It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Can we finally admit the Iraq war is a complete failure?

page: 4
0
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 07:36 AM

Originally posted by H34T533K3R
It is not a failure. It is a complete success. We are in control of key targets/cities in Iraq, we are showing Iraqis a new way of liviing. This is a slow war that will take years/generations to die out. This month alone we have over 30 US soldiers killed RIP to all of them and their families. They are not dying for fun and they are not risking their lives for fun. Its all about life, regardless of all the greed and corruption happening in our US governemnt, if we can kill/detain at least 1 person willing to blow themselves up & kill innocent, then it is worth it.

And now comes the contradiction. You stated earlier that everything in the mainstream media should not be believed. Yet you believe that US soldiers are dying for a just cause and you belive that terrorists are actually out to get you.

You said that US soliders are dictating and controlling Iraqis. They raid their homes, they tell them how to live, what to do, etc. But if they oppose the military by words or actions then they are put to sleep. The only choice they have left is to either be slaves or blow themsleves up and kill a few soldiers in hopes of ridding their country of them.

Originally posted by H34T533K3R
Alll those Iraqi civilians were being controlled before we came, TV's censored, magazines censored, internet controlled by "Saddam approved ISP's", very big war between kurds & shiites. Everything is changing now, slowly but surely. Its not stopping yet, but it will eventually.

Why do I get the feeling that according to you, life is all about TV, Internet, Magazines. If thats your definition of freedom then I can see why the US can get away with so much # without being questioned by their citizens (or some of them).

posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 07:36 AM
Athenion excelent post
i couldn't agree more

You have voted Athenion for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

And it's funny how people that oppose or are against what their doing in Iraq are called either evil or a terrorist

posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 01:43 PM
First of all as evil as many in the world want to see the US as being I can't believe for a minute that any regime installed by them would be worse than Saddam was. He was a dictator and would not allow any dissention whatsoever.

posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 02:12 PM

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
First of all as evil as many in the world want to see the US as being I can't believe for a minute that any regime installed by them would be worse than Saddam was. He was a dictator and would not allow any dissention whatsoever.

And? How many people died under him? How many died since this war started? How many were illegally captured, and jailed under him? How about under the US? Beleive it my friend.

Saddam was bad - no one has ever argued that. The arguement is that he was stable - which is something that can not be said about whatever ruling parties are there now. Women were able to work, and live - that isn't true anymore. They were an ignorant citizenery, but there was relative peace - that can not be said now.

The problem as I see it is that while I think most realize it is a failure and we need to get out, but no one is willing to risk political suicide from those that will play this as "cut and run" or "lossing the war" towards the voters. The voters for their part have been rased on Rambo and Commando, and the newly released Marine as good, honest tales that America never losses.

The war is lost. It was over before it begain because the US didn't know who the heck they were fighting, and sadly it looks like they didn't even care. The military for all their guns, can not be a police officer and a Military man at the same time. One is a killer, one is a social worker. It wasn't fair to them to place them into a no win situation.

Secondary is the double-speak that goes on today. How did "support the troops" turn into lets leave them in a no win situation, with conflicting goals? That isn't supporting the troops.

posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 04:12 PM

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
First of all as evil as many in the world want to see the US as being I can't believe for a minute that any regime installed by them would be worse than Saddam was. He was a dictator and would not allow any dissention whatsoever.

My friend,dictactors are an american speciality....how many lovable dictactors have been supported or even installed by America?Maybe us Brits are the nearest to your record-but the USA is the master of proclaiming freedom while supporting tyranny.

Wasnt the USA pretty cosy with old Saddam in the 80s?

posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 04:17 PM

Originally posted by Waiting2awake
And? How many people died under him? How many died since this war started? How many were illegally captured, and jailed under him? How about under the US? Beleive it my friend.

Saddam was bad - no one has ever argued that. The arguement is that he was stable - which is something that can not be said about whatever ruling parties are there now. Women were able to work, and live - that isn't true anymore. They were an ignorant citizenery, but there was relative peace - that can not be said now.

The problem as I see it is that while I think most realize it is a failure and we need to get out, but no one is willing to risk political suicide from those that will play this as "cut and run" or "lossing the war" towards the voters. The voters for their part have been rased on Rambo and Commando, and the newly released Marine as good, honest tales that America never losses.

The war is lost. It was over before it begain because the US didn't know who the heck they were fighting, and sadly it looks like they didn't even care. The military for all their guns, can not be a police officer and a Military man at the same time. One is a killer, one is a social worker. It wasn't fair to them to place them into a no win situation.

Secondary is the double-speak that goes on today. How did "support the troops" turn into lets leave them in a no win situation, with conflicting goals? That isn't supporting the troops.

We have no idea how many people died under Saddam and he probably doesn't even know.

Saddam was stable? When he was threatening to have WMD's and then according to critics he didn't have them.

Failure is difficult to define in something like this. The real problem is all the foes this action has because it should have ended long ago. Who knows maybe a government would have been formed that would have been somewhat independent of the US but sadly many will even prevent that opportunity from happening.

You should always support people that take on difficult jobs that may lead to helping others. I see no reason to believe that troops don't protect locals from suicide bombers or whatever.

posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 04:19 PM

Originally posted by Silcone Synapse

Wasnt the USA pretty cosy with old Saddam in the 80s?

We sure were, but then we were cozy to Stalin and we didn't install him in. Not to mention the Brits were with us at the time, before Churchchill believe the Soviets were a threat just as WW2 was ending. Since Saddam decided to invade Kuwait we broke away from that alliance. Same thing for the Soviet Union as the war drew to a close.

posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 04:20 PM

Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
My friend,dictactors are an american speciality....how many lovable dictactors have been supported or even installed by America?Maybe us Brits are the nearest to your record-but the USA is the master of proclaiming freedom while supporting tyranny.

Wasnt the USA pretty cosy with old Saddam in the 80s?

True of all world powers. Look at China and Lil'KIM.
I'm not American actually.
I think that a lot of people that bang the drums against the US, Washington and anything it does (rather than criticising where appropriate), have a political agenda of their own.

I'm willing to be that you tend to follow left of center politics, do you?

posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 04:27 PM
Hey Deny,sorry thought you were American.

I guess you could sort of put me in the "left ish " bracket,although im uncomfortable with the term as it suggests that i believe in the left\right system.
For at the moment i see no real differnces in the policys of left or right politicans in Europe,or America.I am sort of a right or wrong person rather than right or left.

Where is your sig. from?,its class!

posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 04:46 PM

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by Silcone Synapse

Wasnt the USA pretty cosy with old Saddam in the 80s?

We sure were, but then we were cozy to Stalin and we didn't install him in.

You are right Delta,i cant help thinking the same about certain other systems too.Supporting a country who slaughter dissidents/christians/falun gong in order to harvest their organs for profit,for example.
This gives our moral stance a certain lack of credibility,does it not?
Not an easy job,Geopolitic relations.

posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 06:28 PM

Originally posted by toolman
Iraq was held together by sheer brutality, Factions kept from killing each other by saddams military. removing that military released pent up anger between the factions, and also directed towards occupying forces.

are you crazy?
how could Saddam's military keep this "pent up anger" between his peoples but our military cannot? perhaps the news that reported Saddam's military defeat in a matter of weeks was false then...

whilst trying to install democracy and freedom, I am pretty sure it does not include letting people freely rise up against each other and shed blood.

I am most certain that the fighters fighting the US are just defending their country. i am also certain that the FACTIONS UNDER SADDAM'S RULE that were oppressed see their oppressors being attacked by the US and then attack their oppressors out of opportunity. all of this looks like their own little "End of times" type era and, I assume, because of that alone- they attack us as well and each other now. Chaos makes people chaotic.

in another light regarding my last paragraph-
would not regular people become chaotic if chaos is present? the LA riots is a prime example. regular people who just the other day were so innocent and, and... so regular, just started stealing, hurting, killing, and damaging property once they saw authority in chaos. and in the Iraq case, the people were not regular, they were oppressed and they were many and they all have always wanted Iraq their's- so the present state of Iraq is not suprising at all. stop acting like it is suprising.(last sentence not for you, but for other people).

although i am not too much in favor of my own government right now(God forbid they dub me a terrorist, for I am incapable of killing anybody from any country whether they are of civilian or government status unless forced to to defend my own mortality) I'd have to agree with it(the government) as a semi-intelligient person. I agree in the matter of the fact that staying for a long time is the only way to win. Time is the only way to condition anything towards a desired standard... a la ironing a wrinkled shirt, martial arts training, or sending someone to prison(perhaps several times, heh).

p.s.- why is the Afghanistan war so less severe than the Iraq war? kinda makes you think that the fountain of life is at the center of Baghdad or something... especially when they say Al-Qaeda in Iraq and all that stuff... cuz, isn't Al-Qaeda from Afghanistan? What is in Iraq that Iran, Syria, the Iraqi factions, and Al-Qaeda give so much a damn about that Afghanistan doesn't have?

...

[edit on 14-10-2006 by chibidai_rrr]

[edit on 14-10-2006 by chibidai_rrr]

posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 08:36 PM

Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
Hey Deny,sorry thought you were American.

I guess you could sort of put me in the "left ish " bracket,although i`m uncomfortable with the term as it suggests that i believe in the left\right system.
For at the moment i see no real differnces in the policys of left or right politicans in Europe,or America.I am sort of a right or wrong person rather than right or left.

Where is your sig. from?,its class!

You are correct that left-right politics tends to look the same these days especially on the big issues which tells me that they are only puppets being controlled by stings.

I assume that is the same where you live too.

It is best to be a right or wrong person, good for you
.

The sigs are from various places: the first one from a website and if you want to know more about it then U2U me. The second and third sigs are variations of quotes by other people, I paraphrased them.

But it is significant when you realize that all reality is really an illusion.

posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 09:42 PM

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
We have no idea how many people died under Saddam and he probably doesn't even know.

- True, but we do know the number that is used against him is generally 200K, or so right? We know that there is a highish number of 600K for this endevour. If we make the charge that 200K becomes the quilifying for mad enough we have to invade his country and throw him on trial(Which you know is only for show - they certainly not going to find him innocent are they? ) from which he will be killed, then what does that do for our side? Even if the estimate is only half, and it's 300K you are still leagues above what formerly quilified as insane.

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
Saddam was stable? When he was threatening to have WMD's and then according to critics he didn't have them.

- From what I remember he said he didn't have them. The UN inspectors said they didn't they he had them but still had more work to do. The rest of the world went along with the UN inspectors and the US decided that wasn't enough - there was no threatening on his side. Even if he uttered such words, someone who is disarmed, with US and UK patroling the no fly zones on both sides of their country, and every satailyte beaming Iraq's movements he was never a threat. However, what about Iraq. When was it more stable. Now or then? It is clear that it was then, and while I don't support Saddam and the wy he choose to do what he did, one is being delusional if you can't see that they had a system that maybe we don't understand but it was working for them. Then all tribes managed to get along, today it is civil war. I simply can't see how the prior situation was mosre stable in every possible example except those impossed by our own sense of how things should be - which is every bit as opressive as what Saddam did.

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
Failure is difficult to define in something like this. The real problem is all the foes this action has because it should have ended long ago. Who knows maybe a government would have been formed that would have been somewhat independent of the US but sadly many will even prevent that opportunity from happening.

- OK, but consider this. What if there is a real reason why nothing that has the US's prints on it will start up there? The real problem is that they are there, and they are there not for the people but for the oil. That I think is a pretty safe assuption don't you? So, in so much as the US has control of the oil, one can say it is a success. Sadly, that simple fact also means that it is a failure in every sense of the word, from a chance to improve the world and their stated reasons. The obvious chioce would had been not to go in the first place, having made that mistake, then the second plan would be to have a plan, but having made that mistake...then the third plan would have been ... How is this not a failure?

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
You should always support people that take on difficult jobs that may lead to helping others. I see no reason to believe that troops don't protect locals from suicide bombers or whatever.

- Ohh I am in no way saying they all are. Not by a long shot. They have some of the most honourable and decent people. However, they also have some wacko's. The job itself is one that helps if you are a little off. I don't say that in insult, just recgonition. There have been many such instances of American soldiers firing without cause. Ask yourself, how many times would you have to hear of an invading army killing someone you know on yonge st. before you and everyone that knew that person would stand against that army? How many times will an army allow one of their own to be killed by some civilian that will sudden blow his sorry ass up, before everyone there looks dangerous which envaribly leads to being treated like animals?

posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 10:07 PM

Originally posted by chibidai_rrr

Originally posted by toolman
Iraq was held together by sheer brutality,

are you crazy?
how could Saddam's military keep this "pent up anger" between his peoples but our military cannot?

Very simple just like toolman said Saddam used brutality, he surrounded himself with very loyal elite troops, their loyality were measure by two things, one they had to kill one person from within his tribe and second they had to kill somebody from their enemy tribe.

He hold them by blood, they knew that he will kill them and their entire family at any time and he hold them by fear . . . and that was the people he called loyal and his friends, so you can imagine what he did with anybody that was cosidered and enemy.

posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 01:00 AM

: Originally posted by denythestatusquo
You should always support people that take on difficult jobs that may lead to helping others. I see no reason to believe that troops don't protect locals from suicide bombers or whatever.

Try this google search: marines killing civilians in Iraq. You'll get 2.39 million hits. Most of them will be double hit. Narrow it down to search on one site only. My choice is truthout.com, a site that collects from all major news sources, besides from having their own critical pens for OP/EDs, and they're reckoned among the sharpest and best in the English language.

Now try the same search for that site only marines killing civilians in Iraq and you'll get 564 hits only. Pick your choice covering more than a dozen known atroceties commited by US troops. The worst known is the Haditha massacre of November 2004. You might never have heard about it, because the US has the most selective press in the world. Any descriptive adjective, like "free" is not only a lie, but heresy.

The one place in the world where "deny ignorance" most certainly is required is the US. But who shall teach you? Certainly not "Fox-news" or any other mainstream news outlet for that matter. A grumpy old Euro like myself might try to, and I suggest you go to alternative news sources on the net. Don't believe what they tell you! Look yourself, but if you don't know what to look for it's hard. A good rule of thumb would be, look for the opposite of what they tell you.

: Originally posted by Silicone Synapse

: Originally posted by denythestatusquo
First of all as evil as many in the world want to see the US as being I can't believe for a minute that any regime installed by them would be worse than Saddam was. He was a dictator and would not allow any dissention whatsoever.

My friend,dictactors are an american speciality....how many lovable dictactors have been supported or even installed by America?

Sure! Let me just remind you of another 9/11, 1971, when the first democratic elected government in Chlle was toppled by the US in a CIA orchesrated coup - just because it happend to be a socialist government threatening to nationalize their copper reserves, the biggest in the world. Sure would have been bad for the semi-conductor industri. Therefore one of the bloodest, most cruel regime the world's seen was installed... and who was the master mind to conduct the spin? A later Nobel laurate of the peace price (he got it for Vietnam though), a Doctor Kissinger, the worst hypocrite ever to walk this earth.

Just one example, the list is endless. But if anyone think the US is in Iraq for helping the Iraqi people and once mission accomplished to go back home, please read the following US Building Massive Embassy in Baghdad "the largest of its kind in the world, the size of Vatican City, with the population of a small town, its own defense force, self-contained power and water."

As a good read for disconnecting rational synapses denying reality, try this from yesterday's New York Times A Soldier Hoped to Do Good, But Was Changed by War. Hope it'll touch something.

Forgive me getting emotional reading threads on this unlawful war. Pure war-monger threads ala "nuke them" should be banned from ATS. I think.

posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 01:49 AM
Iraq only exits on a map . Away from your atlas the geographical area of Iraq is nothing more then a bunch of tribes who have been in conflict for thousands of years. Smart political leaders know when to call it quits mind you smart political leaders wouldnt have created this mess.

Iraq needs to be partitioned into tribal regions this would provide the coalition a way out of Iraq and would still allow the Coalition to assit with security should the new tribal regions need/want the assitance. Blindly following a course that is failing is foolhardy.

This thread is also worth checking out.

[edit on 15-10-2006 by xpert11]

[edit on 15-10-2006 by xpert11]

[edit on 15-10-2006 by xpert11]

posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 02:02 AM
Unfortunatey there's two measures of failure in this war.

Succeeding in your percieved goals.
OR succeeding in your real goals.

I know this administrations contacts have... .. of course unpredictabley... done pretty well for themselves.....

How unfortunate the people who profit from war, just happen to be at the presidents dinner table.

Relaxing.. knowing they are untouchable.

[edit on 15-10-2006 by Agit8dChop]

posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 08:40 AM
Maybe not a complete failure... yet, but it is a "helluva mess".

Iraq a helluva mess: Baker

FORMER US secretary of state James Baker was visibly shocked when he last visited Iraq, and said the country was in a "helluva mess", the BBC reported today.

So here's Baker's recommendations...
1. Withdraw troops in phases.
2. Bringing neighbouring Iran and Syria into a joint effort to stop the fighting.
3. Concentrate on getting stability in Iraq, and stop aiming to establish a democracy there.

So Baker's recommendation is to abandon your original goal of establishing democracy, ask your enemies (Iran and Syria) to clean up your mess, and then bring your troops home. Sorry folks, but this sounds like "failure" to me... Anyone disagree?

"It's not going to be 'stay the course,'" the paper quoted one participant as saying. "The bottom line is, (current policy) isn't working. There's got to be another way."

[edit on 18-10-2006 by mecheng]

posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 11:29 AM
I recently did te AV at a conference involving many ofthe top CEOs in the world, as well as partners in the most successful media organizations worldwide, including AT&T, iDEA, Pro-Sebien group, Kabel Deutchland, MGM, Warner Music, and many others. My company also has former FCC chairman Michael Powell, son of Colin Powell, as a Senior Advisor.

At one point there was an interview with Haim Saban, who brought you TMNT, and Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, among various other behind the scenes media items that you are likely not to have heard of. Haim's company Pro-Sebien group various major media outlets in Israel and Germany. He is also a close friend with Colin Powell, and his son.

Okay, enough background. During the interview, Andrew Sorkin of the NY Times asked Haim about his thoughts on the situation on the Middle East, specifically Israel because of his vested interest, but not limited to it. Haim said that he asked Colin the same question weeks before, and Colin told him that in his entire military career, he's never seen the situation as bad as it is now, and it is in no small part due to the US involvement in Iraq.

So, hearing that, I knew that we were in some deep s***.

new topics

top topics

0