Behind the Steel Curtain: The Real Face of the Occupation, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 21-12-2005 @ 05:45 AM by Souljah
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!


reply posted on 21-12-2005 @ 06:34 AM by Agent47
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.


reply posted on 21-12-2005 @ 08:01 AM by Expositor
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.


reply posted on 21-12-2005 @ 08:35 AM by Expositor
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.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^



ALL ATS`ers are terrorists
  Posted 5 days ago with 10 member flags
CNN Endorsing Terrorism
  Posted 8 days ago with 7 member flags
Obama\'s terror Drones.
  Posted 6 days ago with 6 member flags