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.

 

Insurgents offer US 30 day truce to get out of iraq

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Yeah sure. Its the ones who offer a truce who are in retreat, people who are winning do not offer a truce. The arab world is famous for their "truces" like in palestine just recently. They are hurting and need time to regroup and rearm. Just because soemone make an outlandish claim doesn't mean there is substance to it. People from the middle east are the biggest loud mouths in the world. All talk. Its been 3 years Iraq has made tremendous progress no one with half a brain expected things to be up to first world conditions yet. Even with the insurgents trying to do their best to intimidate the locals.




posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 10:39 AM
link   
I think the Iraq people know what thay want as stated Here!!



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
That's fair isn't it? After all you've done.

Everyone know that retriets are when you lose the most men.
they could have kept gunning you down untill the last man leaves and still be in the right but they chose to do the honourable thing.

I suggest you take it.


Who has lost the most men? Certainly not the US... Gunning us down...? THey cower behind women children and set off remote bombs in public areas. YOu make it seem like the insurgents are noble people protecting the iraqis from the big bad US when in fact they are the ones murdering Iraqis and trying to destroy the country.

THe next time those lions of yours attack a US BASE instead of car bombing an Iraqi marketplace call me.



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
Hey if you don't want to take it, it's your funeral. Literally.

My guess is your just going to try the tired old "send more troops in" strategy, because that really worked well for you right before the fall of saigon.

Frankly i can't wait untill you do, because it shows we are getting closer to the end. Another chapter gone of history repeating itself.

All we need now is a tet offensive.


You do understand vietnam was lost because of the american public don't you?

The tet offensive was a military disaster for the NV a failure in every way except for american media's sensationalism. The american media then and now is the enemies best and only effective weapon. A car bomb here and ied there and you would think the country was lost, but it really isn't



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 10:55 AM
link   
This will not be taken.

And I also believe there will be a big last stance y the Bush Administration, like a huge air bombing, tanks, and soldiers centered on one position such as Baghdad leaving places in total destruction. I think Bush is that desperate now to not leae a failing war in his legacy.



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   
If I were in charge of my country, I would listen to them and just withdraw. But I know Bush being stubborn as he is won't and just continue to make my country look bad...



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kacen
If I were in charge of my country, I would listen to them and just withdraw. But I know Bush being stubborn as he is won't and just continue to make my country look bad...


Thank god your not.

Tell me what would be accomplished by withdrawing?



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 11:43 AM
link   
I'd probably go into talks. Withdrawl, good possibility. But if you think we are leaving ANY of our weaponry behind, you have got another thing coming. Withdrawl isn't the worst idea. Maybe give us a bit more time because we are keeping our weaponry and thats final so we need to move it.

There is simply no way we are leaving all that technological weaponry behind for the opposing side to use. They want us to get out, understandable. You want us to leave our weapons....I don't think so.



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Yeah sure. Its the ones who offer a truce who are in retreat, people who are winning do not offer a truce. The arab world is famous for their "truces" like in palestine just recently


LOL, it's not a truce, it is the conditions of your surrender.



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   
SS, I am sorry to tell you but I think the US would probably just do another bombing run before they accepted this deal. The last thing they are going to do is surrender.



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
Everyone know that retriets are when you lose the most men.

Not necessarily. A "retreat" could lead a pursuing force into a lethal ambush, costing many if not all their troops.

they could have kept gunning you down untill the last man leaves and still be in the right but they chose to do the honourable thing.

Chose to do the honourable thing? Bombing civilians is honourable? Hiding forces in/blowing up mosques is honourable? Interesting sense of honour.

Of course, by that logic, the US could have turned Iraq into a sheet of glass, but they chose to do the honourable thing.

Makes the same amount of sense, if you ask me.



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 12:26 PM
link   
grimreaper.


SS, I am sorry to tell you but I think the US would probably just do another bombing run before they accepted this deal. The last thing they are going to do is surrender.


don't worry about it, i know they aren't smart enough to accept this generous offer. Or maybe just to plane greedy and with absolutely no care for their mens lives.

And like i said before, i know what they will do is send more troops in and intensify attacks. Infact i'm counting on it, because judging by history, that's what'll hand us our sure victory.

---

subject x.


Chose to do the honourable thing? Bombing civilians is honourable? Hiding forces in/blowing up mosques is honourable?


You are the ones who bomb civilians.
What you and your media suggest is ridiculous, why would they bomb their own civilians, it's the support of the people on which they survive.



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Not that they aren't smart enough, mostly just too greedy. But even I, a civilian, would be pissed that they would spend BILLIONS of taxpayer money, then just leave the weapons over there. I'm sorry but that would be like I just got robbed of my taxes.

Its rather insulting to me that they would say "leave the heavy weaponry". Mainly because it came out of the american peoples pockets. We may not have agreed with it, but it would be even worse to just give it away. We have enough problems with wasting taxes. At the least, if we are going to buy these billions of dollars in weapons, we keep them in our possession.

I don't agree with buying all this weaponry, but they are crazy if they think that we are just going to leave it there.



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Grim Grim Grim, don't be like that, lives are more important than money.

And don't take it personally, the resistance isn't just telling you to leave the heavies behind to insult you, it's because you need alot of men to do it with and it takes a much longer amount of time.

But think about it from their persepective, they have to in sure that you're not going to attack another country for a very long time, and what better way than to disarm you?

Don't you think you have stolen enough from them in Oil and blood? I don't see how you can claim that it's unfair. Like it or not your tax dollars paid for this war, and maybe if you don't want to get into another one, you won't let your government blow away the next ten billion on equipment ment for the conquering of soverieng nations.

Think of it as repartations for losing the war.

[edit on 23-12-2006 by Syrian Sister]



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
grimreaper.


SS, I am sorry to tell you but I think the US would probably just do another bombing run before they accepted this deal. The last thing they are going to do is surrender.


don't worry about it, i know they aren't smart enough to accept this generous offer. Or maybe just to plane greedy and with absolutely no care for their mens lives.

And like i said before, i know what they will do is send more troops in and intensify attacks. Infact i'm counting on it, because judging by history, that's what'll hand us our sure victory.

---

subject x.


Chose to do the honourable thing? Bombing civilians is honourable? Hiding forces in/blowing up mosques is honourable?


You are the ones who bomb civilians.
What you and your media suggest is ridiculous, why would they bomb their own civilians, it's the support of the people on which they survive.


You are very naive. THey rely on a sunni minority. They attack their own people because their own people have freely elected a government that is targeting your freedom fighters and is not run by the minority.If all of iraq hated the US presence alot more US troops would be dead. In fact without the US pressence there would be no more sunnis in iraq.



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 12:50 PM
link   
^

Right, and i'm the naive one, did Fox news tell you this stuff? You think that the shia actually want you there? You think they don't have resistance movements of their own?
LOL.
I downloaded a video yesterday, that will wake you right up out of that dream, but it's far to graphic to post on here. Send me a u2u if you want to watch things other than what you find on CNN, and see for yourself how much the shia love you.

[edit on 23-12-2006 by Syrian Sister]



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link   
SS

The USA could leave the heavy equipment behind, but your religious fools who never wash and let their hair grow forever completely lack the education to use it. We will keep it thankyou.

You seem to feel that allah will protect you while you hide under women's skirts and use children as shields, you proclaim that the prophet momadman ( a psychpathic child raping delusional asshole if there ever was one) will conquer all the people of the world.

You are wrong.

For Syria to be growling like a lion is the equivalent of a chihuahua taking on a tank.



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 01:24 PM
link   
SyrianSister are you aware that your "freedom fighters" have killed more in Iraq than the evil coalition?



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   
I'm a hardcore liberal who wants Bush strung up and who thinks this war is one of the greatest atrocities of my lifetime but I have to say that this has as much weight or effect if I ordered Canada to drop off all of their beer and marijuana on my doorstep otherwise I'm declaring war on them. This is meaningless and things will continue to slide on the slippery slope there until eventually we're run out of there.

As liberal as I am, I'm not prepared to leave Iraq until some viable solution is reached that ensures the future safety of the Iraqi people as well as the American public. Frankly I don't that's going to come until our criminal president's term runs out.

[edit on 23-12-2006 by CuriousSkeptic]



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Madman

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
Hey if you don't want to take it, it's your funeral. Literally.

My guess is your just going to try the tired old "send more troops in" strategy, because that really worked well for you right before the fall of saigon.

Frankly i can't wait untill you do, because it shows we are getting closer to the end. Another chapter gone of history repeating itself.

All we need now is a tet offensive.


You do understand vietnam was lost because of the american public don't you?

The tet offensive was a military disaster for the NV a failure in every way except for american media's sensationalism. The american media then and now is the enemies best and only effective weapon. A car bomb here and ied there and you would think the country was lost, but it really isn't


That's ridiculous. Vietnam was lost because it was not economically or politically viable and none of our military efforts seemed to "win the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese people". They wanted independence and would've fought to the last man. If history went the way you seem to think it should've, we'd still be there with the fourth generation of soldier fighting and dying there for no reason. We'd probably be engaged in Cambodia and the other surrounding countries in a huge game of Risk. That's assuming our economy would've supported it, which it wouldn't have.







 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join