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.

 

Here is your war on Terrorism ! America !

page: 17
28
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 02:57 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


That goes for every sf. Maybe you were a tool...Doesn't mean every other personnel is.




posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 

Oh, I can guess some of the potential objectives - same ones pursued by armies since the first recorded battle at Megiddo.

Hunting or killing. Intelligence or action. Tracking or interception.

Ambush or meeting engagement.

Occasional bits of action, with lots and lots of waiting in between.

Nothing's changed for a soldier!



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 03:03 AM
link   
reply to post by MarineSniper12Kills
 

Of course we were tools, as they spent one bit ****load of money training each of us.

We were assets. Assets to be used as required.

But we were triple volunteers. We were never "sent," as much as "needed." No one ever bitched, complained, moaned, whined, or whimpered. We knew what we were.

Without bragging, the sharpest tools in the toolbox.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by MarineSniper12Kills
reply to post by spy66
 


That goes for every sf. Maybe you were a tool...Doesn't mean every other personnel is.


Well that is just it. If you are employed by the Government, which your if you serve in the Army. You are a tool. You have a government job to do.

We also did a lot of jobs for the UN in Africa and Asia. The UN is a political institution with political goals and ambitions.

You can look at this as if we were rented out to the UN to do a job. We where rented/hired because of our membership in NATO. And the UN uses NATO resources a lot.
I first noticed this when Norwagian SF and SAS helped UN negotiators, negotiate peace talks in Yugoslavia. Yes, Norwegian SF/Combat Divers and the SAS where the UN protectors. I was not a part of this because i was still specializing.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


Would any person who signed up for the military expected to be anything but a "Tool"? Maybe that is where people are confused, so I will explain. When you sign up for military service you are required to carry out the orders given to you (period). A person in the military does not have the viable option to think for them selves, YOU MUST CARRY OUT THE ORDERS GIVEN TO YOU, regardless of you opinion of the orders (unless they are unlawful witch is another thread). If a person chooses not to carry out the order given they will disciplined, I.E.. Loose rank (Loose money), be restricted to quarters (like jail) and be set back in their career. Remember that most of the military members have family's that would be affected by the choices of the member that is in the military.

So someone who is not in the military please explain to me how not to be a "Tool" while in the military...



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by FarArcher
 


Hehe true. I guess in that aspect I AM a tool. At the same time like you said, yes they used us....but we are more than happy to do it.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Yes I do know what the RoE is. Perhaps not all people use it to describe the justification for war.


"Perhaps not all people"? RoE is the rules soldiers have to obey to engage, not the factors a nation weighs in going to war. It's a military thing, created and used by individual militaries, not a civilian thing used by politicians in making decisions.



Let me make it clear. Iraq did not attack the US. It did not threaten the US. In fact, it was threatened by the US into dismantling its few defensive weapons that could actually give them a chance to fight... but the US ignored their own deal and invaded anyway, with UN condemnation.


Yes, let's make it clear. I never said anywhere that Iraq attacked the US. If you say it didn't threaten, then you have a pretty short memory, or were too young at the time to recognize what was gong on. Saddam was making all sorts of threats. Most of those I personally considered to be pretty hollow, just a lot of crap-talking, but I don't make the decisions on how to react to threats for the US. Saddam was in fact trying to run a bluff, and got called on it.

If you think for a second that Saddam ever HAD a "chance to fight" against the US, you are incredibly naieve.

Not sure what sort of "deal" you claim the US ignored, but a UN condemnation of anything at all, plus a dollar and thirty cents, will buy a cup of coffee at McDonalds. It appears that several other countries ignored that purported "condemnation" as well, so I say again, the UN is a failure and it's time to disband it.



How did Iraq provoke the US?


Already stated above - Saddam's threats, his recalcitrance in allowing weapons inspectors in until he could see the handwriting on the wall and it was already too late, etc. As I sad before, I don't think that was provocation enough, but that might be why I never went into politics.



And the war was not poorly thought out. The American government (Bush regime) knew exactly what they were doing; they even started planning the whole middle east strategy in the 90s, starting with the PNAC forum. I guess since they did not take their chance to invade Iran or North Korea yet, the plan has been put on hold in order for American strategists to regroup and re-plan how to take over rival interests in Asia.


Well now, I suppose that's really a matter of opinion, and so I'll re-state mine: It was poorly thought out, a strategic error that divided the forces between two fronts and took the focus off of Afghanistan where it rightfully belonged. I also think that the Iraq invasion was nothing more than Bush trying to salve his wounded pride when he saw a chance, however slim, to try to make excuses for an invasion to finish what his daddy couldn't.



As for civilians and enemy combatants... Well, I ask you, how many of these "enemy combatants" would still be civilians if their was no American invasion of the Middle East?


Tell me where and when you think they were picked up, and I'll answer that for you. Be advised, however, that I may wind up setting the matter straight in regards to where and when you think that happened.



They are not trained soldiers, they are rebels resisting against occupation.


Depends on how you define "trained" and "soldier" I suppose. I can't think of any stretch of the imagination that would classify them as "rebels", however. I can't get any deeper into that line of thought until I find out where and when you think they were picked up, though.



They are the direct result of American invasion and tactics that have killed many of the rebels' friends and families. It is American hostility that has flared up terrorism and rebellion among the occupied countries.


No, they aren't, and it's that very statement that makes me question where and when you think they were picked up.



And by no way is it fair for the Americans to capture rebels that are fighting them, and shipping them around to world to live out indefinite sentences in cement cells without trial. The UN and many different countries tried to establish an international court for this very purpose, to represent rebels in a fair manner, but the US has done everything it can to delay this prospect just so their own commanders do not end up in trial.


Of course it's fair, and what's more, it's legal. Third Geneva Convention, Part I, Article 4.

The detention is indefinite because the duration of any given war is not scheduled. They should be released when the war for which they are being held as POWs is over. That's what makes it indefinite. As I said before, POWs are not afforded "trials". They are not civilian "criminals", who would be due a trial.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I spoke from personal experiance. I entered the Norwegian Navy in 1991 as a Combat Diver. Was in Afghanistan 98 because of Osama Bin Laden. Oman October 2001. Afghanistan December 2001 to march 2002. I resigned as a Combat Diver on the 27th of July 2004. I have never wanted to be in the Army again after.


Then you of all people should be aware that you are talking out of your 4th point of contact in applying blanket statements to all soldiers involved in a conflict. You of all people should know that every man fights his own war, for his own reasons, and none of the rest of us get to second guess or impute reasoning to someone else.

I'd ask you what in the devil you were doing in Afghanistan in '98, but then you'd ask me why I was there in '83, and we'd be at an impasse. I'd also ask what a combat diver was doing in a land-locked country, but I've never quite understood the rationale behind sending SEALs into the desert either, so I'd likely not be able to comprehend an answer at all, and ain't really sure I'd want one.

Now, at the beginning, you said you were in the Norwegian Navy as a Combat Diver, but then go on to say that you never again wanted to be in the Army after you resigned, so that by itself confuses me. Navy or Army? I must say that either way it's a really civil military that will let you just quit. Only officers get that luxury here. The rest have to serve their contracted time out.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 03:29 AM
link   
I don't have a dog in this fight.....

edit on 4-1-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I spoke from personal experiance. I entered the Norwegian Navy in 1991 as a Combat Diver. Was in Afghanistan 98 because of Osama Bin Laden. Oman October 2001. Afghanistan December 2001 to march 2002. I resigned as a Combat Diver on the 27th of July 2004. I have never wanted to be in the Army again after.


Now, at the beginning, you said you were in the Norwegian Navy as a Combat Diver, but then go on to say that you never again wanted to be in the Army after you resigned, so that by itself confuses me. Navy or Army? I must say that either way it's a really civil military that will let you just quit. Only officers get that luxury here. The rest have to serve their contracted time out.


I said that because the Navy is a part of the Army. It was a figure of expression.

When it comes to my contract. My contract is not like a US contract. I have different rights. The US standard is not a world standard. I am acquired to serve my country not the US.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by mileysubet
reply to post by FarArcher
 


The navy does not have combat divers, with the exception of Navy Seals. Although the seals do have support divers whom might be considered "combat" divers, although they rarely ever take place in actually combat situations.


Although the poster was in the Norwegian Army, I would guess that they have a equivalent type of set up.
edit on 4-1-2011 by mileysubet because: (no reason given)


Don't forget the Navy UDTs. They'd be very cross with you for forgetting them!



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by mileysubet
reply to post by FarArcher
 


The navy does not have combat divers, with the exception of Navy Seals. Although the seals do have support divers whom might be considered "combat" divers, although they rarely ever take place in actually combat situations.


Although the poster was in the Norwegian Army, I would guess that they have a equivalent type of set up.
edit on 4-1-2011 by mileysubet because: (no reason given)


Don't forget the Navy UDTs. They'd be very cross with you for forgetting them!


There are two different units with Combat divers in Norway. MJK and FSK.

Norway also have other units of divers, who do mine clearing, under water ship inspections and coastal help assistance.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

I said that because the Navy is a part of the Army. It was a figure of expression.

When it comes to my contract. My contract is not like a US contract. I have different rights. The US standard is not a world standard. I am acquired to serve my country not the US.



Although I am acutely aware that contracts differ around the world, or indeed sometimes within the same government, I was not aware of the contracts incumbent on Norwegian soldiers, or the organization of the Norwegian military, and so I stand corrected. Thank you for clearing that up for me.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by spy66

I said that because the Navy is a part of the Army. It was a figure of expression.

When it comes to my contract. My contract is not like a US contract. I have different rights. The US standard is not a world standard. I am acquired to serve my country not the US.



Although I am acutely aware that contracts differ around the world, or indeed sometimes within the same government, I was not aware of the contracts incumbent on Norwegian soldiers, or the organization of the Norwegian military, and so I stand corrected. Thank you for clearing that up for me.


No problem.

What most people get wrong about a contacts is when different units do different jobs. If our unit do a job for the UN our government first set the restrictions on what the UN can use us for. If we do a job with SAS or US delta or who ever. We work under the same restrictions. If the restrictions dont meet our governments agreement we might not participate in the specific operations.

The reason for that is political. Because if the SHTF and the operation becomes public knowledge. It also becomes a political problem. Not just for the UN but for our political party in office as well. The apposition at home will ask questions and stage them publicly for everyone to see, what we have been up to behind peoples backs.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 05:17 AM
link   
While the last few pages have been illuminating and slightly on topic, a return to the OP might be called for:


The Guardian plotted every death in Iraq on a map through data from the Wikileaks Iraq war logs.

Wikileaks released almost 400,000 classified US documents about the Iraq war. The war logs suggest evidence of torture was ignored, and detail the deaths of thousands of Iraqi civilians. The logs show there were more than 109,000 violent deaths between 2004 and the end of 2009. They included 66,081 civilians, 23,984 people classed as enemy, 15,196 members of the Iraqi security forces and 3,771 coalition troops.


healthmap.wordpress.com...



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 05:43 AM
link   
the war monster (JewS army) has to be kept busy killing others
so they don't topple all the farts in DC
imagine generals driving taxis

reply to post by Nephi1337
 



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 06:48 AM
link   
Without reading more of this thread than the title:

I am starting to take some offense at way people point out stuff and say America ...I guess if you were addressing congress or something like that it would be ok but on a forum like this you are obviously addressing the individual citizens of said country. It implies that all, or even a majority of those individual citizens ( or perhaps the majority those that might read what you say), are somehow either in agreement with or have some control of the event(S) or ideas in question. This is a fallacy and obviously intended to do nothing but provoke anger and arguments. Really enough of this.. You could perhaps put things like a question ...Are the citizens of America aware of and supporting X ?



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   
The reason they are still over there is simple, money. War is very profitable to the people who run it. Like the bush family. They own a bunch of munitions plants. They`re making millions every year on this war. Greed as always played a major part in the US occupation of the middle east. It started in the early 50`s and still going on now. As for all the deaths, ok this might shock people but there was less violence and war when Saddam was alive. Ok he was murderer, a theif, a psychopath and many other things but he was not a fool. He kept a tight leash on what was happening in his region. When he died it was a free for all for who wanted power in that region. And who might that be?



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by phatpackage
reply to post by christina-66
 




It is an illegal invasion and occupation.


Innocent until proven guilty in a credible court of law with the correct jurisdiction! Until then your statement is "Dis-Information"!


Tell that to all of the "enemy combatants" that the US has captured and now imprisons indefinitely without real trials or crimes.


What part of the phrase "enemy combatants" has you all dazed and confused? Where in that phrase do you see "criminal" or "court-worthy"?

I guess what I'm asking here is what makes you think enemy combatants rate court procedures, as if they were picked up by the police for court processing?


'During conflict, punishment for violating the laws of war may consist of a specific, deliberate and limited violation of the laws of war in reprisal.

Soldiers who break specific provisions of the laws of war lose the protections and status afforded as prisoners of war, but only after facing a "competent tribunal" (GC III Art 5). At that point they become an unlawful combatant but they must still be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial", because they are still covered by GC IV Art 5.'


UN Resolution 1441

'10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the
IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information
related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on
Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to
be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to
be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and
the IAEA;
11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General
of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with
inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament
obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;
12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance
with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for
full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure
international peace and security;
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that
it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its
obligations;
14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.'


It was the wording at paragraph 13 that was used to claim the invasion was legal. 'Serious consequences' - those two words in fact.

edit on 4-1-2011 by christina-66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by phatpackage
reply to post by Nephi1337
 


The mighty coalition liberated the Iraqi people from the terrorist enabler Hussein! They also are fighting Al-Quaeda & helping remove this scourge from the Iraqi people! Well then there is the insurgents ..... Don't need to go further .... My point is proven. Don't care what you come back with I am right & you will get the same answers lol lol lol lol!


OK Don't care that you are an enabler to lies.
1) All that crap about Hussein came out when your Pres Bush could not find one weapon of mass destruction. So your so called proven fact was a justification for a big fat lie.
That was proven.
Oh and just for you: na na ni na na LOL and tisk tisk tisk



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join