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

For instance, you are told that your country was going to be attacked in 45 mins with chemical weapons when you know that the enemy did not have launchers that can reach your country and it is doubtful that they had any intention or weapons at all? Would you join the army?

2007-09-27 15:08:03 · 26 answers · asked by Maxi Robespierre 5 in Politics & Government Military

I knew the 45 min claim was complete bull and no attack was imminent so I was not rushing to join because it would be immoral.

2007-09-27 15:51:18 · update #1

steve, the UN never authorised the use of force. It is always the case with falsehoods to present a load of dodgy paperwork

2007-09-27 15:53:13 · update #2

26 answers

Let all the idiots who want to die for nothing go and do it, but try not to take out any innocent people while you do it.

I have a sneaky feeling most plastic patriots would turn to jelly if they saw the horror of a real war. War is your friends dying a horrible death all around you, women screaming over their sons' corpses. Read the question he said "KNOWING THE REASON IS FALSE".

RE 45 MINUTES - he was referring to the claim before the war that Iraq could launch an attack on the west with 45 minutes of preparation.

The truth is Iraq could not have attacked outside Iraq in 45 minutes and the WMD it had at one time, chemical weapons, were battlefield shells, NOT long range weapons capable of reaching Europe and America. Even former British Foreign Secretary the late Robin Cook MP knew that, and said so when he resigned in the Commons the night before the Iraq War. We all know the real reason for the war, it was just a Bush family grudge.

2007-09-27 15:24:53 · answer #1 · answered by Phil McCracken 5 · 7 6

While the questions "For Instance" is not realistic, the idea of the question should be answered. We have heard from many good and competent authorities that the reasons presented for our attack on Iraq are false and therefore the leaders are not competent to be in a leadership position. We know that the reasons for our attack are to keep oil companies in a position to make big money selling oil.

We do not really need the oil. In 1965 I saw our new military vehicle that used water for fuel at the US Army Transportation Center. In 1970, when there was no fuel at the pump, I called to see what had happened to our new vehicle and found that there was no trace. Someone made it disappear.

I did fight for my country and retired with 21 years. Military service is not that dangerous. Over 42,000 people are killed on the highways each year.

I recommend a military career for anyone able to serve, but it is the people who really control this country. Without popular support, no police or military personnel can succeed.

The link below is quite good. It concerns the legality of the war in, not with Iraq.

2007-09-27 22:51:12 · answer #2 · answered by Pey 7 · 2 3

I personally believe a mandatory service time should be required. Starting at age 18. And retain our weapons after discharge from the service.Then when we get out we become citizen soldiers ready to back up our troops at a minutes notice.
That way all the whining sniveling people on here that blame all on Bush, will actually have a say so. Because they served. Anything they post here just gets ignored or shows me how stupid many of you really are.
Seriously, you people want all the rights and freedoms but dont want to earn it. I believe if you havent served, you should go to the political section here and theorize all you want. FREEDOM IS NOT FREE.

2007-09-28 00:17:11 · answer #3 · answered by ? 6 · 2 1

A very loaded question! It begs some follow-ups: How would anyone join the army quickly enough to react to a 45 minute attack? From whom might you "know" the enemy did not have the means by which to reach my country and from where would you know their intentions?

2007-09-27 22:16:30 · answer #4 · answered by Chris B 7 · 7 1

Yep!

Do people really consider politics before joining the military? Not really. I didn't care when I enlisted, I just wanted to be a soldier, and go around doing all those fun things soldiers do. I don't care about politics or fighting the good fight. I think the Iraq war was a dreadful mistake, but I wouldn't pass up an opportunity to be deployed there.

2007-09-27 22:25:53 · answer #5 · answered by Gotta have more explosions! 7 · 5 1

Former US Navy guy here. I joined to serve my country. When you raise your right hand, you give up all rights to question if any reason the higher chain of command have for any decision. You just do as told. "Defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic...." I was ready to fight, and die if I failed to fight correctly, when I joined.

2007-09-28 02:24:13 · answer #6 · answered by jenshubby97701 3 · 1 0

Home is home and I would fight anywhere in the world for it. Type in "north korea is dark" and think about what was going on in 1951, People were asking the same question then about what we were doing on the other side of the world. My dad was a medic and lots of the casualties he treated were from frost bite to the feet. We entered into that war, unprepared, just like when WW2 started, and people ***** about the lack of armor plating on the Hummers and blame George. Look at the satellite image..time tells, doesn't it?

2007-09-27 23:07:28 · answer #7 · answered by nars 3 · 2 2

It is amazing that you say that they have no chemical weapons just because we haven't found them. Do you realize how small a container of chemical warfare agent is? Let's just say that a single drop of many chemical warfare agents is enough to kill a room full of people Do you remember that we found entire planes buried under the sand, just waiting for the time that they could be dug up and used?

You need to realize that do have the desire to utilize chemical weapons. It is true that they don't have delivery methods capable of reaching the US, but we are a global community, and they don't need to attack the US. If they attack Middle Eastern and European countries, they would likely be attacking an ally.

2007-09-27 23:17:20 · answer #8 · answered by LC 5 · 3 3

The answer is yes because just like any job there are things we do that we like and things that we wont. I could not join when 9/11 happened because i was not old enough. When you fight for your country throughout your military career there will be wars that you deem just and others you may not. But you can not make that call. The military is much more than just fighting wars. We feed the hungry, help in natural disasters like hurricane Katrina. I serve my country because I love the freedoms we have now. Just like some jobs have good leadership and bad that goes for the military as well. But with free health care, free higher education, the sense of duty I have, the great shape I am always in, the chance to die with pride is one I am not afraid of. Because where I grew up you could die just walking outside. I'd rather die trying to improve my life and the life of others than just living in a high crime city because thats where I am born. But truthfully, there is never a way to know 100% that what we fight for is false and if it is 100% false than the war could never get enough of our congressional votes to be declared. Our Congress may not be the best, but I trust that they would see a war that blantantly wrong coming from a mile away.

2007-09-27 22:30:45 · answer #9 · answered by niki 3 · 3 5

I personally, would wait for 45 minutes.

If the attack didn't happen--then I could be certain that there was no attack, and there isn't an imminent threat.

As far as the claim about the other country not having those weapons--I cannot know that because I don't live in that country and don't serve its military. You do have to have a certain degree of trust in your government to tell you the truth.

If you're not sure the government is doing its duty by telling you the truth, then why would you serve it?

2007-09-27 22:14:29 · answer #10 · answered by Matt S 2 · 2 7

fedest.com, questions and answers