A.T.S and the Military what is the deal?

Originally posted by EllaMarina
In my observation, the disdain comes from the deep notion that the US military is ALL about killing foreign children. No matter what else they're doing in the Middle East, there those heartless bastards are, takin' aim at the teary-eyed kids and none of them having the mind or empathy to stop and question their orders.

And if you ever side with the military on anything, you'd be the perfect soldier, because you would obviously carry out all immoral orders without compunction like a robotic sheep.

It's truly ridiculous... this narrow-minded view of things.

edit on 13-5-2013 by EllaMarina because: (no reason given)

I don't know any soldier that was ordered to kill children, but I am not every one in the military. So I can only account for my small slice. I did know a few guys who shot kids but it tore them up.

While I was in Iraq, a "neat Trick" the Insurgency picked up was to place bombs on kids and have them walk slowly towards U.S or N.A.T.O forces. The soldier has to make a choose, either way the kids dead, either when his handler detonates the bomb or when some one shoots the kid.

Either way its win win, for the terrorists. If the Soldier shoots the kid, him and all soldiers around him are wreaked all the way in side.

Yet, I have never shot a kid. Don't really want to either.

Originally posted by Dumbspiracy

Originally posted by Reaper2137
I am a disabled combat veteran, I don't blindly fallow orders, nor do I support every thing my government does, or chooses to act upon.

Better late than never... I guess.

Whats the question?

Originally posted by Reaper2137

Originally posted by EllaMarina
In my observation, the disdain comes from the deep notion that the US military is ALL about killing foreign children. No matter what else they're doing in the Middle East, there those heartless bastards are, takin' aim at the teary-eyed kids and none of them having the mind or empathy to stop and question their orders.

And if you ever side with the military on anything, you'd be the perfect soldier, because you would obviously carry out all immoral orders without compunction like a robotic sheep.

It's truly ridiculous... this narrow-minded view of things.

edit on 13-5-2013 by EllaMarina because: (no reason given)

I don't know any soldier that was ordered to kill children, but I am not every one in the military. So I can only account for my small slice. I did know a few guys who shot kids but it tore them up.

While I was in Iraq, a "neat Trick" the Insurgency picked up was to place bombs on kids and have them walk slowly towards U.S or N.A.T.O forces. The soldier has to make a choose, either way the kids dead, either when his handler detonates the bomb or when some one shoots the kid.

Either way its win win, for the terrorists. If the Soldier shoots the kid, him and all soldiers around him are wreaked all the way in side.

Yet, I have never shot a kid. Don't really want to either.

edit on 14-5-2013 by Reaper2137 because: (no reason given)

I had a Soldier who was manning a flash TCP who had three kids pushing a small cart toward their position. The TCP NCO looked at them through the binos and could see that some of the camo (Bundles of grass) had come off and that there were artillery shells underneath.

They wouldn’t stop, even with the terp yelling at them. The TCP was forced to shoot them, though they did shoot them in the legs. While waiting on the EOD, the insurgent watching, (I was part of the group looking for him) got impatient and command detonated, killing the three kids.

Everybody at the TCP was pretty much messed up mentally after that episode. Unfortunately, we never did find the insurgent.


I'm sick of people painting Soldiers, Cops with such broad brushes when they have no experiance in those fields.

reply to post by TDawgRex


My best friends dad had a similar experience. He was British special forces sniper They were on duty and some kids were basically sent towards the British potions. Everyone in the area knew this was a no go area and not to come near them, it was obvious what was happening and they had to shot one of the Kids the other ran and got shot by the insurgents for running. Either way the kids were dead. Luckily my friends dad was a rather pragmatic guy so although he hated doing it he wasn't screwed up, his partner that day doing the spotting was though and ended up a broken man.

Instances like that are not the solider fault. Its the fault of the scum who used the kids in the first place.


What turns my stomach are the REAL war criminal who get away for example the soldiers responsible in the Mai Lai massacre. They should of been handed over to the Viet cong or North Vietnamese or at least jailed for life without parole in the most brutal federal prison you have. But no first of all your government tried covering it up and when that failed one fall guy was selected and given a slap on the wrist before eventually being pardoned.

reply to post by MrInquisitive


If you take your blinders off you'd also mention the so-called war crimes committed by the Iraqi insurgents that deliberately target children, not to mention just hiding behind them

Have you considered that the very existence of the European Union can be directly attributable to the U.S. military presence in Europe.

This presence allowed European funds to be directed to rebuilding rather than re-arming to "protect themselves from their neighbors". Three generations of peace, unprecedented in European history, all due to a military presence by the U.S.. With no need for significant militaries, economic development expanded-oops there's that capitalism again- and you finally learned it is more beneficial to get along.

None of which would have occurred without the U.S. and it's military. Billions forgiven in debts and untold billions in expense to the U.S...

Should the bases wind down and even perhaps be removed from Europe? Perhaps, maybe even probably. It is occurring as we speak.

Every nation with U.S. bases has benefitted from those bases, peace, monies saved from their own militaries, stability.

Perhaps when the fighting winds down in the middle east, those bases will provide the security and stability that you and the Japanese have enjoyed for the last sixty or so years......

Originally posted by nwtrucker
Sorry, but I don't buy the 30,000 being a majority by any stretch. The remaining 100s of 1000s that stayed home, not out of fear, more likely perfectly content with the arrangement is a bigger testament....therefore "the people" you refer to is a generalization and spin.

As far as the American citizens remaining "quiet" watch this actual, spontaneous clip on You Tube "US national anthem drowned out at the 1991 NHL all-star game" It's only 3 minutes or so long. It was the eve of Gulf war one.. yep real quite!!

Yes there were protestors to the gulf war, but they were far drowned out by the supports of the troops.

.

I cant be bothered answering all your points as you have been discredited already as far as I'm concerned...the 1991 gulf war was not the war's conducted after 9/11. 9/11 was the benchmark, after that you did not step out of line in your opinion of any action the US government took on your behalf. Allegedly took on your behalf, I should say...
To even come on here and post the 1991 gulf war as an example of how Americans protested...is insulting and ignoring the reality of what has happened after 9/11...people did not step up and speak out...because "your either with us or against us" and any idiot can see exactly why people stayed quite FEAR of being called unpatriotic, and who knows what else.
Secondly 30,000 protesters is a HUGE number. Almost 20 years those protests went on in a permanent camp outside the base...Deny reality. Most people have families to support, jobs to maintain and cannot camp outside a military base for years. Also most people simply do not have the convictions to step up and protest, even though they disagree, they dont protest. LIVE IN DENIAL OF REALITY. WE CALL THAT LIVING IN IGNORANCE> your making the world a worse place with your head buried in the sand.

reply to post by TheBlackHat


Well, it's either me denying reality or you. Post 9-11 or pre is utterly irrelevant. Actually, an attack on U.S. soil is a bigger justification in my view than an Iraqi invasion of a neighbor.

As I posted earlier, no U.S. presence in Europe and there probably wouldn't be a European Union.

How terrible it must been to put up with US bases that provided Europe with three plus generations of peace and stability. TERRIBLE.

Your hate blinds you. Wallow in it.

Originally posted by nwtrucker
reply to post by TheBlackHat

 

Actually, an attack on U.S. soil is a bigger justification in my view than an Iraqi invasion of a neighbor.

Last time I checked the last time a NATION attcked US soil was 1941 at pearl habour.

Attacks since have been terrorist who are not aligned to any particular country and who will just relocate to another country when the country there intial training camps are located is attacked.

Rember Bin Laden wasnt even in Afganistan he was in Pakistan your "ally"!

Unless you occuply ALL the middle east you are not going to stop terrosim and even if you did the cost of occuplying all those countrys in lifes would be worse than doing nothing and risk letting a attack happen every 10 odd years

All you done so far in the war in terroism is move the terroists to a diffrent location and pee off millions of more muslims who otherwise would'nt have given the west any thought.....

Invading Iraq and Afghantistan to stop terroism was to put it bluntly is the same as pissing in the wind.

@
nwtrucker


You know what i changed my mind and will rebut every other part of your post...

During the unlawful invasion of Iraq, bush called on a coalition of the willing...and because france and most of western Europe bar the UK (51st state), would not support the invasion or join the so called coalition of the willing..Bush used the term "old europe" in an attempt to stigmatize those who would not bow to his pressure. he also used "your either with us or against us" in an other attempt to pressurize countries into joining that BS coalition...

Wikipedia...In the second debate in 2004 U.S. presidential election, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry questioned the size of the coalition participating in the initial invasion, saying, "...when we went in, there were three countries: Great Britain, Australia and the United States. That's not a grand coalition. We can do better". Bush responded by saying, "Well, actually, he forgot Poland. And now there're 30 nations involved, standing side by side with our American troops". The phrase "You forgot Poland" subsequently became a sarcastic shorthand for the perception that most members of the coalition were not contributing much to the war effort compared to the main three allies. The majority of the population in most countries involved did not, according to surveys, support the endeavor or their nation's participation"

Bear in mind not even Canada or Mexico, your two closet neighbors didn't even join that coalition.

I didn't say I hated capitalism..you once again assumed i did...what i said was capitalism is the system, it matters not the government that is run by the capitalist system...there is no choice in the overall system, just as there is no choice if you live under communism. The difference is communist countries are honest enough to tell you there is a one party state..where as democracies such as the USA like to fool people into thinking they have a choice. Id appreciate it if you quit making assumptions as to what system I prefer etc, it is irritating, and a lie to say such things when my posts never said I hated capitalism or favored communism...keep making yourself look ignorant and a lair..other people can read my posts and yours and see who is making false assumptions.

But to say capitalism is run by "honorable men", are you serious??? So the financial crisis, created in america, was created by "honorable men".. Honorable men run huge multi national companies, do they??? Where profit comes before everything else, including people and the environment... Also to say the USA is the best country in the world etc, you can only state such a thing accurately, if you have lived in several other countries..as comparison...and the fact your stating the USA is the best tells me you have never lived anywhere else..other than perhaps some third world wreck or war zone. Most western countries are far better than the USA, as far as human rights and free heath care etc, you know basic things like that.

So are you stating the USA doesn't have a base in almost every country? your right they only have bases, a military presence or use of facilities in about a third of the world... as far as we know...but bear in mind according the the US government they don't even have a base at area 51..
en.wikipedia.org...

As far as governments spying on their citizens...i thought a whole load of secret executive orders were passed on things such as that...All wiretapping of American citizens by the National Security Agency requires a warrant from a three-judge court set up under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. After the 9/11 attacks, Congress passed the Patriot Act, which granted the President broad powers to fight a war against terrorism.. Reports at the time indicate that an "apparently accidental" "glitch" resulted in the interception of communications that were purely domestic in nature.[ This action was challenged by a number of groups, including Congress, as unconstitutional.
The exact scope of the program is not known.

YOUR A TRUE PATRIOT, DEAF DUMB AND BLIND.

This is my last post to you..as you are one of the many people in the world who will not step outside their box and at least look at the other side of an argument. You belong to an America that believes the world envies your freedom and so attacks you for being free...You think your number 1 in every aspect, and have little or no experience of life elsewhere other than what you see on the TV. You ignore that fact most of your own country men live in poverty, and that's in the richest country in the world. You cannot accept your an empire, and that empires are never popular outside of their own people. The fact you state capitalism is run by Honorable men...really sums you up..and this after the slow motion but inevitable financial collapse that has been going on now for at least 5 whole years, or is it 7 years, Ive lost count..Now you have ghost towns, Ghost cities even, like Detroit, all over your own country and other countries. Caused by honorable cheats and psychopaths. Oil wars conducted by the same types of honorable men. I don't know what they are putting in the water you drink, but fluoride would be the least of my worries, if i ended up thinking like you. Good luck man, I hope you wake up, but i doubt it. End of conversation as far as Im concerned...

reply to post by Reaper2137

They refuse to look at any thing concerning the military, objectively. These people come into a thread showing utter disrespect for any one who has ever served. Most of the time, I read these agitators it is clear, they didn't read the O.P or the corresponding article, that was linked in said O.P

Personally, I believe the bias you speak of has been present the entire time I've been here. You've been a member longer than me so its possible the trend you speak started before I arrived. I haven't noticed an increase.

Having said that, I know there are certain things I refuse to compromise on no matter what the argument (such as my values). If someone has a core belief that killing for any reason is absolutely wrong then no matter what you say you're not going to be able to reason with that person and make them agree. I don't think this makes the person ignorant even though I may strongly disagree. That person just has deep convictions.

All I ask is that people stop painting with such a broad brush by suggestions all military members are sheep, or baby killers, or heartless, etc. War has many faces and most aren't pleasant to look at. Being unpleasant does make it unjustified. If everyone believed as a few here do, that killing should never happen, then the world would be swell. Unfortunately in nature there are predators. Therefore, in order to keep some semblance of peace, some of us must suit up and take out the predators. Most of us on here have been there/done that/got the shirt. It's the younger generation that has now accepted that responsibility. Its our job to cover their 6. They deserve not to be judged by people who disagree with their mission.

reply to post by TheBlackHat

If I could give your post multiple stars I would


You sum up the attitudes I hate and putting the truth out there bluntly and plainly.

reply to post by crazyewok


You make good points. I suppose, politically, Bush was forced to take military action. At that juncture, I'd have called for his impeachment if he hadn't acted.

Now I'm not so sure about that.

Heck, take a wacko, give him training, some financial backing, weapons and a real or imagined indoctrination and you've made a "terrorist". Just as many spitting out of the U.S. as anywhere else in the world.

I do believe the war was misnamed from the get go. Instead of a "war on terrorism" a more accurate label probably would have been a war on "State sponsored terrorism". In this, at least, some effective results have been achieved, largely money trails, international co-operation etc.

Still, the U.S. actions in the middle east has done more to change that landscape in 10-20 years than the mess that created it after WW1.

Saddam had to go-"head on a pike"-...the results? the cost on so many levels...sigh. I guess at best the jury is still out on it.

Ancient Chinese curse,.."may you live in interesting times". They surely are.

Originally posted by nwtrucker
[ a "war on terrorism" a more accurate label probably would have been a war on "State sponsored terrorism". In this, at least, some effective results have been achieved, largely money trails, international co-operation etc.

And I would see the point if they had taken out Iran, North Koreia, Pakistan (though it unofficial support) and syria first as they did a heck of a lot more than Afghanistan.

Invading Afganistan and Iraq is like removeing half a cancer. Yeah you may have relieved the symptoms for a short time but its going to grow back back from the other areas and chances are you just made it spread.

reply to post by TheBlackHat


LOL, this will be fun. but I'm calling a time out...have to go to work, will surely rebut later.

Originally posted by crazyewok
reply to post by TheBlackHat

 

If I could give your post multiple stars I would

You sum up the attitudes I hate and putting the truth out there bluntly and plainly.

Thanks for that. The thing is no matter what you say to some people, they will refute it until the end of time. This is because of their ego. You see some people, believe that their ideas and the traditions they were brought up on, make then who they are. If you were brought up to love your country by your parents then you will love it, no matter what it does in your name, and you will defend it endlessly, even in the face of logic. You will do this because you believe your country is you, no matter who runs it or what wars are conducted, no matter the gap between rich and poor. No matter what, you believe your country is your identity. The fear of breaking that identity, makes people cling on at all costs. This is why young men and women still sign up for military service, even though most people know the current long term wars, are unwinable and for oil, that the WMD's never existed, so the basis for the invasion was not only illegal but was conducted on a blatant lie, not a mistake but a lie.

I could be arguing with a member of the Taliban just as easily, his world view , is based on his religion, and his religion is his identity. there is no compromise. This is why the term "patriot" is critical in all this. A patriot has already aligned him/herself to the flag at all costs, there is no compromise "your either with us or against us". And at the heart of that identity is fear, the fear that if you lose your identity you will be lost, and you wont know who you are anymore..Well lots of men come back from war having lost their identity, their unquestioning patriotism..but they find underneath all that fear and BS and brainwashing, that in fact they didn't lose themselves but instead found themselves. A true patriot supports the best of his/her nation but is not blind to its faults. Its a coward who simply goes along with everything for fear of losing his false identity.

These cowards can easily be spotted because they make blanket and illogical statements such as their religion is the right one..or that their country is the best one...especially as most people who state such things have little or no first hand experience of other religions or other countries. They are cowards, in fear of who they may find underneath all their patriotism or religious identity...but even cowards can carry a gun and shoot it to prove how right they are and how brave they are..and usually they do.

Bravery to me has always meant, risking your life in pursuit of a greater good. bravery has never meant joining a gang, who has superior force and firepower to invade a backward developing country for oil...but that's what passes for bravery today apparently..as i said illogical isn't it.

reply to post by TheBlackHat


In some ways being brought up and being made to at school to salute the flag, sing the athem and constantly have it drilled into you that you live in the "land of the free", that your is the best country in the world ect ect ect is as made as haveing the Koran drumed into you and the fact that the west is full of evil infidels that need to die. It the same thing just dressed up in diffirent packages. Both create mindless drones that can be used by those in power and who will turn a blind eye to certain attrocitys. These mindless drones can be found in civilian as well as Armed forced personel. And Im not saying all armed forces are like that, not at all.

reply to post by crazyewok


What was I saying about people who cling to their fake identities and BS egos... Even as i stated I am finished arguing with nwtrucker he fires back yet another post, telling me he will continue this rubbish later..Not only is this attitude extremely ignorant and rude, it's what causes wars, I already stated clearly I was done and yet he insists on carrying it on, does this attitude remind you of American policy as a whole hahaha, when we both know neither one of us will win the other over to our way of thinking...he is illogical and passionate where as I am logical and see a country as nothing more than a land mass. As i have explained to you, there is no point in arguing with someone who has a fixed position. This is why wars start in the fist place. Someone has a fixed position, they are inflexible and uncompromising, so the only way to make them see sense (by seeing sense i simply mean seeing things your way) is by invading them..well according to how the USA conducts its wars...the war again Vietnam, Iraq etc..

We don't agree with you commies, our way is the right way, your not listening to us, this means war. Now regardless of weather capitalism currently dominates the world scene and even china has adopted it to some extent..the fact remains the same, the USA invaded Vietnam not because Vietnam was a threat to the states, but because the states didn't agree with how Vietnamese thought. The mentality of forcing your ways onto other people is not just undemocratic its morally wrong on every level. In fact the Taliban have a reputation for taking over villages and forcing the women to stop going to school and to wear a hijab, They force the men to grow long beards, they ban music and technology, they force their sharia law onto people because the Taliban and the USA have one thing in common they both believe you have the right to force people to do what you believe is right..

You may well say, the Taliban are evil and are forcing evil constraints on people and id agree obviously...but is forcing so called democracy on people much different..if you have to kill 100's of thousands and mame even more people in order for your idea to get accepted, and usually these are civilians..collateral damage....who get put in the meat grinder.



So no doubt you will see an unsolicited and unwanted response from nwtrucker headed my way. This will only continue to illustrate his mentality and many people like him and will show everyone why we as a species will never be at peace.

reply to post by TheBlackHat


Vietnams a intresting one. I actaully see sense in that war after you strip down the idelogical BS.

Fact is the US had a alliance with south vietanm. A unimportant country and a minor allie. I think the thinking was that if the USA had refused to back them up in the face of North vietnamese incursion it would ruin there diplomatic crediablity. If they broke a treaty they would be considerd unreliabea and untrustworthy to there allies and weak and spineless to there enemys. It would have set a dangrous present. It could have resulted in the USSR and China makeing the assumption that if they did not back up there alliance with South vietnam then they wont with Tawian or South Korea or Japan or Worse Australia. And in the west might have resulted in the USSR seizing countrys too. Instead of a "small" insignicant war the west could of ended up fighting a bigger war.

Not saying thats a good reason to fight a war but its better than "If there red shoot them dead" mentality.

We are ,as we speak pivoting or military strategies in the Pacific now,Viet Nam aznd the Phillipines couldn't be happier
7079www.militaryphotos.net...

Originally posted by crazyewok
reply to post by TheBlackHat

 

Vietnams a intresting one. I actaully see sense in that war after you strip down the idelogical BS.

Fact is the US had a alliance with south vietanm. A unimportant country and a minor allie. I think the thinking was that if the USA had refused to back them up in the face of North vietnamese incursion it would ruin there diplomatic crediablity. If they broke a treaty they would be considerd unreliabea and untrustworthy to there allies and weak and spineless to there enemys. It would have set a dangrous present. It could have resulted in the USSR and China makeing the assumption that if they did not back up there alliance with South vietnam then they wont with Tawian or South Korea or Japan or Worse Australia. And in the west might have resulted in the USSR seizing countrys too. Instead of a "small" insignicant war the west could of ended up fighting a bigger war.

Not saying thats a good reason to fight a war but its better than "If there red shoot them dead" mentality.

edit on 14-5-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

Yeah but the part where you say "especially Australia" leads me to suspect your an Aussie, funny enough. The point is your army were allied to the USA in Vietnam, so your country aka media, education system will have also put a certain spin on the reasons you got involved. No country is immune to propaganda. its just more obvious when you look from the outside at places like North Korea or the USA, number 1, number 1...but often being inside a situation your just as blind to the amount of BS your fed.

Lets look at the facts that dont support your take on events in Vietnam. If the war in Vietnam is to be seen as the USA not willing to back down or be seen to be weak in the eyes of Russia/China etc. Remember this, Russia and China did not expend their troops in the Vietnam war. Yet the states and its allie Australia threw men at it. Russia may have provided military assistance perhaps, but not personnel, certainly not on the scale America deployed. So what was actually happening was a civil war between North and South Vietnam...just like North and South Korea.

If loads of Russian troops were in Vietnam, then you could legitimately say it has invaded so the USA mounted a counter invasion...but that's not what happened...so the states call it a proxy state and proxy war, under the influence of the USSR..I call BS yet again...because if the USSR ran a proxy war through the North Vietnamese, then the states could and should have done likewise through the South Vietnamese...but no the states literally got involved...Once you literally deploy your own troops in a foreign conflict, its your mess.

Saying that China/Russia may have then invaded Australia etc...when there was no history of them empire building. you have to have evidence to back up the idea that the communist superpowers invaded other countries, they didn't..The accusation was that they spread their communist influence and ideology to other countries..That was always the accusation from the USA against communism, that it was a hated ideology that easily infected other states...not through military force...Pretty impressive if you can infect countries with your way of thinking without invading them and forcing it down their thoraths.

Look at Cuba...the over throw of the capitalist dictatorship by Castro was Castors and his many supporters idea...Russia did not supply any man power or somehow brainwash Cubans to uproot their corrupt dictator. The people chose Communism/ socialism in the countries where it took off...the people chose it and the nationals of those countries were the ones to do the fighting...not the USSR. There is a common theme here...nationals of a country fight in their own countries...against the USA...spin it any which way you like...the facts speak for themselves.