English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Military - December 2006

[Selected]: All categories Politics & Government Military

and what is the role of George W Bush now that he is in a political straight jacket (just like his prisoners in Guantanamo bay)? You have a lot to answer for America. And this will get at least 8 thumbs down.

2006-12-15 15:21:20 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous

First off, 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB! I'm sick and tired of this patriotic, nationalistic and fascist crap. I stood through a memorial service today for a young Marine that was killed in Iraq back in April. During this memorial a number of people spoke about the guy and about his sacrifice for the country. How do you justify 'sacrificing' your life for a war which is not only illegal, but is being prosecuted to the extent where the only thing keeping us there is one man's power, and his ego. A recent Marine Corps intelligence report that was leaked said that the war in the al-Anbar province is unwinnable. It said that there was nothing we could do to win the hearts and minds, or the military operations in that area. So I wonder, why are we still there? Democracy is not forced upon people at gunpoint. It's the result of forward thinking individuals who take the initiative and risks to give their fellow countrymen a better way of life.

When I joined I took an oath. In that oath I swore to protect the Constitution of the United States. I didn't swear to build democracies in countries on the other side of the world under the guise of "national security." I didn't join the military to be part of an Orwellian ("1984") war machine that is in an obligatory war against whoever the state deems the enemy to be so that the populace can be controlled and riled up in a pro-nationalistic frenzy to support any new and oppressive law that will be the key to destroying the enemy. Example given – the Patriot Act. So aptly named, and totally against all that the constitution stands for. President Bush used the reactionary nature of our society to bring our country together and to infuse into the national psyche a need to give up their little-used rights in the hope to make our nation a little safer. The same scare tactics he used to win elections. He drones on and on about how America and the world would be a less safe place if we weren't killing Iraqis, and that we'd have to fight the terrorists at home if we weren't abroad. In our modern day emotive society this strategy (or strategery?) works, or had worked, up until last month's elections.

My point in this; to show that America was never nationalistic. If anything they were Statalistic (giving their allegiance to the state of their residence). This is shown in the fact that the founders created states with fully capable and independent governments and not provinces that were just a division of the federal government. These men believed that America was a place where imperialistic values would be non-existent. Where the people trying to make their lives better by working hard, thinking, inventing and using the free market would tie up so much of normal life that imperialistic colonization and the fighting of wars thousands of miles away for interests that are not our own would be avoided. They believed this expansion of power could be left to the European nations, the England, France and Spain of their time. However this recent, and current influx of nationalistic feeling has created an environment where giving up your rights, going to a foreign country to fight a people who did not ask for us to be there, nor did their leader do anything to warrant us being there, and dying would be considered honorable and heroic. I don't believe it anymore. I don't believe it's right for any American to go along with it anymore. Yes I know that we in the military are bound by the UCMJ and somehow don't fall under the Constitution (the very thing we're suppose to be defending) but sooner or later there is a decision that every American soldier, marine, airmen and seamen makes to allow themselves to be sent to a war that is against every fiber this country was founded on. I know that when April rolls around I will be thinking long and hard on that decision. Even though we in the military are just doing as we're told we still have the moral and ethical obligation to choose to do as we're told, or to say, "No, that isn't right." I believe that if more troopers like me and the professional military, the officers and commanders, start standing up and saying that they won't let themselves or their troops go to this illegal war people will start standing up and realizing what the heck is going on over there.

The sad fact of the matter is that we are not fighting terrorists in Iraq. We are fighting the Iraqi people who feel like a conquered and occupied people. Personally I have a hard time believing that if I was an Iraqi that I wouldn't be doing everything in my power to kill and maim as many Americans as possible. I know that the vast majority of Americans would not be happy with the Canadian government, or any other foreign government, liberating us from the clutches of George W. Bush, even though a large number of us would like that, and forcing us to accept their system of government. Would not millions of Americans rise up and fight back? Would you not rise up to protect and defend your house and your neighborhood if someone invaded your country? But we send thousands of troops to a foreign country to do just that. How is it moral to fight a people who are just trying to defend their homes and families? I think next time I go to Iraq perhaps I should wear a bright red coat and carry a Brown Bess instead of my digitalized utilities and M16.

Notice I never once used the word homeland in any of this. I have a secondary point I want to bring up now. Never once was the term homeland ever used to describe the country of America until Mr. Bush began the department of homeland security after the 9/11 attacks. Taking a 20th century history class will teach us that the most notable countries in the last century that referred to their country in this way were Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. Hitler used the term fatherland to drum up support, nationalistic support, for his growing war machine. He used the nationalism he created in the minds of the Germans to justify the sacrifice of their livelihood to build the war machine to get back their power from the oppressive restrictions the English and French had put on them at Versailles. This is the same feeling that has been virulently infecting the American psyche in the last hundred years. This is the same feeling that consoles a mother after her son is killed in an attempt to prosecute an aggressor's war 10,000 miles away. It's also known as Patriotism these days, but I say, "No more." No more nationalistic inanity, no more passing it off as patriotism. Patriotism is learning, and educating oneself to understand what their country really stands for.

I heard a lot during the memorial service about how the dead Marine did so much good for others and how his helping others was like a little microcosm of America helping because we have the power to do so. Well if we have the power to help people why aren't we helping in Darfur where hundreds of thousands of people have died in the last 10 years. Saddam was convicted and sentenced to death for killing 143 Shiites who conspired to assassinate him. (I know all you "patriotic" Americans would be calling for the heads of anyone who conspired to assassinate supreme leader Bush). And yet we spend upwards of 1 trillion dollars and nearing 3,000 lives to help these Iraqis when they don't even want us there. Not to mention we don't have the legal justification to be there. I guess we should wait around for the omnipotent W Bush to decide who we should use our superpowerdom to help next. It's about time to throw him and the rest of the fascists out. Moreover it's about time to start educating Americans about their past and history, and letting them know that imperialistic leaders are not what the founders of this great country wanted.

December 8, 2006

2006-12-15 15:15:22 · 18 answers · asked by NAVY SEAL 1

seriously...
...its so totally "patriotic" to support your president... but you can't lie to yourself all the time... you can't spend all your time trying to stand for a cause you don't believe in either...

so when it looks like there is no end to war in sight... is hope for his safety all I have to hang onto?

Will we ever get out of Iraq or stabalize it? Realisticly what is the best strategy we can hope for?

2006-12-15 15:10:41 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

It helps to counter China's presence in Asia. It's not like India will use their nukes, they are the most peaceful nation out there. Heck, even their revolution was non-violent. Please don't confuse the US helping India with the back stab when the US helped the taliban. You lack serious knowledge about India if you can believe that BS. What negatvie actions has India ever done? It's like giving a monk a machine gun.

2006-12-15 14:58:27 · 3 answers · asked by da_bigunit 1

I am talking about people complaining about the war in Iraq. I mean, most of those people complaining don't even have a family member in the service. They just blab how they think soldiers are stupid for going and killing "innocent" terrorist. And why in the heck did we even have to give Sadam a trial! We are pretty much basing the war around people who think things need to be done to help them. Then theres that whole thing about some soldiers tying bags on terrorists head and doing some weird stuff with them, but it is so inhumane for us to do that isnt it! It is ok for them to execute our soldiers with blunt knives though. I'm also mad about soldiers having to go back and ask their commander if they can shoot back when they are being fired at. They literally have to go and ask their commander for orders to start firing. You may be wondering how I know this, but it is because my dad is in the Army. Im also tired of moody teenagers trying to do everything they can to stop the war.

2006-12-15 14:54:41 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous

What was DU used for? What made it necessary?

In what form (artillery?? etc) was it delivered to the affected areas?

Describe the physics involved in causing the DU from an item the military could use without any perceived negative biological effects to become a harmful presence affecting the lives of the people in the area.

What areas were immediately harmed?

Where other countries where the weapons weren't used affected, if any?

Do you feel the use of DU had adverse health effects or do you disagree?

2006-12-15 14:46:05 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-12-15 14:36:02 · 13 answers · asked by historybuff 1

2006-12-15 14:35:50 · 6 answers · asked by pistols_blazin 2

my grandfather used to tell me stories about how a Japanese samurai sword were so sharp that they could cut through a machine gun barrel. then i saw myth buster do a thing on it but they did it all wrong they heated the barrel up for 30mins then used a replica sword to try. the fact that the gun barrels were constantly heated up and cooled over and over again would had made them very brittle. so just heating the barrel up for 30min wasn't accurate and any body that knows swords that if a samurai sword didn't cut through dead bodies it was junk. so how could they use a replica and think they would get the same results?

2006-12-15 13:59:43 · 7 answers · asked by ryan s 5

The Bush adminstration is sending more troops to Iraq after the first of the year. Can't this "IDIOT" president of ours, see that he cannot stop the fighting over there? They have been fighting since the beginning of time way back in the Bible days. More troops will be killed and more families will be without fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters. Maybe if his daughters were over there carring an m 16 machine gun things would be different, or put his *** over there. This nonsense has got to be stopped. My son just returned from Iraq and is being treated for major depression from the things he had to deal with over there.

2006-12-15 13:37:26 · 22 answers · asked by redneck452004 1

and whats left of it? thank you.

2006-12-15 13:35:14 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

how realaistic is it? when could it be in use?

2006-12-15 13:31:19 · 4 answers · asked by catchup 3

as in Poppy day?

2006-12-15 13:14:44 · 2 answers · asked by ? 2

Would Iraq be in a better place? no silly answers please or i will be reporting

2006-12-15 13:13:20 · 14 answers · asked by Abbas 3

Can I tryout for a special force and if i pass can i just drop out them join the private military like blackwater? Why put your life on the line and get low pay when u can make x5 more lol!

2006-12-15 13:05:16 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-12-15 12:49:23 · 33 answers · asked by assortedrain 1

The Westboro Baptist Church is the group that goes to soldiers funerals and hold up signs like Thank God for Dead Soldiers, God Hates America, Thank God for IEDs, God Hates Dead Soldiers and the like.

They say that they prey that hundreds of thousands of soldiers are killed.

Should they be prosecuted for treason?

2006-12-15 12:33:36 · 19 answers · asked by bartmcqueary 3

I read a lot things on this site (and others) like "George Bush has sent our young men to their deaths." or "George Bush has killed thousands of our young men."

Do you not realize that none of the people currently serving in the military have been forced to do so? That re-enlistment is quite high and that military recruiters are currently exceeding their quotas?

Why do you suppose that is?

2006-12-15 11:51:39 · 16 answers · asked by pwone mwahu 2

I can't figure out why the American, British, Canadian, etc...militaries enter into other countries but do not lock down the boarders of that country. It would seem to me if you locked down the country, then the enemy could not bring in weapons, and supplies to make bombs. Lock down. Kill who needs to be killed. Help rebuild. Leave. Am I missing something?

2006-12-15 11:41:45 · 13 answers · asked by nucknuck 1

2006-12-15 11:40:35 · 20 answers · asked by maddogs 1

I figure that they would be so preoccupied with killing each other that perhaps they would leave Israel and the US alone for a few decades. Maybe it would help to ignite one in Iran and that lunatic would be deposed.

2006-12-15 11:35:03 · 8 answers · asked by jeffpsd 4

Ok... I come from a country without milice since 1948 and is in the middle of Central America (yep... went through the 80´s without any armed forces... guess what country that is!). So a country has done it... has proved it is possible, and that military forces may be, useless... especially for poor countries which should be investing in education, health systems, etc., instead of weapons (which MIGHT be used in the EVENTUALITY of an invasion).
In fact, most military forces in poor countries had been used against their own people than to fight others... SO, why do not poor countries get rid of their military forces? Don´t tell it is impossible... Panamá, Costa Rica and even Haiti have done it.

2006-12-15 11:27:37 · 10 answers · asked by mmsc 2

I know the French left after Diem Bein Fu (I know I'm not spelling that right) defeat and we had advisors in there before that, but what was the actual "tag team- you're it" process?

2006-12-15 10:45:19 · 5 answers · asked by wrh_roger 2

Will you please send me your addresses so that I can be your pen pal?

2006-12-15 10:24:32 · 4 answers · asked by Jorge's Wife 4

when fully loaded, how much does one of these weigh?

2006-12-15 10:14:02 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous

This is my first time at a state-side base and I'm having a really hard time deciding which is cheaper--the commissary or Wal-Mart? It seems tax added onto Wal-Mart groceries kind of evens it all out. I know brand-name items are cheaper at the commissary but if you get off brand items at Wal-Mart those are cheaper. It's such a pain trying to figure this out.

State-side military spouses--do you use the commissary or Wal-Mart? Why?

Thank you for your time!

2006-12-15 09:46:52 · 23 answers · asked by .vato. 6

There are more pistols and long guns than ever before in history.Do they contribute to a safer society?

2006-12-15 09:30:52 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

fedest.com, questions and answers