Here is your war on Terrorism ! America !

page: 5
28
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by prexparte
 



Nope - We attacked Afghanistan because of 9/11. We attacked Iraq because they 'had weapons of mass destruction'. Remember? Oh my 'lest we forget'.




posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by christina-66
 


I didnt forget anything we attacked iraq because of 9-11 are you even american or european anyone who knows anythign about that wrongful war? you seem unknown. we have been at war with afghanistan long before 9-11. after america had to admit no WMD were there we had to get out somehow, which is where obama took the lead of trying to accomplish. Then we sent back our troops to afghanistan because the taliban and alqaeda were gaining strength while we faught in iraq.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by christina-66
 


They never had WMD's.

America is doing a good job helping to bring stability to the region, what they need to do though is weed out and get rid of their troops who are raping women and children and / or torturing people because they deem them "not human".

They also need to get a grip of the friendly fire situation, too much of that going on.

Other than that, they are working well, risking their lives. Once they have killed / captured all the muslim / islamic extremists and brought down Al Queda then we might start seeing a true peace in the middle east.
edit on 3/1/11 by woogleuk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by phatpackage
 


I'm not sure what's worse really. The fact that you posted such an ignorant and idiotic comment, or that you are - for some reason - getting so many stars for your posts.

Military trolls must be out today.
edit on 3-1-2011 by kommunist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by prexparte
 


9/11 was NOT the reason given for invading Iraq...AT NO TIME - NEVER - WAS THIS CLAIMED.

We went into Afghanistan purportedly because of 9/11 - they showed us footage of 'Al Qaeda' terrorist training camps and claimed that as justification - that footage was actually of the American funded Mujahideen training camps who were training to fight the Russians. (Osama Bin Laden being one of them).

The reason GIVEN to us for going to war in Iraq was that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction they were prepared to use. THAT WAS A LIE.

For goodness sake – this isn’t even history yet. Its current events – get your facts straight.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by christina-66
 


well as I said twice I am apposed and have always been apposed to the iraq war. As for OPEC, remember they are brittish owned and in my honourable opinion are more devilish then america. getting past the arguement of america being wrong for waging war on iraq because america is wrong for waging war on iraq, who would be second inlien to stealing their oil?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by woogleuk
 


I note your mood is 'confuddled'. I concur.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by prexparte
reply to post by christina-66
 


well as I said twice I am apposed and have always been apposed to the iraq war. As for OPEC, remember they are brittish owned and in my honourable opinion are more devilish then america. getting past the arguement of america being wrong for waging war on iraq because america is wrong for waging war on iraq, who would be second inlien to stealing their oil?


Child - it is past you bedtime.


The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) was founded in Baghdad, Iraq, with the signing of an agreement in September 1960 by five countries namely Islamic Republic of Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. They were to become the Founder Members of the Organization.

These countries were later joined by Qatar (1961), Indonesia (1962), Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (1962), the United Arab Emirates (1967), Algeria (1969), Nigeria (1971), Ecuador (1973), Gabon (1975) and Angola (2007).

From December 1992 until October 2007, Ecuador suspended its membership. Gabon terminated its membership in 1995. Indonesia suspended its membership effective January 2009.

Currently, the Organization has a total of 12 Member Countries.

The OPEC Statute distinguishes between the Founder Members and Full Members - those countries whose applications for membership have been accepted by the Conference.

The Statute stipulates that “any country with a substantial net export of crude petroleum, which has fundamentally similar interests to those of Member Countries, may become a Full Member of the Organization, if accepted by a majority of three-fourths of Full Members, including the concurring votes of all Founder Members.”

The Statute further provides for Associate Members which are those countries that do not qualify for full membership, but are nevertheless admitted under such special conditions as may be prescribed by the Conference.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by christina-66
 


Ahh, sorry, that whole reply wasn't to you, it was just a general thought on the matter, the only bit I was saying to you was about them not having WMD's, sorry for any bad feelings or confusion (or confuddling, lol)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by woogleuk
 


lol....NP - I think most of us are confuddled...perfectly understandable imo. I like the word. But really - how can memories be sooo short?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by christina-66
 


child some 38 years ago yes. you need to research your misinformation. and know who is a child and who is not.
I believe people have differing opinions of the ill fated iraq war, but as with afghanistan it started some 2 years pre iraq. you really need to research your misinformation. my freakin nephew is in afghanistan has been sent their 5 times and the first time was pre iraq war, wow interesting aye?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by prexparte
 


What the hey! You have a nephew out there and you're an expert? The Russians were in Aghanistan in 1979 - they were there for 11 years. We hit Iraq in for the FIRST time in 1990. We went into Afghanistan in 2001. We hit Iraq for the SECOND time in 2003. meantime my Iraqi co-worker was training in nuclear physics in 1992 - paid for by Saddam's government and provided by mine.


And hey you seem to think like a child. In any event you're younger than me - not that that means anything. However, your age gives you even less of an excuse for some of your nonsense comments. You're old enough to know better.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by prexparte
reply to post by christina-66
 


child some 38 years ago yes. you need to research your misinformation. and know who is a child and who is not.
I believe people have differing opinions of the ill fated iraq war, but as with afghanistan it started some 2 years pre iraq. you really need to research your misinformation. my freakin nephew is in afghanistan has been sent their 5 times and the first time was pre iraq war, wow interesting aye?


# - a friend of mine's brother was taken hostage by Saddam's regime BEFORE that invasion....for nine months. He was sent there by government to spy....but that was his job. To go in as a civilian to countries where they knew there was going to be conflict. Interesting aye? The wars are contrived - the reasons for going to war are lies. Your nephew's experience should tell you that.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by SLAYER69
 



WASHINGTON — Can diplomats field their own army? The State Department is laying plans to do precisely that in Iraq, in an unprecedented experiment that U.S. officials and some nervous lawmakers say could be risky.

In little more than a year, State Department contractors in Iraq could be driving armored vehicles, flying aircraft, operating surveillance systems, even retrieving casualties if there are violent incidents and disposing of unexploded ordnance.


Already, however, the State Department’s requests to the Pentagon for Black Hawk helicopters; 50 mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles; fuel trucks; high-tech surveillance systems; and other military gear has encountered flak on Capitol Hill.


"It’s one thing" for contractors to be "peeling potatoes" and driving trucks, McCaskill told McClatchy. "It’s another thing for them to be deploying MRAPs and Black Hawk helicopters."

www.stripes.com...

So soon these contractors could be useing US tax payer funded equipment even including Black Hawk helicopters..
That's kinda scary..





edit on 3-1-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)


I wouldn't get my knickers in a wad over State employing "contractors". I was talked to by DynCorp when the new US Embassy opened in Baghdad in 2004, concerning the security contract for State there. I wasn't real hot on the idea, but money is money, and that's what I do. I dragged my feet because of that, didn't get my paperwork in on time, and didn't go. I have a friend who DID go on that contract, but came back after only two months of a year-long contract, in company with 7 or 8 others. It seems that State wasn't all that serious about their own security, refused the security staff use of Humvees (4 that they had sitting idle in the compound) for convoys.

After that dustup, the guys who were serious about survival just packed up and came home. Most turned around and went to Afghanistan instead.

State doesn't know how to run a war any better than the Executive Branch does. Nope, I wouldn't worry in the least about State Department contractors. The ones who know what they're doing will leave the country soon enough, assuming that State can get 'em to go in the first place.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by phatpackage
 


I guess if the Chinese invaded the USA, all American civilians would stand back and let them do what they please until they decided to leave. Insurgents attack American troops for a reason, they want the westerners off their land full stop.. Its bad enough they have to put up with the Zionists.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by woogleuk
 


When Israel is blown back to the stone age, then you might see peace in the middle east.. Until they are gone there will never be peace.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by backinblack
 


Thanks for your quick reply. I read through your links and found the following.


A report July 12 by the bipartisan legislative Commission on Wartime Contracting said that the number of State Department security contractors would more than double, from 2,700 to between 6,000 and 7,000, under current plans.


You do realize that is smaller than the entire Los Angeles Police Department force strength of 9241 officers right?
edit on 3-1-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)


Yeah, Slayer, there's a reason State can't hang on to contractors...

Like I said above, I wouldn't sweat any State Department contractors unless State somehow magically gets it's act together.

Even if they had enough to rival the LA AND NY police departments!



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by prexparte
 


You need to learn how to spell. appose is spelt oppose.

2nd line



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr

What the hell have communists got to do with anything?
You probably one of those who thinks Obama is a commie, yet Obama has continued both wars in the same vein as Bush. You my friend are showing your lack of knowledge in every post you type.



Are you implying that communists don't fight wars?

I'm sort of with you here on the notion that communists don't have anything to do with the subject at hand, but to cite the continuation of a war as evidence that Mr Obama is not a communist is a pretty weak argument. There are better ones.

Matter of fact, up until the Bushcapades, nearly every war the US got involved in was instituted by the "liberal" end of the spectrum. I'd be more prone to take that as evidence that Bush was left-leaning than Obama being right-leaning.

Edit to add: I just read your next post concerning perceptions of left-right propensity for making war, and I stand corrected.

-neno


edit on 2011/1/3 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
28
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join