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.

 

"We go to liberate, not to conquer"

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 02:19 PM
link   
"We go to liberate, not to conquer."

These are the famous words of Colonel Tim Collins in his speech to his 600 soldiers of the 1st Battalion ,Royal Irish Regiment on the eve of invasion during the war in iraq. A copy of his speech is linked below..

www.army.mod.uk...

The 1st battilion , roryal Irish is now in iraq doing for a 6 month period, Colonel Collins himself has resigned from the army..
Here is a link to a short biography of him..
en.wikipedia.org...(soldier)

This man IMO showed what a soldier is meant to be and lead by example, a true war hero.



I know this is old news but I felt it was needed since it was not really "threaded" , there is also word that president bush has hung Colonel collins speech up on the wall of the oval office.

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

Mod Edit: Fixed URL Tags.



[edit on 11/10/2005 by Mirthful Me]




posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Hey wasp
Ya link dont work fella.


Cant comment on it untill it does, sorry..................



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 02:01 AM
link   
Works for me.

Quite a strong speech. Remember reading it some time ago.



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 04:47 AM
link   
Heres another one eddie..
Hope you like it.
Prince charles even wrote a personal letter to him about the speech and wishing him and his men good luck.

Spech



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 01:57 PM
link   

"Yes we will face chemical weapons. It is not a question of if, it's a question of when. We know he has already devolved the decision to commanders, and that means he has taken the decision himself. If we survive the first strike we will survive the attack."


Haha, by chemical weapons did he mean coc aine? Because, um, you know, um, ask Hans Blix.



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
Haha, by chemical weapons did he mean coc aine? Because, um, you know, um, ask Hans Blix.


Right....didnt quite get that one mate...wanna run that past me one more time?



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 07:57 PM
link   
devilwasp: Um, okay.

He says,

Yes we will face chemical weapons. It is not a question of if, it's a question of when.


And the funny thing is, haha, that they didn't face even a whiff of chemical weapons. Not even a thimblefull.

And it's particularly hilarious because, well, the entire war was sold at the beginning as being totally 100% necessary to disarm Saddam of his WMDs. Which actually didn't even exist. Which most people knew. Like Hans Blix, the UN appointed inspector.

But wasn't Tony Blair barking like a poodle about how Saddam could attack Britain within 45 minutes? With actual WMDs, not carrier pigeons with anthaxic diarrhea?



I don't know if anthraxic is a word, but it ought to be.



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Stay on topic.



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Our troops are not the first to enter Iraq after a military victory. In 1917, the British did so as well. General Stanley Maude made a speech to the Iraqi public as he entered Baghdad. In that speech, he told the people of Iraq: “We come to you not as occupiers, but as liberators.” When the British finally left Iraq in 1932, they left behind a cemetery with the remains of 33,000 British soldiers buried there. Most of those were killed at the hands of a vicious insurgency determined to rid the homeland of foreign troops. History is there for us to learn from rather than repeat.

Continued....


The Iraqis have heard that line before.

After the occupiers killed hundreds of thousands of people, including gassing tens of thousands of Kurds before finally imposing a Puppet Monarch to rule for them they withdrew.

It was not until they overthrew the imposed puppet King, and the following voids in the power vacuum that the Iraqis were finally were liberated, and they ended up with Saddam.

Love him, or hate him he was the only legitimate ruler they have had in a very long time.


Iraq is not Liberated until America leaves with all of its influence.

[edit on 12-10-2005 by ArchAngel]



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Having read a bit of Middle Eastern history, I know that liberate and conquer used to be quite different. Sort of before "civilized" history.

Liberate used to mean take over a town, kill all males over the age of 8-12, and keep the women. Move in and keep the town. That was civilized at the time.

Conquer used to mean attack a town, kiill everyone, destroy and burn everything, salt the fields, and then leave.

So it's good that in modern times, things have changed.
Oh, wait... the people that live there still do that....

Note: Afganistan has been invaded many times, but never really conquered. Genghis Khan came close to destroying it. His army destroyed the canal system around Kabul that made agriculture capable of feeding the people. It took a long time to repair it. The Taliban, when they took over after the defeat of the Soviets, also destroyed the canal system. Their reason was to force the people to "obey" them. Afganistan is still struggling to repair that damage, same as that done in the times of Genghis Khan.

Recomended books:
First in : an insider's account of how the CIA spearheaded the war on terror in Afghanistan; Schroen, Gary C.
Sowing the wind : the seeds of conflict in the Middle East; Keay, John.



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
The Iraqis have heard that line before.

After the occupiers killed hundreds of thousands of people, including gassing tens of thousands of Kurds before finally imposing a Puppet Monarch to rule for them they withdrew.

It was not until they overthrew the imposed puppet King, and the following voids in the power vacuum that the Iraqis were finally were liberated, and they ended up with Saddam.

Love him, or hate him he was the only legitimate ruler they have had in a very long time.


Iraq is not Liberated until America leaves with all of its influence.

[edit on 12-10-2005 by ArchAngel]

A) We are talking about this man not iraq, you want to complain about the war go back the numerous threads you've made and the other threads already created.
B) We are talking about an ex BRITISH officer of her majesty's army, not about an american officer but a british one.
C) You want to talk about whether or not iraq is liberated as I said go back to a different thread, not this one.
Oh and D) Can we please continue this "murder is legal" in U2U.

Ps, jak continue this in U2U.


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
A) We are talking about this man not iraq, you want to complain about the war go back the numerous threads you've made and the other threads already created.


The man is talking about Iraq, and nearly repeating what the british said of 80 years ago when they last occupied Iraq.

It is relavant, and on topic.


B) We are talking about an ex BRITISH officer of her majesty's army, not about an american officer but a british one.


I understand that.


C) You want to talk about whether or not iraq is liberated as I said go back to a different thread, not this one.


What did you expect to talk about in a thread titled "We go to liberate, not to conquer"?

And don't bother telling me to go anywhere after all the spam you posted in my threads.


Oh and D) Can we please continue this "murder is legal" in U2U.


Maybe you are confusing me for someone else. I have not ever received any U2Us from anyone on that subjuect, let alone you....



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Seems like a good soldier, shame the MOD had to treat him like crap.

And it seems a shame that someone who could be so convinced by the case for war could later come to beleive he was wrong.

Makes you think really.



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
And it seems a shame that someone who could be so convinced by the case for war could later come to beleive he was wrong.

He never believed anything of the sort!
From wikipedia :
"In January 2004, Collins announced his resignation from the army, citing bureaucracy, chronic underfunding, and the MoD's lack of support over the mistreatment allegations."
He believed in the war he fought but hated the malice and the slander dished out by the Sunday mail and the Mirror. Both these "tabloids" make great effort to discredit good brave soldiers like TIM COLLINS and because of the antipathy at home to the war did he resign.



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
And it seems a shame that someone who could be so convinced by the case for war could later come to beleive he was wrong.

He never believed anything of the sort!
From wikipedia :
"In January 2004, Collins announced his resignation from the army, citing bureaucracy, chronic underfunding, and the MoD's lack of support over the mistreatment allegations."
He believed in the war he fought but hated the malice and the slander dished out by the Sunday mail and the Mirror. Both these "tabloids" make great effort to discredit good brave soldiers like TIM COLLINS and because of the antipathy at home to the war did he resign.



Again from Wikipedia (same article, about three lines later)
He has recently been critical of the Iraq war: "the UK and US pour blood and treasure into overseas campaigns which seem to have no ending and no goal ... Clearly I was naive"

Perhaps not a total change of mind i admit, but certainly a significant shift.



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
Again from Wikipedia (same article, about three lines later)
He has recently been critical of the Iraq war: "the UK and US pour blood and treasure into overseas campaigns which seem to have no ending and no goal ... Clearly I was naive"

Perhaps not a total change of mind i admit, but certainly a significant shift.


My bad, didnt read the article in its entireity. I wasnt aware of his recent change in stance against the war in Iraq.

That comment is taken from an article by The Guardian dated Sept 18, 2005
The Guardian



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
The man is talking about Iraq, and nearly repeating what the british said of 80 years ago when they last occupied Iraq.

It is relavant, and on topic.

Yeah we are not occupying it and have no where the number of troops needed to do so.



I understand that.

Then please dont bring america into this.



What did you expect to talk about in a thread titled "We go to liberate, not to conquer"?

The speech and him.
Because thats the title of the speech.


And don't bother telling me to go anywhere after all the spam you posted in my threads.

Spam?
I didnt know discussion of the topic was spam.



Maybe you are confusing me for someone else. I have not ever received any U2Us from anyone on that subjuect, let alone you....

We havnt discussed it, I am asking you to continue the subject VIA U2U instead of in the actual threads.



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 12:10 AM
link   
"We came to liberate not to conquer"

Yeah, hitler said the same thing.

Why can't people learn from history


[edit on 15-10-2005 by Syrian Sister]



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 12:18 AM
link   
They used nazi like rhetoric.

''This so-called ill treatment and torture in detention centers, stories of which were spread everywhere... — were not, as some assumed, inflicted methodically, but were excesses committed by individual prison guards, their deputies, and men who laid violent hands on the detainees."--Rudolf Hoess, SS commandant, Auschwitz.''

Just a few bad eggs wasn't it, not at all systematic?

Joseph Gobells would be proud.


------------------------------------

the whole quote

observer.guardian.co.uk...

"We go to liberate, not to conquer. We are entering Iraq to free a people. Don't treat them as refugees for they are in their own country. Tread lightly there.'
Lt Col Tim Collins addresses 800 men of the Royal Irish Regiment about to invade Iraq"


LOL, he had to remind them it wasn't their country. i hate to think of what would have happened to them if they where refugees. *Shudder*


[edit on 15-10-2005 by Syrian Sister]



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
"We came to liberate not to conquer"

Yeah, hitler said the same thing.

Why can't people learn from history


[edit on 15-10-2005 by Syrian Sister]

Yeah but hitler was a nazi and we are not.
Hitler aslo added them to the german empire, we are not addig it to the small british empire.


Originally posted by Syrian Sister
They used nazi like rhetoric.

''This so-called ill treatment and torture in detention centers, stories of which were spread everywhere... — were not, as some assumed, inflicted methodically, but were excesses committed by individual prison guards, their deputies, and men who laid violent hands on the detainees."--Rudolf Hoess, SS commandant, Auschwitz.''

Just a few bad eggs wasn't it, not at all systematic?

Joseph Gobells would be proud.

No "they" did not.
And I'm pretty sure the people he helped and the people his soldiers liberated would be ashamed to hear you say that SS.
Or mabye you forgot it was the iraqi statements that helped prove his inocence but heh guess he brainwashed the towns he was in , raped everyone and pillaged. After all this is what UK soldiers do isnt it?

End sarcasm.


------------------------------------

the whole quote

observer.guardian.co.uk...

"We go to liberate, not to conquer. We are entering Iraq to free a people. Don't treat them as refugees for they are in their own country. Tread lightly there.'
Lt Col Tim Collins addresses 800 men of the Royal Irish Regiment about to invade Iraq"


LOL, he had to remind them it wasn't their country. i hate to think of what would have happened to them if they where refugees. *Shudder*


[edit on 15-10-2005 by Syrian Sister]

The one I posted WAS the whole qoute.
Also he reminded them that it wasnt there country and not to act like they owned it. As some soldiers do, or are you trying to say all worldwide troops except the co-alition and irish treat everything like they own it?
Yes ofcourse...thats the answer.


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join