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.

 

WAR: U.S. Held Secret Meetings with Insurgents in Iraq

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_oleneo
Fact: Saddam...
[...]
Saddam is a very evil man, given his history in the last 35 years.


That's a nice list. Qn. 2: How many of the above have not been committed by the U.S. government and many other Western governments? Your answer will be graded on relevance to the original question and you must provide sources and footnotes. You may start...now.


...you and your anti-US kind...


Examinees please note: Marks will be deducted for the use of cliched rhetoric and diversionary labels.




posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
That's a nice list. Qn. 2: How many of the above have not been committed by the U.S. government and many other Western governments? Your answer will be graded on relevance to the original question and you must provide sources and footnotes. You may start...now.


Oh, no, you don't! We're not going off-the-subject. Let's stick to the subject on the Iraqi insurgents in negotiations with the US authorities.

And I'm not going to discuss with you on that question. You learned the facts, you know the facts. Stick to it.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_oleneo

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Please explain what a "circumstantial fact" is, and then, if appropriate, list it/them.


Fact given in full details. These facts below are in summary of circumstantial facts that most people don't bother to read, learn or conveniently ignored based on their biased stance against the US efforts to remove Saddam from power.

Fact: Saddam have active & inactive WMD programs (active: chemical/biological; inactive: nuclear) going back over 20 years.
Fact: Saddam used WMD upon peoples in the past.
Fact: Saddam supported external terrorism extensively and funded families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
Fact: Saddam employed people to commit acts of terror, suppression and outright murder against Iraqis and others who opposed him or his regime.
Fact: Saddam lied to, stalled, deceived, bribed people engaged in international efforts to contain him.
Fact: Saddam instructed his military to shoot down American and British aircrafts patrolling in the No-Fly Zones in Iraq in defiance of the UN resolutions imposed on his regime.
Fact: Saddam have repeatedly undermined and threatened peace throughout the Middle East, especially with Israel and the Palestinians.
Fact: Saddam cannot be trusted or be counted on for his words in regarding to his WMD program.
Fact: Saddam is a very evil man, given his history in the last 35 years.

These are not pack of lies. These are a pack of facts that you and your anti-US kind conveniently ignored or looked the other way when the US removed Saddam from power.


[edit on 6/26/2005 by the_oleneo]


I know I'm butting into a dialogue here, but since it's a public thread I feel I have to ask:

Saddam was doing most of these things while he was supported by the United States. How can we accept the argument that these really were our (ie, Americas) reasons for going to war with Saddam, when he was just as bad a guy when we were supporting him?

I can accept the argument that things changed between the 1980s and now, but are we really supposed to believe that just because we live in a different world America suddenly always does the right thing? Is it not possible that while removing Saddam may have some positive effects, we are making all new mistakes that we will pay for later?

It's important that we don't confuse Saddam's evil history with America's motives and reasons for entering Iraq. The two are not the same, because America had reasons and motives for keeping Saddam in power when he had the exact same evil history.

Another thing- Many of us "anti-US" types were against Saddam for these same reasons when he was America's darling.

-koji K.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 10:51 PM
link   
People need to realize something here. I hear people screaming hypocrisy because it is against policy, but here's the facts folks.

While you all sit behind your computers comfortably, people are dying. Would you rather have negotiations - against policy - or not have negotiations and have people die?

I think the way most of you are looking at this is disgusting.

I think its great that finally these talks are taking place - they are SO long overdue.

I'm ecstatic at this development.


-wD



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_oleneo
Oh, no, you don't! We're not going off-the-subject. Let's stick to the subject on the Iraqi insurgents in negotiations with the US authorities.

And I'm not going to discuss with you on that question. You learned the facts, you know the facts. Stick to it.


Dear valued student,

Your exam results are just in. We regret to inform you that you have failed the following course:

The Real Reasons Why We Invaded Iraq 101

However, your exemplary performance in the subjects related to the official story impels us to encourage you to reapply for entrance to the course next invasion/semester.

Don't give up yet!

Sincerely,

Academic Admin.
The 9-11 Truth Movement College.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by WeBDeviL
People need to realize something here. I hear people screaming hypocrisy because it is against policy, but here's the facts folks.

While you all sit behind your computers comfortably, people are dying. Would you rather have negotiations - against policy - or not have negotiations and have people die?


I agree, web. Policies are only valid as long as they work. What's the old military adage? "You adapt, you improvise, you overcome." Making decisions based on outdated, stubborn policy isn't going to solve anything, but any move that can bring some peace and stability to Iraq is going to be a positive step in saving lives, getting the country back on its feet again, and getting the troops home sooner.


[edit on 2005/6/26 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Exactly. Adaptation is the key to survival. I think the U.S. military is realizing something - if they can stop this insurgency by negotiations, and have the insurgents become a respected political group (much the same as the I.R.A. did with Sinn Fein nowadays) then it's a win-win situation.


The violence stops. The troops come home. Iraq becomes stabilized. What's not to like?

-wD



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 02:31 AM
link   
.
Maybe they should have started talking with Iraqis a long time ago,
Instead of waiting with baited breath for cheers of celebration & parades that never materialized.

But no, they were going to cowboy their way through using force only.

Now they are going to legitimize these thugs in Iraq at the expense of the general Iraqi populace.

If you care about America, maybe you will begin to realize we have spent a 1/5th of a TRILLION dollars and counting and the grand result is turning a cohesive country over to a chaotic collection of fighters, insurgents and just plain criminal gangs.

If my memory serves me correctly that is the state Afghanistan was in before the Taliban rose to power.

If i didn't live here this would make an excellent black comedy. Very funny stuff. Hey wait a minute, i want a copyright.

America doesn't even guard its own southern border,

How can you even take the US seriously?

Insanity created by madmen.

If i didn't know better i would think America was run by some religiously halucinatory, coke-head, alcoholic.

America has become the clown of World politics,
Big, Fat and Dumb and has no clue what it is doing,
Its all for laughs.
.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 04:16 AM
link   
Fact: Saddam Hussein and Iraq have no connection to 9/11
Fact: You have been brainwashed to think it has

The 'shoot first, ask questions later policy' is clearly not working.
Maybe we can rid the world of terrorists by using our brains now?



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 06:57 AM
link   
Although im in favour of dialogue between the US military and Iraqi guerillas I find it quite amusing that such a liberal approach is being espoused by fervent anti-liberals such as Donald Rumsfeld.

Insurgents are terrorists no?


BAGHDAD, Iraq - A suicide bomber trailed by five cars loaded with armed insurgents slammed into a wall outside the home of an Iraqi special forces police officer Saturday in the Sunni triangle city of Samarra, killing at least nine people on the street, officials said.

Insurgents strike Iraqi Security Forces

Insurgent suicide bombers attacking Iraqi police? And killing 9 people on the street? Sound like terrorists to me.


LONDON - Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld acknowledged Sunday that U.S. officials met with insurgents in Iraq, after a British newspaper reported two such meetings took place recently at a villa north of Baghdad.

Rumsfeld: U.S Met With Insurgents
Rumsfeld condones meeting with these terrorists?


Rumsfeld insisted the talks did not involve negotiations with Iraq's most-wanted terrorist, Jordanian-born Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who heads al-Qaida in Iraq, but were rather facilitating efforts by the Shiite-led government to reach out to minority Sunni Arabs, who are believed to be the driving force behind the insurgency.

Rumsfeld: U.S Met With Insurgents
The U.S helping to "reach out" to terrorists? Sounds rather strange when the stated position from Bush is:


I know it is difficult, but the coalition must stand firm. When governments negotiate with terrorists, everyone in the free world suffers. When political leaders sound the sirens of defeatism in the face of terrorism, it only encourages more violence. Working together, we will defeat the killers, and we'll do this by refusing to bargain about our most fundamental principles

President Bush speaking with President Allawi in the White House Rose Garden

I thought negotiating with terrorists was a liberal solution. What does Mr. Rove have to say about Rumsfeld condoing negotiations with terrorists?



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Apparently US held secret Meetings with Iraqi Insurgents, and they agreed that Insurgency will last for 12 more years - probably right until the Oil Reserves dont run Out.




posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 09:14 AM
link   
i just read an article about the rise of fighting between insurgent groups......hmmmmm.....



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 11:22 AM
link   
It's obvious Saddam was an evil dictator but it just seems that these loyalists have been brainwashed since birth to worship this guy regardless of what he does. I mean every home was forced to have a picture of this guy up somewhere in their household. I just hope that these extremist realize that their tactics are not only killing american but their own people as well including women and children. If direct talks have occured maybe it might help resolve this and slap some sense into them. It is true American policy is to never negotiate with terrorists but human speech is more influential than a bullet to the head. Because for every Iraqi dead 5 more fighters arise to attempt to avenge the dead.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K
Saddam was doing most of these things while he was supported by the United States. How can we accept the argument that these really were our (ie, Americas) reasons for going to war with Saddam, when he was just as bad a guy when we were supporting him?


The same reasons we have been asking about our support for Stalin before and during World War II, then after the war, Stalin's the bad guy.



Originally posted by koji_K
Is it not possible that while removing Saddam may have some positive effects, we are making all new mistakes that we will pay for later?


We all make mistakes, large or small. Nobody's perfect. If you wanted to live in a perfect world of peace and harmony, you're on the wrong dimensional plane of existence.



Originally posted by koji_K
Another thing- Many of us "anti-US" types were against Saddam for these same reasons when he was America's darling.


Yeah, and so was Stalin.


[edit on 6/27/2005 by the_oleneo]



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Dear valued student,

Your exam results are just in. We regret to inform you that you have failed the following course:

The Real Reasons Why We Invaded Iraq 101

However, your exemplary performance in the subjects related to the official story impels us to encourage you to reapply for entrance to the course next invasion/semester.
Academic Admin.
The 9-11 Truth Movement College.



One of the reasons is pretty compelling and made sense: sometimes after November 2000 election, (this one was completely overlooked amidst all the uproar over that election fiasco) Saddam made the switch from petrodollar to euro for Iraq's oil exports. Why? Changing the petrodollar to a major currency like euro on oil exports can undermine the US national/economic security interests in the Persian Gulf oil markets. This goes all the way back to President Jimmy Carter's firm declaration linking the Persian Gulf oil to the vital national security interests of the United States in Carter's State of the Union speech in 1980.

Back to the subject: I think it's the smart, right thing for the US military to negotiate with few insurgent groups, specifically Sunni-oriented groups with some Ba'athist elements who are loyal to Saddam. I don't think the US military is actively seeking al-Qaeda group in Iraq to negotiate with. This is perhaps the best way for the US military to weed out Iraqi insurgent groups from the foreign fighter groups.

[edit on 6/27/2005 by the_oleneo]



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_oleneo
One of the reasons is pretty compelling and made sense: sometimes after November 2000 election, (this one was completely overlooked amidst all the uproar over that election fiasco) Saddam made the switch from petrodollar to euro for Iraq's oil exports. Why? Changing the petrodollar to a major currency like euro on oil exports can undermine the US national/economic security interests in the Persian Gulf oil markets. This goes all the way back to President Jimmy Carter's firm declaration linking the Persian Gulf oil to the vital national security interests of the United States in Carter's State of the Union speech in 1980.

Taking a risk here with replying to you but what the hell, do your worst. So Iraq is compelled to trade oil with American dollars under pains of war? Selfish American economic reasons as justification for Iraq war? No surprises there, doesnt make it RIGHT though.


Originally posted by the_oleneo
Back to the subject: I think it's the smart, right thing for the US military to negotiate with few insurgent groups, specifically Sunni-oriented groups with some Ba'athist elements who are loyal to Saddam.

Agreed.


Originally posted by the_oleneo
I don't think the US military is actively seeking al-Qaeda group in Iraq to negotiate with. This is perhaps the best way for the US military to weed out Iraqi insurgent groups from the foreign fighter groups.

So its only legitimate for domestic fighters to fight in War? Because the fact that some insurgents are from foreign nations voids their legitmacy? Even you should be able to see the error of that logic. US soldiers are not domestic fighters so is their presence in Iraq illegitimate?



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 06:04 PM
link   
If US forces can meet with insurgent leaders why can they send them 6ft under too?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join