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 to surrender

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 02:55 AM
link   
In my dumb ass logic...! THe USA cant quit, cant imagine Surender thats BS who ever come up with that. Basically in my simplistic mind if you cut and run now the states will get hit again and again All american intrests around the world will be fair game to any extreame branch of radical Islam that wants Mc donalds out of their country. Because the American public are swayed to and throw by opinion to many deaths it was all lies no wmd's i mean hell, again in my overly simplistic mind the only way you are going to come close to winning this War, Invade, Occupy, and Dictate and slaughter the only rule i know in a fight Is WIN, move in ICBM'S and all, totaly take over the place and the neighber while you at it but then again the Two sleeping giants(maybe one) might take another view on it.I remember a common phrase in Berlin during the war was "enjoy the war because the peace will be awfull" well sory im just some dumb ass from oz who wished none of this happend i didnt know what a radical Islamic person was since 9/11 most i met were nice folk i went to school with them etc didnt think twice i mean it was a bit of you do your thing ill do mine attitude but we playd rugby and cricket had the odd punch up all good stuff we were growing up and asimulating with each other,we lucky here we still do in genral but an ugly element has crept in and in all my wildest dreams i never thought i would see a race riot here in Australia well i have now....!! ok im Rambling now so while im at it "HOW DID BUSH GET BACK IN " America all of you MUST ALL VOTE sheez you shed enough blood to have the right. look i know alot of what i have said is silly and like i said simplistic but "Im mad as hell over this mess and cant see an answer " its all turning in to some bad dream .




posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
The entire blame rests with Bush. He is the one that decided to go to war, and he is the one who had supreme control over what the US military did in Iraq, what its objectives were, how it went about winning them, etc. The entire debacle will ultimately rest with Bush, not the congressmen who could see that we simply don't have the competence to stabilize iraq.


I'm going to have to say the blame rests with his father, Bush Sr.
Did you notice/remember our welcoming when why went in for Enduring Freedom? Total Media blackout for 2-3 days after fierce resistance was witness by the news crews on the initial confrontation. The Iraqi's were preparing an advance into another region, I think, never did really hear much about it.

As far as Bush, jr., I don't think he'll ever outlive his legacy of the Iraqi conflict.
We were promised at most 6 months of action due the high cost of maintenance. Here some odd years later, we might win again, haven't really maintained a good foot hold, what with the IEDs and all, and they're fighting of a 0.15 trillion maintenance package.


[edit on 2/21/2007 by bothered]



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reap
Nygdan
Bush is just the mouth piece the decisions are made in committees full of high ranking members of the armed forces.Bush may have input however the when and how is not his domain


agreed

not much more to say



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by rdang
With their brave "nonbinding resolution" the dems have made clear their intention to give Iraq away and surrender to terror. An American defeat in Iraq has been inevitable,Bin Laden knew it from the start. The only question now is, How much of the aftermath can be blamed on Bush? Standby for that "resolution"


This post just baffles me to no end...

According to you The "Dems" have THE INTENTION to give away Iraq and surrender to terror.

Let me ask you , when the USA once pulled out of Vietnam, did the USA surrender to communism ....?

Truth is, the USA has started a war which can't be won, period.

YES, All of it can be blamed on Bush, 100% and should be, imho leading a nation to war for totally fabricated reasons is unacceptable, then again, they way the American public opinion doesn't revolt against this, is even more unnaceptable.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 04:18 AM
link   
Id put the blame more at Chenney, Rummsfield, wolfowitz than Bush.
Bush is to stupid to of gotten them into this mess... he was led around by a carrot, doing everything and saying evertyhing needed to get inolved.

hang em all I say!



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Everyone is forgetting the original mission which was to dethrone Sadaam Hussein which we obviously did. Yanked his bitch ass out of that spider hole he was hiding in!!!! Everything else is gravy.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Britguy
This whole issue was just petty politics. A non-binding resolution? what sort of crap is that?
Truth is, the majority of Dems voted for the war same as the Repugnicons, so to play a hard assed blame game, they would also have to admit that they too are responsible for the entire mess.

Non-binding? Makes one wonder just what we pay these bozos for


Disclaimer - we have a bunch of bozos running the UK as well so no replies about my Anti-american stance are required


actually the republicans submitted bad intelligence which they claimed was fact. the dems never said go to war they gave the president the power in the end to do so and remember how damn fast bush rushed in! it became quite clear there was a seperate agenda. such haste was inexcusable when iraq posed no threat to us at all. bad leadership.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Typical Rep. selfish first thought. "Were giving Iraq away". First of it was never ours its a frickin soverign nation which had little to do with the terrorism of 911. Hell the terrorists were attacking Sadam as well until we took him out. But Rep's dont like anything being non NWO or not owned by the geo corporate-political US interests. Geez you guys WTF your like the world conquerers but put Mickey Mouse characters in charge and you bitch about Dem's for your own horrid failures. You guys are the tricksters and liars as proven daily and its been going on for near 40 years now. Typical you get caught doing something wrong or bad and fabricate blame everywhere but take No responsibility for anything(those Dems made me do it. LOL). The Rep party these days is very reminiscent of the "reds" from years gone by.
What happened to that conservative doctrine you guys used to be about? And of all the hints that other "arab" states played a part you guys wont even question the money stuffing Saudis for their roles cause you guys are on the take and Sadam didnt pay and Iran wont either. Corporate political extremestists are running your party. Wake up.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 09:36 AM
link   
War does not fix the problems of the world. Every military conflict has taught us this. The only good thing that came out of WWII is that we are too horrified to repeat what we did to Japan with the atomic bomb.

We do have to worry about the anger of the Middle East, but only because we've been over their inciting their wrath.

Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11. We brought that on ourselves by being over there.

Whether Bush was solely responsible or not, I am not sure.

1 He completely knows what he's doing, and the idiot impression we have for him is a smokescreen.

or, more likely....

2 He is just a puppet and scapegoat for darker government forces that are playing out a pre-planned scenario and they (including his father, who is involved) are taking advantage of his ignorance.

The idea that some figures are being unloaded who do not go along with President Bush is just a dupe to deceive us into thinking that it's just Bush. If Bush was really running counter to the 'agenda' then he would've been stopped long ago.

Just ask Kennedy.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 10:41 AM
link   
I think a full scale pull out won't happen in any circumstance. The US still has military bases in Suadi Arabia, Kuwati, Germany, south korea, south veitnam and Japan right ? ( I may be wrong , but you get the point)

The US military has a history of hanging around, like a toe nail fungus

I think the goal was to just take out saddamm, and establish military bases on all sides of Iran. They've accomplished that.

I think hey were hoping for a dominmo effect, inspiring other nations to topple their "regimes" from internal coups or revolutions, but only Syria wet their pants, and all we got was a promise they wouldn't develop WMD's

big deal

There never was an "exit plan", because the plan, imho is to stay and establish military bases.

I think the biggest miscalculation was how long its taking for the Iraqi's to form their own police, and how well Iran would supply insurgents.

There will likely be a "ceremonial" withdrawl, but it won't ever come close to 100%.

[edit on 21-2-2007 by syrinx high priest]



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by c3hamby
War does not fix the problems of the world. Every military conflict has taught us this. The only good thing that came out of WWII is that we are too horrified to repeat what we did to Japan with the atomic bomb.


That statement is rubbish!

Hitler wanted to rule half the world and Japan the other half. Japan was told to surrender or face destruction. Had Japan excepted there would have been no A-bomb, let alone two.

www.ibiblio.org...

Roper

[edit on 21-2-2007 by Roper]

Mod Edit BB Code.


[edit on 22/2/2007 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 07:09 PM
link   
I kinda wonder how the US could declare defeat or surrender in Iraq when the Iraqi war was declared over 3 years ago and Bush declared victory.

Isn't it normal that when a war is declared over that , if there is no official claim that the invading country wants to annex the territory, they reduce or remove their troops from the region?



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Pulling out of Iraq wouldn't be surrender based on the fact that we got Saddam out of power. pulling out of Iraq just takes us out of the equation and lets the people of Iraq decide where they want their country to go. It's really up to them anyway, no matter what we do about it.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 09:25 PM
link   
They never faced guerilla warfare in those countries and were never in a position where they get attacked 50 or 100 times a day and suffer KIA everyday (in the countries where they have military bases).

Hello WRONG

The US does not have a military base in South Vieitnam, there is no 'South' Vietnam, the US was kicked out of that country and the last americans were evacuated from the tops of roofs as the NVA moved into Saigon..how dumb are you?

>The US still has military bases in Suadi Arabia, Kuwati, Germany, south >korea, south veitnam and Japan right ? ( I may be wrong , but you get >the point)

>The US military has a history of hanging around



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
I think a full scale pull out won't happen in any circumstance. The US still has military bases in Suadi Arabia, Kuwati, Germany, south korea, south veitnam and Japan right ? ( I may be wrong , but you get the point)


Most descent Military Analysts estimate a contingency force of no less than 10,000 will have to be maintained. Only difference with this region from the ones you have mentioned is that Iraq tends to be quite active. IEDs and all.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Roper
That statement is rubbish!

Hitler wanted to rule half the world and Japan the other half. Japan was told to surrender or face destruction. Had Japan excepted there would have been no A-bomb, let alone two.

www.ibiblio.org...


Calm down buddy, it's just my opinion. We all have them, and you have yours.

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 22/2/2007 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Just my 2 cents.

Many don’t seem to know what it means so here you go.



terrorism ter·ror·ism [ térrə rìzzəm ] Definition: political violence: violence or the threat of violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, carried out for political purposes

So say if Russia or any country for that matter threatens us with violence for political purposes they will be considered Terrorists. In other words the "War on terror" is a war with any one who threatens us or vise versa.

Hmmmmmmm doesn’t look good on paper does it!

AlBeMeT



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 12:30 PM
link   
English philosopher Edmund Burke said, ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing.’

That should sum it up.

Roper



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by BANGINCOLOR
Everyone is forgetting the original mission which was to dethrone Sadaam Hussein which we obviously did. Yanked his bitch ass out of that spider hole he was hiding in!!!! Everything else is gravy.



So our dead and wounded military personel since we yanked his bitch ass out of the spider hole are "gravy?"

This probably make our proud military families feel much better.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Roper you are spot on...



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join