Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 faithnoman
Joined: 2/18/2007
Msg: 28
support our troops? but they are terrorists.Page 4 of 4    (1, 2, 3, 4)

Montreal Guy wrote:

Sorry , but calling American ( and other Western military forces) terrorists doesn't cut it with me either.

I have a great respect for the job that they do, and have had the great honor of knowing more than my fair share of troops serving in various military units.

U.S, British, Canadian, Dutch, and Israeli....amongst others.

I've also met an shook hands with a lot of vets, from various countries, and that's always a thrill.

I've also read enough military blogs to tell me that some of the best and brightest people out there are wearing uniforms - and serving their countries. I nearly signed up myself, and the only thing stopping me now is my age.

If you have a problem with wars, don't blame the soldier - blame the men that sent them there.

No matter what you think about the war, never disrespect the warrior.

And calling them, as a group, terrorists.....is doing exactly that.


I'd have to agree with that also, and I don't even know why or what we are doing over there.
 whiskeypapa
Joined: 5/19/2008
Msg: 30
support our troops? but they are terrorists.
Posted: 6/8/2008 4:36:46 PM
so far the name-callers have found it impossible to counter Lynnes points. Her points must be true.
 homer77
Joined: 5/23/2007
Msg: 32
support our troops? but they are terrorists.
Posted: 6/8/2008 5:36:40 PM
Your definition is right on!

However, the wars that we have fought for the most part in this country have all had
some questionbable reasons. And of those some would also be classified under terroristic attacks. And, yes, thery all had various acts of torture (what is defined as torture). Even our dear Revolutionary War, which actually was a war of secession (breaking away from the British), not a revolution (definition of a revolution, look it up). I wonder if the desxcendants of the colonialist of Virginia, Georgia and the Carolinas wish they had never agreed to HELP the poor colonialists ofsMassachusetts
in 1776. The right to secede did originate in North America with our successful secession from England.

The War of 1812, War Hawks wanted a war (Henry Clay) to take Canada away from the British, the issuye of impressment gave them their excuse. Do ya think any civilians (Indians, British Canadians and Americans) were tortured? The British burned Washington in retaliation for what we did to British towns in Lower Canada.

How did we get Florida? Check out what the Creeks and the Americans did to one another in Alabama and Upper Florida/Lowerr Georgia.

Hey, then we have the Mexican War. The Mexicans attacked Americans just across the Rio Grande. The problem there, the Riop Grande was NOT the agreed upon boundary thru a treaty between the US and Spain (Mexico later rebelled and won their independence). Do ya think that either the Mexicans or Americans treated one another with brotherly love? Look up what we did to the Irish who went over to the Mexican side during the war.

Then we have the Civil War (The War of Southern Secession/War of Yankee Agression). Mr. Lincoln and his fellow Radical Republicans, and Northern War Democrats wanted a war. The south's desire to lower the tariff would have taken away the main source of income that the Federal Government was doling out to the Northern States. The Northern States had ended their nasty slave trading and they needed to replace that income somehow. The Northern States (particularly MNassachusetts) had been trading slaves, first the Native Americans and then when they ran out of them they headed off to Africa. Sold the African slaves to the Southern States and bought the end product, cotton for their textile industries. They sure weren't going to bring the slavers into New England due to their (New Englanders) staunch Nativism (Anglo-Saxon Englishmen and Protestant Irish had become the natives of North America, reason for enslaving the Indians and moving them to far away destinations).
The Civil War began over whether or not the South had the right to secede. Slavery DID NOT become an ISSUE until Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. And he issued the Emancip[ation Proclamation not because of his humanity, but because of his needing the support politically of the abolitionist and the fear of England/France givcing the South support and recognition. That recognition could very well have been disastrous to the North's blockade (which was illegal according to International Law) of the Southern ports. Do ya think there was any terrorism during the Civil War and after with Radical Reconstruction How many whites and blacks died, how many people's lives were destroyed (economically and politically) due to Mr. Lincoln's War.
Yes, I know the South fired the first shots at Fort Sumpter, but do you know how many people were killed in the shelling? Look it up! African Americans were USED by the Radical Republicans, they certainly abandoned them in the rather quickly during the last year of Grant's Administration.

^The Spanish-American War? "Remember the Maine"? The question about it's demise is stillv there. American newspapers, particularly northern one "just spread the word abnout those dastardly Spanish in Cuba and the Philippines. What patriotic Amaerican didn't want to "give the Spanish hell" for what they had done.

World War I: Mr. Wilson's War, "Make the World Safe for Democracy". Now what was it that the Germans had done? Mysterious Message to Mexico (we gotta watch those Mexicans), sunk an unarmed ship (Lusitania). Which today we know was armed an carrying munitions to the British. Ask the guys who died in the trenches if they thought there was any terrorism? Try sniffing some Mustard Gas and watch yourself in the mirror as you die.

World War II: We might say Mr. Roosevelt's War. We are in the midst of The World Wide Depression and everything he tried top do to get us out of it hadn't worked as of 1941. But we were heolping out the British anyway by becoming the great "Arsenal of Democracy" Geez, making weapons, by God, we've created jobs. I do believe that was the same thing Hitler had done to get Germany out of the Depression. Buit we still needed more. The Germans hadn't really done anything to us now have they? So whgat do we need to do. Hey, how about Germany's ally, Japan. We've treated them well, right. Forcing them to trade with us with Commodore Perry's little trip to Japan in 1854. Result, they have become an economic rival to us in ther Pacific, how dare they, being an Asiatic nation messing around in our "sphere of influence". We'll prevent them from having a navy, do ya think this might have made them a litlle bit "unamerican"? They invade China (something like our Mexican War maybe). So we help out the Chinese and then cut off the Japanese from acquiring our oil with an embargo. Do ya think we might have made them a little madder. Wow, the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor. Americans are incensed, how dare those Japanese. Do ya think there was any terrorism or torture in World War II? Abu Grabil (sp) would have been laughed about , with what happened in the Second World War. Bataan Death March, Auschwitz, Lndon Blitz, Bombing of Dresden, Hiroshima-Nagasaki.

We'll skip the Korean War mainly because it was a United Nations conflict.

Viet Nam. Here's one many of us will remember. Mr. Kennedy did you arm Amercian soldiers that were in VietNam? Mr. Johnson, what really happened in the Gulf Of Tonkin? And this became Mr. Nixon's War???? Torture or terrorism here? Both sides maybe, do ya think?

Gulf War (Mr. Bush) and Bosnia (Mr. Clinton), once again United Nations so I won't go into these. But, how many Shiites and Kurds were amssacred by Saddam? How many Christians and Muslims were massaacred in Bosnia? Do ya think any of these were tortured or terrorized?

And as far as Iraq is concerned, history teaches that wars are caused by multiple causes: economic, social, religious, technological, ideological, geographical and personalities. The bigger conflict is Radical Islam, it's a threat not just to us, but to the whole world and that includes Sunni Muslims and non-radical Shiites (Shia). They have a leader, they have money, they have a goal (religious, social and economical), they have geography on their side as of now, and they are wanting the technology. If they ever get their hands on a nuke, they won't think twice about using it. America is just their excuse to bring every thing together. And we weren't even a country when ther split occurred in the Islam, that occurred over a thousand years ago. Islam was stopped in Europe and driven out. But now thanks to the UN they are in Eastern Europe. And that my fellow Amercians is where the planning and recruitment for the attacks on the Twin Towers, Pentagon and the White House took place. I wonder how History will view that. But of course all of the world's problems have been caused by Western Civilization andf Christianity, so crucify Amerca my fellow citizens.

My point in all of this is that, yes we have done many, many things that were bad to not only fellow Americans, but to many non- Americans as well. These were all done under many bannersd such as Independence, Save the Union, Manifest Destiny and Make the World Safe for Democracy to name some. Would the world be a better place without what this country has done (economically, socially and politically). Are the workers of the world really better off than our workers, name another country that is as diverse as ours, and giving people a say in how they will govern their lives be "a God given right". We have the right to protest, thank you to the men and women who fought our wars, right or wrong! But for you who keep harping about Iraq, GO THERE AND SEE WHAT IS GOING ON! These people have the right to determine their own destiny, just like we did. But remember this, we DID NOT DO IT WITHOUT THE HELP OF THE FRENCH! And the Iraqis will not do it without our help. How long did we o9ccupy Japan and Germany after WWII? And how much did all of that cost?

But, I suppose that some of you would just be the same whether you lived under National Socialism, Communism, or some other form of one man/one party rule.
Mopst of us are just plain lucky in that we were dropped out of our mommies here in America and never had to DO A DAMN THING TO BE FREE. But at least we can ****!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OH, one more thing. Thomas Jefferson once stated, that if you want to know the truth, do NOT read a newspaper. I guess he would include MSNBC, CNN and Fox to that statement if he were alive today. The news media is there for one reason and one reason alone, TO MAKE MONEY, not to hand out the whole truth!

Who was the first President to mention WMDs? Who gutted the Intelligence Agencies in the 90's? Who reduced our military capabilities in the 90's? Who missed Osama Bin Laden, not once, but twice?


Now I can go watch a baseball game, Amercia's past time!
 LoonyTunz
Joined: 8/11/2006
Msg: 35
view profile
History
support our troops? but they are terrorists.
Posted: 6/8/2008 6:26:17 PM

The OP is absurd. And even if the US are terrorists, it takes one to kill one.

I for one;

a. celebrate the hanging of Saddam Hussein
b. dance with joy and the bombing of his cretin murderin sons
c. feel elated when we surround Iran with warships and spit in the face of the Mullahs
d. feel happy childhood bliss when I see an AK47 toting Hamas dead in the street
e. reel with excitement when I saw the bulldozing of Jenin
f. chortle with anticipation and lick my lips when I see another Taliban go under

The whole middle Eastern Muslim kingdoms are a mess. Takes a good garbage man to go in and clean them out.

Bunch of blood-thirsty savages. Not even smart ones at that. Your infantile responses to the OP only make her case stronger but, you can't see that for all the flag waving, chest beating and fireworks.
Perhaps Texas should leave the republic and the 20 some odd percent that blindly follow GWB can make him their dictator for life. You know so you don't have to think for yourselves or even question if you are really doing the right thing.
Torture isn't wrong if an American does it, people seek immunity from war crimes that are innocent all the time ......
 richard233
Joined: 11/10/2006
Msg: 48
view profile
History
support our troops? but they are terrorists.
Posted: 6/8/2008 7:34:26 PM
The choice to go to Iraq was a mistake predicated on the actions of Saddam Hussein.
Saddam wanted Iran and other countries in the region to believe he had WMD's.
The problem is, he did not understand how we think, nor do we truely grasp the
mentality of the local peoples. There is a kind of dance where the rules are fairly
fluid as long as the right person gets paid off. For example, premarital sex is illegal,
but it's possible to pay to be married to someone for an hour or two.

The best way I have at understanding them is by think of the school bullies back when
I was a kid. You had the top bad guy, and you had the secondary guys who like to be
"bad" but are happy to serve under whoever is "baddest". I wish I could remember
who said this, and I may be paraphasing, but it goes something like
"The arabs are either at your feet or at your throat."

We do things for reasons we consider compassionate and take our compassion as a
sign of strength that we can offer something, while they take it as a sign of weakness.

Our soldiers are not terrorists. They do not for the most part deliberately target
civilians. Those that do, and are found out, are punished for their actions.

Really, our problems come from out concern in not killing off the innocent.
It would have been far more cost effective if we just slaughtered them all, but that's
the way THEY act, not us.

Torture works under certain circumstances, though what qualifies as torture can be
quite nebulous. If a guy has knowledge that will save american lives, and we cannot
get the information except by water boarding him, I have no problem with that happening.
We have some officials trying to say that putting a pair of panties on top of the bad
guys head is torture. Humiliating, sure, but torture? Get real.

The reason why we agree to make certain actions "illegal" is because both sides do this
to prevent it from happening. Anybody think having your head sawed off is not
torture?
It's been done to our guys and our allies by the terrorists.
Rules only apply when both sides abide by them.

Under the Geneva convention, if you are firing upon armed forces and you are not in
a uniform of a goverment military, basically hiding as a civilian, you are only entitled
to a firing squad.

We won the war, we defeated the Iraqi military.
We lost the peace because the idiots in charge did not spend enough time thinking it
through on what to do after. Disbanding the military was insane, it was a tool that
could have been used. Eliminating everybody from the bath party was insane, you
had to be a member in order to rise above anything the level of clerk. So in a stroke
you took out the underpinnings of the country because they thought they had some
guys who could step in. Bleeping morons.

If we were truely only acting to get oil, we should have simply grabbed a general or
two, offered them job of dictator as long as the behaved, and got the hell out.
Or, we could have turned the deed over to our so called allies in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

Personally, I would have told the Arab nations we were going to go in, take Saddam
out, and that we would like them to have an "interim" government ready to take over
so we could be out ASAP. Really, after shock and awe the Arab nations were pissing
themselves since we took out their baddest guy in really no time at all. They would
have fell all over themselves to agree just to get us to go away and not do what they
would do, which would be to kill off everyone who oppossed us until we got what we
wanted.
 LoonyTunz
Joined: 8/11/2006
Msg: 53
view profile
History
support our troops? but they are terrorists.
Posted: 6/8/2008 10:16:24 PM

I dont see why there is so much sympathy for Iraqis, Hamas and other terrorist groups and no empathy for our troops fighting to protect us. Theres a funny kind of newspeak going on here, where suddenly, the US, for simply fighting back against an unprovoked attack, is suddenly equivalent to the people who masterminded this wanton destruction.

Who in Iraq attacked the US?
Bombers do not discriminate between civilian and armed resister any more that a suicide bomber does. And the SAC(Schools And Churches, since that seems to be their targets as often as not) doesn't make a habit of announcing ahead of time where they plan to bomb, because not only would the civilians leave so would any militia in the area.
Who is GWB to decide that this family or that is "acceptable collateral damage" in his personal vendetta? And how is action such as that supposed to do anything other than breed another generation that despises the hypocrisy of American government?
Congratulations you just created another generation of terrorist that will come knocking in about 20 years unless you can find a way to undo the damage before that happens.
No WMD, and Hans Blix indicated this was the case before the invasion.
No ties to al Queda, but that was known beforehand too.
Iraq did not re-invade Kuwait.
Saddam was supported by the US even after his treatment of Kurds or any other opposition was well known, because he would fight Iran for you. <<<< That amounts to state sponsored terrorism in America since, you seem to claim Saddam was a dictator engaging in terrorist activities.
When you claim moral superiority, it helps to not have a history(recent and distant) that is not so littered with examples of "selective morality"
 Ezra08
Joined: 11/29/2007
Msg: 54
view profile
History
support our troops? but they are terrorists.
Posted: 6/8/2008 10:43:46 PM
as someone going into the armed forces (air force) any day now.... i think the OP needs to learn the FACTS about what is happening in iraq and afghanistan, not rumors, not what the media is saying, and not what you heard someone say at a****ail party....


i had the opportunity to meet and talk to the prime minister of afghanistan's son... someone who has lived there a majority of his life and was attending school in the US.... the appreciation of the armed forces was beyond what I would have imagined... the way he explained how much better the country is becoming now.....

the people do appreciate the troops in iraq and afghanistan.... the media is to blame for majority of the "troops terrorize citizens" crap you hear.

try talking to some of the troops and hearing the facts about what is happening over there.... most the "bad" stuff is from private armies, not the US military in general....

finally, one of the biggest objectives was getting saddam, that we accomplished.... now it is too late to pull out in a heartbeat.... so get used to the war for at least a few more years....


do you honestly think our troops like watching their friends or themselves getting blown up by roadside bombs? seriously?!?!?

i hate people who make stuff up and make our troops look bad
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 56
support our troops? but they are terrorists.
Posted: 6/9/2008 4:50:01 AM
Why does anyone bother to respond to this? Just let it die like the idiotic notion it is.

The troops didn't choose to be there- they signed a contract whose only reason for being legal is because it came from the government, and now are in a contract that's more legally bounded than any other BECAUSE it came from the Government, thus granting themselves greater powers than any business in existence. Hating the people who made these troops go to war- okay- hating the people who fulfilled their lop-sided agreement- not cool.
 gentalltheway
Joined: 9/9/2006
Msg: 57
view profile
History
support our troops? but they are terrorists.
Posted: 6/9/2008 9:53:50 AM

The troops didn't choose to be there


That’s the popular justification for them to target and kill civilians. They didn’t choose to be there??? I couldn’t care less if they did or not! They intentionally target civilians! What’s next? They only listen to orders? That makes it ok to most…right?

http://freethoughtmanifesto.blogspot.com/2007/03/us-soldiers-fire-at-unarmed-iraqi.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/10/world/middleeast/10iraq.html


Four U.S. soldiers accused of murdering suspected insurgents during a raid in Iraq said they were under orders to “kill all military age males,” according to sworn statements obtained by The Associated Press.


How much clearer does it need to be?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13974639/


Witnesses angrily accused U.S. forces of firing blindly on the innocent, and Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki condemned the raids and demanded an explanation for the assault into Sadr City, named after the father of the anti-American Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr. Maliki has barred U.S. operations there in the past.
The Iraqi officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity out of security concerns, said 20 people had been wounded.
Witnesses said U.S. forces rolled into their neighborhood before dawn and opened fire without warning.
"At about 4 a.m., a big American convoy with tanks came and began to open fire on houses — bombing them," said Basheer Ahmed, who lives in Sadr City's Habibiya district. "What did we do? We didn't even retaliate — there was no resistance."
According to Iraqi officials, the dead included three members of one family — a father, mother and son. Several women and children, along with two policemen, were among the wounded, they said.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/30/africa/iraq.1-85932.php



Marines Ordered To Execute Civilians In Nazi-Like Slaughter

A military court heard Thursday that a US Marine was ordered to execute a room full of Iraqi women and children during the massacre in Haditha which left 24 people dead.

“There is constant pressure to kill Iraqi civilians, 22-year-old GI Darrell Anderson said. “At traffic stops we kill innocent people all the time. If you are fired on from the street, you are supposed to fire on everybody that is there. If I am in a market, I shoot people who are buying groceries.”
http://www.infowars.net/articles/august2007/310807Slaughter.htm


There are loads of reports such as the ones above that clearly proves that soldiers are ordered to kill civilians.

So, how should I categorize what they do? Terrorism? Crimes against humanity? How about both?

Now, for those apologists who always say that we should be grateful and respect those so called soldiers, I do have a question for you…are you all blind, deaf or just totally brainwashed?

The ONLY time that such crimes are truly “investigated” is when they were caught on tape or when many witnesses saw what happened. Then the bullshit really piles up.

Bottom line, soldiers have to make difficult decisions at times and I respect that. But to accept on shooting at innocent men, women and children and intentionally murder them, is unacceptable. There’s just no excuses for that. None whatsoever!

When will the madness stop?
 marita_b
Joined: 6/15/2005
Msg: 58
view profile
History
support our troops? but they are terrorists.
Posted: 6/9/2008 10:38:11 AM
and the presidence was set at the Nurenburg trial,...

they tried the,..."We were only following orders",....it didn't fly then either,...

and most recently who went down in flames for the Abu Ghraib incidents?

was it the leader's who issued the orders or the ones who carried them out?,....

want a hint?

Ivan Frederick, 38, of Buckingham, Va., was sentenced to 8½ years in October after pleading guilty to conspiracy, dereliction of duty, maltreatment of detainees, assault and committing an indecent act. Frederick admitted he helped place wires on a detainee’s hands and told him he would be electrocuted if he fell off a box. He was a staff sergeant, making him the highest-ranking soldier to serve prison time in the case.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7709487/

Abu Ghraib Tactics Were First Used at Guantanamo

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 14, 2005; Page A01

Interrogators at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, forced a stubborn detainee to wear women's underwear on his head, confronted him with snarling military working dogs and attached a leash to his chains, according to a newly released military investigation that shows the tactics were employed there months before military police used them on detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

The techniques, approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld for use in interrogating Mohamed Qahtani -- the alleged "20th hijacker" in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -- were used at Guantanamo Bay in late 2002 as part of a special interrogation plan aimed at breaking down the silent detainee.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302380.html

funny,.....I don't even remember Rumsfeld being charged never mind held accountable in any small way,....

it's the doers with whom the responsibility ends,....
 marita_b
Joined: 6/15/2005
Msg: 59
view profile
History
support our troops? but they are terrorists.
Posted: 6/9/2008 11:03:05 AM
Would you rather have Bin Laden for a neighbor?

how long will it be before there is no difference?

Your military is being used as such not by the individuals intent but by their leaders,...
by sheer definition of the word,....

ter·ror·ism (ter'?-riz'?m) Pronunciation Key
n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

That's why may go AWOL some of which ending up in our country recently,...because they don't want to be used as such,....
 LoonyTunz
Joined: 8/11/2006
Msg: 60
view profile
History
support our troops? but they are terrorists.
Posted: 6/9/2008 11:05:51 AM
Pakistan doesn't seem to mind. But then again they haven't been invaded. No oil and a nuclear arsenal you know.
He poses no more risk to the average Iraqi civilian than the US military command. Actually, none of his followers would even be in Iraq if it were not for the simple fact of a concentration of American troops so close at hand.
Given the recent acquittal in the Haditha incident, accountability is unlikely.
But congrats on behaving and justifying behaving just like those you claim to fight on the grounds that when they do wrong it is worse than when you or I do wrong. Creating another generation that will have good justification to despise your nation is not going to keep any of us safer.
 acranger
Joined: 4/24/2007
Msg: 62
view profile
History
support our troops? but they are terrorists.
Posted: 6/9/2008 11:12:58 AM
I am in Iraq and have been here since March 2007 and was deployed with the US Army in Mosul in 2006.

I guess my Iraqi workers who thank me every day for the job and the security they enjoy secretly believe I am a terrorist.

What is that? You never expected someone who has actually been in Iraq (and who lives here now) might actually have a counter argument?

You know, I was told about this site by some other contractor that said it was a good place to meet foreign girls you can meet up with on vacation.

Me? Why am I here?

Because it is free and I am in Iraq with no social life.


*- Post edited and left up by moderator to show poster who is now enjoying a holiday for flaming that it IS possible to make a contributory post that disagrees with the OP without being a jackass...see, just leave the flames out. There you go. If you need your hand held again, just ask. - TheMadFiddler*
 scotlandforever
Joined: 1/19/2008
Msg: 63
support our troops? but they are terrorists.
Posted: 6/9/2008 11:47:56 AM
Lynne13,
I am usually much more into posting and commenting on things and as a member of the Military, who puts my life on the line to allow you to spout crap like you just posted, I fully support your right to say and think however you like. In this case though, I am going to veer from explaining why your reasoning is flawed in calling U.S. Soldiers Terrorists and just say that you are not worth the time and effort.
Just so you know, while you sit home in your cushy world, the troops that are prosecuting this war don't like it any better than you do and we have legitimate reasons to oppose it. So don't call us terrorists because we honor the oaths that we took and go where the CIVILIAN that the country elected to be our Commander In Chief orders us to go.
 GOD.IS.A.BULLET
Joined: 6/4/2008
Msg: 65
support our troops? but they are terrorists.
Posted: 6/9/2008 2:44:23 PM
It's not the soldiers who are terrorists they are just following orders . It's those that command that need to be dealt with for their crimes against humanity and for staging illegal wars against innocent people. The field units are just pawns. They have no choice in the matter. If they rebel they go to jail.
 richard233
Joined: 11/10/2006
Msg: 70
view profile
History
support our troops? but they are terrorists.
Posted: 6/9/2008 5:28:11 PM

ill start this with.....NO ONE GAVE ME THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH. or any of my rights for that matter.........i did not need a milatary ever to give me those things... they are rights endowed upon us all by our creator. no one may ever take that away......(although HR. 1955 is trying hard... umm thought crimes....) but you guys gotta see through the years of bull shit... dont you wonder why peeps keep bringing up wwII? look it up. things changed after that..........alot of things changed. but do the research yourselves. dont listen to me.......go behind the walls of mass media......find the full truth.... put the peices together your selves. if you are intelagent... get informed.


Wrong. It is because you live in America that you have those privileges.
The "rights " you have are granted by the constitution and are guaranteed by having
a military who's members are commited to defend it.



93
any one recall "shock and awe"??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neDgVb9YHcA
they werent firing back when we leveled bagdad. we bombed them for hours without a fight. dont tell me they were TARGETING anything but the whole city. look at the footage. it was well documented. we murdered them. plain and simple. no aint aircraft missiles nothing.......they just died!


That was the whole purpose of shock and awe, to kill enough of them fast enough
that they would give up quickly and not kill OUR soldiers. And if you look at what
was hit, it was the infrastructure that would allow them to continue to fight.
We also gave notice after notice after notice we would do exactly what we did.

Do I consider it unfortunate that civilians died? Of course.
Would I willingly sacrifice American Soldiers lives to preserve more of them? No.

I bet you are one of those people who say the police should shoot the guns out of
the hands of the bad guys or not shoot at a guy driving a car at them.

OP, you need to remember, one of the main objections that most Americans have is
that OUR soldiers are dying, not because we are killing theirs. We object the waste
of money. It's really not their lives most Americans are worried about. The reality
is, were to leave now, likely as not, there would be another killing fields.
And you would then wail about our need to do something.

Bush and company screwed up.
Unless you want the blood of hundreds of thousands more on your hands, we need
to finish the job. Every time someone gets weak in the knees it just encourages the
terrorists that they are on the right track. Show them they are making no progress,
then they will try a different tact.

What is going on right now is struggle between the various internal power of Iraq for
power and money, along with external influences like Syria and Iran who have their
own reasons to fan the flames.
 lastbat13
Joined: 3/2/2008
Msg: 78
view profile
History
support our troops? but they are terrorists.
Posted: 6/9/2008 9:24:50 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


Sorry, Saddam invaded Kuwait about a decade before we invaded Iraq. We got him out of Kuwait and did the right thing by not invading Iraq. Since he was a threat only to his own people we had no reason to invade.

I'm a service member and don't support the mission in the least. I support the mission in Afghanistan because that invasion was in direct response to an attack on America. The invasion of Iraq was pointless.

While I don't support the mission I do support the troops. They are bound by law to obey their orders. They don't get to pick their battles.
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  >