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.
Originally posted by WestPoint23
Originally posted by marg6043
And guess what history is repeating itself.
Thankfully not entirely, soldiers aren't treated like they were in the past. However Iraq just like Vietnam, can/could have been won. If we cut the political/military tie developed after WWII and stop letting politicians and civilians run the war and also stop letting public opinion affect the decisions on the ground we can win. However that wont happen until we get hit in the face, but by then it will be too late as we wont be facing idiots with masks spraying and praying.
Originally posted by marg6043
How many soldiers need to get killed and maimed to make you feel happy and for you to have your chest swell with patriotism in a fictitious war made by the present administration.
Whatever, you see this war as "fictitious" I see as it necessary strategic move that will increase US military, economic and political influence and presence in that part of the world. While it may not make sense to most, it will pay dividends later on, though we may experience some because of it. It will help us better deal with current powers in the region and rising future ones elsewhere. Wars are seldom fought without additional reasons and ambitions, the US wouldn't be what it is if they were.
[edit on 14-11-2006 by WestPoint23]
Just before World War I, there were a number of terrorist attacks on
the United States forces in the Philippines by Muslim extremists. So
General Pershing captured 50 terrorists and had them tied to posts for execution.
He then had his men bring in two pigs and slaughter them in front of
the, now horrified, terrorists.
Muslims detest pork because they believe pigs are filthy animals.
Some of them simply refuse to eat it, while others won't even touch pigs
at all, nor any of their by-products. To them, eating or touching a pig, its
meat, its blood, etc., is to be instantly barred from paradise (and those
virgins) and doomed to hell.
The soldiers then soaked their bullets in the pigs blood, and proceeded to
execute 49 of the terrorists by firing squad. The soldiers then dug a big
hole, dumped in the terrorist's bodies and covered them in pig blood,
entrails, etc.
They let the 50th man go. And for the next forty-two years, there was not
a single Muslim extremist attack anywhere in the world.
Maybe it is time for this segment of history to repeat itself, maybe in Iraq?
Originally posted by marg6043
Well for those that still think is all about wining and getting a Democratic elected government.
What a fiasco when probably the same insurgency that is attacking our troops are the same ones that are getting trained by our own troops they just take off their uniforms to do the attacking.
But hey wait, they eve go on day light and take over entire groups of people wearing the uniforms.
Funny but guess what, those are the realities of wars.
And get who got caught in the middle.
Originally posted by semperfoo
Im telling ya. We need to do what general pershing did to terrorist before WWI.. If you have no clue what im talking about then read the below statement.
Just before World War I, there were a number of terrorist attacks on
the United States forces in the Philippines by Muslim extremists. So
General Pershing captured 50 terrorists and had them tied to posts for execution.
He then had his men bring in two pigs and slaughter them in front of
the, now horrified, terrorists.
Muslims detest pork because they believe pigs are filthy animals.
Some of them simply refuse to eat it, while others won't even touch pigs
at all, nor any of their by-products. To them, eating or touching a pig, its
meat, its blood, etc., is to be instantly barred from paradise (and those
virgins) and doomed to hell.
The soldiers then soaked their bullets in the pigs blood, and proceeded to
execute 49 of the terrorists by firing squad. The soldiers then dug a big
hole, dumped in the terrorist's bodies and covered them in pig blood,
entrails, etc.
They let the 50th man go. And for the next forty-two years, there was not
a single Muslim extremist attack anywhere in the world.
Maybe it is time for this segment of history to repeat itself, maybe in Iraq?
Originally posted by marg6043
Really? for somebody like you, is hard to understand the complexities of war. Our troops are losing anytime that one of them gets killed by the so called weak and coward insurgency because even when so many have been killed they still attacking our troops.
You just fail to see the overall picture.
And is not end to these insurgency at all.
Originally posted by XphilesPhan
... by your definition, we should surrencer when we receive the first casualties....
Originally posted by marg6043
Originally posted by XphilesPhan
... by your definition, we should surrencer when we receive the first casualties....
Surrender? to what? US already achieved the purpose of the invasion in Iraq. Didn't you forgot about the purposed of the Iraqi invasion?
Let me remind you,
Invade the country,
Liberate the people,
Take Saddam,
Find the WMD,
Establish a democraticaly elected government at least two times.
So. . . that was done with not problem at all. Remember.
Remember that the War on terror came into place after invasion, but it was not terror in Iraq before invasion, just the one that Saddam brought to his own people.
NO we did our job and having our soldiers going from total victory to running after thugs and having themselves blown up only shows that the same people that put our troops and military in that country careless of what happen to our soldiers and how many needs to die until they fell lie it.
Is a shame and a misused of our troops.
Originally posted by semperfoo
Marg I know your against the war. You hate it, its ugly, theres all sorts of awful sh*t going on.
Originally posted by marg6043
At least you understand my point.
But is not excused for the mess that now the country is facing. Saddam gave them fear but it also gave them stability, now is more fear and terror.
I will say not more, because is not excuse for what the Iraqi people is facing right now, without Saddam.
It makes you wonder who was the worse, liberation or SAddam.
Originally posted by semperfoo
Now thats just stupid. Millions of ppl killed under the tyrant regime of saddam versus a few hundred thousand killed during the liberation of Iraq? Its sad that that is even a comparison. But dont let your hate and anger over this governement and this war blind you.
Originally posted by deltaboy
Hey Marg, remember that Saddam's cronies are the same people killing Shiites just like they did many years before the overthrow of Saddam. Al Qaeda decided to join the fun.
Originally posted by marg6043
Really? for somebody like you, is hard to understand the complexities of war. Our troops are losing anytime that one of them gets killed by the so called weak and coward insurgency because even when so many have been killed they still attacking our troops.
You just fail to see the overall picture.
And is not end to these insurgency at all.
Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
How can you watch our troops overcoming and winning in battle and call that losing?
Do you ever watch or read anything that people post or do you just start with the propaganda when you see a thread title?