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.

 

O'Reilly: "We Didn't Invade Iraq"

page: 10
16
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2008 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by jetxnet
 


So I suppose you still believe in the whole "mushroom cloud/smoking gun" theory then huh?


EDIT to add: And no, I am not a liberal either.

[edit on 5/3/0808 by jackinthebox]




posted on May, 3 2008 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


In fact, I believe all of the members of the Bush Administration that were interviewed before their "reign" all said that Iraq was not a threat - at all.



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
Either you are deliberately lieing, or you have a terrible memory. The international community was not swallowing the lie that was fed to the American people. That is why we were unable to form a real coalition this time around. Even Hans Blix said there were no WMD's.



You're either deliberately lying or have a terrible memory. How many countries had to be there for a "real" coalition?

All these countries put troops on the line in Iraq. Did they all think there was no reason?
US
UK
Poland
Australia
South Korea
Romania
El Salvador
Czech Republic
Azerbaijan
Georgia
Denmark
Mongolia
Albania
Bosnia/Herzegovina
Ukraine
Estonia
Macedonia
Kazakhstan
Moldova
Bulgaria
Armenia
Latvia
Slovenia
Lithuania
Italy
Netherlands
Spain
Japan
Thailand
Honduras
Dominican Republic
Hungary
Nicaragua
Singapore
Norway
Portugal
New Zealand
Phillipines
Tonga
Iceland

You're just parroting sound bites now...



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


Coalition of the willing or coalition of the coerced


Although the Administration refuses to issue an official list of its coalition partners, we have identified 34 that have been cited in press reports as supportive of the U.S. position (see appendix). Bush officials have claimed that this represents strong multilateral support, but it is worth pointing out that these 34 nations represent only about 10 percent of the population of the world’s 197 countries.22 Subtracting the estimated 75 percent of their populations that opinion polls show are not in favor of war, the war supporters in the “Coalition of the Willing” countries make up only about three percent of the world’s population. It is also telling that only Britain has
committed a significant number of troops to the military action.

A closer look at the list reveals that many members of this so-called “Coalition of the Willing” are extremely vulnerable to U.S. pressure, and have likely succumbed because of either military or economic interests.


Just about sums it up. Pretty weak "coalition".

Most of the world still did not agree.

[edit on 3-5-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 12:33 AM
link   

but it is worth pointing out that these 34 nations represent only about 10 percent of the population of the world’s 197 countries


Da! Maybe that is because China and India comprise at least 50% of the world's population.

C'mon people, think a little bit here. You are just reaching for things now.



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by jetxnet
 


That article was written before the coalition was put together, so she only had limited data to work with. She did a pretty good job of estimating.

Multinational force in Iraq

The media in the U.S. has been known to use the term U.S.-led coalition to describe this force, as around 93% of the troops are from the United States.[1]


Ah, yes. You are right, the US represents 93% of the globe besides China and India...



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


Aside from the British, every other country on that list sent like two people just so the US wouldn't come kick their ass next.



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 12:42 AM
link   
It is because the US is the leader of the free world. It is always our job to get rid of the tyrants and invest the most by doing so.

It's like going to a street-fight with your big brother but standing behind him the whole time just watching.



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 



Hope you didn't wrench your arm out of socket with that reach there, man


I even owned up to the Donahue ratings flap! Never again!


[edit on 3-5-2008 by _Del_]



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


List of "Willing"


The list topped off in mid-2004 at 32 countries; troop strength peaked in November that year at 25,595. The force has since shrunk to 26 countries and 11,755 troops, or about 7 percent of the 175,000-strong multinational force, according to mid-November figures provided by the U.S. military.


Highest besides US?

UK - 5,000 (then later cut in half to 2,500)

Other than that:

South Korea - 933


Sixteen nations in the coalition, more than half the total, have 100 or fewer troops in Iraq -- five have fewer than 10 people. Latvia has three soldiers deployed in Iraq, Slovakia two, Singapore one.


21 of the "willing" committed 100 or less troops. 5 of those only 10 or less. 10 troops.

This is 21 out of 32.

reply to post by jetxnet
 


Oh, so first it was poor numbers, now we are the "leaders".

Make up your mind.

The world in general was not committed to this war.

[edit on 3-5-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 





Hope you didn't wrench your arm out of socket with that reach there, man

I even owned up to the Donahue ratings flap! Never again!


Okay, you got me. I exaggerated a little. Some of those countries sent up to ten people it seems.


No seriously. I know what I said was a bit of an exaggeration, but not by much we see, thanks to Sublime620.

But regardless, the point remains that we did not have a dedicated and integrated multinational force like we had the first time.

[edit on 5/3/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 12:56 AM
link   
Thanks Sublime for pointing out the obvious.

The US committed 140,000, Britain 7000, and the rest of the Coalition about 15 or so.

Sounds alot like WWII doesn't it? The US lead the way again, while countries like France were save from Hitler and company.

Of course we are the leaders of the free world. Things are changing though, I suggest you vote for Ron Paul if you can.



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


You should probably compare relative force sizes if you're going to head count. The point is that even if the countries sent 2 troops each, they obviously believed that Iraq had contraband. You said no one believed it. Noone sends troops in harms way just for fun. When I point the Pseudo Coalition was actually pretty substantial, you call out "we couldn't get a "real coalition" for no reason at all, and then fall back to "well, they didn't send many troops..."

If it makes you feel better to pin it all on Bush as a mass deception on the world community, then go ahead, but know that each of the countries on the list have their own intel communities of various ability and each agreed there was adequate cause to put their own troops in harms way.



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by ChadAndrewATS
 


Without watching those videos, I believe that is the time Colon Powell went ahead and agreed that Iraq was a threat that probably had WMDs?

I recall this because a few years earlier he gave a speech that said Iraq would not be able to produce WMDs for at least a decade (or something along those lines). That Iraq would not be able to pose a threat any time in the near future.

You're right about those videos. Thanks for sharing the truth about Powell (especially his earlier predictions about Iraq's former-government & their lack of resources to make WMDs). Colon Powell is a shill for the New World Order, but he there have been times when he has shown that he can stand up against evil (rather than support it), even when his friends & family-members (ie. his cousin, George W. Bush) condemn him for speaking out against the so called, "war on terrorism":


Yesterday, Gen. Colin Powell sent a letter to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) sharply criticizing President Bush’s plan to establish military commissions. Powell wrote, “The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.”

During today’s press conference Bush said that criticism like Powell’s was “flawed logic” and “unacceptable.”



EDIT: Bad grammar.

[edit on 3-5-2008 by ChadAndrewATS]



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by jetxnet
 


Yea... Sounds nothing like it.

How many soldiers died in WWII?

Quoting from WWII for Dummies -"Over 60 million people died in WWII and of those 60 million, more were civilian than soldiers." Pages 363 and 364 give a run down with some numbers but does not offer a breakdown of the total civilian vs. soldier.

The Soviet Union lost the most with 25 million deaths, but only about a third were combat related. (still 8 million)

China's death toll is incomplete but estimates are between 15 and 22 million.

Poland had 6 million deaths including 3 million Jews, roughly 20% of its prewar population.

Germany lost 4 million soldiers and 2 million civilians, many of them women.

Japan had 1.2 million battle deaths and another 1.4 million soldiers listed as missing, almost 1 million civilians were killed in the bombing raids between 1944 and 1945.

Over 1.7 million Yugoslavs and 500,000 Greeks died in the war.

France lost 200,000 soldiers and 400,000 civilians. (France lost almost as many as the US)

Italy lost 330,000 people.

Hungary lost 147,000 men in combat.

Bulgaria lost 19,000 in combat.

Romania lost 73,000 in combat.

Great Britain lost 264,000 soldiers and 60,000 civilians in bombing raids. (So did Great Britain)

The United States lost 292,000 soldiers.

The Dutch lost 10,000 soldiers and 190,000 civilians.

Australia lost 23,000 men in combat.

Canada lost 37,000 soldiers. (Canada didn't even send forces to Iraq)

India lost 24,000 men in battle.

New Zeland lost 10,000.

South Africa lost 6,000.


Notice our spot on that list?

Turns out there are other countries out there!



[edit on 3-5-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by jetxnet
 


Interesting to note that in the first Gulf War the US constituted only 47% of the force. And the smallest force deployed by any one country was the fifty troops sent by Hungary. The rest of the bottom half were in the hundreds at least.



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


Aw, come on man. This was a bully coalition. That's why you don't see any other Arab countries on that list for one thing. Not to mention the fact that there certainly isn't much of a coalition left at this point. Even the Brits are fed up and going home.



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 01:07 AM
link   
I guess you get more players when one country is invading another like Iraq invading Kuwait. I suppose everyone gets a litte nervous wondering if Iraq would stop with Kuwait or move on to say Jordan.



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


Really? Substantial?

We were 93% of it! Yea, the only thing "substantial" were the US and UK forces.



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by jetxnet
You are obviously a Liberal who feels no one can do wrong, especially if you sit down and have Hamburger with them. You're the Apologist type that waits for something to happend before coming to a conclusion, and then it is too late, damage done.

Like I said before, we should all knit a big Quilt and display in the streets of DC. Maybe then all this nonsense of men and power trips would stop!


You are micro analyzing his post because of what? Please make a valid argument that is applicable to the thread instead of propogating this judgemental bunk without even knowing the people here. Don't pretend to think you know who is a liberal and who isn't nor should it matter.

All opinions aside the truth needs to be acknowledged for what it is regardless of how cynical you are. If you are unwilling to accept this information based on your presonal opinions then so be it. That doesn't mean you are judge dread who suddenly knows who is right and who is wrong. That's pretty pathetic..

-ChriS



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join