It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Collection of military vids from Iraq

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 09:41 AM
link   




posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 03:37 AM
link   
Killak thanks man , the grenade in the washing machine was zany to say the least, it was cool and ironic with "we didnt start the fire" in the background. Lord bless those guys and keep'em safe



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by marinefan
Killak thanks man , the grenade in the washing machine was zany to say the least, it was cool and ironic with "we didnt start the fire" in the background. Lord bless those guys and keep'em safe


Why should the Lord bless them and keep them and to let his light shine upon them and give them peace in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

Can you tell me why?



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Because those marines with 1000s of others are doing a very dangerous job for their country to protect his way of life and mine too for that matter, think before u ask a question of that nature next time.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 11:09 AM
link   
OOPS, you and your million topics started were starting to gain my respect..... oh well nvm about that....



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by ufo3
Because those marines with 1000s of others are doing a very dangerous job for their country to protect his way of life and mine too for that matter, think before u ask a question of that nature next time.


How is he protecting his way of life, or yours for that matter?

You have evidence that Iraq posed a threat to him, you or you're country?
If so, care to share it with the rest of us?


(Thanks for vids)

[edit on 26-2-2005 by Johnny Redburn]



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by CosaNostra
OOPS, you and your million topics started were starting to gain my respect..... oh well nvm about that....


I'm sure he is weeping over this loss right now.


OOPS, America is God's country, remember? I can just see God and Allah up there playing Iraq 2005:Savages and Infidels™ version 3.1 on their XBOX Holy Edition right now.




[edit on 26-2-2005 by cargo]



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnny Redburn

Originally posted by ufo3
Because those marines with 1000s of others are doing a very dangerous job for their country to protect his way of life and mine too for that matter, think before u ask a question of that nature next time.


How is he protecting his way of life, or yours for that matter?

You have evidence that Iraq posed a threat to him, you or you're country?
If so, care to share it with the rest of us?


(Thanks for vids)



[edit on 26-2-2005 by Johnny Redburn]




Do u really think the western world could be maintained without oil at this period in time? Also saddam was a danger, i know that we were probably lied to but he would have gotten his weapons anyway once the inspectors would have given the all clear, even with their permanent presence thereafter.
He also showed he would be willing to use these weapons on many occasions, would u like some stolen eastern block nuke airblasted over your house?

[edit on 26-2-2005 by ufo3]

[edit on 26-2-2005 by ufo3]



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ufo3
Do u really think the western world could be maintained without oil at this period in time?

He wasnt exactly stoppping it was he?
Oil was his influx of cash, he wouldnt want to stop it.



Also saddam was a danger, i know that we were probably lied to but he would have gotten his weapons anyway once the inspectors would have given the all clear, even with their permanent presence thereafter.

How?
He was not stupid and wouldnt just start a war with ethier us or the yanks.


He also showed he would be willing to use these weapons on many occasions, would u like some stolen eastern block nuke airblasted over your house?
[edit on 26-2-2005 by ufo3]

Like the US or UK isnt ethier?
We actively say we have a nuclear deterant and I know the US used to publish that its 60 seconds wasnt it? Reaction time for a nuclear reaction.

He wasnt stupid , he knew NOT to start on two big bad boys with nukes.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 01:46 PM
link   
U have also got to remember that he was not a very stable leader, i agree that he would not be stupid enough to attack the US/UK outright conventionally but i am damn sure he would have been very tempted to get the said weapon into lets say 'willing hands'. All u have to know is that he was looking for ways to exert power over the west without loseing his own,using terrorists is the ideal way for this to happen.
It is to late for NK now but any other axis country trying to develop WMDs will face the same fate as Iraq it just cannot be tollerated to let mad men have nukes, i am sure we can agree on that.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Sure looks like they're having fun .....
Wish I got paid to go play God in another Country...
and no I'm not joking .. it actually looks fun..



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ufo3
U have also got to remember that he was not a very stable leader, i agree that he would not be stupid enough to attack the US/UK outright conventionally but i am damn sure he would have been very tempted to get the said weapon into lets say 'willing hands'.

Its a fair game, and that still isnt enough to invade a country, otherwies we would have to invade everycountry.


All u have to know is that he was looking for ways to exert power over the west without loseing his own,using terrorists is the ideal way for this to happen.

He wouldnt have "power" over the west since the "west" controlled him.
We get a diffrent supplier of oil and bang he loses control.
We used terrorists, why cant he?


It is to late for NK now but any other axis country trying to develop WMDs will face the same fate as Iraq it just cannot be tollerated to let mad men have nukes, i am sure we can agree on that.

How can we justify haveing them when we too have mad men by thier standards.
Its called hypocrisy.
How do you define an "axis" country?
It has diffrent opinions to you?
So that would make it evil?
Using that logic we would be at war with the whole world.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnny Redburn

Originally posted by ufo3
Because those marines with 1000s of others are doing a very dangerous job for their country to protect his way of life and mine too for that matter, think before u ask a question of that nature next time.


How is he protecting his way of life, or yours for that matter?

You have evidence that Iraq posed a threat to him, you or you're country?
If so, care to share it with the rest of us?


(Thanks for vids)

[edit on 26-2-2005 by Johnny Redburn]


If you stand back and think a moment, he was ordered over there, he is now under fire, he is now protecting his way of life. As for protecting our way of life, I have some doubts. We shouldn't have gone in the first place, but it's too late now..
Don't question the individual grunt, it's not his fault.

Sadaam really was no threat to us at that time. That's not to say that that wouldn't have changed in the future.
Just for reference, I spent 10 1/2 yrs. in the military, ssooooooo..... I am pro-military



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by ufo3
Do u really think the western world could be maintained without oil at this period in time?


So if you need something that someone else has and have more power than them, you have the right to just take it?
Sorry but that’s a rather pathetic and archaic way of thinking which I believe is morally wrong in today’s world.


Originally posted by ufo3
Also saddam was a danger,


He was a danger to the Iraqi people, not the country in which you live. Iraqi's should be the only people allowed to decide their future, and people from the outside have no right to interfere for personal benefit.


Originally posted by ufo3
i know that we were probably lied to but he would have gotten his weapons anyway once the inspectors would have given the all clear, even with their permanent presence thereafter.


Pure speculation, no weapons programs have been found, and evidence used for the invasion on this matter has been discredited.


Originally posted by ufo3
He also showed he would be willing to use these weapons on many occasions, would u like some stolen eastern block nuke airblasted over your house?


Not only did weapons inspectors find that Saddam did not seek WMD after the first gulf war, but Iraq's longest range missile capabilities were barely adequate to strike Kuwait (Its next door neighbor), let alone "my house".


Originally posted by Ohio_Ron
If you stand back and think a moment, he was ordered over there, he is now under fire, he is now protecting his way of life.


He is protecting his life and the lives of his fellow soldiers, not his way of life.
Also are these soldiers not trained to morally object to any orders that are criminal or wrong?
Seeing as you stated you were in the military for 10 1/2 years, I assume you would know if this was part of the training?


Originally posted by Ohio_Ron
Sadaam really was no threat to us at that time. That's not to say that that wouldn't have changed in the future.


Unfortunately we cannot live by 'what ifs' and 'might haves', what you state here would be the equivalent of killing an infant simply because there was a 50/50 chance it might turn out 'evil'.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 07:52 AM
link   
Democratic countries having WMDs is very different from a 1 man dictatorship having them, a democratic country cant just launch a strike whenever it wants to ,there is a process. With a dictatorship that does not happen if saddam wanted to he could have used WMDs without any democratic process whatsoever, i dont care what u say about his state of mind whether he would or wouldnt, in my mind the threat is not worth 'ignoring'.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ufo3
Democratic countries having WMDs is very different from a 1 man dictatorship having them, a democratic country cant just launch a strike whenever it wants to ,there is a process.

Actually thats not true, the US president for example can order a strike without haveing to report to anyone, the only one who he has to really go to is the secretary of defence.
Our PM can do the same.
All they need to do is make it look remotely like there is an attack on and no one would question them.



With a dictatorship that does not happen if saddam wanted to he could have used WMDs without any democratic process whatsoever, i dont care what u say about his state of mind whether he would or wouldnt, in my mind the threat is not worth 'ignoring'.

There was no threat, no WMD, no 45 min capable weapons. So your willing to not trust one man with weapons but trust the US or the UK, last time I checked we had a leader not a council or comitee leading our fair country.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 08:10 AM
link   
It really is a shame though that no one can breath a word of support for our boys regardless of whether or not the war is right or wrong without it turning into the same old debate about that and that alone. Come on people, there are plenty of threads for that.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Relentless
It really is a shame though that no one can breath a word of support for our boys regardless of whether or not the war is right or wrong without it turning into the same old debate about that and that alone. Come on people, there are plenty of threads for that.

We do hope they get home, we support them and hope they get home.
We dont support the war because its wrong, please dont judge us because we dont agree with you.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Devilwasp, I think you missed my point which is that any comment in support of the troops must turn to the same debate of the war. It actually has nothing to do with where I stand or where others stand on the issue.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Relentless
Devilwasp, I think you missed my point which is that any comment in support of the troops must turn to the same debate of the war. It actually has nothing to do with where I stand or where others stand on the issue.

As many supporters of the war say, "you cant support the troops if you dont support the war".
In effect you are supporting the war if you agree with this thread...I'm sorry but thats just how it works.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join