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.

 

Bush : How Many Troops Died : 3660 or 40,000 +

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
I agree with the underage children arguement to an extent.

Saddam's children were grown adults. That was my point. I guess Columbine wasn't a great comparisson since they were underage.


I agree with you that grown adults are responsible for thier actions, but doesnt it also lend to the argument that they were products of thier upbringing and environment? I would imagine that Saddams sons grew up in a world in which they saw thier father do many terrible things to others and thus felt it was acceptable to act the way they did. But yes they did it and made the choice to do it so they are responsible and they did get what they deserved IMO. Anyway I just think parents should take back control over what thier kids are subjected to during the early years of thier lives. This is the most important time for young children and will have the greatest impact on how they grow up.

Thx Griff take care



DCP

posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 12:15 PM
link   
conspiracy theories are fun, but come on guys...40,000 US Troops. This one is one of the easiest to prove. All you have to do is turn off your computer and step away slowly and go out in the real world and ask people. Do you know anyone that went to Iraq, did they come back. Odds are.(4000/300,000,000 = 0.00001) that they will say yes they came back.

I had the unfortunate privilege of going to a fund raiser for USMC to support the families of fallen soldiers. You would know from the family members to all the others who served with the fallen soldiers that they would never let their fallen friends memory fade much less be covered up.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Guess some of you guys are going to fall for the insurgents' propaganda video in hopes of defeating you through media war instead of military defeat.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarkStormCrow
Just out of curiosity how is Bush able to hide 40,000 casualties from the American people , not to mention the 40,000 families of the supposed dead American soldiers?


Cloning?



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
Guess some of you guys are going to fall for the insurgents' propaganda video in hopes of defeating you through media war instead of military defeat.


I know. Did we believe the Germans propaganda of "kill the jews, don't ask why". Since when do we believe the enemy over our own. yea I know their corrupt, but do you think our enemies are any closer to God-like?



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Having served in Iraq myself, I can say that I have HEARD, let me say, that I have no proof other than what goes through the grape vine, and what you hear at work, but I heard that WMD's were found in Iraq. The reason that the government hasn't come forward is because of where the WMD's actually came from that were in Iraq. What this suggests is that someone who we do not want to publically get into it with was supplying Iraq and Saddam with WMD's and/or the materials to make them.

That being said, Im sure that this is going to get flamed away because I dont have a picture of me giving the thumbs up next to a nuclear bomb with Russian writing on it...but take it for what its worth. It could be all B.S., could be true...



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
I personally would like to see a thread from you outlining, in acute detail, your experiences regarding this topic. Any evidence to back it up would help. Talking to a mod a. of time and providing them w/ a paper trail to illustrate that you were deployed at a specific location and doing that specific job would be great. That way the mod could vouch for you and you wouldn't have to post personal details online.

I'm not mocking you, I'm not challenging your assertion, I'd just really like to read more and know that an ATS moderator can vouch for the authenticity of the claims.


OK, but I dont know the laws in place about this sort of thing. I would be more than happy to share my experience with ATS, provided I wont end up in Guantanamo for it.

Anyone know the rules about this sort of thing? Site Admin, do you guys have any guidance for me.

And of course there Mods on this board that I would be willing to provide proof of deployment to.

And I may or may not have "proof" of chemical weapons, that depends of the legality of possessing and providing "proof."

Are there any laws about posting pictures of this sort of thing?

So far as my NBCNCO, I cant provide any proof for that without getting him involved and cooperative, and I dont even remember his name.

Just so everyone is clear, we arent talking nukes or chemical manufacturing plants here, just the chemical weapons themselves.



[edit on 6-8-2007 by cavscout]



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Didnt there used to be a link to click to post a question to board staff?

Someone help me out here.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Didnt there used to be a link to click to post a question to board staff?

Someone help me out here.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by agent violet
I'm going to agree with the OP, sure i definitately agree that the toll is higher than 3660. even if it is 3661. now i cant provide proof of the 40k. but who can/can't?
unless of course we find the list of those that have died during the course of this terroristic invasion by the bush clan.
but no matter whether the count is off by one or by 10k. a lie is a lie.
and there is a good portion of people that think bush and his fellow cowards lied.


And you base this hunch on empirical data derived from? Or is it that your dislike of Bush allows you to accept any contrary reports to what the official count is? Bush isn't the one putting the casualty figures together in any event, so to try to draw some conclusion about him lying is disengenuous.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link   
There's no way in hell 40,000 coalition soldiers have died. 40,000 casualties? That seems a hell of a lot more likely. The word casualty is defined as the loss in numerical strength through any cause including but not limited to death, wounds, sickness, capture, or desertion. Until I see plausible data proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that 40,000 coalition soldiers are dead, I'm calling bs.



[edit on 6-8-2007 by Xerimethius]



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout
Didnt there used to be a link to click to post a question to board staff?

Someone help me out here.

Send a u2u to Intrepid.

He strikes me as the kind of mod who would be all over this, and helpful to boot.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 03:56 PM
link   
So where exactly do we come up with the 40,000 troop number?
Look I am not a fan of the current administration and on the believability meter (1-100) I would give them a -247, but come on, do you really think the clods stumbling through the whitehouse actually are smart enough to pull off something like this? How many people would it take to cover this up and NOT ONE patriot standing up to say something???? I just don't believe it.

Also,
I find it very hard to believe that WMD's were found "personally" by anyone in Iraq for one simple reason. IT WOULD BE ALL OVER THE NEWS. The government is DESPERATELY trying to legitimize the Iraq war and if there was one little bit of WMD, they would be parading it EVERYWHERE as proof that they were right all along.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 04:09 PM
link   
I don't think that's necessarily true. If they found wmd, and had proof that X country had been supplying Iraq with those weapons, that information could be used as leverage at a future time.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 04:50 PM
link   
If that were the case all they would need to do is say,
We found WMD and nothing more.

Then at a future time say, "we have concluded our investigation and can now prove the WMD came from country X"



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 05:09 PM
link   


Our little cards that measured the dosage of radiological contamination were taken away from us when they started to show dangerous levels and we were sent on our ways (they said we weren’t using them right, but there was no way to use them but to clip them to our shirts and have them read later.)


I wonder if the radiological contamination was anything to do with the destroyed Osirak nuclear reactor?
www.wiki.com

One wonders if there was any fall out from this??



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout
Didnt there used to be a link to click to post a question to board staff?

Someone help me out here.


Just click on "alert" on the bottom of one of the individual posts.

Odd thread. The OP posted and never came back? Why run away from your own post? Where is the supporting links to other sources? Considering the source this could be nothing other than propaganda.

I would have to be a total fool to fall for propaganda from an enemy in a war. Propaganda is always a lie so why bother? The whole point of propaganda is to trick people and those spreading it are in the service of the enemy. People who support the enemy would agree with the propaganda. Those who don't side with the Terrorists would work to expose the lie. There is no neutral ground when spreading propaganda.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
If that were the case all they would need to do is say,
We found WMD and nothing more.

Then at a future time say, "we have concluded our investigation and can now prove the WMD came from country X"



Then they'd have to explain why they were sitting on this information for so long, if there was no ulterior motive. Saying "We were just waiting for the right time...*cough*" probably wouldn't go over well with anyone.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 06:10 PM
link   
All they would need to say is that they needed to have a thorough investigation that had many false leads that finally took them to the culprit. Also, they could simply say they wanted to check all their facts before accusing anyone as this is incredibly serious.

The US waiting quite awhile before launching an attack against afghanistan so there's already a precedent set.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 06:17 PM
link   
40,000 casualties? maybe.

40,000 deaths? What pipe have you been on?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join