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 soldiers execute 4 iraqi firemen infront of Fallujah residents.

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Rockpuck, Can you please tell me . . . tell us all. . . what did the Iraqi people did to the US and to you . . .that they deserved the devastation and punishment of the mighty US armies.

Tell us please.




posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Waiting2awake

- Call me a terrorist sympathizer and I'll call you a yellow coward getting off while real men are fighting and dying because you are too stupid to understand you have been lied too. OK? So you stop refering to people as terrorist sympathizer, and I'll behave myself. Cool?


First - you are not Syrian Sister. Or are you using two names and forgot which one you posted this thread under? Why are you answering for her?

Second - You are well trained in the art of spin, but you did not answer a question.

Third - You ignored the fact that I condemned the actions of the US Soldiers, if true.

Fourth - I did not call you anything. I'm responding to someone else's thread.

Fifth - If someone defends the actions of people who are blowing up other Muslims, including innocent civilians, what would you have me call them. How about co-conspirators to the act of mass murder. You do believe murder is wrong, no matter who does it, don't you? Or is blowing up civilians OK with you? I'll condemn every criminal act committed by a US Soldier in a heartbeat. Why won't you do the same when it comes to criminal acts committed by citizens of the Middle East? My remarks are only directed at criminals and those who support them. Nobody else should take offense. Innocent people should be able to easily respond to those questions without getting angry or attacking the person asking reasonable questions.



posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Coalition troops (not American), pull over a fire truck,

No, "Coalition" troops is a larger set that includes U.S. forces. The article doesn't really specify who. Maybe it was U.S. and Canadian, or U.S. and British. We really don't know for sure.


Originally posted by Souljah
firefighters (you know those people who are dressed as firefighters not as terrorists),

That's another thing your assuming. It doesn't say, and I would be willing to bet, that these firemen are not dressed in any special uniform. Then again, there's no rule that says "terrorist will never wear firemen uniforms."



Originally posted by Souljah
So let's says LAPD gets a report some hijackers took a fire truck


LAPD doesn't have to worry about road-side bombs and snipers on the roof-tops while they are at work. That's not even a good comparison. I already said that the troops were trigger-happy. I don't doubt that they shot them, but the circumstances don't seem to indicate that they lined them up and shot them firing-squad style. "Hey what took you so long to get here? BLAM BLAM BLAM" That's one man's opinion. We do know that they were looking for a commedeered fire-truck. They jumped to conclusions. It's a fatal mistake, but then this is war or in case you didn't notice there are buring military vehicles in the background. They were not jumping to conclusions that they might be attacked at that location. We have proof that they were in a dangerous spot.



posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Marg,

The reason this comes up so often is when people are asked to condemn the actions of those who blow up their own people, including civilians with children, they will not do it. Why is that. What is a person supposed to conclude from that. To not condemn such actions is to support those actions is it not?

It is also interesting that no one notices when I said damn them too, in regards to the Fire Truck incident. That is if it turns out to be true. How honest is that?

If I sound like a Troll it's because of the anger generated by day after day hearing on the news that a group of militants has blown up civilians for no reason other than their religious beliefs. Don't you get angry when a group of families out shopping for food were blown up for no good reason? If you don't I do not know what to say?



posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Actually... A Medical unit or a firetruck makes a PERFECT bomb...

Lets look this over shall we... Lets take a vehicle that is known to be a trusted vehicle driven by people who our soldiers believe they can turn there back on... Now... If the average firetruck holds lets say... 1000-gallons of water... At about 8-lbs per gallon *rough here I'm sorry* and then remove said water and stuff in instead, oh I don't know... 1000-Gallons or roughly 8000-lbs of some explosive material... OH GOLLY GEE!!! WHAT DO WE GET?!?!?!?! A nice suicide team that has in essence a vehicle capable of getting into the greenzone or into any area where CIVILIANS or MILITARY alike can be attacked and killed on a scale very similiar to Kobar Towers... I do not think that any military person wants that to happen and maybe we should actually get both sides of a story before either one starts spouting there own rhetoric.

I am sorry SyrianSister. I know you have your ideas on which side you want to win and that not many here agree with you. But you did change the story alittle bit to make it the worst sounding situation. Do bad things happen? Yes I am sorry to say they do.



posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Waiting2awake


As for your questions..

Who knows? What is it going to take for racial inequality to be erased from America? When you can answer one of them, you'll have the answer to the other.
Yes we do have inequality in the US, but it is illegal to disriminate. One of the worst things that you can be labled is a racist. It has ended many peoples careers. Basically we as a society do not tolerate it

2: What is it going to take to have a stable government that the people of Iraq are happy with?
- Once again, can you not say the same thing right now about the States in terms of their government? For the Iraqi people, I would say they were functioning quite well(Relatively speaking) under Saddam, and they would probably function and be happy if they could get one for themself's, instead of one that was instilled by a forign occupying force. But hey, thats just me. Maybe you will welcome you new Chineese overlords?
I will take that as an " I dont know I cant speak for the Iraqis"

3: Why cant the different sects come together and agree to disagree?
- Because that is not their way. Their way is not your way. I don't agree with it, but I see that only they can change it and until they want it to change no outside force can make them. Only evolution.

Yes you are right but what is keeping them from evolving. They cannot put there differances or agendas aside long enough to defend there own country. These secular leaders like to stay in power so they like keeping the people divided. Even as divided as the US is we will put our differances aside to protect ourselves.

4: Why cant Iraqis have freedom of religion without being persicuted by each different sect?
- For the same reason a right-wing thinker can't express their views in a democrat place without being shouted down, and vice versa. Also remember most of them do live in peace with one another - it is merely a handfull that are really against one another, but remember the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

It doesent matter who you are in the US you have freedom of speech. There is a big differance between shouted down and being stoned to death because you have a different belief


Thank you for the answers and being civil, it is appreciated.


[edit on 2-11-2006 by ultralo1]



posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Rockpuck, Can you please tell me . . . tell us all. . . what did the Iraqi people did to the US and to you . . .that they deserved the devastation and punishment of the mighty US armies.

Tell us please.


Absolutely nothing. It just so happens we have the strength to do as we wish, no one can stop us. Yet anyways.


It is a simple order in the world, the strong nations get what they want and restrict what other nations need. Eventually our time will be over and someone will invade us, our power is not indefinite.. it will all come to an end in due time. The result will be people will look at our actions and they will react in kind if possible, a bit of vengeance.. no nation is humane so don't expect and do not act like they are.

I do not agree we should be in Iraq, I think we should have hit Iran first, Saudi Arabia second and then Afghanistan. Iraq was done for.. different reasons, it had nothing at all to do with Terrorist. I do not however agree with people like Sister or
souljah
because there sole intent is to make the soldiers look bad, not the American government because they have deep rooted hatred for us. They spread propaganda via these small hate mongering sites that do not report the real story. Granted, the American media is going to be more biased in favor of troops, especially FOX, MSNBC and CNN I think give a fair enough picture, because they are seen around the world they have better credibility. But they don't care about facts. They think these troops killed a firefighter (as if they actually dress like firefighters, they do not have uniforms) and even if they where, you have to assume the men who hijacked the firetruck would have dressed like fire men, much like when insurgents dress like police to kill people.



posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfoo
The thing that syrian sister and all the other sympathizers forget is, if these so called 'freedom fighters' would throw down there arms so we 'the US' could go on building up the infrastructer we would be out of there! Atleast in large forces. So who are these freedom fighters really fighting? It sounds like the Iraqi ppl are the ones being left out most in this discussion...

PS.. Syrian sister..... We know you hate the US.. M'kay? so let it go...



That's so much crap. How many billions does Halliburton, Bechtel, GE, etc., get to steal from our Treasury before you folks understand that there is NO rebuilding going on in Iraq. The few schools they managed to get up have had the roofs caving in on them. The notion of rebuilding is simply another pretext for our occupation and base building there. Our govt., as presently constituted, has ZERO interest in rebuilding.


WASHINGTON -- The top auditor of the US reconstruction effort in Iraq yesterday detailed a series of failures, including a $218.5 million emergency radio network that doesn't work, a hospital that is turning out to be twice as expensive as planned, an oil pipeline that is spewing lakes of crude oil onto the ground, and a prison that was meant to hold 4,400 inmates but can house only about 800.

Stuart Bowen Jr. , the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, cited multiple causes for the failures at a Senate hearing yesterday, among them the growth of the Iraqi insurgency, poor planning by the US government, and corruption in the Iraqi government.

But he also took aim at the ``cost-plus" contracts given to American construction firms -- including Bechtel, part of the consortium that oversaw Boston's Big Dig -- which guaranteed profits on top of the cost of the project, even with huge overruns.

When US ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad arrived in Iraq last year, he stopped issuing ``cost-plus" contracts and gave most jobs to Iraqi firms on a fixed-price basis. But much of the US reconstruction funding had already been spent.


boston.com

Iraqis have significantly less of everything since the invasion - and that was following a decade of murderous sanctions where the US wouldn't even allow them the materials necessary to provide potable water to the kids. So 500,000 died. Madeline Albright said "we feel the price is worth it". Worth what? What have we gained? Who are these people and why do we allow them to make such murderous policy?

[edit on 2-11-2006 by seattlelaw]
Mod Edit: Link format edited. Please review this post.

[edit on 2-11-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 04:55 PM
link   
I was going to bring up the point of using the firetruck as a carbomb. In an asymetrical war you don't want to use firecrackers. You want to hit 'em in square in the face with a 2"x4". And thats a carbomb, a big one. The fire truck would be perfect for it. It could also force it's way into the green zone if it wanted to. 223 rounds won't do much good against a fire truck so it's also semi armored by virtue of it's sheer size and engien power. Believe me a fire truck can ram its way through all sorts of stuff.



posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
No, a show of power if anything, cowardice?
A coward is one who would be afraid to inflict harm because of what others think of them.


That's the most pathetic excuse for bullying I've ever heard. Not caring what others think of you is one of the defining traits of the psychopath. You clearly don't care what others think of you or you wouldn't post such arrant nonsense.



We would not defend ourselves simply because we waited for a fight to come to us. does not make sense. Best defense is an offense. did Iraq pose a threat to us? .. No.. but it sent a clear message to other Arab states to keep control of your people, which they have not and we just might have to kick someone else's !@!$..


One of the primary reasons the US is so unpopular in the world is the prevalence of this kind of schoolyard thinking, not least among its leaders, and the consequent utter indifference to human life. You're really coming off like some sort of paranoid psycho in these posts.


The world super powers are never given breaks, they are always on the look out because along with being the super power and all the luxuries that come with it.. we get a big ol bulls eye painted on our face and all the world would much rather see us fall. Not because of oppression, because they want the power the super power holds.


Rubbish. Utter, utter drivel. The US maintains its standard of living (which, I may say, is distributed among its citizens with staggering inequality compared to, for example, the Scandinavian nations) by ruthlessly maintaining an economic hegemony that allows it to leach wealth from its economic empire. US-owned businesses throughout central and South America, for example, routinely pay less in the way of tax than local concerns, and very often US forces intervene to maintain commerical domination in a country, prominent examples being Chile in the seventies and Guatemala in the fifties, although pick virtually any country in the region and you can, without too much difficulty, find instances of this kind of bullying behaviour.

The resentment comes from the fact that the US uses force to rip off the locals and deprive them of their natural resources, not from jealousy of "power". It's how that power is used that is the problem. You no doubt think that the world hates the US for its alleged freedoms. Well, from what I've seen recently, the US is losing its freedoms at an astonishing rate, and is but a few short steps away from becoming a full-blown police state.


Does that conform to the world you live in? I know some would much rather think everyone loves us even if we did not have an army. They are like dogs, the first show of weakness leads to another and another and then no one will respect us, and then they will group, then they will act.


This kind of paranoid swill is used regularly to justify all kinds of evil behaviour. It might surprise you but there are countries out there with very little in the way of military might that have a good standard of living and yet face no threats. I wonder if you can think of any.

Back to the topic: the only person I know on this thread who has actually been to Iraq is Astygia. All you guys who are so keen to slate Syrian Sister might want to go back and check out his post. We've had real disagreements in the past, he and I, but we respect each other's arguments, which is what this debate thing is all about - making a good case with respect.

Most people here need to ask some pertinent questions rather than flapping their gums and jerking their knees.



posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck

No, a show of power if anything, cowardice?
A coward is one who would be afraid to inflict harm because of what others think of them. Self conscious nations have no right in this world, which ironically enough the more .. aggressive.. nations usually remove them.


Rock, I don't know you very well, but I don't think you could possibly have meant this in the way it sounds. If you did...all I can say is I would prefer to live in self-conscious world where nations as a whole actually stop to think about the effects of their decisions before acting on emotional impulse.


Fighting in any case is never a "brave" thing to do. Sadly sometimes it is necessary, but only when defending yourself.


Whoever posted this, don't think it was rock, fighting isn't something you can classify as black or white. Do you need to be brave to go to war? Not necessarily. You can be pumped, brainwashed, conditioned, or just determined, with or without being brave as well. This is a complicated thing. But we are in agreement that defense of oneself is the closest to combative purity any of us can picture, I think.


Right then, always in defense. Lets host the worlds largest army inside the borders of America! .. Which of course without a war to worry about we cut military spending (Oh I think Clinton did that because he had no need for an army!) And when the budget gets cut and benefits go down, wages go down because we don't need a standing army in the states.. we would grow tired of it, and one day the attack comes...


Maybe, maybe not. But this line of reasoning you are referring to is basically glorifying war for the sheer purpose of perpetuating itself in the event of a future war. With the right policy and leadership, this is not only unnecessary, but wrong at its core.

I'm not real good at articulating, please try to follow my line of thinking on this hypothetical example. I'm no foreign policy expert or even close, but how many times has Canada been under constant threat from another nation? Or Australia? Mexico? Between them all, perhaps a handful of times during particularly sensitive situations, yes? But not often. Why is this? They don't feel the need to flex international muscles and play world cop. They don't get overly involved in environments which are none of their business, for the most part at least. Sure, all countries have political and/or economic issues, this is a normality regardless of their style of government.

But this is not the mindset of most "super-powers", thus we super-powers are constantly in a state of either actual or perceived war with any amount of enemies. We covertly influence other governments which are not "beneficial" enough to us. Why is this? Who is any administration, exactly, to deem that all other countries must be either benificial to it, or be overthrown? There will always be political strife, always be discomfort and cultural/religious differences. This is what political leaders are supposed to exist for; to keep the well-being of their people in mind and on top. This can be done without invasion, without deceptive manipulation, and without criminal action.

And if another national/religious/whatever leader doesn't want to keep best interests in mind, fine. This is just another part of diplomacy. You sit down with the person and say "Okay, you got your nuke, you've opened Pandora's Box, it was your choice. If you use your weapons against us, we'll retaliate in kind, which you know we can. If any of your weapons fall into someone else's hands and get used against us, you will also be held responsible. Shoot my toe, I remove your skull." And from this point, it's done. Be careful, be watchful, always try for the best, but don't be so damn quick to war.


did Iraq pose a threat to us? .. No.. but it sent a clear message to other Arab states to keep control of your people, which they have not and we just might have to kick someone else's !@!$..


In your own words you show the "clear message" we have sent; "we will overthrow you without cause, and we won't have the sense to even do it right." Tell me how beneficial this method of logic has been to America, the UK, the Muslims, or the world as a whole. It's made us all paranoid, mistrustful of each other and of other nations/cultures/religions. We're sitting on the edge waiting for the button to get pressed.

And "control your people"? Rock, what internet site are we debating on? America cannot control it's own people, this is why there are so many real and actual conspiracies which are uncovered and constantly speculated upon! If this method of policy really gave "control" to anything, we wouldn't be here because everything would be black and white, yes? Think about it rock, we're going into an election which is being supervised by over seven thousand federally appointed personnel just to make sure our own democracy at home isn't being cheated! We can't have a hum-drum election at home, in America the nation of democracy, yet this policy of "spreading democracy" through war is actually supposed to work?


it is the way these things go. The world super powers are never given breaks, they are always on the look out because along with being the super power and all the luxuries that come with it.. we get a big ol bulls eye painted on our face and all the world would much rather see us fall...


Rich has answered this somewhat already. But to take it further, the bulls-eye is there precisely because of foreign policy and expecting "breaks". Did you know that a significant portion of the world's money is directly influenced by Wall Street? We could conceivably collapse an economy if they don't go along with us. This is used as bartering material in foreign policy all the damn time. Intimidation and coercion only breed hate and war.

Does this mean I excuse terrorist attacks? Hell no, don't go there. This isn't tit-for-tat; guilty is guilty. But it can stop, if leaders stop thinking with their bank accounts. And when truly evil men take control of a country, it is the role of the noble to do what's best for ALL. This isn't the Cold War anymore, this world is smaller now. Like it or not, we must adapt and accept that we will not like everything. Diplomacy takes many faces; war should always, always, always be the most horrid and final step.



posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Hmmm after re-reading my post and your guy's response I would say a lot of it came off not sounding .. right.

Rich23


One of the primary reasons the US is so unpopular in the world is the prevalence of this kind of schoolyard thinking, not least among its leaders, and the consequent utter indifference to human life. You're really coming off like some sort of paranoid psycho in these posts.

Not bullying. Well.. OK it is if you look at it in comparison to children, which is somewhat the attitude of nations. Basically.. this is why I think we invaded Iraq, we took them out for economic reasons. I think we are at a point in our nations history where the spending has gotten so bad, that if we actually stopped all together the economy would collapse. Before 9/11 we had the dot com burst.. a huge hurt to the economy.. people where investing in companies that either never got off the ground or never actually made a profit. Before that we did not need a huge army anymore, Clinton cut federal spending on the army and defense, we where scaling back. 9/11 was either allowed to happen or we took the fullest advantage of a god send, because after 9/11 we had good enough reason to spend .. spend .. spend. That is the only way we continue to run, the government is throwing so much money into the economy and generating some jobs while at the same time, taking over new territories with more resources (oil) in which the companies jack the price to 1. give them and the investors huge profits and 2. Exxon makes 300billion the fed gets 50% in taxes. Are we picking on people simple to pick on people.. or are we in our own way struggling for our own way of life?

Rubbish. Utter, utter drivel. The US maintains its standard of living (which, I may say, is distributed among its citizens with staggering inequality compared to, for example, the Scandinavian nations) by ruthlessly maintaining an economic hegemony that allows it to leach wealth from its economic empire. US-owned businesses throughout central and South America, for example, routinely pay less in the way of tax than local concerns, and very often US forces intervene to maintain commercial domination in a country, prominent examples being Chile in the seventies and Guatemala in the fifties, although pick virtually any country in the region and you can, without too much difficulty, find instances of this kind of bullying behaviour.

Yeah, we exploit people all over the world to ensure we have comfortable living.. like brand name clothes and fancy cars.. it is our life style and we will do anything for it.. including turning a blind eye to little children working their life away in a sweat show in China to make sure we get some over priced Nike shoes. Sad? .. Yeah, but show me a leading super power in history that did not do the same thing.

The resentment comes from the fact that the US uses force to rip off the locals and deprive them of their natural resources, not from jealousy of "power".

From the third world nations, it is most definitely how we treat them. From the other world minor powers like.. oh.. say France.. they would much rather be in our place. Not our culture.. not our way of life.. but our power and our influence.

This kind of paranoid swill is used regularly to justify all kinds of evil behaviour. It might surprise you but there are countries out there with very little in the way of military might that have a good standard of living and yet face no threats. I wonder if you can think of any.

Because after WWII there where two major powers that had the capability to perform absolute and total mutual destruction. And there has never been a better time live then that era.. because the world may not have known it then, but we know it now.. no one was ever going to press the little red button. Does not make sense to destroy your self in hopes of destroying your nemesis because you cannot reap the reward of your struggles... to be the cultural and economic super power. Now that the world was stabilized because a nation of peace protected them (or was there to aid if needed) nations no longer need armies. Now the the USSR is gone and there is only one super power left, we will act like every other time there was in existence only one super power, we will exploit and rape the world until someone defeats us... the natural life cycle of an empire. We will eventually be "the bad guy" but it will not matter to Americans.. because it is to them fighting for their way of life. They will not be number 2 in the world, they will not give up their rights to spend all they want on frivolous material goods and fancy cars and extra large houses..

Astygia:

Rock, I don't know you very well, but I don't think you could possibly have meant this in the way it sounds. If you did...all I can say is I would prefer to live in self-conscious world where nations as a whole actually stop to think about the effects of their decisions before acting on emotional impulse.

My views are incredible general.. I am placing my line of thought on a nation, not an individual person, but putting a nation in the sense as a person or entity in its self.. and that entities only desire is to gain power and to keep the power it already has. For a super power, it would be weak and il advised to back down from threats. Want proof? We verbally attacked Iran, Iran defies us, now Iran and Venezuela come to the UN and make fun of our president on his own soil. Politically a slap in the face. Then NK uses a nuke, we do nothing. We have officially told the world two things 1. we are weaker then would be expected and 2. the Americans care more about being politically correct and do not have the will power to attack their enemies, whether or not they pose a direct threat to us. The collective mentality among the "3rd world" is that we are weakening. And we are, that's the sad part.

Should we go to war every time someone calls us out? .. no.. but if we in the worlds eyes declare someone an enemy, warn them with power, threaten them with economic punishments and they do what ever it is they do and we do nothing that we said we would .. that is not a good thing. What makes it worse, we went to war with Iraq supposedly because of WMD's, then a nation we call an enemy and threat actually uses one... we do nothing. What does that message send to the world.. especially the third world??

quote: Fighting in any case is never a "brave" thing to do. Sadly sometimes it is necessary, but only when defending yourself.

That is not my quote.

I'm not real good at articulating, please try to follow my line of thinking on this hypothetical example. I'm no foreign policy expert or even close, but how many times has Canada been under constant threat from another nation? Or Australia? Mexico? Between them all, perhaps a handful of times during particularly sensitive situations, yes? But not often.

North America is in a unique position, we are isolated from the world as far as local politics. Canada is also located right next door to us, who would dare invade an ally of ours.. even if of course they could even move an army there?? ... Of course.. Canada is under siege.. so is Mexico. North American Union.


Australia is also isolated but step back a second, do not think all the worlds politics where invented in the last 75 years, we invented nothing new except speedy communication between diplomats. Men 300 years ago, 2,000 years ago, all had the basic and simplistic ideas as far as international relations. Now we just make a show of it, and often in Bushes case, embarrass us. But Australia was endangered once... by Japan, and we, along with Australia and New Zealand (every one always forgets poor NZ) pushed them back in the battle of the coral sea. (correct me if that is not the correct battle)

How many times has Europe been endangered? .. ALOT.. how long has Berlin been unified? How long now has it been since the threat of war did not linger over eastern Europe? 20 years if that? .. the Baltic went to war.. peace keepers went there. The wars where kept off because of large armies standing ready. If there where no armies there and the USSR rose up and we never moved into place there.. who knows what could have happened. If there is not a threat, we will not be prepared because the western world is a reactionist society.

In your own words you show the "clear message" we have sent; "we will overthrow you without cause, and we won't have the sense to even do it right."

In the first days of the war, I would hazard a guess that a great deal many of the Arab leaders where pissing themselves afraid they might be next. What have we showed since then? Americans, when posed with an inconvenience will abandon all hope and declare they have lost.

And "control your people"? Rock, what Internet site are we debating on?

Control your people. That was supposed to mean, control militias from getting guns. Control your borders, control the terrorist. Did it work? No. We find they helped them instead. What site is this? ATS, and no, this is not America loosing control of it's people, this is the people loosing control of the government.

We can't have a hum-drum election at home, in America the nation of democracy, yet this policy of "spreading democracy" through war is actually supposed to work

Do you honestly think we give a damn about other people besides our selves? To promote Democracy, look at the Congo. We are friends because they have elections. We extort them while a civil war rages. Millions dead, largest war as far as casualties since WW2.

Did you know that a significant portion of the world's money is directly influenced by Wall Street?

reverse that. We are more dependant on the world, then they are on us.

Hope that cleared some up.



posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 09:09 PM
link   


Rockpuck

Hmmm after re-reading my post and your guy's response I would say a lot of it came off not sounding .. right.


I think you are right something didn't came out right I guess I was one that took your post the wrong way.



posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 10:20 PM
link   
LOL Marge, you would think 10,000 charecters would be enough.... It isn't and I try my best not to fill the entire page with my long post that most people will look over.

I hope my views though are better represented now.. A lot of my views are based on what I consider "human nature" and that we have not actually socially evolved in anyway over the thousands of years our race has had civilized nations.. that fundamentally we still act the same, we just do it in different ways, more behind the scenes to make it appear as if we are not doing anyone any harm.

Also what you should know is that when I say something like "America has every right to invade who ever they want because of the lack of international law." .. it would be a true statement because there is no international guidelines but it would not mean that I would personally agree with it. Much like I do not agree we should have invaded Iraq, as a nation and a people we are doing nothing 'illegal'. Or that saying for instance that Israel had every right to invade Lebanon simply because they felt threatened, whether they did or not I do not know, but one would assume that leaders follow a path of logical thought, they dismantled the threat the only way they know how.. brute force. The only thing I can think of that can be defined as 'illegal' on the world scale is ethnic cleansing... which apparently is fading because if you look at the wars in the Sudan and the Congo you will see no one is doing a damn thing about it.. and how long before we went to Kosovo? .. when nations speak out against other nations for acting 'inhumane' it would be important to remember the only reason they are wasting breath on it is because it is a cycle of the endless political game.

But anyways, you can always ask and I will try and give a better explanation.



posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Ok, not that I in anyway agree with Syrian or any other apologists but I have to say the reason the army cooked up is BS.

Why would insurgents steal a damn fire truck?
guess they changed their mind about those carbombs


furthermore, I was under the impression that the insurgents do not wear uniforms so why did they jump the gun? they surely didnt get a quick glance and mistake them for an insurgent because they do not look alike. They were also unarmed.

They could at least cook up a decent cover story that wont have holes poked all through it.



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 12:35 AM
link   
Um, well actually stealing police cars, fire trucks and ambulances is not uncommon.. you can come up to people at a market and they wont run away, they may come near you and BOOM ... 50 dead, mostly women and children..

It can also be used as a way to evade the army and Iraqi police.. who is going to chase a fire truck after a sniper attack??

It is a very logical strategy.



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 01:34 AM
link   
originally by rich23
The resentment comes from the fact that the US uses force to rip off the locals and deprive them of their natural resources, not from jealousy of "power". It's how that power is used that is the problem. You no doubt think that the world hates the US for its alleged freedoms. Well, from what I've seen recently, the US is losing its freedoms at an astonishing rate, and is but a few short steps away from becoming a full-blown police state.

This is the bottom line. Central America is waking up. Our nation's advernturism in the middle east is going to cause woe when the wheels come off - or go on - down in CA.



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 01:45 AM
link   
I don't like playing devil's advocate, but I hope what I have to say reaches someone. What you read here is not going to be nice, in fact it is very brutal. I apologize if you haven't been exposed to the dark side.

A) In my opinion, the Iraq war was never about WMD, taking out a brutal tyrant, or creating more peace in the area. It was globalization, making one step closer to the inevitable NWO, and making corporation heads happier while they drink their coffee and read WallStreet before the office. Money is power. To many in power, life other than their own is undesireable if not outright hated. More people die, happier they are.

B) When you are a solider, ethics are not preferable. Ethics will only hold you back when you are fighting war. The idea is to win in your cause. Anyone who has to die will die as long as it doesn't enrage your people enough to overthrow your position in power. This is a fundamental rule. You ask why the propoganda, why the lies, why the law-changing, and it boils down to that. Make your population afraid, apathetic, and remorseful and you are now five years old with your mother's credit card in the candy store. Scratch that, uncle Vinny just took over the store and gave you free reign. Understand I believe all I have said here fully. What I have said here is a philosophy that has killed multi-millions. It is a philosophy that has been here since the dawn of time. My soul is blackened by this philosophy, and one day i'll have to make it right. When you are fighting war; win at any cost. War is not desireable, but as long as man remains in this state there will be war.

C) The Iraqi people are so near death and very hopeless. They were this way before we invaded, and are this way now. Iraq is/was a free for all for anyone with a little strength, hence why defense contrators and our brave lived life there like it was the twillight zone. Ever gone from private school to public school (if from UK reverse the order)? You'll know exactly what I mean here. Iraqi's have allowed themselves to operate on the basis of animals. EVERYONE has the potential to be so much more than an animal, but unfortunately not everyone was born that way or seeked how to overcome. Now you are a soldier- and have been in Iraq for 5 months. You see how people die- women-men-children-enemies-friends all around you. You are desensitized to blood. When you do get a good nights rest, you wake up with nightmares. If your friends are around you, they notice you squinting and clawing to the air in your sleep. You start to warp. The only hope for you in this God-forsaken place is to make killing funny with antagonism. "Blow those f**kers up!!" "I shot Hadji- took a picture" "messedup that buck- he did a backflip... godbless 50 cal." How do you motivate Iraqi's near death? Violence. It is a higher bandwith of emotion- hence more powerful- and hence puts these Iraqi's to work. Ever wonder why Tyrants stage public executions? It lowers the crime rates...
What our soldiers did was straight from the playbook of successful war (oxymoron). War is not ideal, but when it comes down to it, you use what you can to motivate people.

D) Sometimes Fascism works better than Democracy when the people live in fear and apathy.

E) Democracy works well when the people are smarter, more educated, more productive, and definately more mentally stable AND happy.

F) Still waiting on that form of government that works for all- I think I might have found it.


Hope this made sense to someone, I am very tired.



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Rockpuck now I can say . . . yes I agree with your post.

jaguarmike, very nice point of view I actually also believe that taking Iraq is has nothing to do with what we have been geared and manipulated to beleive.



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 03:21 PM
link   
If, and I say if, this was a deliberate act. The ones who did it will be punished. My only question is this...where is all this righteous indignation when the "freedom fighters" use carbombs in crowded market squares, and coalition forces aren't even present?

War is a horrible thing. I've never been in one, can't say I want to be...I have, however, seen the scars it leaves behind. The nightmares, the unconscious twitch when a sound triggers a responce, even 50 years after. Horrible things happen, both accidental and deliberate...those of you who would cast aspersions weren't there...you can't know what went through those kids minds after having been attacked. Some of you have been under fire, you and you alone, can imagine what goes through the minds of those kids. The rest of us need to be quiet, and let investigations take place to sort out the right from the wrong.

If it was an accident, the worst punishment I can think of is having to live with the fact that I just killed men who were just trying to help...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join