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.

 

Civilians on the War

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 11:22 PM
link   
I hope this is the right forum. When watching the news about the upcoming debate, I see many civilians criticizing Bush about the war. I am sick and tired of hearing them. I am the son of someone who is currently in the military, who was in Iraq before and after the war started. These civilians have no idea what it's REALLY like. They go based off of what they hear on the news. They say that Bush was wrong in going to war and that it is making military familys upset, but what I'd like to know is how do they know if we're upset or not? They have no direct contact with us really. I'm not the only one that thinks this, many of my friends and my dad's co-workers think the same thing. Peple have to understand, America would be worse off now if we never went to war. Do any of you guys have the same opinions? (Sorry if I offended some of you)

[edit on 27-10-2004 by DarkHelmet]




posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Well, since I am not a pyschic, I cannot agree with the statement that we would be worse off without this war. There is no indication that this war was needed. There is no indication that we would have had a terror attack on our land. The Iraqi War is taking focus off more important issues that are domestic. We need to stop preoccupying ourselves with foreign lands and fix the problems that we currently have in our country, FIRST!

I can understand that you feel this way. It's not a good feeling to believe that your father is in a foreign land for nothing. All I ask is that you think independently and understand that people make decisions for you even if you don't want them to. Frankly, I feel that your father and others in the military are being used as pawns in some global scheme. I'm sure it has something to do with oil and the Federal Reserve.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 11:35 PM
link   
This is what I mean by worse off:

Let's say we did absolutely nothing about the 9/11 attacks. This would make our public enemies sit and think, "Hmm... if they did nothing then, they won't do anything next time." We already know North Korea isn't exactly on our good side, plus they have Nukes. If they saw that we did nothing after Al-Queda took down our buildings, would they see it as an opportunity to attack us? Or maybe Al-Queda would have done more attacks seeing that we would do nothing about it. We have to show these people that when you mess with Americans, you get your ass whooped.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Ok, you started off with Iraq, and now you are forgetting entirely about Afghanistan. The point is to go after terrorists themselves. Not against countries that might possibly have an indirect influence in terrorism. See this is exactly what I don't like about these kinds of discussions, most people think in terms of black & white, and that not fighting in Iraq means that you aren't fighting terrorism, which means the terrorists are going to kill are babies, etc., etc.

Frankly, that kind of talk is ignoring fact and not taking a reasonable stance for the way the world works. The world is more complicated than this, everything is not black&white. Iraq wasn't necessary. It hurts more than helps.

[edit on 27-10-2004 by Jamuhn]



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 11:44 PM
link   
I was listening to Kerry in the debates. He states that we should not have invaded Iraq because there was no "imminent" danger. HELLO?! 10 years ago when Bin laden was assembling terrorist training facilities in Afghanistan it wasn't an "Imminent" danger. the "Imminent" danger would come 10 years later in the form of our own aircraft. Bush is focusing on PREVENTION, not REACTION AFTER the facts.

I do agree that he has his own agenda though. Oil. However, the terrorists KNOW this is why bush went into IRAQ. So another attack on the U.S. would ALLOW bush to use his "terror" excuse to secure more oil from other middle eastern countries. The terrorists want the US out. They have solicited a reverse reaction. So they should know better than to attack again because bush will occupy another "terrorist" state for oil and have the perfect excuse to do it.

Also, Bush has been through one of the TOUGHEST presidencies. What would YOU do? Would you do everything right? You do one thing people protest because of it. You don't do something, people protest for not taking action. BLAH..... Try being an entrepreneur and starting your own company. You will know the meaning of TOUGH decisions. Cut Medical benifits for all employees, or fire one? Which is the lesser of two evils? Now try running a country!



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 11:49 PM
link   
I don't claim to be a pyschic here and I don't think anyone else is either. The fact is, that this is not reasonable outlook on Iraq. There was no indication that Iraq was specifically linked to al Qaeda. No indication they took part in 9/11. No indication that they were planning any attacks on US land.

What would I do? Heh. Not go to Iraq. I thought that was fairly obvious. We have an obligation to protect our homeland, and the best way to do is to start from home. We keep running around the world trying to banish evil, while we leave our country open and forget about all our problems at home. I'd be a domestic president not an imperialist one.

[edit on 27-10-2004 by Jamuhn]



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarkHelmet
This is what I mean by worse off:

Let's say we did absolutely nothing about the 9/11 attacks. This would make our public enemies sit and think, "Hmm... if they did nothing then, they won't do anything next time." We already know North Korea isn't exactly on our good side, plus they have Nukes. If they saw that we did nothing after Al-Queda took down our buildings, would they see it as an opportunity to attack us? Or maybe Al-Queda would have done more attacks seeing that we would do nothing about it. We have to show these people that when you mess with Americans, you get your ass whooped.

So we attacked Iraq...
and you support it.
Last time I checked Iraq wasn't a threat like N. Korea and Al-Queda wasn't there until we came and screwed everything up. But hey!, look on the bright side, we've only lost over 1000 troops and slightly under 150 billion to something completely unrelated to your criteria, which for some reason you support.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by socrepLT
But hey!, look on the bright side, we've only lost over 1000 troops.


What... you think I don't know this?? Look it up, who's had the most casualties than any other base? Ft. Carson. We hear of casualties on a daily bases, my father and some of his army buddies were nearly killed by an RPG. I know of the consequences of war, I see it on a daily bases. And who cares about our debt... If it's making me safer, then I'm for it. I really hope Bush wins, Kerry would make the whole situation in the Middle East a whole lot worse.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarkHelmet
What... you think I don't know this?? Look it up, who's had the most casualties than any other base? Ft. Carson. We hear of casualties on a daily bases, my father and some of his army buddies were nearly killed by an RPG. I know of the consequences of war, I see it on a daily bases. And who cares about our debt... If it's making me safer, then I'm for it.

Again, how the hell has invading Iraq made us safer? There was not Al-Quaida link and no WMDs or really even WMD capabilities. So how the hell did we make ourselves safer? We seem to have made it even more dangerous than before by unecissarily putting troops in harms way and allowing Al-Quaida to set up in Iraq, not only that but we are fighting a civilian resistance movement. How have we been, "made safer?"


Originally posted by DarkHelmet
I really hope Bush wins, Kerry would make the whole situation in the Middle East a whole lot worse.

Completely irrelevant partisan bull, there is no proof to show for either side of that argument, only opinions.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarkHelmet
I see many civilians criticizing Bush about the war. I am sick and tired of hearing them. I am the son of someone who is currently in the military, who was in Iraq before and after the war started. These civilians have no idea what it's REALLY like. They go based off of what they hear on the news. They say that Bush was wrong in going to war and that it is making military familys upset, but what I'd like to know is how do they know if we're upset or not? They have no direct contact with us really. I'm not the only one that thinks this, many of my friends and my dad's co-workers think the same thing. Peple have to understand, America would be worse off now if we never went to war. Do any of you guys have the same opinions? (Sorry if I offended some of you)

[edit on 27-10-2004 by DarkHelmet]


So I, as a tax paying citizen, have no right to criticize the direction, the intent, the leadership, and the outcome of the war? I don't care if it upsets the military. I don't care if it upsets military families. I don't care if it upsets you. It is a fundemental right that I possess as a citizen in good standing of this republic.

And it doesn't matter if you like it or not.

We'll be nice and empathetic, but as a courtesy. The military works for us. They do a job. We are their employer. If they do not like that, then they need to find employment elsewhere. I apologize if this seems curt, but people tend to forget this.

I feel bad when bad things happen to them. I feel remorse when they get blamed for things out of their control. But, I am simply unwilling to give up my rights as a citizen to maintain your piece of mind. Because, if we give up an inch of freedom for a foot of security, then we deserve the miles of destruction ahead of us.

We do not live in a military dictatorship. We do not live in a Communist state. We do not live in George Orwell's Oceania. We live in the United States of America, not the military province of the United States Army.

And you had better get used to that.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by brimstone735


We do not live in a military dictatorship. We do not live in a Communist state. .

well said about the military bit but leave the comunist bit alone , comunists are fine.....well we wont know what thier like because they dont exist in the physical form but they are good theoretically.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarkHelmet
I hope this is the right forum. When watching the news about the upcoming debate, I see many civilians criticizing Bush about the war. I am sick and tired of hearing them. I am the son of someone who is currently in the military, who was in Iraq before and after the war started. These civilians have no idea what it's REALLY like. They go based off of what they hear on the news. They say that Bush was wrong in going to war and that it is making military familys upset, but what I'd like to know is how do they know if we're upset or not? They have no direct contact with us really. I'm not the only one that thinks this, many of my friends and my dad's co-workers think the same thing. Peple have to understand, America would be worse off now if we never went to war. Do any of you guys have the same opinions? (Sorry if I offended some of you)

[edit on 27-10-2004 by DarkHelmet]


I am a civilan, but I served in the infantry for 7 years. I do not fault Bush for waging war. I fault him for waging war so poorly, with such poor planning by people with little experience, and for gaining support for the war under false pretense.

This war should be over. It should have been over long ago, and it could have been, were it done correctly. The main problem that has lead to us being pinned down in Iraq is the fact that Bush went into Iraq with purposes primary over victory. Victory was his purpose, but only secondary to making himself go down in history as a great war president, winning the next election by 'waging successful war on terror', and making some money for himself and his buddies along the way.

In short, he overestimated himself, and mis-assessed the situation he put us in. There were so many factors and contingencies of this war that were either underconsidered, or simply blown off because of Bush's tendency to believe he cannot lose in any situation. He should take a look at all of the past failures of his life and find out what it is that makes him consistently unsuccessful.

I'll help him. Bush, you are a loser!



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join