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.

 

Dutch become 1st NATO member to quit Afghanistan

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaxxon
 


Yeah really.

Nobody but you is pretending that the fact he had some drums of precursors laying around from his heyday constituted his having WMDs anymore.

Why dont you jump all over the crates they found by the Iraq border that had been lost since 1988 too? Hey, you could use that as proof that he was a very dangerous threat to the US.

Crap gets lost, misplaced and forgotten. Ask Uncle Sam.

www.digitaljournal.com...


Talk about your message in a bottle. The issue of nuclear waste disposal came screaming out of a bottle discarded at a waste site in the US . This bottle contains the oldest sample of bomb-grade plutonium ever made in a nuclear reactor, scientists say.




posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by Zaxxon
 

Nobody but you is pretending that the fact he had some drums of precursors laying around from his heyday constituted his having WMDs anymore.
You can make your own assumptions, but you've just homed in on but one part of my statements. Ask any other vet that was over there in the earlier days about what they either saw, were briefed, or at least heard from their brethren. Its alright though, I'm sure you'll just ask Google instead.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaxxon
 


Yeah, keep making assumptions. I worked at a chemical weapons destruction site during the Gulf war, and lived and worked with soldiers in Chemical, many of them fresh back from the area, and I have talked to them. Thats how I know Saddam burned off all his weapons during that war.

What did you say you did again?



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by Zaxxon
 


Yeah, keep making assumptions. I worked at a chemical weapons destruction site during the Gulf war, and lived and worked with soldiers in Chemical, many of them fresh back from the area, and I have talked to them. Thats how I know Saddam burned off all his weapons during that war.

What did you say you did again?
OK, I talked to fellow soldiers, airmen, et al. that indicated the opposite as this sort of stuff came up in conversation a lot, especially after they talked about issuing us P-Tabs.

Didn't they issue P-Tabs to you in the first Gulf War? What were they for again?

Anyway, I guess its going to come down to my word vs. your's and so I don't care to go round and round about it. My statements pretty much stand on their own.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaxxon
 



Your statements are based on heresay, from people airmen, and mine are based on the word of the troops, (8 1 year rotations of them) who actually worked in Chemical. Many of whom were there first hand when the nerve gas and other chemical weapons were being burned in open pits in the desert. And many of them were speculating that the symptoms there were developing were caused by their exposure.

Not the pills they were given. And no, I did not have to take pills. We were given some vaccine when we first went out on island, and we carried atropine injectors right along with our gas masks. I was on Johnston Atoll, where the worlds first chemical weapon incinerator was built and operated. Not in the gulf. But we too were trained very thoroughly in the hazards of chemical weapons, and I was in my departments Hazmat response team as well, which meant I got more training than the average civilian out there.

But I am sure some random airmen knew much better than the troops trained to deal with chemical weapons day in and day out, who not only dealt with them in the middle east, but who handled them daily on JA as well. What the hell would they know about anything? Right?

And its not just a matter of my word vs your word. It could be that I am making all this up just for a conversation with you. Except for the fact that I have mentioned where I worked and what we did there many times in my years here. I have no agenda to sell. I am just stating the facts. The US found no WMD, and we had no good reason to expect we would. We knew Saddam had burned his stockpiles to avoid attack during the Gulf war. Most of the people I worked with in Chemical suspected that was the cause of Gulf war syndrome. Not the hopped up stories they were passing off about the antidote pills and the insecticide they used.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Just further proof that ISAF really does stand for "I Saw Americans Fighting." I never saw the Dutch do much besides tag along with the Brits and Aussies (and randomly at that) or wandering around KAF on the board walk. Losing the Canadians is a bigger blow I've got a lot of respect for our brothers from the north.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by Zaxxon
 

Your statements are based on heresay, from people airmen, and mine are based on the word of the troops, (8 1 year rotations of them) who actually worked in Chemical. Many of whom were there first hand when the nerve gas and other chemical weapons were being burned in open pits in the desert. And many of them were speculating that the symptoms there were developing were caused by their exposure.
I said "airmen, soldiers, et al." because I didn't want to name all of the conventional terms. We all worked together, and we all had to carry gas masks and do our inspections. Of course, we had the 3 injectors. Luckily none of us had to use them of course, however, I am stating that things were found that were never reported by anyone in the media, but that is pretty SOP for what people call "news".

I don't doubt you, but I've been through NBC training more times than I care. I've done the 6 shot Anthrax special too (I assume that was the "vaccine" you were given) and the P-tabs were for nerve agents, not Thrax.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 12:52 AM
link   
You say quit like it's a bad thing...

Let them work it out.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaxxon
 


So you really think, or believe that our military and government would cover up the proof they NEEDED to show the world that they had not lied about WMDs in Iraq? You honestly think that if they had found anything they could credibly spin into justification for their attack they wouldnt have used it? Held press conferences and had George W. fly over in a fighter jet and take pictures with it?

You dont even need to have been there to realize if they had found ANYTHING they could have passed off on the world political stage as legitimate WMDs they would have. It was a huge embarrassment to them to find..................... nothing.

The only thing that surprises me is that they didnt get something out there to make it look like they werent lying their asses off. But, chemical weapons arent that easy to move around the world in this day and age without someone noticing. After all, someone would have to plant them, and then you would have had witnesses.

Honestly, put the Kool-aid down. They lied to us. Even they no longer deny that there was nothing there. If you have people telling you there was, I call war stories. Someone who wants to tell a better story to their friends and family. Because pure logic would tell you that if they had found them, we would have seen more pictures of those WMDs than we have of Paris Hilton without panties.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 

And what would be gained? When the first chemical lab was found, who said anything about it? Who covered the Israeli PM when he talked about equipment being moved from one site to somewhere else just before UN Inspectors were finally allowed to look in certain places? What did people say about the intel that Syria may be assisting Iraq in hiding stuff? People already doubt anything that isn't televised by CNN. What if the President did present evidence and it turned out to be proven left overs from the 80's or would seem like desperate conjecture?
At that point Bush would look like a fool for showing anything. Or do you really think that anyone would believe it? You even indicated that you thought the US would have planted something. So did everyone else in the world.

Just what would have happened if Bush came out in say, 2005 and said "We found evidence of Iraq developing NBC!"?



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaxxon
 


I believe that you believe. If you were part of the current war in Iraq, it may make it easier for you to believe that what you did was legitimate. And in my mind, no soldier has any blame for the bull# that was pulled on the American people. You guys got lied too also. And, moreover, they put your lives at risk and cost other people their lives, for their own personal motives. No one was used more wrongfully than our troops.

You and I will just have to agree to disagree. There were no WMDs. No one claims there were. Not even the former President does any longer. Now the party line is "bad intelligence," so that they dont have to admit they knew there was no threat from Iraq all along.

There is no plausible motive for them to hide evidence that there were WMDs. If they had found anything at all they could pass off as WMDs, common sense would tell you that they would have. They lost a lot of brownie points with the people in the US, other world leaders, and people around the world. Not to mention that they have opened themselves up to the slim possibility that someday they may be tried for warcrimes.

If they had found anything, they would have screamed it from the mountain tops. My guess is they were hoping beyond hope that Saddam had a secret stash they could trot out once they got there and they were just wrong.

But, like I said, I believe that you believe. And that is your right. You have a free mind, and I am not here to change it. I just seriously doubt that you will be changing many minds here with that claim. No one buys the story that Iraq actually had WMDs. No one. Because everyone involved has already admitted they didnt.

The only thing really up for legitimate debate at this point is, "did they know that before we attacked?" I say yes. Some say no. The people who ordered the attack say no. Thats debatable, and you may convince people that they really didnt know. You may even be right. Who knows. Maybe what the troops knew never made it to the top for some strange and unlikely reason.

So, shake hands, agree to disagree, and good luck on the boards.

If you served, I congratulate you for doing so. Every one of our troops is a hero in my eyes. (Well not the ones raping and stuff, but every law abiding soldier) I dont hold them responsible for this mess at all. They did their duty, served with honor, and it isnt their fault they were used to fight an unjustified war.

They still served their country to the best of their ability.

Cheers.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 
your arguement is certainly fair and neither of us has a reason to lie or otherwise push some sort of agenda. It would also be fair to point out that I've never said that I've witnessed any of this first hand. I will trust my own sources just as I'm sure you trust your own. I appreciate your comments and I think that at least we've given some different perspectives for consideration.
As always thanks for the debate



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaxxon
The US has been trying to stabilize the massive power vacuum that they left in Afghanistan.


Show me the US war plan developed before the war for a 20-year stabilization process, and I'll believe you. You seem to have missed the important point, which THERE IS NO WAY TO WIN THE WAR REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS. The objective was supposed to be capture Osama. Objective failed.

I remember it clear as yesterday. We told Taliban "hand over Osama Bin Ladin or we invade you". Taliban said "sure, show us all the evidence and we'll hand him over". Then, we replied. "No, but we will invade you now, losers"

A few weeks later with no OBL in custody, we lost the war. Now it is time to get the hell out. We have no business being somewhere we are not welcome and have no right to be there against the will of the people. Its a fundamental violation of democracy and I'm sorry to hear you don't believe in that form of government.

You seem to think we can make new war objectives as we go along. No. We may not. In fact, war was never even declared by congress. Every day we are there is a new high treason crime on the part of Obama. But that doesn't bother you because you seem to think crazy new war objectives that make no sense are more important than democracy or the constitution of the United States.

[edit on 2-8-2010 by truthquest]



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by truthquest
 
I hate to break it to you, but there wasn't just one objective in OEF. Check out

en.m.wikipedia.org... objective 3, sub point 1.
You would need to argue that the US believes pulling out of Afghanistan wouldn't cause a situation where terrorist organizations wouldn't be supported or at least facilitated.

Also I never said that the US would or could "win".

I was only stating that at least superficially the US is there to build up a centralized government in Afghanistan right now. Is that not what is being done?

So what exactly are you trying to debate with me about?

[edit on 2-8-2010 by Zaxxon]



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaxxon
reply to post by truthquest
 
I hate to break it to you, but there wasn't just one objective in OEF. Check out

en.m.wikipedia.org... objective 3, sub point 1.
You would need to argue that the US believes pulling out of Afghanistan wouldn't cause a situation where terrorist organizations wouldn't be supported or at least facilitated.

So what exactly are you trying to debate with me about?


We're talking about the Afghanistan war objectives. I claim the reason we went in is because of Osama Bin Ladin. What you linked me to was the war on terror, not the war an Afghanistan.

If we had a problem with the Taliban that should have been dealt with in about 1998 when they went around blowing up historic artifacts. At that time my thinking was "why isn't the US military going to intervene?" and I then came to the conclusion that it would be meddling in the affairs of foreign countries to do so. However, it turns out that is not the case. The reason we didn't go in is because our oil companies were not pushing hard enough for a war.

And again, the point is that we went in for Osama bin Ladin, and since we didn't get him we lost. At the point, we were supposed to pull out. But there is oil in them there hills! So we stayed. It had nothing to do with stability of the country. It had to do with securing oil contracts.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthquest
And again, the point is that we went in for Osama bin Ladin, and since we didn't get him we lost. At the point, we were supposed to pull out. But there is oil in them there hills! So we stayed. It had nothing to do with stability of the country. It had to do with securing oil contracts.


What oil? Do you have a Cost-benefit analysis that shows the war is lucrative? Or even that oil contracts did go to oil companies?



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by truthquest
 
So...the "War on Terror" doesn't include OEF? And please clarify that when Bush said that the "and the cessation of terrorist activities." in his Sept. 20 address to Congress that it wasn't the second objective of OEF?

Is that what you are trying to counter-point from my statement?



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65
Just further proof that ISAF really does stand for "I Saw Americans Fighting." I never saw the Dutch do much besides tag along with the Brits and Aussies (and randomly at that) or wandering around KAF on the board walk. Losing the Canadians is a bigger blow I've got a lot of respect for our brothers from the north.


Yeah! because the pesky Dutch ISAF forces are doing absolutely nothing to help their allies in Afghanistan, they just sit by the pool sippin' their umbrella drinks!


Their Commando special forces never fought beside the American special forces against the Talibans!


And the Dutch Apache helicopters has also never helped any Americans when they were pinned down in deep crap on the ground in Afghanistan?












Way to go dude! bashing your allied ISAF friends & colleagues! how typically arrogant of you lol!


Must be the arrogance mixed with delusions of grandeur! :shk:

Great!
now I'm feeling all dirty on the inside for posting these pro war videos of the warmongering Corporations's war in Afghanistan! YUCK!


[edit on 2-8-2010 by Chevalerous]



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by wcitizen
 


Exactly. That would be like saying some other country should invade the US to try and save us from our corrupt government full of warlords. No thank you.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chevalerous
Yeah! because the pesky Dutch ISAF forces are doing absolutely nothing to help their allies in Afghanistan, they just sit by the pool sippin' their umbrella drinks!


Sorry, I have to agree with Jerico65. Any time I saw the Dutch, they were grab-assing around KAF. Doesn't mean that they didn't do anything, as your videos prove.


Originally posted by Chevalerous
way to go dude! bashing your allied ISAF friends & colleagues! how typically arrogant of you


Yeah, like no one bashes the US Military.



new topics




 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join