Attention all soldiers

All you soldiers out there, all you veterans, pay attention, because I want to give you a piece of my mind. Namely a piece that says:

THANK YOU

People, it doesn't matter what you think of Bush or the war. It doesn't truly matter the reason behind it. The point is, there are people fighting and dying, whatever the reason. I don't like it, and maybe you don't like it, but the point is, it's really happening. They're doing their job, and fighting to protect us. Everybody, give a shout out to veterans and say thank you. I hope the war ends, and I hope that I never have to enter combat. For those who have, I really do admire your courage. I mean it--I'm not just running my mouth here. Again, I thank you all.

I can't say thank you, becuase they haven't done me, or anyone else a service.

I can however, say that I wish each and every soldier the best of luck, and may you all come back safely. I don't like hearing about soldiers being killed and maimed, because it's just not right. I want as many people to come back from this unharmed as possible.

Thanks UltimaLimit, we appreciate that. It's nice to see some people realize what we go through and who it's for.

Like you said, you can support soldiers without supporting the war. People went through Vietnam without knowing this, and came back to a country that hated them because they hated the war itself. Now, it's not as good as it should be, but it's better on the terms that most people recognize the difference between the war and the soldier, and even if they don't agree with the war, they can wish safety upon the soldiers. Safety isn't all of what we need though, we're fighting for a reason, so a better thing to want is efficient completion of our missions.

I mean hell, now we still got people that think stupid things like soldiers have never done anything for them or anybody else. How damn blind can you be.

I wish safety upon the american soldiers AND their oponents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jrgen

I wish safety upon the american soldiers AND their oponents.

---

Good luck all and thanks alot!

Thanx, I'm in Iraq right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UltimaLimit

THANK YOU

---

You wouldnt beileve how apreciatted that is, seriously. Im not quite a soldier yet, because i havent been to boot, but i have sworn in and im not a civilian anymore. Its nice to know there are people out their who know and understand the reason for the military. Its to protect the people, freedom, and our way of life. Even if thats not always what the administration tells it to do.

I respect soldiers for their convictions and their bravery, but it has and will always be my opinion that without soldiers, there would be no wars.

Well obviously, without soldiers there would be no wars, but whether they want to fight or not, they'll get drafted if there isn't any at the moment. I work around soldiers a lot and just about all of them are very good people who are just cogs in a bigger machine.

As long as it's not for the 'wrong' reasons, I have a large amount of respect for the type of person it takes to go out there, and put their lives on the line like that. I wish safety for all the people fighting out there right now, regardless of which 'side' they're on.

Also, theundeadhero, are you really in Iraq right now? If so, what regiment are you from?

Quote:

---

I mean hell, now we still got people that think stupid things like soldiers have never done anything for them or anybody else. How damn blind can you be.

---

Soldiers throughout history have done a great deal for people all across the world. In WW2, they did the world a great service by eliminating Hitler. (Although the motives of the politicians are questionable.) However, today is a different story. There is no great threat, and soldiers are not fighting for anything other than control over a certain region.

I do not wish for soldiers to die.. but I will not wish luck or thanks on a "mission" I do not believe in.. So instead I'll wish you all a safe return to home.

Basically though.. the government can draft me if they like, but If I don't believe in the cause.. then I won't lift my arms. Simple enough... I do what I beleive is right.. and no one will change that.

Yup, I completely understand what you mean. In this day and age, a draft is becoming more and more unlikely, but if enough people don't sign up to fight the government's oil wars, than a draft in some sort of disguise is what many think we may see in the near future. This, of course would cause a huge public outcry and rebellion for the half of America that doesn't agree with this 'war'. I certainly don't agree with the idea of a draft, especially for an unjust cause, but if the States gets an lower on soldiers than they already are, I'm afraid something unpleasent might be done about it.

I myself was considering joining the army, at least part-time, if it wasn't for the fact that my tour of duty would consist of fighting for something I don't believe in.
(Well, for me it might not be so bad, as the local regiment around here are usually armoured ambulance drivers, which means I would be helping the people and fellow soldiers over there. But again, I want to avoid being the 'cog in the machine' if that's possible.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theundeadhero

Thanx, I'm in Iraq right now.

---

You shouldn't violate OPSEC, but you can say a general unit, your MOS, stuff like that. I just got out of Iraq, about a month ago--Combat Engineer, near BIAP, under 1st Cav.

Oh, not this "War for Oil" pulp again....

Maybe one of these "war for oil" proponents could explain why, if we went into Iraq to take their oil, we're not taking their oil? Or why we bothered, for that matter, since we had significantly more troops in oil-rich Kuwait than their entire standing army already? Or why we didn't just do like France did and look the other way while Sodom tortured his people in exchange for a couple sweet oil contracts? (Hey, there's some "Blood for oil", there....)

Our troops deserve our thanks. You have, at the cost of months or years of your life and at great risk to life and limb, done a great service--not only to millions of now-liberated Iraqis, but to your own country; many of whom refuse to appreciate the sacrifices you have made for them.

It should be noted that Paul Wolfowitz did mention during a Congressional hearing in January 2003, that an added bonus to invading Iraq was due to the fact that: "They have rich oil reserves which can help to repay the war debt tenfold if we allow it to pass through the proper channels."

Take care all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Redneck

Oh, not this "War for Oil" pulp again....

Maybe one of these "war for oil" proponents could explain why, if we went into Iraq to take their oil, we're not taking their oil? Or why we bothered, for that matter, since we had significantly more troops in oil-rich Kuwait than their entire standing army already? Or why we didn't just do like France did and look the other way while Sodom tortured his people in exchange for a couple sweet oil contracts? (Hey, there's some "Blood for oil", there....)

---

Very well then. I will explain it. This war wasn't about "Oil" in the sense that we would have cheaper gas. This war is about controlling an entire region. (That region being the Middle East.) The reason we took Iraq over Kuawait is because of it's strategic value. It is literally in the center of the Middle East. The U.S. could invade virtually ANY Middle Easter country from Iraq.

Now, the reason this has strategical importance to the United States is because Oil is going to be very important economically in the near future to other countries (I.e China) if they want to grow economically. With a billion plus people, they are going to need oil in order to have a functioning economy like ours. If we secure one of the most oil rich regions in the world, then we are effectively limiting China's ability to grow economically.

The whole talk of an 'exit strategy' is a joke. The United States has NO intentions of leaving Iraq. Ever. We are going to establish PERMANENT bases in the middle east. (Bases smiliar to the bases we have in Europe.) In fact, the Bush administration wants to move most of it's forces in Europe and re station them in the Middle East.

If you want to know the truth behind the Bush Administrations foreign policy, and the war on Iraq, check out "The project for the new american century." This isn't liberal propaganda BS. It is a conservative, Washingtone based, think tank. They wrote a plan called "Rebuilding America's Defenses" Which basically outlines what they think the United States should do in order to ensure that they remain "The sole world superpower" for the next one hundred years.

Also, before I finish, I would like to help prove my point by reminding that "Rebuilding America's Defenses" was written by a lot of famous people. Some names you should recognize are Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. Everything that this essay describes is EXACTLY what George Bush is doing. I will also provide you with a link to The Project for the New American Century's official website. It can be found here

With this being said, how can you support this war? This war IS about power. Period. That is an unarguable fact. So then, the question I ask you is this: Is it ok to kill for power? If you think that it is ok, than supporting this war makes sense. If however, you think otherwise, then supporting this war makes you a hypocrit.

Personally, no matter what my feelings about the war (which I oppose), I have nothing but respect for those who fight.

Quote:

---

Or why we didn't just do like France did and look the other way while Sodom tortured his people in exchange for a couple sweet oil contracts? (Hey, there's some "Blood for oil", there....)

---

I'm only gonna say this once, so read carefully...WE DID! :mad: :mad: :mad: Get your facts straight.

Well, the whole 'War for Oil' comment was said in slight ignorance, as I didn't mean that the only reason this war is being fought is for oil, as nikotine has said. For that I apologize. But oil is being taken from Iraq. Ever heard of the Oil-for-Food program? It's a program that is ENTIRELY funded by the countries natural resource. In exchange for their oil, they get money to help provide for their citizens, that *gasp* are mostly in a horrible state due to the war that is going on there.

And even when I referred to it as a 'war for oil', I never denied that the troops over their deserve respect. (well, most of them, but some sure as hell don't) I will not thank them for going over there and doing some of the things they have done, ordered to or not. Yes, there are some things I know I can thank soldiers for, but not everything. This ia a war I do not believe in so I will not say I appreciate some of the things soldiers are doing over there. I will, without hesitation, hope for their safety over there, and a safe return home.

Quote:

---

You shouldn't violate OPSEC

---

You don't have to worry about that. I once pissed off theabominatrix really bad because I wouldn't break OPSEC.

Quote:

---

You can say a general unit, your MOS, stuff like that. I just got out of Iraq, about a month ago--Combat Engineer, near BIAP, under 1st Cav.

---

I'm in the same place. 3rd ID, 21E. Mostly operate a bulldozer.

Oh, this thread is getting out of hand already. If you want another war for oil thread, well, we've got millions, it's like a happy collection we got here at the forum, you can kick a rock in EoFF Forum Land and under it you'll find a debate on that. Anyway, I shouldn't mod or anything, I'm just an unrecognized member :D

Anyway, about the whole soldier thing, no, I don't want to thank anyone, frankly. Why? Not because I think that job is not a hard one, and can be very degrading at times given the authoritarian order it follows, and I do not believe anyone should make such a sacrifice on behalf of the ruling class. The day an army serves the interests of something I believe in, then maybe I would not think in such a way, yet hardly could an army serve what I believe in, of course I wouldn't know, because I don't even know what I believe in yet, specially since I am reading a book right now that is almost teaching me how any possible paradise I can dream would be, once accomplished, another hell.

Oh, don't take me wrong, I don't have anything against soldiers themselves. I just think their choice is not the best one, this does not mean they are bad people. Well, some are bad people, some are not, as in everything in thsi world.

nik0tine--
So the real reason we invaded Iraq is to use it as a springboard to take over the entire middle east--and eventually, I assume, the world? Riiiiiiiight--read ya loud an' clear; it's allll a conspiracy....

DarkLadyNyara--
I assume you have something resembling evidence to back that claim up?

Camanche--
They're in a horrible state because of the war? Nothing to do with the guy who tortured and slaughtered his own people for a couple decades? You sure about that?

And Shadow Nexus, all I can say is that if you don't think being a soldier is difficult, you don't know much about being a soldier.

"So the real reason we invaded Iraq is to use it as a springboard to take over the entire middle east--and eventually, I assume, the world? Riiiiiiiight--read ya loud an' clear; it's allll a conspiracy"

If you read the link that Nik provided, you may see that it's more possible than just a conspiracy.

Take care all.

Remember ...

" In any war, there are heroes on both sides."

Thank you, Devin. (I can call you that, right?)

Quote:

---

nik0tine--
So the real reason we invaded Iraq is to use it as a springboard to take over the entire middle east--and eventually, I assume, the world? Riiiiiiiight--read ya loud an' clear; it's allll a conspiracy....

---

You obviously did not click on the link I provided, and you also obviously did not understand my post. We are not trying to "take over the world" We are trying ensure that we are the sole super power. We want to create a "New American Century" Where America dominates world affairs. If it doesn't make sense to you I will be more then happy to explain anything you don't understand.

"Thank you, Devin. (I can call you that, right?)"

Surely my friend.


I have a feeling that that will be a tough argument either way, as people will believe what they want to believe, honestly no matter what.

Take care all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Redneck

Camanche--
They're in a horrible state because of the war? Nothing to do with the guy who tortured and slaughtered his own people for a couple decades? You sure about that?

---

I said mostly. As in, of course they were in a horribly state before, but the war only helped to worsened it.

Quote:

---

I have a feeling that that will be a tough argument either way, as people will believe what they want to believe, honestly no matter what.

---

Which is most unfortunate. However, try as we might, people will always be more comfortable believing what they have always believed. I certainly know I was, but the facts are overwhelming, and in the end, I had no choice but to alter my opinion. (Does any of this make sense? For some reason I feel like it doesn't.. :confused: )

That makes perfect sense. A big underlying problem this country, and actually here at this board, is that we're letting our opinions become facts and basing it off of that.

Take care all.

While I personally think that Sadam had to be taken out sooner or later.. Sadam out the only one I think should be taken out. and also we were still busy in Afganistan... Spreading out your forces to several different places isn't wise... Remember the roman empire? The mongols? the huns? Germany in WWII? Napoleon? Etc... Many of these people tried to fight too many fronts or went too far when waiting for a bit would be better.

Also the reasons that bush and them are using to get sadam out are wrong. We should do it to help our fellow humans... not for oil or power.

And thridly... if we had waited till we had been done in Afganistan(would probably take a few years at least) I would likely be more supportive of the war.

Now Yes I wish them safety but I don't aggree with the war as is... some hypothetical situations could make me more willing to support it, but those didn't happen.

Quote:

---

I assume you have something resembling evidence to back that claim up?

---

Okay, you asked for it.

Quote:

---

During the war, Iraq enjoyed on-and-off relations with the United States: the United States supplied it with weapons and economic aid, but some U.S. officials also secretly supplied Iran with weapons at times. Following the war, there were moves within the United States Congress to isolate Iraq diplomatically and economically over concerns about human rights violations. These moves were disowned by high-ranking US senators like Robert Dole, who told Iraqi President Saddam Hussein that "Congress does not represent [U.S. President George] Bush or the government" and that Bush would veto any move toward sanctions against Iraq. (From the Iraqi transcript of the meeting, as published in Sifry.)

---

Quote:

---

As Ayotallah Khomenei’s Islamic Revolution took hold in Iran, the United States saw Teheran as its main adversary in the Middle East, as did Iraq. Consequently, with huge levels of American support–over $40 billion in weapons and technology through the 1980s, with many transactions “off book”–Iraq fought against Iran for nearly a decade. In the latter stages of battle, eventually won by Iraq, U.S. officers provided intelligence and tactical advice to the Iraqis, all the while Baghdad was using chemical and biological weapons on the battlefield to suppress the Iranians. Once the war ended, Saddam killed many thousands of his own Kurdish population with chemical weapons. Meanwhile, U.S. economic aid to Iraq increased.

---

The rest of the article can be found at http://hnn.us/articles/1066.html
Also check here
If you want more evidence, try Google.

Quote:

---

Spreading out your forces to several different places isn't wise... Remember the roman empire? The mongols? the huns? Germany in WWII? Napoleon? Etc... Many of these people tried to fight too many fronts or went too far when waiting for a bit would be better.

---

The united states isn't planning on doing this, though. Instead of having bases in Europe AND the middle east, the neo conservatives want to liquidate the european bases and re station those troops in the middle east. Permanantly.

true but the point I was trying to make was that we did come dangerousally close to overspreading by attacking Iraq when we did. We had to pull troops out of Afghanistan and other bases, as well that was when alot of talk of a possible draft was happening. The draft is when we don't have enough soldiers... So I would say we spread thin, maybe not TOO thin.. but we definately were pushing it. Should have waited till we were out of Afghanistan if we were going to do anything.

Quote:

---

And Shadow Nexus, all I can say is that if you don't think being a soldier is difficult, you don't know much about being a soldier.

---

Where did I say it's not difficult, Mr. Redneck? Your nick suits you perfectly.

EDIT: Uncalled for. Honestly, can you people discuss anything without being disrespectful? -Flesh Eating Virus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadow Nexus

Anyway, about the whole soldier thing, no, I don't want to thank anyone, frankly. Why? Because I do not think that job is a hard one,

---

Shadow Nexus this is where he says that you said the job is not a hard one.

So I guess you did say, but was it a typo of some sort cause you say it can be " very degrading at times" right after it?

O_o

It must have been a typo. Only I don't remember what I was trying to say there, certainly not that. I guess it was something like "Not because I don't believe that job is a hard one", or something like that, you know, confusing double negations.

*edits*

Nik0time--
Ahh, so we just want to dominate the entire world, as if we weren't already the world's superpower. (note that recommending I click the link was a bad idea, because another look revealed that Dick Cheny and Donald Rumsfeld are indeed not on the list of authors). And you believe that Bush has this massive conspiracy going because somebody says he should. Nice deductive work, there.

DarkLadyNyara--
Yes, I asked for "it". But the "it" I asked for was concerned...

Quote:

---

Or why we didn't just do like France did and look the other way while Sodom tortured his people in exchange for a couple sweet oil contracts? (Hey, there's some "Blood for oil", there....)

---

Detailing how we let Sodom have some weapons to attack another terrorist regime is interesting (and not nearly as bad as allying with Stalin to help end the Nazi threat, but war sucks sometimes--in fact, it always sucks.), but we were talking about allowing Sodom to torture his people in exchange for oil contracts (thus my rather snide "blood for oil" comment, there....).

You were saying something about getting the facts straight?

Shadow Nexus--
Where did you say it's not difficult? That would be the 25th of March, at 1:39 PM. My nick does indeed suit me well--but apparently, to find one that would suit you would violate the anti-flaming regulations of this forum.

Camanche--

Quote:

---

I said mostly. As in, of course they were in a horribly state before, but the war only helped to worsened it.

---

Which is why the people of Iraq are choosing their own leaders right? And likewise why the Iraqis are now digging up mass graves instead of being tossed into them, why the rape rooms and the infamous plastic-shredder are shut down, and nobody's losing ears for "disent"? Ahh, yes, putting a halt to all that just ruined their lives.... Damn the eeeeeeevil United States and their capitalist yankee pig-dog imperialist intervention! P'tui! P'tui on the Great Satan!

Quote:

---

Nik0time--
Ahh, so we just want to dominate the entire world, as if we weren't already the world's superpower.

---

If you would have read the report "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (I don't expect you to read a 90 page document for an argument over the internet) you would have found that the goal of this war was to ensure that we CONTINUE to dominate the world for the next 100 or so years, with nobody else to bother us.

Quote:

---

(note that recommending I click the link was a bad idea, because another look revealed that Dick Cheny and Donald Rumsfeld are indeed not on the list of authors).

---

I believe you are wrong about this, but I will take a look anyway.

Quote:

---

And you believe that Bush has this massive conspiracy going because somebody says he should. Nice deductive work, there.

---

Again, if you would have read the document you would have noticed that it parallels what Bush is doing to a T.

EDIT: I looked over the list of project participants and, oddly enough, you were right. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld do not appear to be in there. However, Paul Wolfowitz IS in there, and that most definetly says something, don't you think?

For hecks sake, you're putting words into other peoples mouths The Redneck and just making yourself seem more ignorant in the process. I obviously never said any of those things, nor meant them.

When I say the war helped worsen it, I meant that, you know, the dropping of bombs and the fighting didn't help the state of the people. Of course the war has given them the opportunity to do all the things you mentioned, but all the destruction has also hindered their daily lives as well.

Camanche: "When I say the war helped worsen it, I meant that, you know, the dropping of bombs and the fighting didn't help the state of the people. Of course the war has given them the opportunity to do all the things you mentioned, but all the destruction has also hindered their daily lives as well."

He's not putting words in your mouth at all. He's just reasoning that you're trying to say the people of Iraq are worse off because of this war than they were before. Which is a crock. Sure, for a short time, there was more destruction, but the reconstruction effort has done wonders for the Iraqi people. You can thank the liberal media for not relaying reports of the millions of Iraqis that now have things they haven't had for decades--things like clean water, electricity, sanitation, etc. The daily lives of the Iraqis are BETTER now than they were before the war started, simply because Saddam was ousted and they were being controlled by a government that cares more about their people. And it's a shame that U.S. citizens have to travel eight thousand miles to help these people out, when Saddam and his family are living in luxury you and I wouldn't be able to dream about. (I've been through one of the palaces--I don't know about you, but I sure as hell could never imagine living in a place like that.) So now you're just making yourself seem more ignorant.

nik0tine: "I looked over the list of project participants and, oddly enough, you were right. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld do not appear to be in there. However, Paul Wolfowitz IS in there, and that most definetly says something, don't you think?"

When and why did you read this 90-page report? And yes, that definitely does say something. It says that you don't know what you're talking about. One guy on Bush's staff was one of many that wrote this "plan", and thus you think Bush's move to fight back against terrorism is a plan to control the world. Oh wait...is "control" alright? You say we're not trying to "take over the world", we're just trying to...what, dominate it? Control the world? Ah, big difference there.

Shadow Nexus -- The military serves for freedom. That's not an interest you believe in? Or is it just your own freedom that you care about, and nobody else's?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

You shouldn't violate OPSEC, but you can say a general unit, your MOS, stuff like that. I just got out of Iraq, about a month ago--Combat Engineer, near BIAP, under 1st Cav.

---

My father was a Gulf War Veteran left the military at the rank of Major a few years after the war.I have great respect for them.I have tweelve cousins overseas. 5 of them in Iraq.

This is why I stopped posting in threads like this. It was a simple thread to soldiers and then war flamers thrashed it. :(

Aside from the *beep* politics,

I WANT TO SAY THANKYOU TO THE GUYS THAT'VE BEEN OVER THERE OR ARE OVER THERE. STAY SAFE. IM PRAYING FOR YOU GUYS. AND THANKS TO ALL YOU MILITARY PERSONAL.

That is all.

EDIT: No swearing. And it's personnel. -Flu

Quote:

---

When and why did you read this 90-page report? And yes, that definitely does say something. It says that you don't know what you're talking about. One guy on Bush's staff was one of many that wrote this "plan", and thus you think Bush's move to fight back against terrorism is a plan to control the world. Oh wait...is "control" alright? You say we're not trying to "take over the world", we're just trying to...what, dominate it? Control the world? Ah, big difference there.

---

If you would read the god damn thing you would notice how eerily similar things are between this document, and what Bush is doing. But keeping a closed mind is your choice. You don't have to even SKIM it if you don't want to. However, try not to criticize my opinion if you refuse to look into it. That is all I have to say about this right now.

And how about this: Thanks to everybody who fights for positive change.

I think you've found a way around the swear filter noname.

Nevermind, all is well.

Take care all.

Quote:

---

Shadow Nexus--
Where did you say it's not difficult? That would be the 25th of March, at 1:39 PM. My nick does indeed suit me well--but apparently, to find one that would suit you would violate the anti-flaming regulations of this forum.

---

Did you even read my replies after that? I think you should really try to calm down or something.

Quote:

---

Shadow Nexus -- The military serves for freedom. That's not an interest you believe in? Or is it just your own freedom that you care about, and nobody else's?

---

No, I believe the army serves the interests of the current goverment, and such interests are advertised as freedom. Most goverments through history have started wars claiming those to be in the name of some high values.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Sure, for a short time, there was more destruction, but the reconstruction effort has done wonders for the Iraqi people. You can thank the liberal media for not relaying reports of the millions of Iraqis that now have things they haven't had for decades--things like clean water, electricity, sanitation, etc.

---

Ermm, that's what I meant. And I understand how you could think I wasn't aware of the better conditions most of the people are now under because of the media, but I know people who are still over there, or who have returned and have been told of all the helpful things that is being done for the people there. Unfortunately though, many innocent civillians have died, or been injured, lost their families, etc., and when I think that was unecessary, I think of that as having one's life worsened in a way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

When and why did you read this 90-page report? And yes, that definitely does say something. It says that you don't know what you're talking about. One guy on Bush's staff was one of many that wrote this "plan", and thus you think Bush's move to fight back against terrorism is a plan to control the world. Oh wait...is "control" alright? You say we're not trying to "take over the world", we're just trying to...what, dominate it? Control the world? Ah, big difference there.

---

First, I believe he is trying to say that we want to cement our current world position for another hundred years.

Second...Since when was Iraq ever considered a terrorist or a terrorist nation? Your arguement is insane.

Please explain to me this misconception, that if there were no soldiers there would be no wars???

If the worlds suddenly disbanded ALL armies, i would organize an organization and take over the world. So u see there will always be a reason to have a ready-2-go army, always. You never know when some nut with a following and an Auto-Kalasnikov could decide to challenge the government for whatever reason.

People are going to fight, soldiers or not, all soldiers do is lower the body count on ur side and raise it on the enemies. Which isnt a bad thing to want.

nik0tine -- So you didn't read it? Obviously you didn't read over the people who wrote it, that's apparent. I give your conspiracy theory as much respect as it deserves.

Shadow Nexus -- The "interest" of the current operation is the freedom of the Iraqi people. How are you against that? Like I said earlier, is it freedom you're against, or just other people's freedom?

edczxcvbnm -- Where have you been? The war is not against Iraq. It is against terrorism, and Iraq is (was) a huge sponsor of terrorism. We took out Saddam, and in doing so eliminated much of the terrorist threat that gets its support from Iraq. Now, we're helping rebuild their country so they can enjoy the freedom that they haven't had for decades.

And yes, to believe that "if there were no soldiers, there would be no wars" is completely ridiculous.

The, "no soldiers no wars" needs explaination along with it. A soldier is someone who fights, if nobody fought there could be no war. That is how I believe it is being used.

Now I do aggree that Saddam needed to be taken out.. heck I even believe that Saddam should have been first in line, but we were already engaged on one front. You complete things one by one, in nice complete order. We pulled out of Afghanistan, partially so anyways. How soon till we leave the Iraqi's to begin the circle again? The U.S. seems to like to move on, at least partially, before we finish our job.

So it is more the timing and the reasons that make me object to this war. and cause of that I will only wish safety.

edit-

Btw, I don't always pay attention to the authors of something I read.. I have read many a book, and while I know the title, what it was about, etc.. I could not name the authors.. at least not exactly... so Nik0tine still could have read it. personally 90 pages of political mumbo-jumbo is prolly a bit much for me... never really liked politics much, at least not how they are in this country.

I will admit, Sasquatch, that I have not read the entire thing. I have however, skimmed it numerous times. I will try to get to reading it word for word, for the sake of this argument. I personally think that you should at least skim this thing, though. After all, you ARE a member of our armed forces, and even if this had nothing to do with Bush, it couldn't hurt you to have some idea of what other people wanted to do with you.


Also, I admit being at fault for not reading the list of authors. However, reading the first two pages of the document will show that Cheney DID indirectly have something to do with this thing.

ShunNakamura -- I don't usually pay attention to whoever wrote most of the things I read, either, but when I try to use a piece them in a debate, and try to mention the authors of the piece, I at least take another look so I don't look like a complete idiot who doesn't know what I'm talking about.

nik0tine -- Are you saying that Cheney is mentioned, or that Cheney was involved in the creation of this document? And yes, I am a member of the Armed Forces, but that also means that it doesn't matter to me what I'm supposed to be doing, or who wants it done. If my superiors want something done, it's my job to do it. "Ours is not to question why, ours is but to do and die." The only thing that might matter to me is not who might have wanted what done, it is what I'm doing and why. And I already know what I'm doing, and I already know why.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

edczxcvbnm -- Where have you been? The war is not against Iraq. It is against terrorism, and Iraq is (was) a huge sponsor of terrorism. We took out Saddam, and in doing so eliminated much of the terrorist threat that gets its support from Iraq. Now, we're helping rebuild their country so they can enjoy the freedom that they haven't had for decades.

---

Wow...just..wow. Iraq was the weakest threat over there. Saddam might have supported terrorists to an extent over there but it isn't anywhere near as bad as more than half the countries over there. Most of the terrorist threat gets backing from Syria, Iran or the Saudis. Not Iraq. After we attacked Iraq all the terrorists started to move in from every which way to try and seize power. No one is saying Saddam was a great guy but you are crazy to think what you said because it simply is not true. You want to take out the biggest terrorist threat? Take out Saudi. It has a lot of terror havens there compared to Iraq. Iraq was a wimpy pussy target to destroy from years of sanctions.

Sorry, but I don't think going to war with Iraq is okay because Saddam tried to kill daddy.

Quote:

---

Iraq was a wimpy pussy target to destroy from years of sanctions.

---

We didn't go there because they were an 'easy target' but, we went there because of where they are located geographically.

The sheer idiocy of just the last statement in that post deems it unworthy of a reply of any sort, but I'm bored as hell. In fact, I won't even address that dumbass comment.

Iraq supported terrorism, period. Their leader, an Islamic extremist just like most of the other leaders in that region, supported terrorism by providing people, money, training, and weapons of many types. Saddam needed to be taken out, not only because he was a threat to his own people but also because he was a threat to the United States--not directly, not yet, but in his support of other extremist organizations that wished destruction upon "infidels". If he hadn't been taken out, he would have developed (more) nuclear and chemical and biological weapons, and then he WOULD have been a direct threat to the U.S. There were already terrorists in Iraq, and they didn't move in because they thought they could sieze power and run the country, they moved in because they could get a chance to kill whitey. And newsflash, the sanctions didn't do a damn thing because the UN didn't have the balls to enforce them--mainly because some of its primary members (France, Germany) were making under-the-table deals with Saddam. Hell, they got more oil than the U.S. is getting, and schmucks still say the war is all about oil.

So you have some amount of evidence that Saddam was giving weapons to terrorists?

Also, if Saddam did manage to obtain a WMD, just how he would go about deploying it to the U.S.?

Quote:

---

Hell, they got more oil than the U.S. is getting, and schmucks still say the war is all about oil.

---

Those people just do not know what they are talking about. It is the easiest way to make the war look bad, but it isn't the truth. At least not the total truth. Ive already mentioned my stance on that. I won't repeat it, because it will just be disregarded.

True you should double check the documents if you are unsure.. but sometimes people are sure and make mistakes.

It is human to err.

And what about Saudi Arabia, they support terrorism do they not? and they have a whole lot more money going to it then Saddam did, I am sure. Why not them? or Iran? or as the others have mentioned any of the other countries.

It may be due to the strategetic location. I don't know that.

It may be due to the fact that Bush is out to liberate all the countries with such leaders, though he will never complete the task. And he just started with Saddam, because that was an easy country to take out, and show our intent, rather then having a bloody drawn out war... although none of those piddly countries could truely hurt us, save some miracle happened.

Anyways if this war was truely correct why did Bush say all that he did. If it was due to terrorist ties.. just say. if it was due to WMD's just say it!.. instead their was all that grey area at the time... makes one suspicious.

Now I am just going to sit back and watch things go on. I may have once written a fair paper on the Iraq war(it was an assignment in school) but I am now just tired of the debate. What is done is done. We just have to follow through. Pulling back now would only hurt the Iraqi's... we must persevere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

The sheer idiocy of just the last statement in that post deems it unworthy of a reply of any sort, but I'm bored as hell. In fact, I won't even address that dumbass comment.

Iraq supported terrorism, period. Their leader, an Islamic extremist just like most of the other leaders in that region, supported terrorism by providing people, money, training, and weapons of many types. Saddam needed to be taken out, not only because he was a threat to his own people but also because he was a threat to the United States--not directly, not yet, but in his support of other extremist organizations that wished destruction upon "infidels". If he hadn't been taken out, he would have developed (more) nuclear and chemical and biological weapons, and then he WOULD have been a direct threat to the U.S. There were already terrorists in Iraq, and they didn't move in because they thought they could sieze power and run the country, they moved in because they could get a chance to kill whitey. And newsflash, the sanctions didn't do a damn thing because the UN didn't have the balls to enforce them--mainly because some of its primary members (France, Germany) were making under-the-table deals with Saddam. Hell, they got more oil than the U.S. is getting, and schmucks still say the war is all about oil.

---

Of course there were terrorists already there. There are terrorists in probably every country in the world. The sanctions did do stuff. Obviously you failed to see how many weapons Saddam had that violated sanctions. Wait...what was that number? 0! My God. The sanctions must not be doing their job :rolleyes2

I never mentioned anything about oil either.

Saddam was the farthest thing from an Islamic Extreamist over there. How many other leaders over there wear buisness suits and things like that? He was the closet thing to a westerner over there. He provided money and things to small terrorist cells but compared to the other countries it is meaningless. While it is acknowledged that he had terrorists in the country and payed for them to do some things it isn't anywhere near what you are thinking. If he wanted to hurt the USA then he would have gotten on board with Al-quida because they were going after the USA and the history of that shows.

Quote:

---

Oh, this thread is getting out of hand already. If you want another war for oil thread, well, we've got millions, it's like a happy collection we got here at the forum, you can kick a rock in EoFF Forum land and under it you'll find a debate on that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flesh Eating Virus

Honestly, can you people discuss anything without being disrespectful?

---

Man, I leave for a few days, and y'all start arguing. :rolleyes2

The purpose of this thread is to let soldiers know you appreciate the sacrifices they're making. EVEN IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THE WAR, the important thing is that American lives are at stake. Remember, soldiers are just following orders, like Sasquatch said. They either do what they're told or end up dead and/or court-martialled. If you want to debate the causes of the war, that's cool. Start your own thread. Hell, I'll probably reply to that thread. I'm sorry if I'm acting too much like a mod, but please--this was meant as a simple thank-you. Flaming and bickering in it is analogous to putting graffiti on a war memorial (though it's melodramatic to say so, given the small scale of this thread).

EDIT: Thanks again to the soldiers. You're doing a job I'd never want to do, and I hope everything turns out okay for as many people as possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

If my superiors want something done, it's my job to do it. "Ours is not to question why, ours is but to do and die."

---

At the time of my last post, I diregarded this lest I lose my calm.

This saying in my opinion is the climax of stupidity. We have a God-given brain, why shouldn't we use? To question authority is what we, in my area at least, are taught in school. You should always show another respect due to a living person, but that does not mean you can't question them.

Authority is no better then the individual, in many cases the individual may show more intelligence and/or common sense.

This I know is a pet peeve of mine, but following something blind is unwise. If we were meant to do so God would have made us like bee's or ants, with a hive brain and little individuality.

As I said this is a pet peeve of mine, so if I took it out of context, and/or offended anyone, please accept my extended appologies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

If my superiors want something done, it's my job to do it. "Ours is not to question why, ours is but to do and die."

---

Tch. That's never a good thing. You should ALWAYS question authority. If you don't, you may end up being forced to commit atrocities simply cause your superiors order it. Always always always question your orders. There is NO excuse not to. Even if it's the policy of the US military, and you get court martialed for refusing to obey orders. That is still no excuse.

Try and look at it from a soldier's perspective: "Hmm... kill people who are shooting at me or question orders and risk getting court-martialed?" Tough choice.

Being a soldier is a job like any other in one sense. Your boss tells you to do something, so you do it or you get in trouble. Now, if a soldier recieves orders to rape or something, he might want to have a word with his CO about it, but come on.

(I know, I'm dragging my thread further off-topic, but I'm hoping to kill that particular side discussion before it gets any farther.)

I don't really care what it is. If I disaggree or don't understand I will question. If they try to get me in trouble for using my god-given abilities I will show them a "fight". Even though I am a pacifist, I will fight for what I believe in. And I believe in using one's brain.

Now if you don't disagree or have any questions, then it is fine to follow orders... afterall you do aggree, at least on some scale.

On a soldier's view I am sorta stumped.. what is really different? If a commander was making a bludemental order and you questioned it you could save lives. Which is a much bigger impact then would generally be made. So I guess for a soldier the results are just much larger.

Quote:

---

Shadow Nexus -- The "interest" of the current operation is the freedom of the Iraqi people. How are you against that? Like I said earlier, is it freedom you're against, or just other people's freedom?

---

That sounds preety naive to me. I do not believe any of the governors of USA is really interested in Iraqi freedom as they are in having a puppet goverment to control the region. Hell, I don't even believe this freedom is such, mainly because now they are at the edge of a civil war. You speak of freedom according to American standards, and I do not mean by that with "as free as USA", I mean with that what the goverment calls freedom od a country, wich more or less translates to puppet democracies or dictatorships (whatever suits the situation better, of course a democracy is better since it keeps rebellions reduced) serving US interests. How can a democracy be a puppet? Easy, just keep the corporations in control, after all, in capitgalism the power is theirs.

Quote:

---

It may be due to the strategetic location. I don't know that.

---

Take a look at a map of the Middle East. Suddenly, it will all make sense.

Also, I would just like to note that that United States has always set up puppet governments. In fact, it has never set up anything other than a puppet government. The argument that we are going to "give the Iraqi's freedom" is a bunk argument, because history has proven that to be false. Nobody invades a country or starts a war, so they can help other people. Anyone who believes that is living in a fantasy world.

Quote:

---

were talking about allowing Sodom to torture his people in exchange for oil contracts (thus my rather snide "blood for oil" comment, there....).

---

We were allied with him while the worst of the atrocities happened. That's what I was trying to point out. We did allow him to get away with killing his people, until he moved in on our friends in Kuwait. (And Saudi, which we know has ties to Al-Queda. Now that is "blood-for-Oil") By the way, I don't agree with the whole blood for oil refrain, I find it rather simplistic. :mad:

Am I the only one who knows who placed Saddam in power in the first god damn place? I'm beginning to think I am. =/

I agree with ed. I think it was ok because Bush Sr was threatened. Bush Jr has brought it up over...and over...and over, until people started mentioning it, then he shut up about it. I think this made it "ok" among a few other things, but not the bullsh!t the majority of the country seems to be eating up.

I will say this. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. At certain times, we helped out powers that later became enemies, but only because they were against a common enemy of our own.

You know that nobody who wears a business suit can be anything bad...

As for "ours is not to question why, ours is but to do and die"... Y'all have obviously never been in the military, and know nothing about military law. I'm not talking about getting an order to go slaughter innocent women and children and not questioning it--that would be an unlawful order, and it's not just our right, it's our obligation to disobey such an order. Officers are put in place because they are supposed to know what orders to give and how to give them. But if there is a lawful order, or an order that we don't know for sure is unlawful, the soldiers will not take the heat for it, the leadership will, and the soldiers should carry it out. For example... If we see people with weapons they should have in a building, we might get an order to eliminate the possible threat--they're not going hunting with RPGs, trust me. (Well the are, just not for animals.) So we fire into the building, and lo and behold, there was a civilian in there. In that case, the soldiers did what we had to do, as did the commanding officer, and if anybody's gonna get in trouble for what happened, it'll be the officer. On the other hand, if I see somebody with an RPG pointed out a window at my vehicle, I don't care if there's half a dozen kids standing behind the guy, I'm behind a 40mm automatic grenade launcher and that window is about to get much, much larger. And if I get an order not to fire, and I discover than I am in imminent danger, I will fire anyway until the threat is eliminated--the situation will be investigated and the furthest it would go would be an Article 32 hearing, not even a court-martial.

We are trained to follow orders without hesitation. If something goes wrong because we followed orders, we should not be held accountable for it, it's the responsibility of whoever gave that order.

Oh yeah. If it was such a "vendetta", then Bush Sr. would have gone in and taken Saddam out in the first place. But no, we went in, accomplished the goal, and left.

ShunNakura -- If a Commander was making the right order, and I questioned it, it could cost lives. Looking at both sides of the issue, who's blood would I rather have on my hands--those of my soldiers, my friends, my brothers, because I questioned an order, or those of Iraqis that might or might not be innocent?

UltimaLimit -- Thanks. We appreciate it.

Quote:

---

We are trained to follow orders without hesitation. If something goes wrong because we followed orders, we should not be held accountable for it, it's the responsibility of whoever gave that order.

---

Point taken.

Everyone is accountable for thier own actions.. even if that action is to follow orders.

Yes there are two sides, you could save lives or you could harm lives. depending on whether or not you are right. That was what my comment about it being on a larger scale was.

Yes the officers are put in charge because they are "supposed" to know what they are talking about. But everyone... and I repeat everyone makes mistakes. Which is way questioning is so good. If an order was handed down, I would at least run it through my mind first, if I could see reason in it, it probably wouldn't bother me, if however I couldn't find reason, I sure will go ask. "No question is a dumb question".

Actually to tell the truth the biggest way to earn my dissent and arguments is by hidding information from me... reason being I may not be able to see reason if I dont' have the whole truth, and I will stick by what I think is right, to the end.


We are obviousally of two different mentalities so I possibly I should not even have posted this post.. but I always hang on for awhile... I will try to end this here, unless I see something I feel compelled to respond to, I will stay out of the thread and try to allow to stay on-topic.

and once agian, be safe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShunNakamura

If an order was handed down, I would at least run it through my mind first, if I could see reason in it, it probably wouldn't bother me, if however I couldn't find reason, I sure will go ask. "No question is a dumb question".

---

There are dumb questions. And if you went to ask, you might have the situation explained to you, or you'll just be told "you'll do it because I told you to do it, now get the hell out of here." And that's only when you have time to question an order.

Yes, officers are supposed to know what they're doing. But they know better than I do--they've had more training, they've had more experience, and they've been in longer. Plus, they're the ones that go to the briefings and such and find out the exact situation. So, for the most part, I have no place to question their orders. Hell, if it's a lawful order and time is of the essence, I could get punished for hesitation to question the order.

Sasquatch is right on this piece, the only reason not to accept an order is because it doesnt comply with the ROE of the mission, or UCMJ, or whatever a rape, torture, blind, etc. order might fall under.

If u refuse an order it could cost ur fellow soldiers lives, so i would choose wisely what orders u do and dont follow, i wouldnt say never question orders though. I would say question orders that warrant a question common sense tells us which orders these are.

Most of this thread disgusts me, so I will only say "thank you" to Ultima Limit, for your expression of gratitude. That is what the thread was originally started for, anyway. It's good to know there are still people who show appreciation instead of idiocy. So again, thanks. ^^

Quote:

---

Sasquatch is right on this piece, the only reason not to accept an order is because it doesnt comply with the ROE of the mission, or UCMJ, or whatever a rape, torture, blind, etc. order might fall under.

If u refuse an order it could cost ur fellow soldiers lives, so i would choose wisely what orders u do and dont follow, i wouldnt say never question orders though. I would say question orders that warrant a question common sense tells us which orders these are.

---

You all act like this is Vietnam and soldiers are faced with these choices everyday. It's not! The odds of an order like that coming down is like, once in a lifetime. I have never had an order I even had to think twice about, and thats not saying I follow blindly. When it comes time to shoot, you shoot. There's no official order needed. Early this morning I was on motor pool gaurd. A mortar round came down in the motor pool across the street and hit a tank. It caught on fire and the rounds inside it started to cook off. Did I need any order to do anything? NO, you already know what to do and you instantly react to any given situation. The ROE and such stuff is there so you know what to do when the situation comes up. When it's there, no official leadership is telling everyone what to do. Where not video game characters that just stand there and wait to get told anything. The leadership is there to make sure we do the right thing and not break the rules.

The first post makes me extremely happy and proud to serve. Thank you.

The rest of this thread is just petty internet bickering. Sad, really.

Quote:

---

Most of this thread disgusts me, so I will only say "thank you" to Ultima Limit, for your expression of gratitude. That is what the thread was originally started for, anyway. It's good to know there are still people who show appreciation instead of idiocy. So again, thanks. ^^

---

Thank you for reminding us what this thread was supposed to be. Sorry for my part in the idiocy. :cry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MoonsEcho

Most of this thread disgusts me, so I will only say "thank you" to Ultima Limit, for your expression of gratitude. That is what the thread was originally started for, anyway. It's good to know there are still people who show appreciation instead of idiocy. So again, thanks. ^^

---

What's idiocy in this thread and what's not is a matter of opinion. ^^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMKA

What's idiocy in this thread and what's not is a matter of opinion. ^^

---

Idem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theundeadhero

You all act like this is Vietnam and soldiers are faced with these choices everyday. It's not! The odds of an order like that coming down is like, once in a lifetime. I have never had an order I even had to think twice about, and thats not saying I follow blindly. When it comes time to shoot, you shoot. There's no official order needed. Early this morning I was on motor pool gaurd. A mortar round came down in the motor pool across the street and hit a tank. It caught on fire and the rounds inside it started to cook off. Did I need any order to do anything? NO, you already know what to do and you instantly react to any given situation. The ROE and such stuff is there so you know what to do when the situation comes up. When it's there, no official leadership is telling everyone what to do. Where not video game characters that just stand there and wait to get told anything. The leadership is there to make sure we do the right thing and not break the rules.

---

Well i guess its because im Air Force, we are going to recieve a different system of instruction. Theres not gonna be any "Oh sh*+ act!", Decisions for me. And ur right i dont expect to recieve any of those kind of orders, but those soldiers at the Iraqi prison did, or do u think it was just something to do for them.

Ur definition of leadership is hazy though, leadership is there to LEAD, to tell someone when they dont know which way to jump or how high, making sure someone doesnt break the rules is just another part of leading.

Quote:

---

What's idiocy in this thread and what's not is a matter of opinion.

---

The thread was created to show appriciation for our soldiers and instead turned into a political debate. That's what was meant by idiocy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DocFrance

The first post makes me extremely happy and proud to serve. Thank you.

The rest of this thread is just petty internet bickering. Sad, really.

---

If you think that discussing the moral implications of conflict is petty bickering, then what on earth are you fighting for?

I consider most "discussions" on the internet to be petty bickering. It's amazing how much they differ from real-life discussions. Kinda like that RvB clip of "The Internet vs. Real Life."

Real Life:
"...and that's just the way I feel about that."
"Well, I don't agree, but I respect your opinion."

Internet:
"You deserve to die! You go to hell and you die!"
"Oh yeah? Well, I hope you get raped! Twice! Maybe then you'll feel different!"

Well actually this is more civilized then many discusions about controversal topics then I have had many times in real life... in rl the occasion person will try to bring fists into the discussion :rolleyes2

Doesn't help any.. .but... they do do it. not to mention yelling, or calling names... this was actually quite civilized even if it was brought off topic, and turned into an argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkLadyNyara

The thread was created to show appriciation for our soldiers and instead turned into a political debate. That's what was meant by idiocy.

---

But supporting soldiers in and of itself is a political debate. :D

Yep. This is a forum, not a fan club. If you express a view, then expect those who don't agree with you to say so.

There's a difference in supporting soldiers and supporting the war--after Vietnam, too many people that hated the war took it out on the soldiers that had nothing to do with the politics of it. The thread was made to express respect and gratitude towards soldiers--which isn't a political issue--and not discuss the validity of the war, which is.

Not to mention, this thread wasn't directed at anybody except soldiers, and possibly other people who want to thank soldiers as well. If you didn't agree with the concept, you didn't even have to come in here, and nothing is being helped by people talking about how soldiers haven't done anything for them, and other assorted crocks of the like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShunNakamura

I do not wish for soldiers to die.. but I will not wish luck or thanks on a "mission" I do not believe in.. So instead I'll wish you all a safe return to home.

Basically though.. the government can draft me if they like, but If I don't believe in the cause.. then I won't lift my arms. Simple enough... I do what I beleive is right.. and no one will change that.

---

All I did at first was wish luck, and just say that I don't believe in the war's righteousness.

Once again I will say.. Be safe all. And I ain't just talking to the soldiers here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

There's a difference in supporting soldiers and supporting the war--after Vietnam, too many people that hated the war took it out on the soldiers that had nothing to do with the politics of it. The thread was made to express respect and gratitude towards soldiers--which isn't a political issue--and not discuss the validity of the war, which is.

Not to mention, this thread wasn't directed at anybody except soldiers, and possibly other people who want to thank soldiers as well. If you didn't agree with the concept, you didn't even have to come in here, and nothing is being helped by people talking about how soldiers haven't done anything for them, and other assorted crocks of the like.

---

Wait, I think the World Events forum is meant to be used for discussion, if not, it wouldn't be a forum, as Skogs said. See, if you put a post in this forum, you must assume debate around it, not just for people to nod and give you a nice applause. If you want to thank the soldiers, well that's fine too, but a debate forum is for debating, so don't get pissed if things get debated. There are many other ways of thanking the soldiers through EoFF. Your sig, for example.