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.

 

Experts Say America Is Losing War on Terror

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
"It's been fairly disastrous!"


Yeah, right.


If stopping the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi
citizens is disasterous ...
If stopping the genocide of the kurds is disasterous ..
If stopping the mass rape rooms is disasterous ...
If stopping the mass torture chambers is disasterous ...
If giving the Iraqis their first FREE elections in 40 years is disasterous ....
If giving the Iraqis the ability to bring about their own constitution
is disasterous ... (which they did!)
If rebuilding schools without the stockpiles of weapons and explosives
in them is disasterous ...
If Afghan girls finally going to school is disasterous ...
If the world finally waking up to the destruction and hate of the
radical muslim Wahabbism is disasterous ...

If giving the Iraqis back access to the billions in $$$ they were supposed to be receiving but that was stolen from them by Saddam (and given to
France and Germany) in the Oil for Food program is disasterous ...

If exposing the fraud, back room deals, and hypocrisy of the alleged
'security council' of the United Nations is disasterous ...

well ... thinking those things are 'disasterous' is sick.


[edit on 11/3/2005 by FlyersFan]




posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
STATE DEPARTMENT'S DATA SHOWS WAR ON TERROR
IS A GLOBAL FAILURE, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL CHARGES



Yeah, THAT's a real unbiased group!

Sad really. I used to give to them. They used to do good work.
Now all they are is a mouthpiece for the radical anti-American left.
What a waste of what could have been (and was) a good organization.



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
The Problem arises, when the real reasons behind this
war come out - and they had nothing to do with WMD's,
Al-Qaeda or Nuclear weapons.


hmmm. I suppose that 500 ton uranium stockpile Saddam had was for
glow in the dark toys or something? He certainly didn't need
nuclear reactors for fuel. He's sitting on all those oil reserves.

www.newsmax.com...


Do you see a downfall in Violence in Iraq? Or Violence all over
the World? Do you see the Escalation of international terrorism?
Well, thank the Bushies for that...


Yeah, right. There was violence in Iraq BEFORE we liberated it.
Remember the hundreds of thousands of tortured and dead Iraqis
at the hands of Saddam? The rape rooms? The thousands and
thousands of dead kurds? The Iran/Iraq war. The attempted take
over of Kuwait with Saudi Arabia next on Saddam's war list?
There was violence all over the world. There was terrorism all
over the world. USS COLE ring a bell?, the first World Trade
Center Bombing? The embasseys in Africa? All BEFORE G.W. Bush
came into office. For you to blame world violence and terrorism
on Bush or those who voted for him is silly.


[edit on 11/3/2005 by FlyersFan]



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
alphabetaone...wen u see the casualty numbers both in Iraq and Afghanistan, who are we actually fighting? is it war? if u asked the troops who a veterans in those conflicts they will definitely tell u dat it is war. wat do u call it then we are fighting against Al Qaeda and its allies?


There's a big element here in what you said that you may be ignoring or just not aware of..both of those countries we have occupied because we BELIEVE (whehter or not the reality is there isnt relevant to this discussion) that terrorists are housed there. Remeber occupying .

That being said, even the staunchest pacifist may well be swayed to fight back if their country is occupied. Im sure we here in the US (i know myself for certain) would fight tooth and nail if say, a UNSC declaration stated that the US needed policing action and sent UN allied troops to where i live and told me when i could and couldnt do something, and how i need to live my life from now on. To summarize why im saying this is, that once you actually occupy someone elses country, and start fighting the people there (read: insurgents) NOW you are in war with real people and a real enemy.

However, the War on Terror isnt any ONE set of people or any ONE region or location, but a global effort to thwart ANYONE who may feel that infriging on the rights of others (via bombings, scare tactics, etc etc) is the only way to ensure their way of life. This would include any country EVEN the US, Britain, France, and so on. I mean look at the london tube bombings as a PRIME example...the bombing constituents were british nationals....so now, is the US at war with Britain too just because terror attacks came from within in the UK? I think not...you really need to think outside the box a little when it comes to War on Terror vs. Traditional war.... the Topic of this post is losing the GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR... which would mean that even if we were to wipe Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan off the map...if the amount of attacks to the common people from TERRORISTS were to remain the same (in numbers) or increase, then in fact we are STILL sorely losing the War on Terror.



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 11:31 AM
link   
In US and British polls a majority of Iraqis think things are much worse.

I'd certainly call that a case of winning the short and immeadiate war at the start but losing the long and difficult peace right now.

Especially considering who and what they got rid of and where this all started from.



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone

There's a big element here in what you said that you may be ignoring or just not aware of..both of those countries we have occupied because we BELIEVE (whehter or not the reality is there isnt relevant to this discussion) that terrorists are housed there. Remeber occupying .


occupying because of wat happened on 9/11. our troops were not in Afghanistan until the attacks happend. now we are there and the Afghans want us there until they felt they dont need us there animore as we have seen many Afghans killed by the Taliban. u call it occupying i call it goin there and kick some butt.


To summarize why im saying this is, that once you actually occupy someone elses country, and start fighting the people there (read: insurgents) NOW you are in war with real people and a real enemy.


just like the Taliban and Al Qaeda who dont want us there in Afghanistan as well. either in Iraq or Afghanistan. many people dont want us there but we have to be there until the countries are stable to be prevented as a failed state as we have seen in Afghanistan.


I mean look at the london tube bombings as a PRIME example...the bombing constituents were british nationals....so now, is the US at war with Britain too just because terror attacks came from within in the UK?


British nationals who had help from outside. wat does Al Qaida do in Europe eh? it sure aint giving out flowers.


I think not...you really need to think outside the box a little when it comes to War on Terror vs. Traditional war.... the Topic of this post is losing the GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR... which would mean that even if we were to wipe Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan off the map...if the amount of attacks to the common people from TERRORISTS were to remain the same (in numbers) or increase, then in fact we are STILL sorely losing the War on Terror.


i am dinking outside the box and we have seen in the past where dis war is different and on a global scale. u may dink its just a bunch of people who have grudges but its more than dat. u look at the way the terrorists are dressed and trained and the weaponry they have and wat they are pursuing (WMDs) as Osama say that Muslims have the right to use nukes and stuff. so u tell me if its just angry people. look at the way they operate and their command structure, etc. dis is far more sophsticated than just a bunch of angry people.

[edit on 3-11-2005 by deltaboy]



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
If stopping the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi
citizens is disasterous ...

What do you mean stopping - when Saddam killed Hundreds of thousands, USA was Fine and Dandy with that.



If stopping the genocide of the kurds is disasterous ..

Who sold him the Chemical Weapons to do it?



If stopping the mass rape rooms is disasterous ...

Stopping them - or do you mean replacing them? The rapings still happen, just the victims changed.



If stopping the mass torture chambers is disasterous ...

If you did not notice, torture still goes on - this time the CIA does it.



If giving the Iraqis their first FREE elections in 40 years is disasterous ....

Free Election?

Sure.

Election in Iraq: An Offer You Can Not Refuse



If Afghan girls finally going to school is disasterous ...

Situation in Afganistan hasn't changed much you know - opium is still grown, Taliban are still there and people still die.

No Democracy there.



If the world finally waking up to the destruction and hate of the
radical muslim Wahabbism is disasterous ...

Radical Wahabbism? Saudi Arabia, a BIG USA ALLY, is the CAPITAL of Radical Wahhabism!



If giving the Iraqis back access to the billions in $$$ they were supposed to be receiving but that was stolen from them by Saddam (and given to
France and Germany) in the Oil for Food program is disasterous ...

And USA did not have anything to do with the Oil 4 Food program?

Just France and Germany, right?





If exposing the fraud, back room deals, and hypocrisy of the alleged
'security council' of the United Nations is disasterous ...

Hmmm... and you find NO hypochrisy in the US Goverment?

You need better Glasses.



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 04:51 PM
link   
An indication of winning the occupation would be a marked decline in the death toll of the occupational forces. Lets take a look at the month of October in Iraq spanning 2003-2005. Less taking up arms against their occupiers certainly means that the resistance is weakening. At least if that actually was the case.

icasualties.org...

10-2003: 47
10-2004: 67
10-2005: 99

All months of October have been well after the war was declared over and yet there is a rise each year in the amount of occupational force deaths.

If the trend continues going forward then I do not see where anyone can conclude that the violence in Iraq will subside.

[edit on 3-11-2005 by heelstone]



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by heelstone
An indication of winning the occupation would be a marked decline in the death toll of the occupational forces. Lets take a look at the month of October in Iraq spanning 2003-2005. Less taking up arms against their occupiers certainly means that the resistence is weakening. At least if that actually was the case.

icasualties.org...

10-2003: 47
10-2004: 67
10-2005: 99

All months of October have been well after the war was declared over and yet there is a rise each year in the amount of occupational force deaths.

If the trend continues going forward then I do not see where anyone can conclude that the violence in Iraq will subside.


dat is irrelevant base on statistics. i might as well use the month of May where casualties was low and then high and then low and dat means the resistance has decreased. the statistics are useless in dis case.



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
dat is irrelevant base on statistics. i might as well use the month of May where casualties was low and then high and then low and dat means the resistance has decreased. the statistics are useless in dis case.

Still - does not matter if you say that its "Irrelevant".

Bottom line is, that the Attacks have gone up thru the Years and the so-called "Peace" is not present in Iraq. Everyday there is Fear of a new bomb going off, even with 160.000 US troops present.

How come?

It was told, that the newly formed Iraqi Army could defend themselves?

Yeah Right...



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 04:52 PM
link   
the invasion on iraq is the main failure for the "war against the terror", becuse now the americans dont know how to restore the order in that country, ha...using an islamic constitution is the victory???, figthing for the iranians interests is the victory???, bring the oportunity for the islamic extremists to control iraq and recruit more fanatics is the victory?? divide their international alliances is the victory???

dont make me laugh, there are some idiots that love to see americans in uniforms, idiots that love to talk about how great are their wepons -even knowing nothing about these-, idiots that feel pride when a goverment create a war to rise the oil prices to increase the profits of their friends companies, menwhile the american people recieve charity from venezuela
, these idiots are complete ignorants nationalits ,they think that a state and a coutry are only nice tales and a nice stupid simbols, but forget about the people

[edit on 23-11-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 05:06 PM
link   
" the two former Clinton administration officials "

Oh really. Two ex-Clintonites think we are losing. Go figure. Clinton got us into this mess. W is getting us out. There have been no terror attacks on US soil since 9/11. Until there are, we are considered winning. There have been great strides in Iraq no matter how much the liberal media trys to downplay them.

The foolishness and intellectual bankruptcy of some people never ceases to amaze...


Why don't you just have this Headline:
"Experts say Jews are inferior"

Then follow up with
"Former nazi experts have conclude that Jews are inferior..."



[edit on 23-11-2005 by Apoc]



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Apoc
" the two former Clinton administration officials "

Oh really. Two ex-Clintonites think we are losing. Go figure. Clinton got us into this mess. W is getting us out. There have been no terror attacks on US soil since 9/11. Until there are, we are considered winning. There have been great strides in Iraq no matter how much the liberal media trys to downplay them.
......

[edit on 23-11-2005 by Apoc]



wow, what a smart a**hole we have here.....

how bush is getting out???, is incredible when some fanatics bother other administrations when try to defend their "heroes" (Bush), im not with clinton nor with bush,but, how bush is getting out from the terrorism attacks??? making war against iraq???increasing the anti-american feeling in the world?? ooohhh yeah, the new profits of the oil corporations will increase the funds for the "war against the terror".......a**hooooooolee.....


yeahh keeping fighting against the terrorism, keeping fighting in iraq, the terrorism organization are veeeery pleased


about the "lack" of attacks, what you guess??, now there are more people that want to do an attack against the US, so wait and see....,also the attack intentions have increased, also look the spain and UK examples...a**hoooooollee...



[edit on 23-11-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 08:59 PM
link   

about the "lack" of attacks, what you guess??, now there are more people that want to do an attack against the US, so wait and see....,also the attack intentions have increased, also look the spain and UK examples...a**hoooooollee...


I’m sorry but the US is not responsible for those counties security, there have been no major terror attacks in the US for 4 years, despite your assertion that “attack intentions” have increased. Seems to me the concept of fighting them over there instead of here is working.



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

about the "lack" of attacks, what you guess??, now there are more people that want to do an attack against the US, so wait and see....,also the attack intentions have increased, also look the spain and UK examples...a**hoooooollee...


I’m sorry but the US is not responsible for those counties security, there have been no major terror attacks in the US for 4 years, despite your assertion that “attack intentions” have increased. Seems to me the concept of fighting them over there instead of here is working.


So before you invaded Iraq, you had constant attacks in the US? That is what you imply! Prior to 9/11, you had at least a 7 year gap since the last incident of Islamic Terror. Now, since 9/11, whilst it might not be in the US, Islamic Terror has increased exponentially....



posted by skippytjc
Get your facts straight.


How ironic, considering what you come out with next....


posted by skippytjc
The insurgency was made up of, and led, by Sunni's backed by foreign powers like Iran and Syria. The Sunni leaders decided to stop attacking pro Iraqi forces and back the new constitution. They saw the light. Once the Sunni's decided that democracy was best for Iraq, the war was effectively over and won by the new Iraqi government and the Iraqi people.


So Shia Iran is arming the Sunni Insurgency? This is despite claims only the other day from the British Army that the insurgency in the South (ie the Shia area) is markedly different to the one in the Sunni Triangle. The Iranians are supporting the Shia insurgency with bomb making lessons, money and support.

The way you describe the situation in Iraq makes it sound like a peaceful, happy Utopia! Dear god man, have you got a brain?


posted by skippytjc
All that remains opposing the victorious Iraqi government is random, willy nilly groups made up of or backed by foreign elements (Iran and Syria)


er...no

Again, the British Army said the other day that the insurgency is stepping up a gear and is a well organised and trained unit, all things considered. They pose a significant threat and you do nothing to help by blindly declaring the war one and ignoring the facts.


posted by skippytjc
With the help of the coalition they can keep the evil forces of Iran and Syria out long enough to become independent and self sufficient.


I thought you said the war was won?



posted by skippytjc
Iraq (and Afghanistan ) is the only combat zone where terrorism is actively being fought openly.


No it isn't. What about the Caucuses? What about Pakistan? Nepal? Columbia? Indonesia? Malasia? DPR Congo? Nigeria?



posted by FlyersFan
If stopping the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi

The figure was never that high. And certainly no worse (sometimes less) than alot of tin-pot dictators around the world we leave alone or even trade with over a nice state dinner!


posted by FlyersFan
If stopping the genocide of the kurds is disasterous ..


Seriously, that argument is weak. The kurds stopped the attacks on them themselves (with the bonus of the no-fly zones) and were actually quite independant, had their own government and military by the time we showed up.


posted by FlyersFan
If stopping the mass rape rooms is disasterous ...


Yeah...those "mass-rape" rooms....indeed....

I would continue, but I can't be arse to argue against such dog-tripe and I think I made my point.

Tell a lie...this one I had to reply too...


posted by FlyersFan
Yeah, right. There was violence in Iraq BEFORE we liberated it.
Remember the hundreds of thousands of tortured and dead Iraqis
at the hands of Saddam? The rape rooms? The thousands and
thousands of dead kurds? The Iran/Iraq war.


The Iran-Iraq war? The one we supported him in? The one we supplied chemical and biological weapons too? The one were we blocked every UN resolution that condemned the use of chem weapons against the kurds/Iranians? The one were Donald Rumsfeld shook hands with this so called monster?

So god damn hypocritical it is unbelievable! Where's that kettle? I think we need to call it something.......



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 11:14 PM
link   
wow, WP23, you are another veeery smart....


now tell me what is the big contribution of the war in iraq???

now who said that the us is the reason of the attacks in europe???, tss, you dont understand anything, after the war in iraq the terrorism organizations increased their activity, not because there were terroism cells in europe already, but because there are fanatism in that religion, like also are christian fanatics -maybe you are one- around all the world

and what is that about after the 9-11 the terrorism activities had decreased???,now the terrorists have more people to attacks, the intentions and failed attacks have increased, most all of them isolated intents, that funnily are presented as intents of the terrorism organizations

now the FBI is actually waiting a real attack, all these fake intents and alarms heps the terrorist to know how the security sistem work now

btw, the terrorist orgs. now have more jod to do, in all mid-east, europe, etc..now they have a HUGE potential to grow, and they arent wasting that oportunity

so actually this stupid way of thinking "i must hit someone, or i will be the ridicoulus" of some americans is a bless for the terrorists


[edit on 23-11-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Apoc
Oh really. Two ex-Clintonites think we are losing. Go figure. Clinton got us into this mess. W is getting us out. There have been no terror attacks on US soil since 9/11. Until there are, we are considered winning. There have been great strides in Iraq no matter how much the liberal media trys to downplay them.

I see you are not a Fan of president Clinton. Well, I must say that he also Lied - but he Lied about a BLOWJOB and your current mister W. is LYING about much much more important things, but still you are his Fan, right? If I remember right, mister Clinton did not stat the First Gulf War, nor did he sell chemcial weapons to Iraq in the time of Iraq-Iran War - BOTH of these were again created by the NEO-CON side of the US politics; president Reagan and President Bush Senior. They Loved Wars. They Needed Wars. Clinton didn't.

Seriously, I will never understand people like you. There is NO GREAT Stride in War - get that through your Thick Skull already! There are NO Winners in WARS! You DIG? It looks to you like you have won the Battle, but you loosing the War BIGTIME, General. This is not the End. It is not the Beginnin of the END - but it is the End of the Beginning (to quote mister Churchill) - and how true it is. Your GREAT and Wonderful president is stirring the Hornets nest, just to get to the Sweet Honey, and so far the Hornets are not uniting in the Attack, just one or two or three are stinging him with their bitter poison. IT is good for the US to keep the Middle East torn apart and fragmentized into tiny, little states, that they control with ease. But if you push these people long enough - they Will UNITE. And thats the worse Fear of Every Empire. And that day is coming. Mark my Words.



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 12:04 PM
link   
The US has entered into an unholy alliance with El Sadr (which has bought them the benefit of quietening down the area he controls).
But Sadr is no democrat (in fact he is, as before, ordering the people in 'his area' how to vote in the coming elections.
So much for the new democracy).

Apparently the US forces are trying to reach similar agreement with the Sunni forces they are currently fighting (the so-called 'insurgency' in the Sunni area - which is mostly comprised of native Iraqi people btw).

The Kurds in the north have to all intents and purposes been ceded their independent Kurdistan.

The British meanwhile have had to stand by and watch the Shia extremists take over in the south and turn that area into a far more fundamentalist place than it was before.
Under far greater Iranian influence than ever before.

The result is that Iraq is being split into 3, it is not going to end up a democracy matching any western sense of the term (quite the reverse in fact) and religious fundamentalism is hugely on the rise.

This entire 'mission' will, IMO, turn out to have been one bloody and very costly disaster which will have made matters worse, not better, in terms of Iraq itself and wider 'western relations' in the long term in the ME.
Add to that the added ingredients of things which will live on in the 'national/race memory' (torture or the facilitating of torture and the use of chemical weapons) and we will be advised, IMO, to leave and begin the healing process asap (cos it is already going to take a long long time as it is).

[edit on 24-11-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   
sminkeypinkey,

Sadly, I agree with your analysis almost entirely.

Besides uprooting Saddam, we have accomplished almost nothing in Iraq but strengthening the position of Islamic radicals.

More than simply not helping in the fight against OBL & Co., the war in Iraq is actively hindering it. Had we invested a quarter of the effort we've expended in Iraq in finishing the job in Afghanistan, we'd be in a much better position now, and OBL might well be in our hands or dead. Unfortunately, there's not much oil there.

[edit on 11/24/05 by xmotex]



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
All that remains opposing the victorious Iraqi government is random, willy nilly groups made up of or backed by foreign elements (Iran and Syria)



Beg to differ,

90-96% insurgents are homegrown Iraqis

Out of 14,000 detainees 376 are foreigners (78 egypt- 66 syrian-41 sudan-32 saudi 1 us 1 uk

Before the war I predicted that the Bedoins were going to fight amongst themselves in civil war- ITS THE OIL-

It will be civil war anyways-

At least the puple fingered people will have glimpsed the democratic process. and for trillions of dollars- in the war machines pockets I guess we should be grateful that it came from our pockets, and our childrens' pockets.

my sons are in the military because of the economic hardship on OUR soil brought on by this 'war on terror' for that I am NOT grateful.

[edit on 24-11-2005 by accountability]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join