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: 9
10
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by whiteraven
You are right.

Guess who? The Ruben James...October 31 1941!!! Before Pearl Harbour!

Good Job.

Yes, the ship was hit BUT the Ruben James was NOT the intended target. The U-boat was targeting the merchant ships. The Ruben altered coarse and unwittingly put itself into the path of the torpedo. This is common knowledge and NOT in dispute.




posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by whiteraven
 


It is quite easy to understand, the guy is saying exactly what his bosses want him to say. Just as the U.S. military on the ground is starting to succeed at getting the job done, suddenly the GW admin wants to waive the white flag and quit. It is obvious that GW and his gang never wanted the U.S. military to succeed in their mission in Iraq. The GW admin doesn't want a stabile Iraq government in Iraq. Now that it is happening, they are starting to panic.



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by whiteraven
 


It is quite easy to understand, the guy is saying exactly what his bosses want him to say. Just as the U.S. military on the ground is starting to succeed at getting the job done, suddenly the GW admin wants to waive the white flag and quit. It is obvious that GW and his gang never wanted the U.S. military to succeed in their mission in Iraq. The GW admin doesn't want a stabile Iraq government in Iraq. Now that it is happening, they are starting to panic.


Huh?
I mean?
WTF?
How is W waving the white flag?



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by darkmaninperth
They attacked American merchant shipping, American Army, Air force and Navy.

Not before the U.S. entered into the war. Come on, stop changing your argument and moving the goal posts. Focus please.


Here is a list of US merchant ships sunk or damaged in the North Atlantic in 1941 - before Germany declared war on America. Bear in ind that Germany was the only country with submarines (U-BOATS) in the North Atlantic. (besides the British of course and Britain depended on America Merchant shipping, so they wouldn't be sinking them).


08/17/41 Longtaker [former Danish Sessa] Freighter (Panama) Torpedo & Shelled Sunk NAtlantic Crew 24
09/11/41 Montana [former Danish Paula] Freighter (Panama) Torpedo Sunk NAtlantic Crew 26
09/19/41 Pink Star [former Danish Landby] Freighter (Panama) Torpedo Sunk NAtlantic Crew 13
10/16/41 Bold Venture [former Danish Alssund] Freighter (Panama) Torpedo Sunk NAtlantic Crew 17
11/05/41 Montrose Freighter Collision Unknown NAtlantic Unknown
11/11/41 Meridian [former Italian Dino] Freighter (Panama) Torpedo Sunk NAtlantic Crew approx. 38
11/14/41 Crusader [former Danish Brosund] Freighter Torpedo Sunk NAtlantic Crew 33; German POW 1
11/16/41 Turecamo Boys Tug Unknown Sunk NAtlantic Crew 9
12/01/41 Astral Tanker Torpedo attack None NAtlantic None

link

I am not changing the argument. I am not moving the goal posts. You asked when did Germany ever attack America. I am answering the questions that you ask in a clear and concise manner with evidence - something that you seem to not be able to do. Focus please.

History and Americans again...



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by kerontehe
 



When you refer to SE Asia I think of France/Viet Nam..but I do not know if you are refering to the British interests or the Dutch East India interest and so on and so forth.

Winner?

I remember a Viet Nam leader who loved the constitution and wanted to walk by it but somehow things got messed up and we sided with France?

Is Barack laying down some guide lines in Iraq?

Is Barack outlining his understanding of the conflict toward the Govermnet of Iraq in light of his sudden move toward the "centre"?

GW has succeded in stabilizing Iraq!

He has done the imposible!

Lets continue to allow Iraq to be stable and lets become a voice of reason toward the world.

I think....this is the message Barack, the US Ambasador to Iraq, and Robert Baer are stating.

Robert is eating some crow for the US.

Barack is showing his feathers to the middle east.

The US Ambasador to Iran is "translating" the Iranian "doublespeak" toward the UN and Europe. (and of course us)edit




[edit on 22-7-2008 by whiteraven]



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Shazam The Unbowed
 


If one of the U.S.'s top spies is going public stating that the U.S. has lost in Iraq, then, yes, the GW is waving the white flag just as we are about to clinch victory in Iraq. It is the direction the GW admin seems to be taking to me with this latest announcement, unless this guy suddenly became a rogue, which I doubt.

How else could this be interpreted? Look for more GW admin officials parroting this opinion. Hopefully I am wrong, but that is the most reasonable explanation.



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b


If one of the U.S.'s top spies is going public stating that the U.S. has lost in Iraq,


Then one single former spy is saying we lost it. thats all.



then, yes, the GW is waving the white flag just as we are about to clinch victory in Iraq.

b, This assumes that bears staements are directed by W and
c) that he was directed to say this in order to leak a chage in policy.
I see no evidence of this.



It is the direction the GW admin seems to be taking to me with this latest announcement, unless this guy suddenly became a rogue, which I doubt.

Sending a single negotiator to sit in on EU\Iranian negotians, while somthing I disagree with, is not "waving the white flag"


How else could this be interpreted?

As a last desperate attempt to avoid having to bomb them into the stone age and the international outcry that would cause? In order to save Isreal form the same? The negotiator is a CIA agent, (with official cover) who will actual be smuggling a NOC out? There are many possible alternative solutions.



Look for more GW admin officials parroting this opinion.

I doubt it.



Hopefully I am wrong, but that is the most reasonable explanation.



I disagree thats it is a reasonnable explanation, much less the most reasonable.



And BTW, this Brit is making Bear look like a total idiot. He owning this guy worse than a strucural engineer debating a truther.
[edit on 7/22/2008 by Shazam The Unbowed]

[edit on 7/22/2008 by Shazam The Unbowed]



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by whiteraven
You are right.

Guess who? The Ruben James...October 31 1941!!! Before Pearl Harbour!

Good Job.

Yes, the ship was hit BUT the Ruben James was NOT the intended target. The U-boat was targeting the merchant ships. The Ruben altered coarse and unwittingly put itself into the path of the torpedo. This is common knowledge and NOT in dispute.


How about the USS Greer on 4 September 1941?

[edit: Freudian slip, wrote 11 September 1941]

[edit on 22-7-2008 by darkmaninperth]



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by whiteraven
 
Thanks for reading the posts.

The first OBSERvERS there there in a military capacity were the Aussies as early as 1949.

I stumbled over this data accidently through requesting my great uncles DD214 [military separation report]. He was assigned to "advise" our Australian allies in an instructor capacity.

Just an off topic aside to the meandering drivel.

Why is it unexpected that the coalition forces are being asked to withdraw? That was one of the nebulous end game scenarios that was limitedly shared with the general public prior to asking for UN blessings
on any operation.



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by darkmaninperth
 



Yes....consider the speech written in light of the event.

Here is my favorite passage at the moment:


This situation is not new. The second President of the United States,
.......This situation is not new. The second President of the United States,
John Adams, ordered the United States Navy to clean out European
privateers and European ships of war which were infesting the Caribbean
and South American waters, destroying American commerce.

The third President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, ordered the
United States Navy to end the attacks being made upon American ships by
the corsairs of the nations of North Africa.

My obligation as President is historic; it is clear. It is inescapable.



Consider this.

Our nation was founded in war against "British" interests.

Canada..also my nation was founded with the Hudson Bay Company.

(unless you are French...then you have a the NW Company)

...and if you are Native American as my wife and children are you then have a different history.

With that in mind.....if we can do it...I mean Canada, the US and the Native American's after our crazy war...then

the Middle East can do it as well.

Lets bring this whole thing to and end.

Lets sit down, smoke, drink some tea and look at this in a different light.

There is no longer a need for war in the MI.

We all face the same outcome...death, poverty and disease if we got to war.

If we sit down, talk peace, allow some strength to back up the talk...then we can have peace.



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 11:57 PM
link   


Why is it unexpected that the coalition forces are being asked to withdraw? That was one of the nebulous end game scenarios that was limitedly shared with the general public prior to asking for UN blessings
reply to post by kerontehe
 



Unexpected?

Well...look at recent history.....the only thing that we have withdrawn from is Viet Nam. (ohh and Afghanistan...and Nicaragua...and...)

But...yes ...I remember that that was discussed. But thats sort of like a young buck telling little miss that he is going "to love her forever" and then, of course he departs after the deed is done and the results are eternal.

We have MADE promises to these people. Lets keep them.

Why have these Iraq persons, who have helped us, die....because of political # that they have zero say in.

They cannot leave Iraq to immigrate to the USA even though they have helped us.

They face certain death...and so do their family, their kids, if we leave.

The VERY reason they helped us was because they read about the freedom that American's have.

We cannot desert these brave people just because everybody wants to vote Barack in and withdraw our troops.

I hope Barack sees this and maintains a strong presence in Baghdad if/when he becomes President. (not that I or my family will ever vote for Barack)


edit...two thoughts at once..


[edit on 22-7-2008 by whiteraven]



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Im sorry but Bears statementsdidnt even make sense even within the context of his own arguments. Iran is a "superpower" with an crumblng ecnomy because of sanctions, except that sanctions dont work? Iran has defacto control of hezbollah, but they havent participated in terrorism since 96? The iranian people beleive they are betetr than everyone else but Iraqis and Afgahnais are going to vountarily be annexed by them? Iran is a superpower but its main concern is seeking security guarantees?

Bu-what!



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Shazam The Unbowed
 

I am getting tired brother.

At least we can talk about stuff like this in North America without fear of being arrested.

The Iranians, like us, have a culdron of prevaileing ideas and oppressed ideas.
Power in Iran is activaly engaged in maintaining that control...just like North America or Europe.

Maybe the idea that Barack may somehow reflect those ideas might bring peace.

I don't want to get all "conspiricy" on you but I am sure that if you spoke to Bill Clinton right now he could fill your ears with some juicy stuff!

Maybe Barack represents interests of America that have not yet come to the forefront of the MSM.

I wonder what that could be?

(alright,,,goodnight I am getting to tired)



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 12:14 AM
link   
Considering my above post...I just reread it...talk about a Carl Jung type of thought...
[Self awareness...something I am exploring]



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by whiteraven
 


Get some sleep man. We can disagree another day.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Shazam The Unbowed
 


Yes..Peace my friend.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Shazam The Unbowed
 


All I can offer is my interpretation of this interview. Time will tell who is right, but this guy can't be as off base as this unless he has been tortured too many times or something. Not if he really is a top level spy. Chances are best that he is a military man and only doing his duty. Or he isn't who he is pretending to be.

I can't see why the admin would be acting as if they are in a position of weakness when they are in a position of power. All indications are that the Iraqi government is starting to come together and public opinion in Iraq is starting to change towards the U.S..



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Shazam The Unbowed
 


All I can offer is my interpretation of this interview. Time will tell who is right, but this guy can't be as off base as this unless he has been tortured too many times or something.

He sounds to me like someone intelligent who arrived at a conclusion and has since been constructing arguments to sustain that conclusion without thinking them through to thier logical end. We like to think that only the idiotic, moronic, or ignorant can fall prey to irrational convictions, but the truth is the intelligent are just as prone to this trap, maybe even more so. He is absolutely convinced that Iran is a ajor threat and that it has already won, but his arguments in favor of that conlusion are illogical, contradictory, and to be frank, sloppy. Somehow it doesnt surprise me that a man with that little intellectual discipline could be hired as an CIA analysts, given how bad much of our "intelligence" has been over the last 20 years.




Not if he really is a top level spy. Chances are best that he is a military man and only doing his duty. Or he isn't who he is pretending to be.

And sometimes, # floats to the top. Sad but true.



I can't see why the admin would be acting as if they are in a position of weakness when they are in a position of power. All indications are that the Iraqi government is starting to come together and public opinion in Iraq is starting to change towards the U.S..

Isnt the best time to reach out and negotiate when you are in a position of power? Otherwise, I think they call it begging.

[edit on 7/23/2008 by Shazam The Unbowed]



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by foremanator
Why is it that bbc news links are only availible to uk residents?
I bet it has something to do with propaganda rights between nations

No - it's to do with broadcast rights. I paid my TV license, so I get to watch the program.

IMHO no news should be filtered, so I agree - it's propaganda.
We've paid for it, but in a truly free and democratic society, we should be sharing this information as widely as the textual version. It makes no sense.


I can't see how Iran "won" anyway. Are we sure this isn't another hypothetical war-game scenario that has somehow made the outside world?

Even if Iran was helping the insurgents in Iraq, how does that make us at war with them, really? I wouldn't even class it as a proxy war, because the guys fighting aren't supplied (as in the insurgents themselves), or trained by them.

[edit on 23-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 12:56 AM
link   
although saddam was a nut job who the world wont miss, the middle east was in a state of balance of sorts iran wouldnt mess with iraq cause they knew saddam was a crazy bugger and iraq left iran alone because it was more trouble than its worth.

USA was never going to win in Iraq because its too easy for iran to wage a war of ideology against the USA, all they need to do is subvert the people of the USA with images of war, and civilians begin to loose their appetite for war.

this may sound harsh but in war people die, good people bad people, men, women, kids its the nature of war. That doesnt mean i agree with it it just means next time a country go's to war the people of that country should expect civilain casualties.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join