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.

 

Behind the Steel Curtain: The Real Face of the Occupation

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Yeah no kidding.

2000+ "official" US soldiers died in this Iraq war
200+ soldiers from other countries
15,000+ US soldiers wounded
27,000 + innocent Iraq civilians dead
xxx,xxx innocent Iraq wounded

...very...very sad



CIA

posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent47



the loss of some Iraqis AND American Servicemen/women now will help save the future for millions of Iraqis who would have had to suffer under Saddam or his son's down the line.




Before you take somebody's life, even for his son's good, should you please ask him if he accept your kindness



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 10:13 PM
link   
With all due respect Agent47, U just did it again.

I posted in the tone I did because Souljah always seems to be a target for his postings. I know I'm not gonna read about what he posts on my news broadcasts. And all everyone ever does, besides the few who see that this war was not necessary, all these deaths, civilian or not, are unecessary, is attack him for it.

If U don't like the angle he is coming from, make a post of your own that is from the angle U like, that is what I meant.

Oh and don't worry, Australia is on the same "side" as America. That's where I'm from, apparently what I actually think doesn't matter.
That's what it's all about really ain't it ?

carry on


[edit on 20-12-2005 by ImJaded]



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by CIA

Before you take somebody's life, even for his son's good, should you please ask him if he accept your kindness




When dealing with an enemy blinded by hatred and a warped sense of religion trying to reason or deal with them doesn't serve much of a purpose. The insurgents of today aren't who we are fighting for because they have already choosen their role in Iraq and unfortunately it isn't one that is going to help the future. We are building Iraq for the next generation.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImJaded
With all due respect Agent47, U just did it again.

I posted in the tone I did because Souljah always seems to be a target for his postings. I know I'm not gonna read about what he posts on my news broadcasts. And all everyone ever does, besides the few who see that this war was not necessary, all these deaths, civilian or not, are unecessary, is attack him for it.

If U don't like the angle he is coming from, make a post of your own that is from the angle U like, that is what I meant.

Oh and don't worry, Australia is on the same "side" as America. That's where I'm from, apparently what I actually think doesn't matter.
That's what it's all about really ain't it ?

carry on


[edit on 20-12-2005 by ImJaded]


Honestly I'm pretty embarassed for not noticing you hail from Australia. My apologies but I stand by my earlier argument. Unfortunately I don't agree this war was unecessary but all the same the war is now a reality we have to deal with and from my standpoint the armed forces (not just the US but the UK and others) are trying to rebuild a country they tore down to save it from an oppressive dictator who would use chemical weapons on his own country or throw people into wood chippers.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 10:23 PM
link   
I love it when people justify the war by saying we're giving the Iraqis freedom, but at home ours are being taken away
and it all "supposedly" started because of terrorism which Bush stated "we cant win"

Does anyone else find this a little ironic?
I would laugh if it wasnt so sad.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by xEphon
I love it when people justify the war by saying we're giving the Iraqis freedom, but at home ours are being taken away
and it all "supposedly" started because of terrorism which Bush stated "we cant win"

Does anyone else find this a little ironic?
I would laugh if it wasnt so sad.


Are you currently on a computer discussing how the big bad boogey man bush is taking away your freedoms: CHECK

Are you currently enjoying a free market economy: CHECK
Are you enjoying first world technology: CHECK

Looks like you are doing pretty good for yourself despite all of our horrible loss of freedoms which have so negatively affected you.

Get a grip on your freedoms
and realize there is a big difference between the basic freedoms (from oppression, economic freedom, technological freedom) we are giving the Iraqis and the freedoms the boogey man is alledgedly taking from us (spying on international phone calls, looking at what library books we take out).

You can't tell me giving the Iraqis freedom is a bad thing.

[edit on 12/20/2005 by Agent47]



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by xEphon
I love it when people justify the war by saying we're giving the Iraqis freedom, but at home ours are being taken away
and it all "supposedly" started because of terrorism which Bush stated "we cant win"

Does anyone else find this a little ironic?
I would laugh if it wasnt so sad.


Ok ? I do also. Hence why I label this 'war' as unecessary, that's one of the reasons.


Agent47, I read U loud and clear. I see everyone's points and just try my best to digest all information. I did not intend to start arguing, never that, just wanted to point that out.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 10:30 PM
link   
Just asking, since when did bush start this war on terror? If I'm not correct its been going on for longer than your country existed , no disrespect.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImJaded

Agent47, I read U loud and clear. I see everyone's points and just try my best to digest all information. I did not intend to start arguing, never that, just wanted to point that out.


No prob I misread your post a little so I'm sorry if I started things off on the wrong foot.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agent47
You have way too much of a biased one sided view of this whole conflict. In war people make mistakes and sometimes civilians pay the price but that is a long ways from purposely making munitions that look harmless and could be picked up by any unsuspecting individual. Get a grip, you can't try and say the insurgency doesn't exist and you can't say that we purposely bomb homes.

Tell me - why is it that EVERYTIME that Coalition troops kill civilans that is called either:

1. a MISTAKE

2. an ACCIDENT

3. COLLATERAL DAMAGE

It is more then obvious that Coalition troops do not care for the Iraqi civilans casualtues, because they do not DO BODYCOUNTS!

That really shows the Level of Coalition Troops - Iraqi civilans relationship: we can kill you in your house, and later call you terrorists.

Blah!

What do you Expect from a Goverment, whos Secretary of Defence says the following at the Press Conference in Pentagon:

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. here are known unkowns. That is to say, there are things we know we don't know. But, there are also unknown unknowns. These are things we don't know we don't know.

Say WHAT?



Sorry - but are all members of current goverment complete and utter morons?

"We discussed the way forward in Iraq, discussed the importance of a democracy in the greater Middle East in order to leave behind a peaceful tomorrow."
George W. Bush, Tbilisi, Georgia, May 10, 2005

Yes, Mister president!



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah

Tell me - why is it that EVERYTIME that Coalition troops kill civilans that is called either:

1. a MISTAKE

2. an ACCIDENT

3. COLLATERAL DAMAGE

It is more then obvious that Coalition troops do not care for the Iraqi civilans casualtues, because they do not DO BODYCOUNTS!


Well you would label these deaths under those headings because if you looked up their definitions they imply there was no intent before hand to target these civilians/no existing strategy to kill the population of a country you are on a mission to rebuild.

They are called mistakes because they are quite simply mistakes and when they are not either military justice or the media investigates and punishes those who violated the rules of war.

And yes the coalition doesn't perform body counts on Iraqis because what may clearly be the corpse of a guy holding an Ak47 or IED will no doubt be spun into an innocent civilian by various Islamofacist extremists. When its hard to seperate the enemy from the surrounding people its useless to perform body counts that would no doubt be labeled lies by people such as yourself who refuse to smell the coffee and instinctly label any action by coalition troops as a war crime.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agent47
They are called mistakes because they are quite simply mistakes and when they are not either military justice or the media investigates and punishes those who violated the rules of war.

So, how many times do you think the Coalition troops have Violated these Rules of War?

In my Opinion, your answer is going to be: "NONE".



And yes the coalition doesn't perform body counts on Iraqis because what may clearly be the corpse of a guy holding an Ak47 or IED will no doubt be spun into an innocent civilian by various Islamofacist extremists.

Great Tactic!

That will win the "Hearts and Minds" of Iraqi people!

The Coalition troops are not blamed for Killing innocent people - becuse when they are dead they are insurgents. The Coalition do not count the Dead Iraqi Civilans - because "it is a Waste of time". The Coalition is therefore breaking United Nations charter, guilty of violating international law, and guilty of crimes against Humanity.

When will they be Punished?



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah

Originally posted by Agent47
They are called mistakes because they are quite simply mistakes and when they are not either military justice or the media investigates and punishes those who violated the rules of war.

So, how many times do you think the Coalition troops have Violated these Rules of War?

In my Opinion, your answer is going to be: "NONE".


If you had bothered to read previous postings you would note that I implied there have been incidents where the coalition has been found guilty of violating the rules of war. In fact in one of my posts with ImJaded I pointed out how an artilllery officer was courtmartialed after shooting a dying iraqi in the head because he thought it was the only thing he could do to end the man's suffering (from a fatal wound). Now some would agree with that but regardless of your moral position the military identified a breach of the rules of war and punished him.



The Coalition do not count the Dead Iraqi Civilans - because "it is a Waste of time". The Coalition is therefore breaking United Nations charter, guilty of violating international law, and guilty of crimes against Humanity.

When will they be Punished?



Do you have record of this as a practiced policy of the Coalition. Do they just throw that out in news conferences? "Um we didn't count civilians cause thats a waste of time".

Once again get a grip. The UN has been pretty oppossed to this war and isn't the biggest supporter of the Coalitions work in Iraq. If the coalition were so guilty of war crimes wouldn't the UN possibly just maybe say something?

Ah whats the point. Your just gonna come back with the same ol rhetoric and maybe some of these



Cause you know how wrong anyone who supports the war effort is and you'll be damned before you start using evidence to support the "WAR CRIMES" you accuse the coalition of.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agent47
In fact in one of my posts with ImJaded I pointed out how an artilllery officer was courtmartialed after shooting a dying iraqi in the head because he thought it was the only thing he could do to end the man's suffering (from a fatal wound).

Wow.

One officers was Courtmartialed?

Really?

You mean, he was thrown to the Media as the Scapegoat, for them to tear him apart, like those few soldiers from Abu-Gharib Scandal?

Where are the Responsible GENERALS?

Soldiers don't do anything without a General ordering them.

When are they going to be held in an appropriate Court of Law?



Once again get a grip. The UN has been pretty oppossed to this war and isn't the biggest supporter of the Coalitions work in Iraq. If the coalition were so guilty of war crimes wouldn't the UN possibly just maybe say something?

You know why?

Because they are on the same Corruption Level as the entire Damn Coalition!

And even if they "Said Something" - how is that going to Change things?

Is the US goverment gonna listen to the UN?

PLEASE!




posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist
LOL, just where did you hear that
Considering there are only 26 million Iraqi's, you're saying that almost half are in the Shiite militia, come on enough of the BS


The figures come from a deomgraphic study provided to me by the BBC, as part of a set of information for a study into the population makup of Persia.

The are in full:
Iraq - total population 26 million

Shia Arabs - 60% (15.6 million)
Sunni Arabs - 20% (5.2 million)
Kurdish Sunni - 17% (4.42 million)
Other - 3% (78,000)

The iraqi population is split along the lines of the religion - sunni and shia - and ethnicity - Arab and Kurd.
The Shia are the majority with over two third owning there own firearms as they live in mainly rural villages and small to medium size towns in the south, over two thirds are members or affiliated to the Shia Militia (Source - Channel 4's Dispatches series of reports from Iraq).

After the First World War the British imposed a system of rule in Persia and created the majority of the countries that exist now. They picked Baghadad as the capital as it was in the centre of the new country. It just so happens that this is where the majority of the Sunni Arabs lived.

Please feel free to check these figures as they are available at:
news.bbc.co.uk...

This must be quite an unnerving though if you are member of the coalition forces based in the country. It is also clear evidence that backs up the claim that the Western Forces are working in partnership with the Shia Militia.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Souljah I’m still waiting for your links


And Souljah you know absolutely nothing about military service, so your “Soldiers don’t do nothing without Generals” is BS.
I’ll let other members who have actually served to explain that to you though.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
And Souljah you know absolutely nothing about military service, so your “Soldiers don’t do nothing without Generals” is BS.
I’ll let other members who have actually served to explain that to you though.


I think the fact that the military has it's own legal and court systems speaks for itself. Soldiers can and sometimes will do things that their commanding officers don't approve of. Generals tell colonels what their wishes are, colonels speak to their captains and majors who in turn inform the senior enlisted members what their wishes are. Finally the NCO (Non commissioned officers) will gather his group and tell them what their tasks are. "Ted, you're job is to clear that house of insurgents."

If private Ted decides to kill every man, woman, and child in the house he is to some effect following the general's orders. Still he's not doing his job as he was trained to (For whatever reason) and all you'll hear on the news is that an army general ordered a raid that resulted in the death of 4 innocent civilians. The general is responsible, but not at fault.

When I was in the military we used to hide-out and play cards to pass the time. Trust me when I say that our commanding officers were not consulted when we decided to start a game of hearts.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agent47
And here you go with the oil thing, honestly if you researched it you would find how awful the system of oil production is in Iraq. Saddam really let the oil production go to hell over the years and if we honestly wanted to invade a country for oil we could have invaded one with much more up to date production methods (see Kuwait).


Agent47, in your research you seemed to have missed the point about the oil. Not only does Iraq have the third largest oil reserves (after Saudi Arabia and Iran) estimated at 115,000 million barrels. These reserves are almost entirely unexploited, due to the under investment by Saddam's regime and the war with Iran.

The issue with Iraq is that it fit the latest paranoia model: it is in the Middle East; can therfore be classed as un-democratic; possible Weapons of mass destruction; possible links to terrorist networks and a leader who was a godsend for the propaganda wizards.

Invasion of Kuwait is not real an option as they trade oil to American under the OPEC agreement anyway. The same goes for Saudi Arabia.

The USA's current energy policy calls for a steady flow of oil, the last figures I could get were for 2000 and stood at 26 supertankers a day, the USA has 149 of the worlds 600+ crude refineries. The US economy needs oil, and is the worlds largest growing energy consumer.

So to say that the invasion of Iraq is not about oil, but about the removal of a nasty dictator - whom the west put there in the first place, and support for 20 years - is a little naive.

So this war is not about the war on terror, more about the economic survival of a country. The US does not really care how much the oil costs to get out of Iraq, as it stands to loose more if it does not.

Now the question in supporting this war becomes a lot clearer - do you want to continue for as long as possible in this current scenario of oil dependancy? If so then this may only be the first of a number of resource wars that will be fought over the next few decades. Or do we look to an alternative.

Given that choice the current scenario becomes more appealing, so a few thousand people in a country thousands of miles away get it rough. At least we can all still drive down to the mall and consume our own body weight in donuts and DVDs every week.

But what is the alternative? Wind Power - not yet, Tidal Power - this is just getting worse, cut back on energy consumption - I would rather give up my automatic assault/hunting rifle. Or maybe, just maybe we could get the Nuclear option back on the table.....But that is a whole other thread.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 08:46 AM
link   
There's no way in an urban guerilla warfare sort of situation to be 100 percent sure who's who. What no one will openly say is that it's a given that there will be the innocent among the guilty, and there's just nothing to be done about it.

I'm certain that an effort is made to be as careful as possible about these things, but in the end, it's decided that it's the price that has to be paid.

But of course the truth sounds so negative, no one is going to say that. So they do things, like, hedge about body counts, emphasizing when something happens that makes the public radar that it was a mistake, and, to be honest, rightfully so, I think that, for all that they're willing to pay the price in civilian deaths, they would like to avoid them.

Does this mean however that we shouldn't pay attention to what is happening? Public accountablity, in part, drives restraint.

And as an aside, those of you insulting Soujah, isn't there a rule here about not doing this sort of thing? I think I've said this before on other threads, why is this being ignored?

Debate the subject, not the person posting. This isn't the Slug-Fest forum.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join