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.

 

Debunking the myth: We are losing in Iraq

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 04:38 AM
link   
With statistics you can prove anything. The number of dead alone says nothing. Until I see the number of wounded with severe disabilities, whcih I do not think the US military provides, there is no way to assess it. Due to advances in medical technology and in the speed of transferring soldiers to the hospital, a lot of soldiers which would otherwise die now survive, but may suffer severe permanent disabilities. You do know do you that a wounded soldier that cannot return to fight is more desirable from a military point of viw than a dead soldier? That is why anti personnel mines aim to maim instead of aim to kill. Similarly, the number of US dead may give you a distorted picture of how bad reality actually is.

[edit on 28-6-2005 by Simon666]




posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 05:46 AM
link   
Faust,

"Then again, the LIBERAL judges in our country are destroying Christianity thoughout our country. First they took it out of our schools and now they are taking it out of our Court Houses. Where does it end?"

Why would the end of Christianity not to mention all religion in general be a bad thing?

Cheers

BHR



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone
Okay Shroud,

What would you do, right now, if you were the President of the United States? It is clear you know better, so i'd like to hear what you would do.



Oh, that's so Miss Universe question.

Peace on Earth, goodwill to all men.



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 06:39 AM
link   
the only real loosers in Iraq are the people living there. And its not going to get easier for them, the civil war has barely just begun, staring, Shiites as insurgents and Shias as the Iraq police force...maybe the other way around...who cares....they all loose.
The divide and conquer tecnique works like a charm every time



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 07:16 AM
link   
Boatphone,


Originally posted by Boatphone
Okay Shroud,

What would you do, right now, if you were the President of the United States? It is clear you know better, so i'd like to hear what you would do.


Sell Vermont and all Vermontians to Iran.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
Faust,

"Then again, the LIBERAL judges in our country are destroying Christianity thoughout our country. First they took it out of our schools and now they are taking it out of our Court Houses. Where does it end?"

Why would the end of Christianity not to mention all religion in general be a bad thing?

Cheers

BHR


Good point Bill. Until someone comes knocking on your door to take away something you care about it isn't your problem, huh?

There's mutiple attempts to ban cigarette smoking in all public places, including bars. I'm a non-smoker and i hate the smoke. However, i'm against the ban because i know that when you lay down dead, like you do, these same people have their wheels turning and they won't stop, just move onto the next topic. No alcohol would probably be next.

The fight over allowing marriage between the same sex was highly debated about 6 months ago. If you asked someone about it and said if they allow this then they'll allow someone to have beastiality and get married to a dog, or Paligamy. Most of those people said that's ridiculous, that wouldn't happen, that's SICK! Well, here we are 6 months later and the ACLU is now trying to get Paligamy to be legal. HUH! Look at that.



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Hm I wonder what the casualty rate is for the new Iraqi army.
Thats a statistic you never see.



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 05:31 PM
link   
is that the effects of casualties are highly subjective.

Like King Harry says in Shakespeare's "Henry V"

"we are enough to do our country loss . . ."

What matters is a people's attitude toward the deaths--are they considered "well-spent," or not.

Look at the Vietnam numbers again. The tide of fervor against nixon peaked in 71 actually, after most of the American dead had already been sacrificed.

Back in 81', 200 US marines were killed in Lebanon, and then-President Reagan was forced by his own party to withdraw all troops from that theatre. 220 were seen as "a waste," especially less than a decade after the fall of Hannoi.

But many working-men in the coffee shops of America today consider 1700 to be "a pittance," even if they can name friends who have died (as I can).

The new standard in the American subconscious seems to be 3300, the total of the dead from September 11. A lot of folks I talk to seem to think that we are "stillgetting off easier than we did on THAT ONE day."

The fact that we are even discussing it shows where the sensibilities on this board lie. 18th century pirates believed that 25% casualties were acceptable. The vikings thought 50% was still not a disencentive. Of course, they stood to reap the plunder. . .

Palestinians, eager to "drive the Jew into the sea," claim that ANY casaulty rate is acceptable, and a sign of impending victory.

While we in the secular west see ANY casualty as un-acceptable, and a sign of impending defeat.


Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made
And crowns for convoy put into his purse:

We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.




posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 11:17 PM
link   
There is no just cause to die stupidly.

Our leaders are spending us unwisely.

Will you stand for that?



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 06:04 AM
link   
Ok lets get some things straight..

1. The USA didn't accomplish Normandy by itself the 150 000 troops were British, Canadian and American.

2. The USA is losing a vast amount of money in Iraq and doesn't look like they are bringing any stability to the country [in my opinion the civilians seem more pissed now then they did with hussien].

3. The USA will have to withdraw thus they will lose the war since the Iraqi's will never give up and it will be seen as one of the greatest failures in histrory.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by yanchek

Originally posted by Boatphone
Okay Shroud,

What would you do, right now, if you were the President of the United States? It is clear you know better, so i'd like to hear what you would do.



Oh, that's so Miss Universe question.

Peace on Earth, goodwill to all men.


Wrong. It's actually an excellent question for any and all that just attack, attack, attack the policies of the president / U.S. without ever offering any alternatives. Let's hear all your great ideas for solving these problems - and before you suggest it, putting your head in the sand and hiding is not a solution.

[edit on 6/29/2005 by centurion1211]



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 08:07 AM
link   
If i were president.....

I'd apologise for the Iraq debacle, admit its been a catastrophe and that the US needs more troops on the grounds.
Then having swallowed my pride and earnt a fair amount of mockery and good will from the world i would again ask at the UN for troops, explaining that this isnt to prop up a mistaken colonial venture, but to restore order to a country that needs it. If france and Germany continue to get uppity then it now reflects badly on them as the president has come with a begging bowl.

With the extra troops on the ground a sense of stability is restored, new institutions are put into place and Iraq becomes a democratic haven in the middle east to rival Israel.

Unfortunately none of that will ever happen, the war is being lost.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 08:29 AM
link   
The US and alliance troops together number 235 000 men, while the insurgents is possibly 16 000. The insurgents cannot possibly win. However, they don't have to loose either. Finding terrorists is difficult.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 08:40 AM
link   


The fight over allowing marriage between the same sex was highly debated about 6 months ago. If you asked someone about it and said if they allow this then they'll allow someone to have beastiality and get married to a dog, or Paligamy. Most of those people said that's ridiculous, that wouldn't happen, that's SICK! Well, here we are 6 months later and the ACLU is now trying to get Paligamy to be legal. HUH! Look at that.


I think you're ignoring the part about "consent".

It's about consent. Can an animal consent? NO.

But humans can. And if they do, then quite frankly, the government has no right to tell them what they can and can not do in their own home.

Polygamy is consentual. Animal sex is not.

That's a heck of a difference, Faust.

*snip*

Back to the topic.

Insurgents are now being automatically classed as terrorists? Why?

When did this happen? This is a native people trying to rise up against an occupying force - how long has that been the definition of "terrorist"? By that definition, then it was terrorists who rose up against the British Army in the US, non?

Such labelling doesn't really help the debate; it's such a subjective term that it serves only to polarize, and rarely to encourage discussion.




posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghaele
The US and alliance troops together number 235 000 men, while the insurgents is possibly 16 000. The insurgents cannot possibly win. However, they don't have to loose either. Finding terrorists is difficult.



The North Vietnamese "couldn't win" either.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 01:17 PM
link   
If I were President, it is easy - First you get the oil companies out of Iraq, and let the emense profits from the sales(Both prior to this date, and eternally afterward) go back to the Iraqi's for infastructure repair, maintenance and upgrades. Set up a fund to provide each iraqi some percentage of some percentage of the oil profits, that will calm the population, give them a sense of progress being made under the Americans and all it would cost is my political career, but since I would be in Bush's position and thus not needing re-election I can do what is right(he does have the freedom now, he just doesn't have the will). So, I tick off big oil(But still no hard effects to them, they will still own the next president), repair America's international image(Will pay huge benefits to trade) and ingender support in the middle east towards other American interests in the Future.

WHat do you think?



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower



Insurgents are now being automatically classed as terrorists? Why?

When did this happen? This is a native people trying to rise up against an occupying force - how long has that been the definition of "terrorist"? . . . Such labelling doesn't really help the debate; it's such a subjective term that it serves only to polarize, and rarely to encourage discussion.


They are not classed as terrorists because they are indigenous warriors. "Native people" isn't the definition of terrorism:

One who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives, while disguised as a civilian non-combatant.

(This is the first hit on "google.")

They are terrorists for focusing on inflicting civilian casualities; i.e., 1700 American soldiers dead, yet insurgents have killed a thousand of their own police and probably 5000 -10,000 Iraqi civilians.

Which, incidentally, is why they don't qualify for treatment as soldiers under the Law of Land Warfare (Geneva Conventions). To be considered a soldier, you have to wear a uniform, have a clear chain of command that takes responsibility, and agree to treat POW's according to law.

Because the insurgents have not done any of the work involved in being a legitimate military force, they are instead treated as criminals, as enemy combatants, but not as prisoners of war.

Their conduct makes them terrorists. Not their nationality.

But since you view everything in Iraq through your hate-america-first spectacles, you cannot even begin to consider any of this in your mental indictment of US policy.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 02:19 PM
link   
That was a great post. An informative, coherent explanation.

Right up until that last little dig. Alas, all credibility then went streaming down into the gutter.

I live in the US, pay my taxes, support our troops out there, and yet...you've judged me as being anti-American simply because I might disagree with certain viewpoints?

Interesting - but sadly very, very telling.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 02:37 PM
link   
I had a chance when I went to Iraq to talk to some marines and some civilians and Doctors at some of Iraq hospitals and their charts show more.

1)2 out of every 10 babies are born maldeformed
2)1.6 million dead at hands of America.
3)The American press has lost it's integrety and can't be trusted
4)I was there
5)10 years of American trade embargos on Iraq has caused over 500k+ children to die in the last 15 years.
6)Marines told me they were ordered to gun down women and children of suspected terrorist families and the husbands then arrested and sent to gitmo and other prison camps.

The war on Iraq is a genocide the American media are kept in there hotel rooms and all the numbers charts and news reports come from them. The people of Iraq and the international community oppose America's quest to have a perpetual war. Depopulation of Iraq and the middle east? This is a war you can't win Iranian and syrian militant are joining together with Iraq's forces to fight America.

America needs to repair it's integrety because it is now veiwed like Nazi Germany was in ww2 by half the world. The fact that America wants to destroy power plants in Iran will cause a huge war bigger then any other faught in history.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by Ghaele
The US and alliance troops together number 235 000 men, while the insurgents is possibly 16 000. The insurgents cannot possibly win. However, they don't have to loose either. Finding terrorists is difficult.



The North Vietnamese "couldn't win" either.


And yet it was the aid of traitors in our own country - those with no resolve - that allowed them voctory. Had we kept at it we would have won.

That is the only link I canfind between Vietnam and Iraq... That it will be those in America - not on the battlefield - that will be responsable for victory or defeat. Militarilly, we are superior and will win eventually.

It is those who detract against the war that will cause our defeat ECK.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join