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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 01:39 PM
link   
That country as soon as we leave is going to go towards religious rule anyway. We should leave and open Saddams cell on the way out and let him know that we are going to watch him closely. He is the only man that will keep both sides together aside from splitting the country up and having wars at the borders constantly. We are not going to be able to fix anything. They do not trust us and I don't blame them. More people died under our occupation then during Saddams entire rule.




posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 01:49 PM
link   
But at least we got Saddam and his WMDs... what... there wasn't any WMDs? So what are we holding him on? Murdering some of his people awhile ago? So when does Bush go on trial for death row inmates that died when he was Gov of Texas? Not to hijack the thread, I just think it's hilarious how stupid Americans are.



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Not sure if people remember since this was a while ago but it was a video of a bunch of security guys (Not arabs) driving around in Iraq just randomly shooting cars driving on the road and shooting at people walking on streets. This was the beginning of the civil war. These situations were all toted to the media as being done by religious insurgents. I believe this was intentional. It could have been for 2 reasons: 1. To perpetuate the need for paid security forces or 2. A Civil war would keep the 2 sides busy killing each other instead of American troops



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   
security consultants (mercs by any other name) shooting up cars for fun, haditha killings, rape and murder, abu graib and more are all a result of the fact the forces (military and private) are out of control. That's why the situation is out of control. What were disciplined soldiers are burned out to the hilt, suffering PTD and being sent back into the fire. The thousand yard stare is mandatory once again.

The best thing that can happen is to enter into negotiations to get out. There is no military solution anymore, no pacification possible unless as pointed out the place is turned into glass (which really isn't going to help anyone).

It's hard to face up to but I don't there is a viable solution that America (and Britain) can attach itself to. It has to be another way

[edit on 23-12-2006 by kickoutthejams]



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by kickoutthejams
security consultants (mercs by any other name) shooting up cars for fun, haditha killings, rape and murder, abu graib and more are all a result of the fact the forces (military and private) are out of control. That's why the situation is out of control. What were disciplined soldiers are burned out to the hilt, suffering PTD and being sent back into the fire. The thousand yard stare is mandatory once again.

The best thing that can happen is to enter into negotiations to get out. There is no military solution anymore, no pacification possible unless as pointed out the place is turned into glass (which really isn't going to help anyone).

It's hard to face up to but I don't there is a viable solution that America (and Britain) can attach itself to. It has to be another way

[edit on 23-12-2006 by kickoutthejams]


I don't know, my fear with that is that if we leave Iraq without any kind of a solution or resolution then what would stop the Muslim problem from coming here to the States or from slipping to other Western countries. I know this sounds a lot like the domino theory and the communism days... which is kind of pathetic in itself. However, in Iraq we have a central hub where all of the violence is focused and contained. And even though it's a meat grinder there, it keeps that out of the Western countries because the extreme islamic groups feel they can make a statement close to home.



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
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.


your foolish to think them leaving the weapons behind will stop them. You might get a couple years before the US attacks. But guess what, they will just rearm more then they have now. Guess who pays for those weapons they have to rebuild? We do. Even more taxes get taken to re-equip our army, and they WILL re-equip our army whether you like it or not. Not to mention we still have a bunch of weapons at home still.

I think ending the war is fine. But I'm not going to pay for the mistake of a government I had no say in. I didn't get to vote, I didn't ask for this, and I damn sure don't want to have money grabbed out of my pockets now because of it.

It's like we threw a stone first, you threw a stone, and now you want all our stones so we can call it even. Sorry but Im not going to agree with that because the government is just going to make the people pay for twice as many stones as they use to have, costing us even more.



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 02:46 PM
link   
It won't be accepted. That's rediculous.

I have a nagging suspicion, that all is going just right. There WILL be a build-up of troops in Iraq. Whether they are there for Iraq, will be determined. America isn't leavign the region voluntarily, any time soon. As I see it, the middle-east is the future of this planet right now. All roads lead to Baghdad nowadays.



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2stepsfromtop
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.


I surely hope a MOD or some one picks up on this and does what is appropriate. Completely offensive.



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 02:52 PM
link   
We should accept the offer!

Either way we are not going to "win" this "war on terror".

From the onset, victory has never been an option. You cannot win a war on an emotion (terror).

We should get out while we're behind!

Throw bush under the bus, apologize to the rest of the world and take our lumps.

Impeach this imbecile, then hang him and his cronies on a world broadcast.



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Grim,
It's only a little offensive. Probably should be edited.
Sounds like a post made out of frustration..



So, who is this guy (Abu Omar al-Baghdadi), and this group he is speaking for?
AL-Jazeera Says the group is led by AL-queda. And they are building a collection of Sunni provinces, based on Sharia law. Nice...

HE wasn't elected..thre is no need to listen any further..Abu Omar al Baghgdadi is just trying to fill a power vacuum, while it still exists.. I predict that HE won't exist within the next three months.



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 03:04 PM
link   


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


And you fought for what the American public wants right? So whats the problem?

If we only spent all this money on building the infrastructure, then the citizens of Iraq would take care of the insurgents themselves.

:edit: ALL philosophy and religious beliefs are easier to practice among others, with running water, and continual electricity.

[edit on 23-12-2006 by nextguyinline]



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 03:20 PM
link   
nextguyinline,

We are spending money on ifrastructure.
Punks like these guys keep blowing it up.
Not unlike the way a pig wallows in its own urine.


They don't want a better life for those in Iraq.
They want uneducated masses yearning to be told what to do, and how to act,
And how to dress, and how to pray, and what to eat etc..

[edit on 23-12-2006 by spacedoubt]



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 03:31 PM
link   
We need to spend a larger portion of the war budget on the infrastructure. IMO

A quick search revealed this article from '03.

It looks to be about a third of the total budget for the War on Terror. Money can't be taken out of Afghanistan because the Poppies need attention, but I bet if 2/3rds of the budget or more was spent on rebuilding, ALOT more can be achieved.

:edit: and also, who are 'they'? Are 'they' different from 'them' over here?

[edit on 23-12-2006 by nextguyinline]



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt
nextguyinline,

We are spending money on ifrastructure.
Punks like these guys keep blowing it up.
Not unlike the way a pig wallows in its own urine.


They don't want a better life for those in Iraq.
They want uneducated masses yearning to be told what to do, and how to act,
And how to dress, and how to pray, and what to eat etc..

[edit on 23-12-2006 by spacedoubt]


We want to teach them Western ideals, we want them to live the Western life, we want them to pray to a Western god, and make no mistake this is all about culture and ideals. Would you like it if the Chinese came in here and imposed their culture on us? Yes their culture may be more efficent and may be better, however they aren't us so why should we allow them to alter our culture or allow them to dictate to us who we are and what we can become. I'd rather take a domestic tyrannt than a foreign tyrannt, and I'm guessing these people who's "Freedom" we're fighting for feel the same way. It's hard to translate John Wayne movies into Arabic.



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
You are the ones who bomb civilians.

Yes anyone who talks to a coalition soldier is no longer a civilian , he or she is colaborator and therefore an enemy. Isnt that the "reasonable" arguement people used when they started killing nazi informers?


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.

And I take it that the insurgents would never conduct an action against "colaborators" or allow "colateral damage" to occur?
If you looked at northern ireland you'd notice that they managed to do not to bad by "killing" thier own people.



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Curious, I think your wrong about the motives. IMO, the motives are two-fold. These opinions are very short, and have only my 'before sleep' thoughts to them.

1. Positional Advantage on a Global Scale
2. Create a new capitalistic market for global commerce. (Capitalism needs
new markets to survive)



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by nextguyinline
Curious, I think your wrong about the motives. IMO, the motives are two-fold. These opinions are very short, and have only my 'before sleep' thoughts to them.

1. Positional Advantage on a Global Scale
2. Create a new capitalistic market for global commerce. (Capitalism needs
new markets to survive)


Excuse me, I was speaking from what I think their point of view on the situation would be.

Personally I think Bush's motives for this are

1. Oil
2. Vendetta against a man who didn't play ball with his daddy (I love the classic quote "He tried to kill my daddy")
3. Strategic foothold in the middle east
4. And most importantly we needed a enemy... with no communists, nazis, or anarchists we decided to turn Muslim fundamentalists into the next threat to our nation.

[edit on 23-12-2006 by CuriousSkeptic]



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by nextguyinline
We need to spend a larger portion of the war budget on the infrastructure. IMO


:edit: and also, who are 'they'? Are 'they' different from 'them' over here?

[edit on 23-12-2006 by nextguyinline]


I agree, more money on infrastructure.
But Like I said, we could, if some groups would stop blowing up the progress we have made.

By they, I mean the particular group that is offering this so-called truce.


Originally posted by CuriousSkeptic

We want to teach them Western ideals, we want them to live the Western life, we want them to pray to a Western god, and make no mistake this is all about culture and ideals. .


I don't completely agree here. Maybe SOME western ideals.
Like women are worth something. Religious tolerance.
Moving past medival culture. Give them a chance to once again contribute SOMETHING. This region USED to be a hotbed of Science, and discovery.
Now..nothing but hatred and ignorance.



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
Not sure if people remember since this was a while ago but it was a video of a bunch of security guys (Not arabs) driving around in Iraq just randomly shooting cars driving on the road and shooting at people walking on streets. This was the beginning of the civil war. These situations were all toted to the media as being done by religious insurgents. I believe this was intentional. It could have been for 2 reasons: 1. To perpetuate the need for paid security forces or 2. A Civil war would keep the 2 sides busy killing each other instead of American troops




Good point.

Was this before or after the corrupt bush gave Negroponti some control over there?

Surely the name, Negroponti, will ring a few bells around here...you know, Negroponti of the South American death squads fame?

Now wasn't that also supposed to be made to look like it was the natives killing other natives, just like now?

Think about it.



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 05:13 PM
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.

If we take the deal, they'll only come back at us as we turn our backs with our own equipment, either way it's a lose/lose situation.

I say we stay in there a dispatch as many insurgents as possible, obviously they're weakened because they would even consider a truce in the first place. The way insurgents works are different than conventional forces, the insurgency is getting severely weakened in certain areas and the warlords need to regroup and are in dire need in supplies, hence why they want the heavy supplies. Normally the United States would just leave their light equipment behind as it's always cheaper to produce more of it than to transport it back and forth, but in this case; I would make the whole initiative to make sure not a single piece of our equipment falls into their hands.

The idea here is to resolve this as quickly and effectively as possible, we're there now and I don't support us being there, but I also don't support insurgencies and backing off a mess. Vietnam? We pulled out prematurely and look what happened after, the VC and North Vietnamese army pulverized the south.

It wouldn't be right for us to just abandon those that want a peaceful life in Iraq, because as of now; if we pull out now, they'll never get it. The Iraqi government is not in a state of security and is definitely not ready to put up with the insurgency if the US pulls out.

Bottom line, Stay the Course, they will fall eventually, a war of Attrition they can never win.

Shattered OUT...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join