• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

A marine in Iraq advice to protestors

Navy Pride said:
You know I have been on this earth a long time and was in the military for 21 years and I have never met a man that was pro war........We just fight the wars so that you are able to exercise your first amndments rights to put us down and the wars we are fighting.......

Sadly that will never change....

Pro-Iraqi War I meant.

Now adays when you say "Pro-War" your talking about those in favor of the Iraqi war, not lunatic like Dubya who have put US Soldiers in harms way too many times.
 
Arch Enemy said:
I knew I was going to be tore apart instantly, I typed mine up quickly without thinking about it too much. Let me try and clear some things up, disregard that post of mine.



I don't believe that people who can kill on command are able to successfully protecting anybodies rights. Aggression doesn't make things safer, instead they make things less safer, granted that some aggressions have prooved to been helpful (Afghanistan Destruction).



I totally agree! Liberia for example, we made a promise to send peace-keepers over before the Rebel group LURD seiged the capital. We didn't keep our promise, the once American Loyalists soon turned against America and now they have no reason to think highly of us anymore. If we would have deployeed troops before the 2nd Civil War went underway, we would have saved our relationship with these people... as well as many innocent people.
In an interview, the leaders of Liberia said that if America couldn't keep their promise, then to tell them! They would have turned to the EU who would have helped them in a heart-beat. Our only excuse for not deploying troops in need is the Iraq War.


Whoa, just because I don't respect doesn't mean I don't support them. I want them all to come home safe, I want them to live and survive. Are they really dying for me? If I remember correctly, not once did Iraq attack us... strangely enough they're number 1 target on their hit-list was Iran. The enemy of my enemy is my... .enemy.
Don't forget they chose that life-style, hell, most of them probably joined the military because of the benefits they recieved from it (paid college). Like Albert Einstein said "It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder", I believe that full-hearted.


Very funny! Its not my fault I can't be over there, did you forget theres an age limit to joining the military. If I believed that we went to war for the right reasons and I was 18 Years Old, then I'd join and fight side by side with my Americans. Yes, I know that was pretty much against my beliefs, but I do believe that (in the case of a reasonable war) no one should have to die for my safety. But obviously, I'm not threatened and too young, therefore I'll just sit here and eat cheetos (dude can I please something more joyful? Cheetos are terrible!)


Agreed! I'll buy them a beer when they return!


Whoa, No!
They should have to realize what they're asking troops to do. I know they can't or won't do that, but at least they should be able to take the fact that they've killed someones loved one and not say bs like "he died for a noble cause". Sayings like such are nothing more than a way a Leader can fuel the propaganda machine, as well as this saying "...his death cannot be in vain, we must complete the mission".



I know, people who'd rather have peace instead of war should be punished for their ideas! They've got no reason for living, they're UN-educated and worst of all, they smell bad! /End Sarcasm

Why you seem to think I'm a pacifist is beyond me. I know theres some situations which cannot be settled peacefully, but war should be a last resort. Reasons for me disliking Armed Forces? because thats a showing of aggression, you don't build an strong military to keep peace. You build a strong Army for military conflicts and to scare others, giving them the feeling that you'd go to war with them, kill their children, their family, and burn their cities to the ground.
I'm in an agreeing that a "Peace-Keeping" Army is needed, but not an armed forces with the power to destroy the world. I find that a national guard is acceptable, as long as they stay in their own nation.


Honestly, damn me for having different ideas.

I see points that your making, and WWI WWII seem to prove you wrong. Course them dying had nothing to do with the freedoms you enjoy now do they?:doh
 
Calm2Chaos said:
I see points that your making, and WWI WWII seem to prove you wrong. Course them dying had nothing to do with the freedoms you enjoy now do they?:doh

Of course both of those Wars would have been really hard to do if Armed Forces didn't exist.
 
Arch Enemy said:
Now what if a draft occured? If it stood for my ideas that war is not always the answer, then I'd lose all of my freedoms and I'd be defending my beliefs.

Being a coward is not honorable, I agree, but neither is blowing up your enemy from miles away.

Thats not war. And if you read something or watched something or listened to something you would know that. Don't boil something down to talking points to fit your argument. These men are on the ground going house to house. Not killing from miles away. They are under siege and they are doing there job.

defending your beliefs by doing nothing is kind of like an oxy-moron. Like ordering a diet coke when you supersize your bigmac meal
 
Navy Pride said:
You know I have been on this earth a long time and was in the military for 21 years and I have never met a man that was pro war........We just fight the wars so that you are able to exercise your first amndments rights to put us down and the wars we are fighting.......

Sadly that will never change....
Would you be kind enough to tell me what that first amendment is? And would you mind explaining me why invading Iraq helps protecting that amendment?

Just a question.
Y
 
Arch Enemy said:
Of course both of those Wars would have been really hard to do if Armed Forces didn't exist.

You have to live in the real world not a fantasy. There war fights before armies. The big and strong wanted wat the small and weak had. And when they met another one as strong the fight took longer. The garden of eden doesn't exsist, but bad people do. So if you don't have protection from those bad people your screwed. Unless you really think there just going to ignore all that you have. Course taking it is a lot cheaper, specially since your no threat to them.
 
Navy Pride said:
I give you credit my friend you have the left wing talking points down pat.......That said you can skip all that tripe and just tell the troops you support them and their mission to free the Iraqi people from a monster and the setting up of a free and democratic society in Iraq where all men and women can be free of terorrism.............

How do I know this? Because I went throiugh the same thing when I was in Viet Nam and that is what we wanted to hear..............We did not want to cut and run like you want to do in Iraq that will cause the deaths of millions of Iraqis who only want to live in peace and harmony with their neighbor and the terrorists would win and all our brave troops who have died would have died in vain........

Think about it my ideolistic friend..........

Hundreds of tons of WMDs ... the greatest threat to American security ... terrorist supporting nation ... they attacked us on 9-11 ... reconstituted nuclear program ... and you call me an idealist? LOL! Hell yes our troop are dying in vain. Even more tragic, they have died for a mistake, or worse.

If our mission (as now defined) was to free the Iraqis from Hussein, then the mission is finished. What are we still doing there fighting the Sunnis? If Iraqis want democracy, let them fight for it an earn it.

What you are saying has some truth ... through gigantic blunders of intellegence and foreign policy, the Administration believed the neo-con idealists who thought Iraqis would just welcome us with open arms and open their oil spigots for us. What we have wrought is a civil war in which we have pitted the Shiites against the Sunnis. We have put our nation smack dab in the middle of it, and at the same time opened the Iraqi borders to every kook in the M.E. how wants to take a potshot at our troops and kill more Iraqi civilians while they are at it; and have created a perfect recruitment vehicle for radical organizations and training ground for use of terrorist tactics.

The best thing we could do for Iraq and the "war on terror" is get the hell out of there.
 
Iriemon said:
Hundreds of tons of WMDs ... the greatest threat to American security ... terrorist supporting nation ... they attacked us on 9-11 ... reconstituted nuclear program ... and you call me an idealist? LOL! Hell yes our troop are dying in vain. Even more tragic, they have died for a mistake, or worse.

If our mission (as now defined) was to free the Iraqis from Hussein, then the mission is finished. What are we still doing there fighting the Sunnis? If Iraqis want democracy, let them fight for it an earn it.

What you are saying has some truth ... through gigantic blunders of intellegence and foreign policy, the Administration believed the neo-con idealists who thought Iraqis would just welcome us with open arms and open their oil spigots for us. What we have wrought is a civil war in which we have pitted the Shiites against the Sunnis. We have put our nation smack dab in the middle of it, and at the same time opened the Iraqi borders to every kook in the M.E. how wants to take a potshot at our troops and kill more Iraqi civilians while they are at it; and have created a perfect recruitment vehicle for radical organizations and training ground for use of terrorist tactics.

The best thing we could do for Iraq and the "war on terror" is get the hell out of there.


If you break it, you own it..
Even if the US went there based on lies (remember Powell and the "antrax" tube in the UN?), you know have a moral duty to leave only a country where the Iraqis can live.
It will require more deaths. The toll can be lowered, but not with the present administration in the US, I'm afraid.

Just my 0.02€
Y
 
Navy Pride said:
Regardless whether the President is Clinton or Bush the time to protest the war is before it starts.........Once it starts its time to get behind the troops and back them and their mission.........

It makes a huge difference in how and why it starts, particularly when the goal is to nation build, which is the excuse for the military occupation nowdays.

When the basis for the invasion is a mistake, those that oppose our occupation can rightly argue that the occupation is unjustified and based on ulterior motives, whether its to steal their oil, dilute their religion or whatever else they want to imagine.

The Shiites will pretend to support us because we give them guns and power to smite their former oppressors. The 8 million dispossessed Sunnis will never accept us or any government we install, however we do it. They will view the Shiites who accept our assistance as traitors to their country. The Sunnis will be assisted by every organization that wants to see us fall.

The Bush apologists now argue that Iraq was a worthwhile invasion because it can be the model of democracy ... in truth we probably could not have picked a worse country to try to install a democracy in. Hussein was no wonderful fellow, but we can see what a difficult country Iraq is to govern.
 
Iriemon said:
Thank you and I appreciate the courtesy ... basic politeness is something too frequently missing in both sides of the fence, in my experience. I have also generally noticed a strong negative correlation between the shrillness of the flame and the quality of the response.

I usually give what I get in here...respect begets respect...start with the crap and you're fair game.:twisted:
 
cnredd said:
I usually give what I get in here...respect begets respect...start with the crap and you're fair game.:twisted:

Duly warned. Did I start any crap?
 
epr64 said:
If you break it, you own it..
Even if the US went there based on lies (remember Powell and the "antrax" tube in the UN?), you know have a moral duty to leave only a country where the Iraqis can live.
It will require more deaths. The toll can be lowered, but not with the present administration in the US, I'm afraid.

Just my 0.02€
Y

Arguably, if the continued presence and occupation of a country would cause greater damage than if you just left, the moral obligation would be to just leave.
 
I don't have respect for anyone who blindly drops their boot on soveirgnty just because a suit tells them to. If they don't believe in the cause they shouldn't be forced to fight for it. I would remind that "soldier" that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. I'm not interested in his sobstories.
 
Last edited:
Napoleon's Nightingale said:
I don't have respect for anyone who blindly drops their boot on soveirgnty just because a suit tells them to. If they don't believe in the cause they shouldn't be forced to fight for it.

That is a soldier's duty.

A bit trickier moral issue, IMO, where you have a draft vs. a volunteer force.
 
Iriemon said:
That is a soldier's duty.

A bit trickier moral issue, IMO, where you have a draft vs. a volunteer force.

The point is that following anyones orders just because they say so is a stupid thing to do. If they don't want to think for themselves then I have no pity for them. Soldiers should be the ones choosing what battles they fight. It's easy for Franks, Rummy, etc to send them into battle but they're not the ones fighting..they don't have to pay the piper at the end of the day. They don't risk their lives..all they do is order the body bags.
 
Last edited:
Iriemon said:
Arguably, if the continued presence and occupation of a country would cause greater damage than if you just left, the moral obligation would be to just leave.

Many believe that the reason Afghanistan turned into a Taliban-ruled country was the fact that the US stopped supporting the Afghanis after their defense against the Soviets.

When the Soviets retreated and the country was in shambles, the warlords started to slice the country up and there were years of "in-house" fighting; technically, it was a civil war with 50 opponents all against each other.

This was a perfect time for the Taliban way of thinking to step in...This extemist organization went around this un-ruled country and started imposing their Sharia law on everyone(no kites, no music, executions a plenty). The general population felt doomed.

They looked to the US for help and accused us of abandoning them...correctly, I might add. We stopped "meddling in their affairs", which set the stage for the Taliban to accept Bin Laden and become the ones that "harbored" terrorists.

Leaving Iraq now would result in the same scenario. The "insurgency" against the US is not REALLY against the US. Its a power grab. Certain factions...ones that even hate each other...are teaming up because they know that if a democratic government becomes too powerful, the insurgents attempt at grabbing this power will be lost.

That is why the US MUST make sure that the new government becomes self-sufficient and legitimate. If we leave too early, the government will crumble and set the stage for another "Taliban" to take over.
 
Calm2Chaos said:
You have to live in the real world not a fantasy. There war fights before armies. The big and strong wanted wat the small and weak had. And when they met another one as strong the fight took longer. The garden of eden doesn't exsist, but bad people do. So if you don't have protection from those bad people your screwed. Unless you really think there just going to ignore all that you have. Course taking it is a lot cheaper, specially since your no threat to them.

"Bad" is a perspective, so technically "bad" people don't exist. Only those who have different opinions.
 
Arch Enemy said:
Pro-Iraqi War I meant.

Now adays when you say "Pro-War" your talking about those in favor of the Iraqi war, not lunatic like Dubya who have put US Soldiers in harms way too many times.

To me it means to fight terrorist in the streets of Baghdad then in the streets of New York and all I can say is we have not had and attack on this country in almost 4 years so I think that strategy is working fine..........

I could have never said that on 9/12/01..I would have thought we would have had many attacks by now..........

Thank you President Bush and the Patriot Act............:applaud
 
cnredd said:
Many believe that the reason Afghanistan turned into a Taliban-ruled country was the fact that the US stopped supporting the Afghanis after their defense against the Soviets.

When the Soviets retreated and the country was in shambles, the warlords started to slice the country up and there were years of "in-house" fighting; technically, it was a civil war with 50 opponents all against each other.

This was a perfect time for the Taliban way of thinking to step in...This extemist organization went around this un-ruled country and started imposing their Sharia law on everyone(no kites, no music, executions a plenty). The general population felt doomed.

They looked to the US for help and accused us of abandoning them...correctly, I might add. We stopped "meddling in their affairs", which set the stage for the Taliban to accept Bin Laden and become the ones that "harbored" terrorists.

Leaving Iraq now would result in the same scenario. The "insurgency" against the US is not REALLY against the US. Its a power grab. Certain factions...ones that even hate each other...are teaming up because they know that if a democratic government becomes too powerful, the insurgents attempt at grabbing this power will be lost.

That is why the US MUST make sure that the new government becomes self-sufficient and legitimate. If we leave too early, the government will crumble and set the stage for another "Taliban" to take over.

No government install and maintained by US forces witll ever be "legitimate" to anyone but the US and its allies. Certainly not with the Sunnis. How can it be when the main reason we pre-emptively invaded the country turned out to be false?

If it is now our "mission" to make Iraq "self-sufficient" and "legitimate" (which as morphed from get the WMDs and remove Hussein to establish democracy to supress the sunni rebellion) we will never win this war. We can give the Shiites every training and weapon but that is not going to placate the Sunnis.

I think Bush was right when he said in 2000 that it is not the US's role to nation build. We don't have the wherewithall, or the competence, and as Iraq has shown, when we try to do it, there's about a 90% we will mess things up worse.
 
Navy Pride said:
To me it means to fight terrorist in the streets of Baghdad then in the streets of New York and all I can say is we have not had and attack on this country in almost 4 years so I think that strategy is working fine..........

I could have never said that on 9/12/01..I would have thought we would have had many attacks by now..........

Thank you President Bush and the Patriot Act............:applaud

I don't think that Bush is the person you should be applauding, yes he did take the executive steps in post-9/11 to try and prevent following Terror attacks. But executivly, I believe that many of Americas Presidents would have done the same. Instead, you should be appluading those who woke up and found that their duty to "defend the homeland" were able to get adjusted and actually started preventing attacks.
I wonder, why was it September 11th 2001 and not something like June 6th 1996.
Alas, the terrorism in which people talk about most times (Al Quedia) is not being fought in the streets of New York. But we've always been fighting terrorism, in every major cities for god knows how long. Only those terrorist groups with influence and power are reported on.
I personally didn't have a problem with George W. Bush til the Iraqi War. I liked how he handled the post 9/11 things (though there are some unfinished business) and I liked how he handled Afghanistan. I've been preaching for liberation of Afghanistan for quite some-time now, ever since I learned about the Taliban in 4th Grade.
 
"Thank you President Bush and the Patriot Act............"

I personally find that the Patriot Act is dangerously close to breaching the bill of rights, but that is just my personal opinion. I completely respect your stance. We may not have had a serious attack on the country since 9/11, but that doesn't mean that we should feel too comfortable yet. Who knows what those psychos are doing in their dingy caves; I hope they are rotting away. Anyways, who's to say that without the patriot act things would be different? We will never know (we being regular countrymen like you and I).

In response to this:
"If it is now our "mission" to make Iraq "self-sufficient" and "legitimate" (which as morphed from get the WMDs and remove Hussein to establish democracy to supress the sunni rebellion) we will never win this war. We can give the Shiites every training and weapon but that is not going to placate the Sunnis.

I think Bush was right when he said in 2000 that it is not the US's role to nation build. We don't have the wherewithall, or the competence, and as Iraq has shown, when we try to do it, there's about a 90% we will mess things up worse."

I agree that we can never win in that situation (see Vietnam). Centuries ago England and Spain and France were able to impose their wills upon other countries around the world. But times have changed. Small resistance to English imperialism could easily be quelled and the insurgents rounded up (they had fewer morals back then too). But nowadays, small resistance groups armed with automatic weapons or explosives can cause substantial damage, and with the public eye on every move, soldiers must completely confine their actions to a strict code of humane conduct. Yes it is with higher morality, but it is far less efficient. I'm not passing judgement on either method here though.
 
Navy Pride said:
To me it means to fight terrorist in the streets of Baghdad then in the streets of New York and all I can say is we have not had and attack on this country in almost 4 years so I think that strategy is working fine..........

I could have never said that on 9/12/01..I would have thought we would have had many attacks by now..........

Thank you President Bush and the Patriot Act............:applaud

Yeah sure. Go pick on some old granny with a walker and nail clippers. It's the good old American way now.
 
Back
Top Bottom