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.

 

Iraqis rejoice as U.S. troops leave Baghdad

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakes51
How long do we need to keep these forward operating bases open? Are we to keep the bases open forever?


The Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan took the place of the rule after the US won WWII. Japan WANTS the USA to take over it's security issues. That frees Japan from having to spend money on it's national defense. That's why Japan owns so much of the USA now. The money it saves on national defense goes to buying up our national parks.


As for Germany - they started two world wars and they lost them. American bases there are fall out from that fact. Last I heard about the Germany bases, the US was considering moving them to Eastern Europe. But the business leaders in Germany weren't happy about that. They like having the $$$ come in from the GIs stationed there.




posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


So with what you say in your posts, my assumptions are credible? Like the countries the US is stationed in at present; it stands to reason that Iraq will become a permanent duty station like Germany, Japan, and Korea.

The planners at the Department of Defense know that the insurgents are still in Iraq and lye in wait for such withdrawal gestures by the US government. We all know the Iraqi forces aren't up to quell a nation-wide insurgency or even a local one for that matter. There are still to many loose ends to discontinue the military involvement in Iraq and the government is well aware of this fact. This approach by the Obama administration is only smoking mirrors and the US is not going any where.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 07:55 AM
link   
Eh, I'm totally confused


The troops are NOT leaving Iraq, you do know that, don't you????????!

Barry said on his campaign trail, he would get the troops out asap. Then he starts to twist his own words in Jan '09 and now it is called a 'phased withdraw'. Only a few tens of thousands will leave now (probably moved to Afghanistan) and the rest will stay to protect the devils tears/black gold. The BS phases are meant to be until 2012, when guess what, Barry will be on full-tint for a new election.

Also, they have built a half-trillion $$ embassy in Iraq, so again, they aren't going anywhere.

If people think America will leave the middle-East, you are blind to the truth of what the whole game is all about and i highly suggest you resume normal duty of watching X-Factor.

p.s. Yesterday Russia clinched a new gas deal with Azerbaijan (Forbes), so i doubt the west will leave the middle-east any time soon; things are gonna get very interesting.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by jd140
They aren't happy we left because they don't like us.

They are happy because our leaving the city is a sign that they are strong enough to deal with the situations on their own.

Try reading the article, nowhere in it did they say anything bad about the US forces or even attempt to might have hinted at it.

Read whole articles not just headlines.


Hmmmm, okay....




More than six years of U.S. occupation and the orgy of sectarian violence it unleashed have left most Iraqis feeling at best ambivalent about U.S. forces.

Many complain their lives have improved little since then, with daily struggles caused by power cuts and water shortages.

"They did a good job getting rid of that tyrant, Saddam, and we thank them for that, but it's really time for them to leave," said Talib Rasheed, 70, sitting outside in one of Baghdad's leafier suburbs. "Maybe they could leave us some electricity?"



I understand trying to put a positive spin to things but from what I learned about the English language I figure that the above statements are more aimed at being thankful that the troops are just leaving than for them being there to make them safe. It appears that they didn't feel that their lives have improved much and in fact is worse off than when we so valiantly entered their country.

Edit to add: So, next time, before you start trying to slam someone and get stars for it for telling them to read the full article, I would simply ask that you do the same my friend.

[edit on 30-6-2009 by dariousg]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by PrisonerOfSociety
 


No, they are leaving Baghdad as the title of the thread states. It's a huge step. This means that the number of troops left in the country will lessen. That's the important thing here. We need to get to the point where we no longer have a presence and this is a start.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 08:50 AM
link   
by any chance...i wasnt expecting us troops to leave capitals in Iraq this early..am i wrong??..this withdrawal seems sudden to me??...is there the need for the US army to cope with a new Korean / Iranian / Russian Threath?



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


For all of those reasons given hardly did we the public hear them in the MSM and from their speeches leading up to the war. Yes, they would speak to the U.N. inspectors being kicked out and so on. But hardly any of the others. Not quite enough to go to war with a nation over. It was ALL about WMDs and links to terrorism. Period. That is all we heard so that is all we focused on.

To bring them in after the fact is typical. Why are these reasons being brought in well after the fact? Because their BIG arguments, the ones that would garner the support of the citizens of this country and the world, were complete and utter BS! That's why.

Because they KNEW that the reasons you have listed would NEVER have been enough to get that support from the people of this planet. NEVER. Those are not reasons to start a war that would displace tens of millions and end up causing the deaths of nearly 1 million innocent people. Period.

Was he a bad man for what he did? Yes. But we should have thought of that before we put him in power and SOLD him those chemical weapons.

You, my friend, are a hypocrit. You go on and on about all of these things that this man did but ignore all of the things that the leaders of this country did that contributed to his wrong doings.

And the Flyers suck! (Okay, that was childish and they really don't but I just had to say it!)


[edit on 30-6-2009 by dariousg]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by heineken
 


That, unfortunately, is what I believe this to be. Those men and women are going to be needed elsewhere. I just hope that it isn't in the convoy that will be heading to Tehran.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Jakes51
When have the United States really left any country we have been involved in militarily? I state some examples, Japan and Germany since World War 2 and Korea since the Korean War.


Japan and Germany waged war against the world. They were the instigators of those wars. They LOST the wars and therefore the forces that won the war had the right (and duty) to disarm them and stay to inforce it and to keep watch over them to make sure they didn't arm up again.

Now Japan and Germany want all the GIs there to spend their money and to keep the economy going. Local businesses want the $$$. Now a lot of why we are there are for economic reasons.

In Korea, the USA was invited to stay by the South Koreans in order to keep the Southern half of the country free from the communist Chinese.



See, you CAN make a great point when you remove all of the prejudice from it. And Saddam DIDN'T attack the U.S. and DIDN'T go to war against the world. Hmmmm, damn, did I just use your own point to reiterate my point?



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by dariousg
 


I would like this document. PM me and I'll send you my email.

In any case, It's a good day.

Let us not forget though that all nations the US occupied for long time periods have days celebrating their independence, from Japan, and I think even Germany.

Let Iraq follow their paths, becoming a stable nation with much peace.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by dariousg
 


I would like this document. PM me and I'll send you my email.

In any case, It's a good day.

Let us not forget though that all nations the US occupied for long time periods have days celebrating their independence, from Japan, and I think even Germany.

Let Iraq follow their paths, becoming a stable nation with much peace.


Anyone else that wants this CFR document just let me know. I still can't find it on their site anymore. Just glad that I downloaded it when I did.

The old argument that the CFR is just a group that councils people and doesn't influence the government is a poor argument. Who are the members of this group? How many are politicians? How many of our past leaders have close ties to this organization? You see, they are just a group of men coming up with plans that are broadly ignored by our government. That's just an excuse thrown out there to try and diminish their importance. It's a ruse.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
This whole situation is more complex than meets the eye. The war was illegal in that the justification was based on lies and the USA as well as others in the Coalition of the Willing invaded a country that did not pose a genuine threat to any of its own citizens. Whether those reports of trucks heading into Syria or Iran or whatever are true, there was and still is no evidence that Saddam possessed WMDs or planned to directly attack USA citizens.

I've had so many conversations with others on this matter. Some originally supported the war but now feel sick that they did, others did and still do, others don't wish to elaborate on their views of the situation. A lot of people just don't want to talk about it.

One needs to remember that GWB is a puppet and was very likely ordered to sell this war to the world by TPTB. He probably had good intentions in the sense that he thought he was removing a tyrant, and liberating people through the use of American values. I do not believe he instructed or ordered soldiers or higher ups in the army to go out and murder Iraqi civilians for any political gain. (I am not saying he does not deserve to be condemned, or that he did not gain financially from the War, just that his personal intentions were not as evil as most perceive.)

Also remember that although the Coalition did start the invasion, the resulting civil unrest and attacks on the Iraqi civilian population were intensified by insurgents who viewed civilian deaths as a strong propaganda tool against the Coalition. This is probably why the civilian death toll has been so high. Not because Coalition forces tried to kill Iraqi civilians, but because insurgents had found an effective strategy for weakening support of the war in the West. This worked so well that many people mistakenly attribute every civilian death to the Coalition, which is untrue.

In hindsight, it would be better for the world as a whole if this invasion never took place and especially for the ordinary citizens of Iraq. On the whole Iran issue...hopefully mankind has learned a valuable lesson on the mistakes in Iraq. For to repeat the same mistake in Iran would have consequences of catastrophic proportions.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   
The only reason the U.S. got rid of Sadaam was because he was going to be the new oil cartel and take the Bush family out of the Oil picture.

When anything threatens the Anglo-American's wealth establish, they remove it...using ordinary people like you and I...as well as the law.


Did you know that in the 1930's the U.S. was planning to industrialize hemp (weed/pot/marijuana)...and were planning to create cars that ran off of hemp oil for fuel?

This would've KILLED the Anglo-American's Oil establish thru the Rockefeller/Bush families. So, they helped conspired to make hemp/pot/weed illegal.

The DuPonts saw hemp as a threat too. You can turn hemp oil into biodegradable plastics...and if that happened, they would've went outta business, too.

Like I said...if anything/anyone threatens the wealth (and subsequently the power) of the 13 Imperial Roman bloodlines (the ones y'all call SATANIC)...they take them out.

First it was hemp, then it was Sadaam. Go figure. If I had money, and something/someone threatened my money...I'd take them out too, using lies and deception. lol



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by spy66
The threat of Iraq making WMD is a big lie.


An estimated 175,000 Kurds in Iraq (depending on which source you use) are dead or went missing duirng the last Saddam years. Survivors tell of WMD attacks. Mass graves attest to the death squads.

Try telling the surviving Kurds that WMD are a big lie.



That is nothing compared to what the US them self have killed since they invaded Iraq and Afghanistan on their whiled man hunt. Whats the count over 200 000 people including or without the sanctions?

Whats the difference between what Saddam did and what the Americans are doing right now?

Is it a justification to what CIA did on 9/11?



[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   
So it begins....

Iraqi oil for China if they support sanctions on N Korea

China Gains in Tangled Bidding at Iraq Oil Auction

But only one contract was agreed to on Tuesday. That went to a pairing of BP and the China National Petroleum Corporation for the largest field on offer: Rumaila, near the southern city of Basra, which has proven reserves of 17 billion barrels. Once the bid is accepted by the oil minister, Hussain al-Shahristani, Parliament must issue final approval.



China 'deeply committed' to North Korea sanctions: US official

WASHINGTON (AFP) — China has given its word to the United States that it is "deeply committed" to implementing tough new nuclear sanctions against North Korea, a senior US official said Friday.

The official also said that as part of the effort to put a straitjacket on Pyongyang after its latest nuclear test and missile launches, Washington had set up an inter-agency team to coordinate the sanctions with other nations.

"They are certainly saying quite strenuously that they are deeply committed to full implementation of the provisions that are in the resolution," the senior administration official said, referring to China.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
So it begins....

Iraqi oil for China if they support sanctions on N Korea

China Gains in Tangled Bidding at Iraq Oil Auction

But only one contract was agreed to on Tuesday. That went to a pairing of BP and the China National Petroleum Corporation for the largest field on offer: Rumaila, near the southern city of Basra, which has proven reserves of 17 billion barrels. Once the bid is accepted by the oil minister, Hussain al-Shahristani, Parliament must issue final approval.



China 'deeply committed' to North Korea sanctions: US official

WASHINGTON (AFP) — China has given its word to the United States that it is "deeply committed" to implementing tough new nuclear sanctions against North Korea, a senior US official said Friday.

The official also said that as part of the effort to put a straitjacket on Pyongyang after its latest nuclear test and missile launches, Washington had set up an inter-agency team to coordinate the sanctions with other nations.

"They are certainly saying quite strenuously that they are deeply committed to full implementation of the provisions that are in the resolution," the senior administration official said, referring to China.


Man, the Chinese are moving in on everything! The US gets the snot beat out of their public image abroad for Iraq and when it's time to bid on the oil; the Chinese are first in line. I really wish that the US wasn't locked into that debt with them. The Chinese essentially neutered the US without firing a shot, and they have done it with our own money; Sun Tzu would be proud.

I have been against the US doing business with China since as long as I can remember. My idea of China is this, she was an ugly woman to begin with; but put a nice dress on her and give her a make-over and she is attractive. However, take off the make-up and fine gowns and she is no different than the Soviet Union of old. I really believe that. You can't change a zeebras stripes.

[edit on 30-6-2009 by Jakes51]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by dariousg
 


They are rejoicing because they finally have sovereignty. Though we got rid of Sadaam, they were still under occupation. The country is finally theirs to run, that is a reason to rejoice and the American troops there are rejoicing for them. It has nothing to do with the policies that started the war.Removing a dictator, and then training a new government to fend for themselves in six years is actually pretty comendable. They shoudl be happy.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Jakes51
 


I don't know the article plays up the "Chinese" part but it does mention that "BP" is also in the mix.

BP as in British petroleum....



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by Jakes51
 


I don't know the article plays up the "Chinese" part but it does mention that "BP" is also in the mix.

BP as in British petroleum....


It should get interesting in coming months when they start dividing the oil pie. Who gets more than the other? We will see if the US involvement in Iraq was for exclusive rights to oil exports from the "democratic," Iraq. This whole war was about business and locking down the oil. At present the oil wars is on the horizon and whom ever secures the most will be the leader. I am obviously alluding to what you have uncovered in your "Great Game," research. The game is on and who will be the lucky one to lock down the majority of the worlds' oil?



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Jakes51
 


I wouldn't say exclusive rights to Iraqi oil. But a thumb on the scale if anything gets out of hand so to speak. Iraq is a tool. China is desperate for oil. We want North Korea gone. One hand scratches the other. Seems like a fair deal to me.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join