Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

What Really Happened In Fallujah 2004?

page: 8
0
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 6 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   

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From 4/22/04, and many of these countries have now pulled out all their troops and withdrawn support.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

Yeah and the several THOUSAND british troops in southern iraq are american imigrants are they?
Get real its multinational, if you think its cosmentic then fair enough but if the UN got involved almost the entire task force would be american. Like in operation desert storm.



A large proportion of the US public wants you out of Iraq, but Bush has said there is NO foreseeable end.

Yet again ME?
What is this "you" stuff all about , I'm not in iraq and I'm no soldier. So you dont believe what bush tells you 99% of the time but this one phrase you believe?
Come on get real.


They have said that you may be in as long as 10 years.

Yet again whats this "me" about?
Since when does anything take less than a decade or near a year to settle? The balklands are still unsettled and frankly afghanistan is even worse.
[qupte]
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.

Is it not? And which part of the people does it not support? Your side or everyone elses?



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

Oh arnt they? Since when does good and bad come into the equation without you taking sideS?
Its all perception and opinion.
Yeah sure , bullied bribed, joined willingly against your wishes. Its all the same right?


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.

Yes and how many of those nations are in the UN?
How may of them would the UN use sanctions and troops to help?
Not many I imagine.


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

And how many nations like this took part in afganistan, UN peacekeeping operations and the likes?



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.

Eh? I said I very much doubt that UN could do better infact I think it would be worse....



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…

Eh? Every country has terror alerts, just some dont reach national or international level.
Oh and BTW since when did Al Qaeda come into this. This is about iraq , iraq has more than 1 rogue group in it.



Haha, like what? What resources?

Like say american technology, like that high tech internet you have....would you like china to knock off a quick copy and allow you to buy it for half the price?
America has many resources, hell the fact that it can produce oil or more precisely refine it is a resource that many countries dont do the same extent.




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

Really?
I take it this survey of yours (I guess this is another 100 person survery) surveyed several and I repeat several THOUSAND soldiers, marines, airmen and sailors over there?
Did it? Did it honuestly survey everyone?



Well that ain’t democracy. Plutocracy.

Actually its more the central view you can have, balance of right and left.
If you want more left IE: commitees then nothing will happen.
Hence why there is a chairman of the board, team captain, Manager, director and basically orginiser.
The "democracies" are all nice and fine but break down with groups bigger than usually around 4 or 5, simple leadership and team building.



So who’s forcing you?

No one, hence why I am not talking to you.


See ya, better luck next time.

et vous




posted on May, 9 2006 @ 11:53 AM
link   
devilwasp: Your arguing would do much better if you actually responded with any info that you can back up. With, you know, facts.


America has many resources, hell the fact that it can produce oil or more precisely refine it is a resource that many countries dont do the same extent.


Or that makes sense.

Oil refining is not a resource. The US has few to no resources that any country would want.

Your responses don't even seem to be related to the questions oft-times.


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


Oh arnt they? Since when does good and bad come into the equation without you taking sideS?
Its all perception and opinion.
Yeah sure , bullied bribed, joined willingly against your wishes. Its all the same right?


What does that mean? Are you disagreeing with the fact they were bribed and bullied into helping? Put your sentences together with more diligence, please.


-jako



-jako



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
devilwasp: Your arguing would do much better if you actually responded with any info that you can back up. With, you know, facts.

Ok facts:
The US is one of the biggest technological and economical powers on the planet.
The US is one of the largest agricultural producers on the planet.
The US has a large supply of natural resources: Coal, petroluem and precios metals.



Or that makes sense.

Oil refining is not a resource.

The technology to refine oil IS a resource worth having, unless you can purify it with out knowing how?


The US has few to no resources that any country would want.

So you admit the US has resources that a country would want, disregarding the size and amount of the resources then?





What does that mean?

It means your taking sides and defineing who is the good and bad guys, in that argument NO one wins. Why? Because its all about opinion.


Are you disagreeing with the fact they were bribed and bullied into helping?

I'm disagreeing with what you call a fact, where they bribed or was it simply money to help them get thier troops into combat?


Put your sentences together with more diligence, please.

I did, your just wanting me to break it up to adress every line of your post.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Sorry, devilwasp, but if you think our govt's plan was to fix Iraq and get out...



Guess those bases and the new uber UN building are signs of a "fix it and leave" strategy.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 04:36 PM
link   
devilwasp:

So you admit the US has resources that a country would want, disregarding the size and amount of the resources then?


Well, yeah
I'm sure if someone wanted, um, cadmium or nickel or something, maybe the USA has a lot. BUT their resources are depleted. There are countries with far better and more easily accessed resources.

NOBODY would invade the US to occupy it, since you don't produce anything. Except maybe tax revenues.


I'm disagreeing with what you call a fact, where they bribed or was it simply money to help them get thier troops into combat?


No, they were bribed.

www.ips-dc.org/COERCED.pdf

Look, I can understand you support the USA, I do on some things too. But can you also admit when things are obvious? Like the CotW being bribed to join?

If it was REALLY a war to bring peace and democracy to Iraq, do you not think the rest of the world would have joined? Don't we all want that?

-jako



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
Well, yeah
I'm sure if someone wanted, um, cadmium or nickel or something, maybe the USA has a lot.

Well precios metals are used quite a lot you know.



BUT their resources are depleted. There are countries with far better and more easily accessed resources.

Are there? Could you name a few in the continent of north america?


NOBODY would invade the US to occupy it, since you don't produce anything. Except maybe tax revenues.

Not all of it no, just parts of it. Oh and yes I think you would aqquire a nice piece of real estate in there and a bigger population pool.



No, they were bribed.

www.ips-dc.org/COERCED.pdf

You expect me to believe something which has coerced in the title...?
Right,...


Look, I can understand you support the USA, I do on some things too.

Huh?
I support the united kingdom, the US is a good ally and all but I dont really support them.


But can you also admit when things are obvious? Like the CotW being bribed to join?

Admit what? That large sums of money and resources are transfered from country to country in exchange for favours?
Its called diplomacy.



If it was REALLY a war to bring peace and democracy to Iraq, do you not think the rest of the world would have joined? Don't we all want that?

Not really, not everyone wants to go send thier troops to fight someone elses war.
If the iraqis wanted peace they would have got it themselves, RIGHT?
If we stick our heads in the sand and ignore a problem, it goes away...RIGHT?





new topics

top topics
 
0
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join