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.

 

Bringing home troops is American priority

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
You people seem to forget what everyone wants.

What has been the demands of all the kidnappers?

What is the demand of all insurgents?

They all want us to get out of Iraq.



Do you honestly think that is what the Insurgents want?

You honestly think that if the Coalition pulled out of Iraq then that will be the end of the Insurgents? You really think that? You can not be that blinded.

Any chance they get to kill the "Infidel" they will, whether it is in Iraq or on US soil they do not care. This is not about Iraq to them.

Tell that to all the innocent victims of 9/11, oh but wait, you think our government had something to do with that so it does not matter to you.

I can't really believe some of the things that I read here, but that is what makes this a good place for good topics.




posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackBeard
Tell that to all the innocent victims of 9/11, oh but wait, you think our government had something to do with that so it does not matter to you.

I don't know wheather or not our government had something to do with it but I do know iraq didn't have nothing to do it.



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Do you honestly think that is what the Insurgents want?


Isn't that what they always demand?

That the foreigners get out of Iraq?

Then maybe it is what they want.

Even Bush says thats what they want......

Why would I not believe what most everyone else believes?

Put the shoe on the other foot.

If America [or your nation...] were invaded would you want the occupiers to get out, and would you take up arms fighting for this end?

I know I would.

Would that make me an insurgent with no right to life, or protection from torture?



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Originally posted by ArchAngel

Do you honestly think that is what the Insurgents want?


Isn't that what they always demand?


wat else have they demanded? im sure u leaving somthing out as well.


That the foreigners get out of Iraq?


im sure we are in their way for their destiny


Then maybe it is what they want.


of course


Bush says thats what they want......


of course, but u forgot to mention Bush's reasons as to why they want us out.



Put the shoe on the other foot.


killing innocent Iraqis and provoke a civil war? yeah i guess dats a good reason


If America [or your nation...] were invaded would you want the occupiers to get out, and would you take up arms fighting for this end?


once we get rid of the occupiers. we need an empire.



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kramthenothing
I don't know wheather or not our government had something to do with it but I do know iraq didn't have nothing to do it.


I also know that Iraq had nothing to do with it, but that is not the point of this thread. I merely used 9/11 as a reference.

Arch: We can what IF until all our keyboards are worn down to where we can not see the letters. I do understand what you are asking. but you also seem to forget what a lot of these insurgents have said in the past.

Like Death to the infidels, and this is what the "Holy War" is about.

This war in Iraq is just a way for these terrorists to kill westerners and nothing more. They do not give one rats butt about Iraq. It is a shame that some of you never look for good things that are being done in Iraq for the people in stead of always looking for the negative.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by Frosty

maybe he can explain the attacks on Shiites, Hindus, Buddists, and other infidels he views. i guess they must be align with Israel as well.

Unless they are American I don't see the point in emphasizing any of this.


unless they are American? are u trying to avoid the question and having to explain the situation as to y Osama is committing attacks on non Americans as well? u are trying to keep the logical reason dat Osama is attackin America because of troops in Saudi Arabia and the rest of the ME but u cant explain the logical reason as to attacks like in other parts of the world dat is not related to America's interests. u are trying to make it like Osama has the right to attack America because of connection to Israel but then u cant defend Osama's attacks on other countries or religions. dats pretty much wat i can dink of from u.

[edit on 27-10-2005 by deltaboy]


This is about bringing home American troops who are fighting so called terrorist, some of whom may be inticed by the words of Osama bin Laden. I am not avoiding anything but a change in subject matter.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
You people seem to forget what everyone wants.

What has been the demands of all the kidnappers?

What is the demand of all insurgents?

They all want us to get out of Iraq.

the Insurgency can't end as long as their is the perception that our stay is permenant.

Between running out of Iraq today, and staying forever there are many other things that can happen.

The fact that we are digging into bases in Iraq, and Bush shows no signs of any chance we may get out, drives the insurgency.

Resistance to us will not ever end, but our occupation will.

Whether we leave of our own will, or are thrown out on our butts depends on how long we stay.

At some point we will tire, and go home.

The Iraqis are already home....


You seem to be forgetting the demand of some Americans: PULL OUT OF IRAQ.

We did not involve ourselves in this war to 'keep the peace and install democracy'. We went to get rid of Saddam Hussein and install a new regime. Both of these have happened. It has been over a year. This is not our war right now to fight, it is the Iraqi's war.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty

We did not involve ourselves in this war to 'keep the peace and install democracy'. We went to get rid of Saddam Hussein and install a new regime. Both of these have happened. It has been over a year. This is not our war right now to fight, it is the Iraqi's war.


your argument it flawed simply because of the last paragraph.

both of those have not happened. we went into a country with a stable government (all be it corrupt, but stable), and we have, as of yet, to insure a stable government is left. we cannot leave iraq until we can insure its new governments ability to stand on its own two feet without outside help.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 03:43 PM
link   
I guess it depends on how one wishes to interpret such a flaw, snafu7700.


Saddam was removed, and a government installed, who has just ratified a new constitution. If it is flawed, it remains to be seen once the Coalition leaves. But in general terms, the two quoted objectives have been obtained.

as posted by Frosty
We went to get rid of Saddam Hussein and install a new regime.





seekerof

[edit on 28-10-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
If it is flawed, it remains to be seen once the Coalition leaves. But in general terms, the two quoted objectives have been obtained.
We went to get rid of Saddam Hussein and install a new regime.



it remains to be seen? can anyone in their right mind and with a straight face actually say, without a doubt, that if we leave iraq right now, today, that iraq will not immediately degenerate into civil war and anarchy? the government does not have the military or police strength to keep this from happening, and everyone who has been reading the news or threads on this site knows that....whether its from the pro or anti war side. because during the course of taking out saddam, we destroyed their infrastructure, and their ability to protect themselves. how can we leave without insuring that said infrastructure is returned to a state where they can survive on their own?

whether you agree with our reasons for going in or not (i dont), we cannot leave the job half done. we must complete the drill.

[edit on 28-10-2005 by snafu7700]



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
it remains to be seen?

Exactly what I said.




can anyone in their right mind and with a straight face actually say, without a doubt, that if we leave iraq right now, today, that iraq will not immediately degenerate into civil war and anarchy?

Again, that remains to be seen.
You may feel that it will, while others, and equally justified in their own right, may feel it will not.
Hence, it does remain to be seen if such will or would occur. One deals with the actual, while the other deals with a hypothetical.



because during the course of taking out saddam, we destroyed their infrastructure, and their ability to protect themselves. how can we leave without insuring that said infrastructure is returned to a state where they can survive on their own?

When at war, nothing remians unscathed, that includes infrastructure. In fact, in a war, one of the main targets, other than military and civil communication outlets and/or sources, would be infrastructure. It is infrastructure that allows the internal movement of hostile forces, etc.
At any rate, the Coalition is and has been addressing the fixing of those infrastructure issues.



whether you agree with our reasons for going in or not (i dont), we cannot leave the job half done. we must complete the drill.

I agreed with the war, that is well known on this board.
Trust me, I have caught enough heat for having such a stance. Been a fun couple years + on this board because of that stance.

At any rate, I do concur with our staying till the job is complete.
We should have learned this lesson from the Vietnam War, when we bailed on the South Vietnamese government, only to have it fall within a matter of hours/a day.







seekerof



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
When at war, nothing remians unscathed, that includes infrastructure. In fact, in a war, one of the main targets, other than military and civil communication outlets and/or sources, would be infrastructure. It is infrastructure that allows the internal movement of hostile forces, etc.
At any rate, the Coalition is and has been addressing the fixing of those infrastructure issues


exactly, which is why we cannot leave until we are done repairing the infrastructure to a point where the iraqi people can take care of themselves.

i understand where you are coming from seeker, that everyone can look at the same data and come up with different opinions. i just dont see how any educated individual can look at history, then look at the facts in this situation, and say that our leaving would cause the bloodshed to stop. common sense and history say otherwise.



I agreed with the war, that is well known on this board.
Trust me, I have caught enough heat for having such a stance. Been a fun couple years + on this board because of that stance.

At any rate, I do concur with our staying till the job is complete.
We should have learned this lesson from the Vietnam War, when we bailed on the South Vietnamese government, only to have it fall within a matter of hours/a day.


if you agree, then why are you bothering to debate my points?



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 04:58 PM
link   

When at war, nothing remians unscathed, that includes infrastructure. In fact, in a war, one of the main targets, other than military and civil communication outlets and/or sources, would be infrastructure. It is infrastructure that allows the internal movement of hostile forces, etc.
At any rate, the Coalition is and has been addressing the fixing of those infrastructure issues.


Like when they bombed Eight Bridges over the Euphrates River?



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
if you agree, then why are you bothering to debate my points?


I only contested your mentioning of Frosty's mention as being "flawed".
In general terms, he was indeed correct, for as mentioned, the two specified objectives mentioned by Frosty were correct, as I have already adressed.

Other than that, we are cool, snafu7700.







seekerof



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Like when they bombed Eight Bridges over the Euphrates River?


Was that not part of combat operations, ArchAngel?
Please refer to my mention of what priorities are in war [ie: combat, etc].

You fail to recognize, as par, that Iraq's infrastructure is being rebuilt steadily up every day by those who destroyed it.






seekerof

[edit on 28-10-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 05:51 PM
link   

You fail to recognize, as par, that Iraq's infrastructure is being rebuilt steadily up every day by those who destroyed it.


I recognize that years have passed since we destroyed infrastructure that has not yet been rebuilt.

....and there was no military imperative to destroy the bridges.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
....and there was no military imperative to destroy the bridges.

Says who?



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Other than that, we are cool, snafu7700.


seekerof


we're cool anyway, seeker....i'm not one of those fools that cant debate and strongly disagree without getting offended when someone else disagrees.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join