The real terrorist was me - A US Soldier

page: 17
168
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoverBoy
reply to post by marinesniper0351
 


And talking about a brad pitt movie is on topic here? Lol...nice try. Im just stating a fact, we killed farmers from a country WE invaded. That in the great USofA is what we call terrorism correct? Or does terrorism only apply to muslims who kill americans? Ill ask you again since you didn't tell me the first time, what was your div...btn..rank?


Were those farmers behind the plow in the field when you zapped 'em, or were they trying to kill YOU?

If it was the latter, you didn't kill "farmers", you killed "the enemy", other fighters opposed to you, who would have gladly X'ed YOU out... OR your brothers, OR their OWN civilians. When the bullets fly, farming is not the order of the day, and you're not just looking out for #1 at that point, as some here ARE.




posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Your exactly right. At the same time they were farmers, if we didn't invade their country they wouldnt have had to shoot at us and let their plows down. So yes, it was the enemies shooting at us, but who is the enemy? Of course many were rep guard, but many were civilians wanting their land back.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by LoverBoy
 


ETA: After reading this, it sounds harsh, and I don't mean it to sound so. I just can't find the proper words at the moment, because I'm pretty tired, so I'll let it stand as is. No harshness intended - I don't mean to sound like a smartass, I really DIDN'T know we'd taken any farmland for a permanent US occupation.

They still didn't have to shoot at you and let down the plow. The US wasn't at war with the Iraqi people, they were warring with an Iraqi government that the people claimed an intense dislike of. All of a sudden, farmers were popping up to do battle in defense of Hussein?

So it was my mistake. I didn't know we'd taken any of their land beyond setting up a few bases, which should have reverted when we left. That leaving would have been a damned sight sooner had they not kicked up the fuss they did, which makes me wonder what the real game plan was on their part.

Don't get me wrong, I was against the Iraq war from the beginning, just not for the same reasons everyone else was. I didn't think it was very prudent to open up another front and stretch the troops thinner when Iraq was already pretty much buttoned up north and south. I still believe it was more a matter of Bush's wounded pride more than anything else that got us into Iraq.

Still, once we were there, had the insurgents just let it be, we'd have considered the place pacified and left a whole lot sooner, and then they could have got back to concentrating on killing each other off. THEY knew that, too, so I have to wonder at the strategic goals of picking a fight with us on their part. You know, AQ only had a small pocket up in the mountains to the north east when we went in, and next thing you know, Arabs from all over were pouring in across borders (mainly Syria - the US has traditionally sucked at securing borders, our own included) to join a fight the Iraqi insurgents started, and next thing you know after that, AO in Iraq was born.

I FIRMLY believe there was more to it than simple farmers fighting for stolen farmland, although I'm sure there were some of those in the mix as well.

In the very first insurgency I ever got caught in, the insurgents (we called them "guerrillas" back then) were drafting campesinos, farmers, to do the fighting they didn't have the stomach for (ok, that's really just my irritation at the situation talking - they 'drafted' to fill out numbers they couldn't otherwise get - same as everyone who drafts their soldiers). Sure, I felt for those 'draftees' to a degree, but I'll tell you this - I figured that anyone with the temerity to take a shot at me had the right to duck when I shot back, regardless of their former background.

They could get back to the plow when I did.


edit on 2011/2/15 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I'd reply but it seems to be a circular argument and more a matter of differing opinions on many issues..

Best I just agree to disagree.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


We've been over some of those differing opinions before, and yeah, I'll agree to disagree. If I were in Oz, I'd still buy you a beer. Just because we don't agree on everything it doesn't logically follow that we've got to growl at one another.

We can pick it up another time. I'm not too fresh for the battle right now anyhow!



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


It's refreshing to be able to debate and still stay friends..
Kudos to you mate..



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   
What We Can All Agree On


Originally posted by backinblack
It's refreshing to be able to debate and still stay friends..

The ability for good people to politely disagree on virtually anything is at the heart and soul of what ATS is about.

My deepest thanks to everyone who has been able to discuss this difficult subject with dignity and respect.

You exemplify what I love about our community.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Very moving. It takes courage to speak up against the current.

More power to this brave fellow.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by MarineSniper12Kills
 


You may want to try something that actually helped servicemen that brought home intractable memories from Vietnam: EMPDR - a brief therapy method dicovered in neuro-linguistic programming based on eye movement (EM) and its connection to memories of guilt concerning physical violence...
just a thought...
otherwise I respect you for coming out and saying what you do.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


1st.....your my bud no matter what opinion you hold. I would gladly pick up a rifle for you.

2nd I don't know if you were being sarcastic or what not. We didn't necessarily take their land and build establishments at all. We did destroy their land, farms, and shot their animals for pleasure. It isn't like these people can go to the McDonalds and grab a quarter pounder with extra onion, their farms is their supper. We basically put them in another crap situation like they were already in.
Now I will say I fully supported going in and fighting to liberate them from hussein...even though are govt allowed him to be in power. He's been dead now for awhile, its time to get out. Yes many Iraq's supported us because he murder thousands, but many want us out because A. They were comfortable in their situation because they were not affected, or B. We removed the tyrant, but now have shown our true colors in why we are there STILL, ruining their farms.

Yes I shot when being shot at and of course before I would be shot at. Again it was war like you said. At the same time, if I wouldn't have stepped on their property for whatever reason, I wouldn't have been shot at. If they came on our soil wed shoot them also. What makes them a terrorist and us not?



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghandi
 
Whoops mist this one! Should of Beat the Ideology out of this Coward!
Not that long ago these Cowards would get someone else to shoot them in the foot. This day the "New age Coward" goes home and shoots his mouth off on a Video.
So what did this Coward actually do, other than speculate?

Cowards are always behind you they follow the lead using others as cannon fodder.
What was the Ideology of this coward joining the forces? Didn't have a job so he joined-up but no one told him he had to Shoot and Kill people!
What a lame person. This is actually a confession and should of been called:

"I'm a Coward and am prod of it!"




Zelong.
edit on 15/2/11 by Zelong because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by LastStand
I am in the Army and have served 2 tours in Iraq. That is all I will say about who I am because I am still in. Do I agree with the wars? NO! Do I believe we need to have our men and women there right now? NO! That said we (all service members) raised our right hands and volunteered to serve. We were aware of what we might be called on to do regardless of if we agreed with the politics of it all.
It is unnatural to take a human life that is why from basic training and throughout our careers we are trained with "reflexive" fire. Absolutely after we take a life many of us have a hard time coming to terms with it. I have been there just like you. I had problems just like you. This is what pulled me through it. I was not pulling the trigger for The Poewrs That Be, or the NWO, or for the US military. Neither were you. You were sighting in on and dropping those who would have killed you and your brothers and sisters in arms. You were keeping me safe in the combat zone. You were protecting your fellow Marines as they manuvered and continued the mission.
I have issues with the wars. I am done with the military. After this contract is finished so am I. I will put it all behind me and know I served honorably helping to bring home others who served by my side. God bless you all my brothers and sisters in arms. Do not let the right or wrong s of our government tarnish the honor we have earned with each other.

edit on 2/11/2011 by LastStand because: spelling

Great to hear from a stable Soldier who still remembers and is True to their conviction.
You LastStand, I can call the Silent Warrior but to you, your just a Soldier.

regards and Stay Safe,
Zelong.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoverBoy
reply to post by nenothtu
 


1st.....your my bud no matter what opinion you hold. I would gladly pick up a rifle for you.


Likewise. I'd pick up a rifle or an olive branch for you, depending on what the situation called for.



2nd I don't know if you were being sarcastic or what not.


No, I didn't intend any sarcasm, I took you literally. After I read it, I could see where it could be taken as sarcasm, so that's why I threw in the disclaimer - my addled mind couldn't figure out a way to fix it and take that tone out. Like I said, I was tired.



We didn't necessarily take their land and build establishments at all. We did destroy their land, farms, and shot their animals for pleasure. It isn't like these people can go to the McDonalds and grab a quarter pounder with extra onion, their farms is their supper. We basically put them in another crap situation like they were already in.


I'm not sure how one could destroy the land itself, but farms and the like, the buildings and such, are fairly easily demolished, as is the livestock. If that was done intentionally and before insurgency started, then I can see why they would be ticked off. It would be counter-productive to the stated goals. Someone would have had to give me a damn good logical reason for the order to throw THAT match before I'd comply with it. I can't think of any sort of justification, but there could be one that I'm missing.

If it was done AFTER the insurgents started attacking, that's a whole 'nuther ballgame.



Now I will say I fully supported going in and fighting to liberate them from hussein...even though are govt allowed him to be in power. He's been dead now for awhile, its time to get out. Yes many Iraq's supported us because he murder thousands, but many want us out because A. They were comfortable in their situation because they were not affected, or B. We removed the tyrant, but now have shown our true colors in why we are there STILL, ruining their farms.


You're right, Hussein was our mess to clean up. Had everyone just stayed chilly and let us do that, the following events might have gone differently. As I recall, the insurgency started before we found him - so then we had ANOTHER mess to clean up, as often happens with piss-poor planning.



Yes I shot when being shot at and of course before I would be shot at. Again it was war like you said. At the same time, if I wouldn't have stepped on their property for whatever reason, I wouldn't have been shot at. If they came on our soil wed shoot them also. What makes them a terrorist and us not?


I'm not sure I'd shoot at them right off. Depends on what they SAID they're here for, and if I found that acceptable, then I'd watch what they DO to fulfill that stated mission.

For example, if the Russians airdropped in today, and landed in my yard, and said "we're here to erase your government, we find it to be as oppressive as the Soviet government we lived under for 70 years and we're here to fix that, then we're going back home and leaving you in the lurch to sort out the aftermath. Have a nice day." I'd have to tell them they landed in the wrong yard, head towards the sunrise until they hit an ocean, then turn left and keep going until they saw the Washington Monument, then let 'er rip. If they left then, headed east, it's all good. If they started organizing safaris in MY neighborhood for either people or critters, and no one had yet shot at them there, I guess there would be trouble.

Understand now, that's just my mileage on the situation. Yours or anyone else's may vary. The government we have now isn't much like the one I used to know - and is in fact a LOT closer to the Soviet system that used to be used to scare folks. To be honest, I class the lot of 'em in that category of folks whose eyes I wouldn't piss in if their heads were on fire.

Any oaths I took were not to the US Government - they were to America, which in the final analysis is the land and the people, wrapped in the Constitution as a promise of what ought to be - not a guarantee of what is. If the government wants to ignore the very document which authorizes it, it need not look to me for help.

What we have now is no longer a government of, by, or for the People, so I've no further use for it.

Yeah, there are folks on this planet I really wouldn't lift a finger to assist, I'd just pop some popcorn and watch.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   
I think we pretty much agree on everything. I just looked back and saw where I bombed the hell out of my spelling.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   
This hateful video has been posted by the Left again and again and again. Americans hate their own troops!



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I agree that Saddam needed to go and Afghanistan needed to be freed from Taliban rule..

What I don't believe is that that is the true reason the US chose to single out those two countries or people to help..

I also don't believe it's mere stupidity on the part of the leaders that has caused both conflicts to drag on for so long..

I see it that the US wants perpetual war and access to both lands over a prolonged period...

That's where we differ Neno...



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


I could sort of see some value in Iraq, history wise. After all, that was the cradle of civilization. Oil, not so much. We still pay for it no matter who controls it. Those are just guesses looking from the outside in, though, since I've never been there.

Afghanistan is a different story. I saw absolutely NOTHING there that was worth carting across the border. It's my understanding that our goal there wasn't to "help the Afghans" but instead to crush the Taliban (a horribly botched job, that). Had we wanted to help Afghans, the time for that would have been starting in the summer of 1989, and we wouldn't have needed troops for it.

The only things I brought back from Afghanistan were a Russian Ushanka and a Russian sniper's oversuit in an odd camo pattern taken out of a rucksack. Not finessed, it looks like it was printed on burlap, but the material is softer, like cotton. That was ALL I cared to carry away from Afghanistan, and neither item was from there. Nor did I see anywhere anything anyone else would want. I just can't see the value of a planned long-term US presence there.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Afghanistan is rich in rare earth minerals such as lithium..
Those will be more valuable than oil with current electronic trends..
There's also the drug trade though you are probably loathe to believe the Government is involved..
As for oil, yes there is some but it's more a case of access through pipelines that's the issue..

edit: But saying we still pay for the oil is not the point..
It's the ones running the companies that profit from war spending, resources and rebuilding that are pushing these wars..
Of course the poor tax payer gets nothing but higher taxes..
edit on 15-2-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Regarding the Lithium - could be. I can recognize veins of coal, iron ore, and uranium ore, since that's mostly whats found were I come from, but I wouldn't know lithium dirt if it jumped out and bit me. Therefore it's not a point I can argue. Think they'll stop fighting long enough to mine it any time soon? If not, of what use is it to anyone, Afghan or American?

Touching upon the oil pipeline, I have a few problems with that. First, control of the middle of a pipeline doesn't give one very much. Control of either terminus of it yields much better returns. I'm not sure where they would run it from or to in order to have to cross Afghanistan, but if it were me, I'd rather take over the country containing one end or the other. Next is the strange notion that any pipeline will be built during or survive through the rage of a war. Due to that, it seems to me that concluding the war would be far more important in the context of a pipeline, yet they seem not to have any interest in an efficient prosecution of the war towards a satisfactory end.

I've heard the CIA/drug accusations going all the way back to Laos during the Vietnam war, when Air America was alleged to be shipping out tons of the stuff in dead bodies - hollowed out, one must presume. I dunno, it's possible I suppose. All I can really say for sure is that I've never seen any real evidence of it beyond internet rantings and accusations. It seems to me that if it were so, it would make much more sense to take over the drug trade closer to home, since there's plenty of it here. far more lucrative to legalize drugs, control the supply AND collect the taxes. Nicaragua is a prime transshipment point for them. I can show you satellite pictures of an area there I'm familiar with there, complete with a relatively new and unexplained (middle of the jungle - only dirt roads/mud tracks in and out) runway of around 7500 feet that I'm not at all familiar with. 7500 feet will put a pretty good sized chunk of cargo plane in the air. Now I'm surprised America gave up Nicaragua so easy if that's the case - not once, but THREE times in the last 30 years or so.

Maybe I ought to run the country if it's going to get up to no good like that all the time. I'd fight the wars like I meant to win, and not fool around in places I didn't think I could take and keep - I'd move the operations to more tractable next door neighbors.

Seriously, I've heard most of the arguments, but don't see the logic in them if those truly are the goals. Seems the government is nearly as inept in committing crimes as it is in running the country. I've run across a couple of true blue criminal types, and when they fought, they generally MEANT it, fought like they intended to win, since perpetual fighting had a negative effect on the bottom line - it was bad for business. Can't make or move too much product if the other guy is constantly trying to take it or blow it up and kill you, and with the power behind the US military, I believe they'd do it a bit differently if that were the goal.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 05:16 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


The lithium is backup, China has the biggest supply and if you note lately they are talking about a freeze on exports of rare eart minerals..

The drugs are mainly going into Russia..Good way to ruin the economy..

As for this..

Seems the government is nearly as inept in committing crimes as it is in running the country.


Couldn't agree more..





new topics




 
168
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join