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.

 

Falluja Surrounded By USA!

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:
dom

posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 03:56 AM
link   
Cazmedia - Sorry for slow reply, been away for the easter weekend but I thought your points deserved some response.

The problem with the US media isn't that it's DIRECTLY run by the government. It's more that the media IS directly run by the people who own it. So FOX news, the Washington Post, MSNBC, CNN all promote the idealogies of the people who are in charge of the organisations.

The editor of "The Times" newspaper in London once said that his job was to expound the beliefs of the newspapers owner to the best of his abilities. Editors are very good at employing people who share a common set of values, and consequently these news organisations become biased. When Murdoch tells his newspapers to support the Iraq War, guess what?... all of his newspapers support the Iraq War.

This IS media control, and Murdoch takes his queue from government (or at least government and Murdoch take their queue's from the same basic world-events using similar criteria). The US media is mostly controlled by a few small organisations that all have common interests and common goals. Therefore it's fair to assume that the US media is fairly biased towards a certain world view.

I've been in the US, I've listened to the news, I've lived in the UK and listened to the BBC, ITV, C4, etc.. The truth is that US news organisations are massively biased, but because ALL US news organisations are similarly biased no-one seems to notice. It's not until you start experiencing a different sort of media that you can see the problem.

Anyway, rant over. I'm not saying that every news-room has an FBI agent sitting next to the editor with a cattle prod. All I'm saying is that the major US news organisations and the government are talking from the same hymn-sheet. Yes, that doesn't mean that the US media won't attack Bush and grind him up when it becomes clear that he's on to a loser. But it does mean that the US media went along with Bush's war because the US media is run by people with the same basic ideals (but with less scruples about sticking to them).



dom

posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 09:57 AM
link   
In a more relevant vein...

At least 87 US soldiers have died while aid agencies counted at least 470 Iraqi dead in the Sunni city of Falluja alone last week, with 243 women and 200 children among them.

news.bbc.co.uk...

So did the mutilation of 4 US "civilians" justify the death of 243 women and 200 children? Or is this just one more example of brain dead marines destroying the peace having taken over the area kept under control by the 82nd airborne?



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 10:31 AM
link   
CazMedia: "What would it take for me as an American to say "get out of iraq"?
1...Mutual respect of nations in the region as to the rights to exist for both israel and palestine...."


Err, are you on crack? Does the US show any "respect" to other countries? Name ONE. Does it do ANYTHING in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but kowtow to the Israelis and veto any and all UN resolutions that impinge upon any tiniest rights of the Israeli occupiers?

"For 30 years ive seen on tv, radicle fundamentalist muslims chanting by the thousands "DEATH TO AMERICA", burning our presidents in effigy along with our flag, taking embassy hostages, and then just resorting to blowing them up"

WHY?! Maybe because the USA engineered a coup vs a democratically elected government in Iran in 53? Maybe because they supply arms to BOTH sides when there is a conflict (Iran/Iraq)? Maybe because they are so obviously one-sided on the Israeli-Palestinian issue that one would have to be BLIND not to see the bias?

"How about an apology from them for all of the hateful efforts against us? How about some reparations for the destruction and death we've already put up with?"

Let's talk reparations for destruction and death. READ A FRICKIN HISTORY BOOK!! The USA has killed MILLIONS of innocents since the '50's. MILLIONS of collateral damage. BILLIONS of dollars in damage to infrastructures. Do people forgive and forget this? Nope. What's the only country to have dropped an atomic bomb on a civilian target? TWICE. Guess.

"We choose to try and be as "restrained" and humane as armed conflict will allow, even tho our enemy shows no such honor as warriors. but make no mistake"

Yes, you have fought many honorable wars. Vietnam, Cambodia, Falklands, Iraq I, Korea, etc. Carpetbomb them from the air and then move in with heavy armor. Woowoo, go honor!

Are the people who you invade supposed to just sit back and take it if they don't agree? Are they supposed to go against a tank with a pistol or a slingshot?

Is it not honorable to be willing to sacrifice your life in defense of your country and people even against insurmountable odds?

Think of why you lost Vietnam, and that's why you'll be run out of Iraq.

"We Americans generally dont want to have conflict, and before 9-11, would not have been wild about starting a war."

ROFL! Here's a question for you. Name me ONE two year period since 1953 when the USA hasn't been involved in a major military action. ONE TWO-YEAR period. Your country's military is the most active and violent in the world, fyi.

"Your cause is noble, freedom will come to the iraqi people, and will be ensured here at home...and justice will be served!"

Blah blah blah, sounds like a whole bunch of mindless patriotism, which isn't really patriotism at all.

Their cause is NOT noble, freedom will come to the Iraqis based on THEIR desire for it, not yours, and Iraq has NOTHING to do with your freedom, other than the fact that your invasion of it has spawned thousands more militant anti-Americans.


Let me break it down for you easily.

The Bush administration’s reply to the POPULAR uprising (by the people) against the United States occupation of Iraq has been to unleash a wave of bloody reprisals. Helicopter gunships, streaking missiles, armored tanks, and urban warfare. HUNDREDS of innocents dead in Fallujah...

In other words, cold blooded murder is now an acceptable policy for your government, when dealing with protests, viable or not... Collective punishment, contravening the Geneva Conventions. The death of civilians is not as important as getting the "terrorists".

In the 1940's the Germans had a similar policy. "“Every civilian who impedes or incites others to impede the German Armed Forces is considered a guerrilla.”"

Sound familiar? Better get used to a jackboot salute, you'll be doing one soon if your country keeps along the same path, because your policy in Iraq is fascist.

And you cannot win a war of insurgency. These people are fighting for their lives, their futures, and their country. That bond is far stronger than any bond you will find in a military invading force (many of whom just want to go home alive).



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 04:57 PM
link   
dom,

I agree with most of everything you said. But I am upset that you would call our Marines "brain-dead."

Believe me, if anyone is not stupid, it's the Marines. Check out their websites. You will not find them talking about freedom for Iraqis. They just talk about fighting. That is cool, unlike those other guys who talk about bringing freedom to Iraq.

And if anyone is fighting the war correctly, it's the Marines. They aren't trying to look like angels out there.



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 02:53 AM
link   
Jakomo,
I'll be willing to bet that your one of those FRENCH speaking Canadians that wants to ceede from the rest of Canada eh? Your Anti-American stance is obvious and disconcerting comming from one of our supposedly closest allies.

RESPECT FOR NATIONS.
Hmm name one? how about CANADA? citizens of both nations can cross the border without a passport...hmm that shows we respect you so much we TRUST you to visit anytime with little hassle.

What about NAFTA? we signed this bad deal for US employees so that freer trade could be practiced with our neighbors, yet it caused jobs to FLY out of here. We still uphold this aggreement, tho its not popular or so far helpful for the US.

What about the "black hawk down" incident....
we went over there to ensure food got to starving people instead of brutal warlords, and what thanks did we get there?

Hmm the USA rebuilt most of its former enimies countries germany and japan, even after their terrible war and their defeat....instead of keeping our former adversary down, we helped to pick them up. That took a lot of respect.

How about the BILLIONS in aid $$ we've given, not loaned. to countries in the world...

I could make a HUGE list of ways America shows respect to other nations, however,
The respect i was reffering to was by the mid east nations twords each other. Am I asking too much that israel and palestine get along peacefully?

WHY HAVE WE SEEN ANTI AMERICANISM/ACTIONS?
Indeed, in PART, your stated reasons have contributed to this problem...but that mentality lets them off the hook.....their fundamentalist style NEEDS a bad guy in order to fuel its radiclism. Without an easy to understand enemy, how can they rally thousands of poor and uneducated to their cause?

What about the fact that our cultures are VERY different and that in and of itself breeds fear and mistrust?
There are many reasons this anti-western feeling has become more predominate, but these feelings are not an excuse to plot and cause violence.

ISREAL AND THE USA
Of course this is a big sore spot in the region...but while the US has always stood up for Isreal, its not like we havnt preassured them hard too.

Hmm, Didnt the USA say, "no dont build settlements there", and "dont build that big wall"? Just because we wouldnt let israels enemies ram thru a anti isreal resolution in the UN doesnt mean we didnt tell israel something they didnt want to hear, and in fact basicly they did what they wanted anyway DESPITE OUR REQUESTS.

Hmm during the gulf war, when they were attacked by iraq with scuds...we told israel..."you will not retaliate" even tho we reccognise a countries right to self defense.
isreal showed restraint and refrained from retributive strikes, not because they felt good about it, but because we put hard preassure on them not to.

Hmm hasnt the USA said to the world...PALESTINE has the right to exist, and havent we tried to work with them to gain peace? Didnt we host the leaders of isreal and palestine on SEVERAL occasions at the white house and camp david?

The USA has had no choice but to constantly defend israel since its creation/reccognition by the UN...because after the nazi's tried to wipe them out, syria, egypt, jordan, palestine, have all been doing the same thing...trying to wipe out isreal. Stopping genocide is the correct stance for the USA.
Hmm, the isrealies say "let us live in peace, and you as well" but the arab fundamentalist say "drive them into the sea" Who is the agressor here?

DROPPING THE BOMB
Almost ANY historian or millitary historian will tell you, If the US had not dropped those bombs, forcing a japanese surrender, that MILLIONS on both sides would have died in a long and bloody invasion of Japan.
We could have bombed TOYKO, but we didnt, why?
Hmm, because they didnt have the same millitary production capasity as the cities of Hiroshima or Nagasaki. So what, we used the a bomb...big whoop?
Guess what, we'll do it again too if forced.

Umm, study history, the USA was never at war with Cambodia, or the Falklands. (say england there)

IRAQ/VIETNAM ARE NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING THE SAME!!!!! First of all, there is no superpower backing iraq, secondly the political ties against us fully pushing the war in vietnam do not exist for the iraq conflict.
Talk about needing to study history.

as far as your asement of fighting with bombers and armor not being honorable....fighting a millitary conflict with the most effective tools available for the quickest resolution of hostilities is the goal...not to drag out a fight.. America honors the Geneva conventions, which is the way the "civilized" world has defined honorable conflict. It dont get much better than that. Civillians and "innocents" die in war....this is a given.

Ill have to do some research i dont have the time for this moment, to find your time periods where no american conflict has been....Im sure this would be spread thru the majority of American history as we have not been at war constantly for 250 yrs.

POPULAR UPRISING?
hmm can i get the population of falluja and the #'s of resitors? Im certain they do not = one another.
Plus, those doing the uprising were warned....commit no sedition against the new iraqi government or the coalition forces. The clerical leader decided to encite violent civil disobediance....and we carried out our warning.

we did not go in and level everything, and in fact took great care to LIMIT excess dammage or casualties.
If we would have leveled everything and killed indiscrimantly, then we would have violated the geneva conventions. In fact, the US halted its offensive in order to let the people recover some, and to give sometime for that clericto change his tune...guess what HE DID!!!

Funny how when we pulled up outside of falluja, they came out and attacked us...if you are protesting and bring weapons and use them against our troops, for whatever reason, you are asking them to shoot back. DUH!! Hardly "innocent" protesters!

You said;
Is it not honorable to be willing to sacrifice your life in defense of your country and people even against insurmountable odds?

Of course it is, for both us and them.
But that doesnt mean we will not take actions, just because we know this will happen....
to take no action is to be paralysed by that fear and allows your enemy to defeate you before the first shot is fired.

I can see millitary studies is not a big deal in Canada as the USA has been providing Canada with proterction for a long time. Do you even have a millitary? or just a coast guard? (why pay for one when your buddies to the south will protect you?)

Pull your emotions out of your arguments, you might do better at formulating a decent one.



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Cazmedia: "Pull your emotions out of your arguments, you might do better at formulating a decent one."

Then what's your excuse?

"I'll be willing to bet that your one of those FRENCH speaking Canadians that wants to ceede from the rest of Canada eh?"

Wrong. English Canadian.

"What about NAFTA? we signed this bad deal for US employees so that freer trade could be practiced with our neighbors, yet it caused jobs to FLY out of here."

LOL that's a good one. Mexico and Canada were squawking for YEARS that NAFTA was a raw deal for Canada and Mexico, and we suffered. Now you're suffering because your economy is swirling around in the toilet bowl, and you expect compassion? The USA was the biggest proponent of Nafta.

"we went over there to ensure food got to starving people instead of brutal warlords, and what thanks did we get there?"

Oh is that from the movie? That they were there for "humanitarian food delivery"? Well well.

detik.daily.tripod.com...

"On Oct. 3, 1993, a team of so-called "elite troops" composed of the Delta Force and Rangers tried to nab Aideed again in central Mogadishu. Aideed was nowhere to be found, and soon the American troops became confused. Shortly after, they were surrounded by angry crowds.

There ensued a massacre in which somewhere between 500 and 1,000 Somalians were killed, along with 18 Americans....

...An article by the former Independent correspondent Richard Dowden (not to be confused with Mark Bowden) the previous year makes the clear point that U.S. troops killed unarmed men, women and children from the outset of their mission: 'In one incident, Rangers took a family hostage. When one of the women started screaming at the Americans, she was shot dead. In another incident, a Somali prisoner was allegedly shot dead when he refused to stop praying outside. Another was clubbed into silence. The killer is not identified.'" "


Don't take this link as gospel, just do a simple google search.

"Hmm the USA rebuilt most of its former enimies countries germany and japan, even after their terrible war and their defeat....instead of keeping our former adversary down, we helped to pick them up. That took a lot of respect. "

Oh wow the USA rebuilt Germany and Japan? I thought it was, you know, maybe a couple of other countries, but I guess it was unilaterally the USA according to you?

"How about the BILLIONS in aid $$ we've given, not loaned. to countries in the world... "

BS.

www.globalissues.org...

"USA's aid, in terms of percentage of their GNP is already lowest of any industrialized nation in the world, though paradoxically in the last two years, their dollar amount has been the highest."

LOWEST OF ANY INDUSTRIALIZED NATION. So your point is invalid.

"Without an easy to understand enemy, how can they rally thousands of poor and uneducated to their cause?"

Perfect example of your own jingoist media and government. Osama, Saddam, Ghaddafi, all of these guys have been the "bad guy of the moment" in the USA at various times.

"Hmm, Didnt the USA say, "no dont build settlements there", and "dont build that big wall"? Just because we wouldnt let israels enemies ram thru a anti isreal resolution in the UN doesnt mean we didnt tell israel something they didnt want to hear, and in fact basicly they did what they wanted anyway DESPITE OUR REQUESTS. "

And yet the USA continues to give them BILLIONS of dollars and veto any and all resolutions that come before the UN.

"Hmm, the isrealies say "let us live in peace, and you as well" but the arab fundamentalist say "drive them into the sea" Who is the agressor here?"

I don't know, who has the 5th largest army in the world, who uses assassination by helicopter gunship as a valid tactic, who erects a barbed wire fence around their country?

"Almost ANY historian or millitary historian will tell you, If the US had not dropped those bombs, forcing a japanese surrender, that MILLIONS on both sides would have died in a long and bloody invasion of Japan. "

Again, BS. The Japanese were surrendering and the bombing of two civilian (not military) targets was unneccessary. Again, all you need to do is google it.

"IRAQ/VIETNAM ARE NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING THE SAME!!!!!"

Um, how about : 1) Guerrilla warfare from the locals. 2) International condemnation for the military action. 3) Large US soldier loss of life. 4) Unpopular war for most americans. 5) Started under false pretenses. 6) ILLEGAL.

"POPULAR UPRISING?
hmm can i get the population of falluja and the #'s of resitors? Im certain they do not = one another."


Why are you so certain? Did Wolf Blitzer tell you this?

" America honors the Geneva conventions, which is the way the "civilized" world has defined honorable conflict."

More BS, wow. Contravening the Geneva Conventions : hiring mercenaries in security capacities in Iraq (1), collective punishment (2), GUANTANOMO BAY (3), use of napalm and DU rounds in Iraq (4). That's just off the top of my head.

"I can see millitary studies is not a big deal in Canada as the USA has been providing Canada with proterction for a long time. Do you even have a millitary? or just a coast guard? (why pay for one when your buddies to the south will protect you?) "

No, our military is not big because we don't need it, it's strictly defensive and for UN peacekeeping.

And yeah, why should we bother when you guys spend trillions on your defense. We'll just piggyback and use it to our advantage.


Yay!

jako



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 05:00 AM
link   
JAKOMO,
Perhaps my emotions did cloud some of my judgment, as another posting by a moron had my blood boiling by the time i got around to writing a responce for you...your statements didnt help lessen my frustrations however....

lets talk about your critique...

Respect for nations
you asked for one, I gave you several.
No disputing my first great exapmle, CANADA?

NAFTA
weather this ended up being good/bad for the USA, Canada or Mexico is irrelavent to the fact that the usa lead and signed this in order to BALANCE trade with other nations...I.E. we took this deal in respect to other countries wishes for fairer and free FOR THEM.

Magadishu 93
yes we were there in part to get Aideed as he was hindering UN efforts (led by US) to stop relief aid from being looted by the warlords.
look at the timeline of events,
www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ambush/
your trying to pluck the arrest of Aideed out of the timeline as a single event showing the USA as bad guy...this conveniantly ignores the total picture of events and the WHY we went after Aideed...

Rebuilding Germany and Japan
Of course we didnt do it alone....DUH! but the USA did lead this effort.

AID $$$
Lets look at the example you used. BS. well thats not a great responce so lets move on to your link.
One of the more informative links ive seen posted on ATS...the link talked about a UN program called the Official Development Assistance (ODA)

YOU SAID;
"USA's aid, in terms of percentage of their GNP is already lowest of any industrialized nation in the world, though paradoxically in the last two years, their dollar amount has been the highest."

LOWEST OF ANY INDUSTRIALIZED NATION. So your point is invalid.

NEGATIVE...my point is validated by your own link and the chart on it.
YES our aid was percentage wise the lowest on the chart for GNP, but our little .1% ($9.145 billion) of GNP equaled a far greater ammount of $$ than say the top of the chart Denmarks 1.01% of GNP ($1.733 billion)

WHAT DOES THIS TELL ME? You can manipulate stats like a politician....Our smaller % was WORTH MORE than others larger % donations...The US economy is so large that for Denmark to = the US in raw dollar value they would have to give a larger % like about 6%

Your statistical shell game does not negate the fact that the US in this instance has indeed given freely to others. (to a UN bilk the US for $$ program) This does not count the $$ or material aid we give directly not thru UN programs...
like digging out Nicarauga after the hurricane (cant remember which) burried thousands of people.

YOU AGAIN;
"And yet the USA continues to give them BILLIONS of dollars and veto any and all resolutions that come before the UN. "

Yes we do, because the UN can and is used as a weapon against israel (and the US)...we support them with $$, equip, and on paper in the UN (ideologically)
The UN is not the be all of world politics, in fact it seems rather impotent for anything other than taking wealth from countries and giving it to poorer ones (oft times being stolen by corruption...oil for food ring a bell?)
OR stacking up piles of paper sanctions but then not enforcing anything.

YOU SAY; (bashing israel)
I don't know, who has the 5th largest army in the world, who uses assassination by helicopter gunship as a valid tactic, who erects a barbed wire fence around their country?

Hmm, much like my p-e-n-i-s- size, army size is important why? (iraq had and egypt has a bigger army)
Who straps bombs to mentally chalenged 14 yr olds and sends them up to the check point?
Umm what about the berlin wall? a wall is a wall no matter who built it to keep people in/out.

THE A-BOMB
You again;
"Again, BS. The Japanese were surrendering and the bombing of two civilian (not military) targets was unneccessary. "

I want some of what your smoking!!!
Japan was SURRENDERING??? BEFORE the bombs??
i seem to recall the japanese millitary nearly having a coup against the emperor when he said they were to surrender after the 2nd bomb...They wanted to keep fighting, and were intent to fight us before and seemingly after the bombs. where do you get your history? Selective Googling?

This is geting long but I said,
"IRAQ/VIETNAM ARE NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING THE SAME!!!!!"
You reply
Um, how about : 1) Guerrilla warfare from the locals. 2) International condemnation for the military action. 3) Large US soldier loss of life. 4) Unpopular war for most americans. 5) Started under false pretenses. 6) ILLEGAL.

1) guerrilla warfareis a tactic, it can and has been used by many.
2)tell that to the 30 or so countries that are backing us now
3)we have not even come close to the level of casualties as in the first year of Nam....
www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/ 2003-04-20-cover-usat_x.htm
4)unpopular for some indeed, but i see nothing close to the social protests here like from the 60's so it cant be that disliked here. (and certantly ignore those sponsored by questionable anti-west groups)
5)Ok so the UN for 10 years along with our and other intelligence agencies worldwide said he did, and when we got there havent YET found any....This is not a false pretense, it was a bluff from sadam, one we called.
6) i have never seen anything that makes this an illegal conflict, anywhere from any country, the UN, ect.
Legality is a formality and one the USA would seek for more credibillity...but legal or not, we will act when the nations security is at risk!!!

Trying to finnish but your hollow arguments cannot be allowed to stand for other brain dead itiots to adopt as reality.

GENEVA CONVENTIONS
www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva
my response to you
1) you better read the conventions on this, were not doing anything to violate this, and i feel your trying to use this to say we are "punnishing" when in fact this deals with restrictions of movement and not being forced to work for the occupier, not just for "innocent casualties"
2)Guantanmo bay....so far no one in the world community has been able to determine this isnt legal, or im certain our opponents would be all over it.
3) use of napalm and DU are not banned under the conventions....controversial weapons? possibly, but not in violation.
4) put the top back onto your skull, the world isnt ready for more of your innacurate and selective ideas.

OF course our buddies to the north are willing to freeload on their friends to the south, but thats ok, we have a big heart and enough guns to keep us both safe. And thats just the civillians... LOL

Now that ive turned your argument to swiss cheese,
i await further targets for my intellect to devour and spit out.



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 09:39 AM
link   
CazMedia: "weather this ended up being good/bad for the USA, Canada or Mexico is irrelavent to the fact that the usa lead and signed this in order to BALANCE trade with other nations...I.E. we took this deal in respect to other countries wishes for fairer and free FOR THEM."

Of course it was. The USA only wanted NAFTA so that Canada and Mexico could be FAIRER and FREE! Are you even listening to yourself? Why would the USA push so hard for NAFTA when Mexico and Canada were balking? Because it's good for Big Business, and your government is full of Bg Business Whores.

Let's stop with the laughable "The USA did it for the rest of the world so they could be free" boolsheet. The USA rarely does ANYTHING to help anyone unless there is a fat stack of $$$ to make. Ask the 900,000 dead in the Rwandan massacres.

As for Somalia, do some research, pal. The USA was in there to give humanitarian aid and they were just attacked by Somali savages?

Try this one: A whole lot of Somalis were upset because the U.S. military presence propped up people tied to the old, corrupt Barre regime. The U.S. objective had quickly changed from "food distribution" to basically kidnapping Gen. Aideed. You DON'T distribute food in a Blackhawk helicopter gunship with fully armed marines.

Aideed was a warlord. Warlords, terrorists and dictators are normally no problem with the U.S., as long as they do the bidding of U.S. corporate interests. Heck, the U.S. actually promoted Aidid for a time. He's on that great big long list of former U.S. allies who commit atrocities against their people, but once they step out of line or are not pro-US corporation enough, they're denounced as the "next Hitler"-- see Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic.

So let's say it more an attempted kidnapping than any food relief.

Let's try not to forget that U.S. ground troops caused a whole heckuva lot of devastation in Mogadishu --- they killed close to 10,000 people in a few weeks... Look at Panama City in 1989, the US military turned much of it to rubble and debirs, and in the process killed THOUSANDS of people.

Don't take my word for it, check out your own US National Security Archives. It's all there.

"NEGATIVE...my point is validated by your own link and the chart on it.
YES our aid was percentage wise the lowest on the chart for GNP, but our little .1% ($9.145 billion) of GNP equaled a far greater ammount of $$ than say the top of the chart Denmarks 1.01% of GNP ($1.733 billion)

WHAT DOES THIS TELL ME? You can manipulate stats like a politician....Our smaller % was WORTH MORE than others larger % donations...The US economy is so large that for Denmark to = the US in raw dollar value they would have to give a larger % like about 6% "


Spin spin spin like a dredel. When the US gives ANY kind of aid, it is ALWAYS tied to it's own foreign policy goals.

No mater what you say, the fact is the US gives one of the LOWEST percentages of their actual wealth in foreign aid. Not dollar amount, but PERCENTAGE of wealth. That's the important thing. If you have two guys giving to charity and one is poor and gives 10$, and one is a millionaire and gives 10$, who exactly is sacrificing more?

"Yes we do, because the UN can and is used as a weapon against israel (and the US)...we support them with $$, equip, and on paper in the UN"

LOL! You support them with MILITARY AID predominantly. And with BILLIONS in financial aid. Why? Are they a 3rd World country? Why doesn't a terribly poor country like Ethiopia get a similar amount?

"Who straps bombs to mentally chalenged 14 yr olds and sends them up to the check point?
Umm what about the berlin wall? a wall is a wall no matter who built it to keep people in/out."


Yes, much like the Nazi-inspired Separation Wall (think Warsaw Ghetto). Israel has illegally occupied a country for over 30 years and that's the bottom line. They've terrorized and murdered Palestinians in the meantime and snubbed UN and HUMANITARIAN pleas to stop the violence.

"i seem to recall the japanese millitary nearly having a coup against the emperor when he said they were to surrender after the 2nd bomb...They wanted to keep fighting, and were intent to fight us before and seemingly after the bombs. where do you get your history? Selective Googling?"

No, from reading everything I can, and COMMON SENSE.

free.freespeech.org...

"“Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to December 31 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”

But could American leaders have known this in August 1945?

The answer is, clearly, yes. The Japanese code had been broken, and Japan’s messages were being intercepted.

It was known the Japanese had instructed their ambassador in Moscow to work on peace negotiations with the Allies. Japanese leaders had begun talking of surrender a year before this, and the Emperor himself had begun to suggest, in June 1945, that alternatives to fighting to the end be considered. "


As for your arguments about the legality of both the Iraqi invasion and Guantanomo Bay, they're so lame and so unininformed, I'm not even going to bother to explain.

Iraq Invasion Illegal because it was not sanctioned by the UN (Res 1441 didn't specify armed invasion as an option).

Guantanomo Bay illegal because holding people prisoner for years with no charges and no rights is illegal.

Your knowledge of the Geneva Conventions is pretty sad too. Napalm is a banned weapon, as is Depleted Uranium because hey, it lays around being radioactive for thousands of years after it's used. And you can't just call someone an Enemy Combatant instead of a POW and do what you want.




Yeesh.

jako






[Edited on 16-4-2004 by Jakomo]



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Jako, since you seem to have it all down and know the "truth", what exactly would you do to fix all the problems you see with the US? What exactly would you have us do differently? Put your hate for America aside for a moment and come up with some constructive suggestions. It's easy to bitch and complain, but unless you have better ideas, it just makes you look whinny.

Take the topic of this Thread. What exactly would you have us do differently in Falluja and Iraq?

[edit] Nevermind. I bet you will say, "Get out of Iraq", or "Shouldn't have invaded".

Ok, lets say we just pack up and leave Iraq this week. We take every US soldier and piece of equipment out and park them elsewhere. What do you think will happen in Iraq?

Lets say we stop supporting Israel. We tell them and the Palastinians, "you're on you own boys." What do you think will happen?




[Edited on 16-4-2004 by Ambient Sound]



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Ambient Sound: Well, first off, I don't hate America. I don't hate Americans.

I hate your terrible foreign policy and I hate ignorant, misinformed Americans who seem to think that their country is the best ever without actually KNOWING anything about their history vis-a-vis the rest of the world.


What I would do different is actually actively try to make FRIENDS instead of make enemies. Instead of leading with military might I would lead with diplomacy. It;s your government that screws everything up. If you got 20 average Iraqis and 20 average Americans together, you could SOLVE the Iraqi conflict.

The problem is the people who make the decisions, militarily, are actually the ones with the least risk. No politicians kids' are dying in Iraq, be assured.

I would start by fixing the faults in the US government and then try to fix how you deal with other countries on a diplomatic level.



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Alright. Which govenment do you point to as an example to emulate since you state the our government is the problem? What type of political system do you advocate for my country of almost 300 million people?

Deplomacy is not a magic word that suddenly will make people behave and communicate in a rational way. Deplomacy requires that all parties involved actually have a desire to resolve the problem. As far as Iraq goes, we went to the UN a number of times about Saddams continued violations of various resolutions. They were too busy lining their pockets with the Oil for Food money to want the situation in Iraq to change. No wonder they didn't want us going in.

[Edited on 16-4-2004 by Ambient Sound]



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ladyspiritguide
I am not in the military. I am also no longer a Federal Employee. But, I will say this:

as an arm-chair quarterback, I do not think the bombing should have stopped with the "shock-and-awe". We are at war. Be it for oil, George W. attempting to continue a blood feud, whatever, the United States should have told the Iraqi citizens: "We are coming in 72 hours, get your dishes & doillies, and get the he** out of Dodge".

And, then go to it.

I think among George W's BIG blunders was suggesting the "war was over", or whatever he said.

The Military must fight 100%. Either we are at war, or we are not. No more half-a**ed screw-ups.

I was mortified when I saw what happened to those bodies. (There was a chance they were still alive as the gasoline hit them, and the fire started).

Time to turn that whole area in one giant litter box.


I say this as someone who knows people stationed there.


Maybe I am speaking from the heart, and not using my head, but it is time to correct the situation.

This is what seem so typical for patriotic civilians who can't seem to look further than their backyard. Seriously, you are not at war..

The only thing that matters is who benefit from the war. The oil industry, the weapon industry and the businesses that "rebuild" the country. I would like to see who sponsored Bush for his campaign.. And I'm going to search for it later today.

I also seriously doubt that the Irakis benefit from this. Their lives won't be any better after the US leaves the country. (probably they never will)

Come on, install a democracy for Irakis?? It's just an illusion that's supposed to make us feel safe...



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Puppetmaster, I beg to differ. We ARE at War and we're pretty serious about it. I'm sorry you don't understand or like that, but that doesn't change the fact.

As Islamic Fundimentalism gathers itself to fight Western Civilization (as it must), we have seen the calculated horror that they are capable of. That is what we're at war with. We are at war with those who would pull us all back into barbarism and religous servitude.



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 11:24 AM
link   
... or something like that.

We blinked. What the Islamo-facists did there was barbaric and deserves a like response. However we blinked first and that is a deadly mistake.

To understand just what foe the gentile world faces in Islam I strongly suggest the book www.prophetofdoom.net...

Once you've digested the material presented, then we can intelligently discuss where these Islamists are coming from.

To fully understand what in the hell is going on in Iraq and why, read The Grand Chessboard (the review linked will clue you to the gist of the story): www.foreignaffairs.org...

As for NAFTA, as an economist by training, the Mexican government has enjoyed the fruits of this agreement far more than the people of either the US or Mexico.

And thanks for the chuckle, a Canadian lecturing on US history - that's ripe.



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 12:44 PM
link   
In Somalia, yes, the USA was attacked by 'savages' because it was giving away food.

The local warlords previously got MONEY because they stole the food because they had the armies.

Now they were cut out of the racket.

however, the attack was not merely a thug reaction, but was an intentional, planned operation by al-Qaida, led by Osama bin Laden.

He trained some of Aidid's troops, but really the heavy fighting and planning was done by the "Afghan Arabs", tough fighters brought in from Afghanistan. The ambush operation was very well planned and professionally militarily designed. al-Qaida also had excellent intelligence, with spies and moles inside the U.N. organization in both Somalia and New York, and obtained coded communication passwords and phrases. There is speculation that some of Boutrous-Boutrous Ghali's staff (BBG was the UN sec general at the time, and an Arab) was compromised.

Osama and Aidid had common cause, but for different reasons.



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Ambient Sound: "As Islamic Fundimentalism gathers itself to fight Western Civilization (as it must), we have seen the calculated horror that they are capable of. That is what we're at war with. We are at war with those who would pull us all back into barbarism and religous servitude."

Total propaganda, and you've bought it hook line and sinker. How many Islamic fundamentalists do you really believe are out there? You see boogeymen where there are none. Stoke that fear! Stoke it!


j



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Yes, al-Qaeda agents are inside the U.N., where the Canadian Deputy General, Maurice Strong, provides them with NWO finance for command, control, communications and intelligence (C3I) services through Parisien Research Corporation of Ottawa. Wake up!
www.parisien.org...
www.parisien.org...



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ambient Sound
Puppetmaster, I beg to differ. We ARE at War and we're pretty serious about it. I'm sorry you don't understand or like that, but that doesn't change the fact.

As Islamic Fundimentalism gathers itself to fight Western Civilization (as it must), we have seen the calculated horror that they are capable of. That is what we're at war with. We are at war with those who would pull us all back into barbarism and religous servitude.


Yes I understand, what i am wondering about is what makes you think they are fighting against Western civilization. Why can't it be a counter reaction on the interference of the US in Iran, Irak in the past.

It's always easy to judge people, even Islamic Fundamentalists.. if you dont know what caused it you cant prevent it from happening again. If US uses agression on Islamic countries it will only cause a snowball effect.

Yes terrorist and individuals of those countries are capable of killing innocent peoples with bombs and airplanes or whatever, but then again which country used nukes on civilians??

What America shows to the world right now is mass destruction and killing in different places in the world the last few decades. They want to rule the world. Attacking religions could just as much be another step in the New World Order.



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Puppetmaster, It's very simple. Western Civilization means the end of their religious domination over their people through fear. Some of the most basic attributes of Western Civilization, freedom of religion, equality of women, secular law, and free speach are exactly opposite of how these Islamic Theocracies control their people. They either oppose us or lose their means of control as their people slowly learn that they don't have to be slaves to a violent and savage god, or those who claim to know god's will.

Add to this the fact that their birth rate is 2 to 3 times higher than Western Countries, and they believe that it's just fine to propigate their religion by force, I think you have a very dangerous thing.



posted on Apr, 17 2004 @ 01:57 AM
link   
"We have a prophet by whom we will conquer all men"
Ishaq 471


www.prophetofdoom.net...

Islam has been at war with the non-Islamic world since 670AD

Why not read their own writings for yourself? The United States is merely the focus of their present anger because it represents the antithisis of all they are taught - and it represents the only major opposition to their objectives. When they are sufficient, they will turn their attention to others.


The strike against Spain was a very old grudge being settled with a current twist.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join