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 losing the war in Iraq

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 06:09 AM
link   
Ach, the reason why America is losing the war in Iraq, is because they can't win. No exit strategy was thought up, the Americans just stumbled in their own buffoonish way, blasting everyone up, and then hoping that they'd accept occuption and democracy, because the Iraqi people want "freedom". If they really wanted a democracy, then they would have toppled Saddam themselves. It's quite an arrogant claim to talk about freeing the Iraqi folk, when you steal their oil, kidnap their citizens etc.

It's such a sad state of affairs really. How many people have lost their lives? And for what? WMDs that didn't exist?
For "freedom"?
For oil?
Are people's lives really worth that wretched substance? I believe that the loss of even one life in this conflict is a tragedy beyond measure. It is working class/poor people against working class/poor people, protecting the very systems that enslave us.




posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 08:44 AM
link   
ofcource they want freedom their fighting for it tooth and nail, that's why so many americans are dying.



I meant things would be different had Britain stayed completely out of the Asian and Middle Eastern regions. No crusades. No occupation. No drug harvesting, no raping, no pillaging, and no plundering. The situation now would of course be different had none of this happened, and that's not really open for debate.


agreed.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
ofcource they want freedom their fighting for it tooth and nail, that's why so many americans are dying.



And why are so many Iraqis getting killed by these so called freedom fighters than American military personnel?


In the name of freedom and resistance to occupation? Or in the name of retaking power that they lost?



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   
The only Iraqies the resistance kills, are collaborators who actively work the the occupation, only security forces, army, police, death squads such as the badrbrigades/interior ministry, and the politicians.




posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
The only Iraqies the resistance kills, are collaborators who actively work the the occupation, only security forces, army, police, death squads such as the badrbrigades/interior ministry, and the politicians.



Uhuh, so that includes those in mosques, markets, funerals, as well as people just walking by? They are considered collaborators, or just means of terrorizing the population and make the new Iraqi govt. look weak that it can't protect its own people



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 09:52 AM
link   
The problem is that is not just making the Iraq government weak, is already week.

As long as is backed by one side and supporter by the US is lacks the support of all the tribes in Iraq.

Right now no even with the help of US forces can the Iraq government take hold of his capital city.

That alone is a big blow on the stability of the nation.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 10:13 AM
link   
^your puppet regime is a joke and all those who took part in it will be executed.


f you wanna get technical, we already won the war. We bombed, we invaded, we took their leader and instated a new government. American wins, FATALITY!


DO you really think you puppet regime will last a second after your gone? pathetic.

have you learnt nothing from vietnamn? You will never win the war so best leave and not let more of your "boys" die.
-----------------


Uhuh, so that includes those in mosques, markets, funerals, as well as people just walking by?


No it doesn't.

When a mosque or a market is bombed, most likely it is the occupation forces trying to spark secterianism and civil war, divided and conquer you know the drill. They did it to lebanon and now iraq.

As for people walking on the street, why don't you ask your soldiers. When we hear on the news "1 US soldier and 7 civilians killed due to IED," or "caught in the crossfire".
We'll know it's because after sustaining an attack your gunho cowardly troops fired indiscreminantly in the crowds around them, or maybe it was that they raped a 14 year old girl then massacred her whole family before burning her remains, and then have the news cover it up nicely for them saying it was an IED.

This time the evidence that it wasn't the IED was just to much, and the whole story caved in, leaving the western media red faced. The report what they are told, they investigate nothing.

or have you forgotten about haditha? Your tired old lies aren't going to wash with me.

------------------

this is a bit of topic but isn't it ironic that the last three posters including me, all had weapons in their avatar?



[edit on 8-9-2006 by Syrian Sister]



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astygia
...but I'm not the only ex-soldier (or current soldier) that realizes we were a tool, and that's a disgusting feeling.


Nor were you the only citizen...

The entire American public was buffaloed and used as a tool. Sad indeed.


Nice contribution, Astygia.


[edit on 8-9-2006 by loam]



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
No it doesn't.

When a mosque or a market is bombed, most likely it is the occupation forces trying to spark secterianism and civil war, divided and conquer you know the drill. They did it to lebanon and now iraq.

As for people walking on the street, why don't you ask your soldiers. When we hear on the news "1 US soldier and 7 civilians killed due to IED," or "caught in the crossfire".


How about when you see suicide bombers in mosque attacks as well as police stations that would included would that be fair to you? And of course they gonna target Americans as well as civilians, even if Americans troops not around they still be attacking Iraqi civilians.


We'll know it's because after sustaining an attack your gunho cowardly troops fired indiscreminantly in the crowds around them, or maybe it was that they raped a 14 year old girl then massacred her whole family before burning her remains, and then have the news cover it up nicely for them saying it was an IED.

or have you forgotten about haditha? Your tired old lies aren't going to wash with me.


I'm sorry but where does it say they burn bodies and say its an IED? Bodies don't look like IEDs. It's sad that some American soldiers raped and kill the family, but thats for personal reasons instead of the political objectives like the insurgents that intentionally targets civilians. You pretty much believe this resistance that don't kill innocents but targets American soldiers only right? I could post links of articles where insurgents targets civilians intentionally. But then you say they are death squads or something close to it. How about we go a few days in the news where Iraqi civilians are being killed, but then you would say its Mossad or something. Its understandable.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 10:44 AM
link   
I see you don't really know enough about the situation deltaboy to understand what i'm saying.

Allow me to make it simpler for you.

On Nov. 20, the western press/media issued a statement saying that on the previous day a roadside bomb had killed 15 civilians and a Marine in haditha.

A month later however the true story began to unravel. Because this time, they had to admit it, this time someone videotaped the truth.


A videotape taken by an Iraqi showed the aftermath of the alleged attack: a blood-smeared bedroom floor and bits of what appear to be human flesh and bullet holes on the walls.

The video, obtained by Time magazine, was broadcast a day after town residents told The Associated Press that American troops entered homes on Nov. 19 and shot dead 15 members of two families, including a 3-year-old girl, after a roadside bomb killed a U.S. Marine.

...

U.S. military officials later confirmed that the version of events was wrong.

"there was no firefight, there was no IED (improvised explosive device) that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood.".


www.msnbc.msn.com...

So the western media, reported simple what it was told by the army, and helped to cover up the massacres.

What i am saying to you deltaboy, is nothing your media says is reliable, and what you hear on the ground and from the soldiers themselves infact, is that after they sustain an attack, the indiscrimantly fire into civilians.

So when we hear that civilians where killed an IED or "caught in the crossfire" we know deltaboy, that it was your soldiers that killed them.

As for the supposed "suicide bomber", that your defunked media keeps retorting, their just relaying what the generals and the collaborators told them to say, they don't have a shred of evidence to back it up, not a name not a body, and i dare you to contradict me.

These are all planted bombs by the psy-op team. that's all.

[edit on 8-9-2006 by Syrian Sister]



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ziusudra
I've told you this before, Rich, but you really need to start including the UK in such thread titles, especially as you're British. A little side mention halfway down the page doesn't really do us justice, does it now?


I'd agree with Syrian Sister's comment about the insignificant pet dog. That's what Blair has turned us into. At least Harold Wilson kept us out of Vietnam.

Face it, we were dragged into this war against the will of the population at large. And by going against the will of their peoples, Blair and Aznar were labelled "courageous". Yeah, with other people's lives at stake, it's easy to be courageous.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 11:01 AM
link   


So when we hear that civilians where killed an IED or "caught in the crossfire" we know deltaboy, that it was your soldiers that killed them.


You know all this from Australia? That's where you are, correct?


As for the supposed "suicide bomber", that your defunked media keeps retorting, their just relaying what the generals and the collaborators told them to say, they don't have a shred of evidence to back it up, not a name not a body, and i dare you to contradict me.


I contradict you. I've been there. You post this tripe like you know what you're talking about; I've seen men detonate themselves in a crowd of civilians, just to get ONE US soldier. Yet you blame the soldiers. I've been in a convoy where some # drives up and blows his vehicle up, killing more bystanders and not a single soldier, yet you blame the US. I got stuck as a morticians's assistant for a few weeks, you know what it's like to put a little kid's corpse together after an IED tears it up? No, you sure as # don't. You sit there in your own little world and create this little persona. Your aura of superiority means nothing in real world.

The war was won when Saddam was taken. Ever since it's been an insurgency and civil war. Face that fact.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
I see you don't really know enough about the situation deltaboy to understand what i'm saying.



Next time try to put your words correctly, otherwise it be confusing. As I point out quoting.


We'll know it's because after sustaining an attack your gunho cowardly troops fired indiscreminantly in the crowds around them, or maybe it was that they raped a 14 year old girl then massacred her whole family before burning her remains, and then have the news cover it up nicely for them saying it was an IED.
-Syrian Sister.

Next time seperate between 2 different events where Army personnel raped and murder a family, and the other in Haditha where Marines killed the family after an IED attack...Okay?



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboyAnd why are so many Iraqis getting killed by these so called freedom fighters than American military personnel?


I know it's much more fun to look at the "sectarian killings" than to take responsibility for the mess the US has made of Iraq, but the US bears DIRECT responsibility for a number of these deaths. Why?

US-backed death squads and
US uses suicide bombers to provoke civil war

It's also true that deaths in Iraq are massively under-reported:


We took an interesting phone call today from an official at the Baghdad morgue. We get these calls every day – a daily tally of the violence. But this one was particularly sobering.

It turns out the official toll of violent deaths in August was just revised upwards to 1535 from 550, tripling the total. Now, we’re depressingly used to hearing about deaths here, so much so that the numbers can be numbing. But this means that a much-publicized drop-off in violence in August – heralded by both the Iraqi government and the US military as a sign that a new security effort in Baghdad was working -- apparently didn’t exist.


ABC news

At least that means that the US media are even vaguely starting to wake up to the idea that their government is only lying to them when they open their mouths.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
Next time seperate between 2 different events where Army personnel raped and murder a family, and the other in Haditha where Marines killed the family after an IED attack...Okay?


Indiscriminate firing after an IED attack has been reported pretty much constantly since the beginning of the illegal occupation. It's not exactly like confusing two separate incidents... firing at anything that moves is SOP.

Haditha is the tip of the iceberg



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
I know it's much more fun to look at the "sectarian killings" than to take responsibility for the mess the US has made of Iraq, but the US bears DIRECT responsibility for a number of these deaths. Why?


This is a complicated thing. The US should never have gone to Iraq, and some soldiers have turned out to be monsters. But this doesn't make it the US's fault that they are brutal to each other; this has been going on forever.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 11:54 AM
link   
I must have skipped over your previous post, where you were relating your experiences out there. Yes, I know these things go on, too... but actually, to say they've gone on forever contradicts the opinion of the few Iraqis I know personally, and of the Iraqi girl blogger

I wanted to find the sections of her posts that deal with the Sunni and Shia thing, but there's a lot of stuff there and I don't really have time to isolate the sections I've used in other posts. But Saddam, remember, was a secularist, and for many years under his rule, Sunni and Shia lived together without conflict. True, the Sunnis got the government jobs, but the Shia weren't persecuted (although the more extreme manifestations of their religious practice, like going out into the streets and cutting themselves with big knives) were forbidden) and weren't particularly economically disadvantaged.

The girl blogger lives in a mixed area, her family is a Sunni/Shia mix, and in the old days it was not considered polite to even ask which sect you belonged to unless the conversation had already turned that way.

However, with a few well-placed bombs and some death squad activity (both of which I would submit were orchestrated by the US and UK), resentment and violence have finally begun to take hold in Iraq. Yes, there may have been Sunni and Shia conflict in other countries, but after the occupation the two sides came together to resist the occupiers. It was this unification that had to be stopped.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
But Saddam, remember, was a secularist, and for many years under his rule, Sunni and Shia lived together without conflict. True, the Sunnis got the government jobs, but the Shia weren't persecuted


Uhuh, well it seems we should just go back to Saddam's history dealing with the Shiites before you assume that he didn't prosecute them. If you want info about it, just ask please.

Shiites and Sunnis lived together, however there are elements on both sides that want power or control, or independence, as we have seen from the Kurds for example. Not to mention the religious terrorism where Sunnis considered Shiites heretics.



However, with a few well-placed bombs and some death squad activity (both of which I would submit were orchestrated by the US and UK), resentment and violence have finally begun to take hold in Iraq. Yes, there may have been Sunni and Shia conflict in other countries, but after the occupation the two sides came together to resist the occupiers. It was this unification that had to be stopped.


Uhuh, blame it on the U.S. and the UK because you BELIEVED that Muslims don't kill other Muslims for religious or political beliefs. AS you say there are Sunnis and Shiites that kill each other in other countries but you believe Iraq is different?



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 12:04 PM
link   
You see, this is why I tend to seperate the military from the political these things are so complicated. We should NOT have gone into Iraq, Bush is full of #, this we agree on. But right or wrong, it is incorrect to say the military aspect of the war was lost. All military goals were achieved, even though Rumsfield didn't want to take the advice of military staff, namely Powell.

Politically, we are not losing the war; politically, it was lost before it started, thanks to the administration's now-surfacing lies and other current events.

But all things aside, war is no excuse for slaughtering your own citizens. Syrian Sister, I'm a little sorry for being so confrontational to you, but you make claims when you aren't even there. I have been there, I have seen it, and no circumstance is an excuse for these things. If my government were in shambles and our society were reduced to a loosely organized anarchic police state, as is the case in Iraq, I could see myself doing a multitude of dishonorable things to get by, but not killing innocents. There is no excuse.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
Uhuh, well it seems we should just go back to Saddam's history dealing with the Shiites before you assume that he didn't prosecute them. If you want info about it, just ask please.


Yes please.

And I believe that Iraq was different to some extent because of the secularism that Saddam imposed. I'm not saying everything in the garden was rosy, but that he kept the lid on long enough that people just got on with getting along rather than becoming hung up on religious differences.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join