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.

 

images from the so called liberation of iraq

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


well said...Just throw pics up and bend them to fit your needs..This is going to be a one liner,but now its 2..
HOGWASH..LETS HAVE SOME PORK




posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Redpillblues
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


well said...Just throw pics up and bend them to fit your needs..This is going to be a one liner,but now its 2..
HOGWASH..LETS HAVE SOME PORK



no it is not as easy as what you do to deny the pics

read this thoroughly
www.commondreams.org...



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 08:07 AM
link   
I am not saying its all right but this is just the transitional period of war. War had to begin and along the way lots of desperate situation arises as no war is anything pretty to begin with. But once the people are free and Iraq is settled it will be a different place just not right now. Give it time don't judge it till its over, even America began with its own civil war but look at it now, its a prgression to freedom within democracy where people of all differences can live together, Iraq could live with Iran once nor could the Shiites or Kurds or the Sunni's get along let alone the diversity of human nature of normal people's thoughts. They were living in fear for many years under Saddam and lwas a Darth Vader type figure for America with his secret plans although now the shift has gone to Iran.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 08:36 AM
link   
let's talk about the crimes committed by the american forces.

are these crimes being perpetrated because of Saddam??????



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by The time lord
 


You say the war HAD to start?

Why did it HAVE to?

What justification was there, that wasn't fabricated?

I don't buy into that crap about Iraq breaking UN resolutions - the US and other countries break them quickly enough when it suits them.

So, tell me why there HAD to be over 1.5 million dead, over 4 million displaced people, the destruction of a countries infrastructure, education system and the theft of their oil.

Can you?

Edit to add - I was going to post the consequences of the use of DU by coalition forces, but frankly the images are too shocking.
Just google "depleted uranium iraq" but only if you have a strong stomach.

[edit on 7/4/2009 by budski]



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by The time lord
 


You say the war HAD to start?

Why did it HAVE to?

What justification was there, that wasn't fabricated?

I don't buy into that crap about Iraq breaking UN resolutions - the US and other countries break them quickly enough when it suits them.

So, tell me why there HAD to be over 1.5 million dead, over 4 million displaced people, the destruction of a countries infrastructure, education system and the theft of their oil.

Can you?

Edit to add - I was going to post the consequences of the use of DU by coalition forces, but frankly the images are too shocking.
Just google "depleted uranium iraq" but only if you have a strong stomach.

[edit on 7/4/2009 by budski]


I don't think you are reading it properly or maybe I worded it a bit wrong.
All I am saying it was inevitable that there would be a war in Iraq, not saying it had to start, it done its own warring on its own neighbours and people of the Iraq society without the help of America. I doubt people was that happy anyway and the 3 separate groups in Iraq were always intolerant of each other and Saddam was not exactly a great diplomat.

It was obvious that Saddam's plans and his threatening stance would bring his nation to his own destruction. The same with Iran today, Iran never cared about Iraq less than 20years ago and now it's fully Islamic its like it thinks Iraq was their best buddies all these years. A delusion of forgetting ones real past as neighbouring nations and the only thing they have in common now is religion and now that Sharia is taken out of the way in Iraq along with Saddam's tyrant thug rules it’s all offensive to Iran now and yet they were killing each other in I wars in the past.

The only reason why America went to war because of a possible weapons mass destruction threat which was not true as we see now, more chance of Iran than Iraq ever did along with North Korea. Iraq was never stable anyway, if Iran is going nuclear now with the support from Russia and Iraq was still under Saddam today I bet either would be at war again like they always had been with WMDs on both sides which would have lead to something greater for which the UN had to stop anyway. Either way I see some point in the fact Iraq was making the Middle East unstable and because of the fanatics it has caused this deception on America and Britain to fall into that trap of insecurity since 9/11. I am not saying its right but in the end the instability would have caused unpredictable consequences, and it seems inevitable because of Middle East's instability it was going to fracture in a number of unpredictable directions. Afghanistan was a different ball game where there was the real reason for war to disperse the Taliban and Bin Ladin and no one would have protested about that if it was the only war going on today.

I am not sure if 1.5 million have been killed because of the American troops, it sounds a bit far fetched but willing to read the facts.

[edit on 7-4-2009 by The time lord]



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Mosul
 




there is no proof for this
by the way , the Kuwait war took place on 1991 , not 1992



I'm sorry your absolutely right the picture is from 1991 not 1992 I'm sorry I apologize





[edit on 7-4-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by The time lord
 


There were a few reasons the US went to war in Iraq and none of them had anything to do with WMD's.

1) Oil

2) To establish a long term military presence in the area to control the resources - in other words, the oil

3) Dubya wanting to go one better than his dad and actually kill saddam

4) In order to feed the monster that is the military industrial complex

5) To further appease the Israeli's and the israeli lobby in washington.

6) For the enrichment of contractors and sub-contractors in the shape of halliburton and KBR

7) To ingraine in the public psyche a perpetual violence, allowing them to pass laws which otherwise they would not have been able to.

The figure of 1.5 million is at least 18 months old and was the result of a study by the Lancet and the John Hopkins institute.

As for the taliban and OBL - the FBI were asked why OBL was not on their most wanted list.
The reply?
"Because we have nothing to link him to the crime committed on 911"

In other words, another bush lie when he immediately blamed OBL.

[edit on 7/4/2009 by budski]



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   
If I had my way I would have said leave Iraq to their own mess if they want to live like that let them unless the people want a revolution or civil war its up to them, but the people were conditioned to be passive and be in fear which held Iraq and Saddam together. This is no different if the Muslim fanatics get their way in Pakistan or any other part of the world, a Muslim country cannot be Muslim without killing of the infidels first while the next generation forgets their past while they are subbmitted to sharia without a clause of being set free. Should the world have cared about Iraq? Did not African countries being bullied by Sharia fanatics need more saving with thousands being killed in African countries. I guess the world got its priorities wrong-Okay retype-America got its priorities wrong and the UK was deceived with the Hutton inquiry and played into America as the so called puppy dog. But it was not the politicians but the intelligence doing this so it’s all shadowy that is why people can't see them.

If it was me I say just go after the enemies you think you had, someone in all this is playing the world games and turning the tables that is why it does not make sense to everyone.



[edit on 7-4-2009 by The time lord]



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


I knew it!!! This anti-American thread has finally gone anti-Israel.


I will not presume to know all the reasons we went into Iraq; however, no one, not even the most ardent anti-Bush pundents can say that the security situtation in Iraq isn't much better now than it was at the begining of the war.

The only real violence these days against Iraqis is by other Iraqis. Why can't sheites and sunnis just get along.


[edit on 7-4-2009 by finemanm]



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by finemanm
 


My statement was not anti american or anti israeli, but a simple statement of fact.

If you think I am incorrect, then give your evidence, citing sources.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


What does the Israel Lobby have anything to do with the Bush invasion of Iraq? Here is an article from a reputable news source, BBC from February 2003 before the invation:




The head of the Israeli army has warned of an "earthquake, which will reshape" the Middle East if America goes to war with Iraq.

The head of the Israeli army has warned of an "earthquake, which will reshape" the Middle East if America goes to war with Iraq.
Lieutenant-General Moshe Yaalon told an Israeli newspaper that while he expected America to launch a strike, he was more concerned about attacks by Palestinian militants than any danger posed to Israel by Iraq.


news.bbc.co.uk...

Why even bring up the Israel lobby in a thread that has nothing to do with Israel?

[edit on 7-4-2009 by finemanm]



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   
accidental double post.


[edit on 7-4-2009 by finemanm]



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by The time lord
a Muslim country cannot be Muslim without killing of the infidels first while the next generation forgets their past while they are subbmitted to sharia without a clause of being set free.

Um wow talk about prejudice against Muslims yet again... what about Turkey, Morocco, Malaysia, Lebanon, Qatar, etc etc. I dont agree with sharia law but places like Iran under it still have many Christians and Jews and other faiths living there without being killed as infidels... get yer facts straight



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
The figure of 1.5 million is at least 18 months old and was the result of a study by the Lancet and the John Hopkins institute.


Opps:

www.abcnews.go.com...

www.timesonline.co.uk...



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ridhya

Originally posted by The time lord
a Muslim country cannot be Muslim without killing of the infidels first while the next generation forgets their past while they are subbmitted to sharia without a clause of being set free.

Um wow talk about prejudice against Muslims yet again... what about Turkey, Morocco, Malaysia, Lebanon, Qatar, etc etc. I dont agree with sharia law but places like Iran under it still have many Christians and Jews and other faiths living there without being killed as infidels... get yer facts straight


My research has lead me to read that the Christian and Jews of Iran including the churches were from pre-Islamic periods and its new established identity which took up Islam.





Human rights groups are raising alarms over a new law passed by the Iranian parliament that would require the country's Jews and Christians to wear coloured badges to identify them and other religious minorities as non-Muslims.
"This is reminiscent of the Holocaust," said Rabbi Marvin Hier, the dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. "Iran is moving closer and closer to the ideology of the Nazis."

Text



Islamic Conquest
Main article: Islamic conquest of Iran

Stages of Islamic conquest
Expansion under the Prophet Mohammad, 622-632

Expansion during the Patriarchal Caliphate, 632-661

Expansion during the Umayyad Caliphate, 661-750Muslims invaded Iran in the time of Umar (637) and conquered it after several great battles. Yazdegerd III fled from one district to another until a local miller killed him for his purse at Merv in 651.[36] By 674, Muslims had conquered Greater Khorasan (which included modern Iranian Khorasan province and modern Afghanistan, Transoxania, and Pakistan). The Islamic conquest of Persia led to the end of the Sassanid Empire and the eventual decline of the Zoroastrian religion in Persia. The majority of Iranians gradually converted to Islam. However, most of the achievements of the previous Persian civilizations were not lost, but were absorbed by the new Islamic polity.


Text


[edit on 8-4-2009 by The time lord]



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   
So where are the pictures of the American soldiers who brought the iraqi's food, water and blankets? where are the pictures of soldiers building schools, houses, churches. Where are the pictures of our soldiers bringing generators, our contractors restoring electricity and water?

Where are the pictures of our soldiers protecting your citizens from extremist and dying in the process...

You're hate has clouded your mind and only allows you to see what you want to see.



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ridhya
I think its good to be reminded of whats going on there, there is absolutely no coverage Ive seen in the media about Iraq anymore.


Good news doesn't get reported. Ever since the successful surge in Iraq began we just hear less and less of the good being done over there.



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Amen to Slayer69 and alienarena.

Show a bunch of pictures that are out of context and hate America. Go ahead world, jump on, we have BIG shoulders and we'll still help you when you need it.

God hate America. Right?



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
1. We had no right to go into Iraq and destory it.


Too late. The US is already there. Just picking up and leaving would be worse.


The Iraquis don't think so. They, like so many people across the world, would like US troops and bases out of their country. But that's not going to happen because the US has set up over a dozen deep desert bases, "just in case". In case of what, one might wonder.


The ol' "no blood for oil" argument. That's getting a bit old.


And evidently, even though it may be getting old, you still haven't got an answer for it.

John McCail admits Iraq war was for oil


“My friends, I will have an energy policy which will eliminate our dependence on oil from Middle East that will then prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.”


More...



Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was for oil


“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil"




I didn't know there was a statute of limitation on torture. Guess we can stop chasing Nazis, huh?

How about starting to chase the soldiers and "contractors" over there liable for war crimes? Blackwater prosecutions, for example? Or if you're feeling really ambitions, how about going after the war criminals responsible for this? Bush, Cheney, Blair?

At least you know where those guys are.


Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Not only did America destory Iraq, its destoryed world confidence in itself, it helped destory its own economy and it forever created decades of hate and anger.


The economy was going to inplode whether we went to Iraq or not. Good time to get a job in the defense industries is now!!


Really. Those billions of dollars spent on the war had no effect whatever on the US trade deficit?


Doesn't mean it's not working, either.


No, but this is a debate board. Perhaps you should try and back up that ludicrous argument with reference to those inconvenient things, facts and sources.


Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Iraq has been lost to Iran and militia.


Oh, really? All I've seen are Iraqis that want everyone out of their country.


Oh, the ungrateful wrtetches. The US wrecked the economy and infrastructure through sanctions, polluted the place with depleted uranium, sold the country and its resources to outside buyers, implemented a puppet government, encouraged civil war between two factions that had been living in peace for decades, brought in death squads...

Why they don't strew every foreigner's path with flowers is quite beyond me. Nation building is such a thankless task.


Yeah, might as well just go home and leave it to Iran. You know they'll do a better job at it.


Showing that being lied to works on some people even though experience really ought to have made a difference by now.



Originally posted by Agit8dChop
If you follow Americas occupation in Iraq, your a disgrace to peaceful society.


BTW, it's "you're", not "your". If you're going to flame, at least spell things correctly.


You'd do rather better to answer the substantive points raised rather than chide people on their spelling. You're hardly an exemplar for grammar and vocabulary yourself. And you think that emoticons somehow constitute an argument. Now that is quaint.




new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join