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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Here's a rather interesting article that shows Rumsfeld up for the arrogant fool we all know him to be. It seems that in meetings about planning for the Iraq war, he refused to plan for the occupation and actually threatened to fire the next person who raised the issue.

Nice planning, Rummy.


"The secretary of defense continued to push on us ... that everything we write in our plan has to be the idea that we are going to go in, we're going to take out the regime, and then we're going to leave," Scheid said. "We won't stay."

Scheid said the planners continued to try "to write what was called Phase 4," or the piece of the plan that included post-invasion operations like occupation.

Even if the troops didn't stay, "at least we have to plan for it," Scheid said.

"I remember the secretary of defense saying that he would fire the next person that said that," Scheid said. "We would not do planning for Phase 4 operations, which would require all those additional troops that people talk about today.

"He said we will not do that because the American public will not back us if they think we are going over there for a long war."


The man's an idiot in a government headed by GWB: so he fits right in.

It goes some way to explaining why Iraq is such a cluster****.




posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
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.


You leave me with no other alternative but to inform you that you do not know what you're talking about in regards to your own Nation. We were not dragged into anything, Blair wanted this War too, and his reasons certainly were not limited to cuddling up to George Bush. What an absurd media-esque whitewash of affairs. Are you not familiar with British contracts in Iraq and surrounding areas? Do you not understand that oiling the cogs of the war machine in such a manner as we are seeing today was a British trait long before it was an American trait? Do you understand geopolitics, or the benefits our Government and those who will replace them will receive from what appear to be permanent Military bases in Iraq? We're not an insignificant puppy dog at all, we're part of this thing, and Blair and his contingent of Bastards are furthering the Globalist agenda just as the Bu#es are. Your suggestions and your lack of any mention of the British role in this War are laughable. We are fighting in this war, our soldiers are dying, and if America is losing, we certainly are too. Face it. I suggest you turn off the mindless News channels you are watching, pick up a book, stop obsessing over America, and pay attention to matters a little closer to home.



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 10:39 AM
link   
I do understand what your saynig, but i don't think rich and i actually disagree with you. Perhaps i over simplified, i assure you it was not my intention to white wash anything.


We were not dragged into anything, Blair wanted this War too, and his reasons certainly were not limited to cuddling up to George Bush. Are you not familiar with British contracts in Iraq and surrounding areas? Do you not understand that oiling the cogs of the war machine in such a manner as we are seeing today was a British trait long before it was an American trait? Do you understand geopolitics, or the benefits our Government and those who will replace them will receive from what appear to be permanent Military bases in Iraq? We're not an insignificant puppy dog at all, we're part of this thing, and Blair and his contingent of Bastards are furthering the Globalist agenda just as the Bu#es are. Your suggestions and your lack of any mention of the British role in this War are laughable. We are fighting in this war, our soldiers are dying, and if America is losing, we certainly are too.


Your right, britian does have it's own agenda, but so does every country in the whole world. Your government follows america around because it thinks it stands to benefit from it It just so happens that the capitalists traitors in the british govt don't mind turning their country into a lacky to meet the ends of big business.

That's where my dog euphomism comes in, i guess i use it inorder to inspire rage in the hearts of those british patriotic enough to want some dignity for their country. but i'm aware of britians history, and it wouldn't be fair of me to refer to it as a mindless puppet, it's just as ruthless and evil as the US imperialists, perhaps even smarter, still though, not as powerful for the time being.

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



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
Your right, britian does have it's own agenda, but so does every country in the whole world. Your government follows america around because it thinks it stands to benefit from it It just so happens that the capitalists traitors in the british govt don't mind turning their country into a lacky to meet the ends of big business.


I didn't say Britain has its own agenda, though, I'm saying our agenda is that of the Globalist Elite, just like it is in America. We're not following America around, how the hell can one follow oneself around? Besides, where are you from, and why are you trying to tell me what my Government is doing? Do you think you know better, or something?


Originally posted by Syrian Sister
but i'm aware of britians history, and it wouldn't be fair of me to refer to it as a mindless puppet, it's just as ruthless and evil as the US imperialists, perhaps even smarter, still though, not as powerful for the time being.


Not as powerful is not the same thing as an "insignificant puppy dog." I'm glad I have forced you to change your tune, though, because you were playing the notes all wrong.


Originally posted by Syrian Sister
That's where my dog euphomism comes in, i guess i use it inorder to inspire rage in the hearts of those british patriotic enough to want some dignity for their country.


You're kidding, right? If you just called me a patriot trying to solicit dignity for my country on a joke like ATS I'm not going to be pleased. If you're just getting snotty now because I haven't replied to your damn u2u then I should make you aware that I am not able to reply to or send u2u's until I have 20 or more ATS points.


Originally posted by Syrian Sister
I do understand what your saynig, but i don't think rich and i actually disagree with you. Perhaps i over simplified, i assure you it was not my intention to white wash anything.


You clearly don't understand. Nice try, though, I guess.






[edit on 9-9-2006 by Ziusudra]



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Astygia


'm a little sorry for being so confrontational to you, but you make claims when you aren't even there.


i told you before that i don't get my info from the meida, Despite my location, i know the people of the resistance, because i have Iraqi family Astygia, an aunt married a baghdadi, and i have cousins in the resistance. Perhaps that will better explain to you why i use the term "we".



I've seen men detonate themselves in a crowd of civilians,


LOL, then how did you survive?or maybe you just heard from a friend of a friend of yours, you've seen nothing. Many times the media says suicide this suicide that, but they never provide a shred of evidence, and the stories on the ground seem to contradict it.



www.iraq-war.ru...

A car bomb has exploded in a central Baghdad square killing five people and wounding seven, an interior ministry official said.

A bomber set off hidden explosives inside a public bus in in Al Tayaran square in the Bab-al-Sharji area at about 11.40am (0740 GMT) on Friday, police Major Mohamed Younis said.

The blast occurred as the minibus was parked at a bustling bus station in the square.

There were conflicting accounts of the bomber's fate, however.

While Younis said the bomber detonated a belt of explosives strapped to his body beneath his clothes, eyewitnesses said they saw the man leave the bus minutes before it exploded.

Shopkeeper Nadhem Hassan said he saw a man "enter the bus and leave it very quickly", adding that he saw six burnt bodies in the vehicle.

"A man left a bag in a minibus shortly after he had boarded. It exploded just after he left," a police officer said. "Five people were killed and seven others wounded."


Suicide bomber this, that, rubish, it is your agent provacetuers that are behind it, trying to stir up the civil war.
THe iraqi resistance, is the uniting force that apposes the secterianism , it's your government that is trying to distroy iraq from the inside.

As for the boy, your saying his own people killed him? And we're suppose to belive the ones who said there where WMD's in iraq? that all the civilans being killed are just being killed by their own people.

"those savage arabs" is that right? how racist and insulting.

I've seen little boys torn up thanks to your "liberation" , one stands out ni my mind in particular, he was one of the bystanders that was gunned down by a US helicopter, angry that Iraqies where celebrating around a burnt out humvee. I have an image here of half his body, and another one of his dismembered leg. The blood of iraq Astygia lies soley on your hands.


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


LOL and that's the aim of your govt, to make us belive it's all just civil war and chaos and that there is no resistance to the occupation, something which is farthest from the truth.


As i've said, the resitance have absolutely nothing to do with the Psy-op/secterian bomings. The Resistance has no reason, stragical or ideological to hurt civilians. Hurting civilians would only weaken their cause, and can only help the agenda of their enemies.

It is glaringly obvious that those behind the bombings of civilians want to blacken the name of the resistance and cause secterianism amongst the iraqi people, divide and conquer.

Who benefits, only the occupiers.

The resistance loves the people of iraq as the people love the resistance, that's because the people created the resistance.

Item 1:



Farhan Ali, 52, a shepherd from the village, said insurgents told him to clear out of an area on a busy dirt road from Abu Ghraib to Smailat because they had planted a bomb in a cardboard carton that was set to blow up next to the foot patrol. "All the people in the area knew about it," he said. "The insurgents asked us to stay out of the road."

Ali's account, if accurate, shows how entrenched insurgents have become in local communities, where they target U.S. forces in broad daylight.

"All of us were just watching," Ali said. "There were a bunch of kids standing away from the road expecting and watching to see an explosion."http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A60832-2005Jan9?printer


And from the resistance themselves.

Item 2:



The following is a bad machine translation of a statement made by the
communist resistance of iraq, sighting that the CIA is behind attacks
against civilians.

Iraqi Communists assure that CIA is behind the indiscriminate attacks

Rebelion
The Union of the Iraqian people, organization who proclaims her opposition
to the American military occupation, has accused the Central Agency of
Intelligence (CIA) of the United States to be behind the attacks in Iraq
To thus he has affirmed today in press conference in the Spanish city of
Cordova the spokesman it of the Union of the Iraqian People, Jousif
Hamdan, that has assured that the Iraqian resistance to the occupation,
to which the Communists support and collaboration, "is being
disqualified" by the United States when tying it with the indiscriminate
attacks,
whereas, in fact, "when there are dead civilians it must to the
action of the company". Hamdan, which he makes a tour by Andalusia to the
object to present the version the Iraqian Communists on the conflict in
which its country is immersed, has explained that the company is the
person in charge of the organization and actions that they execute.
The spokesman of the Union of the Iraqian People has clarified in addition
that the resistance foreigners of islamista cut do not form, but is
integrated "in a 99 percent by Iraqi and he is not suní, since they want
to make believe the Americans", being the military (350.000) of the
previous army of Iraq those who largely compose it, along with Muslim and
nationalistic Iraqians (of the Baas party), in addition to Communists,
forming what Hamdan has denominated the "Muslim and Democratic Front of
Iraq", that looks for "its freedom".

Automatical Translation (poor)

www.iraq-war.ru...

Original untranslated text below (in spanish)

www.rebelion.org...



Anyway, you can be as confrontational as you like, because raelly our banter is meaningless, the inevitable will occur wether you and i even exist or not, the lines been crossed and there is no going back, through their great patience and perserverance the Iraqi resistance will be victorious over the US imperialist machine, and all the money all the blood the US regime wasted will be all for naught. Their puppet stooges will be over run and brought to justice and iraq will be an independent sovereign once again, one which i am certian won't be making friends with the US/Britain/Israel in any timely manner.

and no matter how much you stamp your feet and claim victory, this time this war, the US imperialist machine will not recover from it.

Saigon II is coming.


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



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 11:38 AM
link   


I didn't say Britain has its own agenda, though, I'm saying our agenda is that of the Globalist Elite, just like it is in America. We're not following America around, how the hell can one follow oneself around? Besides, where are you from, and why are you trying to tell me what my Government is doing? Do you think you know better, or something?

You clearly don't understand. Nice try, though, I guess.


So perhaps then what you are really eluding to, is the NWO/illuminati, the collaboration between the global elite?

I guess here is where i employ double think, or maybe both cases are true, when your arguing politcs, there are layers of arguement, you Ziusudra going straight for the kill at the highest level.

the way i look at it, all the world governments are competing with each other for power, making alliences when it's neccesary, and back stabbing each other whenever required, but if you look deeper, there are forces that are juggling the balls and pulling the strings. Perhaps these are the ones you refer to as the global elite, or maybe you look at it from an economic perspective. From that we can assertain, that all these governments, britian US israel Australia are really one, despite the lower level competition.

i'm living in australia, my government is serving the same global elite, i didn't mean to sound like i know better than you but i know a little something too.

see the reason i rarely ever mention Australia ziusudra, even less so than i mention britain, is because i sooo agree with you that there are one entity, that i feel one implies the other. And the US is the adopted centre piece shall we say, due to their larger military.


You're kidding, right? If you just called me a patriot trying to solicit dignity for my country on a joke like ATS I'm not going to be pleased.


Well, it wasn't aimed at you personally.


If you're just getting snotty now because I haven't replied to your damn u2u then I should make you aware that I am not able reply to or send u2u's until I have 20 or more ATS points.


I'm not being snooty (or atleast i hope) and the thought didn't cross my mind about the reply, it's not like i sent you a question, i just hoped you'd read what i wrote, even if you dislike me, i still respect you and your posts.
But i thankyou for bringnig to my attention why you couldn't reply, it's a nice gesture.

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



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister


You're kidding, right? If you just called me a patriot trying to solicit dignity for my country on a joke like ATS I'm not going to be pleased.


Well, it wasn't aimed at you personally.


I apologise, I thought it was aimed directly at me. As I was the only one who replied about Britain.


Originally posted by Syrian Sister

If you're just getting snotty now because I haven't replied to your damn u2u then I should make you aware that I am not able reply to or send u2u's until I have 20 or more ATS points.


I'm not being snooty (or atleast i hope) and the thought didn't cross my mind about the reply, it's not like i sent you a question, i just hoped you'd read what i wrote, even if you dislike me, i still respect you and your posts.
But i thankyou for bringnig to my attention why you couldn't reply, it's a nice gesture.


I apologise again, like I said, I thought it was a personal attack. I'm certainly not a Patriot, but I thought that's what you were saying.

I agree with the majority of your post. Well said, and well diffused.



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ziusudra
You leave me with no other alternative but to inform you that you do not know what you're talking about in regards to your own Nation.


Oh, there's an alternative. You could do as the more engaging posters here do, which is to be polite, make a sensible argument, and link to sources that back your points. To condemn yourself just to being rude, pompous and arrogant is merely to submit to your own self-imposed limitations.



We were not dragged into anything, Blair wanted this War too,


If you actually read my post, I'm actually saying that Blair dragged the UK into the war against significant opposition. Look:
[
quote]Originally posted by rich23
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".

Now, I don't know if you remember, but immediately prior to the war, perhaps the largest political demonstration in fifty years took place not just in London, but across the UK. Two million people demonstrated in London, and hundreds of thousands more across the rest of the country. That's getting on for five percent of the population who were willing to get off their arses, give up a Saturday, and go out into a cold spring day to register their disapproval. I think we can assume that there were many more who agreed, but not strongly enough to actually go on the march about it.

There was some Parliamentary opposition. Robin Cook's resignation speech was probably the best thing he ever did in a long Parliamentary career, and Clare Short threatened (alas, emptily) to resign. The Attorney-General had to be pressured to provide a legal opinion (which we still haven't seen) that justified the aggression; and there was even some opposition from within the armed forces, motivated by a desire to distance themselves from any activity that might turn out to have "war crime" hidden somewhere in the fine print. There was also, of course, some sections of the national press (most notably the Mirror Group) who opposed the war.

I'd consider that I'm making a reasonable case that it was Blair (at the behest of the US) that dragged a relatively unwilling country to war. It was the Cabinet Office (read:Blairites) that ordered the "sexing up" of the "dodgy dossier". There were other areas of support, and of course some of them will have been affected by the BS propaganda that was produced at the time to paint Iraq as a dangerous, desperate place: but the propaganda and the motivation were coming from Blair and cronies. If you want to disagree, you might like to argue specifics rather than just say I don't know what I'm talking about.


and his reasons certainly were not limited to cuddling up to George Bush. What an absurd media-esque whitewash of affairs. Are you not familiar with British contracts in Iraq and surrounding areas?


I remember at the time that it was regarded as something of a disappointment that, having stuck our necks out and become accomplices in war crimes with the US, we weren't getting much in the way of contracts. Perhaps you could post some links that demonstrate what kind of contracts "in Iraq and surrounding areas" you're talking about. There are, as I understand it, some British private (mercenary) contractors at work there, but this is hardly going to be enough to "oil the cogs of the war-machine" in a significant way.

I also remember puzzling over what it was that turned Blair into such a swivel-eyed warmonger. He went off to visit Bush in Crawford a fairly sensible sort, for someone who's been vetted and approved by the Bilderbergers, and returned frothing at the mouth about what a danger Saddam was. It's always been a mystery. Perhaps you can enlighten me rather than being just rude and vague?


Do you not understand that oiling the cogs of the war machine in such a manner as we are seeing today was a British trait long before it was an American trait?


Sure, but you might like to put some examples up for us to look at rather than being all pompous and rhetorical.


Do you understand geopolitics, or the benefits our Government and those who will replace them will receive from what appear to be permanent Military bases in Iraq?


I'll ignore the patronising bit at the front and simply ask you to enumerate precisely what these benefits might be, to whom they will go and roughly what monetary value you expect them to take.


Your suggestions and your lack of any mention of the British role in this War are laughable.


What suggestions, why? Please try to be specific. Being rude and vague just won't get you very far on this forum. As for the British role in this war, I think you'll find that I did mention it, if you look. As for the rest of your windy and pretentious advice, I'll feel more inclined to take it if you can put together an argument rather than merely posturing.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister


I've seen little boys torn up thanks to your "liberation" , one stands out ni my mind in particular, he was one of the bystanders that was gunned down by a US helicopter, angry that Iraqies where celebrating around a burnt out humvee. I have an image here of half his body, and another one of his dismembered leg. The blood of iraq Astygia lies soley on your hands.



Is this supposed to be a good point? Didnt that child's mother teach him not to play with fire?

In a time of war, it probably isnt a good idea to stand around burnt out humvees and celebrate. seems like common sense parenting to me.

Also syrian, despite all the good points you have made here, One thing I Have a hard time swallowing is that all these so called 'Suicide bombings' and 'Car bombings' are a result of psyops and the cia trying to stir up sectarian violence.

Could it not be possible that you, just like us, are also the victim of propoganda? Do you really believe the information you receive from your family abroad is unbiased and fair? To think that every suicide bombing is some sort of farse is absurd.

You asked earlier 'If you saw the suicide bombing, how come you are not dead?' Heres a simple question... HE WASNT THAT CLOSE. Couldnt you have answered that yourself?


bih

posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by nephyx
plenty of radical muslims are dead. looks like a winner to me.


yeah and how many of the US soldiers died
america sticks its nose everywhere but cant finish its job



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by nephyx

In a time of war, it probably isnt a good idea to stand around burnt out humvees and celebrate. seems like common sense parenting to me.


So basically you say that particular American soldier did rightfully kill the kid because he was celebrating the death of his ''enemy''? Sorry to say, but I find your ideology pretty ridiculous.

Remember this picture?


Imagine a Hezbollah militant shooting the kid. Would you have also said ''Their parents should have prevented them from writing on the shells''

Children cannot be held responsible for what they are being taught by their parents, descent doesn't matter. Kids, especially in the Middle East, including Israel are being raised with hate towards others. In no way there's any justification for killing children or keeping them responsible for what they are being taught by others.

You are from Germany, in the [once occupied] country I live people have been deeply hating Germans for a very long time. Many Germans, but also non Germans including me, are of opinion that children of Nazi-Germany's soldiers and war criminals cannot be held responsible for the acts committed by their ancestors during World War II.

However, when applying your theory on this particular matter they should be held responsible, shouldn't they?



[edit on 11-9-2006 by Mdv2]



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Fallujah Under Threat Yet Again
By: Dahr Jamail and Ali al-Fadhily on: 12.09.2006 [09:13] (286 reads)


(4484 bytes) [c] Print
Fallujah Under Threat Yet Again

* Inter Press Service*

Dahr Jamail and Ali al-Fadhily

* FALLUJAH, Sep 11 (IPS) - After enduring two major assaults, Fallujah is

under threat from U.S. forces again, residents say.*

"They destroyed our city twice and they are threatening us a third
time," 52-year-old Ahmed Dhahy told IPS in Fallujah, the Sunni-dominated
city 50km west of Baghdad.

.....

Fallujah was heavily bombed in April 2004 and again in November that
year. The attacks destroyed 75 percent of city infrastructure and left
more than 5,000 dead, according to local non-governmental groups.

dahrjamailiraq.com...


Such heros.

I guess through sheer perserverance, they win. They have won weapon the US military doesn't have, patience.

Mod Edit: Posting work written by others. – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 12/9/2006 by Umbrax]



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by nephyx
Also syrian, despite all the good points you have made here, One thing I Have a hard time swallowing is that all these so called 'Suicide bombings' and 'Car bombings' are a result of psyops and the cia trying to stir up sectarian violence.


Under Saddam, Sunni and Shia lived together and got along. As I've already said in previous posts, many families intermarried and neighbourhoods were to some extent integrated. The proof of this assertion is that the sectarian violence which has now taken hold is directed at getting people to move out of certain neighbourhoods. It's not like, for example, Northern Ireland where the sectarian divide is also geographically defined within cities.

So at the point where the Sunnis and Shias start to club together to resist the US/UK occupation, strangely, that's when the sectarian bombing campaigns began. And rumours have circulated that the US is behind this initial sectarian violence, which would certainly follow the "divide and conquer" rule. You might remember that UK forces (using APCs and lots of troops) had to break out of an Iraqi jail two soldiers who were arrested by the Iraqi police for driving around disguised as Iraqis in a car with a trunkful of explosives. That was rather suggestive of covert action: and there is more evidence to support the contention that dividing and conquering is the idea behind US covert action in Iraq in
this thread.

It would not surprise me if the idea, long term, is to partition Iraq.

If you want a really good exposition of some of the undercurrents of the Iraq War and the US/UK Middle East policy, you should have a look at the Google Video of Robert Newman's History of Oil. It's not heavy - he's an excellent stand-up comic - but he's done some amazing research and it's really well written and presented.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
Yes please.


Here...o yeah I forgot to include the genocide against the Kurds, besides the Shiites if you want info on that please ask. I hope you ask.
www.hrw.org...

www.shianews.com...

news.bbc.co.uk...

www.kurdmedia.com...

www.iraqfoundation.org...


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.


It sure wasn't rosy, but it wasn't paradise for the Shiites.

[edit on 12-9-2006 by deltaboy]

[edit on 12-9-2006 by deltaboy]



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Now, we know that Saddam was a ruthless guy. No surprises there. We know he suppressed the Marsh Arabs and the Kurds.

I'm a little hazy on the Sunni/Shia thing, but I do note that there was a Shia uprising in 1991, and that the mass graves are linked to the aftermath of that. If you're trying to show that there was a continuing, festering sectarian problem in Iraq, it's not yet convincing to me, although one of your links seems very keen on promoting that view. However, any actual evidence to back up the assertion seems rather thin.

And in April 2003, there was a demonstration against the US occupation that united both Shias and Sunnis. An external enemy, as is well known, can unite people who had been enemies themselves hitherto.

Anyway... I thought I should post this article too, because it's another indication that the US is losing control of large sections of Iraq:


Situation Called Dire in West Iraq
Anbar Is Lost Politically, Marine Analyst Says

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 11, 2006; A01

The chief of intelligence for the Marine Corps in Iraq recently filed an unusual secret report concluding that the prospects for securing that country's western Anbar province are dim and that there is almost nothing the U.S. military can do to improve the political and social situation there, said several military officers and intelligence officials familiar with its contents.

The officials described Col. Pete Devlin's classified assessment of the dire state of Anbar as the first time that a senior U.S. military officer has filed so negative a report from Iraq.

...Devlin reports that there are no functioning Iraqi government institutions in Anbar, leaving a vacuum that has been filled by the insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq, which has become the province's most significant political force, said the Army officer, who has read the report. Another person familiar with the report said it describes Anbar as beyond repair; a third said it concludes that the United States has lost in Anbar.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 04:48 AM
link   
You have voted rich23 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

there is still hope in the world....


nephyx

i live in the west, so it's impossible to be under propaganda, since i get just a bias from the western media, that it balances out.

I belive in my people, and i belive in the patriots who stand up or occupation.

They aren't bad people, there just out there fighting for what they belive in, the last thing they would do is hurt their own people, not only because it's wrong, but also because it would be handing a victory over to the americans.

Wether the US/britain is behind most of the bombings of civilians (they where already caught once trying to do it in basra, remember the brits brought in tanks to get them out of prison), or wether it's their puppets in al Qaeda and the death squads badr brigades, i can't be entirely sure.

Either way, it's nothing to do with the resistance.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister

i live in the west, so it's impossible to be under propaganda, since i get just a bias from the western media, that it balances out.


If you so terribly hate the west, at least that's what I conclude from all of your messages, may I ask why you live there? Why do you live in Australia rather than in your beloved Syria?

The same applies for Muslim radicals, I always wonder why they use Western products, while they terrible hate our world.


Originally posted by Syrian Sister

I belive in my people, and i belive in the patriots who stand up or occupation.
They aren't bad people, there just out there fighting for what they belive in, the last thing they would do is hurt their own people, not only because it's wrong, but also because it would be handing a victory over to the americans.


So what you basically mean is that it's a good thing to see Shiites killing Sunnis and the other way around? Really, each and every day there's a higher level of Muslims killed by Muslims than Americans killed by Muslims. Muslims radicals don't have any ideals, except that of killing innocents, they are lunatics, no patriots and much worse than bad guys. But hey, they don't have intentions to kill their ''own'' people.

The US army isn't out there to disturb any Iraqis from living their lives. Again, I disagree with the invasion, but the coalition soldiers have only been ordered to secure the country, nothing more nothing less (excluding incidents). That's a vital difference compared with the situation in Israel, where hundreds of thousands Palestinians are being humiliated, killed, tortured, and chased from their lands and homes for the only reason of Israel trying to expand their land.



Originally posted by Syrian Sister
Wether the US/britain is behind most of the bombings of civilians (they where already caught once trying to do it in basra, remember the brits brought in tanks to get them out of prison), or wether it's their puppets in al Qaeda and the death squads badr brigades, i can't be entirely sure.


Back it up that most bombings have been executed by the coalition forces, otherwise I reserve the right to define it as poor propaganda, we're getting already to much of that from Zionists and Arab broadcasting companies.



Originally posted by Syrian Sister
Either way, it's nothing to do with the resistance.


I agree, those terrorists are nothing more than brutal murderers.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mdv2
The same applies for Muslim radicals, I always wonder why they use Western products, while they terrible hate our world.


So... why do you use Middle Eastern oil?


So what you basically mean is that it's a good thing to see Shiites killing Sunnis and the other way around?


Funnily enough, that's exactly the opposite meaning from the quotation you took from Syrian Sister. Just to clarify:

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
...the last thing they would do is hurt their own people, not only because it's wrong, but also because it would be handing a victory over to the americans.



The US army isn't out there to disturb any Iraqis from living their lives.


So what IS it there for, exactly? My guess is that it's to maintain the grip the multinational oil companies have on Iraq's resources - and the CSAs (the contracts under which the oil is pumped by the oil companies which determine how much they have to pay for the privilege) negotiated by the Iraqi provisional government are a complete rip-off for the Iraqi people. Are you one of those Americans who believe that enforcing that kind of skewed, unfair business relationship by the use of military force is equivalent to "protecting US interests in the region"?


Again, I disagree with the invasion, but the coalition soldiers have only been ordered to secure the country, nothing more nothing less (excluding incidents).


The whole point of this thread is to explore the idea that they cannot and never could secure the country - remember Rumsfeld threatened to fire any of his planners who wanted to discuss the aftermath of the invasion?


That's a vital difference compared with the situation in Israel, where hundreds of thousands Palestinians are being humiliated, killed, tortured, and chased from their lands and homes for the only reason of Israel trying to expand their land.


No. This isn't about land... exactly. It's about the neo-conservatives ensuring US control of the last remaining oil reserves on the planet, asset-stripping the country of Iraq, preventing the Iraqis from using any seeds to grow food except those manufactured by Monsanto, and above all ensuring that they don't trade their oil in Euros.

Very different from the situation in Israel. Or is it?


Back it up that most bombings have been executed by the coalition forces, otherwise I reserve the right to define it as poor propaganda


My contention is that the US wants to partition the country to make it more manageable, and ever since the Sunnis and Shia got together in April 2003 there has been a policy of divide and conquer.

To subdue the populace and sow dissension between Sunnis and Shias, there's evidence that the US has "invoked the Salvador option" of training and deploying death squads in Iraq, and there is some evidence to suggest that the US has been using Iraqis as suicide bombers. When you consider the kind of terrorism the Contras, for example, used to get up to, this is hardly a stretch. The CIA is known throughout the world (though not so much in the US) for its ruthlessness and mendaciousness, and although US citizens might find it hard to believe that they'd get up to these kind of tricks, those of US outside the sphere of influence of US propaganda and who have some grasp of CIA history have no problem accepting that this is an entirely realistic proposition.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23

So... why do you use Middle Eastern oil?


If I have give you the impression that I am a Muslim/Arab hater, then I've been giving you the wrong impression. I'd suggest to have a look at my comments on the Israel-Lebanon war.


So what you basically mean is that it's a good thing to see Shiites killing Sunnis and the other way around?



Originally posted by rich23
Funnily enough, that's exactly the opposite meaning from the quotation you took from Syrian Sister.


It doesn't matter there's a far bigger percentage in Iraq of Muslims killing Muslims than Muslims killing coalition troops and the other way around. So yes, they do kill their ''own'' people.


The US army isn't out there to disturb any Iraqis from living their lives.


Are you one of those Americans who believe that enforcing that kind of skewed, unfair business relationship by the use of military force is equivalent to "protecting US interests in the region"?

My friend, if I were you I'd watch more carefully to your screen. If you take a look at my location you'll see a € sign. Would an American ever do that? Obviously, you haven't seen any other threads of mine. I'd suggest you to start here: We don't want to be the smoking gun to be A mushroom cloud
I am radically against the foreign policy of the Bush Administration. No, I am not ''one of those Americans'' The Bush administration ordered troops to go to Iraq for one reason: the Iraqi oil bourse, side advantages are the Oil For Food Program and strategic location for a war on Iran.

To get back to your question. My answer did not include any political thoughts. The goal of the US army is to secure the area, no matter what political goals are involved. As I stated they are not there to harm the people, as is happening in Palestine.


Originally posted by rich23
The whole point of this thread is to explore the idea that they cannot and never could secure the country - remember Rumsfeld threatened to fire any of his planners who wanted to discuss the aftermath of the invasion?


Thanks for the remark but I was aware of that fact already months ago. Nevertheless, it doesn't make a difference on the military goal coalition troops currently execute.


Originally posted by rich23
No. This isn't about land... exactly. It's about the neo-conservatives ensuring US control of the last remaining oil reserves on the planet, asset-stripping the country of Iraq, preventing the Iraqis from using any seeds to grow food except those manufactured by Monsanto, and above all ensuring that they don't trade their oil in Euros.


I beg to disagree. Oil is a short term benefit of the Iraqi Invasion. As you mentioned the Iraqi oil bourse was the main reason of invading Iraq. Watch my thread on the subject: Bill Gates: The ol' Dollar, It's gonna go down


Originally posted by rich23
Very different from the situation in Israel. Or is it?


Yes very different, the US goal is purely economic, while the Israel goal isn't.


Back it up that most bombings have been executed by the coalition forces, otherwise I reserve the right to define it as poor propaganda



Originally posted by rich23
although US citizens might find it hard to believe that they'd get up to these kind of tricks, those of US outside the sphere of influence of US propaganda and who have some grasp of CIA history have no problem accepting that this is an entirely realistic proposition.


Once again I'm not a US citizen, I am aware of CIA's dirty tricks, though I am not a champion of makng loose statements without backing it up by clear evidence. One example of my threads: US working together with terrorists in Iran


[edit on 13-9-2006 by Mdv2]



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Fulsome and sincere apologies. I shall be looking at your threads, particularly the one about clandestine US forces in Iran.

Nice work.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join