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.

 

(update)With Unexpected Iraqi Withdrawal Demand, Bush Has Lost the War

page: 10
10
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 01:03 AM
link   
I say Irans won,

because between the USA and Iran, Iran has benefited the most by the USA's attempted oil grab.

US Soliders are dying, US economy is faltering and the Iranian backed #tes are gaining more ground and more men daily.

fundly enough,

our goal was to remove the WMDs'..

we failed to do this, partly because we lied from the begining making people 'think' wmd's existed, so that means our stated goal is UNABLE to be met.

secondary goal, of occupying and gaining control of Oil fields has been a success, but its a pitty we cant activley declare that '' this WAS infact our goal..

Im pretty sure the only ones who believe victory has been achieved are the corporate ceo's.. ... and bush, but he's stupid enough to think fish and people can coexist peacefully.

Iraqi's sure as hell didnt win,

But Iran?

there's now no Iraq to counter them, they are effectivley the regional superpower
Theyve secured a large swarth of control in baghdad, they convinced many many many muslims that the USA is indeed, the great satan...
aand theyve managed to gain the support of Russia and China, while still activley researching nuclear tech.

Sure as sugar sounds to me like Iran came out on top,

and the US...

well,

its a pity.

who would of thought so many could be fooled for so long, even long after the curtain fell!




posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkmaninperth

If you ever get the chance to listen to Micheal Savage on KLIF, you will see what I mean. That DJ is baying for war with Iran - why? His rhetoric is that Moslem's are taking over the US and need to be wiped out.

And don't get me started on all the Department of Homeland Security propaganda advertising that they spout (What would you do if there was a terrorist attack?)

Oh, most of the advertisements appear to be getting you to spend more money and that if you don't, you will be looked down upon by your friends and neighbors.

Great country!!!

You can tell a lot about a country by its media.


I actually rather enjoy Michael Savage's radio show and though I may not completely agree with all of his views he does bring up some great points.

Extremist muslims would gladly watch everyone in the U.S. tortured and beheaded. Some people may believe that Islam is a religion of peace but it is not an all-encompassing statement. That phrase only applies to a fraction of muslims which are not trying to systematically murder innocent people, muslims of other sects, and who believe killing is wrong, etc.. But any religious text can be twisted to suit the needs of any extremist group and act as a breeding ground for hatred. It just happens to be Islam at this point in history when it was other religions in the past doing the killing. Religion itself is not so peaceful..However that's just my own opinion..



www.usatoday.com...

We can't be expected to simply give them a hug and make everything better. The anti-west sentiment in the middle east has been spreading for decades and the Bush administration hasn't exactly completely helped how these people view the U.S. and the rest of the western world. And we don't actually see the U.S. fully engaged in ending terrorism as we know it either. The simple fact that Bin Laden is still alive when we were able to find Saddam Hussein in a hidden hole in Iraq somewhere is a testament to this fact.

Where I don't agree with Michael Savage on the issue of extremist Islam is the idea that we should somehow fight back with a holy war of our own and be just as extreme as they are. That isn't going to make anything better in the world. And it definatey is hypocritical of Dr. Savage to talk about how religious extremism is evil, when he himself is religious and is calling for an extremist assault on Islam as we know it. Not all muslims want to kill innocent people in the name of Allah/God. You can't fight religious extremism with religoius extremism and expect to make the world a better place for our children.. I just don't see his reasoning in that aspect of his argument.

I understand how devisive these images are (muslims burning other muslims and non-muslims alive because they want to), and I understand how pissed-off this makes people.. But indiscriminate killing is the same exact reason we view extremist Islam as evil.. There's no way we can honestly, intellectually, and conscientiously adopt such a tactical approach against terrorism and not make the world worse for our kids.. Because regardless of how anyone feels about religion, god, or anything else, we have a conscience..

-ChriS



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
I say Irans won,

because between the USA and Iran, Iran has benefited the most by the USA's attempted oil grab.

How on Earth can you state Iran won when the U.S. has not even begun to take of them. Let's see who won after the war with Iran ok?

Everything up to this point is miniscule compared to what's coming for Iran.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Get rid of oil dependance and then let the middle east sort itself out.

The problem is that whoever owns/drills the oil wherever it is in the world still makes billions for a few western oil companies and the government through taxes. So the desire to pull out of oil is non existant.....not that they will ever admit to that! Oooo look it can't be true we've just agreed to a new wind farm......



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by Ownification
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 


I wonder if Mr. WhatTheory would provide his evidence to prove his points, last couple of times I discussed certain issues with him, he vanished lol. He has never backed up his claims like for example this thread hehe

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Oh, here we go.

Please, I guess 5 pages of debate and everyone going in circles is not good enough for you.

I made my points numerous times in that thread. You unfortunately just did not like my answers.

Good Lord, you do realize this forum does not revolve around YOU!

Anyone who reads that thread will clearly see you never bring proof to back your arguments, any ways it's clear to everyone now that American withdrawal is imminent. The Iraqi government is directly influence by Iran and everyone is aware of it, that's why they asked for the US withdrawal, ouch. Another blow to the hole hehe

Iraq as a Democratic model in the Middle East


The only thing America gained from this war is the death of over a million enocent Muslims, we know you hate them WhatTheory and we know you are loving every minute of this sectarian violence between Shias and Sunnis.

1,033,000 violent deaths as a result of the conflict.
en.wikipedia.org...

Fire Breathing Terrorists as WhatTheory sees in his fantasies lol



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ownification
1,033,000 violent deaths as a result of the conflict.
en.wikipedia.org...

Fire Breathing Terrorists as WhatTheory sees in his fantasies lol

Umm.....as usual you are wrong.

You do realize Wiki is NOT a good source for information right?


We have been through this before. The REAL actual number of civilian deaths is under 95K. Please get your facts straight before spewing liberal propaganda. Good grief!

Iraqi body count

Please stop derailing this thread by bringing up past threads which I have already CHECK & MATED you.

Go bump the thread you are refering to if you want more punishment.

[edit on 23-7-2008 by WhatTheory]



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Umm.....as usual you are wrong.



I do feel that he has a slightly better track record than you do on being right. I see no comment from you of the evidence that I have provided to your statement that Germany never attacked America.

Honestly Whattheory, if you are going to troll, at least do us the courtesy of being a good one.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkmaninperth
I do feel that he has a slightly better track record than you do on being right.

Wow, what a surprise.



I see no comment from you of the evidence that I have provided to your statement that Germany never attacked America.

I already told you I was talking about the Germans attacking on U.S. soil. I already clarified that for you.

But since you mention it, what don't you follow up your entire statement when you said, "They attacked American merchant shipping, American Army, Air force and Navy".

Please tell me about the Germans attacking the Army, Air force and the Navy before Pearl Harbor.


Honestly Whattheory, if you are going to troll, at least do us the courtesy of being a good one.

Yeah, I'm sure you think everyone is a troll who does not agree with your views.

Did you think that up all by yourself? Good grief!
** YAWN **


[edit on 23-7-2008 by WhatTheory]



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


actually, nazi's DID make it ashore on America... with the intention of attack.

just my two cents.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by Ownification
1,033,000 violent deaths as a result of the conflict.
en.wikipedia.org...

Fire Breathing Terrorists as WhatTheory sees in his fantasies lol

Umm.....as usual you are wrong.

You do realize Wiki is NOT a good source for information right?


We have been through this before. The REAL actual number of civilian deaths is under 95K. Please get your facts straight before spewing liberal propaganda. Good grief!

Iraqi body count

Please stop derailing this thread by bringing up past threads which I have already CHECK & MATED you.

Go bump the thread you are refering to if you want more punishment.

[edit on 23-7-2008 by WhatTheory]

Are you kidding me dude lol Wiki is not a good source ahum clearing my throat.

OK did you even bother to read the link I posted?? I guess not you just ran to google and find the record which is used by Fox news. The link you posted was the least possible innocent death in Iraq, the link I posted is the maximum possible deaths. You didn't even bother to read how they came up with that statistics, I know how your source came up with it cause I took the time to read it and I won't just ignore it
by the way there is another statistic which states 500 000 innocent Iraqis were killed


OK for the sake of argument let's just take the minimum number of innocent casualties in to consideration, which is aproximately 100 000. 100 000 is still alot of innocent people. Compare that number to 3000 innocent people who got killed in 9/11, would you accept Iraq invading USA?? Iraq could argue that all these innocent deaths are from direct result of American invasion. And don't even try to argue that more people were killed in the sectarian violence because I can hit you back and argue that most people in 9/11 died when the building collapse not when the plains hit the twin towers, so it was the aftermath of the attacks. Does that senario remind you of the Iraq war?? Most people died in the aftermath as a direct result of the American invasion.

Most people here knows now about how uncredible you are lol, as the other fellow ATS member stated above


and about wikipedia being an unreliable source, please explain why.

Fire Breathing Terrorists lolxx



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ownification
OK did you even bother to read the link I posted??

Yes, which is why I said your figures are false and inaccurate. Is that hard to understand?


I guess not you just ran to google and find the record which is used by Fox news.

If you were not such a tool, you would know that my link is NOT a conservative website.



You didn't even bother to read how they came up with that statistics, I know how your source came up with it cause I took the time to read it and I won't just ignore it

Apparently you cannot comprehend what you read because otherwise you would not have made this comment.
Ok, let's see which is more accurate:

Your wiki link states: "Results are based on face-to-face interviews amongst a nationally representative sample of 1,720 adults aged 18+ throughout Iraq".

How is that accurate?
They only talked to 1700 out of how many millions? After talking to a miniscule amount of people, they extrapulate and come up with bloated numbers.

My link which is the real accurate count states: "IBC’s figures are not ‘estimates’ but a record of actual, documented deaths". It goes on to say "IBC’s documentary evidence is drawn from crosschecked media reports of violent events leading to the death of civilians, or of bodies being found, and is supplemented by the careful review and integration of hospital, morgue, NGO and official figures".

So it's obvious which is the correct number and it's NOT your link.
You cannot refute this. How can your link which only asked 1700 people then extrapulates be accurate compared to my link which uses actual documented deaths supplemented by figures from hospitals, morgues etc.?

Thanks for playing. CHECK & MATE!



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Wow, what a surprise.



Wasn't it?


I already told you I was talking about the Germans attacking on U.S. soil. I already clarified that for you.


You did not clarify, you changed your argument. Same thing you accused me of doing here. Please clarify where I changed mine.



But since you mention it, what don't you follow up your entire statement when you said, "They attacked American merchant shipping, American Army, Air force and Navy".


Yes I did. here, here and here.



Department of State Bulletin, vol. V, p. 193 Radio Address Delivered by President Roosevelt From Washington, September 11, 1941 The Navy Department of the United States has reported to me that on the morning of September fourth the United States destroyer Greer, proceeding in full daylight towards Iceland, had reached a point South­east of Greenland. She was carrying American mail to Iceland. She was flying the American flag. Her identity as an American ship was unmistakable. She was then and there attacked by a submarine. Germany admits that it was a German submarine. The submarine deliberately fired a torpedo at the Greer, followed later by another torpedo attack. In spite of what Hitler's propaganda bureau has invented, and in spite of what any American obstructionist organization may prefer to believe, I tell you the blunt fact that the German submarine fired first upon this American destroyer without warning, and with deliberate design to sink her. Our destroyer, at the time, was in waters which the Government of the United States had declared to be waters of self‑defense—surround­ing outposts of American protection in the Atlantic.


That is the first few paragraphs of a FDR fireside radio chat on the 11 September 1941 regarding the attack on the USS Greer by Nazi Germany. The full text can be found here


Please tell me about the Germans attacking the Army, Air force and the Navy before Pearl Harbor.


Before Pearl Harbor? You are changing your argument, yet again. You originally asked:


When did Germany ever attack America.

Then you changed it to:


The question I asked was when did Germany attack American soil?

And now, you are changing it to:
(edit: Just as a side note here is a little snippet. Two German Navy officers were the first enemy combatants on US soil since the Mexican war in the 1840s.)


Please tell me about the Germans attacking the Army, Air force and the Navy before Pearl Harbor.


Just to reiterate, I have not changed my argument and you have provided no evidence to the contrary.


Yeah, I'm sure you think everyone is a troll who does not agree with your views.


No, just fools who can not debate and change arguments and provide no evidence, so as they can inflame a thread and cause arguments. Here is another thread where I ask you questions and you conveniently - like this thread - ignore posts that you can not answer as you are either presented with evidence you can not dispute or do not even know your own history.

When you troll, you have to be good at it and be able to actually remember what you wrote in the past or you will be caught out and shown the troll that you really are.


[edit on 24-7-2008 by darkmaninperth]



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 06:15 AM
link   
If you look at what Muslims are doing in Europe, especially with their current population growth, actions are going to have to be taken by the nations of the West to preserve their freedoms, especially their religious freedoms, because if the Muslims get a majority population and take over the government, Sharia law will become the laws of Western Europe.

The answer is to go after Muslims who kill their women and children who choose to westernize. Provide protection for Muslims who choose to westernize, and those who take actions against Muslims who westernize should be thrown in jail for extremely long jail sentences, then deported. Stop paying welfare to immigrants and start requiring all immigrants to obtain jobs in order to remain in the country. Shut down the welfare system for people who are not originally from that nation. If you have been in country for 5 years and still can not speak the local language adequately, and are living on welfare deport the people with the children they have born. Stop allowing people to send to send their young daughters out of country to marry, and bring back spouses from their home country.

Yeah, these are harsh steps, but failure to do anything means that your grandchildren will not live in a free society as you have enjoyed.

As the middle eastern nations run out of oil, with their huge, and very young populations, there will be a tremendous push to migrate to Europe. The much lower European birth rate means that unless strict immigration laws are put in place, Europe will be overwhelmed with Muslim immigrants, and taken over without ever defending themselves. That would be very sad indeed.



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 09:39 AM
link   
The war was lost from the very beginning because it was driven by greed, ideology and the need of a pathetic little man to one better his father.

As the late great George Carlin (a much bigger man than uncurious george ever will be) said of him: "George Bush is a man who knows nothing about history, being led by men who care nothing for it."

And that is it in a nutshell.... if they had done any serious study of the region's history, especially the history of the British mandate they would have known what was coming and what the ultimate outcome will be.

McCain's assertion that we can and must win is idiotic, uninformed and dogmatic.

Winning will never be an option for us in Iraq, a face saving retreat possibly, but not a win.



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by grover
 

I certainly support you're agreement with George Carlin - he may be one of the most incisive "George's" ever and I would absolutely have voted for him in whatever he ran for.

I understand that has a high probability of spin factor but:

US envoy doubts Iraqis will revert to violence

www.washingtontimes.com...

As I stated earlier - the ones that make the rules gets to determine victory or defeat.



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by kerontehe
As I stated earlier - the ones that make the rules gets to determine victory or defeat.


Not in an occupation though unless you chose to do what the ancients did... replant populations at will.... force an exodus all all the people in Iraq out and repopulate the region with a more pliant population.

Since we are not about to do that... there will at best be a stalemate.

Consider, the surge is only working where there are troops and where there are less, we've been buying off insergents.... now what do you think would happen if that dries up?



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkmaninperth
You did not clarify, you changed your argument.

Umm....no. I told you two times already I was talking about germany attacking U.S. soil. Get over it!
In my first post regarding this, I forgot to mention the word, "soil". Sue me.

However, I clarified for you two times that I meant U.S. soil.


Yes I did. here, here and here.


I asked you to provide proof of your statement when you said the Germans attacked the U.S. Army, Air force and the Navy.

So far all you have shown is a few merchant ships which is NOT the U.S. army, air force or navy.

As far as the Greer goes, well, it was dropping depth charges in order to destroy the submarine. So of course the submarine fired back. However, the Greer was not damaged or destroyed.

USS Greer


Before Pearl Harbor? You are changing your argument, yet again.

No, your flawed interpretation makes you think I'm changing. Focus please.
We were talking about the beginnings of WWII and not when the U.S. entered the war. Got it now.

We are not talking about history throughout all of mankind.



No, just fools who can not debate and change arguments and provide no evidence, so as they can inflame a thread and cause arguments.

Then you must be the largest of all fools.

Aw, you are so silly.



When you troll, you have to be good at it and be able to actually remember what you wrote in the past or you will be caught out and shown the troll that you really are.

Well, since I do back up everything I say with facts, I have no idea what you are talking about.
I think you cannot handle people when they disagree with you and show you to be a big tool.
Actually, I really don't care what you think but you are making yourself look crazy.

[edit on 24-7-2008 by WhatTheory]



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Umm....no. I told you two times already I was talking about germany attacking U.S. soil. Get over it!
In my first post regarding this, I forgot to mention the word, "soil". Sue me.

However, I clarified for you two times that I meant U.S. soil.


No. You changed your argument - twice - after I provided evidence to the contrary.


I asked you to provide proof of your statement when you said the Germans attacked the U.S. Army, Air force and the Navy.


You also asked about Merchant Shipping (which are American Interests under the American Flag). I provided evidence of Merchant Shipping and US Naval assests that had bee attacked and destroyed prior to Germany declaring war on America. 3 times. You are changing your argument again.


So far all you have shown is a few merchant ships which is NOT the U.S. army, air force or navy.


USS Greer was a Naval ship. I provided evidence. SO I have provided evidence of 2 out of 4. I even provided evidence of enemy combatants on US soil. You have not provided any evidence to the contrary. Please show me where these events did not happen.


As far as the Greer goes, well, it was dropping depth charges in order to destroy the submarine. So of course the submarine fired back. However, the Greer was not damaged or destroyed.


It was still attacked by Germany before the declaration of war was announced by Germany. You asked for evidence, I gave it to you. Mind you, in this case, it does appear that you guys were the aggressors - as usual. Nothing has changed.


No, your flawed interpretation makes you think I'm changing. Focus please.
We were talking about the beginnings of WWII and not when the U.S. entered the war. Got it now.

We are not talking about history throughout all of mankind.


You have changed it 4 times now. How does my floored interpretation think that when I have to decipher your constantly changing argument? Please, prey tell, how can I best interpret-



When did Germany ever attack America.
The question I asked was when did Germany attack American soil?
Please tell me about the Germans attacking the Army, Air force and the Navy before Pearl Harbor.
We were talking about the beginnings of WWII and not when the U.S. entered the war.


-the answers, when you constantly change the question. If you think my interpretation is flawed, it is because you change the argument to suit yourself - and you are the only one who does not see it.



No, just fools who can not debate and change arguments and provide no evidence, so as they can inflame a thread and cause arguments.

Then you must be the largest of all fools.

Aw, you are so silly.


Snappy comeback - I am in awe of your debating skills.


Well, since I do back up everything I say with facts, I have no idea what you are talking about.


What facts?


I think you cannot handle people when they disagree with you and show you to be a big tool.
Actually, I really don't care what you think but you are making yourself look crazy.


Crazy? Have ever changed my argument?



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 03:33 PM
link   
double post

[edit on 24-7-2008 by mind is the universe]



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 03:33 PM
link   
what theory again spreading his arrogance and ignorance

Hes a war lover, dishes people and is completey lacking in any capacity of understanding and empathy with regards to anything outside of America

His rants are just basically to fuel wars and to show how great right Ameirica is, no matter what it ocmes down too.


That's all, If you don't believe me read his posts, read his personal jabs he thrown at people. He argues with everyone like this. WAR WAR supporting and does not care about innocents dieing,


Whatheory if your so right, and this war is so right, Why don't you go and fight it then!



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join