support our troops

it is wrong to wage wars of aggression, which is what this war is. it is an unjustified invasion of another nation. tens of thousands of innocent people have been killed in this war. it's dreadful.

i cannot possibly support the troops because they are not innocents in this struggle. in fact, i despise them. each and every one of them is old enough to know right from wrong, yet they choose the wrong. the only moral response to an order to go fight in afghanistan or iraq is to flatly refuse to do so.

the fact is, everyone who participates in this war is a murderer, and every supporter is an accomplice to murder. none are deserving of honor, respect, or support.

giton

Murderers? You're sick and confused. A murder is an illegal killing. These killings are legally legitimate and if you disagree, I guess you should call the police and reports some "murders".

He's right, this war is illegal. I thought a soldier was supposed to be smart? Why don't they question what they're doing? Brainwashed? I salute the guy who decided to go to jail instead of going over there to kill innocent women and children. Last time i checked it was 600,000+X360PS3AMD05

The insurgents kill them, why because they dont give a crap, most of them are from foreign countries and come into Iraq looking to start a civil war. UrbanSpartan125

Uh-huh, and when did all THAT start?

it is wrong to wage wars of aggression, which is what this war is. it is an unjustified invasion of another nation. tens of thousands of innocent people have been killed in this war. it's dreadful.

i cannot possibly support the troops because they are not innocents in this struggle. in fact, i despise them. each and every one of them is old enough to know right from wrong, yet they choose the wrong. the only moral response to an order to go fight in afghanistan or iraq is to flatly refuse to do so.

the fact is, everyone who participates in this war is a murderer, and every supporter is an accomplice to murder. none are deserving of honor, respect, or support.

giton

Innocent people are always killed in war. Do you think during World War II that the only people who died were soldiers? It's terrible yes, but it's also unavoidable.

You also apparently have no clue as to what military service is, or what duty is. It's not about whether the men and women of the armed forces believe what they are doing is right and wrong. It's about following orders and doing the duty that you swore an oath to do when you joined the military in the first place.

You can question the validity of this war, and the decisions that have been made by those in power all you want. Please don't disrespect the men and women that put themselves in harms way every single day so you can be an idiot and post stupid things here on a video game website.

[QUOTE="X360PS3AMD05"]He's right, this war is illegal. I thought a soldier was supposed to be smart? Why don't they question what they're doing? Brainwashed? I salute the guy who decided to go to jail instead of going over there to kill innocent women and children. Last time i checked it was 600,000+UrbanSpartan125

Why We Fight is a good movie.

Since 1990's after Operation Desert Storm, over 600,000+ Iraqi's died in starvation due to UN sanctions and bombings by the U.S. in Iraqi sewer systems. We flown planes to enforce the no-fly zone. Many innocent civilians died. Regime change doesn't work.

So they follow blindly and we are supposed to respect that? So i'm supposed to respect the SS and Gestapo for just "following orders" :lol: Yah innocent people die in war, but this one is for BS reasons and the soldiers are dying in vain along with the civilians. War has always been about a few elitists gaining power, money etc. while many people suffer. Not to mention the fact that it's an ILLEGAL war.X360PS3AMD05

Are you seriously going to compare the U.S. to the Nazi's? If this is where this conversation is going, I'm going to just stop now because it's going to get nowhere.

So they follow blindly and we are supposed to respect that? So i'm supposed to respect the SS and Gestapo for just "following orders" :lol: Yah innocent people die in war, but this one is for BS reasons and the soldiers are dying in vain along with the civilians. War has always been about a few elitists gaining power, money etc. while many people suffer. Not to mention the fact that it's an ILLEGAL war. X360PS3AMD05

Wow. The US military isn't systimatically killing off an ethnicity. Last time I checked, the Sunni's and Shiites were doing that themselves with their sectarian violence.

I'd like to see proof of that, and thats why we have the right to bear arms, to fight against the government if they become overly oppressive. UrbanSpartan125

[QUOTE="UrbanSpartan125"] I'd like to see proof of that, and thats why we have the right to bear arms, to fight against the government if they become overly oppressive. Hewkii

What's only for the militia? The right to bear arms?

i'll support them by not wanting them to die in a WASTED effort.

What's only for the militia? The right to bear arms?

Decessus

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I only support drafted troops. Anyone that signs up for that is taking an inherent risk, just like a police officer signs up knowing that someday he might be shot, or a firefighter might die as a result of a fire.

A drafted soldier doesn't want to be there, but went anyway to serve his country when it called upon him.

[QUOTE="Hewkii"][QUOTE="UrbanSpartan125"] I'd like to see proof of that, and thats why we have the right to bear arms, to fight against the government if they become overly oppressive. Decessus

What's only for the militia? The right to bear arms?

Who has bear arms?

PKK terrorists in Turkey kills my fellow citizens with American weapons.Therefore USA supports terror.Those weapons belong to your troops who went there to fight for economic reasons.Not for saving USA nor Americans because Iraq can not be a real threat to USA.

In this case I can not support American troops but I can not blame individuals.

[QUOTE="NathanHawkins"]

[QUOTE="Hewkii"][QUOTE="monkeytoes61"]so you are against freedom, and protecting out country?monkeytoes61

Actually, they were Saudi...at least 15 of 19 were.

As you said it may have run out of Afghanistan but they were Saudi...its not our place to police the world...if you're so concerned about america and supporting it why dont you write to your congressmen about hte stuff thats wrong inside of this country...Like healthcare,poverty,price gouging on gas, and even how some of our troops come home and dont have a home or anything anymore because our government right now doesnt give a care. We should fix the problems we have in this country before we play super hero and fix everyone else's

PKK terrorists in Turkey kills my fellow citizens with American weapons.Therefore USA supports terror.Those weapons belong to your troops who went there to fight for economic reasons.Not for saving USA nor Americans because Iraq can not be a real threat to USA.

In this case I can not support American troops but I can not blame individuals.

sentencedogu

So if someone breaks into my house and steals a gun then shoots someone else, I'm supporting murder? Why do people type such nonsense?

[QUOTE="Decessus"]

What's only for the militia? The right to bear arms?

Hewkii

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Here is the exact wording and punctuation of the Second Amendment:

"A will regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If you notice, there is a comma that separates the part about the Militia from the part about the people. The right to bear arms does not pertain to just the militia.

This is really very simple:

You were told that Saddam Hussein had nuclear and chemical missiles which he was going to use to kill you all. He had no such weapons.

You were told Saddam Hussein was harboring terrorists and was connected with 9/11. He had nothing to do with 9/11, and rather hated the likes of al queda rather than supported them.

You were slowly told that you were at war to save the poor people of Iraq.... that's not what they said to begin with. Did we not go to war on the basis that we were going to be attacked by Saddam? Why the sudden change? Had they said in the first place that Saddam posed no thread but they wanted to remove him to help the people of Iraq.... would we have gone to war? Heck no.

And finally, the troops aren't fighting for us at all. You haven't been invaded. You haven't been attacked, or threatened. YOU invaded another country. YOU are the attackers. Iraq posed no threat to your "freedom" at all.

End of discussion really. Support the troops by all means, but dont for a minute try and claim that they're fighting a just war.

[QUOTE="sentencedogu"]

PKK terrorists in Turkey kills my fellow citizens with American weapons.Therefore USA supports terror.Those weapons belong to your troops who went there to fight for economic reasons.Not for saving USA nor Americans because Iraq can not be a real threat to USA.

In this case I can not support American troops but I can not blame individuals.

Trashface

So if someone breaks into my house and steals a gun then shoots someone else, I'm supporting murder? Why do people type such nonsense?

That's not the case. The weapons here were not stolen, they were GIVEN. Heck, America GAVE the big bad Saddam all these weapons he had in the first place.

[QUOTE="Trashface"][QUOTE="sentencedogu"]

PKK terrorists in Turkey kills my fellow citizens with American weapons.Therefore USA supports terror.Those weapons belong to your troops who went there to fight for economic reasons.Not for saving USA nor Americans because Iraq can not be a real threat to USA.

In this case I can not support American troops but I can not blame individuals.

Ninja-Vox

So if someone breaks into my house and steals a gun then shoots someone else, I'm supporting murder? Why do people type such nonsense?

That's not the case. The weapons here were not stolen, they were GIVEN. Heck, America GAVE the big bad Saddam all these weapons he had in the first place.

Lets not forget that we overthrew Iran's democratically elected leader and installed the Shah in place. That sure worked out.

That's not the case. The weapons here were not stolen, they were GIVEN. Heck, America GAVE the big bad Saddam all these weapons he had in the first place.

Ninja-Vox

Should we not have corrected the mistakes Kennedy and Helms made in the 60's?

[QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"]

That's not the case. The weapons here were not stolen, they were GIVEN. Heck, America GAVE the big bad Saddam all these weapons he had in the first place.

LukeAF24

Should we not have corrected the mistakes Kennedy and Helms made in the 60's?

Its been the United States policy in government for decades now.... Did you realize that the United States is arming Saudi Arabia, a country that is controled by a brutal monarch.. Hell lets not forget the United States is also giving weapons to insurgeant extremists in Iraq.

Its been the United States policy in government for decades now.... Did you realize that the United States is arming Saudi Arabia, a country that is controled by a brutal monarch.. Hell lets not forget the United States is also giving weapons to insurgeant extremists in Iraq.

sSubZerOo

That doesn't answer my question. Besides, the US has done, and will continue to do what is in it's own best interests. As it should.

[QUOTE="LukeAF24"][QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"]

That's not the case. The weapons here were not stolen, they were GIVEN. Heck, America GAVE the big bad Saddam all these weapons he had in the first place.

sSubZerOo

Should we not have corrected the mistakes Kennedy and Helms made in the 60's?

Its been the United States policy in government for decades now.... Did you realize that the United States is arming Saudi Arabia, a country that is controled by a brutal monarch.. Hell lets not forget the United States is also giving weapons to insurgeant extremists in Iraq.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Its been the United States policy in government for decades now.... Did you realize that the United States is arming Saudi Arabia, a country that is controled by a brutal monarch.. Hell lets not forget the United States is also giving weapons to insurgeant extremists in Iraq.

LukeAF24

That doesn't answer my question. Besides, the US has done, and will continue to do what is in it's own best interests. As it should.

Yeah it should to some extent... But there are national laws we signed that should be followed always, because like it or not the United States will not bea super power for ever, and we will probably be crying about China breaking rules.. And all they have to do is show what we did in our past to show how big of hypocrits we are.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Its been the United States policy in government for decades now.... Did you realize that the United States is arming Saudi Arabia, a country that is controled by a brutal monarch.. Hell lets not forget the United States is also giving weapons to insurgeant extremists in Iraq.

LukeAF24

That doesn't answer my question. Besides, the US has done, and will continue to do what is in it's own best interests. As it should.

As it should? So you should overthrow Iran's democratically elected government because it suits you better? You should give weapons to terrorists because they're against a government you dont get along with?

Freedom for the win, eh?

This is really very simple:

You were told that Saddam Hussein had nuclear and chemical missiles which he was going to use to kill you all. He had no such weapons.

You were told Saddam Hussein was harboring terrorists and was connected with 9/11. He had nothing to do with 9/11, and rather hated the likes of al queda rather than supported them.

You were slowly told that you were at war to save the poor people of Iraq.... that's not what they said to begin with. Did we not go to war on the basis that we were going to be attacked by Saddam? Why the sudden change? Had they said in the first place that Saddam posed no thread but they wanted to remove him to help the people of Iraq.... would we have gone to war? Heck no.

And finally, the troops aren't fighting for us at all. You haven't been invaded. You haven't been attacked, or threatened. YOU invaded another country. YOU are the attackers. Iraq posed no threat to your "freedom" at all.

End of discussion really. Support the troops by all means, but dont for a minute try and claim that they're fighting a just war.

Ninja-Vox

You have a point, and I agree with most of what you have to say.

To put it into your own words though, don't for a minute try and claim that it is the fault of the soldiers for the start of this war. It's completely disgraceful to say that you "despise" the troops because they are doing the duty they swore an oath to perform.

You have a point, and I agree with most of what you have to say.

To put it into your own words though, don't for a minute try and claim that it is the fault of the soldiers for the start of this war. It's completely disgraceful to say that you "despise" the troops because they are doing the duty they swore an oath to perform.

Decessus

When did i say i "despise" troops? :| They're incredibly brave, but you cant simply ignore the fact that it's a completely unjust war by labelling all those who disagree with it as evil troop-haters, as so many bush supporters do.

[QUOTE="Decessus"]

You have a point, and I agree with most of what you have to say.

To put it into your own words though, don't for a minute try and claim that it is the fault of the soldiers for the start of this war. It's completely disgraceful to say that you "despise" the troops because they are doing the duty they swore an oath to perform.

Ninja-Vox

When did i say i "despise" troops? :| They're incredibly brave, but you cant simply ignore the fact that it's a completely unjust war by labelling all those who disagree with it as evil troop-haters, as so many bush supporters do.

I wasn't referring to you specifically, sorry for the confusion.

I think the war is justified or unjustified depending on what the goal was in the first place. If the goal really was to battle terrorism or to liberate Iraq, then I think it was justified. If it was for oil, or some other greedy purpose then it wasn't justified.

I think the question however is pointless to ask because we can't erase what we've done. I think the better question that needs to be asked is if our presence in Iraq is successfully accomplishing the goals that we thought it would when we started. My answer to this would be no. This entire operation, at least from my perspective, was very poorly thought out. I think the best course of action right now would be to retreat, regroup, and figure out a better strategy.

That's one thing I've always disagreed with people who support this war. They claim that if we withdraw from Iraq now, it will give the terrorists a victory. The way I see it though, if we stay there, they are going to get the victory anyway and we'll have far fewer available resources than if we withdrew now. As the Bush administration has said on countless occassions, this is a WAR on terrorism. There is nothing disgraceful about retreating from a hopeless battle and changing strategies to one that can be more successful. Let them win the battle, just stay focused on winning the war.

That's one thing I've always disagreed with people who support this war. They claim that if we withdraw from Iraq now, it will give the terrorists a victory. The way I see it though, if we stay there, they are going to get the victory anyway and we'll have far fewer available resources than if we withdrew now. As the Bush administration has said on countless occassions, this is a WAR on terrorism. There is nothing disgraceful about retreating from a hopeless battle and changing strategies to one that can be more successful. Let them win the battle, just stay focused on winning the war.

Decessus

You realise there was no terrorist threat from Iraq at all until we invaded? So we definately didn't go to "fight terrorism" because we weren't under any threat at all from Iraqi terrorists.

[QUOTE="Decessus"]

That's one thing I've always disagreed with people who support this war. They claim that if we withdraw from Iraq now, it will give the terrorists a victory. The way I see it though, if we stay there, they are going to get the victory anyway and we'll have far fewer available resources than if we withdrew now. As the Bush administration has said on countless occassions, this is a WAR on terrorism. There is nothing disgraceful about retreating from a hopeless battle and changing strategies to one that can be more successful. Let them win the battle, just stay focused on winning the war.

Ninja-Vox

You realise there was no terrorist threat from Iraq at all until we invaded? So we definately didn't go to "fight terrorism" because we weren't under any threat at all from Iraqi terrorists.

You're missing the point.

Unless you're convinced that we are in Iraq for some evil empire expanding purpose, we are at there for at least a somewhat benevolent reason. Whether it's fighting terrorism, stopping the spread of Islam, removing dictators and establishing democracies.. whatever. The question is whether or not we are being successful in that goal. And if we are not, what we should do instead so that we are successful.

You're missing the point.

Unless you're convinced that we are in Iraq for some evil empire expanding purpose, we are at there for at least a somewhat benevolent reason. Whether it's fighting terrorism, stopping the spread of Islam, removing dictators and establishing democracies.. whatever. The question is whether or not we are being successful in that goal. And if we are not, what we should do instead so that we are successful.

Decessus

What a load of nonsense; it doesn't matter why we're there so long as the "goal" is being achieved? Of course it matters. Congress and Parliament both voted to go to war based on the arguement presented to them; that saddam hussein had nuclear and chemical weapons which he intended to use on us, and if we didn't intervene, he WOULD. That was the reasoning. And that was a complete lie.

Had we been told the REAL reason for invading Iraq, you can bet the vote would've been different. So the arguement of "support our troops, they're fighting for your freedom!" is complete, grade-a bullcrap. I'm not denying any bravery, but our troops are fighting because they've been told to, not because our "freedom" is being threatened. Iraq posed no threat to us whatsoever. You were lied to. Simple as that.

What a load of nonsense; it doesn't matter why we're there so long as the "goal" is being achieved? Of course it matters. Congress and Parliament both voted to go to war based on the arguement presented to them; that saddam hussein had nuclear and chemical weapons which he intended to use on us, and if we didn't intervene, he WOULD. That was the reasoning. And that was a complete lie.

Had we been told the REAL reason for invading Iraq, you can bet the vote would've been different. So the arguement of "support our troops, they're fighting for your freedom!" is complete, grade-a bullcrap. I'm not denying any bravery, but our troops are fighting because they've been told to, not because our "freedom" is being threatened. Iraq posed no threat to us whatsoever. You were lied to. Simple as that.

Ninja-Vox

So what is the REAL reason for being in Iraq?

[QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"][QUOTE="Decessus"]

That's one thing I've always disagreed with people who support this war. They claim that if we withdraw from Iraq now, it will give the terrorists a victory. The way I see it though, if we stay there, they are going to get the victory anyway and we'll have far fewer available resources than if we withdrew now. As the Bush administration has said on countless occassions, this is a WAR on terrorism. There is nothing disgraceful about retreating from a hopeless battle and changing strategies to one that can be more successful. Let them win the battle, just stay focused on winning the war.

Decessus

You realise there was no terrorist threat from Iraq at all until we invaded? So we definately didn't go to "fight terrorism" because we weren't under any threat at all from Iraqi terrorists.

You're missing the point.

Unless you're convinced that we are in Iraq for some evil empire expanding purpose, we are at there for at least a somewhat benevolent reason. Whether it's fighting terrorism, stopping the spread of Islam, removing dictators and establishing democracies.. whatever. The question is whether or not we are being successful in that goal. And if we are not, what we should do instead so that we are successful.

I hope thats a mistype.

[QUOTE="Decessus"]

You're missing the point.

Unless you're convinced that we are in Iraq for some evil empire expanding purpose, we are at there for at least a somewhat benevolent reason. Whether it's fighting terrorism, stopping the spread of Islam, removing dictators and establishing democracies.. whatever. The question is whether or not we are being successful in that goal. And if we are not, what we should do instead so that we are successful.

sSubZerOo

I hope thats a mistype.

No, it wasn't a mistype. That is one reason that people have argued for our continued presence in Iraq.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Decessus"]

You're missing the point.

Unless you're convinced that we are in Iraq for some evil empire expanding purpose, we are at there for at least a somewhat benevolent reason. Whether it's fighting terrorism, stopping the spread of Islam, removing dictators and establishing democracies.. whatever. The question is whether or not we are being successful in that goal. And if we are not, what we should do instead so that we are successful.

Decessus

I hope thats a mistype.

No, it wasn't a mistype. That is one reason that people have argued for our continued presence in Iraq.

Which makes us the largest hypcrits ever... Its called Freedom of religion, I sincerly hope this was not the real reason that brought us there, because Islam as a religion is not the problem its extremists which plague every religion. Sorry if you do not sound persuasive what so ever.

So I take it you believe the troops there are passing out bibles or other ideas to convert them from Islam.. Brilliant conclusion if I do say so my self.

[QUOTE="Decessus"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Decessus"]

You're missing the point.

Unless you're convinced that we are in Iraq for some evil empire expanding purpose, we are at there for at least a somewhat benevolent reason. Whether it's fighting terrorism, stopping the spread of Islam, removing dictators and establishing democracies.. whatever. The question is whether or not we are being successful in that goal. And if we are not, what we should do instead so that we are successful.

sSubZerOo

I hope thats a mistype.

No, it wasn't a mistype. That is one reason that people have argued for our continued presence in Iraq.

Which makes us the largest hypcrits ever... Its called Freedom of religion, I sincerly hope this was not the real reason that brought us there, because Islam as a religion is not the problem its extremists which plague every religion. Sorry if you do not sound persuasive what so ever.

So I take it you believe the troops there are passing out bibles or other ideas to convert them from Islam.. Brilliant conclusion if I do say so my self.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't put words into my mouth. Did I once say that I personally thought this was the reason we are in Iraq?

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Decessus"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Decessus"]

You're missing the point.

Unless you're convinced that we are in Iraq for some evil empire expanding purpose, we are at there for at least a somewhat benevolent reason. Whether it's fighting terrorism, stopping the spread of Islam, removing dictators and establishing democracies.. whatever. The question is whether or not we are being successful in that goal. And if we are not, what we should do instead so that we are successful.

Decessus

I hope thats a mistype.

No, it wasn't a mistype. That is one reason that people have argued for our continued presence in Iraq.

Which makes us the largest hypcrits ever... Its called Freedom of religion, I sincerly hope this was not the real reason that brought us there, because Islam as a religion is not the problem its extremists which plague every religion. Sorry if you do not sound persuasive what so ever.

So I take it you believe the troops there are passing out bibles or other ideas to convert them from Islam.. Brilliant conclusion if I do say so my self.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't put words into my mouth. Did I once say that I personally thought this was the reason we are in Iraq?

I am not meaning to, but I think this is a bogus conclusion.. The United States direclty supports Saudi Arabia, arguably the most extreme islamic country out there. Sorry if I thought what you believed. Could only assume that way because there is simply no evidence what so ever that was the reason we went in there.. Saddam was actually hated by most extremists because he was considered pretty secular.

I am not meaning to, but I think this is a bogus conclusion.. The United States direclty supports Saudi Arabia, arguably the most extreme islamic country out there. Sorry if I thought what you believed. Could only assume that way because there is simply no evidence what so ever that was the reason we went in there.. Saddam was actually hated by most extremists because he was considered pretty secular.

sSubZerOo

No worries.

I put that in there because that is one of the justifications I have heard for why we should continue to stay in Iraq. There are many people that believe the values that Western society holds, and the values that Islamic socities hold are not compatible. An example would be the separation of church and state. People argue that there is no such thing as separation of church and state in an Islamic society.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

I am not meaning to, but I think this is a bogus conclusion.. The United States direclty supports Saudi Arabia, arguably the most extreme islamic country out there. Sorry if I thought what you believed. Could only assume that way because there is simply no evidence what so ever that was the reason we went in there.. Saddam was actually hated by most extremists because he was considered pretty secular.

Decessus

No worries.

I put that in there because that is one of the justifications I have heard for why we should continue to stay in Iraq. There are many people that believe the values that Western society holds, and the values that Islamic socities hold are not compatible. An example would be the separation of church and state. People argue that there is no such thing as separation of church and state in an Islamic society.

Yeah those people arguements are flawed though.. Christanity or any major religion has had that problem.