Attention all soldiers

[Shadow Nexus]

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.

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.

[Camanche]

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.

[edczxcvbnm]

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.

[CloudSquallandZidane]

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.

[Sasquatch]

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.

[ShunNakamura]

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.

[nik0tine]

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.

[Sasquatch]

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.

[edczxcvbnm]

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.

[nik0tine]

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.

[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.

[nik0tine]

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.?

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.

[ShunNakamura]

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.

[edczxcvbnm]

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.

[UltimaLimit]

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.

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.