|
|
|
|
|
| support our troops? but they are terrorists. [Thread closed]
Posted: 6/8/2008 8:37:36 AM | Terrorism is defined as follows....any action intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do, or abstain from, any act. ( U.S. Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113B, Section 2331)
Iraq Civilian Death Toll as of 4/15/08 due to US INVASION and OCCUPATION....1,197,469
Reasons stated for invasion, WMD, Nuclear capabilities, Regime Change for Boogeyman Saddam Hussein EVIL GUY must get EVIL GUY...he could be hiding under your bed with Osama the other EVIL GUY that may have had ties to each other, al CIAda, the Bush Admin, The Carlyle Group and omg "THE TERRORIST"
The invasion of Iraq was an act of BLATANT TERRORISM as DEFINED, demonstrating absolute contempt for the concept of international law never mind OUR OWN. The invasion was an UNPROVOKED arbitrary military action inspired by a series of lies upon lies and gross manipulation of the media and therefore of the public; an act intended to consolidate American military presence, by building the largest, permanent base in US military history in Iraq and economic control of the Middle East pretending to be -- as a last resort -- all other justifications having failed to ummm... justify themselves -- as liberation. A formidable assertion of military force responsible for the death and mutilation of thousands and thousands of innocent people...If Islamic militants at the behest of a hierarchal command were "just following orders" as they "allegedly" flew planes into the World Trade Center and were deemed "terrorist" by their act...EVERY and I mean EVERY man or woman under the command of the Bush Administration is by DEFINITION...A TERRORIST and became one the moment they stepped foot into the SOVEREIGN NATIONS of Afghanistan and Iraq and with a BLATANT ACT OF UNPROVOKED AGGRESSION AND TERRORISM killed,maimed, injured,disarmed or displaced from their homes the citizens of those sovereign nations.What part of this do YOU NOT understand ??? And though you personally may not accept the HISTORICAL FACTS that bare witness,the US GOVERNMENT,the US MILITARY and it's TRAINED KILLERS have been the biggest perps of State Sponsored TERRORISM since WW2 and even before. We hold the entire world at bay being the largest producers and distributors of WMD and if you dont do what WE say...we'll USE THEM and HAVE...(act of terrorism)
It is our soldiers sworn DUTY and OATH to defend the US and The US Constitution against ALL ENEMIES, Foreign and DOMESTIC. In no instance or by any measure of reason have they lived up to that oath or their duty. They are as mindless, soul less puppets. men and woman without the ability to critically think or think on their own. They NEED to be told what to think and what to do and as such are no different than suicide bombers or insurgents...whom,by the way, if here, would be called patriots trying to drive from their homeland an invading and occupying military force. The only "terrorist" currently in Afghanistan and Iraq are US Military forces, Blackwater Mercenaries and****Cheney when he pops in for a visit.
The law is simple and clear, even if your ****ed up belief system wont allow it.... At Nuremburg, American, British, French and Soviet jurists used international conventions, legal precedent and a global moral consensus to establish a code of conduct deemed the standard for all nations.Crucial was the ban on unprovoked attack by one nation against another. The explosive fuse that set off World War II was the September 1,1939 Nazi attack on Poland, which was unprovoked by any stretch of the military imagination. By all accounts it was an act of aggression and conquest, which led ultimately to as many as 50 million deaths over the next six years.
Article VI of the Nuremburg Charter defines "Crimes Against Peace" as "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties . . . or participation in a common plan or conspiracy . . . to wage an aggressive war.
A week before the unprovoked Nazi assault on Poland, Hitler promised his generals he would provide "a propagandistic reason for starting the war. He then justified a "preemptive" strike based on lies about a non-existent Polish Army attack against Germany. The Nazi attack date had been set for more than a year. "The victor will not be asked afterwards whether he told the truth or not," Hitler told his generals. "In starting and waging a war it is not right that matters, but victory.".....Sound familiar..?? Or has history simply repeated itself because YOU failed to remember it ?? Given such circumstances, the guilt of George W. Bush is NOT in doubt. As the guilt of subordinates giving supporting orders, and of soldiers and functionaries carrying them out, should not be in doubt as well.
The Nuremburg court, including its American judges, repeatedly ruled that those who "only followed orders" in committing atrocities were guilty of crimes against humanity. Those willing Americans executioners who "only follow orders" in perpetrating this illegal attack on Iraq should have known and understood that they stand to be found just as guilty as the ones giving those orders.They have not my pity, my sympathy nor MY SUPPORT...They should be tried and convicted as the CRIMINALS they are. Each and every one who stepped foot or lobbed a bomb into the Sovereign Republic of Iraq and Afghanistan. Each and Everyone who kicked in a door, in direct violation of Article 8 of the Iraq Constitution and direct violation of the sovereign rights of Iraqi citizens to disarm said citizens.Support them..?? If I was in Iraq I would throw every rock, stick, stone, bullet or bomb, at the Invading and Occupying Force I could get my hands on...Imagine the world getting sick of THIS criminal and murderous administration here and decided to come liberate us because Bush is in possession of the world largest arsenal of WMD that the planet has ever seen and has waged wars of unprovoked, aggression...would you support the invading force no matter where they were from..?? Lets say the Chinese... apply your ****ed up belief system to them viewing us as you do Iraq...Would you consider them, their soldiers "liberators" or "terrorist" as they are invading your home to disarm you,wisking off you family members who are never seen or heard from again...oh better yet they blow up one of your kids trying to get the insurgents/patriots in an act of " collateral damage"...oh I forgot to mention that in our case the Chinese would not need to create lies to justify wanting to "liberate" us...only thing keeping them and the rest of the world at bay is our TERRORISTIC THREAT of a nuclear arsenal big enough to blow up the whole ****ing world....now for a brief history lesson
May 29, 1998: PNAC Calls on Republican Congressional Leaders to Assert US Interests in Persian Gulf
The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) publishes a letter addressed to Congressman Newt Gingrich and Senator Trent Lott. The letter argues that the Clinton administration has capitulated to Saddam Hussein and calls on the two legislators to lead Congress to “establish and maintain a strong US military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect [US] vital interests in the Gulf—and, if necessary, to help removed Saddam from power.” Century, 5/29/1998.
hmmm...never heard of The Project for a New American Century....?? Wow.Imagine that.Well please permit me to awaken your dead asleep brain and do your thinking for you....The threat posed by US terrorism to the security of nations and individuals was outlined in way-too-prophetic detail in a document written in 2000 and disclosed only recently. What was needed for America to dominate much of humanity and the world's resources, it said, was "some catastrophic and catalysing event - like a new Pearl Harbor". The attacks of September 11 2001 provided the "new Pearl Harbor", described as "the opportunity of ages". The extremists who have since exploited September 11th come from the Cold War era of Ronald Reagan, when far-right groups and "think-tanks" were established to avenge the American "defeat" in Vietnam. In the 1990s, there was an added agenda: to justify the denial of a "peace dividend" following the Cold War. The Project for the New American Century was formed, along with the American Enterprise Institute, the Hudson Institute and others that have since merged the ambitions of the Reagan administration with those of the current Bush regime.
One of George W Bush's "thinkers" is Richard Perle and when he spoke about "total war", I mistakenly dismissed him as crazy. He recently used the term again in describing America's "war on terror". "No stages," he said. "This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq... this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war... our children will sing great songs about us years from now."
Perle is one of the founders of the Project for the New American Century, the PNAC. Other founders include****Cheney, now vice-president, Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, deputy defence secretary, I Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, William J Bennett, Reagan's education secretary, and Zalmay Khalilzad, Bush's ambassador to Afghanistan. These are the modern chartists of American terrorism. The PNAC's seminal report, Rebuilding America's Defences: strategy, forces and resources for a new century, was a blueprint of American aims in all but name. Eight years ago it recommended an increase in arms-spending by $48bn so that Washington could "fight and win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars". This has happened. It said the United States should develop "bunker-buster" nuclear weapons and make "star wars" a national priority. This is happening. It said that, in the event of Bush taking power, Iraq should be a target. And so it has become. | |
|
| support our troops? but they are terrorists.
Posted: 6/8/2008 9:41:54 AM | lynne13.
Your comments towards the soldiers involved is wrong on so many levels. The soldiers who fight for us now in Iraq and Afganistan as well as other conflicts around the world are lions who we as a nation rightly honour for the service they give and the sacrifices they are willing to take for you and me.
It is impossible to even imagine how they could be permitted to make decisions about the legality or otherwise of any combat zone, or non combat zone or international peacekeeping role they may be asked to go to. When called upon to do so, the soldiers of both Great Britain and the United States of America and of every other nation on this earth which has ever sent forces to places they are needed around the world go and do what is asked of them.
Whatever your beliefs about these wars or any other conflict they are involved in the courage they show in doing what is asked of them is worthy of anyones respect. You should not try to blame them for other peoples decisions with which you disagree. By alll means attack them if you must but the very reason you are able to write these things is your freedom which they protect. There are many places in the world today where your outspoken criticisms of your government would have gotten you in some serious trouble. You have the very heros you denounce to thank for that.
You would also do well to remember that many people reading your remarks would have children and partners and loved ones involved or been killed in these conflicts. The belief that they were doing the right thing and died for what they believed in gives these families great comfort and a reason to be proud. What would you wish to achieve by taking this away from them and have their sacrificed diminished in any way?. It strikes me as a very callus and uneccessary thing to try to do.
You would do well to look up the definition of the word 'respect' and try showing some. | |
|
| support our troops? but they are terrorists.
Posted: 6/8/2008 10:56:04 AM | A formidable assertion of military force responsible for the death and mutilation of thousands and thousands of innocent people...If Islamic militants at the behest of a hierarchal command were "just following orders" as they "allegedly" flew planes into the World Trade Center and were deemed "terrorist" by their act...EVERY and I mean EVERY man or woman under the command of the Bush Administration is by DEFINITION...A TERRORIST and became one the moment they stepped foot into the SOVEREIGN NATIONS of Afghanistan and Iraq and with a BLATANT ACT OF UNPROVOKED AGGRESSION AND TERRORISM killed,maimed, injured,disarmed or displaced from their homes the citizens of those sovereign nations.What part of this do YOU NOT understand ???
i feel no sympathy for men women and children who CHOOSE to go kill other men women and children!!
they are not involved in a DRAFT... they chose to go kill.........blindly.....like sheep following the herd... they go and do what they are told is best without questioning any of it.
It is our soldiers sworn DUTY and OATH to defend the US and The US Constitution against ALL ENEMIES, Foreign and DOMESTIC. In no instance or by any measure of reason have they lived up to that oath or their duty. They are as mindless, soul less puppets. men and woman without the ability to critically think or think on their own. They NEED to be told what to think and what to do and as such are no different than suicide bombers or insurgents...whom,by the way, if here, would be called patriots trying to drive from their homeland an invading and occupying military force.
how many innocents need to die? and just cause your a american doesnt mean "im not a terrorist" ya back up a terroristic government. you "suppot" what they do. maybe those that support the wars should frame huge pictures all around there house of the freedoms our troops are spreading........babys with legs blown off... 5 year old girls holding the remains of their 16 mnth old baby brother...mothers weeping over sons murdered in cold blood cause they looked like they were up to no good... or how bout the women our troops have raped and beaten to death.......tell ya what just cause we were TOLD we are in the right in what we do.. doesnt mean we are.. rthink foir yourselves... look at the facts.. stop being sheep.......it goes like this.. read this fact.. over and over.. till it clicks in your head.....this is what we have done.. this is what we have become....
Terrorism is defined as follows....any action intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do, or abstain from, any act. ( U.S. Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113B, Section 2331)
we are the terrorists.... face it. | |
|
NERO1
|
Joined: 3/8/2008
Msg: 4 | |
| support our troops? but they are terrorists.
Posted: 6/8/2008 11:23:10 AM | ^^ Interesting OP. For me personally, I can't blanket condemn them all like that. Obviously there are far too many to do so. I would say some have been , or are (I'm thinking of pilots who flew bomb sorties over Baghdad during "shock and awe", or guards at the illegal detention camps like Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib, many others as well) but I can't say all of them are. I think it's too much of a generalization. Obviously some are doing some good (to the best of their ability at least) down there. While others seem to work just as hard at times to give them all a bad name. I don't truly "support" them, personally.
I pay my necessary taxes (simply to avoid legal difficulties) but beyond that I'm neither in support of their mission (whatever that even IS exactly at this point in Iraq) nor their continued occupation there. I believe military forces are necessary and are to be honored, however only when they are fighting a truly necessary war to truly defend their country. And it is my firm belief that the last time US forces have done that was in WWII. Therefore I honor WWII vets , those who fought in Europe in particular, to the fullest. Beyond that, in all honesty no I do not. By comparison to WWII , what is going on today in Iraq is a complete farce and is in no way being done (despite propaganda to the contrary) to defend this country from anyone down there as no Iraqi ever attacked America in the first place. | |
|
| support our troops? but they are terrorists.
Posted: 6/8/2008 11:54:47 AM | thanks for that.
my grandfather was in wwII. i appricate what he was able to do. hitler did what our government is doing......we need someone to come and get us out of this mess.....people who were true patriots those who knew what they were truly fighting for.... freedom!!
keep in mind hitler was elected by a overwhelming majority something like 98%. he wasent elected one day and started throwing people in the ovens on the next.. it was a gradual change... started with one group.. then another.. then another.. false propaganda... then another.... no one said anything till it was to late to speak up. ...... the nazi's just did their jobs they arrested who they were told were at fault for the problems germany had and shoved um off to the camps. when awareness was resin as to what was happening... the peeps who spoke up were shuttled off as well.
how long before we realize what is happening is akin to hitler. but on a much larger, scale.....only cause we got further quicker with a little help from our friends.
this could very well be the end of life as we have known it, and we will just sit back and let the trains (or buses in this case) keep rolling by. will you speak up when they come for you. or will you still support the forces that loaded you on that train.
theres a party gonna happen... and your uninvited. | |
|
| support our troops? but they are terrorists.
Posted: 6/8/2008 12:37:03 PM | Well said, Lynne. Straight from the shoulder, harsh but true.
Don't be concerned by comments from Rob and JLT, some people "can't handle the truth!" | |
|
| support our troops? but they are terrorists.
Posted: 6/8/2008 12:43:04 PM | Perhaps you should read your first paragraph over again.
"...any action intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants..."
Civilians and non-combatants are not being targeted.
I stopped reading after that initial paragraph because there was no need to. | |
|
| support our troops? but they are terrorists.
Posted: 6/8/2008 1:08:47 PM | Muslim_Jihadist said:
the very reason you are able to write these things is your freedom which they protect.
Most non third world countries have equal or greater freedoms compared to the US. Sweden, Canada, France, Iceland, Australia - all without engaging in the mass murder of innocents for economic or strategic gain.
robbrighoue said:
OP you should be shot as a traitor
JLTINFL18 said:
OP-- Here's the simpilest solution to your unhappiness with the U.S..
GET THE HELL OUT-- Your a disgusting American.
and
She's an idiot and so are you...
v1hump said:
Op You 3rd rate pile of ssshit , why dont you pack your stinking ass and fuuuking bags and get the hell out of the us. Shiiiit like you is the problem we have in this country now. Go where shiiiit like you should be and keep your ****kkking mouth shut while you are in the us.
Wow. What grace and maturity. No wonder we americans are loved the world over. Seriously boys, I think somebody needs a time out. | |
|
| support our troops? but they are terrorists.
Posted: 6/8/2008 1:19:52 PM | | I dont feel our troops are terrorist. I feel they are brave men and women. I stand behind them. And if I had my life to live over, I would stand with them. | |
|
| support our troops? but they are terrorists.
Posted: 6/8/2008 1:21:46 PM | | I was against the invasion of Iraq from the beginning but to make such a broad sweeping statement about the U.S. Military is disturbing to say the least. | |
|
| support our troops? but they are terrorists.
Posted: 6/8/2008 1:27:08 PM | Hmm
I thought the U.S. was all about free speech??
Apparently not
Sigh
Oh & this:
whiskeypapa- Why don't u invite her to move to Canada?? She could live with you..
Don't be concerned by comments from Rob and JLT
LOL, She (nor you for that matter) has the intelligenge to understand any comments she gets..
She's an idiot and so are you...
 | |
|
| support our troops? but they are terrorists.
Posted: 6/8/2008 1:30:12 PM | You provided some inaccurate information OP. If I can remember my history lessons at school, Hitler never secured more than 36% of the vote in Germany and he seized power on what has become known as the night of the long knives when he murdered his political opponents.
That he was able to even get such an opportunity is because his message of hatred rested in the hearts and minds of people who were suffering economically and were taught to look at a minority in their community as a problem which held them back. Your right, it didn't happen over night it was delivered to them by a propaganda machine over a sustained period of time.
Thats why we all have to fight back against messages of hatred, fears and distrust when we hear them. I sorry for you that you have such hurt and anger in your life. I hope you can find some inner peace in time. Until then, I am sure that your attempts to deliberately enrage people with your comments will be seen for what they are rather than an attempt to engage and inform people. | |
|
| support our troops? but they are terrorists.
Posted: 6/8/2008 1:34:02 PM | A hot-button topic, and posted with much shock-value.
Not surprising that we get vitriol from the opposite side, including the knee-jerk "you should leave the country" and the often repeated lie that "our troops are protecting your freedoms"
1. Leaving the country won't help anything. Its much better for those who want peace to stay here and work from within to topple our military-industrial complex, which should now be called the "military-industrial-religious complex.
2. Protecting freedom? An argument can be made that during WW2, our soldiers fought for freedom. But since the end of that war, they've been fighting for corporate interests (sugar and bananas in S. America, oil in the Mid East, etc) or for imagined threats (communists, terrorists, immigrants, etc). And in the meantime, our freedoms have been diminished not by any foreign force, but by our own government!!
If our military were truly interested in fighting for the freedoms spelled out upon the founding of this country, they'd lay siege to Washington DC. | |
|
| support our troops? but they are terrorists.
Posted: 6/8/2008 1:36:22 PM | Ahhhh, OP if I remember right it was Saddam that invaded an ally of the US(Kuwait) so it was a justified action to go into Baggdad,What kind of ally would we be if we just let Saddam take that country,ummmm lets see maybe France.Any way it was and still is a COILITION effort ,yes the US led this action but was supported by the UN and the majority of the free world ,and lets face it that is democracy | |
|
| support our troops? but they are terrorists.
Posted: 6/8/2008 1:42:21 PM | | A lot of anger and self righteousness but no one has countered her point that the invasion of Iraq was blatant terrorism and the soldiers , by being part of this terrorism ,have violated their oath to defend the US and the constitution. | |
|
| support our troops? but they are terrorists.
Posted: 6/8/2008 1:42:57 PM | Well said Lynne13
As the father of a son who has served twice in Iraq I have heard him cry out at the banality of one muslim sect planting bombs against another Muslim sect. | |
|
| support our troops? but they are terrorists.
Posted: 6/8/2008 1:45:25 PM | I'm sorry, OP. Much as I deplore the invasion of Iraq, the intention of our government was not to use violence against the civilian population to wrest concessions from the Iraqi government.
The intention of our government was to depose that government and replace it with one that would be more amenable to Western-style (or American controlled) governance. Not only that, our government did not deliberately target civilians. Quite the opposite. It has gone after military and suspected military targets. The fact that so many civilians have been killed and injured in the process is apalling, but not specifically intended.
War is an ugly business, but it is not the same as terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic of war, and one that any civilized nation should shun for all the reasons you state.
I do admire your fervor, though, and I do agree that our military has no legitimate business being there. However, in the high-stakes game of geopolitical empire building, the robber barons want to make sure that the Chinese and Indian economies will have to go through our government to get access to Middle Eastern oil. I'm sure they'd like our government to extend its hegemony over the Siberian oil fields too, but that might be too much of a stretch.
Meanwhile, the faster we at home use it all up, the less there will be for future military rivals to use against our government's forces. | |
|
| support our troops? but they are terrorists.
Posted: 6/8/2008 1:52:23 PM | | Again Saddam attacked an ally of the United States , so it is justified ,I dont think that we should have used the idea of WMD for the war as we found none, however it was a matter of time before Saddam got them and if he did and used them on any country or his own people (he had shown that he is able to do such actions)what would we be saying then? | |
|
| support our troops? but they are terrorists.
Posted: 6/8/2008 1:55:22 PM | MrMan999 writes
the intention of our government was not to use violence against the civilian population I beg to differ.
Aerial bombardment is always a tactic against the population in general with the convenient excuse of having a military target to point at. And why did we have hospitals and water treatment facilities on our lists of targets?
Dropping bombs from planes, even if they are so-called "smart bombs" is too imprecise a tactic to claim we're not using it against civilians. | |
|
| support our troops? but they are terrorists.
Posted: 6/8/2008 2:04:09 PM | so the OP is saying OUR soldiers ARE terrorists?
I guess you should tell that to 'our terrorists' that are building schools, roads, hospitals
in Iraq, Afganistan and elsewhere
Yup, extreme terrorists....bad news | |
|
| support our troops? but they are terrorists.
Posted: 6/8/2008 2:13:17 PM | jilted,
Name-calling, invitations to leave the country, suggestions to stand in the line of fire, self-righteous indignation, self-justification, are not counter-points.
she has given you the definition of terrorism and pointed out how the soldiers have violated their oath to the constitution. these are the points you have to counter.
So she rocked your complacent world, get over it. By speaking out against the violation of the constitution she is more a patriot then those who stand silent. | |
|
| support our troops? but they are terrorists.
Posted: 6/8/2008 2:15:52 PM | Good on her for speaking her mind.
Only in America do you get this "you were a drone in the army so you opinion counts for a lot more" , ffs as if all America does is noble and true.
lol | |
|
| support our troops? but they are terrorists.
Posted: 6/8/2008 2:20:06 PM | Aerial bombardment is always a tactic against the population in general with the convenient excuse of having a military target to point at. And why did we have hospitals and water treatment facilities on our lists of targets?
Dropping bombs from planes, even if they are so-called "smart bombs" is too imprecise a tactic to claim we're not using it against civilians.
You make a very good point. To the extent that our government's tactics include civilian targets, they more closely resemble terrorism. Can't argue with you on that.
Still, I believe that the intention of aerial bombing is to cripple the economic capacity and eliminate material support for a targeted regime--thus hastening its demise. It is also intended to reduce civilian support for a targeted government. Again, that is a very different intention than extortion, which is what terrorism is about.
Was our government justified in destroying the Iraqi government some 10 years after we'd pushed back their invasion of Kuwait? Perhaps, but that's not the reason our government gave for the invasion. Were the stated reasons valid? I don't think so.
Was our government justified in destroying the Iraqi infrastructure, even if the invasion was somehow justified? I tend to doubt it. But this war isn't about justice. It's about the projection of military power. The message sent by that destruction? Cooperate with us or go back to living in the stone age.
That is oppression, not terrorism.
Is oppression any more or any less reprehensible than terrorism? Hard to say. However, citizens can minimize the effects of oppression to a certain extent, so it's somewhat less horrifying than terrorism, and therefore seems less apalling.
But is it really? I don't think so.
Still, what our government is doing isn't strictly terrorism. That doesn't mean I'm apologizing for it. I do not like being a party to this invasion and war of oppression.
But let's call it what it is, if only so that we don't come off looking like fools.
Our soldiers are _not_ terrorists. They are warriors. I happen to think that their services are being terribly misguided and tragically abused, but how they're led or misled is about our civilian electorate and not the nature of their service to us. They're doing their job. The administration isn't.
Calling the troops terrorists is simply wrong. It makes those who oppose the war look stupid and disloyal to them, and there is simply no call for that. If our troops believe they are putting their life on the line to protect my rights, I am not about to disdain their sacrifices.
I oppose the war and am very grateful to the soldiers who are fighting it over my objection. They will get nothing but respect from me when they get home--provided that they've conducted themselves as honorable soldiers of course.
I suspect they'll get better treatment from me than they will from those who so vociferously claim to support them but who won't want to treat those who get sick from the undetectable particles of depleted uranium they will have ingested as part of their service over there.
If you are waving the flag right now, you'd better not call anyone who returns home suffering from PTSD or Gulf War Syndrome a loser or a faker when they seek treatment or scream because they aren't getting it later on. To me, that would be the ultimate in disloyalty to our troops. Treating them is another cost of this war, and if you're willing to pony up funds for the sabot rounds and the tanks that fire them, you'd better be willint to pay for the medical care that goes with them. | |
|
| support our troops? but they are terrorists.
Posted: 6/8/2008 2:35:40 PM |
That's all ya got honey? A mispelled word? LMAO--
Oh you may notice the OP started the thread and hung around a couple hours to throw more gas on the fire and then ran like the coward she is. I think you should GO AWAY with her..
Well if you are going to insult someone's intelligence, you should at least spell intelligence correctly
Just my opinion
So why is it I should go away with her? Just curious?
Never said I agreed or disagreed with her.
Just think since everyone is over there supposedly fighting for freedom, that likely includes Freedom of Speech | |
|
| support our troops? but they are terrorists.
Posted: 6/8/2008 2:38:30 PM | I'm not going to comment on the US's reasons for what they are doing in Iraq because that is all politics. Being a Canadian we have troops dieing in Afghanistan due to a UN resolution because of 9/11 and I accept that as it was the UN. I would never have accepted us going to Iraq at the bequest of the US as the reasons are totally lame!
However, no matter what the politics, I strongly believe that the actual troops, individuals with families and loved ones, should not be criticised! Where I live there is a strong military presence, basically the Navy, and I am friends with a number of military personnel. I have the utmost respect for our military because they are putting themselves in a situation that I would not want to be in. They volunteered to possibly put themselves in danger. Would you take a job like that if there was a chance you could be killed?? Most would say no. I like my cushy IT job.
Let's remember that the military is only doing what the gov't elected by the people for the people (yeah, we also have that concept in Canada) has asked it to do.
Scream, criticise, berate, protest against, etc. the gov't in power, but PLEASE do not criticise the individual soldiers. They are human beings too. Don't look at them as they are the gov't. They ARE humans doing a job most of us don't want to.
I RESPECT the troops!!!!! They sure as hell don't want to kill anyone, but that's the situation they are put in. Kill or be killed. What would you do? The gov't put them in that situation. They, as individuals, did not go looking for it. So, feel free to criticise your gov't, but don't criticise the troops.
Edit: ^^^ Hahaha paige....I see you are still on a grammar kick. F*ck!!! What the hell are you responding too??? | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
