It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Does this represent the Armed Services consensus opinion on Syria?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 2 2013 @ 04:48 PM
reply to post by seabag

It does give us insight! That’s why we are seeing people object today. But you can’t apply hindsight to criticize previous actions. We believed in our action in Iraq. I became completely disillusioned after the fact and that was part of the reason I chose to end my military career early. That doesn’t mean that I believe the mission I took part in was wrong (I don’t). I’m not thrilled with the way things have been conducted since I got out in 2004 but that’s just the armchair general in me. In 2003 we had a clear objective and we didn’t hold back….we did what we were there to do and we did it well.

How else do we learn!??!? I can apply hindsight to criticize previous actions, when no one has learned from then.
People also didn't want to go into Iraq, that didn't stop them from making some BS reason that everyone in the military was glad to swallow. You did what you were told to do there, and you did their bidding well...don't mistake that with your personal choice.

Tell that to our founding fathers.

No. Why don't you tell it to everyone who has lost a loved one...or your fallen friends. Whoops you can't for the same reason I can't tell the founding fathers. They're dead.

posted on Sep, 2 2013 @ 04:50 PM

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by WhiteAlice

I will never understand why some people on ATS have this notion that the military should not only do the nation's heavy lifting abroad, but also help depose those at home that they don't like. And all sociopolitical sides engage in this kind of thinking.

They have no idea what they are really asking for. The chaos that would ensue and the destabilizing effects such an action would have is beyond comprehension.

We are not a tool for internal politics. We can't be. The founders warned of the dangers of using the military in such a fashion.

The politics must be settled at the civilian level. If you want to stop the war and have the military called home then PLEASE work toward that. You won't hear the military complain about it. But do not ask us to risk our lives abroad, and then ask us to commit acts of sabotage, espionage, treason, and mutiny. You don't want the military to do that.

edit on 1-9-2013 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

Remember this when they call for martial law...I hope you are not the only one that thinks like this.
PS- I don't think any military should be doing any "heavy lifting" abroad, when there are MANY problems in our house that need fixing first.

posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 06:44 AM
reply to post by superman2012

This is what I mean. You think no further than your immediate political goals.

If martial law were declared in America for transient political issues I would not simply follow.

If the military does not allow the process in America to function, then we are ruling you already and not a single shot has been fired.

So why don't you think about that?

I won't do your heavy lifting at home either.

posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 03:42 PM
reply to post by projectvxn

Sorry, I know I wasn't being clear. I didn't mean that the military should take care of/police their own country first. I just meant that the "leaders" (quotes because none of them lead, either in war or by example) have much bigger problems to fry at home then a civil war.

posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 04:04 PM

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE

You have an interesting perspective on things.

But military folks, while we certainly don't like the idea of aiding AQ in Syria, do not find the same ground as you do as far as everything else...Necessarily.

For instance, no one I know thinks Manning is a hero. Most of us think that turd got what he deserved.

I guess what I'm getting at, and I don't speak for EVERYONE, is that most people I talk to in my unit and others understand that we're wasting our time and even weakening our legitimate strategic interests by doing the things we're doing. Syria would be the mother of all F ups as it would mean aiding AQ.

Most of us know who the rebels really are. And while I don't like Bashar Al Assad, I certainly don't like AQ at all.

You're inferring too much into what that sailor is trying to say. We will fight any war that comes our way. But at the end of the day when policy begins to create a situation where we are helping our real enemy in favor of picking a politically expedient side, our ears perk up...And sometimes we just have to say something about it.

if you fight aside the pricks that did 9-11 for any reason, orders or not, you can go to hell in my book. just my opinion on the matter at hand as a citizen of these united states.

posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 04:32 PM
The military for the most part does not care. Many prefer combat ops to the daily grind of sitting in garrison. Also most people in the military know the best way to let radicals hijack the Syrian revolution is do nothing.

posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 02:01 AM
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE

In a word, YES.

Fighting for the enemy is treason.

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in