and pray that they do the same when faced with the same circumstances that generations before us was faced with and the same circumstances that we're faced with today.

I, for one would love to see the day, when the enemies of our country are not only destroyed, but their ideology is destroyed along with them. Our brave Marines and Soldiers do the things they do, not to be heroes or adventurists, but for duty and nothing more. Praise God for our Armed Forces and their "tempered by fire" courage.

Again SIRR1, thank you for sharing this letter with all of us. There will be those who appeciate it and the scumbags that who ridicule it. It's just a pity that good men are willing to go to war to fight for the rights of these scumbags, and not to seek anything in return, but the knowledge that they have given their all so they can live a peaceful life.

[edit on 21/9/04 by Intelearthling]



posted on Sep, 21 2004 @ 12:13 PM
link   
I'm tired of getting called un-American for not agreeing with America's foreign policy. I guess I could expand on that, but it's a tiresome argument.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join