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.

 

Sunni Arabs Launch Political Campaign To Kick Out America

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel

So comparing a past US Occupation with a insurgency is a bad analogy for a Current one?


You should not use WWII analogies in relation to the Iraq war because we fit the Nazis.

Who is the one invading weaker nations against international law while claiming to be liberators?

.



Comparing the US to the NAZIs, Now your true colors come out aswell as your poor understanding of what exactly the Nazis where and did.

Time for alittle better look back at History Archangel

[edit on 28-10-2005 by ShadowXIX]




posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Absolute rubbish. Have you read anything about Saddam?.....


Have you read anything about Hitler?

He was the leader of the most advanced nation in the world with one of the most powerful militaries, and an industrial base that put even America to shame.

And he nearly conquered Eur-asia.

Saddam was a tinpot despot not even able to defend his nation with ancient Soviet cast offs arming his forces.

Iraq did not provoke the war, America did.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Have you read anything about Hitler?


Oh yes, lots and lots, have you by any chance?



Originally posted by ArchAngelIraq did not provoke the war, America did.

Is that right? You absolutely sure about that one?



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel


Saddam was a tinpot despot not even able to defend his nation with ancient Soviet cast offs arming his forces.

.


Really? Well tell that to Kuwait. By 1987, Saddam's army was the fourth largest in the world. That really sounds like a tinpot dictator

Try to get your facts straight



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Sunni Arabs Launch Political Campaign To Kick Out America

Interesting side-counter to this topic and article is the following article that discusses a group of Sunni insurgents north of Baghdad who assert that they strongly disagree with al Qaeda and their objectives in Iraq. Maybe they are next on that plitical cmapaign to get kicked out of Iraq?
'We don't need al-Qaida'

Ahh, one can see a growing split in the insurgency and in what one wants in relation to the other...




seekerof

[edit on 28-10-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Is that right? You absolutely sure about that one?


Yes I am absolutely positive.

Saddam did nothing to provoke America.

All of the hostility, the first attack, and the easy victory was Americas doing, not Iraq.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Really? Well tell that to Kuwait. By 1987, Saddam's army was the fourth largest in the world. That really sounds like a tinpot dictator

Try to get your facts straight


Try to get your timeline straight.

Iraq was invaded, and occupied 15 years later after their military was mostly destroyed, and what was left decayed.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel


Try to get your timeline straight.

Iraq was invaded, and occupied 15 years later after their military was mostly destroyed, and what was left decayed.


Did I say anything about when Iraq was invaded which time?

I was also not the one trying to paint the picture of Saddam as some "tinpot despot " NO "tinpot despot " would have ever been in charge of the 4th biggest army in the entire world.

Even after the whooping he got after the Gulf War he still had three armor divisions, three mechanised divisions and 11 infantry divisions.

Yeah what a "tinpot despot "


[edit on 28-10-2005 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 04:03 PM
link   

And have you seen a poll where US forces have killed more innocent Iraqis than the the insurgents?


Iraqi deaths from the illegal invasion are somewhere around 100,000.

Can you show me where supposed insurgents have killed anyhwere near that number?



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Iraqi deaths from the illegal invasion are somewhere around 100,000.


Thats if you are an advid reader of the Lancet Report, ArchAngel.
But according to other reliable sources, the numbers are currently:
Min: 26732/Max: 30098

Furthermore, other reliable sourcings indicate and/or assert this:


Who did the killing?

* US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims.
* Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 9% of civilian victims.
* Post-invasion criminal violence accounted for 36% of all deaths.
* Killings by anti-occupation forces, crime and unknown agents have shown a steady rise over the entire period.

IBC Press Release in conjunction/association with Oxford Research Group

If that 100,000 is legit, according to you and other sourcings, such as the Lancet Report, then the US and Coalition is only reponsible for 37+/-%, insurgents, suicide bombers, anti-occupation forces at 9+/-% and criminal activity at 36+/-%, leaving about 18+/-% unaccounted for as to cause.




seekerof



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Thats if you are an advid reader of the Lancet Report, ArchAngel.
But according to other reliable sources, the numbers are currently:
Min: 26732/Max: 30098



Your supposed reliable source is no such thing.

They only show REPORTED deaths making it far less scientific than counts by other organizations we could quote.


Still, your "maximum" count seems very low to me. Surely there must be many, many more civilian deaths than you've published.

We are not a news organization ourselves and like everyone else can only base our information on what has been reported so far. What we are attempting to provide is a credible compilation of civilian deaths that have been reported by recognized sources. Our maximum therefore refers to reported deaths - which can only be a sample of true deaths unless one assumes that every civilian death has been reported. It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. That is the sad nature of war.

FAQ


The number they report is far below the real number....



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 04:51 PM
link   
And your sources are?
Do not even try to tell me that my presented source is not reliable. Cause then you would have to acknowledge that the Oxford Research Group is then not a credible source. Hell, for that matter, you would then have to admit that the Lancet Report is not credible or accurate. This can go on for any other sourcing you wish to present.

There are a number of methods for making determinations of those civilains killed in Iraq. The IBC calculates it in one way, the Lancet in another way, among other sources and their ways. So to proclaim one sourcing as credible and the others as not is simply ludicrous, period. There is no ultimate and accurate sourcing(s), whether you wish to admit it or not.

Your numbers were refutted, at best questioned, and that remains the point. Sorry if it counters your own beliefs on this, but again, there are NO accurate numbers to be had, only educated estimates.





seekerof

[edit on 29-10-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Do not even try to tell me that my presented source is not reliable.


It is reliable if you want to know how many deaths they counted in media they consider reliable.

It is not reliable if you want to know the true number of deaths which is much larger by their own admission.

You can be sure that their max number is below the actual minimum number though.



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
You can be sure that their max number is below the actual minimum number though.


And I might lean towards what you assert as being valid, the point again, is that there are no accurate numbers to be had, only educated estimates.

Would you agree?




seekerof



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 05:21 PM
link   

And I might lean towards what you assert as being valid, the point again, is that there are no accurate numbers to be had, only educated estimates.

Would you agree?


Agreed.

Considering all sources I have seen the median is 'around 100,000' so I use that when stating a number.

Somewhere between IBCs low number, and the GPS carrying bean counters quarter million figure lies the true number.


NR

posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by ArchAngel


Try to get your timeline straight.

Iraq was invaded, and occupied 15 years later after their military was mostly destroyed, and what was left decayed.


Did I say anything about when Iraq was invaded which time?

I was also not the one trying to paint the picture of Saddam as some "tinpot despot " NO "tinpot despot " would have ever been in charge of the 4th biggest army in the entire world.

Even after the whooping he got after the Gulf War he still had three armor divisions, three mechanised divisions and 11 infantry divisions.

Yeah what a "tinpot despot "


[edit on 28-10-2005 by ShadowXIX]



Not true bro, after iran-iraq war Saddams army sucked and they werent even well trained and they also couldnt fight at night time not even their tanks nor their airforce so thats why they lost so easily...



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by NR



Not true bro, after iran-iraq war Saddams army sucked and they werent even well trained and they also couldnt fight at night time not even their tanks nor their airforce so thats why they lost so easily...


After the Iraq-Iran war he had the fourth largest army on the planet thats a fact. Iraq emerged from its war with Iran with one of the largest and best-equipped military forces in the world. In fact, Iraq had one million battle­tested troops, more than 700 combat aircraft, 6,000 tanks, ballistic missiles and chemical weapons. He was able to make quick work of his oil-rich neighbor Kuwait, putting him in control of much of the oil in Middle East.

They lost so badly in the Gulf war because they where fighting a Allied coalition consisting of 34 countries led by a Super Power. Most of his troops were not stupid enough to go up against that type of power.

[edit on 29-10-2005 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 06:40 PM
link   
As you have both shown the Iraqi military was devastated from years of war, and later sanctions supporting my original assertion that Saddam was no Hitler.



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
As you have both shown the Iraqi military was devastated from years of war, and later sanctions supporting my original assertion that Saddam was no Hitler.


If your talking about after the Iran like NR your wrong. One million battle­tested troops, more than 700 combat aircraft, 6,000 tanks, ballistic missiles and chemical weapons and a most extensive air defense systems.



By the summer of 1990, Iraq possessed 16,000 radar-guided and heatseeking surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), including the Soviet SA-2, SA-3, SA-6, SA-7, SA-8, SA-9, SA-13, SA-14, and SA-16, and the Franco-German Roland. Additional air defense was provided by Air Force interceptors and organic Army assets, including the SA-7/14, SA-8, SA-9/13, SA-16 missile systems, and the ZSU-23/4 self-propelled AAA system. In addition, the Iraqi air defense had more than 7,500 AAA pieces


www.globalsecurity.org... nt.htm

Yeah that sounds devastated


Or after the Gulf War he had three armor divisions, three mechanised divisions and 11 infantry divisions. That not as strong as his pre gulf war status, but to make that seem like weak military is just wrong.

As for him being like Hitler that kind of hard for anyone to live up to well besides Stalin, Which just happens to be one of Saddam's idols.

But lets see He was a absolute dictator of a country, He tried to take over a weaker neighbor to reclaim land he thought rightfully belonged to Iraq. He had his own ethnic cleansing campaigns.

Your right that don't sound like Hitler at all.

Your whole Hitler comparsion is rather lame anyway. What no country should act until a person reaches Hitler levels of insanity? Only if a person is a equal of Hitler should any body do anything is that your arguement?


[edit on 29-10-2005 by ShadowXIX]


[edit on 29-10-2005 by ShadowXIX]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join