Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

U.S. Image Abroad Surges under Obama


Dr. D

Recommended Posts

Tuna,

The forum threads were split recently and the threads are all over the place.

I saw your question a few days ago and I've answered it several times without actually asking you for your direct immediate attention.

I stand by my statement: People only join the military, today, because they get payed to do it.

If you were told today, while on an army base in Iraq, that the government cannot afford to pay you anymore... you would quit... guaranteed.

Were not back in 1944, France, liberating Europe from the Germans.

You and the rest of the army are deployed and work for an obligarchy of International banksters who are currently looting America while you guys invade and run around the desert

in sovereign nations hunting down civilians who are called 'insurgents'.

We both agreed previously, in another thread, that 'we both hate the war'.... we have the same mind set... were not much different from one another.

I appreciate your integrity in calling me out for characterizing each service members reason for joining.... i really do... I would, if in the same position, do the same.

Yet, and I'll say it again... the Western military has not made the western world safe.... it has made matters less-safe for all so-called 'free and prosperous' people in the western world.

I was not requesting your immediate response, I was just frustrated at what you said, and had seen you post several times after I responded to what you said, so I just wanted to make sure you got around to it. Like I mentioned, I gave you the ben benefit of the doubt over the matter, you didn't need to defend yourself.

Things in the military are not as simple as quitting, but yes I take your point. Would I quit if I did not have a daughter to support? I don't know, but because I do I have no choice. But like I mentioned earlier, I would be making much more $$$ if I didn't join the military. So to say I do it for pay is not accurate at all.

But what other choice would you have when you have a family to support? Perhaps I should be arguing that it is the drastic cut in pay many people in the military willingly take over what they could be earning on the civilian sector. You cannot tell me that counts for nothing.

Understand I do not disagree with you on anything else you are saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
  • Replies 145
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • AROCES

    35

  • The Silver Thong

    16

  • Dr. D

    15

  • WoIverine

    11

There is no reason to be upset or outraged at all, just return to your civilian occupation!

If only it was that easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was not requesting your immediate response, I was just frustrated at what you said, and had seen you post several times after I responded to what you said, so I just wanted to make sure you got around to it. Like I mentioned, I gave you the ben benefit of the doubt over the matter, you didn't need to defend yourself.

Things in the military are not as simple as quitting, but yes I take your point. Would I quit if I did not have a daughter to support? I don't know, but because I do I have no choice. But like I mentioned earlier, I would be making much more $$$ if I didn't join the military. So to say I do it for pay is not accurate at all.

But what other choice would you have when you have a family to support? Perhaps I should be arguing that it is the drastic cut in pay many people in the military willingly take over what they could be earning on the civilian sector. You cannot tell me that counts for nothing.

Understand I do not disagree with you on anything else you are saying.

Many who joined the military, immediately after 911, did so because 3/4 jet liners crashed into suspected targets.

It seemed like the right thing to do for many because it was Patriotic to defend your home land.

Hunting down Al quada training camps in Afghanistan sounded fair and reasonable enough because everybody was told by 'intelligence' that that was where the 19 hijackers trained.

Same goes for the 7/7 London tube bombings.

Yet 2003 rolls around and again, 'intelligence' and Colin Powell were 'used' to garner support for the Invasion of Iraq....?.... a nation under heavy sanctions for 10 previous years.

Iraq posed no threat and never attacked America or its Allies.... but who cared.... everybody was convinced by the Bush administration... through lies and deceit.

Hell many, today, believe that Iraq was involved in 911.... this is how screwed up and distorted the western world has become from the truth.

War is a Racket-- Smedly Butler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

It may seem like I single soldiers out but I have never come across any Generals or Federal politicians anywhere on the net who I can express my opinion to.

Thanks for listening.

I hope you live a long and happy life, as well as all the other soldiers in the Western militaries... i really do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many who joined the military, immediately after 911, did so because 3/4 jet liners crashed into suspected targets.

It seemed like the right thing to do for many because it was Patriotic to defend your home land.

Hunting down Al quada training camps in Afghanistan sounded fair and reasonable enough because everybody was told by 'intelligence' that that was where the 19 hijackers trained.

Same goes for the 7/7 London tube bombings.

Yet 2003 rolls around and again, 'intelligence' and Colin Powell were 'used' to garner support for the Invasion of Iraq....?.... a nation under heavy sanctions for 10 previous years.

Iraq posed no threat and never attacked America or its Allies.... but who cared.... everybody was convinced by the Bush administration... through lies and deceit.

Hell many, today, believe that Iraq was involved in 911.... this is how screwed up and distorted the western world has become from the truth.

War is a Racket-- Smedly Butler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

It may seem like I single soldiers out but I have never come across any Generals or Federal politicians anywhere on the net who I can express my opinion to.

Thanks for listening.

I hope you live a long and happy life, as well as all the other soldiers in the Western militaries... i really do.

I agree with everything you said. I'm at work right now so I don't know if I will be able to view whatever is on those links.

I'm just saying, most people have good intentions and want to help others. So holds true when it comes to the military.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with everything you said. I'm at work right now so I don't know if I will be able to view whatever is on those links.

I'm just saying, most people have good intentions and want to help others. So holds true when it comes to the military.

Unfortunately there is a reason why they say "road to hell is paved with good intentions". Our development is not a straight line from bad to good, it goes in spirals, and what is good in the beginning always becomes bad at the end of each cycle. At least this is what Dialectics say - simple changes accumulate and the entire system becomes wrong and unable to bear the load of these changes, and has to start from scratch on a new level. Any evolution starts and ends with revolution, we just need to live with this, as we cannot fight the reality.

In practical sense acid is right - the West consumes the resources of other nations, while producing less and less to give them back in exchange, we consume the actual fuel and pay for it with software. In order to help this, local governments are dislodged, non-cooperative leaders hanged, laws rewritten, borders redrawn etc. Army is the tool to accomplish this, therefore the army is paid for to "protect" the trade, as Aroces says. But this cannot last for eternity at all, as the opposition grows in those robbed countries - they arm themselves, acquire nuclear weapons, missiles etc. The same time West weakens and loses original population, so there is no one to take care of the pensioners (as people do not breed!); this causes mass immigration of slaves and servants from those same robbed countries, so their anger and hatred penetrate the land of the abuser. These new citizens also have their votes, and they do not want the armies to rape their original lands, thus social tensions grow, and this weakens the host country even more... This all is a normal process, within which the world leaders change each other, as there cannot be a one leader forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, it hurts to see that the eight years of damage to the U.S. international reputation is beginning to be repaired. It was much better to whine about the axis of evil and show the world that the U.S. had elected a moron.

:tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was not requesting your immediate response, I was just frustrated at what you said, and had seen you post several times after I responded to what you said, so I just wanted to make sure you got around to it. Like I mentioned, I gave you the ben benefit of the doubt over the matter, you didn't need to defend yourself.

Things in the military are not as simple as quitting, but yes I take your point. Would I quit if I did not have a daughter to support? I don't know, but because I do I have no choice. But like I mentioned earlier, I would be making much more $$$ if I didn't join the military. So to say I do it for pay is not accurate at all.

But what other choice would you have when you have a family to support? Perhaps I should be arguing that it is the drastic cut in pay many people in the military willingly take over what they could be earning on the civilian sector. You cannot tell me that counts for nothing.

Understand I do not disagree with you on anything else you are saying.

My nieces husband joined the military because of the lack of jobs in the private sector back in 08. Being 21 with 3 kids of his own ( 2 on the way now ) and adopted 1 that's pretty responsible of him . This way he earns money , has housing and can get an education at the same time. But he wouldn't have joined if he didn't have too.

Edited by Lt_Ripley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My nieces husband joined the military because of the lack of jobs in the private sector back in 08. Being 21 with 3 kids of his own ( 2 on the way now ) and adopted 1 that's pretty responsible of him . This way he earns money , has housing and can get an education at the same time. But he wouldn't have joined if he didn't have too.

I joined in 2006 6 credits short of a bachelors degree. I joined when I didn't have to. I know times are tough now and people are joining for financial reasons, but the majority of the military is not made up by people who have joined since the economy tanked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I used that wording with the intent that somebody would say this. It only enforces the point I made earlier about the people of the U.S. controlling the military. You have the military, waitng for a group of elected officials to tell them what to do in order to help keep the people they represent safe. If you use them properly, then applause to everyone. If you elect officials who abuse them once, shame on that official. If you re-elect that official, who continues to abuse the military, shame on all those who voted for him.

So when there are a group of volunteers that have good intentions, and are waiting around to help people, and the general population elects somebody that uses them for their own personal gain, or for a friends, or for whatever it is that is not protecting the people of America, why are folks so quick to blame those that get stuck in the middle, and not the person who makes the decision?

Edited by The Angry Tuna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used that wording with the intent that somebody would say this. It only enforces the point I made earlier about the people of the U.S. controlling the military. You have the military, waitng for a group of elected officials to tell them what to do in order to help keep the people they represent safe. If you use them properly, then applause to everyone. If you elect officials who abuse them once, shame on that official. If you re-elect that official, who continues to abuse the military, shame on all those who voted for him.

So when there are a group of volunteers that have good intentions, and are waiting around to help people, and the general population elects somebody that uses them for their own personal gain, or for a friends, or for whatever it is that is not protecting the people of America, why are folks so quick to blame those that get stuck in the middle, and not the person who makes the decision?

technically to fight abroad is not a good intention; the only good intention is to protect your country against an aggressor. You would hardly call "good intention" if N Koreans start to volunteer to liberate USA from Imperialism. Our business is only what we do within the borders of our countries, everything outside these borders is "interfering", "meddling" or even "aggression"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

technically to fight abroad is not a good intention; the only good intention is to protect your country against an aggressor. You would hardly call "good intention" if N Koreans start to volunteer to liberate USA from Imperialism. Our business is only what we do within the borders of our countries, everything outside these borders is "interfering", "meddling" or even "aggression"

Except fighting abroad was not my intention. It was GW Bush. And of course all the people who re-elected him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Except fighting abroad was not my intention. It was GW Bush. And of course all the people who re-elected him.

Both wars were under way when Bush was elected the second time. You must have known that you would be sent to one of them. Anyway you got guts and did what a lot of people would not. Bravo soldier :tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except fighting abroad was not my intention. It was GW Bush. And of course all the people who re-elected him.

By looking from outside USA Bush=USA. I mean the surname of the leader means nothing, same as their personality. Whatever is done at leader's initiative is done by the entire country including the new-born babies and senile elderly. Wars, specifically, are impersonal, they are between the countries. This is precisely why "attack on America" is a fake - as it was not America, but just Americans who were attacked. Americans must be defended in that case by police and special services, while America must be protected by the army.

Edited by marabod
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By looking from outside USA Bush=USA. I mean the surname of the leader means nothing, same as their personality. Whatever is done at leader's initiative is done by the entire country including the new-born babies and senile elderly. Wars, specifically, are impersonal, they are between the countries. This is precisely why "attack on America" is a fake - as it was not America, but just Americans who were attacked. Americans must be defended in that case by police and special services, while America must be protected by the army.

America has never been invaded so I doubt that concept really rings true in America. No the attack was not against the people of the U.S. in 09/11. It was against a much more dangerous foe and that was the main financial district, wall street. The people were not the issue the attack was meant to tell the U.S. we can hurt you financially. To Americans thats far worse than loss of life. When Americans send 4300 soldiers to there death in a country they didn't need to be in thats wrong. When the death toll of Americans is greater at home due to firearms than a war zone that is wrong. The people were not attacked but Americas financial district was attacked. Lets not confuse the reasons behind the wars after 9/11.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

name='The Silver Thong' date='Jul 28 2009, 03:40 AM' post='3007698']

No the attack was not against the people of the U.S. in 09/11. It was against a much more dangerous foe and that was the main financial district, wall street.

The people were not the issue the attack was meant to tell the U.S. we can hurt you financially. To Americans thats far worse than loss of life. When Americans send 4300 soldiers to there death in a country they didn't need to be in thats wrong. When the death toll of Americans is greater at home due to firearms than a war zone that is wrong. The people were not attacked but Americas financial district was attacked. Lets not confuse the reasons behind the wars after 9/11.

What??? :blink:

You are pulling a BJ is not having sex here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What??? :blink:

You are pulling a BJ is not having sex here.

Oh look Aroces is up from his nap time. Oh and say what, a BJ? sorry pal move onto the next guy :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What??? :blink:

You are pulling a BJ is not having sex here.

Opps maybe I missread your last post. So Bush went to war to save American lives? I would have believed that if he would have stayed the course but he strayed, far worse then getting a hummer. How many BJ's have you had that cost lives ?

Edited by The Silver Thong
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Opps maybe I missread your last post. So Bush went to war to save American lives? I would have believed that if he would have stayed the course but he strayed, far worse then getting a hummer. How many BJ's have you had that cost lives ?

Wall street got attack, terrorist was after wall street and not the American people. :wacko:

So the plane that hit the Pentagon was a diversion? And the other plane that just hit the ground was thought to be after the White House is for special effect?

9/11 was meant not an attack on the American people for Wall Street is not about America, America just happened to be around wall street, or is it the other way around?

Have you been water boarded again????????? :lol:

Edited by AROCES
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you both are right, they wanted to attack wall street, and they wanted to strike fear in the American people. But I think your both pointing the finger at the wrong criminals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many BJ's have you had that cost lives ?

I've had quite a few of those, high caliber projectiles are very deadly at close range... May my ex girlfriends RIP. ;)

LOL

Edited by SpIdErCyDe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.