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: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agent47
Whats that supposed to mean exactly? There are plenty of people on this board who aren't apart of the military who support the points I've presented. Your just trolling/dragging my name through the mud now.

Meaning Exactly What?

That the Majority that Opposes my Opinion is Right, just because there are more of them?

If this is "Trolling" for you - what are you doing in my Thread?

Exchanging Opinions about the TITLE of it?



Yes it is pretty convenient since its true and applies to any war. See thats because in war it doesn't always turn out like people intend and accidents happen. These accidents don't always kill iraqis but british/american soldiers and journalists. Its a war man its not simple.

How CONVENIENT that everytime that the Coalition (From now on Refered to as The Empire) - kills Civilans its an Accident, a Mistake, and yet again The Empire gets a Spotless Records of being "All Good", and the opposite side is as Evil as the Satan himself.

You can not deal in Absoultes in a War - nobody is ALL GOOD and nobody is ALL EVIL. But somehow The Empire always gets the Perfect and Spotless Record.



Acutally they are from a private blog just like most of the "factual" information you've presented so far. Oh and theres that slander again, where in the hell did you get "propaganda officer"?

A Private Blog of a Soldier?

Do you Honestly think that the Amry allows this Individual to post ANY pictures he wants, without first consulting to the local PR Officer?

I kind of Doubt that.



In support of the U.S. government's reconstruction effort in Iraq, Bechtel is under contract with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), for the emergency repair, rehabilitation, and reconstruction of critical elements of Iraq’s infrastructure.

Oh Goodie - you have switched the topic to the Warprofiting.

Let's go and check out Bechtel:

Bechtel Corporation and the U.S.-led war in Iraq. Bechtel employees like George Shultz not only used their political influence to help bring this war about, but key Bechtel board members and employees with advisory positions to the Bush Administration helped ensure that Bechtel would receive one of the most lucrative contracts for rebuilding what they had helped to destroy.

On April 17, Bechtel received one of the first and largest of the rebuilding contracts in Iraq. Worth $680 million over 18 months, the contract includes the rebuilding, repair and/or assessment of virtually every significant element of Iraq's infrastructure, from power generation facilities to electrical grids to the municipal water and sewage systems. The contract was granted in backroom deals without open and transparent bidding processes and the content remains hidden behind a veil of secrecy. The contract has not been publicly disclosed to American taxpayers, who will be paying the majority of the bill. While there is no doubt that Bechtel has experience in these areas, it is an experience from which the people of Iraq should be spared.


More?

Bechtel's Friends in High Places

Bechtel Fails Reconstruction of Iraq's Schools

US: Bechtel's 2003 Revenue Breaks Company Record

Iraq: Bechtel Wins $1.8bn Deal

Lots MORE Bechtel Warprofiting Information

I am happy you have brought this Topic up - it is a VITAL part of the Current War in Iraq and a vital part of the Reasons it Started. The Empire Americana is a Corporate Empire, meaning that it gets its Power from the Corportions, which are THE LAW. The CEO's are the Real Presidents and they Decide what the Goverment of the US is going to do next. In The Empire Everything is For Sale and Everything is a COMODITY. It is a Logic of Order, Profits and Buying/Selling. Out of EVERYTHING you can make a Comodity: out of Freedom, out of Democracy, out of Justice, out of Liberty, our of Friendship, out of Love, out of War. The Empire has the Right to Export Violence and "Liberate" foreign Countries and then Justifies that Violence as a Democracy, Liberty and Justice - when if Fact it is only a Commodity like Oil.

But I understand your Point - you are a Future Officer (if I remember correctly) and ofcourse your stance is to defend this Military/Corporate Conglomerate, which creates Profits as they create Wars.

I unerstand why we are so Opposite in this D-bate - and that is Pefectly Natural.

And I Respct your Opinon - and you Should Respect mine in return.

That's what a Civilized Debate is All about.

[edit on 24/12/05 by Souljah]




posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
A Private Blog of a Soldier?

Do you Honestly think that the Amry allows this Individual to post ANY pictures he wants, without first consulting to the local PR Officer?

I kind of Doubt that.

Yeah its called freedom of speech.
There are no PR officers in the US or the UK militaries.
Mabye local recruiters, mabye even a writer in the army but no PR officers.
Your country might have them but ours dont.



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Yeah its called freedom of speech.
There are no PR officers in the US or the UK militaries.
Mabye local recruiters, mabye even a writer in the army but no PR officers.
Your country might have them but ours dont.

Sure.

Freedom of SPEECH?

I knew that you would not notice the ENORMOUS Information War that the Military has to Lead in order to keep the "Bad" news not to come out. The Perfect Record of The Empire must be kept at all cost. You really have no idea how big the Corporate Media/Military/Goverment Web actually is. They all watch each others backs and that way they always come out "Clean".

Propaganda War is an ESSENTIAL element in Every War - and so it is in the Iraqi War. And I am Sure that an Averege Coalition Solider can not post Any Photo Material without the appopriate Authorization.




The Dangers of Disinformation in the War on Terrorism

For reporters covering this war [on terrorism], the challenge is not just in getting unfettered and uncensored access to U.S. troops and the battlefield - a long and mostly losing struggle in the past - but in discerning between information and disinformation. That is made all the more difficult by a 24-hour news cycle, advanced technology, and the military's growing fondness for a discipline it calls “Information Operations.” IO, as it is known, groups together information functions ranging from public affairs (PA, the military spokespersons corps) to military deception and psychological operations, or PSYOP. What this means is that people whose job traditionally has been to talk to the media and divulge truthfully what they are able to tell now work hand-in-glove with those whose job it is to support battlefield operations with information, not all of which may be truthful.



How To Sell a War

... Public relations firms often do their work behind the scenes....But his description of himself as a “perception manager” echoes the language of Pentagon planners, who define “perception management” as “actions to convey and (or) deny selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning. ... In various ways, perception management combines truth projection, operations security, cover, and deception, and psyops [psychological operations].”

“Did you ever stop to wonder,” Rendon asked, “how the people of Kuwait City, after being held hostage for seven long and painful months, were able to get hand-held American, and for that matter, the flags of other coalition countries?” He paused for effect. “Well, you now know the answer. That was one of my jobs then.”




posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Sure.

Freedom of SPEECH?

Yeah mabye thats why generals are allowed to pass critisism...


I knew that you would not notice the ENORMOUS Information War that the Military has to Lead in order to keep the "Bad" news not to come out. The Perfect Record of The Empire must be kept at all cost. You really have no idea how big the Corporate Media/Military/Goverment Web actually is. They all watch each others backs and that way they always come out "Clean".

Jeez you want to add anything or anyone else into that little consipiricy?
Mabye the fishery protection service?
War on information, I can see you conducting one and quite a few members on this board conducting a war of information.
As majic put it, "Fighting to gain your support".


Propaganda War is an ESSENTIAL element in Every War - and so it is in the Iraqi War. And I am Sure that an Averege Coalition Solider can not post Any Photo Material without the appopriate Authorization.
[/qujote]
Picture of what?
You mean like the army video of "is this the road to armidilo"?
Now come on, if you mean taking pictures of dead people then yeah, I mean come one would you post a picture of a traffic acident on the net without telling both sides?
From what I have seen you would.
If you want to go off and qoute like hell do so, I dont frankly care...



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Souljah I've ridden this thread from page one and I've come to realize there is practically no hope for an intelligent debate here. A thread where posters make up conspiracies on the fly, insult the occupation of other posters, and uses star wars lingo is a waste of ATS time.

Theres nothing bad in disagreeing with the war on Iraq but that is not whats going on here. What this thread is about is making generalizations about the conduct of the UK/US soldiers putting their life on the line for their countries.

And the part about soldiers not being able to post anything without their Propaganda officer? Now that has to be a joke. Anymore posts like that and I wouldn't be suprised to find this in BTS.



posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Here is a Related Article to this Thread from Yesterdays Paper:


Washington Post



U.S. Marine airstrikes targeting insurgents sheltering in Iraqi residential neighborhoods are killing civilians as well as guerrillas along the Euphrates River in far western Iraq, according to Iraqi townspeople and officials and the U.S. military.

Just how many civilians have been killed is strongly disputed by the Marines and, some critics say, too little investigated. But townspeople, tribal leaders, medical workers and accounts from witnesses at the sites of clashes, at hospitals and at graveyards indicated that scores of noncombatants were killed last month in fighting, including airstrikes, in the opening stages of a 17-day U.S.-Iraqi offensive in Anbar province.

These people died silently, complaining to God of a guilt they did not commit," Zahid Mohammed Rawi, a physician, said in the town of Husaybah. Rawi said that roughly one week into Operation Steel Curtain, which began on Nov. 5, medical workers had recorded 97 civilians killed. At least 38 insurgents were also killed in the offensive's early days, Rawi said.

In a Husaybah school converted to a makeshift hospital, Rawi, four other doctors and a nurse treated wounded Iraqis in the opening days of the offensive, examining bloodied children as anxious fathers soothed them and held them down.

"I dare any organization, committee or the American Army to deny these numbers," Rawi said.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 11:54 AM
link   

U.S. Marine airstrikes targeting insurgents sheltering in Iraqi residential neighborhoods are killing civilians as well as guerrillas along the Euphrates River in far western Iraq, according to Iraqi townspeople and officials and the U.S. military.


You don't say, they are taking shelter in residential neighborhoods?! Outrageous!
Hey Souljah, since you’re so against civilian casualties why don't you start a thread condemning insurgents that hide in residential neighborhoods? Oh wait, it doesn't fit your agenda, my bad.



posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Iv`e just had a thought - imaine the *outrage* there would be if the events like teh firebombing of dresden happened today


OMG , thousands dead as enemy/terrorist/insurgant war factories are targetted in 1000 bomber raid !!



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by xEphon
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


Ummm... excuse me, but this IS a war. Oh, and how, exactly, do you determine is someone who is dead is innocent? No, I'm not saying that Souljahs rant is correct (every person dead must be a terrorist); I'm just wondering...



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Souljah has a habit of taking advantage of the freedoms won for him by those with higher priorities and virtue. It's kinda like his trademark.

"For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of speech." Zell Miller (the last true Democrat)

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things.
The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic
feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.
The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight,
nothing that is worth more than his own personal safety, is a
miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless
kept so by the assertions of better men than himself".

--- John Stewart Mill ---
Damn..... that describes Souljah to a "T".

In all of history, peace has never come about through negotiations; repeat, never, and I dare anyone to prove that inaccurate.

It is the US who has led the way in developing smart bombs and missles, to reduce the number of civilian casualties.

It used to be that to win a war the idea was to inflict as many civilian casualties as possible (remember carpet bombing?).
If Zarqawi hides in a mosque full of people, it is he who puts the others at risk, not the soldiers whose job it is to find him and bring him in or kill him. This very thing has been done by many other insurgents. Most insurgents are from other countries, and give less thought to the safety of civilians than we do.

Souljah..... how many threads did you start concerning the wrongs of Saddam, and his two sons, Buckwheat and Dead-aye?

Your Avatar should read: Souljah ... Proud member of Americas fifth column.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah

Originally posted by Agent47
Souljah you say that your first "article" explained what I needed to know but do you realize your first article was in fact a weblog. Not an accredited public news outlet or even an sketchy internet outlet. It was a persons private weblog where I remind you that in a weblog anyone can say whatever they want regardless of its validity. I could cite weblogs where people say North Korea is planning to nuke Japan or Hitler is still alive.

I am waiting for you to use a weblog in support of your posts.

Have you maybe asked yourself why those photos and that article was not in some Corproate Media News?

I think you did not.

But you quickly turn everything in your own favour.

Typical for an US Army Person.



So I'm just going to repeat myself and say that yes the coalition makes mistakes but it is the unfortunate side to an effort to rebuild a country.

Yes ofcourse - the Coalition makes Mistakes and ACCIDENTS happen, when Iraqi Civilans Die. How Convenient.

The Coalition has no Idea what is in store for them in Iraq - this is a REAL war soldier, not a Virtual one. It is not a Gulf War 1 Part Deux - it is VIETNAM REVISTED. You think that with this so-called "Democracy" installed your work is finished? Dear Agent47, how mistaken you are. That is only the End of the Beginning.



Now you don't want me to get all sappy and produce pictures of soldiers vaccinating kids or building schools because we've all seen that side of the news.

Oh Goodie!

Will that be from the .gov and .mil sites?

Yes Please!

Will you call your Propaganda Officer to supply you with those Photos?



So what I'm saying is I'd rather see the coalition try and do something good rather than see them leave and have the insurgents continue to slaughter innocents on purposep\

Ah yes - love your Rhetoric.

But what "Good" is the Coalition doing exactly - apart from bombing the crap out of Iraqi Civilans, and ofcourse calling that a "MISTAKE"?

The Problem with the American Empire in Iraq is, that you are not Armed well for this Urban Guerrilla Combat. The Army has Heavy Weapons, designed to destroy great ammounts of war technology - and they use them in Urban Combat. That's why airplanes bomb a house with a "SUSPECTED" Sniper inside. But you have no Weapons against "Terrorism". None. Problem is, that all of them become obsolete, because you can not kill the Terrorists - they are Killing Themselves!

Now that is a New Experience for you, huh?

Not used to that.

So by all means - do attack Iran and Syria and extend your Problems in the Middle East to more countries.



You know nothing of war, or honor, if you haven't served, so you have a lot of nerve berating someone who fought for your right to be absurd in a public forum.
The minute you relate this war to Vietnam, (which we won in Vietnam, but lost here at home thanks to people with your mindset), you lost all credibility, and it proves you cannot tell or admit the differences.
If I chose to Deny (your) Ignorance, I'd use the ignore button......

Souljah.... do you live in America? .... no, I'm not asking if you're an American... there's a difference.

I will admit, though, that you are a prime example of why the WW2 generation was the last great generation, and also of the "education" that we are giving up our tax dollars for.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Actually, that's all you hear about in the major media is the bad things.... which is no surprise. If a Dem. were president, then the media would be showing ALL of the positive things happening in Iraq; it would be heralded as the "Great New Dawn" for Iraq.
As for the mention of where the money is coming from in the rebuilding of Iraq:

".... There has been an estimate of $60 billion required to rebuild the infrastructure to pre-1991 levels. The U.S. has committed $18.4 billion to the rebuilding of Iraq , and $11 billion is ear-marked already. The balance will likely come from foreign investors. That interest is already coming from commercial interests in Madrid , Tokyo and Brussels." Hmmm ..... I don't see any mention of oil money there....

As to progress, the following link is provided (if you choose not to believe this verified info, and there will be those who won't, I don't know what to tell you):
www.state.gov...

Remarks to the Private Sector Conference on Iraqi Reconstruction:
www.state.gov...

"The Winning Side"
www.nationalreview.com...

"A Moral War
The project in Iraq can succeed, and leave its critics scrambling."
www.nationalreview.com...


If things continue as they are, Bush will be written in history on the same level as Winston Churchill. Wait and see. At least his picture won't be hanging on the "Victory Wall" in Saigon, as is Kerry's.

As of a year ago, the majority of Iraqis see it as a Liberation, not an occupation. Think not? Ask all of those with purple fingers, or the women now in places of power and government, and in schools and colleges.

(edited for content addition)



[edit on 29-12-2005 by zappafan1]



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 05:19 AM
link   
Thumbs up to you zappafan for providing some strong evidence and facts as to the positive things that do occur in Iraq. Your posts were like a breath of fresh air to this thread.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 09:39 AM
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.


Subsequent statements, and common sense, indicate that the war against terrorism cannot be "won", but if enough terrorists are brought to justice, or killed, then the idea of terrorism becomes less acceptable, and futile.

Our homes are being taken away? Thats a states law issue, for each states lawmakers to fix. A Supreme Court decision, on any issue, is not an end-all be-all. They do not make law.

[edit on 29-12-2005 by zappafan1]



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted 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

REPLY: Because that's what they always have been called, in all wars, using those terms or others. Stop acting like it's a new thing.

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

REPLY: Pure supposition and hyperbole..... and flat-out BS.

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!




"...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."


REPLY: What is so difficult about understanding that (even with your spelling issues)?

As for civilian body counts, that job has most always fallen to the Intl. Red Cross, and other non-military organizations. Do the research.


[edit on 29-12-2005 by zappafan1]

[edit on 29-12-2005 by zappafan1]

[edit on 29-12-2005 by zappafan1]



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted 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.

REPLY: Current thinking is that Anwar reserves could hold more than Iraq.

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.

REPLY: Iraq WAS un-democratic, and there are verifiable and long-known ties to terrorism and Al-Queda. Do a Google on "mother of all connections", although links to this is covered in another thread.

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.

REPLY: again, do the research yourself. India and China are that largest growing consumers of oil. Also, Americas consumption helps us to supply food the 1/3 of the world.

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.

REPLY: See the other replies. Also, America does not have a shortage of oil, it has a shortage of refineries.

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.

REPLY: The US buys oil inly for military reserves. It's the oil companies that buy the oil, and they most certainly DO care about the costs.

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.

REPLY: Oil and coal provide the largest number of BTU's-per-pound, with nuclear being the second-best alternative (untill we get to the moon and start utilizing Helium-3).

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.

REPLY: Or being on your computer? Does anyone else here consume DVD's with their coffee and donuts?

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.


REPLY: The only countries for whom oil was an issue in this war was France, Germany and Russia (the Oil For Fraud Program). As for research, you would find that America used to buy oil from Iraq, and will again... but not directly. If you researched the issue, you would find that all of the oil produced goes into one big "pool" of oil (for lack of a better term), and it is bid upon by many companies and countries..... best price wins. I have yet to see the photos of American oil tankers lined up at the ports of Iraq, or Kuwait for that matter.

Every advanced country has an interest in oil as a base for their economy, not just America.

There are reserves, known and otherwise, to last for hundreds of years; long enough for technology to come up with alternatives..... except possibly for raw materials for paint, plastics, and tens of thousands of other things that rely on oil or it's by-products.

The so-called "assault" rifles are just that... so called. Plain and simple.... there are no "semi-automatic" assault rifles, no matter how scary they look to you or Diane Feinstein.

[edit for spelling)

[edit on 29-12-2005 by zappafan1]



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by aape
a bit offtopic but wtf is this?
godlovessoldiers.com...

Man..i didn´t know american army is THAT much perverted in views. I didn´t find an explanation to why would god love soldier on that page but still, it´s blessamy. Christians should divide because that just cannot be true. If it is the god loves soldiers then it will love the murderers,rapist and thiefs same way.
A bit of explanation to add. In my point of view, army priests have said that we must pay for our sins, but god might forgive us if we would kill by defending our country,home,wifes. But that god would forgive those who are the attackers? No way.
And i thought that represents your army because the banner on top of the page which says "us army: god loves soldier." And after that they are praising about god loving a man who serves his country fully.
Imho it´s not from bible to say that attacking foreign nations is serving god/country.
-aape


[edit on 21-12-2005 by aape]


REPLY: No.... but the Bible is FULL of quotes that it is right to fight evil.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   
".... The U.S., in line with this doctrine, pulled out of the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty, one of the corner stones to international peace and stability."

REPLY
uhhh.... the treaty of which you speak was an agreement between the Soviet Union and America. When the Soviet Union became Russia, the country with which the treaty was signed no longer existed as was written in the treaty; therefore null and void anyways.
Example: If you sign a contract with a company, and that company goes out of business (which technically is what happened to the S.U.) then the contract is null and void.


".... Other nations see the U.S. action as threatening and may be afraid..."

REPLY: ... only those countries whose "leaders" are tyrants and dictators. If you look back through history, truly democratic countries don't go to war with each other.

".... Throughout history, larger nations have been able to exert their desires more effectively than others. Military power has often been the final arbiter of law. We recall “gun boat diplomacy” tactics of various imperial powers in the past to ensure unwilling nations bent to their demands."

REPLY: Show me anywhere in history where peace has been won through negotiations.

".... The U.S.'s political and military power is unrivalled today."

REPLY: Duhhh. And thank goodness for it.

".... Furthermore, the actions of the more powerful nations in the international arena, away from home, have contributed to such resentment and hatred, that it is sometimes not recognized that their own policies could be contributing to these terrible acts and threats of terrorism."

REPLY: Terrorism existed in Iraq bwfore we went there, and has existed worldwide long before America was a country.... most of it relating to radical Islam
If France had acted "unilaterally" in WW2, over 40,000 lives would have been saved. And, no, the Iraq war was not unilateral



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
Souljah has a habit of taking advantage of the freedoms won for him by those with higher priorities and virtue. It's kinda like his trademark.

So,

Whats YOUR Trademark?

To follow me Around and Counter every single Thread I make?

And why exactly are you diverting this Topic to yet AGAIN talk about me?

I have seen that happen Too Many times.

Anyway, I have a Question for You:

Have YOU ever been in a War?

I guess you have.

Well, was this WAR ever at your Front Door?

In your Home?

Did Tanks roll down your Street?

Have Choppers circled your House?

I think not.

You know what's the Problem here?

United States EXPORT War.

Commodity of US is War.

Just like Democracy is nothing but a Commoity to Export - like Coca-Cola.

Sorry - I see nothing Noble there.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   
So soljah your going to play the old "anti us" game again?

Mabye you'd prefer if they were neutral then?
Dont get involved in ANYTHING, but no ofcourse not even then they do wrong.

Mabye you'd prefer if the US commited every cence it had to helping the world while other countries like iran and co carry on building and building up weapons and troops?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join