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.

 

Commanders plan military operations for Iraq through 2009?

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio
[Executive Order (to be given a number in 30 days) ]
www.whitehouse.gov...


That link goes to a 404 error. The page does not exist. Do you have a better link or a search term to help find what you linked to? Thanks

I would think that these contingency plans would be a normal part of operations for the military. They will ignore the public debate until actual orders are issued. To do otherwise would be incompetent to say the least. This is just another article to incite emotions. Must have been a boring anti-Bush/War day.

As long as Bush is Commander and Chief the military will continue to follow his orders. That is the way it works. If Congress had control imagine what a disaster that would be. It would be even worse than it is now. Makes me cringe just to think about it. They can't even pass a bill that everyone agrees on. Democrat / Republican, does not matter as they are all the same lot of power mad, money mad users. Why people keep voting for the same people baffles the heck out of me. I'm beginning to think even the supposed arguments between Parties are orchestrated by the Congressional Leadership. They don't want to interfere with nap time by doing actual work. That would make them to tired to handle the parties every night.

Until we learn to stop falling for this Democrat vs Republican fallacy, we can expect more of the same. If a Democrat were President on 9/11, we would be in the same war, over the same things. The only difference would be that Pellosi and Kennedy would be arguing for the war and the Republicans would be against it and Rangel would reinstate the Draft





posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by biggie smalls
I don't think you can ever win a war where basically the whole country wants foreign troops out...Whether that be 'insurgents' or Western troops.


Iraqi society will only reach equilibrium when all western 'troops' are dead or withdrawn. It won't be an improvement however, Sharia law will be in full effect. Saddam contained the evil of religious oppression and brutal court-sanctioned violence. We opened the can and handed the national authority to them. One can only hope there will be major partitions for the sake of peace.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
With many arab countries now protecting him, directly, or indirectly now (policy) he is as easy to catch as Bigfoot.


Special forces would bring back his head no matter the location if effort was truly and solely applied in this area. Instead, GWB invoked the military to plunder Afghanistan which makes no sense at all regarding 9/11. It only serves the purpose of providing the 9/11 aftermath public with satisfaction.

I will never be convinced that suppressing terrorism involves war. Unless the terrorism has been waged by a foreign government and is part of a wider military conflict between the two, terrorism is entirely a judicial issue. Afghanistan was most definitely not a police action.

[edit on 27/7/07 by SteveR]



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
Iraqi society will only reach equilibrium when all western 'troops' are dead or withdrawn. It won't be an improvement however, Sharia law will be in full effect. Saddam contained the evil of religious oppression and brutal court-sanctioned violence. We opened the can and handed the national authority to them. One can only hope there will be major partitions for the sake of peace.


Well if the current rate of fifty thousand people per month leaving Iraq continues the bulk of the country is going to end up be being sparsely populated. The Kurds in the North will get there own state and the rest of Iraq will fall under Islamic rule as you say once the coalition leaves Iraq.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 03:50 AM
link   
I read these threads, and get an overwhelming urge to pound my head off the desk. Most of you here are so caught up in whichever side of the politics you subscribe to, that you've never really researched what this war is about, and has always been about. Here are some questions for you:

Question #1: What was the US' previous involvement in Afganistan in the past 25 years? How did this involve Bin Laden? How could this previous involvement be involved in the current conflicts and the "War on Terror?"

Question #2: What reasons, beyond the falsely stated greed, could the US NEED to be in Iraq? What countries are currently aiding the insurgence? (And, according to some reports, manning/training it?) MORE IMPORTANTLY (!!) what countries are backing THOSE countries? Who supplied emergency medical aid to Iraqi officials during the invasion? Who's been stealing our secrets? And what has the previous involvement of the US been with those countries? Why would the US not want to openly fight against those countries and, instead, fight a war by proxy?

Question #3: What major social movements have had an enormous impact on US society in the past 75 years? Who were the key players in these movements, and what were their connections? What inspired McCarthyism?

Question #4: Does it all make sense now?

Warfare has many guises, and is fought on many fronts. Forget your preconceived notions and social allegiances, and focus on the facts of the past 100 years that have lead us here. The items I pointed to are but a portion of the picture, but enough to clear things up a little. The Great Wars might be done, but the world has never been done with war.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
that you've never really researched what this war is about, and has always been about


Sorry, care to elaborate?

Thanks.




top topics
 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join