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.

 

Its Not Just The United States..........

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 11:49 AM
link   
I have noticed a trend among quiet a lot members postings regarding Iraq.

The trend is to talk about "pulling American forces out" or the "US is this" or "the US is doing that". Don't get me wrong here, but its not just the US that are in Iraq.

The combined forces that are there fighting are commonly know as the "coalition".

Various threads seem to have developed this kind of trend like this one in the opening lines.

link



If we leave Iraq now... what then?
Has anyone stopped long enough to consider the implications of withdrawing all U.S. military and personnel from Iraq?


Another "we" comment.


We were the ones who decided to invade them.


And another.



We should leave soon, but not now.


Do these comments mean "we" as in the coalition? or "we" as in the US?

All i am trying to say here is, that there are more forces out there than just the US. How about talking as if they are one force ,rather than just the US?
I know the US has the largest force out there, but other countries have contributed.
Lets not forget that we are all part of team. A global team at that.....


[edit on 26-8-2005 by Bikereddie]




posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 12:21 PM
link   
I think people say that because we (the US) have about 130,000 troops there with the next nearest being the UK with 9000 (less than 10% what the US has) and from there, it dwindles down to below 1000 pretty quickly. So technically, yes, there are many countries there, but many just have token representation. Not to mention the $$$ spent there. I have a feeling we're in the top 98% as far as money spent on this god-forsaken venture. The US is known as the 'leader' of the coalition and the country that's making the decisions.

After all, if BushCo hadn't made up its mind to go into Iraq, there wouldn't be a war in Iraq. They were the ringleaders, the ones who set everything up.

When I say "we", I mean the US. If we left, I doubt the others would hang around long.

[edit on 26-8-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Maybe i didnt come across in the way i intended.

When people say "we" lets have that to mean the entire coalition, and not just "we" as in the US.

Im not trying to get into any kind of argument with anyone here, its just that its a small point that i have noticed, and feel it needs to be mentioned.

[edit on 26-8-2005 by Bikereddie]



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


the next nearest being the UK with 9000 (less than 10% what the US has)


We only have less as we got lucky and look after the "quieter" south of Iraq. At the time of Invasion we had close to 50,000 troops in Iraq.

i agree with BikerEddie...perhaps people should more clear about who it is they refer too and perhaps not just think it is the US there. We are all to blame for this mess, not just the Yanks (although a lions share of the blame could be apportioned due to the war drums being beaten pretty hard over there)



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 12:48 PM
link   
American's are in a habit of saying we

I bet the Brits are also saying 'we' as well as the ozzies...
(look at the brit above me, he said it.... )

It's just force of habit... when talking to people outside of cyber world they say 'we' aswell... even they aren't talking about the war in iraq.. It's kind of funny, but anyhow, I doubt your going to get alot of people making a conscience effort to change the we to coalition... we is two letters, and coalition makes you think more about how's it's spelled..
You have to remember we live in a time when we want everything as easy as possible, and we just is alot more easier.



PS: I will 'try' and use 'coalition' but don't get mad if it doesn't happen all the time since I too have the 'we' habit and it just comes out more easily then 'coalition'....

ahhh, semantics.....


ps: I think this should be in bts since this isn't really a serious conversation about the war on terrorism but is more about semantics then anything else.

[edit on 26-8-2005 by TrueLies]



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 12:57 PM
link   
I must admit I am guilty of this, its a real inconsiderate habbit I must say. Although the USA is the prominate force in Iraq, there are many others that face the same daily dangers and the risks are the same.

It is a coalition no matter what the proportions are, and the dangers are certainly exist for all.



[edit on 26-8-2005 by skippytjc]



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bikereddie
When people say "we" lets have that to mean the entire coalition, and not just "we" as in the US.


I don't particularly want to argue, either, especially for argument's sake. However, the fact that the US originated this war has a great deal of influence on how I (and others, I presume) think about it.

Saying 'the coalition' doesn't hardly seem accurate to me, when it was the US that instigated the war and brought other countries into it. Even the UK wouldn't have gone to war without the US's influence. All of the other coalition forces combined wouldn't have invaded Iraq if not for the US. It's not like they play an equal part (in my mind). They're helpers in the US's agenda.

I do hold the US responsible for that reason. To give all the coalition countries equal 'credit' or 'billing' because they have 300 troops there just doesn't seem accurate to me.

If I lived in Latvia, I probably wouldn't say 'we', I'd say the 'US and the UK' or something like that and I'd feel very much like a follower. Like our government was just being involved for political purposes, so as not to make the US mad at us.

I think, perhaps, saying 'the coalition' instead of 'we' is more of an attempt to spread the responsibility around when that belongs squarely in OUR lap. We may be 'part of a team', but we started the team, we set the agenda of the game, we decided the rules, we structured the field, we paid for the uniforms, and we coach the game.



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 04:59 PM
link   
OK.
Listen for just one moment. I don't care how many countries have sent troops to the gulf in Bushes War. They are all there to find the ultimate end to this stupidity that is going on.

Its not just America that is fighting there. Its the UK too, along with many other countries who may only have a minority there, but we are still a coalition at the end of the day.

If this War is won, will it be the US who get the credit?,or the entire coalition?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Dunno...being a Brit expat in the US, when I say "we", I mean "coalition".

Or sometimes "humans in general". And occasionally in the sense of the Royal "We".



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Right then..........

Lets start off by defining the word "we"

Is it "we" as in the entire coalition?, or "we" as in the United States?

Lets get this sorted once and for all. Its not just the US who who are fighting here, its the entire, and i mean the entire coalition.
It doesn't matter how many troops a country puts towards the game, its the wording of how they are perceived that matters surely?

Does this all come down to terminology at the end of the day?



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 05:23 PM
link   
I see you don't want to be left out there biker, but the fact is, if the U.S. were to leave now, everyone else would follow. The Saudi camel train would ride in so fast, there wouldn't be enough shovels to clean up their #ey,



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by vincere7
I see you don't want to be left out there biker, but the fact is, if the U.S. were to leave now, everyone else would follow. The Saudi camel train would ride in so fast, there wouldn't be enough shovels to clean up their #ey,


Its not a case of me being left out. I am just trying to point out that its not just the US who are there. Its a lot more that that.
Don't forget i have more than some peoples ideals as to what is happening out there. You should know that most vincere7 having replied to some of my past threads.


Surely its a team game ,and not just the US out there?
Give the rest some kind of credit instead of saying how good the US is at this or that eh?

The US is having a hard time it of it right now, but without support from the "coalition" they would have it even harder. Don't start throwing figures around. I know all about figures. lets start to hear about the all the other "minority" countries, and what they have done to help.

By the way Vince, ya can call me Eddie
we seem to be on the same kind of wave length going by some of our past posts.

[edit on 26-8-2005 by Bikereddie]



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bikereddie
OK.
Listen for just one moment. I don't care how many countries have sent troops to the gulf in Bushes War. They are all there to find the ultimate end to this stupidity that is going on.

Its not just America that is fighting there. Its the UK too, along with many other countries who may only have a minority there, but we are still a coalition at the end of the day.

If this War is won, will it be the US who get the credit?,or the entire coalition?


I apologize if I appear not to be listening. I am and I hear what you're saying.

When you say, "If this War is won, will it be the US who get the credit?" I just kind of flip, because what does that mean? Never mind defining 'we' if we're going to come to an agreement about this, we need to define 'war', 'won' and so on. Do you mean if terrorism is finally wiped out? Or do you mean if democracy and freedom are the way of the Middle East? Or if Bush declares the war over (again)? Or if we pull troops out and end the occupation?

That's one problem I have here is we do't know WTF is going on, what 'we're' fighting for. What will winning look like?

All I know is what I have said. There is no winning this war as far as I can see. The US is in this for some reason I'm not really sure of and I don't know why the other countries are there. It's all a big lie to me, so it's hard to nail anything down.

What have you to say about this, Eddie:
I think, perhaps, saying 'the coalition' instead of 'we' is more of an attempt to spread the responsibility around when that belongs squarely in OUR lap. We may be 'part of a team', but we started the team, we set the agenda of the game, we decided the rules, we structured the field, we paid for the uniforms, and we coach the game.



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Australia only has something like 30 more troops in Iraq than Denmark, yet we are often touted as 3rd on the list of coalition forces. Australia is often used, when talking of support for Iraq, as a bragging point.

When we say "we" here, we usually mean us, but on a national level. Australians know that we have an insignificant, abeit completely professional and world class, force in Iraq. Most of us just want "us" out.



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Being a disabled Vietnam vet when I say we I mean every swinging donkey carrying a weapon. It doesn't matter what side you are fighting on pack up and go home to the spouse and kids. Or pack up and go home so you can find a spouse and have some kids. Then teach the kids the ignorance of men and women losing their lives over something so worthless as Bush's War as you call it.

As we learned way back then, if you leave the fight to those who believe in the war, there won't be one.

Not to cross threads but I said the same thing Pat Robertson said about Chavez when this thing started. There were 23,000,000 Iraqis and one Saddam Hussein don't you think one of the 23 million would have survived a civil war?

If things were that bad people would have risen up and taken care of business, don't you think?

To me, we is us as in we.





[edit on 26-8-2005 by garyo1954]



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 05:45 PM
link   
With respect tyrant, I get the feeling that your trying to say the US done all of the work.
It doesnt matter if you started, own or even built the countries who make the team, you are still part of that team.
I dont think the US servicemen in iraq would agree with your " We made the team so we should take the credit and we should get the TV coverage and therefore be seen to the world as the only members of the team."
Are you trying to say all those british servicemen die for no reason and all the britihs service men fought and died so the USA could get the recognition?

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bikereddie
By the way Vince, ya can call me Eddie
we seem to be on the same kind of wave length going by some of our past posts.


I remember, how's your boy getting along?



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 05:47 PM
link   
We are in it now...as a whole unified force showing that we can kick some butt. Its blame is very hard to put on just one country because the eventual good will be spread with our partners and is not going to just one country either the U.S. or England. We are lucky to have the coilation members we do have at the moment. I guess the main message that I'm trying to get across is we all will, with the help of God, be able to get this situation corrected and return to some sembilance of normality in the Middle Eastern Region of our world. We should all be giving "high fives" instead of trying to point blame. If England had a 9/11 or something as such that drove us to war there would be many willing to go and stand beside the English as they have for us. God save both of our Great countries and help us get through it with the mim. of harm.



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 05:48 PM
link   


Just seem like a good thread to unload this card! LOL


/Did not 'shop' card
//From the best Fark Photoshop contest ever
///Slashes r teh l33t



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 05:49 PM
link   
good one Imperium



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join