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.

 

US Marines defeat Insurgent attack

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Fat-her (fat and her) Luke duke Fox to me isnt a news channel, its an entertainment channel where iget to see people chat for hours. so it doestnt mislead me
TVRI is one of the worst television stations on earth, i mean (televisi,republik Indonesia) sucks 1. they have bad schedules 2. they have bad programs 3. the news presented is vague so that is why i resort to Metro Tv Indonesias only news channel lol
its credible cuz they use sources like Fox And Sky! P.S everything on TVRI is Dubbed so i resort to watching American Tv Which is far better that you think so are the armed forces!




posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Rich23, I am very un-inclined to take seriously the supposed words of a former British SAS soldier over those of the dozens of my own countrymen who have been there and fought. It has already been shown that that former Marine, who wrote a book that he knew that the liberals would eat up, is now a liar. He made lots of bogus claims, about how he and his men supposedly had to kill innocent Iraqis, even a little girl (as to the age of this girl, it varies by his stories, sometimes she is 3 years-old, sometimes 6 years-old, etc....). He was proven a liar, even though he served over ten years in the Marine Corps.

This SAS soldier comes out saying this stuff and immediately the press falls all over it, completely ignoring the countless testaments from the actual Infantry soldiers who are over there.

Personally, I think that SAS soldier is just out for money, same as that Marine.

I noticed you also used Rolling Stone as one of your main sources on the Abu Ghraib (I can't spell it!) case. Rolling Stone is one of the most liberal sources out there, and they aren't even a decent authority. They're an ENTERTAINMENT magazine. You really expect me to take seriously the words from a very, VERY pro-liberal entertainment magazine?? At least get some better sources. Rolling Stone is known for manipulating the news left and right.

As for your claim that "the U.S. must pay to have favorable news stories printed in the Iraqi press," that is a lie, and the source you have used (New York Times) only shows it. You talk to half the soldiers over there who are actually building schools and hospitals for the Iraqi people, and working with the Iraqi forces (who BTW go out oftentimes in trucks to fight the terrorists as well, with a lot less equipment then the U.S. soldiers), and they will tell you that the American media NEVER covers these accomplishments. They only cover the bad things that happen there. The Iraqi press, however, does cover these things. When the election between Kerry and Bush was coming up, one of the Marines there, in a Recon unit, even wrote a letter to his brother saying about the work they are doing, but how none of it is reported on the American news networks, with the election leading up.

As for the NYT article, the NYT is a known manipulator of information. They are one of the most untrustworthy sources of information out there, another very pro-liberal news source.

You missed my point on the Abu Ghraib case. I did not claim that torture did not go on there, what I said was that the actions of the soldiers there do not represent the actions of the men and women of the U.S. military. What happened there was a bad thing, one that hopefully will not happen again. obviosuly, the soldiers there got carried away to an extent.

HOWEVER, the use of certain techniques to obtain information is justified under certain circumstances, which is pretty much what Rumsfeld said.

And yes, actually the Iraqi people do welcome the U.S. soldiers with open arms. They admire and respect them. You talk with sarcasm about the insurgents, as if they're Iraqis. The insurgents are not the Iraqi people. They are from the surrounding countries where hatred is generated towards the U.S. and the insurgency is an underground terrorist network.

And what's this about "thousands" killed in Fallujah? About 1200 insurgents were killed in Fallujah, and that was a brutal fight for the U.S. troops. But it was a major blow to the insurgency.

As for this country being "the greatest in the world," that's your opinion, but for the vast majority of people, it is. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many people coming to America from all over the world. We have the highest number of immigrants. As for the Latin American countries, their economies are their economies. We are not going to go and sacrifice our own economies to try and improve the Latin American economies. you really, really believe that would work? With all the corruption in those countries, all it would be is wasted money, ending up in the pockets of the politicians.

Despite this, however, because the U.S. had such a screwy foreign-policy with the Latin American countries during the 1980s and before (installing an oppressive gov't wasn't much help), the U.S. sent in the Special Forces later on to overthrow that government and make friends with the people, which has resulted in much friendlier relations with the nations there.

In a way, the United States is doing the same thing in Iraq. You cannot defeat terrorism through the killing of terrorists. As long as the hatred is there, for every terrirst you kill, more spring up in their place. The way to end the terrorism is to end the hatred. How? By creating an ew image of the U.S. in the Middle East.

During the 1980s, the U.S. had a really messed-up foreign policy with Iran and Iraq. It was essentially, "We don't give a da** who survives, just as long as you guys don't turn communist!" Many Middle Easterners remember this, and hate the U.S. for it. And the hate leaders fuel the uneducated masses in the Middle East on these forms of hatred.

When the U.S. toppled Saddam Hussein, no one knew if the U.S. would mess up the country moreso or improve it. They are improving it, although it is taking time. Bosnia was nothing compared with Iraq, and Bosnia took a long time, years. Iraq will similarly take years to get fully on its feet.

But when that time comes, there will be three thigns that have happened. One, people will see that the U.S. is not the old "we don't care who dies as long as you don't turn communist" type of nation. It will be shown to be a nation that toppled a ferocious dictator who tortured people and used its own troops and money to rebuild that nation.

Second, the U.S. will now have a base of operations in the Middle East.
Third, the U.S. will have a very friendly ally in the Middle East aside from Israel, which will create a better balance of power there, plus as I said, the terrorism will start to die down as there won't be so much hatred of the United States.

If our next President pulls us out of Iraq and messes it all up, though, it's going to be a big problem.

I do not get your claims for referring to the U.S. as a "bully" or in essentially making out as if Iraq was a good country. Iraq is a sh**hole, always has been, thanks to Saddam. Have you ever seen how much wealth he consumed for himself that could have been used for his own people? Or how about how he tortured people? You make out as if life in Iraq was nice for folks, when in reality it was a very oppressive regime.

The U.S. is not a bully; a bully pushes other people around for their own enjoyment or because they feel weak. The U.S. pushes other countries around that pose a possible threat to national security, that threaten the U.S.. If you want to look at a true "bully" in history, look at Great Britain. It is absolutely impossible to maintain a nation like the United States without maintaining a global presence, and that means squashing countries that pose literal threats. By "global presence," I do not mean have troops stationed all over the world, but rather by being involved in all the world affairs and watching what goes on, so if a threat arises, you can quelch it.

The United States could not be an isolationist country in today's world.

The U.S. use nuclear weapons? The U.S. has only used nuclear weapons in WWII, which was because it would have taken a lot more deaths to beat and invade Japan then the deaths caused by the atomic bombs. Yes, Japan was ready to surrender, only if they were allowed to keep their military and parts of their empire. The U.S. makes clear currently that it will make a nuclear strike on Iran if they do anything seriously threatening to the United States.

This is used as a scare tactic partially, and also so that they know we mean business. There is no such thing as fairness when it comes to national defense. Saddam Hussein, he used chemical weapons against the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war without much thought, however.

As for our not being part of the world-court, no matter what anyone thinks of our justice system, that doesn't matter. If our justice system is flawed (which it is), it is up to the American people to demand that changes be made. It is not up to other countries to dictate to the American people how justice should be. We are our own nation for a reason.

It's not that we avoid the world-court because we believe our system is superior necessarily. We avoid it because it would mean other countries dictating to Americans how to live, something that America will not stand for.

And yes, to the person who said this, if the UN disagrees with the United States on something regarding national security, in a ridiculous manner, the U.S. will go against them. With the knowledge held at the time on WMDs, and the fact that Saddam BROKE THE CEASE-FIRE, plus the other five reasons, the U.S. had every right to go into the Iraq. That is by international law. There is nothing illegal about the war.

As for Kofi Annan---well, of course the Secretary-General of the United Nations is going to be against the invasion of a country which was helping make money for the UN. That is primarily why France and Germany were against it as well. It cut off the money of a lot of countries that were doing illegal stuff with Iraq.

The UN is one of the most corrupt organizations on the face of this Earth. The United States works with them in most instances, but not as a sole part of them. Despite the dream of having a "global government" and a "global culture," that is a pure fantasy. Countries are countries, they all try to still compete for themselves. The United States will remain the United States and not subject itself to any manipulation from something like the UN. The U.S. uses it as a guideline. The U.S. went to the UN, asked for help and said what they thought, the UN said we disagree, so the U.S. decided to go it alone.

[edit on 20-4-2006 by WheelsRCool]



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Let me guess... you got all this information of of the Fox News?

Because that's exactly the same nonsense they feed their gullible and insecure viewers. Scare they heck out them then offer Bush as the only and only political savior.

Nothing from Fox News can be trusted.



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by WheelsRCool

And what's this about "thousands" killed in Fallujah? About 1200 insurgents were killed in Fallujah, and that was a brutal fight for the U.S. troops. But it was a major blow to the insurgency.


Please provide references for this information. According to Iraq Body Count:



www.iraqbodycount.net...

"[...] the Iraq Body Count (IBC) website has published its analysis of the civilian dealth toll in the April 2004 siege of Falluja. This analysis leads to the conclusion that betweeen 572 and 616 of the approximately 800 reported deaths were of civilians, with over 300 of these being women and children."

"The IBC totals are based on multiply-cited reports from doctors and eyewitnesses that no less than 308 of those killed were women and children. This number demonstrates the huge impact of US attacks on civilian areas, and allows the conclusion to be drawn that many of the males killed must also have been non-combatants."

"The project's Principal Researcher, Hamit Dardagan, commented "The unique IBC Falluja Archive allows members of the public to examine for themselves the multiple violations which yielded this shocking toll. These include attacks on ambulances and sniper fire at children as well as the aerial bombardment of residential areas."


The idea that the heroic Americans simply killed a load of 'insurgents' is military propaganda not backed up by ANY reliable and 'independent' source.



Second, the U.S. will now have a base of operations in the Middle East.


I thought you were spreading democracy. What if the Iraqi's don't want a US 'base of operations' on their soil?


The U.S. is not a bully; a bully pushes other people around for their own enjoyment or because they feel weak. The U.S. pushes other countries around that pose a possible threat to national security, that threaten the U.S..


Is this not a contradiction? You're not a bully, you just push other weaker countries around that 'threaten' the US?


and that means squashing countries that pose literal threats. By "global presence," I do not mean have troops stationed all over the world, but rather by being involved in all the world affairs and watching what goes on, so if a threat arises, you can quelch it.


'Squashing countries?, involved in all world affairs to 'quelch' threats. Sounds a little bit like throwing your weight around (or bullying) to me.


Saddam Hussein, he used chemical weapons against the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war without much thought, however.


Neither did the US give any thought when it supported Iraq in that particular spat.


It is not up to other countries to dictate to the American people how justice should be.


Pity you don't afford the same courtesy to the countries you 'decide' are a threat then.


And yes, to the person who said this, if the UN disagrees with the United States on something regarding national security, in a ridiculous manner, the U.S. will go against them. With the knowledge held at the time on WMDs, and the fact that Saddam BROKE THE CEASE-FIRE, plus the other five reasons, the U.S. had every right to go into the Iraq. That is by international law. There is nothing illegal about the war.


Aren't some of these reasons about breaking UNSCR's? Surely if you hold the UN in such contempt, the last thing your president should be doing is spending billions of tax dollars on prosecuting a war to uphold the UN resolutions???


The UN is one of the most corrupt organizations on the face of this Earth.


So why make a song and dance about Iraq not complying with their resolutions then?



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by 5ick8oy
The idea that the heroic Americans simply killed a load of 'insurgents' is military propaganda not backed up by ANY reliable and 'independent' source.




Dude who do you think we were fighting in Fallujah...children with guns?


















Of course if you take their guns away from their cold rotting bodies, they look like noncombatants.



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Your reference to the devastation caused during certain bombing campaigns during the Second World War is, in my view, irrelevant to this discussion. The situation was entirely different to the current one in the Middle East.


Well, let me enlighten you then, you specifically said that we bombed them back to the stone age which is completely false. I then remind you of what real unrestricted bombing does and that it is not in any way comparable to the damage suffered by some of the Iraqi cities. In Iraq the US has to fight the enemy inside civilian and population centers as such whenever we bombed something we were bound to hit a building or cause damage. However we have no choice but to fight in that terrain, the enemy chose that battlefield and we have to engage them, sitting back and not bombing because they happen to be inside of a house is not how you fight a war.

[edit on 20-4-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by firebat
Let me guess... you got all this information of of the Fox News?

Because that's exactly the same nonsense they feed their gullible and insecure viewers. Scare they heck out them then offer Bush as the only and only political savior.

Nothing from Fox News can be trusted.


Absolutely none of that information came from Fox. It came from Infantry soldiers who have been to Iraq and fought there and my own research. I learned a long time ago never to watch the news.

The big TV news sources are a business. They show stuff for ratings, not for truth, so I pay little attention to them. NONE of those news sources can be trusted.

The U.S. itself tends not to trust the UN, but it tries to work with them. It was the UN that did not want to uphold its own threats to Saddam.

Regarding that "base of operations" in the Middle East, if the Iraqi government wants the U.S. to leave, I am sure we will. Our whole premise there is to free the country. However, a U.S. military presence there in the form of a base can do a lot of good. It would not mean martial law or anything for the Iraqi people; they would be free, just as the South Koreans are free despite a U.S. military presence there. However, a base there would prevent surrounding countries that might be power-hungry from invading Iraq and starting a new war. And it would allow the U.S. to operate more effectively in the Middle East.

But to force a base on the newly freed Iraqis would go against the whole premise of the U.S. being there in many ways, if the Iraqis truly didn't want it. Remember, the idea to kill terrorism is to get people to like the United States, not get them to hate the U.S.



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 08:54 PM
link   
WheelsRCool, you said:


It has already been shown that that former Marine, who wrote a book that he knew that the liberals would eat up, is now a liar. He made lots of bogus claims, about how he and his men supposedly had to kill innocent Iraqis, even a little girl (as to the age of this girl, it varies by his stories, sometimes she is 3 years-old, sometimes 6 years-old, etc....). He was proven a liar, even though he served over ten years in the Marine Corps.

If you cannot tell me who this Marine is, then I cannot check the assertions that you're making. If you want to argue, then learn to argue properly. Whenever I can, I make it easy for people to see where I've got my facts from. That way they can check them. (Or, in your case, dismiss the NYT reports.) You have given me no way to check, therefore there's no reason I should treat any of the above as anything other than meaningless garbage.


Personally, I think that SAS soldier is just out for money, same as that Marine.

So you lump Ben Griffin in with someone you cannot name and whom you've heard is a liar. You have no evidence whatsoever to indicate that Ben Griffin is out for money. He has had to leave his regiment under a cloud. All he has done is given an interview to the press. And to the Telegraph, the mouthpiece of the security services and by far the most right-wing of the quality dailies.

But you know what? There's more. This is an article by Max Hastings, one of our most gung-ho correspondents. And look what we find! It's not just Ben Griffin who doesn't like whom he's fighting alongside...

Here is a quote from a British security contractor in Iraq about his American counterparts: "I hate those bastards more than the scumbag insurgents." A British colonel recently returned from a tour in the country said that, in our next war, he would sooner fight alongside the Russians than the US.
This is another quote from a British security contractor: "The American way is not my way. I don't mind a scrap but I draw the line at mooning the enemy and inviting him to shoot at my backside, and that's virtually what the Yanks are doing. I'm also convinced that many Americans hate the Iraqis, not just the insurgents but all Iraqis… What a mess."

Those last lines are taken from a rather good new book about the experience of Iraq today, Highway To Hell, written by an ex-SAS man who signs himself John Geddes. My point in all the above, is to show that Ben Griffin, the former SAS soldier who vents his dismay about what is happening to Iraq in today's Sunday Telegraph, is not a lone voice.

There is a widespread belief in both British special forces and line regiments that American tactics are heavy-handed and counter-productive; that firepower continues to be used as a substitute for a "hearts and minds" policy; that local people will never be persuaded to support Coalition forces unless Americans, in uniform and out, treat ordinary Iraqis vastly better than they do today.

If you want to accuse the Telegraph of anti-US bias, go ahead. But any UK newspaper reader will laugh you out of town... it'd be like saying Fox News is communist. And Max Hastings... it'd be like Geraldo calling the soldiers 'trigger-happy baby-killers'.



You really expect me to take seriously the words from a very, VERY pro-liberal entertainment magazine?? At least get some better sources. Rolling Stone is known for manipulating the news left and right.

I've already given you more sources than you have given me. All you can do is whine about 'liberal bias'. If you can give me at least two documented instances of Rolling Stone distorting facts, then I will actually go back and do that. I will find you LOTS of sources, but only if you can prove that RS have distorted facts. That's being fair to the point of generosity, frankly, but I think I can afford it. I'm happy to show you my sources.

Hm... I rather think you're tying yourself in knots on this one:



As for your claim that "the U.S. must pay to have favorable news stories printed in the Iraqi press," that is a lie, and the source you have used (New York Times) only shows it. You talk to half the soldiers over there ... and they will tell you that the American media NEVER covers these accomplishments. They only cover the bad things that happen there. The Iraqi press, however, does cover these things.

Is that because they're being paid to do so? You can whine about the source all you want, but you've admitted that the Iraqi press covers things the US press doesn't. Although to moan about 'liberal bias' in the US media is such a joke. Anyway, I've found several sources about the Rendon group

The Pentagon stipulates that the Rendon Group will receive $400,000 for four months of work. Details are confidential, but according to the San Jose Mercury News, Rendon will be monitoring international news media, conducting focus groups, creating a web site about the US campaign against terrorism, and recommending "ways the US military can counter disinformation and improve its own public communications."

You can find the body of that article here, but here's a highlight:


"How is it that the country that invented Hollywood and Madison Avenue has such trouble promoting a positive image of itself overseas?" asked Rep. Henry Hyde, chairman of the House International Relations Committee. President Bush has expressed similar bafflement. "I'm amazed that there's such misunderstanding of what our country is about that people would hate us," he said. "We've got to do a better job of making our case."

I particularly love that. Actually, what it is, is that people outside the US have a far better idea of what the country is really up to, whereas people inside the country have a pressing emotional need to think of themselves as the good guys.

But for multiple sources on the Rendon Group, PR to the US govenrment (and the ones who make sure that pro-US stories get into the Iraqi press), look here, here, here, here, and here.

Conclusion: the US pays for stories in the Iraqi press.



HOWEVER, the use of certain techniques to obtain information is justified under certain circumstances, which is pretty much what Rumsfeld said.

Oh. You mean torture. You mean the killing of victims under interrogation, as emerged in a trial fairly recently when the interrogator took an old man, put a sleeping bag over his head and sat on him, suffocating him. As I said before, torture doesn't work.

EDIT:
Oh, rats. Clicked 'edit post' instead of 'preview'. It's late and I'm getting tired. Never mind, that's enough for tonight. You must know by now that I could go through the rest of your post with a fine-toothed comb and point out every inaccuracy, logical fallacy and elision. But why bother? Your grasp of your own country's foreign policy is about as tight as a baby's on a buttered anvil. When people buy into the myth that badly, no amount of evidence is enough to wake them up.

[edit on 20-4-2006 by rich23]



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 10:59 PM
link   
The Marine is Jimmy Massey. And of course there is no information that the SAS soldier is lying. How would anyone know? No one knew that Massey was lying, including the Marine Corps (they said his claims were inconclusive). It was discovered he was lying when his stories started becoming too inconsistent and background checks were conducted on him. It was also found that none of the news media that had been embedded with his unit had been interviewed to find if his stories had any basis of truth.

As for the Max hastings article, he's using only a few British soldiers for his "sources," of which I am not about to believe. What really got me was the claim that the American Special Forces are so gung-ho on killing the terrorists. Special Forces are some of the most professional soldiers in the world; their objective is to build rapport with the foreign forces (something they did very much in Afghanistan), not to make enemies. The saying of the Army Special Forces is "De Oppresso Liber," or "To Free the Oppressed," something they have been doing very effectively since World War II.

I am very uninclined to believe that guy's article. As for liberal media bias, you can deny that all you want, anyone who has read or watched the major news sources (CNN, NBC, ABC, newsweek, NYT, LAT, etc...) can tell you the majority of them are very liberal.

Regarding Rolling Stone, they have done everything from claim that Iraq is "burning," (something totally inaccurate) to saying that the soldiers there are building "ramshackle schools and hospitals," and so forth. They have also claimed that the U.S. has "lost the War in Iraq," which is not true at all, and they claimed it is "beginning to look a lot like Vietnam," something that is totally blasphemy. Rolling Stone's tone is not even that of one that cares much for the country, but moreso one of pure hatred.

I find it very sad that people actually believe all of these things. You ignore the facts I have posted on why the U.S. went into Iraq, and have only countered with what are, to me, very questionable news sources for the most part.

I find it very funny that the insurgents in Iraq, the ones who took Margaret Hassoon, the director of C.A.R.E. in Iraq and an Iraqi citizen, and tortured her and left her diemboweled on the street on Fallujah, are let off the hook, but when that one battle-weary Marine made a quick (and ultimately wrong) decision to shoot that one Iraqi, that footage was shown all over the world repeatedly on every major news network. Nothing was shown on the C.A.R.E. worker at all (and people claim the media isn't liberal).

People also seem to conveniently forget about how the insurgents had huge stockpiles of weapons in schools and mosques because they know that the U.S. will not destroy such buildings.

And no, I do not mean torture. I said there are certain techniques that are permitted to be used to obtain information from prisoners. Torture is a bit different. No U.S. soldier is allowed to burn or cut prisoners to extract information; if they do, it is being done illegally.

As for the U.S. paying the Iraqi press, yes, this was done, but it was done in an effort to counter the news placed from the insurgency. This was a legit program being done by the U.S. military, however, it apparently veered off into a gray area in some instances.

I think that we have to agree to disagree rich23, because it is very obvious neither of us will change the views of the other one. My main sources are not from news outlets, but from Infantry and some SF soldiers who have been over there. To me, they are the most legit soures of information.

[edit on 20-4-2006 by WheelsRCool]



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 02:00 AM
link   
Bombing in Iraq is pretty tough even fro the most expirienced forces. Well Iraqi Houses are made of plster of stacked stones that are stuck together with plaster or mortar some lined with asbestos and tin roofs.
Do you Know what will happen when a precision guided bomb/laser guided/radar guided detonates near or at least 400 yards would create a shockwave or vibration that would asically knock down the iraqi houses resulting in civilian causalties. Besides NO American Bomb has ever landed on an iraqi house, Pictures from Frnech TV (More Gore) shows that the victims suffered no burns, they were merely crushed by their own Houses.

In every war there will always be Civilian casualties!

In fallujah American Forces fought Well Basically took a chunk out of the insurgent network! Besides The Insurgents were not armed children!



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by WheelsRCool

Second, the U.S. will now have a base of operations in the Middle East.
Third, the U.S. will have a very friendly ally in the Middle East aside from Israel, which will create a better balance of power there, plus as I said, the terrorism will start to die down as there won't be so much hatred of the United States.

I do not get your claims for referring to the U.S. as a "bully" or in essentially making out as if Iraq was a good country. Iraq is a sh**hole, always has been, thanks to Saddam. Have you ever seen how much wealth he consumed for himself that could have been used for his own people? Or how about how he tortured people? You make out as if life in Iraq was nice for folks, when in reality it was a very oppressive regime.


[edit on 20-4-2006 by WheelsRCool]


OK...

You said that you don't trust Hastings because he cited testimony, yet you do the same thing to support your view.
As for being in it for the money, you have the wrong people (not saying this guy isn't one, but he's far from the big winner). Do I even have to mention who's getting all the cake from this operation?

As for you doubting the favorable stories...



It is ADMITTED that the Pentagon puts out fake news stories in Iraq; hell, they do it here too! And, the "bad apples" thing about the torture. You conveniently forget about the torture memos and the fact that Bush wanted to veto anti-torture legislation. Sure it was just a few bad apples.

And sure, some Iraqis did welcome our boys...until they started slaughtering them.

I'm not even going to respond to the rest of the stuff you said. Honestly, you sound like an up and coming globalist, with your talk of no isolationism, the US being a global force, and the US having a presence in the Middle East.



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
Dude who do you think we were fighting in Fallujah...children with guns?


Read my earlier post and the IBC research and you will see that many of those killed in Fallujah *before* the US dumped bombs and phosphorous all over it included a significant number of children without guns dude

What exactly are those pictures you posted trying to prove? The military are not going to go around taking or releasing pictures of dead women and children..



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Well, let me enlighten you then....


LOL


you specifically said that we bombed them back to the stone age which is completely false.


Ok, I admit it was a 'figure of speech' and a rather 'sweeping' generalisation. That said, I do not agree with your statement that I am 'completely false'. The point was made as a response to an earlier poster who quoted his 'Drill Sergeant' saying that the place smelled of sh** and p** and was distinctly unpleasant. Maybe they just bombed that place back to the 'middle ages' rather than the stone age.



I then remind you of what real unrestricted bombing does and that it is not in any way comparable to the damage suffered by some of the Iraqi cities.


Please don't patronise me. I am capable of understanding the scale of damage caused by 'real unrestricted bombing'. And I totally agree that it is not comparable to the damage suffered by some cities. They're the lucky one's then.



However we have no choice but to fight in that terrain, the enemy chose that battlefield and we have to engage them [...]


The enemy did not CHOOSE any battlefield. In fact the enemy did not choose to fight at all. As I recall they were subject to pre-emptive military action by the most heavily armed nation in the world. Expecting them to 'engage' the might of the US armed forces on an open battlefield is more than a little naive.



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 04:10 AM
link   
I think the most revealing line in your diatribe is:

they claimed it is "beginning to look a lot like Vietnam," something that is totally blasphemy.


Anyone with a detached eye and a sense of history can see the parallels between Iraq and Vietnam. You, on the other hand, find it 'blasphemous' to even suggest it. It reveals that this is a faith-based argument and, as you have said, your mind won't be changed because you have a religious faith in the goodness and purity of US soldiers and your government's motives and no amount of actual evidence will change this.

It's pitiful. All discussion with you is therefore futile. If you're not prepared to enter into discussion, why are you even here? You might be here to preach your faith, but most of us are hear to reason.

I looked up Jimmy Massey. IF you think you can demonstrate to my satisfaction that he lied, go ahead. Just making the accusation isn't enough. If you can provide sources and quotes to back up the assertion that he changed his story, please do. Until then, the weight of evidence is against you. What I see is that someone got sick of the vile things he was having to do, got PTSD discharge, told the press the real story, and then the right wing attack dogs (who, inevitably, have to avoid or distort the facts in order to make their case) in the press did their thing.

I doubt very much that you have the intellect or the will to do anything other than make 'faith-based' assertions like this. Certainly not to back it up with quotations and sources the way we all learn to do on this forum.

You've probably never seen a copy of the Telegraph in your life and yet you accuse it of liberal bias. You write off the testimony of some soldiers over others and make vague accusations that the testimony that you don't like is motivated by money. BACK IT UP with some sources and facts we can check. Otherwise, you're just a windbag.

Here's another gem from your post:


anyone who has read or watched the major news sources (CNN, NBC, ABC, newsweek, NYT, LAT, etc...) can tell you the majority of them are very liberal.

Anyone? You'll really have to do better than that. The reality is that the US media is owned by a handful of corporations who ruthlessly restrict the reporting of inconvenient stories. For example, just after taking control of Iraq, Dubbya transferred the billions of dollars in the oil-for-food programme to the CPA. Those billions promptly disappeared.

What this report most shockingly reveals, however, is that the billions of dollars of oil money that has already been transferred to the US-controlled Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) has effectively disappeared into a financial black hole. For all the talk of freedom and democracy for the Iraqi people – before, during and after the war which toppled Saddam Hussein – there is no way of knowing how the vast majority of this money has been spent.

This situation is in direct violation of the UN resolution that allowed Iraqi assets to be transferred to the CPA. Indeed, the body that is supposed to oversee how Iraq’s assets are used has not even been set up yet.


Have you ever heard this story? Did any of the liberal media report this theft of billions of dollars? No, and no. Oh, and who are the authors of this shocking report? Step forward those well-known Islamofascists Christian Aid.

You can find the report here.

Liberal bias, indeed.



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by WheelsRCool
Regarding that "base of operations" in the Middle East, if the Iraqi government wants the U.S. to leave, I am sure we will.



I admire the faith you have in your Government. Personally I do not share that faith. Indeed, have I not recently read on another thread about an enormous, permenant base of operations being constructed at the moment. The signs do not look good for the US forces withdrawing any time soon.



And it would allow the U.S. to operate more effectively in the Middle East.


Ah. Now we're cutting to the chase....



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gembelindo
Well Iraqi Houses are made of plster of stacked stones that are stuck together with plaster or mortar some lined with asbestos and tin roofs.


Perhaps using bombs against these fragile structures is a little bit 'over the top' then?



Besides NO American Bomb has ever landed on an iraqi house, Pictures from Frnech TV (More Gore) shows that the victims suffered no burns,[...]
]

I would be very interested to see the sources you get this information from as I find it more than a little hard to believe that 'NO' US bomb has 'EVER' landed on an Iraqi house.


[...]they were merely crushed by their own Houses. In every war there will always be Civilian casualties!


MERELY ? This comment is particularly disgusting.



The Insurgents were not armed children!


No a bunch of them were 'unarmed' children.

BTW 'IF' you want to be taken seriously by anyone in the 'outside' world, your pathetic picture of a Hummer painted up like the General Lee is not the way to go about it. It simply reinforces the view some of us have of the US acting in an arrogant and unprofessional way.



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 04:33 AM
link   
What you dont like the General Lee?! Southern pride!



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
What you dont like the General Lee?! Southern pride!


LOL...

It's nothing personal about the General Lee, I just don't like orange.... It reminds me of an Aunt who used to spend a lot of time under a sunbed....Anything orange now gives me the creeps



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 06:54 AM
link   

It is ADMITTED that the Pentagon puts out fake news stories in Iraq; hell, they do it here too!


Oh really, it is admitted, eh? I’m sure then you wont have any trouble posting some sources concerning these fake stories placed in Iraqi and US news outlets. Remember that word fake, because I know exactly what your going to post, cheers.


Expecting them to 'engage' the might of the US armed forces on an open battlefield is more than a little naive.


And expecting the US military to not engage the enemy when they seek refuge in civilian center is also a little naive don't you think?



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
And expecting the US military to not engage the enemy when they seek refuge in civilian center is also a little naive don't you think?


It would be if that is what I thought. Sadly I DID 'expect the US military to do just that. I just don't happen to agree that it is the right way of conducting a campaign that is supposed to 'win the hearts and minds' of the population, or 'spread democracy' through the country. Hell, I don't even think the US military should be there in the first place.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join