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.

 

U.S. Army problems in Iraq?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2004 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo

Originally posted by American Mad Man
What exactly makes me unamerican? Because I say that we aren't blowing up peoples houses and buildings in Iraq anymore (we aren't - we are actually building things for them)? Because I rightfully point out that the ones bombing people are in fact Iraqi's? Give me a break. Nothing I said was unamerican.


Actually, I was referring to your "unprecedented accuracy and little collateral damage statement." Can you prove that our weapons are not subject to human errors? You seem to imply that American weapons are these super weapons of good that only hit the bad guys. Past experience has shown that is not the case. Prove to me that they are just that damn perfect.

"Troops there to keep the peace?" Keep the peace for whom? Iraq? The world? Or the U.S. and it's interests?


Our weapons ARE subject to human error - ANYTHING that involves a human is. The fact is though that we have THE MOST ACCURATE WEAPONS OF WAR. Period. End of story. Unprecedented means never before seen/done. So what I said is true - we hit our targets with accuracy the world has never before seen.

As for keeping the peace - well I think it is quite obvious that Iraqi's are violent - check out the news smart guy. So we are there to try to keep things peacefull. We are there also because under Saddam, Iraq was a rogue nation - one that, yes was a threat to the US. We may not ever locate the any WMD. There may never have been any. It doesn't take away from the FACT that he has used them before. If he some how had gotten his hands on them again, he would use them again. Imagine if one of those Russian nukes ended up in his hands. I say better to be preemptive then wait till his enemy (AKA the US) are postmortum.

[Edited on 7-4-2004 by American Mad Man]




posted on Apr, 7 2004 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo

Originally posted by American Mad Man
What exactly makes me unamerican? Because I say that we aren't blowing up peoples houses and buildings in Iraq anymore (we aren't - we are actually building things for them)? Because I rightfully point out that the ones bombing people are in fact Iraqi's? Give me a break. Nothing I said was unamerican.


Actually, I was referring to your "unprecedented accuracy and little collateral damage statement." Can you prove that our weapons are not subject to human errors? You seem to imply that American weapons are these super weapons of good that only hit the bad guys. Past experience has shown that is not the case. Prove to me that they are just that damn perfect.

"Troops there to keep the peace?" Keep the peace for whom? Iraq? The world? Or the U.S. and it's interests?


Our weapons ARE subject to human error - ANYTHING that involves a human is. The fact is though that we have THE MOST ACCURATE WEAPONS OF WAR. Period. End of story. Unprecedented means never before seen/done. So what I said is true - we hit our targets with accuracy the world has never before seen.

As for keeping the peace - well I think it is quite obvious that Iraqi's are violent - check out the news smart guy. So we are there to try to keep things peacefull. We are there also because under Saddam, Iraq was a rogue nation - one that, yes was a threat to the US. We may not ever locate the any WMD. There may never have been any. It doesn't take away from the FACT that he has used them before. If he some how had gotten his hands on them again, he would use them again. Imagine if one of those Russian nukes ended up in his hands. I say better to be preemptive then wait till his enemy (AKA the US) are postmortum.

[Edited on 7-4-2004 by American Mad Man]


is this a joke ? did iraq had WMD ? of course for crying out loud, YOU gave them those weapons, dont u remember, the year was 1985? and there was a little war going on between iraq and iran and who did good old usa supported ? uncle saddam, he got some chemical stuff from u which he used on those kurds, now were there any protest from USA when he used those weapons ? nope, nothing, silence, how EXACTLY was iraq threat to usa ? I believe that country like tobago or trinidad with couple ppl is more threat to anybody than was broken saddam, but hey that bastard tried to kill george's dad, and that just wont fly with young george, lets come up with some BS story, remember those are americans, they will believe anything and lets rock&roll, you can not be preemptive with everybody who hates USA because its more and more ppl and they all have quite good reason to dont like u guys, why is it that americans are not welcome in more and more countries ? say big thank you to guys from white house



posted on Apr, 7 2004 @ 07:05 AM
link   
It's not just that he had WMD, it's that he denied having them. Saddam wasnt talking to us, Thats the thing with North Korea, the reason we went after Iraq instead of them was because North Korea talking to us instead of playing games with inspectors.



posted on Apr, 7 2004 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by glitch314
It's not just that he had WMD, it's that he denied having them. Saddam wasnt talking to us, Thats the thing with North Korea, the reason we went after Iraq instead of them was because North Korea talking to us instead of playing games with inspectors.


do u honestly believe that ?
white house did NOT care what saddam did or said, he did cooperated in case u did not notice, report about 11 000 pages,which white house said were only BS etc, its simple propaganda... stop watching that foxz newz,
the reason why u did not dare go to north korea was not that they talked... read newspapers, n korea was threatening you ! not talking with u, but they have army and not "bows and arrows" as iraqi + they did not try t kill george's dad
)



posted on Apr, 7 2004 @ 08:21 AM
link   

the reason why u did not dare go to north korea was not that they talked... read newspapers, n korea was threatening you ! not talking with u, but they have army and not "bows and arrows" as iraqi + they did not try t kill george's dad
)


C'mon... do you still believe it is a matter of WMD? Why Iraq and not North Korea? What about the oil?



posted on Apr, 7 2004 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by BrunoDT

the reason why u did not dare go to north korea was not that they talked... read newspapers, n korea was threatening you ! not talking with u, but they have army and not "bows and arrows" as iraqi + they did not try t kill george's dad
)


C'mon... do you still believe it is a matter of WMD? Why Iraq and not North Korea? What about the oil?


I never said it was about WMD, but THAT was Bush's excuse why to go there and since usa themself gave those weapons to iraq they should have find them lol but seems like saddam outsmart them (not that hard, granted), he either destroyed those weapons ages ago or hide them pretty well, but this is not the issue, issue is that american public is like pack of sheeps (blindly following where white house leads them) + they have no memory at all, SUDDENLY WMD are not issue at all, why is that ? as for reason for war.. be it securing oil reserver, protecting israel, ... I dont really care that much, for me what matter is that this whole show is 1 big lie and if democrats would manage miraculously win the election (much more likely that bush will steal them again) it would be a nice touch if they would put bush behind bars and put him on trial, lets say for crimes against humanity, conspiracy, treason and I dont know what else, I am sure there would be quite a few charges
)



posted on Apr, 7 2004 @ 08:42 AM
link   



Our weapons ARE subject to human error - ANYTHING that involves a human is. The fact is though that we have THE MOST ACCURATE WEAPONS OF WAR. Period. End of story. Unprecedented means never before seen/done. So what I said is true - we hit our targets with accuracy the world has never before seen.

As for keeping the peace - well I think it is quite obvious that Iraqi's are violent - check out the news smart guy. So we are there to try to keep things peacefull. We are there also because under Saddam, Iraq was a rogue nation - one that, yes was a threat to the US. We may not ever locate the any WMD. There may never have been any. It doesn't take away from the FACT that he has used them before. If he some how had gotten his hands on them again, he would use them again. Imagine if one of those Russian nukes ended up in his hands. I say better to be preemptive then wait till his enemy (AKA the US) are postmortum.
[Edited on 7-4-2004 by American Mad Man]


And U.S.A. #1!

So if we went after Saddam because he was a threat, we'll also go after China, right? They've got more WMD than us and are far more of a threat.



posted on Apr, 7 2004 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Sure... China is next on the To Do list! :-)

Wait, what do they have we'd like to control? No Oil, then... sorry, not of our interest.
What? Do they kill their own people, they are not a free-of-speech kind of guys, do they own WMD? Who cares??? They do not have oil!



posted on Apr, 7 2004 @ 11:49 AM
link   
American Mad Man: "The fact is though that we have THE MOST ACCURATE WEAPONS OF WAR. Period. End of story. Unprecedented means never before seen/done. So what I said is true - we hit our targets with accuracy the world has never before seen. "

Except often the "target" is the wrong target and you end up killing tons of innocents.

And who cares how accurate a 3000-pound bomb is when you drop it on a residential area? You can drop it on a dime but it's going to EXPLODE and cause damage in a 1000 metre radius. Are you saying the fragmentation and fire and concussive force is accurate?

"As for keeping the peace - well I think it is quite obvious that Iraqi's are violent - check out the news smart guy."

Read your own US history, pal. Or check out CNN. Or watch FOX. Your own country murders more of its' own people than anyone else, so get off your high horse.

"We are there also because under Saddam, Iraq was a rogue nation - one that, yes was a threat to the US."

How was it a threat to the U.S.?

"It doesn't take away from the FACT that he has used them before. If he some how had gotten his hands on them again, he would use them again. Imagine if one of those Russian nukes ended up in his hands. I say better to be preemptive then wait till his enemy (AKA the US) are postmortum."

So what if Russia now believes that they're next to be invaded? What's to stop them from launching a pre-emptive nuclear strike on you? Guess what, nothing. You'd better hope that the US stays the strongest military power because as soon as they drop from Number One, the party's over.

The USA under Bush is a rogue nation, your children and your children's children will be the ones paying the price in international backlash for decades to come.

jako



posted on Apr, 7 2004 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
American Mad Man: "The fact is though that we have THE MOST ACCURATE WEAPONS OF WAR. Period. End of story. Unprecedented means never before seen/done. So what I said is true - we hit our targets with accuracy the world has never before seen. "

Except often the "target" is the wrong target and you end up killing tons of innocents.

And who cares how accurate a 3000-pound bomb is when you drop it on a residential area? You can drop it on a dime but it's going to EXPLODE and cause damage in a 1000 metre radius. Are you saying the fragmentation and fire and concussive force is accurate?

"As for keeping the peace - well I think it is quite obvious that Iraqi's are violent - check out the news smart guy."

Read your own US history, pal. Or check out CNN. Or watch FOX. Your own country murders more of its' own people than anyone else, so get off your high horse.

"We are there also because under Saddam, Iraq was a rogue nation - one that, yes was a threat to the US."

How was it a threat to the U.S.?

"It doesn't take away from the FACT that he has used them before. If he some how had gotten his hands on them again, he would use them again. Imagine if one of those Russian nukes ended up in his hands. I say better to be preemptive then wait till his enemy (AKA the US) are postmortum."

So what if Russia now believes that they're next to be invaded? What's to stop them from launching a pre-emptive nuclear strike on you? Guess what, nothing. You'd better hope that the US stays the strongest military power because as soon as they drop from Number One, the party's over.

The USA under Bush is a rogue nation, your children and your children's children will be the ones paying the price in international backlash for decades to come.

jako


Right on, bro.



posted on Apr, 7 2004 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by magecarin
do u honestly believe that ?
white house did NOT care what saddam did or said, he did cooperated in case u did not notice, report about 11 000 pages,which white house said were only BS etc, its simple propaganda... stop watching that foxz newz,
the reason why u did not dare go to north korea was not that they talked... read newspapers, n korea was threatening you ! not talking with u, but they have army and not "bows and arrows" as iraqi + they did not try t kill george's dad
)


I diddn't get my information from Fox news... I live in michigan so I get canadian channels Channel 32 come to detroit and watch, It's definatly Canadian. Oh wait, are the canadians out to get you too Magecarin?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join