Here is your war on Terrorism ! America !

page: 6
28
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by christina-66
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.
[/quote

Firstly dear little er said I am an expert on thheminded person I never said I am an expert on the wars, I merely told I have a nephew there sense shortly after it started. Secondly do not place words in my mouth which i never said, that is what is called, stirring the pot to create chaos adn dear young minded fool I dont allow this to happen. Either talk like the "so-called" adult you appear to be or stay away from the minds that overpower your limited knowledge. I believe you are either non american talking outside herself or a young 20 something who thinks she knows it all from staying on ATS to much. again I ask, research your so called knowledge before you throw words of anger out. even though I see you being follish I never placed wordsin yoru statement nor would I or did I call you a child....settle down young jedi so you can learn the truth




posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by prexparte
I have been apposed to this war from day 1. It was not iraq who attacked us, hell we dont truely know who it was, we was tolia, the highjackers were from saudia arab, yet we attack iraq in defense of 9-11? makes no sense other then it is about the oil.


I was opposed to the Iraq war from day one as well, and I still am. Not on any sort of moral grounds, but rather on strategic grounds. It was a bone-headed strategic move to go into Iraq when we did, thus splitting our forces and taking the focus off of Afghanistan, where it properly ought to have been at that point. We would likely have had to go in at some point, I just question the timing. My personal opinion is that Bush felt shamed becasue his daddy took an ass-whoopin' at the hands of Saddam during the first gulf war - not because of Saddam's superior fighting ability or anything of that sort, but because daddy Bush got cold feet and called off the attack when we we were within hours of Baghdad. He effectively whooped his own ass FOR Saddam.

Be that as it may, the Iraq invasion was not a response to 911, it was a response ostensibly to Saddam's refusal to allow UN inspectors in to inspect the WMD program facilities. That was the wedge Bush used, and it just happened to fall around the time of the "War on Terror" inception, so it all got rolled in together. Later, Saddam came back when he saw the writing on the wall and said "just kidding about the inspectors - y'all can come on in." but it was too late to head it off at that point.

Saddam bluffed, Bush called that bluff, and all hell broke loose. Bush used it as an excuse to salve his wounded pride over daddy's cold feet.


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



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 



Be that as it may, the Iraq invasion was not a response to 911, it was a response ostensibly to Saddam's refusal to allow UN inspectors in to inspect the WMD program facilities. That was the wedge Bush used, and it just happened to fall around the time of the "War on Terror" inception, so it all got rolled in together. Later, Saddam came back when he saw the writing on the wall and said "just kidding about the inspectors - y'all can come on in." but it was too late to head it off at that point.

Saddam bluffed, Bush called that bluff, and all hell broke loose. Bush used it as an excuse to salve his wounded pride over daddy's cold feet.


I can't really let this go. The weapons inspectors were told to leave twice! Not by Iraq - by Washington.


Britain and the United States should have realised that their intelligence about Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction was suspect, the former head of the United Nations weapons inspectors said today.


Giving evidence to the Iraq Inquiry, Dr Hans Blix said it should have set alarm bells ringing in London and Washington when the inspectors repeatedly failed to turn up any evidence that Saddam Hussein still had active WMD programmes.


The article continues

Dr Blix said that the inspectors had visited 30 sites based on tip-offs from British and US intelligence but found little other than some old missile engines and a sheaf of nuclear documents.


He acknowledged the pressure of the US military build-up in the region had led Saddam Hussein to agree to the return of the UN inspectors in September 2002.


However he said that he did not believe that Britain and the US had been entitled to invade Iraq without a further UN Security Council resolution specifically authorising military action.


He accused the administration of US president George Bush of being "high on military" in the wake of the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers in New York in 2001.


"They felt that they could get away with it and therefore it was desirable," he said.


He also condemned claims by Britain and the US that Iraq had tried acquire raw uranium for its supposed nuclear programme from Niger, based on a forged document.


"That was perhaps the first occasion I became suspicious about the evidence," he said. "I think that was the most scandalous part."





Dr Blix said the progress to war with Iraq was "almost unstoppable" by early 2003 and the UK was "a prisoner on that train".


He told the inquiry: "Once they went up to 250,000 men and March was approaching, I think it was unstoppable or almost unstoppable - the (US) president could have stopped it, but almost unstoppable.


"After March the heat would go up in Iraq and it would be difficult to carry out warfare."


He added: "The whole military timetable was, as rightly said, not in sync with the diplomatic timetable.


SOURCE



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by christina-66
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I can't really let this go. The weapons inspectors were told to leave twice! Not by Iraq - by Washington.


Absolutely they were. It would have been very bad press for the US to blow up UN weapons inspectors in the "shock and awe" bombing campaign. That didn't occur until after everything had been set in motion by Saddam trying to run his bluff. Like I said, when Saddam did his turn-about and allowed them in to try to head off what he could see coming, it was too little, too late. At that point, the party line was that Saddam had stalled to buy time to hide the WMDs.

I still think the invasion was badly timed. Up to that point, Saddam had only been using what WMDs he had against his own people (the Kurds) and Iran. He'd only been making loud threatening noises about any other potential use, not actually doing it, or even preparing to do it.

We really had more important, and more pressing issues to deal with in Afghanistan, and splitting the force and changing the focus to Iraq was a bone-headed move.

By the way, Darunta at least was definitely NOT a "mujahideen training facility left over from the Russian Afghan War", so the video footage from there at least can not have been that old. Likewise, bin Laden in no way ever accepted US money or training during that war - regardless of what you may read from armchair quarterbacks on internet blogs.

Actually, I can't think of ANY training camps we had inside Afghanistan during the Soviet War there, except perhaps a couple of impromptu camps that were highly transitory. Most of the training and recruitment facilities for the Mujahideen were then, as now, in Waziristan and around Peshawar. Some techs DID go in with the first Stinger shipment, but were there only for advice in case things went south with them. They didn't establish any training camps inside Afghanistan - the idea was to get them in and out before the Soviets could capture them and build up propaganda on the capture.

The Stingers themselves were first used inside Afghanistan by trained Muj, just north of Tora Bora near Jalalabad, and were used to shoot down a flight of Mi-24 Hind gunships flying out of Jalalabad. One got away to carry the news home.


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



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by prexparte
 


What is your point? You keep asking me to research and yet I haven't seen you offer one accurate piece of information in this thread. And that's information from the public domain. You even stated that Britain 'owned OPEC' for Christ’s sake!


As for OPEC, remember they are brittish owned and in my honourable opinion are more devilish then america.

You dare tell me to check my facts. Enough of you - you can't even spell let alone offer insight.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by phatpackage
 


This is utter ignorance, how could you say that?
It's disgusting, all these people died and we should just get over it?
I can bet every cent i have that if it was America going through what Iraq went through you wouldn't tell people to just ''get over it''.

It's as if your saying, yeah who cares, let people die, let countries be bombed to nothing.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by conspiracytheoristIAM
 




I am a Viet Nam vet...Feb67 to Oct.68.


Respect for that!



I think I'm entitled to have an opinion about war and it's causes and consequences.


As is everybody!



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   
During war, there is a little thing called, casualties. Casualties is what happens in war. None of this woo is me, innocent people are dying yad yada yada.......

Spare us the painful waste of time and boredom.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by kommunist
 




The fact that you posted such an ignorant and idiotic comment


Oh wow hurling insults because you have nothing to contribute & you say my comments are ignorant lol lol lol at the hypocrisy!



getting so many stars for your posts.


Well maybe that is because I am contributing & not name calling & people agree!



Military trolls must be out today.


You come & post nothing that contributes to the debate, label my posts idiotic & ignorant & you call me a troll! laugh at your logic! Just because I disagree with you I must be troll! Throwing the "Troll Card" is getting quite old & lame!. Nearly as popular as the "Race Card" lol lol lol



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Mentalistbee
 




This is utter ignorance


It is so amazing when some people don't agree with other people's opinion they are ignorant! Ah the old insult!



It's as if your saying, yeah who cares, let people die, let countries be bombed to nothing.


If you actually took the time to read all the posts you would see that I wrote things like loss of innocents is regrettable and is sad! This shows I do have compassion & feel pity for innocents but it is a war - I put it to you "Get over it" Don't care what you say!



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   
My thought on this has always been in a hypothetical... If another nation invaded the US would Americans not fight back? Would we be labeled the insurgents then?

Sometimes it's just a man defending his home.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   
First of all O.P.
You're not gonna touch the "wonderful" ats members hearts with "Iraqi lives or afghan lives". Especially not the war craft penis waving G. I. Joes on here.

Second of all, remember the dehumanization campaign creating the xenophobic psychosis against muslims and arabs(in fact just people of the Middle-east and darker skin ethnicities in general)? But that's the way it always starts until the madness victimize every one.
Third of all, we’re gonna have to wait until the numbers begin to exceed 2 million to see if the deads brought this “holocaust” on themselves.

I can’t wait for the crocodile tears that are going to be shed on the documentary.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   
A chart plotting out dead people and no suggestions on clearing it? How do you suggest we remedy this problem of dead humans in areas of the world we don't inhabit?

I too wish they could have led a happy and carefree life.


Originally posted by DaMod
My thought on this has always been in a hypothetical... If another nation invaded the US would Americans not fight back?


We don't do that anymore, despite the obvious military barrier I doubt anyone from any nation could manage to govern the American people though. Some real new age # going on here, in more ways than one. (Problems are still being sorted out)
edit on 3-1-2011 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 




exactly back in black, well after the war was over our own government and military continued murdering innocent people. theyre the real terrorists, therye the ones we need to fight. and not in a literal sense either, dont twist my words around thank you god bless.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


No. A declaration that a war is over is useless. Wars never ends. They merely subside to the point of being unnoticed. Iraq is still a war zone and it will be one for generations to come, with or without the US being there. It has been a war zone going back all the way to when the British created the country.

All I have to look at here is the OP bannar to know that he's just as entrawled into propaganda as anyone on either side. Great. Another Militia-Muslim fighting for liberty to live in the th century. No different than the confederates in the south or the countless groups in Eastern Europe.

Wars never end. Once aggressions are opened, they never cease. They are never pretty. War crimes do not exist. All war is a crime, and the act of killing another man is a crime. So the term war crime is just an attempt to make pretty that which is ugly. When war starts, the goal is to kill the enemy. There are no limits. You can legislate all you want. Pretty much anyone older than 5 is indoctrinated and your enemy in a war zone. Civilian is just another word for enemy without a gun. Even if it is reduced to no more than the slightly racist joke between a Jew and German. Wars never end. Now a joke between a Jew and a German is a sign that aggression is over. Great. When it comes to war, your choice is simply to make it into a joke and not fight or pick up a rifle and die with the rest. Wars have no limits. No one is innocent and no rules change the facts. Wars only really end with a genocide and one side completely destroyed.
edit on 3-1-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Nephi1337
 


Since many of those deaths were Muslim on Muslim killings, how do you feel about Muslims slaughtering each other? Just curious? Do you support the killing of innocent Muslims by other radical Muslim Extremists? If yes, why do want them dead? Have you ever participated in a Jihad yourself?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by phatpackage
reply to post by Nephi1337
 


It's a war! Righty or Wrongly people die, get over it! It is sad, very sad that innocents die but it is a war & by no means detracts from the overall effort in Iraq!


So in your line of thinking, if a "terrorist" blows something up and kills innocent civilians here in the united states, then it's ok, because it's war and innocent deaths is just part of it,.

Good call



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
My god, the naive are so insane.

It's a war, there will be deaths, I'm getting so sick and tired of all these bleeding hearts....



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by phatpackage
 


Just like anybody can be labeled a terrorist and terrorist enabler anymore, I'm going to start a trend on ATS and call you a troll and a troll enabler. And no matter what you do to prove that you aren't a troll, it won't rightly matter since you have already been branded as one.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by Nephi1337
 


Since many of those deaths were Muslim on Muslim killings, how do you feel about Muslims slaughtering each other? Just curious? Do you support the killing of innocent Muslims by other radical Muslim Extremists? If yes, why do want them dead? Have you ever participated in a Jihad yourself?


i find it real hard to believe that more deaths were caused by Muslim on Muslim killing , think about that one ! do you really believe that ? and why are you asking me thees questions ? what part in you believes that i would even consider taking a life ?





top topics
 
28
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join