Why Haven't You Enlisted?

You have a very limited view of history. Communist activity in the US was rampant, especially on US campuses. The real threat to the US during the Cold War wasn't the Viet Cong, per se, it was the global expansion of Communism.

The simple reason for our involvement in the war in Vietnam was SEATO. The broader reason, of course...oh, well, I know I'm wasting my time talking when the other party throws out the term hegemony.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Why are the terrorists in Iraq? Because you are there.

I thought I was talkin to an American!

[edit on 2006/9/15 by GradyPhilpott]

Grady, some people just don't get it. Period.

There's givens in life. Absolutes.

You fight for your friends, your family, period. You fight for them because you have to. If you have to kill for them, so be it. You die for your brothers, blood or otherwise, if you have to. That's it. That's an absolute.

You don't have to do what I've volunteered to, or what Grady did. The army, navy, corps...they all need clerks and cooks and mechanics. No one's asking you to walk Baghdad streets. If you do, well, instant respect for that.

Another absolute is supporting the men and women out there, "putting themselves between the enemy and their homes." You may not agree with the War on Terror- some of it is intensely skanky. However, the concept of not supporting the troops in some manner, of enlisting your services to aid them, is appalling. This is one of those absolutes- you may not feel the need to serve beside them, but for Christ's sake, at least help ensure that they return to a safe, peaceful, prosperous home. National Guard, Coast Guard, do SOMETHING to help the men and women who have taken up the sword with the intent of keeping you safe.

I had a long discussion on my birthday (a long, drunken one) on the subject of these absolutes. You fight for your friends, kill if you have to, die if you need to. It's part of being a man. You protect the people closest to you, one way or another. Period.

DE

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Fighting terrorists in Iraq is a far cry better than sitting on one's thumb while waiting for the next attack here. The truth is that you only believe what you choose to believe, rather than face the harsher reality.

It has been stated by the US Senate in public that there was no link between 9-11 and Saddam. Al Qaeda and Saddam link does exsist either.
news.bbc.co.uk...
news.bbc.co.uk...

So for those service men and women who have gone there and found no weapons, no link to 9-11 and no link to Al Qadea what the f**k are they doing there???? this maybe?

FIELD SECURE SIR!

The terrorist fights for no country, he/she fights for an ideal. How the hell are you going to solve this issue going into countries and making the whole region unstable, there by making more terrorists and making yourself more of a target????

Your 9-11 Hi jackers where mostly Saudi, so by your logic the U.S should be going there to stop the next attack yes? why are you not.....? I think you know

The reasons cited for invading Iraq were not limited to Saddam's connection to al Qaeda. The justifications for invading Iraq included such things as his non-compliance with UN sanctions and his destabilizing influence on the middle east. If Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction, then he did a good job of fooling the international intelligence community.

If during WWII, it had been known at the outset that an atomic bomb would be developed, a lot of American lives could have been saved by not not invading all those south Pacific islands for strategic advantage. We could have let the Japanese rot on those islands until the bomb was complete and bombed Japan.

In times of peril, those in command must make dictions based on the best intelligence available. Congress and our allies had the same evidence available to them as the President and they approved the invasion of Iraq. Now the spineless are collapsing and refusing to acknowledge their complicity.

Whatever mistakes were made in the decision to invade Iraq, if indeed there were mistakes, will not be assuaged by leaving or by citizens refusing to serve their country.

Now, can we get back on topic?

[edit on 2006/9/15 by GradyPhilpott]

Now, can we get back on topic?

I'd say it was perfectly on topic, Grady. You ask why we don't sign up our lives for this war, we are responding that we do not believe in the reasons behind it, or the tactics employed.

Just because you don't like the answers given as they don't fit your simplistic black and white world view, does not make the points any less valid, so dismissing them and crying "lets get back on topic" is hardly condusive to a good debate, nor is it going to answer your original question.

The example I provided way back about the IRA is also perfectly on topic. We have dealt with the problem without resorting to blowing up Ireland, killing thousands of innocents and in the process turning all of Ireland against us.

You could learn some lessons from those of us who have been dealing with terrorism far longer than the US.

The IRA disarmed, through diplomacy, ETA has stood down, through deplomacy etc etc..

No terrorist or freedom fighter, whatever anyone may call them, will ever be defeated by you going in and levelling random countries on flimsy/non existant evidence/

All you are doing is breeding more hate and giving the terrorists a perfect PR coup and recruitment boost.

Iraq is a perfect example of how to royally cock something up.

Originally posted by stumason
Iraq is a perfect example of how to royally cock something up.

Wars are messy. I'm sorry I had to be the one to tell you that.

Originally posted by stumason

No terrorist or freedom fighter, whatever anyone may call them, will ever be defeated by you going in and levelling random countries on flimsy/non existant evidence/

All you are doing is breeding more hate and giving the terrorists a perfect PR coup and recruitment boost.

Sure they will, if the govt has the political will to take the stops necessary. War isn't made to make the other side feel bad and change their ways after some deep introspection. It is about destroying their ability to make war. It has been all of the political bull that insists that diplomacy be meshed with war making that draws things out.

Originally posted by hogtie
Sure they will, if the govt has the political will to take the stops necessary. War isn't made to make the other side feel bad and change their ways after some deep introspection. It is about destroying their ability to make war. It has been all of the political bull that insists that diplomacy be meshed with war making that draws things out.

You don't get it, do you? Can you not see that Iraq is like it is now solely because of the invasion? Can you not see that anger in the muslim world has worsened, not got better, since 2003? Any goodwill you guys had after 9/11 has now been sapped by the debacle of Iraq, blind support of Israel and general heavy handedness in dealing with "terr'ists, yeehah".

How on earth do you propose to stop a terrorists "ability to make war?" At the end of the day, all you need is some fertilizer and diesel. Thats it. You don't need a national infrastructure, you don;t need a vast army. All you need is some guys willing to do the dirty, some easy to get materials and bobs your fathers brother (or, if your from the Deep South, maybe he is your brother too ) you have a terrorist. Bombing the crap out of thousands of peopel to get at a shady, secretive and tiny enemy only serves their cause, not yours.

As I said, there are many examples of terrorism being stopped with diplomacy. There are no examples of terrorism being stopped by military force. At the very most, it should be dealt with by law enforcement agencies, not the Army. All sending in the army does is illustrate to those who don't support the terrorists that they are right due to the visible presence of the "occupying power" exerting it's will through further killing and violence.

If you want to win the battle of hearts and minds, cutting off the popular support for the group concerned, you need to show to the mainstream that you are nothing like what the terrorists say you are.

All the US, Uk and others are doing at the moment is living up to the hype spread by the terrorists and demonstrating that yes, we are evil child killers and there to conquer them, even though that may well not be the case, it's appearences that matter and we currently appear to most of the Muslim world to be imposing our will, our values on those that do not want them, invading other countries and killing thousands based on non-existant claims of "insert latest excuse here".

We appear to be liars, we appear to be conquerers, we appear to be evil and decadent. Wether we are or not is completely irrelevant, but we are doing ourselves no favours with the current tactics we employ, or the lies that our "leaders" continue to spout as reasons for the distruction we bring to otherwise peaceful communities.

I am sure that if we had just came out and said "We're going to invade Iraq to topple Saddam", instead of the complete BS we came up with, we wouldn't have half the problems from Muslims as we do now. We'd have appeared to be honest, we would have appeared to be benevolent and as such, the terrorists claims of us trying to destroy Islam would be unfounded.

On another note, reasons for war aside, had we not disbanded the Iraqi army and barred any Baath party member (seeing as you had to be a member to get any sort of decent job in pre-war Iraq) from helping in the immediate power vacuum, we would have had a stable Iraq years ago. 3 years on and we have only just handed over control (another key word there, remember, appearences matter) of some Iraqi Divisions. It appears we are in control of Iraq, it's Army, how it's run. So to the terrorist, this is a major coup. We are giving them much better PR than they could ever have dreamed of.

The long and the short of it. We have cocked this up so bad, it's going to come round and bite us on the arse so hard, it'll make 9/11 look like a nasty punch up. And it's going to drag on and on, killing more young men and women in the Forces and killing many more innocents caught up in the pile of poo we have created ourselves.

Originally posted by stumason

How on earth do you propose to stop a terrorists "ability to make war?" At the end of the day, all you need is some fertilizer and diesel. Thats it. You don't need a national infrastructure, you don;t need a vast army. All you need is some guys willing to do the dirty, some easy to get materials and bobs your fathers brother (or, if your from the Deep South, maybe he is your brother too

) you have a terrorist. Bombing the crap out of thousands of peopel to get at a shady, secretive and tiny enemy only serves their cause, not yours.

Yep. You hit it on the head.

As the saying goes "You don't use a sledgehammer to crack nuts."

hey gradyphilpot, id like to say how many politicians sons were in any of the wars we had, also did you see any rich tycoon in any of the wars. also, i take it, since you were in the war, you yourself at the time was in need to go in cause you were young at the time or needed money, tell the truth. would you do it all over again with the knoweledge you have and now of the military, of the government and politics of today. to go to a foreign war to secure someone elses future and sons to get rich and not yours. wars have alway been faught over power and control. im not talking about peoples who just protected themselves, i mean the peoples who started the war. not one war was faught for peace, why, cause war is not peace, peace is what sometimes happens after a war. so your saying to stand up for your country. well good for you, i would too, but not to make some tycoons philosophies come true, by causeing trouble in other nations, so that they may somehow get rich scheme. SIR, NO SIR.

I don't pattern my values after the rich and the powerful. I try to hold myself to a higher standard. Thank you.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I don't pattern my values after the rich and the powerful. I try to hold myself to a higher standard. Thank you.

If that is the case, care to read my post above and post your thoughts?

so tell me stumasum, what do we do?, nothing. just stand there and do nothing,well that sounds like a good idea. not. so we need to police them. whos job is that, since they no longer listen or abide by their own laws. they caint govern their people, so the terrorists not only terrorize thier govt, but every other nations also. so tell me what should we do?oh please terror man, dont kill me. the terrrorist does not care. the only thing they care about is their power, the cause. all because their religion tells them so. i know, im sick of the u.s.a. police the world it seems, but knowone else does anything. we try to stop it overthere so it doesnt come back over here, but that dont work. so we are called the bully. its old, even if we took our troops out, we would still get terrorists. maybe a few more buildings will fall in u.s.a. you dont want that stumasum. what then nuke them all, well get the terrorists then, right. no, thats not right either. so tell me

gradyphilpot, maybe you dont pattern yourself to that standard, but ill tell you what, neither do i. im making a point. if a person in power says gradyphilpot is to be exstinguished from ats, but you dont want to, yu have no choice, you go. it does nothing to say well i dont pattern myself after those people, it doesnt matter if it were a bum in the street with power. if they have the power, you go. im not saying all tycoons are evil, im talking about those people who are in power now. and yes, they are calling the shots, they have the power and money. maybe i used a bad word tycoon, like i said not all tycoons are bad. i put a label on them and shouldent have. thats where you said , i dont pattern my values after the rich and powerful.

[edit on 16-9-2006 by littlebird]

[edit on 16-9-2006 by littlebird]

Everybody's so busy attacking Grady on his stance, you don't seem to realize this is what he fought for. I know nothing of Grady's life, and nothing of the times he lived in except for what we read in history books. But that's what it is.

If you love your country, regardless of what country you're in, find a way to serve it. If you think something needs to change, work to change it. That's the difference between a lot of these CTers; some do it for the hell of it, others because they see something wrong and want others to see and help change it. Not the same as serving your country imo, but at least they're doing something.

If you love your country more than you love yourself, there's nothing wrong with military service. Think for about 2 minutes and ask yourself, if you were born in Somalia, would you be having this conversation right now? Would you even be alive? There's a reason America is so great, and it has the potential to be even greater, but some lose sight of this while others never see it to begin with.

If killing is your only reason for not enlistingl, scratch 12 or 13 jobs outta the hundreds available to you.

If you don't work to better your country, then you really have no place to complain about it, imo.

My point is that I answered my country's call regardless of the fact that anyone who could scrape together enough money to go to college got deferments. I didn't look around and say, oh well, two-thirds of my graduating class went to college or joined the National Guard or reserves or got married on the night before the marriage deferment expired.

I understood that I had an obligation to protect liberty, just as those who went before me were fulfilling their obligations to service in the cause of freedom.

But I must admit that I was less concerned with the fact that I had an obligation than I was in making sure that I got a chance to take part in the defining event of my generation.

I can't even imagine what it must be like to have had a chance to go to war and to defend the liberty of strangers and failed to take the opportunity. I don't think that I could have lived with myself if I had evaded the draft, which I actually did by enlisting at 17, but you know what I mean, or even if I had served during the Vietnam era and had not set foot in Vietnam.

I would have been satisfied had I not been wounded, but you know, that goes with the territory.

Excerpt: St. Crispen's Day Speech: William Shakespeare, 1599

This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
Make him a member of the gentry, even if he is a commoner.
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

www.thewednesdayreport.com...

[edit on 2006/9/16 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by littlebird
so tell me stumasum, what do we do?, nothing. just stand there and do nothing,well that sounds like a good idea. not. so we need to police them. whos job is that, since they no longer listen or abide by their own laws. they caint govern their people, so the terrorists not only terrorize thier govt, but every other nations also. so tell me what should we do?oh please terror man, dont kill me. the terrrorist does not care. the only thing they care about is their power, the cause. all because their religion tells them so. i know, im sick of the u.s.a. police the world it seems, but knowone else does anything. we try to stop it overthere so it doesnt come back over here, but that dont work. so we are called the bully. its old, even if we took our troops out, we would still get terrorists. maybe a few more buildings will fall in u.s.a. you dont want that stumasum. what then nuke them all, well get the terrorists then, right. no, thats not right either. so tell me

It's surprisingly simple and the way that it has always been done in the past before the USA felt it had suffered the first terrorist attack ever. Use your intelligence and counter terrorism forces to try and prevent attacks, if an attack happens, hunt down the perpetrators using those forces. Easy. Theres no need to assemble "coalitions of the gullible" and invade nations that had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11.

It helps no-one to go and blow the crap out of Iraq, lie about it, kill civilians, lie about it again, make up another lie, lie again, then lie some more while killing more people. What makes it worse is we have self righteous people demanding we give our lives for a lie. No thanks.

See my point? All your doing is serving their agenda by slaughtering so many innocents. If we weren't in Iraq, you would find the Muslim mainstream much more receptive. The blind, unconditonal support for Israel does you know favours either. What exactly does the USA get out the relationship with those war criminals? Nothing but trouble, it certainly does not benefit your own nation.

You quite obviously just skimmed over what I typed above and missed the point completely.

Now, if there was a real enemy threatening my country, I would sign up. But as it stands, I see no threat that cannot be tackled by MI5/MI6 like we always have done before. They seem to be doing an Ok job too, if you ask me. Theres no need whatsoever for the British Army to be in Iraq.

Originally posted by stumason
It's surprisingly simple and the way that it has always been done in the past before the USA felt it had suffered the first terrorist attack ever.

You're jumping off the deep end, stumason. The US never said it suffered the first terrorist attack ever. What has been said by our administration, however, is, enough is enough.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
You're jumping off the deep end, stumason. The US never said it suffered the first terrorist attack ever. What has been said by our administration, however, is, enough is enough.

It was a tounge in cheek remark, Grady. The way the USA has behaved and the way Bush speaks about it, one would be forgiven for thinking that the US Admin thinks terrorism began on 9/11. The way they have handled it since is nothing short of a monumental balls up of dinosauric proportions.

All you have done is fan the flames of radical islam and aid them in the spread of their hatred. This is plain to see and cannot be denied. Whilst the USA may not have created radical islam (this is another debate), it has been it's best friend in terms of PR and helping it spread around the world.

Had you guys done the normal thing on 9/11, instead of going Gun Ho on the middle east, we would probably have seen OBL executed in the US by now for the crime he committed. Not an "act of war", as Bush likes to claim (oh, how he loves being a "War President"), it was a terrorist act, a crime.

Originally posted by stumason

Had you guys done the normal thing on 9/11, instead of going Gun Ho on the middle east, we would probably have seen OBL executed in the US by now for the crime he committed. Not an "act of war", as Bush likes to claim (oh, how he loves being a "War President"), it was a terrorist act, a crime.

So, what is the "normal thing"? By "Gun Ho", did you mean "work together" which is the translation, or did you mean "guns together"? I'm cofused. And why haven't you enlisted?