Back your country up
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 41

Thread: Back your country up

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    8

    Back your country up

    Im wondering if anyone else is tired of anti-war potesters. It really upsets me that so many people are protesting this war now that it is already going on. I was against the war before it happend to, I was hoping that there was another way, but there wasnt. We have been trying to go about this without going to war. I feel that some people have never done there homework on Sadaam.People feel he is the victom he is not his people are the victom of his own actions. He murders and lies, he rules his country off fear, and propaganda. No man/women shouldd be able to rule or run a country on this, he needs to be removed and the only way to do this is to go to war with him. People who dont believe me do alittle research on Sadaam before you get mad at me. The USA I feel is the greatest country to live in, it may not be perfect but it is free. Please dont rape the country of all its benefits and then turn your back on the US when its time to go to war. The troops have a hard enough time over there without knowing that were protesting. So lets give our troops and country all the support we can.

    LIVE FREE, OR DIE!!!
    Hug a soldier, not a tree
    \"Any people that would give up liberty for alittle temporary safety, deserves neither liberty nor safety\" [glowpurple]Benjamin Franklin[/glowpurple]

  2. #2
    I believe in democracy, the ppl must be able to express themselves, to say no is to deny the very basis of democracy. I was also anti war before the war happened, I am still anti war. I believe that Saddam needs to be disarmed, and I agree that he may have weapons and that he is a ruthless dictator. But I do not believe that we should have went against the will of the world community. I would have been for war if we would of had the backing of the world community (UN security council). In a time where foreign policy is key to eliminating weapons of mass destruction and terrorists, Bush had to crumble our foreign policy. However, as an American I support my country and my troops. But I will never support Bush.

    Long Live Freedom
    The End Justifies The Means...

  3. #3
    Dead Man Walking
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    810
    All americans should support our troops oversea's wether we agree with why they are there or not. They are just ordinary guys and gals doing a job they are told to do. They are no diffrent from you or me. At least the men and women of our armed forces have the guts to face the kind of situation they are curently in. I am against any uneseccesary loss of life on either side of this conflict but sometimes in life there are things we have to see that we dont want to see. If sadam would have just done as he was asked this would have nver escalated this far. It was his choice to make and he made it.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Memphis, TN
    Posts
    3,747
    I believe that no matter what our support lies with our country and our troops. Its what we call loyalty. I do agree with brandon on the one point that he made about how these antiwar protesters do have a right, but look at it this way. To get noticed now they are having to do "vomit ins" and a couple other things. People are starting to Ignore them. These people are having to jump off bridges and commit suicide now. If they are so against the war and don't like the U.S Theres nothing holding them back form leaving.

    As for me I support, and love my President. I support and am grateful to our troops.
    I think it was about time for this to happen. We needed to get saddam out. Afterall we are finding about everything that he said he didn't have.\

    And yes we did not have U.N. backing, but that was due largely to our "wonderful ally" France. They said that if there was any U.N. resolution supporting a war against Iraq that they would Veto it. I believe that if it wasn't for France we would of had the support of the U.N. Now we have over 40 countries supporting us in this war.
    =

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    4,424
    epxroot > That's the problem: you state that 'there was no other way', the anti-war protestors don't agree with you.
    And it's got nothing to do with 'not having done homework on Saddam': we all know Saddam is a dictator and a murderer.
    I just don't follow your 'Saddam is a dictator, SO war is the only way to get rid of him'-logic. That ain't logical to me at all...

    ZomBieMann77 > The anti-war protestors have got nothing personnaly against the 'ordinary' soldiers that are just doing their job. That's an interesting discussion, btw. 'Wir haben es nicht gewüsst', remember?

    Cheyenne1212 > tsk tsk... "Afterall we are finding about everything that he said he didn't have."... Excuse me??? Even the Pentagon publicly admits they haven't found ANYTHING yet (not talking about convential weapons here). I'm not saying they won't, but right now they haven't found a thing. I'd like to see your source thouhg...

    And yes we did not have U.N. backing, but that was due largely to our "wonderful ally" France. They said that if there was any U.N. resolution supporting a war against Iraq that they would Veto it. I believe that if it wasn't for France we would of had the support of the U.N. Now we have over 40 countries supporting us in this war.

    France, Russia, China... they'd all have used their veto. 40 countries supporting you? I only counted about 10 last time. No way you'd have gotten a majority in the U.N., even without the veto's.

    Sorry about me not using proper quotes...

  6. #6
    I believe that the proper alternative would have been to allow France to have their time with the inspectors for at least another month. France requested only more time for the inspectors to do their job, if we would have allowed France to have their time, It would have allowed us to have a more diplomatic advantage over the world community. By simply allowing more time without any results from the inspectors, we would prob. had the backing of the world community. The US could have simply stated that we have allowed you to have your time, under your criteria, and it has not produced any results.
    The End Justifies The Means...

  7. #7
    Disgruntled Postal Worker fourdc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Vermont, USA
    Posts
    797
    Yes, we could have allowed more time so those Russian firms could sell Saddam some more stuff.

    The irony of it is that when it's all over and the coalition assist the Iragi's in rebuilding will France and Russia then demand that the Iraqi's still pay off the loans Saddam took from them.

    If there was no war, they had a shot at getting their money back. Now they won't. See the US isn't the only country that can be accused of capitalism. "No war for OIL" Right How about "No war until we can collect on our bad debts."

    I hope our troops finish the job, get the rebuilding done and get home. I hope they can do it without great loss of life.
    ddddc

    "Somehow saying I told you so just doesn't cover it" Will Smith in I, Robot

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    405
    The only reason one could be pissed off at anti-war protestors is because a large number of them have zero idea of: why peace should be maintained, why war is not the only answer and the fact that it's not just about oil (or any other single element). This is the only thing that angers me about protestors, when they protest because protesting is cool, without believing in it or knowing anything about it.

    I was against the war before it happend to, I was hoping that there was another way, but there wasnt. We have been trying to go about this without going to war...The troops have a hard enough time over there without knowing that were protesting. So lets give our troops and country all the support we can.
    Your whole post summarises what is wrong with the current situation very well. The Bush administration is playing the 'support the troops' line so well it's unbelievable. There is a difference between supporting the troops and supporting a conflict. Namely, it should go without saying that you support your troops, but just because they're at war, doesn't mean you can't still be opposed to that war. Memories of Vietnam vets getting **** on their return must still be incredibly strong, but those memories alone will ensure that none of the vets of this conflict will suffer from protestors on their return. You know, if the war was being waged for the right reasons, you probably wouldn't have such a large number of people protesting.

    Also, how can you go from being opposed to the war, to being supportive of the war, simply because the war is now underway? All this indicates to the US government is that they can go to war as regularly as they like, because everyone's feeling patriotic, and a large number of the protestors can be turned into supporters by playing the 'support the troops' line.

    I feel that some people have never done there homework on Sadaam.People feel he is the victom he is not his people are the victom of his own actions. He murders and lies, he rules his country off fear, and propaganda. No man/women shouldd be able to rule or run a country on this, he needs to be removed and the only way to do this is to go to war with him. People who dont believe me do alittle research on Sadaam before you get mad at me.
    I feel that some people have never done their homework on the United States. Which continued to support Saddam's regime even after the Kurdish uprising was put down using chemical weapons in the 1980s. The focus of this war has also well and truly shifted from weapons of mass destruction to the liberation of the Iraqi people. So, destroy the country, 'liberate' the people so they can live in democratic freedom (such an arrogant notion that our way of government is perfect and works for everybody), and contracts all round for the US corporations to rebuild Iraq. Of course, repercussions like other countries being pissed off, increased Islamic militance, the delicate balance in the Middle East being grossly upset by this superpower governing Iraq, and the inevitable uprising of the Iraqi people against the US conquerors have obviously not been considered.

    When no WOMD's are found, I get the feeling that no-one will care because the US will be trumpeting about democracy and freedom. I think linuxelite said in another thread, if they cared about democracy and freedom, why haven't they invaded Zimbabwe and deposed Robert Mugabe.

    The USA I feel is the greatest country to live in, it may not be perfect but it is free. Please dont rape the country of all its benefits and then turn your back on the US when its time to go to war.
    Again, there is a difference between supporting your country and supporting your administration. Again, the administration is playing this line very well. You are not turning your back on the US by refusing to support the war.


    The irony of it is that when it's all over and the coalition assist the Iragi's in rebuilding will France and Russia then demand that the Iraqi's still pay off the loans Saddam took from them.
    No country in this mess is blameless. Yes, France and Russia had significant investments in Iraq, which explains why they were opposed to the war. But the US isn't doing this for purely moral reasons either. The contracts will go to US corporations, and it will be an expensive and lengthy task. Hopefully no doubt this will stimulate the US economy, at the expense of the French and Russian economies. The situation reminds me of Nineteen Eighty-Four, where the three forces were constantly at war with each other, which ate up all the goods which were manufactured, which ensured that the cycle continued and kept the people in slavery. The US is getting rid of a shitload of bombs and running a massive military campaign (which is costing heaps), and then paying even more money to rebuild the things that get destroyed in the process. I guess their hope is to eventually bolster their economy from the downturn it is currently in.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    275
    The Bush administration is playing the 'support the troops' line so well it's unbelievable.
    Isnt that a little unfair? I dont believe that for a moment, maybe some rougue right winger that is in some low position pushing papers or something.

    I think the majority of protestors are ignorant to the facts, and many democrats and sincere anti-war protestors are ashamed of alot of them. Like the ones blocking traffic and littering all over the place. The far left protestors are in many ways undermining the sincere concerns of those in opposition to the war, after all who is going to back the guy beating on a drum laying down in the road and calling bush the war criminal? I think the majority of people in this country and in the coalition are rallying behind the troops now, but there will always be those who are staunch till the end.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    405
    Isnt that a little unfair? I dont believe that for a moment, maybe some rougue right winger that is in some low position pushing papers or something.
    Maybe not part of the Bush administration, but this viewpoint is being pushed by higher-ups:

    The renewed military activity in Iraq came hours after Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Richard Myers said those who question the U.S.-led campaign in Iraq are "absolutely wrong" and their comments are "not good for our troops."

    "It is not helpful to have those kind of comments come out when we've got troops in combat, because, first of all, they're false, they're absolutely wrong, they bear no resemblance to the truth, and it's just harmful to our troops that are out there fighting very bravely, very courageously," Myers said at a Pentagon briefing.


    Myers' comments came after days of news reports that some retired military experts -- and some commanders in the field -- have raised questions about the war plan.
    http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •