View Full Version : Soldiers Are Getting Angry

07-17-2003, 02:43 PM
If you've watched the news recently, I'm sure you have seen the interviews with soldiers saying how they have lost faith in the army, and how they would like the Rumsfield to resign. They have gotten lied to time and again about when they are going home, they keep on pushing back the date, and the soldiers don't even know why they are there. They are just sitting around doing nothing, while angry Iraqi's kill them.

Rather than giving these soldiers dishonorable discharge, maybe our government should take this as a clue that they are f*cking up BIG time. Bush doesn't believe in listening to the people at all, he just goes and does what he wants. How long are we going to let this go on.

What are other peoples thoughts on this. Did the soldiers have the right to say what they did?

07-17-2003, 03:35 PM
I think the US,UK,etc,etc should withdraw all troops, engineers and so on, and leave Iraq and afghanistan, and leave them to it. The only people that can control these religeous fanatics are the people we've deposed. their actions of biting the hand that feeds them proves it. There are too many bloody do gooders in power and we're paying for their pius ill thought out actions, billyfridge. (pissed off BRIT) :angry:

07-17-2003, 03:55 PM
Unfortunately by deposing the 'only people who can control them' we have made ourselves partially responsible for the welfare of these countries.
Also the reasoning behind these bombings is to cultivate precisely the attitude u r expressing, namely that the troops should withdraw. The bombings are designed to drive off any semblance of control and leave a power vacuum in which enterprising people (behind the bombs) can step into power. This would in the end be a much worse situation than saddam's regime or the current horrible situation of our soldiers getting killed as Iraq would probably be a true terrorist state, in control of the worlds 2nd largest confirmed oil deposits. (and all the money that this potentially entails)
Edit: clarity

07-17-2003, 11:33 PM
The leaders of Syria, Iran and Libya must simply be lovin' life these days.
Bush is up to his knees in poop trying to justify why the US went into Iraq in the first place.
In his arrogant haste to prove just how mighty the "Coalition" was, he withdrew troops far too early.
His own soldiers are publically bitching about how inept their leadership is.

Either we stay and continue to be harassed or we pull out and leave the country wide open to Islamic extremists.

It's a win-win situation for them.

07-21-2003, 03:25 AM
On the contrary, this is rather fascinating to watch. Just think, ten years of relative peace, give or take a thousand Kosovars and then suddenly WHAM, Bush is in the office, the World Trade Center is gone, Afghanistan is in shambles, Iraq is crumbling into anarchy, some nutcase is sending Anthrax around the country, and racial profiling is up 3000%. Oh wait, did I say fascinating? I think I meant horrifying. But this will do one good thing.
Any hope the Republicans had of being relected is f'ed. People seem to hate them a lot more now for some reason or another....

07-22-2003, 03:12 PM
it looks like the worlds most expensive military is pretty high maintenance [& low morale]
the vietnam body-bag issue raises it's head again, the US body count mounts while those invaded have no real idea how many of them are dead but are fighting for their home so they will fight to the last
the USA entering[inciting] conflict when there is no real reason to fight [domestically real for american people], finds it cannot sustain the campaign, the USA won't fight to the last [the voters don't want all their children's blood spilt for bushes oil aspirations on the other side of the world]

if the US leaves in a hurry there will be a power vacuum which will be filled by warlords [or the ever elusive saddam]
either way it means more unhappy arabs with reasons to dislike the USA
maybe if the US had actually planned the post conflict reconstruction and had done things like providing medical supplies and food ensuring that power was available quickly and a peace keeping force and police the iraqi people might see US troops differently
[the USA as a rule do not deploy it's troops as peace keepers, therefore there is no peace keeping experience in the US military]

the troops are seeing what the majority world have known for decades
US forces are not liberators they are subjugators and corporate enslavers
who will no doubt leave a terrible bloody mess in their wake

god help liberia [i notice that bush made some noise about helping but has failed to provide any actual assistance, while monrovia is almost completely over-run now]

yet still the main stream of america refuses to examine why they have so many opponents, some so desperate they are willing to die to hurt the USA
until the USA faces it's sins [and maybe trys to make restitution for them] they will continue to flail blindly [& dangerously] in the dark of selfish self-righteous ignorance
the soldiers are right to be angered but they have their compatriots to blame and can all vote [i presume], to join an army is to resign your self to the chain of command so also in a way they are unproffesional in questioning their orders
more on this topic (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=3932)

07-22-2003, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by clocker@18 July 2003 - 00:33
The leaders of Syria, Iran and Libya must simply be lovin' life these days.

Either we stay and continue to be harassed or we pull out and leave the country wide open to Islamic extremists.

It's a win-win situation for them.
my one proviso to your comment hobbes is that the brass ring of a palestinian state in the next 2 or 3 years is not impossible. Its not going well, and I'm damn glad my country didn't participate in the invastion, but its too soon to tell whether or not the greater good might be served. I for one do not reject in principle means to end strategies, and there is a multitude of feel-good scenarios that might play out in the next 1 to 5 years: a Palestine is created and the cycle of violence lessened significantly, Iranian reformers win the day, one fewer murderous totalitarian states thanks to a new, democratically elected Iraq, and generally more open, inclusive Arab societies that will drain the swamp of radical terrorist islam...if all or even one of these happens, I won't be agonizing over the ethics for long. That's a lot of IFs to hope for, obviously, but all reasonably possible at this point.

Frankly, what's done is done, and while I admit to a certain amount of schadenfreude in Bush's problems, I ultimately want to see a genuine and successful democratic Middle East arise. think of the wealth of the Middle East: if equitably distributed, it would be the nation-state/world region equivalent of Alberta or Texas. thats a lot of money, a lot of budget surpluses, a lot of happily employed people with a good future for themselves and their children. I don't see the crime in hoping for such a future for people of the middle east.

07-22-2003, 04:44 PM
As I see it, if you join the army, you obey orders (unless they are obviously illegal). I can sympathise a little when you have a conscripted army but, especially where the choice to join was voluntary, you should shut up and get on with it.

During other recent conflicts, I can remember reports of British troops supposedly saying "but we never expected to go to war". What on earth did they think an army was for? To be fair I never met or directly saw any who actually said that or anything approaching that.

I will support our troops when they go to war, even when I may strongly disagree with the reasons for that war. Of course, many politicians (GW Brush and Tony Blair Witch in particular) will tell you the opposite.

The conflict in Iraq was rushed into with unseemly haste (IMO) and little was done to prepare for the aftermath, with the result we see today. British troops are a little better prepared with their experiences in N. Ireland, and I believe they are carrying out training sessions for US troops, but it would have been much better if this had been done before going.

Perhaps if they behaved with a little more thought about their actions, they might just find the population a little less angry with them, and consequently might find they had fewer reasons to feel angry themselves. But in any case, they should just shut up.

07-23-2003, 08:58 PM
WHat the heck is with all the people acusing bush of everthing??? :angry:

07-24-2003, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by abigspidermonkey@23 July 2003 - 21:58
WHat the heck is with all the people acusing bush of everthing??? :angry:

Take a look and you will know the answer.

As long as he keeps lying then it's open season.


07-26-2003, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by abigspidermonkey@23 July 2003 - 12:58
WHat the heck is with all the people acusing bush of everthing??? :angry:
it's easier to point the finger at the idiot in charge, rather than all of his little minions who are actually doing the paperwork. may as well blame bush, since he's supposed to be the boss.