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.

 

20 soldiers gone in a day (We're not winning)

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by IamnomanasIamallman
The United States of America officially terminated its principles in 1913.


There is more

Int'l bankers attempting to destroy America - NWO - 9/11 - Federal Reserve - Smoking gun
www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 22-1-2007 by In nothing we trust]




posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 01:26 AM
link   
wow that's an amazing thread- i'm still new here so i'm still looking around. Give me a day to read up on that!!


Awesome innothingwetrust!



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Everone who is with my position, notice the corporations and special interests always duck into the shadows. The media networks never bring this up. It's always the radical islam that is causing the chaos. It's never the savages in the suits. It's always the savages in the ski masks.
You notice that?

This isn't a plan because others think that certain americans want us to lose. What is the plan? Every single person who is selling this crap to the american people, they aren't going. What do they care? And yet we debate in circles when the people who shout the loudest for war never go.


Osama won as soon as we plastered his photo everywhere and so did this Bush Administration for a time. OH and he still isn't on FBI's most wanted for 9/11. One big punch in the kisser.


Again, why am I trusting this administration and why should I have faith because a small percentage of Americans are still scared because they watch 24 ad nauseam?


And now while I talk, 78 people died in Baghdad because of Bomb terrorism. This strategy is wack. And you trust this incapable incompetent leader commander in chief. Let's really see what this is about. He can finally be a successful oilman. But the wealthy can rest easy and pretend to care about the soldiers dying at a breakneck speed. Meanwhile criticizing anyone who objects with aggressively is scolded and shouted anti american. This is so cliche it's beyond ridiculous.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 10:21 AM
link   
One day losses on D-day



According to the D-Day Museum at Portsmouth, US casualties totalled 6,603





The Allied casualties included 83,045 from 21st Army Group (British, Canadian and Polish ground forces) and 125,847 from the US ground forces




Of course you would of thought of it as a lost cause.............



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 10:27 AM
link   

There were 54,200 deaths to Americans in service during the period of hostilities, June 27, 1950 to July 27, 1953. Of these, 33,700 were actual battle deaths.


33,700 US battle deaths in 3 years.

I guess we shouldn't of been there either.

You 'peaceniks' are a disgusting lot.


There were 6.8 million American men and women who served during the Korean War period, June 27,1950 to January 31, 1955.


How many are serving today? Only 1.2 million..............

[edit on 22-1-2007 by ferretman2]



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Really, 20 dead in a day as an excuse to pull out is pretty weak logic. If we applied that across the board Nazis would rule us all, the Panama Canal never would have been built, neither would the Golden Gate Bridge, the Indistrial Revelution just wouldnt have happened, hell, cave men probably wouldve never hunted for food!

Dont foget crowds thatve been crushed because of structural failures, human stampedes at sporting events, plane crashes, car crashes....

You know, if everyone was as weak as you we wouldnt do anything. We'd never leave the house, we couldnt stay in the house, cant eat anything or drink anything (might be spoiled or poisoned). We'd all just lay on the ground and wait to die. We couldnt even age. More than 20 people have died in a day from old age.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by MRGERBIK
[
Here we go again,Deltaboy. You don't understand the gameplan of Jihad with extremists. To keep you there and keep you angry. You angry,deltaboy? Good. That's what Jihadists want you to be. It's all in their playbook. "Keep them bogged down in combat and grind their equipment and military into dust" That's how Islamic radicals win wars by keeping americans like you furious at anyone who follows radical terrorism.
What are you going to do to scare them? Kill them? These people want to die in combat. It's probably volunteer spiritual suicide if you think about it.
So that's why "WE" are losing. You are giving the radicals what they want, lock stock and barrel. Destroying their country? Just proves what the radicals are saying about the U.S. being a bloodthirsty empire. Every single soldier in Iraq and the presence of our military is beautiful divine propaganda. You fell into the trap. And what are you going to do if the 1 million man Iranian army is unleashed? Aint gonna be pretty.


I hardly get mad over this. Its pretty funny how we become sensitive to casualties these days and age as people have the perception that wars are fought with no casualties at all. Remember the 78 day bombing of Serbia and American people didn't want any casualties at all. Not even one. And that conflict was considered a just. It don't matter if the enemy prefers to die eagerly. Hell, the Japanese were eager to die like for example Kamikaze and we help them do that but we prefer to be alive and we won.

As General Patton once said "Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for their country. You won it by making the poor dumb bastard die for his country. Men, all this stuff you've heard about America not wanting to fight, wanting to stay out of the war, is a lot of horse dung. Americans traditionally love to fight. All real Americans, love the sting of battle."



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 10:43 AM
link   


As General Patton once said "Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for their country. You won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country. Men, all this stuff you've heard about America not wanting to fight, wanting to stay out of the war, is a lot of horse dung. Americans traditionally love to fight. All real Americans, love the sting of battle."


I love Patton. We shouldve let him into Russia when we had the chance. Think about it. No Cold War, Eastern Europe would have been free, Berlin Wall never would have happened, parts of the Middle East wouldnt have had to deal with constant Soviet attacks, man, it wouldve been great. We had the bomb had they didnt. We couldve saved generations of Soviet corruption, the massive growth of an international black market, post Soviet crime sydicates running the newly "free" countries, etc...

Instead he died in a car wreck.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere


As General Patton once said "Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for their country. You won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country. Men, all this stuff you've heard about America not wanting to fight, wanting to stay out of the war, is a lot of horse dung. Americans traditionally love to fight. All real Americans, love the sting of battle."


I love Patton. We shouldve let him into Russia when we had the chance. Think about it. No Cold War, Eastern Europe would have been free, Berlin Wall never would have happened, parts of the Middle East wouldnt have had to deal with constant Soviet attacks, man, it wouldve been great. We had the bomb had they didnt. We couldve saved generations of Soviet corruption, the massive growth of an international black market, post Soviet crime sydicates running the newly "free" countries, etc...

Instead he died in a car wreck.


If the British had their way the allies would have invaded the balkans attacking Germany through Greece and then Yugoslavia. Unfortunately some American Anglophobes (Admiral King) saw this as Imperialistic ambition by the UK and refused to support it there by allowing eastern europe to fall into the hands of the communists. So in some way people blame american juvenile foreign policy(i mean cosying up to the russians!!) for the cold war it seems the american could be better at choosing their foreign policies.

.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 12:50 PM
link   
What nonsense logic. :shk:

WW2 has nothing to do with this situation. As I said before, ONE casualty is too many if it's in the name of market penetration. If we were fighting to stop the Iraqi army from advancing into Europe and killing tens of thousands more, while shipping millions off to labor/death camps, it would be a fairly simple decision to get in their way and sacrifice to stop their plans, but that's just not the case. We're fighting to insure that Western businesses can gouge the government and the people of Iraq, plain and simple.

This is not WW2, not even close.

Not every war is a carbon copy of every other war.

The sooner y'all get that through your heads, the better off this country will be.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
What nonsense logic. :shk:

WW2 has nothing to do with this situation. As I said before, ONE casualty is too many if it's in the name of market penetration. If we were fighting to stop the Iraqi army from advancing into Europe and killing tens of thousands more, while shipping millions off to labor/death camps, it would be a fairly simple decision to get in their way and sacrifice to stop their plans, but that's just not the case. We're fighting to insure that Western businesses can gouge the government and the people of Iraq, plain and simple.

This is not WW2, not even close.

Not every war is a carbon copy of every other war.

The sooner y'all get that through your heads, the better off this country will be.




Well what i was attempting to do was hilite a history of american foreign policy or lack of. I am in agreement they let retards loose on US foreign relations and you end up reaping the cost and industrialists gaining the monies. On some level wars a nescessary thing as it promotes order however the same powers that brought us the world wars are still in play today. So maybe there are comparisons you can draw with other wars Vietnam would be a good candidate or maybe ww2 where US investment helped rebuild the German war machine and Iraq where the aim was to open up the Iraq oil reserve to reduce the energy cost for US Industry.
.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 01:51 PM
link   
I don't disagree w/ the premise, but the way the OP presents this is just silly.

How silly is it that you rate a war by a handful of volunteer, professional casualties? Its only a talking point and carries no real weight. Its intent is to tug at the heart strings of people who feel bad for the “poor ignorant dead soldiers who weren’t bright enough to go to college”. What would you have done if you were alive during WWII, when the body count was 240 per day? Cry all day? How about during Vietnam? In that conflict 16 soldiers died, every day, for the entire 10 years we were in that country. Even Desert Storm was no “light” casualty count. During ground operations, 75 soldiers per day died. Combat in Iraq, today, even an extended and protracted low grade insurgency, will produce comparatively low casualty rates. This “one death is too many” argument that naturally follows from some people, well, there is no rational debating those folks. They’re entrenched zealots, much like the anti-abortion protesters. You can’t talk rationally with either group.

Then there is the “Why aren’t we in (insert 3rd world country name)???” argument. Well, this is either another “talking point”, or genuine ignorance. Anyone with even a modicum of understanding of international relations and diplomacy understands that a nation’s actions are only for its own self interest. The reason we fight in one place and not another is solely due to national interest, i.e. we have reason to fight HERE, but this other nation is of no interest to us. The person posing the “Why aren’t we…?” question should know the answer to his question, other wise he has no business debating politics anywhere. So again, this flimsy argument is merely a “talking point”.

My favorite, however, is the “Why isn’t (insert political figure) fighting??? Why aren’t his children fighting???”. Did Woodrow Wilson’s children fight in WWI? Did FDR mount a 37mm gun on his wheelchair and roll through North Africa with Patton? Did Secretary of War, Henry Stimson have children that fought in WWII? Did Truman’s daughter Margaret man a flak gun on a battleship? Did we ever send polictal commentators into service if we disagreed w/ their point of view? No, and since when has it been a prerequisite that we send their kids to war? It’s another irrational argument meant to tug at the heartstrings.


I don't agree w/ this war, but please, if you're going to argue against the war, use real arguments.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edn
People are forgetting that it isn't possible to finish the job, it never will. there no way to win when your fighting.. nothing.


how exactly do you finish the job lol??? you think the iraqis will stop fighting each other and the americans? ever? no chance until one americans are gone, and the iraqi factions fight it out til theres one regime left. you think more troops will magically convince them to stop? maybe you dont understand....these people consider themselves freedom fighters, the harder foreign troops push against them in their own country the harder they will dig in..



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 10:19 PM
link   
carslake
Sorry if I gave the impression I was responding to your post. I was't trying to disparage your post at all. My comments were directed at ferretman and another poster who agreed with him. Sorry for the confusion.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join