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.
One other MAJOR ISSUE which you [DarthAmerica] have simply been unable to comprehend which every other observer on the planet knows - it is IRAN who has called for calm in IRAQ and subdued the Shiite Militias - it is ABSOLUTELY NOT the surge.
Originally posted by Double Eights
Originally posted by paxnatus
reply to post by noangels
How in the blue hell is the United States Military "defending our freedoms" by fighting in Iraq? HOW!
because by fighting in Iraq, we are creating the conditions that will prevent the kind of disenfranchisement that caused 9/11 directly protecting your right to life.
Are the Iraqi people going to come over to America and stick a gun up my ass and take away my freedom of speech? Are they going to come across the ocean and shove a IED under my bed?
you're very emotional! Calm down so that you can think more clearly. The Iraqi people are not going to come over to America and do anything. We've already taken care of that. However, if we hadn't, it would be very likely that Iraq would choose to strike back at America using asymmetric warfare. Prior to the start of the war, Iraq and America have been in a constant state of war since the end of Operation Desert Storm. Iraq did not have the military means to make a direct confrontation. However, they did have the means to strike back with terrorist tactics or by finding other terrorist. They were attacked preemptively to prevent that and also so that we can use the terrain to conduct further operations in the Middle East if need be. Particularly against the Saudi's and Iranians.
The Iraqi people are NOT, were NOT, and will NOT be a threat to the United States of America. Anyone saying they were, are, or will be is an absolute moron and knows NOTHING about the capabilities of Iraq, and obviously stupid beyond all belief to believe a civilization thousands of miles away in the middle of the desert could pose a threat to a the greatest militarized country on the planet.
I'm sorry, I don't recall reading any qualifications you have that would allow you to make credible assessments of Iraq's military capabilities. I also haven't read any terrain analysis from you that would suggest a better strategic position in the region. Until you do so, you are in no position to call anyone a moron. Moreover, since you haven't actually physically been here, correct me if I'm wrong, how are you even making a statement like this?
In your quote above, you're calling people obviously stupid to believe that the countries in the middle of the desert could threaten United States. The fact is, 19 men from an even weaker country, even more isolated and without official government sanction did just that. They struck the financial, military and almost the political capital of the United States. This happened live on television in case you weren't watching. So for you to make a statement like that clearly shows a bias, ignorant or perhaps both.
Think about what you said, whom you are saying it to and why BEFORE POSTING. I'm more than happy to debate this with you however you will have to start making some kind of sense. Otherwise, I'll just have to assume you're so biased as to make intelligent discussion impossible. In that case, regrettably, I'll have to click the ignore button. I really would rather not do that please consider your response.
Regards
Originally posted by paxnatus
Thank you DarthAmerica for giving of yourself so freely to insure that me and my family are just a little safer at night. Thank you also for doing the job that most of us would not want to do, nor could do.
"Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends"
John 15:13
Originally posted by ghofer
Originally posted by paxnatus
Thank you DarthAmerica for giving of yourself so freely to insure that me and my family are just a little safer at night. Thank you also for doing the job that most of us would not want to do, nor could do.
Yes, thanks for helping kill those thousands of bad Iraqis and making refugees out of millions more. This "war" has made you far less safe. How many terrorists do you think have been created from all of this? Again I support the troops, but certainly not our government. It's American foreign policy that is listed as the #1 reason why people across the planet hate the U.S.
And in regards to someones comment about how U.S. military intervention has made the world a better place, tell me how life in Iraq is better. I don't see it.
Originally posted by Ownification
reply to post by DarthAmerica
I guess you already have too many people to discuss issues with, just ignore my giganourmouse post, I don't mind
Originally posted by DarthAmericabecause by fighting in Iraq, we are creating the conditions that will prevent the kind of disenfranchisement that caused 9/11 directly protecting your right to life.
you're very emotional! Calm down so that you can think more clearly. The Iraqi people are not going to come over to America and do anything. We've already taken care of that. However, if we hadn't, it would be very likely that Iraq would choose to strike back at America using asymmetric warfare. Prior to the start of the war, Iraq and America have been in a constant state of war since the end of Operation Desert Storm. Iraq did not have the military means to make a direct confrontation. However, they did have the means to strike back with terrorist tactics or by finding other terrorist. They were attacked preemptively to prevent that and also so that we can use the terrain to conduct further operations in the Middle East if need be. Particularly against the Saudi's and Iranians.
In your quote above, you're calling people obviously stupid to believe that the countries in the middle of the desert could threaten United States. The fact is, 19 men from an even weaker country, even more isolated and without official government sanction did just that. They struck the financial, military and almost the political capital of the United States. This happened live on television in case you weren't watching. So for you to make a statement like that clearly shows a bias, ignorant or perhaps both
Originally posted by Double Eights
I'm sorry, but how is killing innocent Iraqi civilians "preventing disenfranchisement?" You do realise the entire world basically hates America, correct? Our invasion of Iraq CREATED terrorsts, simply because we went over to a soverign nation, completely free from any terrorist ties, and destroyed their country - killed their countrymen - murdered their women and children - and turned millions of Iraqi's into refugees.
Strike back at America? What would their purpose of striking America be in the first place? Constant state of war since Desert Storm? I was unaware we kept bombing Iraq after DS, I thought we only started again when we invaded in 2003 (Note that we invaded a day before the timeline we gave Saddam expired. An act of aggression, which makes us the enemy in Iraq.. Also note that this attack killed zero military soldiers nor Saddam henchmen...only civilians.)
I also love how you say we had a right to invade a soverign nation, so we could have better terrain operations. So, you'd be fine with China invading America...as they'd be closer to Canada, and it'd help them conduct military operations against the Canadians? Or is it only okay when we do it?
Except your missing the point. Not one of the 9/11 terrorists came from Iraq, nor where there any al-qaeda ties to Iraq prior to our invasion. In fact, Saddam HATED terrorists and killed them on the spot.
I think it's apparent that you do not know who you are fighting against, nor do you know what you are fighting for.
Originally posted by DarthAmerica
Originally posted by noangels
Yeahh lets ignore the vids above and take your word for it Things were a lot better there before your lot arrived there sunshine.
You can talk BS all day long,your not wanted there by the population by large, your just wanted there by the puppet goverment to protect them as they rape Iraq of its natural wealth
Yeah because you saw it on YouTube right? What a joke. Why don't you come over here and see for yourself. Ah the wisdom of armchair generals. Gotta love it. You know, the population "at large" more than anything wants us here BTW. All your assertions are BS. They know if we were to leave too early the bloodletting would be unrivaled. They need us here and the vast majority of Iragis go out of their way to help us. When you climb down out of your ivory tower and have dozens of cups of tea by invitation from Iraqis, you will know what I'm talking about. My life is on the line directly, I have no interest in telling anything other than the truth. It's people like me who die first if Iraq isn't stable. So if it was as bad as you think, you would hear from people like me in much more public venues how bad it is if that were the case. Quit trying to make Iraq into Viet Nam because it's not. Your post is absolute foolishness and propaganda.
Originally posted by donwhite
reply to post by audas
One other MAJOR ISSUE which you [DarthAmerica] have simply been unable to comprehend which every other observer on the planet knows - it is IRAN who has called for calm in IRAQ and subdued the Shiite Militias - it is ABSOLUTELY NOT the surge.
REVIEW. I have posted elsewhere my theory that the SURGE was a clever if not ingenious ploy by Bush43 to distract the public and divert the newly elected Democratic controlled Congress away from investigating the mis-conduct of so many of his appointees. His man on the street followers including mid-level GOPs, were unaware of his REAL motive and in all likelihood were completely honest when they begged for enough TIME to see if his SURGE would produce the result promised.
THE PROMISE. Bush43 instituted the SURGE - his name - for the purpose of provided a safe place and enough time for the various Iraqi to iron out their internal differences, mainly how to distribute the oil revenues. The Sunni area has few or no producing wells. Yet they make up a very important 20% of the population. The Kurds - 15% - have all but separated from Iraq and want to be very careful how much they are to be involved with Iraq in the near future. Turkey has proved it will not permit an independent Kurdistan. The majority Shia - 65% - have more than half of the producing wells.
THE PROBLEM. Within those 3 major ethnic groups there are many sub-groups. The CIA World Factbook names 19 political parties in the Iraq Parliament. So it is not just 3 parties at the table, it is at least 19 parties and that is not easy. In fact, they may never reach an agreement all can sign-on to. But we cannot wait for them to end the American involvement in Iraq. We have lost Bush43's unrealistic gamble of establishing a knock-off US democracy in the Middle East. Let’s accept that and get the heck out of there before MORE Americans (and others) die for naught! US KIA 4,134, Coalition Forces total 4,448. icasualties.org...
THE HOUSE. The November ‘06 voters thought if the Dems gained control of Congress it, Congress, could end the war. Unfortunately that was not the case. A majority in the House is 218. (435 total members). The Dems had 233 members. To override a veto by the president requires a 2/3s vote or a super-majority. 290. To override a veto, the Dems would have to HOLD fast all their 233 votes - not a dead-chinch certainty - and gain 57 GOP votes out of their 202 members. Very unlikely over an issue not all that clear cut.
THE SENATE. The Senate was even worse for the peace advocates. The Dems had a 51-49 majority. A good show from the prior GOP's 55-45 split. Then Senator Johnson of SD had a stroke. That dropped the Dem majority to 50-49. Control cannot get thinner than that. There are 2 or 3 Dems who have indicated in the past they might “cross-over” to the GOP side. Sen. Joe Lieberman is one. Unlike the House where a simple majority (218) prevails, the Senate has traditional rules allowing unlimited debate. Sometimes called a “filibuster.”
Before the Civil Rights era of the 1960s, Senate rules required a 2/3s vote to shut off debate. Called "cloture." That was changed to a 3/5s vote, or 60 votes needed to proceed on important issues. That in turn would require 10 GOP senators to defect to the Dems. That is very very unlikely to happen except on a life-death issue. The Senate veto override requirement is 67 votes. The final result of the ‘06 election was to STOP Bush43 from initiating anything he wanted; OTOH the Congress could not do anything he would not accept.
CONGRESS. The only option open to the Dems would have been to make NO appropriations for Iraq and Afghan. That desperate act in turn would have made it all too easy for Bush43 to paint the Dems as UNPATRIOTIC. And not supporting the troops already at war. A political no-no. So Bush43 had it his way. He got past the end of the ‘07 Fiscal Year and he got money enough to run the war past his next date with destiny, January 20, 2009.
RECAP. The Dems gave him the money. The amount of money needed to run the War for 15 months. When you cannot control an issue, it is sometimes better to AVOID it. By giving Bush43 enough money to run HIS War until January 20, 2009, when the next president will be sworn into office, Bush43 has been neutered. If you can’t have it all, you take what you can get.
L E G A C Y. These Machiavellian machinations were all about the Bush43 legacy. He has put the Iraq war out past his term of office. We will have 120,000 or more soldiers in Iraq when his successor takes office. The final outcome will be the next president’s to manage. But, if the Iraq War ends well in history, Bush43 will claim the credit. He will say he was prescient. That he had a vision, perhaps from Jesus. BUT, if history holds the war to have been a tragic miscalculation by a man endowed with too much hubris and not enough wisdom, Bush43 will say his successor LOST the War. A winner, it’s mine! A loser, it’s yours!
THE FUTURE. And the Iraq War will join the JFK assassination and the Vietnam War as a “he said, she said” for as long as we can imagine. Forever to be debated: the missing WMDs and the role of the Iraq War in Bush43's so-called War on Terror.
[edit on 8/6/2008 by donwhite]
Originally posted by audas
CONTINUED -----
The surge is all about permanent bases in the country along with reconstruction and oil concessions - the same thing the war has always been about.
As for the other "soldiers" on this thread grandstanding about their unassailable right to supreme knowledge you are not only deluded, using profoundly spurious arguments but are quite simply totally wrong.
You don't know what you are talking about.
The idea that you can simply award yourself legitimacy in this argument not through logic, knowledge, understanding, insight, intellect or any other reasonable manner but rather through dismissing all other possible avenues of understanding as irrelevant which do not align themselves with your own experiences - what a mundanely ignorant position to take on such a significant issue.
Originally posted by DarthAmerica
Originally posted by audas
CONTINUED -----
The surge is all about permanent bases in the country along with reconstruction and oil concessions - the same thing the war has always been about.
As for the other "soldiers" on this thread grandstanding about their unassailable right to supreme knowledge you are not only deluded, using profoundly spurious arguments but are quite simply totally wrong.
You don't know what you are talking about.
The idea that you can simply award yourself legitimacy in this argument not through logic, knowledge, understanding, insight, intellect or any other reasonable manner but rather through dismissing all other possible avenues of understanding as irrelevant which do not align themselves with your own experiences - what a mundanely ignorant position to take on such a significant issue.
This is so rich. So, actually being here, fighting here, watching the people change, watching Iraq develop, learning the culture and having your life depend on all of this to you means we don't know what we are talking about because it doesn't fit into your narrow biased and arrogant view of the world. OK....lol
It's interesting that those of you critics of the surge have you to cite a single valid fact to support your arguement. Not one. Even those who thing the surge worked largely don't understand the "why" and the brilliance behind it. Some of you sound like you are describing a movie to me I've seen that you haven't based on what you heard from other people. Oh well. It will all be obvious to you in 20 years time I assure you and you will remember how wrong you were in 2008.
[edit on 7-8-2008 by DarthAmerica]
Originally posted by audas
What ever ----- All you can say is the same boring trollop -
"Im here, Im a soldier, I know, no one else does"......ridiculous and ultimately profoundly unintelligent.
The facts are on the ground - pick up any analysis and it is clear as MUD - the calm has been caused by Iran influencing the insurgents - your own generals are acknowledging it.
Muqtada al-Sadr - has just laid down ALL HIS WEAPONS NOT as a response to the surge - but due to IRAN.
Your reasoning is profoundly flawed - incredibly self serving and totally lacking in anything of any substance beyond an empirical presence - it means nothing.
If you would care to discuss the reality of the politics involved, the consequences of Iran, Syria, Turkey, Russia and Chinas interests, if you would like to engage in the reality of Americas forced withdrawal due to the expiration of the UN mandate, the reality of their permanent bases being denied, the SHIITE led Iranian exile government, etc, etc, etc,etc then we are prepared to listen - but simply stating that you've been there and the Surge is brilliant is just intellectually mundane. Perhaps some ontological, epistemological and more than anything methodological approaches could be pursued rather than this myopic self assertion.
I have read books, analysis, upon analysis which all point to your version being just plain wrong - all from people who are there, are in control and are even Americans. Ok !
Originally posted by mister.old.school
This series of videos is gaining increased awareness and interest via sites like DIGG.COM and others. The videos highlight the reality that, among the people living in Baghdad, there is no such thing as a "surge" and life continues to become more and more desperate week by week.
If only western/mainstream media would provide reports on the reality represented by the actual people effected by the invasion and occupation.
Originally posted by noangels
Yeahh lets ignore the vids above and take your word for it Things were a lot better there before your lot arrived there sunshine.
You can talk BS all day long,your not wanted there by the population by large, your just wanted there by the puppet goverment to protect them as they rape Iraq of its natural wealth
Sure Saddam was ruthless,he killed those who stood in his way.At the end of the day he Loved his country,to the extent that he wanted to Duel with the draft Dodger Bush rather than allow his country to be torn apart by the mighty war machine getting ready to roll his direction.
edition.cnn.com...
At least there was honer in this man towards his country,something Bush never had and never will.
Can you imagine if this conflict was avoided with an old fashioned duel,the amount of people who would still be alive today rather than rotting away in their early graves all because Bush and Blair lied to the world
Of course Bush is a *Snip*,he showed the world that when he didnt go to Nam.
On a lighter note Cheeeny might have liked the idea of a duel,but even then I would expect friendly fire
Mod Note: Please Review The Following:
Terms and Conditions
1b.) Profanity: You will not use profanity in our forums, and will neither post with language or content that is obscene, sexually oriented, or sexually suggestive nor link to sites that contain such content.
[edit on 4-8-2008 by MemoryShock]
Obama, Democrats, and the Surge
They were against it before it worked.
by Peter Wehner
07/28/2008, Volume 013, Issue 43
This is the week that the Democratic party ran up the white flag when it comes to the surge in Iraq. Leading the surrender was none other than Barack Obama, the Democratic party’s presumptive nominee for president and among the most vocal critics of the counterinsurgency plan that has transformed the Iraq war from a potentially catastrophic loss to what may turn out to be a historically significant victory.
On Monday, Obama wrote a New York Times op-ed in which he acknowledged the success of the surge. “In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge,” Obama wrote, “our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda–greatly weakening its effectiveness.” A day later, Obama gave a speech in which he declared for the first time that “true success” and “victory in Iraq” were possible. In addition, the Obama campaign scrubbed its presidential website to remove criticism of the surge.