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.

 

War On Terror, US Involvement in Iraq

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2004 @ 03:44 PM
link   
well, at the begining it really did look that way. But it turned into other things from there. War is unpredictable like that. But once we were here it was kinda like we couldn't justsay oops and back out. we were comitted




posted on Jan, 23 2004 @ 03:47 PM
link   
How do you feel about the 'weapons of mass destruction'? Do you feel there is evidence that they still exist somewhere in Iraq?



posted on Jan, 23 2004 @ 03:50 PM
link   
honestly, if they were i think they are gone now. I know it's not our chief concern anymore. Infactnobody in our unit even mentions it anymore.



posted on Jan, 23 2004 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Has anyone mentioned to you anything about them? Like any confirmations, etc.

Also...sorry for the curosity, but I haven't really talked with someone over there or had been...but what was your stated purpose for being in Iraq? Oringinally, or else.



posted on Jan, 23 2004 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Our unit's purpose is to secure our parts of baghdad and keep them that way. Other units had differen't objectives. now we just patroll the city on a hourly schedule.



posted on Jan, 23 2004 @ 04:00 PM
link   
You have to understand...terrorists are even worse than kamikaze pilots. You're not going to scare them with the threat of death. They don't care. So then, how is this going to deter future terrorist attacks? It's not! It's not the Iraqi army we're worried about, it's terrorists.

[Edited on 1-23-2004 by Satyr]



posted on Jan, 23 2004 @ 04:08 PM
link   
exactly. except that there is no iraqi army now. We are fighting guys in civilian clothes. theyare well organized, but theyare for the most part just really pissed off saddam loyalists. So in effecttheyare terrorists. And we are making progress agianst them. it's just slow



posted on Jan, 23 2004 @ 04:13 PM
link   
o ok, thank you for answering my questions.

I was just thinking of something else. =

I read earlier in this thread that you thought one main reason for involvement in Iraq was to secure the oil source. I agree with that point. But also as I begin to think about it more it makes me sad how most of the public didn't see it that way or interpeted it differently. Most of all I think of the citizens in Iraq that have been victims of various sources, some from us, and of the soldiers that have died. It makes me sad since they have died because we, the administration, have chosen to rid of the 'Saddam Hussein' threat by carpet bombing and complete lying. While the people of his (former) country were dying he was out of sight. Anyhow these type of words have been said before in similar forms but I think compassion must always be exercised, since especially, it's easy to muster.



posted on Jan, 23 2004 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Still, the only way to stop them is to kill them all. That's not acceptable, IMO. It's better just not to have given them any more reason to be mad at us. Nothing, but nothing, will keep a terrorist from committing terror, except his own death. Are you prepared to kill them all? Keep in mind that you don't really know which are which, until they're trying to kill you. That presents an even more complicated problem, doesn't it?
Then there's the point I brought up already....if you kill those who aren't terrorists, someone else is going to be pretty mad about it. They might not have been against the US before, but they sure will be then. So, it looks like we're going to have to commit genocide, pretty much, eh?


[Edited on 1-23-2004 by Satyr]



posted on Jan, 23 2004 @ 04:29 PM
link   
well, i don't think that we'll have to kill them all. Alot of them are young guys who are very impressionable. Alot of them are not totally commited either. These people are nothing near the level of the taliban. And alot of the citizens here are happy with us. Obviously some are not. When i say that i don't think we'll have to kill them all, what i mean is they are not so well put together that their members are willing to die for it. They were desperate enough one night to hold a mans family hostage and they told him that if he didn't wear a bomb up to our front gate and blow himself and us up that they would kill his family. So he came to the gate and told us what was going on. So we took the bomb, blew it our selves in a demo pit, and at that exact moment we raided his house and got his family back for him. Which shows that they arn't all willing to die for thier cause. Just some. So i think there is hope. Alas this will be my last post as it is 0130 am here and i gotta be up in 4 hours. Peace to everybody i'll post agian tomorrow



posted on Jan, 23 2004 @ 04:34 PM
link   
I agree, someone is going to probably look at this adminstration or the US in general differently if a person they knew had been killed...be rather mad.

I absolutely go 'nuts' when people talk beside the point. Not here I mean, but when the 'big picture' is taken completely Out of their picture. War is bad, it's crazy, and corrupts everyone involved. Some persons seem to ignore that and just want to rid of a 'threat' at whatever cost. I have an idea that they have not seen war at it's worst, I have not either. But I hear from people who have.

Honestly, I'm a bit suprised to not have seen any feelings of betrayal or anger from their mother country. My father felt some of this when he arrived home from Vietnam. He felt he had been lied to. I think it was more complex than that, though.



posted on Jan, 23 2004 @ 04:55 PM
link   
I'm glad they're not all terrorists, medic. I just suspect that, in the process of removing them, we'll also create them. Of course, that won't be very productive, and will only increase the number of people we do end up killing.



new topics




 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join