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.

 

What Really Happened In Fallujah 2004?

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Obviosly this is not so in the sunburn thread.


This is only true if you believe what you want instead of reading what i said.


Persist to believe that I am right and not believe you...no sorry I will not lower myself to the standards you provide me.


Your current standard were provided to you by a education system which aim is not to inform you but to indoctrinate you. My standards at the very least involved me thinking and coming to my own conclusions; unlike yours.


I set my standards and I live by them, pride is imeterial when learning...pride comes from doing...not from typing.


Doing based on the bad thinking is what has people running around like rats doing nothing of lasting value. If pride was not material to the learning process ( at 17 it very much is) then i believe you could/would have treated those you talk to with far more respect as you would not have a personal stake in having your mistakes revealed. Your actions so far indicates far too much pride in defense of very little information you can defend logically.


As now like proving that its impossible for a small missile to sink a massive warship?


Well a single Sunburn can obviously sink a aircraft carrier with a lucky shot the question being just how lucky it would have to get. You have done far more to insulting than informing and at least i now know why.


Because I define what is right and wrong in my mind , if you are unsure what is right and wrong then I suggest you clarify your position before you engage in discussion.


The arrogance of youth yes. How can you decide on the truth of a historic incident so completely by age 18 when professional Historians are still argue so much of it? The HARDEST part is to define the standards by which you will judge 'truth' and 'lies' and from what i have seen you say so far you have completely deluded yourself if you think your standard yields results worth calling that. Agreeing with norms means you have achieved absolutely nothing beside being educated the way they wanted you to be.


Then you learned by watching, not doing.


Exactly as doing involves mistakes, with sometimes serious consequences, which self respecting people will try avoid as far as possible until they have learnt as much as possible from history and the world around them. Learning by doing is what arrogant self serving people do for lack of caring/understanding the consequences that might result. I run into these people fairly often and they are consistently those who refuse to take responsibility for their screw-ups.


Making mistakes does not destroy your credibility, esspeciallyif you are able to accept them.


Each and every mistake you make gives people you want to inform the chance to disregard your opinion on the basis that it might be another mistake on your side. If your aim is to do nothing but agree with the current norms then your not risking much and thus not exposing yourself to learning anything new very fast or at much risk.


Be vindictive and be be angry, I cant stop them and frankly it will show us more about you than I.


I am neither of those things but others might not be as considerate when it comes to excusing your mistakes and general ignorance on some of the topics you have chosen to involve yourself in. It was a warning , not a threat.


Because I wont learn from your mistakes, I will learn from mine.


Then your a old school fool that wants to risk trying to survive all his own mistakes instead of getting ahead, on the cheap, by asking the cripple's where they went wrong. The arrogance involved in choosing to make the same mistakes as everyone else is quite astounding but at least your young and might figure out how stupid such a course of action in fact is.


You made YOUR mistakes, only YOU will truely learn from them...but I will learn from mine more.


This is the type of self serving iresponsible comments that i never did make when i was your age and it is becoming apparent to me that you might not learn as fast as i did. If your set on only learning by your own mistakes you should stop considering yourself anything other than average as that is what you clearly want to be by choosing such a poor strategy for learning about this world.

Stellar




posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Your second world war knowledge clearly comes from text books and i can tell because i also read the same old books. My point is that you think the first thing you ever learnt happened to be the truth when it is in fact not.

Does it? Do you think I never met the people who took part in it and never took part in VE day parades? I was guard commander for the colours and spoke to some of the WW2 serving members thank you...

You cant have read the same books I read unless your now 19.....they where only made a year or 2 before I read them lol.



Well if you want to stay decidedly average and ignorant you have picked the right strategy.

I would rather be averange and ignorant than afraid to admit mistakes and afraid to live life.



Well obviously we are now mostly talking about the second world war and the comment was in relation to that.

No we WERE talking about fallujah if you hadnt notice I mention it.


The fact that you know nothing about Fallujah to start with means i know more about that as well. Being close to something does not bring understanding any more than being far prohibits it.

Oh so is this another one of your "facts of life stellar"?
You and me know near to nothing about what actually happened and can in no sense judge the situation, why?
Because we didnt take part, see or know what happened.
All we know is second hand knowldge or through edited videos...



Well tell me how physics( with their half baked ideas) and mechanical engineering &electrical ( which is extremely limited in it's current form) can shape your view of the world on any scale similar to how history can?

Easy physics explains how the world works: Ie gravity : if I drop a hammer from the highest deck on the ship over the side, will it float?

Mechanical engneering helps shape my world because it tells me how things will work together ie : an engine.

Oh and electrical enginerring being limited? How so?
As far as I know it shapes my life quite well since I training to become an electrical engineer.



Why do you try so hard to avoid the obvious intent of my questions?

Pot calling kettle is the phrase to use here I believe.


We talk about history ( second world war -fallujah) and then you bring up physics?

Just copying a tactic of yours, expand the topic into diffrent areas.


That is in fact all science is imo and the joke is to watch them try combine all those models towards a greater understanding; something they obviously have not managed just yet.

Right so you would prefer not to know how things work just accept that they do work...right...now do you like the computer your using or would you prefer your rocks and sand?




No it's not foolish to think you know whats going on ( i had plenty of theories myself) as long as you do not go around telling people who have had more time and means, to put it together, that their advantage does not mean anything.

More time wasted does not mean you know any better than me...
You are the one telling me everything I know is a lie and I should believe you...



Since i am not in the education industry or earning a salary for teaching certain things, instead of others, your criticism is completely stupid and devoid of reason.

So wait you need to earn a slary or be in the education buisness to "teach", right.....ok now you said you know more than me?
No your the one trying to "teach" me about life man, your not doing a good job.



Has your history teacher ever tried to justify his reasons for teaching what he does?

Yes he did actually, he wanted to teach because he liked history and liked to share , pretty simple IMO.





And after i said that i went on to explain ( in the next post) what you could not figure out.

No you continued on to ignore the question.





It's not ALL lies OBVIOUSLY but to figure out what is and what isn't is plenty darn hard at that age.

Right so it IS lies but it ISNT lies, so its PARTIALLY true but PARTIALLY false.


My criticism stems from the fact that you believe you can tell the difference at age 17 and seem so willing to insult me for doubting your text book quoting which makes clear that you have not yet came up with many of your own conclusions.

I think I can tell the diffrence thank you , if you dont think so fair enough but frankly I've drawn my own conclusions.
I am not qouting text books, you seem obsessed with this idea I've been trained, brainwashed or currupted....



A lone voice who was cheered at and generally called names for being such a blatant war monger. Do you not understand that he said that for ten years and were completely ignored?

Actually no he wasnt ignored thank you, many shared his opinion but mr chamberlin appeased them by building up the armed forces.



Almost all of them backed Chamberlain till the fat was already in the fire

Yes and how many of them where led astray by hitlers con, many where calling for action yet he refused to.




It is ifact self evidence that Germany was allowed to rearm for a reason and that they either believed they could control German actions or that they simply wanted a war.

Thats a pretty damm black or white conclusion, mabye they thought germany would back down? Oh wait that means they wanted to control them...right..



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Yes i read about that and it's plenty obvious the Poles had it right in not trying to settle with Germany or Poland as it would have led to much the same result. What is your point with this comment anyways?

The point is that britain DID try to ally with the russians, but they still feared the comunists so it would never have reached full alliance.



If the plan was not compromised it might very well never have been changed to the later 'plan yellow'. It was in fact very much a fluke as i said the first time.

Or it might have changed once they seen the french, british and other allied troops waiting for them.



As i have said before there is very little 'unexpected' in German methods of 1940 if one goes back to the 1918 and study their offensive methods in that year. If generals and the military establishments of France and England cared to look at history these things would hardly have come as such a shock if it was not in fact just excuses for their poor performance anyways.

I didnt know that scotland, wales nor NI sent any troops into WW2 thanks for that info.
Actually there is, they changed thier tactics from standard WW1 trench fighting to blitzkrieg rush tactics, hence why it was so effective.


The greatest failure of the allies were not their equipment or training but simply communication and general situational awareness.

More like bad planning.



Chamberlain did nothing but get Britain ever closer to the disaster and he was NOT trying to buy time for rearmament as he expressly said.

As I remember the country was rebuilding itself after the "homes for heros" idea came out.


Churchill was not really a war as much as he was someone who was willing to fight; unlike most of the rest it seems.

Hence why he said: "More jaw jaw, less war war".


Churchill did his fair share of extremely stupid things that cost tens, if not hundreds of thousands, of British lives for no gain. Since we never had a chance to see someone else leading Britain in 1940 we are stuck with the belief that he did the best 'they could' which is not true imo.

Well frankly we all make mistakes in our lives unfortunatly with people at thier level mistakes made cost lives.
If you want to debate: ifs, could be's and mabye's then go ahead but I will have no part in it.
Your opinion is not exsactly very good IMO.



So logically if Britons could figure it out only by what they were reading in the press how could the politicians not be able ( with far more information and insight into Hitlers political moves) to figure out what was coming?
[/quoe]
Simple, germany was doing lots secretly and efficitently.



My point so far has been that they DID figure it out but CHOSE to let him rearm for their own motivations.

And my point has been that they havent, chamberlin like any polition would not take the fall like he did for any ammount of money.



A figurehead is EXACTLY what it made him as he could lose his position at ANY time if the lost the support of the Mp's or for that matter a select few individuals.

Oh could it, then your faulting the democratic system?
Hmm no I dont think so, the men chose to rally behind him and if they dont like his ideals then they would not have picked him.





The Nazi's only had a short stint in which to 're-educate' Germans and then only those people in school.

Umm not really, they controlled education pretty much until they took power.


Since people in school do not much care about politics (unless it's really 'cool'; which Hitler tried to make the Nazi party) you really need to explain how he could so easily impress the rest of the house-owning working population of Germany.

Easy, he improved fitness and educated them.
Children reeducated to think they are better than the rest and should treat others as worse will eventially pick it up as the truth. Its not specifically politics, its everything , if you educate a women to believe she is only good at cooking and get peer pressure going then she will most likely become good at cooking.




Your just not even coming close to addressing my statement or the question behind it.

Am I not? I felt I did quite well thanks.



And FDR did not?

I am not talking about FDR , the US does not concern me.


You will be EXTREMELY surprised once you find out that FDR and Hitler rebuilt their respective countries in much the same way and that still does not point out who funded the German recovery.

Easy american bankers funded germany, and unless FDR created a "lower" species physce in the public I dont think they where workng to the same plan.





And i guess the massive majority of citizens in any given country are those things?

No but thats not the point now is it? Unless your not advocating it?


Your avoidance tactics are boring me to death.
Pot calling kettle...


If you discriminate it is mostly EXTREMELY stupid to do so against any majority as that sort of thing takes massive outside support( South Africa/Iraq for instance)

Umm yeah and why would he do it against the majority?



I never told you to keep your mouth shut but then at eigtheen every disagreement/misunderstand becomes a insult.

Actually no it doesnt, its only some with a critism and patrinising way of disagreeing with me that insults me.


I clearly said that keeping your mouth shut in a dictatorship is a great way to prosper and keep out of trouble. It's not that hard if your aim is survival.

Well since the post you made is 3 pages back and I frankly cant be bothered to look that part up at 15 past 11 at nite I will just say, what ever.



Both were getting bombed during the war but since i am OBVIOUSLY talking about the 30's in general.

Are you? Did you make that clear in every post since you seem to change subject quite frequently in this topic....
Germany wasnt being bombed like london was, in no way was it. Except dresdon but that was diffrent.



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
How many people were 'eliminated' in the 30's by Hitlers regime? Why would you not have survived in Germany if you were born blind? What kinda nonsense have you been reading?

Hitler started eliminating people with defects and weaker portions (IE jews)



WHAT TERRORISM?

Mabye you didnt notice that little spat we had with a little group called the IRA...Or more precisely the PIRA.



My point was that Britons were deceived and their still paying the economic penalties for allowing themselves to be.

Who isnt decived these days?
And what do you mean by decieved?



He killed himself and his wife ALLEGEDLY. Feel free to provide me with conclusive proof that he in fact died by his own hand or at all.

Feel free to provide me with conclusive proof he DIDNT, we will never know now will we. IMO he killed himself.



The fact that you imagine Rommel as 'one of his best generals' is what has me laughing. Rommel was the product of Nazi propaganda as much as he was the product of the allies not being able to deal with even 2 divisions of German troops. The logic goes that you must be fighting a super human commander with great forces or that YOU are in fact pathetic and bad at what your supposed to be doing ( winning in this case). I could find you a hundred German divisional commanders( what he really was and should have been kept as )on the East front that could have managed what he did OR BETTER.

As I remember he done a fine job, frankly if you can find me a hundred "better" commanders then go ahead, I dont care.
We can debate ifs and mabyes till I become a captain but it wont change that he done some good moves in his time, if you dont like it fair enough and if you think the allies done a bad job fair enough. But frankly I doubt you would have done much beter but wait that isnt the issue here is it?




No Nazi's were actively trying to get all Jews out of Germany in the 30's and if the west was at all welcoming to that measure they could have all left had they wanted to.

Is that why german soldiers stoped many jews leaving germany?

Oh and you prove the point I made in chat, your morals are very low IMO.




What do you mean by this and how could the British Navy defend Britain against air attack or for that matter protect British field armies in France?

Simple, germany needed supplies and no matter what germany did on land it required the sea....Britains navy need not defend the other 2 since the RAF and the army do that on them selves.



And i never suggested that it could or would happen every time if at all.

Yet you said you agreed with his research.......so wait if you dont agree with him yet agree with him does that cancel it out?



I have provided plenty of source material which you have not responded to suggesting that the Sunburn is quite the dangerous weapon which with just a little luck might reduce even a aircraft carrier to a burnt out hulk ready for the scrap yard.

No you havent, lol theres no way thats possible lol unless your saying it carries a nuclear warhead instead of its conventional charge.



I am treating you far better than you deserve to be treated considering the general disdain you have shown me so far and had i been less considerate concerning your age you would have seen what i do when i run into people that are old enough to know better than you clearly do not.

What right do you have to judge whats fair and not fair ?
I dont know better? This coming from a man who thinks shrapnel can go through 20 odd decks of steel then sink an aircraft carrier by cracking her back...



Once you start considering treating me with the basic respect one reserves for those with the a age advantage you will notice just how 'nice' i can be in addressing your ignorance.

Age entitles you to no respect, respect is earned not given and you have yet to earn my respect. Or did you forget that basic fact that respect is not given?




Well then your just deluded as you clearly do not know what you think you do.

Says the man who is afraid to face his mistakes and instead hides in books.


I do not rule out the possibility that a person at 17 might have managed the feat you suggest but i have never run into any of them online or anywhere else.

The fact is you said :"met them online" fact is you wont meet peole like that because you need to go out and find them IN THE REAL WORLD.


Fact is at 17 most people lack the knowledge base and even, in the absolutely massive majority of cases, the mental maturity to come to greatly different conclusions on very many topics than their peers.

Yet again with your facts, I'd say it was generlising myself but thats just me..



Well whatever you call it it's not helped you understand the second world war any better( if even close to what i knew at that stage; and had to 'unlearn' for eight years) than i did at your age so the point is moot.

Has it not? Well I'd rather believe something and question how it works than live in fear and not question things.
My point is moot because you refuse to accept any poistion except yours which has been proven before in chat.



Since your telling me the same things i found in most of the first books i read on the second world war i am quite correct in calling that the standard by which you have been 'educated' to be just another average; so far at least.

Just another average? You mean the accepted version of events which you reject...right?



And that is the point of perspective and educating yourself instead of depending on others to decide which parts are the 'truth' never giving a chance to look at all the material they base it on.

Yes and chosing what parts of history you WANT to be true and what IS true are 2 diffrent things, frankly your "truth" holds as much weight as thiers.



If you have not reached the age where you are willing to accept , based on your own reasoning, that some things are in fact not true ( even if it's in a book or even widely believed) then you are on the wrong forum and spending time with the wrong type of people.

I chose whats right and wrong when I know the facts, its when you reach the stage that you THINK you know whats right and wrong that is the most dangerous . IE your stage, you believe you have all the answers which you clearly do not, you refute things then use another as solid evidence...



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 03:19 AM
link   
We must remember that this war is unlike many others fought.

Against Germany, the enemy wore distinctive grey uniforms, the same against the Japanese.

This "War on Terror" is a totally different bag of apples.

Does the enemy in Iraq wear distinctive uniforms to seperate them from civilians?
Can a U.S marine seperate enemy from civilian in these circumstances?

If the insergents want to blend in with the population, whereby making identifying the enemy almost impossible, then civilian casualties are obviously going to be high.

I for one blame the insergents for at least 80% of civilian casualties, because they themselves hide behind civilians by making themselves look like civilians.

Instead of laying blame on U.S marines calling them baby killers, how about laying most of that blame on an enemy who imitates civilians as the real cause for so many casualties.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Burginthorn:

I for one blame the insergents for at least 80% of civilian casualties, because they themselves hide behind civilians by making themselves look like civilians.

Instead of laying blame on U.S marines calling them baby killers, how about laying most of that blame on an enemy who imitates civilians as the real cause for so many casualties.


? Since there wouldn’t be any of this happening at all if the USA hadn’t illegally invaded Iraq in the first place, then let’s lay that blame at the feet of the US/UK, where it belongs.

Should these “insurgents” be staying out in the open, wearing badges that say “INSURGENT” so that they are easier for you to kill? Would that be more honorable of them?

The US military should have planned for this (hey, it happened in Vietnam too). If they didn’t, it’s actually their fault.

The Occupying Power, according to international law, is responsible for the security of the civilian population. Every time Iraqi civilians are massacred in an insurgent carbombing, it’s under your watch, you are ultimately responsible.

Read the rules next time.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
? Since there wouldn’t be any of this happening at all if the USA hadn’t illegally invaded Iraq in the first place, then let’s lay that blame at the feet of the US/UK, where it belongs.

And not note any actions by the insurgents....ofcourse not, no lets focus on the bigger issue here....right?


Should these “insurgents” be staying out in the open, wearing badges that say “INSURGENT” so that they are easier for you to kill? Would that be more honorable of them?

Mabye if they didnt use ambulances as attack vehicles...
Mabye if they didnt use civilians as shields...
You know mabye the military should instead just dress all soldiers in the regular attire around there instead of just recon and SF units...afterall if its ok for the insurgents to use it why not us?




The US military should have planned for this (hey, it happened in Vietnam too). If they didn’t, it’s actually their fault.

As I remember they did.


The Occupying Power, according to international law, is responsible for the security of the civilian population. Every time Iraqi civilians are massacred in an insurgent carbombing, it’s under your watch, you are ultimately responsible.

Yes and that totally removes the blame from the man behind the rifle....makes you feel fuzzy doesnt it?


Read the rules next time.

Mabye the insurgents should do the same...but hey thats not the issue is it?



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   
devilwasp:

And not note any actions by the insurgents....ofcourse not, no lets focus on the bigger issue here....right?


Let’s review. How many Iraqis were dying to insurgents when Saddam ran the show? ZERO.

So far over 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died. 33 9-11’s worth. Mostly due to insurgents who were never there until your country illegally invaded.

30+ people a day are kidnapped in Iraq. HUNDREDS die every week. You are in charge of the security of Iraq, therefore YOU are responsible for those deaths.

Yeah, of course the insurgents too, but the origin comes from your invasion.


You know mabye the military should instead just dress all soldiers in the regular attire around there instead of just recon and SF units...afterall if its ok for the insurgents to use it why not us?


Um, because you’re supposed to be the good guys? I mean, I think it’s obvious nobody is the good guys here, but people were under that illusion before you started torturing and extraditing people to countries for torture and illegally detaining people who end up dead.



As I remember they did.


Kindly post the plan as you know it that the US Administration had for post-invasion Iraq. Thanks.


Mabye the insurgents should do the same...but hey thats not the issue is it?


No, the issue is : you brought all of this about by invading Iraq illegally. When it comes down to who is to blame, NONE of this would be happening if there were no American and British troops on the ground in Iraq. That is the truth, accept it or deny it, but it’s there. I can guess what you'll do with it based on our past debates, though....



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
Let’s review. How many Iraqis were dying to insurgents when Saddam ran the show? ZERO.

So your saying the insurgency never had former iraqi warcriminals in it?
But wasnt the iraqi insurgency also partly created by the past regime...?



So far over 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died. 33 9-11’s worth. Mostly due to insurgents who were never there until your country illegally invaded.
[/qoute]
So that removes the blame of the people who fire the weapon becase its my countries fault for sending in our troops...right so its the police's fault if a criminal kills a inocent bystander if they move in to an already currupt area and act on bad evidence?
Right...


30+ people a day are kidnapped in Iraq. HUNDREDS die every week. You are in charge of the security of Iraq, therefore YOU are responsible for those deaths.
[
Woah wait ONE second there, I am incharge of nothing more than learning and the cadets that get placed under MY care and command. Secondly my government is doing everything it can to repair the damage it caused when acting instead of waiting to see if it all turned out ok at the end.
We may be responsible overall for those deathas but it does not remove the guilt nor does it allow the insurgents to commit crimes.



Yeah, of course the insurgents too, but the origin comes from your invasion.

One sentance? Thats it? Your telling me an orginisation that does what the coalition does everyday and uses tactics that even most intelligence services wouldnt use is simply "ok"?
Says a lot for your morals and what you think of war.



Um, because you’re supposed to be the good guys?

Wasnt it you who said that both sides are the bad guys and war regresses a human being? Makes him more violent and hateful?
If so then why are we doing everything we can to end it quickly and with the least ammount of blood shed and obeying these "civil" laws?



I mean, I think it’s obvious nobody is the good guys here, but people were under that illusion before you started torturing and extraditing people to countries for torture and illegally detaining people who end up dead.

So wait we're "supposed" to be both good and bad, right.....so that means where nothing right because a negative and positive cancel each other out....right?

My country does not extradite people nor does it torture and illegally detain them, unless you count the isle of white but frankly the peopel who visit there went freely! they knew the hell hole they where entering when they got off the ferry!




Kindly post the plan as you know it that the US Administration had for post-invasion Iraq. Thanks.

Simple, fix iraq, get out , bury the dead and begin the process of blame and bringing those who where to blame to justice.



No, the issue is : you brought all of this about by invading Iraq illegally.

So your concerned about who started this not by what can be done to stop it or whos dong what?
You want to make a case that the war was illegal and basically shatter the morale of the troops and in so probably break the back of the american war machine.
Am I correct so far?
No sorry we may have fought a war in thier country but it was there long before we got there. One little question you have to ask yourself though is this: If a burgler breaks into a house and kills a murderer trying kill the owner does that make him a criminal or a savior?


When it comes down to who is to blame, NONE of this would be happening if there were no American and British troops on the ground in Iraq.

None of this on this scale would be happening is what you mean, unless you forgot the iraqi resistance groups inside iraq fighting sadam and the local government raping, killing and basically being baddies to the local population.

]
That is the truth, accept it or deny it, but it’s there. I can guess what you'll do with it based on our past debates, though....

Can you? Wow have you been talking to john titor? I take you expect me to rise to the defence of the mighty war machine?



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Devilwasp:

So your saying the insurgency never had former iraqi warcriminals in it?
But wasnt the iraqi insurgency also partly created by the past regime...?


? Well yeah, of course there are Iraqi war criminals in the insurgency. Rumsfeld DISSOLVED the Iraqi Army within a week of taking Iraq. Just let them go home and take all their equipment home.

But none of these guys were massacring their own people with carbombs before Saddam’s government toppled. The first suicide bomber in Iraq happened when they were under US occupation. You created the environment for these suicide bombers to be active, it was noty pre-existing.


So that removes the blame of the people who fire the weapon becase its my countries fault for sending in our troops


Whatever. I said nothing of the sort, I said the insurgents are to blame as well. Worry about your own words before trying to twist mine.

Woah wait ONE second there, I am incharge of nothing more than learning and the cadets that get placed under MY care and command. Secondly my government is doing everything it can to repair the damage it caused when acting instead of waiting to see if it all turned out ok at the end.


Wrong. If you support your government’s policy and you pay your taxes, that blood is on your hands. They’;re being killed by American weaponry fired by Americans, made in America. You also support Israel’s military strikes against Palestinians, but that’s for another thread.

Secondly, your government is doing very little. 3.2 hours of electricity DAILY in Baghdad. People in the southern cities are DYING OF DIARRHEA because their water systems still are destroyed.


Says a lot for your morals and what you think of war.


Haha, yeah, sure. Me and my morals have nothing to worry about. Ask my pastor. Heck, ask yours.


My country does not extradite people nor does it torture and illegally detain them


The United States of America DOES. I don’t know for sure about the UK, is that where you’re from?


None of this on this scale would be happening is what you mean, unless you forgot the iraqi resistance groups inside iraq fighting sadam and the local government raping, killing and basically being baddies to the local population.


As Occupying Force, you are responsible for civilian security. So those deaths, again, are your responsibility to prevent.


If a burgler breaks into a house and kills a murderer trying kill the owner does that make him a criminal or a savior?


It makes him a bit of both.



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
? Well yeah, of course there are Iraqi war criminals in the insurgency. Rumsfeld DISSOLVED the Iraqi Army within a week of taking Iraq. Just let them go home and take all their equipment home.

How do you stop several thousand men and women from taking home weapons?
Please if you have some idea of how to do this I and probably Colonel collins would be very interested to know how.


But none of these guys were massacring their own people with carbombs before Saddam’s government toppled.

So its the way they do it that defines whats right and wrong...ok...I understand now.


The first suicide bomber in Iraq happened when they were under US occupation. You created the environment for these suicide bombers to be active, it was noty pre-existing.

What? Fear, pain and suffering? It was there, it was ALL there man....

The war hasnt changed, simply the means to fight have.



Whatever. I said nothing of the sort, I said the insurgents are to blame as well. Worry about your own words before trying to twist mine.

Whatever? You go on for pages and pages about US crimes but all you can say for iraqi insurgent crimes is "whatever"? Ha talk about double standards!
Oh but wait since the US do that , that means it ok? RIGHT?
I am not twisting your words, I am pointing out that you seem to think its ok for them to hack off heads aslong as we drop bombs.



Wrong. If you support your government’s policy and you pay your taxes, that blood is on your hands.

A) I dont pay taxes.
B) So your willing to accept the blood of american soldiers killed in training accidents since if you didnt pay your taxes they wouldnt be there.
No your making exscuses.


They’;re being killed by American weaponry fired by Americans, made in America.

A) scotland is not america.
B) British weapons are fired by british troops, unless the US army likes the SA-80A2?



You also support Israel’s military strikes against Palestinians, but that’s for another thread.

If palestinians blow up women and children then surely that fair...right?


Secondly, your government is doing very little. 3.2 hours of electricity DAILY in Baghdad. People in the southern cities are DYING OF DIARRHEA because their water systems still are destroyed.

My government has bugger all to do with baghdad, we control basra.
MY countries military is doing everything it can to restore peace, if not it wouldnt have treated the population the way it did.



Haha, yeah, sure. Me and my morals have nothing to worry about. Ask my pastor. Heck, ask yours.

Dont they? You advocate american bombing runs but ignore iraqi suicide bombers, does god not call for you to treat all men as equals?

I dont have a pastor, I dont believe in god.



The United States of America DOES. I don’t know for sure about the UK, is that where you’re from?

Well scotland sure aint a state of the US, the UK does not move people. Frankly the insurgents do this, so why shouldnt we? Oh wait we're the good guys and the bad guys....right?



As Occupying Force, you are responsible for civilian security. So those deaths, again, are your responsibility to prevent.

And they do try to prevent them but frankly you can hardly blame the coalition and not the insurgency for the killings?
It takes 2 sides to start a war, you cant fight the same team.



It makes him a bit of both.

So the coaltition is both right and wrong, interesting GREY area to come up with...



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 04:35 PM
link   
None of this would be happening to Iraq if you had not unilaterally invaded it, illegally, without UN sanction.

If you had UN support, some multinational armies, it would be working out better.

But you don't, so it isn't.

You broke it, you bought it.

You CREATED the situation, and now you are trying to blame someone else.

That you can't see that is frankly not surprising. But what it comes down to is that all of this is predicated on your decision to invade Iraq.

These are the consequences of that decision. So just keep feeding those soldiers into the meatgrinder, maybe eventually you'll learn your lesson by the time 10,000 or so of your sons and daughters in the military are dead.

Because 100,000 of Iraq's sons and daughters DEAD doesn't seem to matter one whit to you.



-jakomo



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
None of this would be happening to Iraq if you had not unilaterally invaded it, illegally, without UN sanction.

I'm afraid not, this would have happened if we had gone in WITH UN sanction or without it. The degree of killing is the only diffrence, sadamms henchmen would have killled no matter what the UN said or didd.


If you had UN support, some multinational armies, it would be working out better.

No it wouldnt.


But you don't, so it isn't.

Afraid not.


You broke it, you bought it.

Yes we broke the law to do something WE thought was right, would you have been crying foul IF weapons had been found in iraq?


You CREATED the situation, and now you are trying to blame someone else.

No I , do not confuse this with the UK statement, am trying to place blame on BOTH parties. Something you seem to refute yet when a crime is commited by the coalition you are willing to step up and list there faults yet when a crime is commited by the other side you do not........we now see what position you represent and what side your bias lies on.


That you can't see that is frankly not surprising. But what it comes down to is that all of this is predicated on your decision to invade Iraq.

You think I care more about who is right and wrong than stopping the killing?
I dont want another soldier to die, on EITHER side. I want my troops home ,I dont want any more folded unions being presented to ANY family because me government done what it thought was right.
But guess what? We're there, and only WE can change that but you care to live in the past and complain on about rights and wrongs of the war go ahead....


These are the consequences of that decision. So just keep feeding those soldiers into the meatgrinder, maybe eventually you'll learn your lesson by the time 10,000 or so of your sons and daughters in the military are dead.

Learn what? That wars not worth it? Yeah mabye YOU forgot that MY country fought more wars than your country has lived, my country spawned several countries and lost more men and women in all of those combined than yours could ever imagine.
Dont TRY and lecture me on why this war happened, I know why it happend and dont try and lecture me on who is right and wrong because I know who is right and wrong in MY opinion NOT yours. What I care about is keeping my country men alive 1 more day, just 1 more day so they can see thier familys and live happily.


Because 100,000 of Iraq's sons and daughters DEAD doesn't seem to matter one whit to you.

You think I wanted them dead? You think I wanted ANY of this to happen? No I wanted my countrymen NEVER to go to war, I wanted my country to be peaceful but frankly NO we cant have that. Frankly its people like you that think its better to debate who was right and wrong in a war than to STOP the killing altogether, the sooner our troops are out of iraq the sooner the supply of folded flags will stop.


Oh and By the way just to let you know over a 100 UK servicemen and women have died in the line of duty, they didnt ask for this war they simply done what thier country asked. Frankly anyone who has the indignity to call these men and women anything less than heroes in my mind is a sick individual, they gave thier lives so I could live longer. I wont know them or thier familes, I wont visit thier graves nor will their friends ask for anything more than just to be treated normaly. They didnt ask to fight nor to become heroes, they just wanted to go home and to the job they where good at or liked.

You may think this war is wrong and you may think all of the american servicemen are babykillers and rapists and what ever else you want to think.....but think of this....would you have the courage to go against your convictions and do NOT what you thought was best for your country but to do what was ASKED of you?

IMO no you wouldnt.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
None of this would be happening to Iraq if you had not unilaterally invaded it, illegally, without UN sanction.

If you had UN support, some multinational armies, it would be working out better.


We went in Unilaterally? So the US, UK, Poland, Japan, SK, Italy, Romania, Georgia, Denmark, Austrailia, El Salvador, Azerbajan, Mongolia, Albania, Latvia, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Slovakia, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Estonia, Macedonia, Kazakhstan, Canda, and Fiji is a unilateral action? I fail to see your point there. Who needs UN support, they are a toothless and worthless body. Its obvious with their handling of the Iran situation.

Oh and I forgot to mention Nations who went with us but are no longer there, the Netherlands, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Nicaragua, Honduras, Norway, Dominican Republic, Phillipines, Thailand, Hungary, New Zealand, Protugal, Singapore, Moldova, Tonga, and Iceland.

Gee, that sounds pretty multinational to me? Or did I miss something?



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 12:26 PM
link   
devilwasp:

The degree of killing is the only diffrence, sadamms henchmen would have killled no matter what the UN said or didd.


In financial markets, this is known as a "forward-looking statement". In English, you are saying something that you cannot in any way know to be true. NO MATTER WHAT THE UN SAID OR DID, huh?

I said If you had UN support, some multinational armies, it would be working out better.

Your well-thought out response:

No it wouldnt.


LOL! Ok, I win that one.


Yes we broke the law to do something WE thought was right, would you have been crying foul IF weapons had been found in iraq?


On 9-11, a bunch of Middle Eastern guys did something they knew was illegal but that they thought was right. So why the big deal about September 11th?

And save me the IFs. What if Saddam had the Fantastic Four on his side?


Frankly anyone who has the indignity to call these men and women anything less than heroes in my mind is a sick individual, they gave thier lives so I could live longer.


They're not heroes. They did not give their lives so you could live longer. Get a grip. They're tiny little cogs in a large war machine. If they live or die it doesn't make a difference. They are there to obtain an objective.


would you have the courage to go against your convictions and do NOT what you thought was best for your country but to do what was ASKED of you?


That is an excellent defense for any Nazi in the '40's.

I will NOT go against my convictions to do what my country says is best for it. ?!?! What the hell does that mean exactly? That I do something that I know to be WRONG but I do it to benefit MY SPECIFIC COUNTRYMEN?

Sieg Hiel, baby. You are living in the wrong time. They could have used people like you to stoke the ovens in Dachau. Nice Germans who know that what they're doing is absolutely morally wrong, but they do it because they believe it is for the good of their country.

And before you take me to task for calling you a Nazi, I am not. I am just saying that based on what you have just stated, you would have made a good one.

Ludachris:

We went in Unilaterally? So the US, UK, Poland, Japan, SK, Italy, Romania, Georgia, Denmark, Austrailia, El Salvador, Azerbajan, Mongolia, Albania, Latvia, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Slovakia, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Estonia, Macedonia, Kazakhstan, Canda, and Fiji is a unilateral action? I fail to see your point there.


How many battalions did Macedonia send? How many tanks from Azerbajian? Planes from Mongolia? You bribed and bullied them into joining.

What country is Canda?


Oh and I forgot to mention Nations who went with us but are no longer there, the Netherlands, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Nicaragua, Honduras, Norway, Dominican Republic, Phillipines, Thailand, Hungary, New Zealand, Protugal, Singapore, Moldova, Tonga, and Iceland.


Yeah they pulled out because their populations wanted them to. It's called Democracy. Does the majority of your country want to be in Iraq?

Hmm, that's weird that they DON'T and yet you're still there for the "foreseeable future". McDemocracy?


Gee, that sounds pretty multinational to me? Or did I miss something?


Maybe that the Coalition was a ragtag bunch of Third World countries who were promised US cash to join the Coalition in NAME ONLY! No actual TROOPS, just "support".

So ask Tonga for help if you need it now. Or Hungary. Or Honduras. I'm sure they will lend you some troops so that you can continue riddling the Iraqis with freedom.

I'm sure Fiji could lend you some army surfers or something.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
In financial markets, this is known as a "forward-looking statement". In English, you are saying something that you cannot in any way know to be true. NO MATTER WHAT THE UN SAID OR DID, huh?

Well unless your denying that sadamm did NOT kill all the people and the bodies found in iraq by various human rights groups are infact US forgeries and therefore untrue.

So you now write the dictionary?


I said If you had UN support, some multinational armies, it would be working out better.

No it wouldnt, they would STILL be fighting....


LOL! Ok, I win that one.

You do? Mabye you can explain to me and to the iraqi people WHY foriegn troops from the UN should come into thier country and kill thier countrymen?



On 9-11, a bunch of Middle Eastern guys did something they knew was illegal but that they thought was right. So why the big deal about September 11th?

Fact was they didnt do it to protect their way of life or are you saying that the airline company now had several long range bombers and the world trade centre was a ballistic missile silo?
AHHHHH ITS A CONSPIRICY!


And save me the IFs. What if Saddam had the Fantastic Four on his side?

Well your the one saying "IF you had UN support" , I'll save you the IFs and buts if you return the favour.



They're not heroes.

There not? Oh and would you call giving your life to do something that someone else couldnt or wouldnt be able to do not honourable?


They did not give their lives so you could live longer.

Why else join up?
They went there to do the job they asked for and part of that means laying your life on the line so the UK's civilians survive.


Get a grip.

Mabye you should first.


They're tiny little cogs in a large war machine. If they live or die it doesn't make a difference. They are there to obtain an objective.

To you maybe but to me they are living breathing people who went and done the job YOU asked them to do.
They are there to do what thier country asked them to do , if they live and die IT DOES make a diffrence. Or dont you know that you cant currupt a country if the losses are too high...right?



That is an excellent defense for any Nazi in the '40's.

I wouldnt say so....but hey mabye you have more experience in defending mass murderers than I do...


I will NOT go against my convictions to do what my country says is best for it. ?!?!

So you dont believe in democracy then instead you believe in dictatorships....hmm its starting to make sense..


What the hell does that mean exactly? That I do something that I know to be WRONG but I do it to benefit MY SPECIFIC COUNTRYMEN?

You do something that MIGHT be considered wrong because frankly YOU dont decide whats best for YOUR country, we vote and live in a democracy.
Demoracy sometimes means that we do things YOU dont like and frankly if you dont like it then WHY are you living in one?


Sieg Hiel, baby. You are living in the wrong time.

Yeah thats real great, mabye you want to put something inabout how all germans are nazies huh. Loose the sieg hiel racism crap and look at who caused what AFTER its done.


They could have used people like you to stoke the ovens in Dachau.

Pity MY country decided to fight against them, but oh wait does that mean I shouldnt have fought?


Nice Germans who know that what they're doing is absolutely morally wrong, but they do it because they believe it is for the good of their country.

Yet again whats with the whole thing against germans, do you hate europeans or are you just a WASP?



And before you take me to task for calling you a Nazi, I am not. I am just saying that based on what you have just stated, you would have made a good one.

Would I well I guess you obviosly have more experience in this field than I do since I honuestly think jews are nice.


How many battalions did Macedonia send?

How many do they need to send before you call them baby killers?


You bribed and bullied them into joining.

Says the man who thinks this would have been a better war if we had the UN onboard.



What country is Canda?

That country with like lots of ice, but wait its all part of the NWO isnt it!
CONSPIRICY!



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Devilwasp:

Well unless your denying that sadamm did NOT kill all the people and the bodies found in iraq by various human rights groups are infact US forgeries and therefore untrue.


You said that “No matter what the UN said or did the result would have been the same as it is now”. I said pretty much, “You CAN’T know that”, because, um, you can’t.

THEN, you say am I denying Saddam killed people in Iraq.

USE LOGIC. You’re all over the place.

Saddam killed thousands, yes. All the while he had U.S. backing. Right up until the day before the Kuwait invasion of 1991. So your entire “he massacred people” doesn’t wash, because it’s clear you are only using it to try and justify an illegal invasion.

You had NO problem with him massacring his people for the last 30 years, why the sudden shock? You had NO problem with allowing him to quash a Kurd rebellion in 1991 that could have overthrew him. You let him wipe out thousands of Kurds.

And one more time, this is all from your statement that the results would have been the SAME in Iraq if the UN had gone in with you. Stick to that statement and please back it up with something real.


No it wouldnt, they would STILL be fighting....


What facts do you base this statement on?


Mabye you can explain to me and to the iraqi people WHY foriegn troops from the UN should come into thier country and kill thier countrymen?


Do you see how there would less insurgents if instead of all Americans, there were Portuguese, French, German, and other countries helping? Instead of seeing only American faces they saw faces that reflected the rest of the world? Do you not acknowledge that a REAL multinational presence would be a benefit to IRAQ? Because that’s who this is about, right?


Oh and would you call giving your life to do something that someone else couldnt or wouldnt be able to do not honourable?


No, I would not call dying in a foreign land for corporate interests heroic at all. We obviously disagree on that.


To you maybe but to me they are living breathing people who went and done the job YOU asked them to do.


I didn’t ask them to do anything, so I don’t owe them anything. They choose to enlist knowing they might die, and they did. For essentially nothing.


So you dont believe in democracy then instead you believe in dictatorships....hmm its starting to make sense


? Democracy? You’re talking about soldiers dying in Iraq. They are not dying “for democracy”. Not mine, not yours, not the Iraqis. They’re dying for the corporate and economic and military interests of the United States of America.


Demoracy sometimes means that we do things YOU dont like and frankly if you dont like it then WHY are you living in one?


Here’s a little lesson. Living in a democracy, when my country does something that I don’t agree with, I have avenues in which to PROTEST them. In many, many ways. What I DON’T have to do is just say “Ah well, my country says I must, so I must.” That is not democracy. It’s cowardice.


Yeah thats real great, mabye you want to put something inabout how all germans are nazies huh.


Nope, in this specific instance just you.


Would I well I guess you obviosly have more experience in this field than I do since I honuestly think jews are nice.


And I don’t generalize. People are individuals. To say a whole segment of people are “nice” is simplistic. Just like saying a whole segment is “evil”.


That country with like lots of ice, but wait its all part of the NWO isnt it!
CONSPIRICY!


Well, you included Canada in the Coalition of the Weenies, and we had nothing to do with it. Nothing. Because Canadians took to the streets in massive numbers and let their politicians know that NO, WE DON’T WANT TO GO INTO IRAQ WITHOUT THE U.N.

And our government listened. Democracy at work.

And then our government fell due to a corruption scandal, and we voted in another one. Democracy at work.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
How many battalions did Macedonia send? How many tanks from Azerbajian? Planes from Mongolia? You bribed and bullied them into joining.

What country is Canda?

Yeah they pulled out because their populations wanted them to. It's called Democracy. Does the majority of your country want to be in Iraq?

Hmm, that's weird that they DON'T and yet you're still there for the "foreseeable future". McDemocracy?

Maybe that the Coalition was a ragtag bunch of Third World countries who were promised US cash to join the Coalition in NAME ONLY! No actual TROOPS, just "support".

So ask Tonga for help if you need it now. Or Hungary. Or Honduras. I'm sure they will lend you some troops so that you can continue riddling the Iraqis with freedom.

I'm sure Fiji could lend you some army surfers or something.


Whoops, yeah Canda is in Afghanistan thanks for catching that.

Sure these countries are helping out for financial gain, but it doesnt change the fact that they are there does it. Its still a multinational effort any way you slice it. It doesnt matter if they have little to contribute militarily, every little bit helps and it is appreciated. You can say what you want about those counties who pulled out of Iraq, if their country wanted them out of Iraq then thats their option. Youre right it is called democracy, so what are you implying? There are more than one level of support, from military, financial, to humanitarian aid, and many countries are involved there. Military help isnt really all that necessary, but if they want to help with troops, then great, if they want to help with the humanitarian effort of financially, thats great also. So what does it matter if they are helping out for their own benefit, they need it, nothings free.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
You said that “No matter what the UN said or did the result would have been the same as it is now”. I said pretty much, “You CAN’T know that”, because, um, you can’t.

Well lets look at the situation then:
UN goes in, violence and killing follows.
Coalition goes in: Violence and killing follows.
See a pattern?


THEN, you say am I denying Saddam killed people in Iraq.

USE LOGIC. You’re all over the place.

Actually I was adressing the fact of there would still be killing no matter what action happened.


Saddam killed thousands, yes. All the while he had U.S. backing. Right up until the day before the Kuwait invasion of 1991. So your entire “he massacred people” doesn’t wash, because it’s clear you are only using it to try and justify an illegal invasion.

Actually I'm not trying to justify anything to you, I dont need to.
He still killed after it actually unless your ignoring that and frankly what diffrence does it make if he was backed or not backed? Does that make the deaths worse by some weird logic?



You had NO problem with him massacring his people for the last 30 years, why the sudden shock?

I'm only 17 does that mean I'm responsible for my grandfathers acts or mabye my friends, fathers, half cousins actions?
No oh and frankly so what if past governments didnt have a problem with it, does this somehow make it betteR?



You had NO problem with allowing him to quash a Kurd rebellion in 1991 that could have overthrew him. You let him wipe out thousands of Kurds.

I dont nothing of the sort lol, my country may have but frankly that wasnt our fight nor wasnt our problem.


And one more time, this is all from your statement that the results would have been the SAME in Iraq if the UN had gone in with you.

Something real? Ok I'll tell you whats real: Pain, death and fear that comes from war, unchangable and unavoidable. Unless you think the UN would be able to do a better job in iraq? I severly doubt so..

[quote
What facts do you base this statement on?

The fact that not all iraqis supported sadam and many where fighting him, hell colonel collins had to stop one of these groups from killing several members of the local popuplation because of thier past actions.



Do you see how there would less insurgents if instead of all Americans,

Wouldnt make a diffrence, west is west and foriegn is foriegn.


Instead of seeing only American faces they saw faces that reflected the rest of the world?

I take it the small UK force at the very bottom of the insignigant corner of iraq doesnt get seen by the local population?
Noo obviosly not, it wouldnt matter if it was russian, argentinian or even cuban faces. Foriegn is foriegn.



Do you not acknowledge that a REAL multinational presence would be a benefit to IRAQ? Because that’s who this is about, right?

There is a REAL multinational force there unless you dont count several thousand troops as a "real" force?



No, I would not call dying in a foreign land for corporate interests heroic at all. We obviously disagree on that.

Oh so all wars are about corporate intrests , I take it your one of these people who beleive that the military are simply corporate pawns and that the oil companies rule the world.
Sorry but if you want to live in that frightened little world then go ahead because I wont join you.




I didn’t ask them to do anything, so I don’t owe them anything.

Do you like your country? Do you like having that house you have?
If it wasnt for the american might you'd find a lot of countries having a distinct intrest in american resources at home.


They choose to enlist knowing they might die, and they did. For essentially nothing.

Actually they joined because they wanted to defend thier country but hey obviosly you dont see it like that and you believe the best way to defend your country is via militia...right?



? Democracy? You’re talking about soldiers dying in Iraq. They are not dying “for democracy”. Not mine, not yours, not the Iraqis.

Yeah that little word you throw around then discount.
Soldiers are dieing for what THEY believe is freedom and democracy, without them the democracy of the united states no matter how currupt or evil it is would not survive. THAT is a fact you cant ignore unless you believe that your neighbors really dont envy those resources of yours at home.


They’re dying for the corporate and economic and military interests of the United States of America.

Says you and several people I have never met nor trust.



Here’s a little lesson. Living in a democracy, when my country does something that I don’t agree with, I have avenues in which to PROTEST them. In many, many ways. What I DON’T have to do is just say “Ah well, my country says I must, so I must.” That is not democracy. It’s cowardice.

Yes you can protest and say I dont want to do this but for society to move on you either have to accept it or leave, otherwise you will be forever stuck in deadlock and inaction. HENCE why there is a leader chosen to make decsions without him or her then it would be simply one group of people shouting at another.
If your country asks you to do something IE lots of people ask you to go and fight for them , and you are willing to what is the problem?



Nope, in this specific instance just you.

So you think that I am a left winger, yeah your right but frankly I'm more of a comunist myself actually.
And in this specific instance you seem more to be an anarchist and a rogue. All romantic and that but frnakly not someone I'd like to talk to.



And I don’t generalize.

I'm afraid you already have.


People are individuals.

Then why do you generalise people into camps of : nazies, baby killers and resistance fighters?


To say a whole segment of people are “nice” is simplistic. Just like saying a whole segment is “evil”.

Then why think that NAZI'S are evil, there are probably nice even if thier main party has questionable standards?


Well, you included Canada in the Coalition of the Weenies, and we had nothing to do with it.

No I didnt, where did I post that?


Nothing. Because Canadians took to the streets in massive numbers and let their politicians know that NO, WE DON’T WANT TO GO INTO IRAQ WITHOUT THE U.N.

So its ok if we get a big group of people to go kill people...right? Strength in numbers huh.


And then our government fell due to a corruption scandal, and we voted in another one. Democracy at work.

This has 0 bearing on the topic, waste of webspace.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Devilwasp:

There is a REAL multinational force there unless you dont count several thousand troops as a "real" force?


www.mpburton.com...

From 4/22/04, and many of these countries have now pulled out all their troops and withdrawn support.

Out of approximately 151,000 troops, 137,000 were from the U.S.. WHAT does 100 Thai troops help? 39 Macedonian ones? It’s cosmetic.


Youre right it is called democracy, so what are you implying?


A large proportion of the US public wants you out of Iraq, but Bush has said there is NO foreseeable end. They have said that you may be in as long as 10 years. To me, that means that the US lacks in the democracy department on this issue. It is clearly not in any way, shape or form the will of the people.


So what does it matter if they are helping out for their own benefit, they need it, nothings free.


Mostly they are helping because they were bribed or bullied into helping. And, um, they aren’t the good guys.

Seven nations on the list may be in the Coalition, but the Department of State warns Americans not to visit those countries because they could get killed, kidnapped or blown up.

Uganda, Rwanda and Honduras, the former Soviet-controlled nations of Georgia, Uzbekistan and Macedonia, and Colombia.


Unless you think the UN would be able to do a better job in iraq? I severly doubt so..


THANK YOU! That’s far and away from your previous claims that you were SURE that if the UN was there it would be the exact same. Thanks.


Wouldnt make a diffrence, west is west and foriegn is foriegn.


Really? I was under the impression America was more of the target. What other Western countries have Terror Alerts? What other western countries has Al Qaeda hit? The Spanish bombing was proven to have not been Al Qaeda…


If it wasnt for the american might you'd find a lot of countries having a distinct intrest in american resources at home.


Haha, like what? What resources?


Actually they joined because they wanted to defend thier country but hey obviosly you dont see it like that


At this point, very few US soldiers in Iraq are under the illusion they are defending America in any way.


HENCE why there is a leader chosen to make decsions without him or her then it would be simply one group of people shouting at another.


Well that ain’t democracy. Plutocracy.


All romantic and that but frnakly not someone I'd like to talk to.


So who’s forcing you? See ya, better luck next time.




top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join