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.

 

Iraq is winning.

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 06:13 PM
link   
I have noticed that over the last few weeks that iraq is becoming worse than what it was in the first place. Why have we gone over there to fight and let our own men die when we are blatantly losing. You got to give to the iraqis for fighting for their own land but how can a low tech fighting force have power over the biggest force in the world it does not make sense. I believe we will be pulling out very soon. I served in the last Gulf War and we lost that without a doubt hence why Saddam was still in power because we couldnt topple him. Where is this new iraqi goverment as the iraqi people dont listen to them and neither do the UK/US armed forces. They are just like puppets they have a voice but no one listens.




posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesaint
I have noticed that over the last few weeks that iraq is becoming worse than what it was in the first place.


In the last few weeks? It was worse the day we began the "shock and awe" campaign. We destroyed Iraq's infrastructure. The saying goes, "things get worse before they get better." Well, we'll see.



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 06:23 PM
link   
We aint destroyed it we made it worse.



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 06:33 PM
link   
It is very simple the enemy was in the beginning Sadam's ruling elite and his military power, US had a defined enemy at that time and US job was to target that defined enemy and that is what it did.

Now the enemy is not as defined due to the fact that regular citizens are against US troops, these citizens or most of them are the very same people that US went in Iraq to liberate and to protect.

It is very difficult for US troop to target the enemy right now. Because it will be calling enemy the same people that it went over there to liberate. The situation is turning double edge and any way US try to go around is getting hurt.



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 07:06 PM
link   
losing? lol what do you define as losing? russia had a much harder time in chechnyia and things were far more dangerous yet they won, we are winning, the only reason we have the lingering problem is because at the start we skipped these hotspots due to fear of heavy losses and our fear and underestimation forced us to learn the hard way, if we had targetted these areas one by one with full forces concentrated we wouldnt have much trouble at all- we have violated so many rules of war(no, not the geneva convention, i mean tactics).

but overall we arent losing.



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 07:11 PM
link   


I served in the last Gulf War and we lost that without a doubt hence why Saddam was still in power because we couldnt topple him.


I don't mean any disrespect but i distinctly remember that it was a total victory by NATO against Saddam in Kuwait?

I can't remember the exact reason why we didn't go into Iraq and finish the job then but that's history. It wasn't the fact that we couldn't topple Saddam it's just we never tried! We told a lot of the oppressed Iraqis to rise up against Saddam as they thought we were coming to liberate them but they only ended up getting slaughtered while we did nothing.



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flyboy211
I can't remember the exact reason why we didn't go into Iraq and finish the job then but that's history. It wasn't the fact that we couldn't topple Saddam it's just we never tried! We told a lot of the oppressed Iraqis to rise up against Saddam as they thought we were coming to liberate them but they only ended up getting slaughtered while we did nothing.


The reason we didn't "finish the job" was because of the decisive victory we had in Kuwait. George Bush Sr. had a very difficult time convincing the American people to send troops to Kuwait anyway. There were non-stop protests, and shouting from all sides. Nobody wanted to see another Vietnam. The "war" went very well. Iraqi troops surrendered extremely quickly, several times even to News media helecopters. The war began to look like overkill. People started seeing the evil Iraqi troops as "those poor people" who just want to live. It seemed to many that they couldn't be blamed for the actions of Saddam, and to continue into Iraq would mean more Iraqi casualties.



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 07:20 PM
link   


I can't remember the exact reason why we didn't go into Iraq and finish the job then but that's history. It wasn't the fact that we couldn't topple Saddam


My husband was also in the gulf war, the reason bush senior did not touch Sadam was because if he has taken Sadam out of power the country will had gone into chaos just like is happening now when bush junior took Sadam, the different between bush junior and senior when it comes to Iraq is that bush senior was more intelligent than his dumb son.



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 08:14 PM
link   
I think one major factor why everything's a mess there is because there's no large international presence, definitely no UN. Because it's just the US along with the UK, Australia and various other countries they think it's the 'American aggressors' who've come to invade rather than liberate.



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Bush Sr didnt go into get Saddam because he didnt think he had too. He was told that the Iraqie forces were going to get rid of Saddam themselves. And if it wasnt for a stupid mistake in Iraqs surrender to the US they might have. They were allowed to fly their choppers including gunships in Iraq and the gunned down the people that wanted to over throw Saddam.



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Bush Sr didnt go into get Saddam because he didnt think he had too. He was told that the Iraqie forces were going to get rid of Saddam themselves. And if it wasnt for a stupid mistake in Iraqs surrender to the US they might have. They were allowed to fly their choppers including gunships in Iraq and the gunned down the people that wanted to over throw Saddam.


Great point. When Saddam signed the peace treaty, we allowed Iraq to slaughter its citizen opposition. If we would have simply kept Iraq under a strong grip, keeping their military down, we could have let the Iraqi's overthrow Saddam without commiting to a major campaign. This is not a guarenteed victory of course, but in hindsight, it would likely have worked.



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Bush did not pursue Saddam after his Army was run out of Kuwait because the UN Resolution did not allow it. Everyone is always whining because the US doesn't dance to the UN's tune, but in this particular instance, the US did just that and no one remembers.

Can it be that no one here is actually old enough to remember? Is it selective memory? Or is it just more liberal lies?



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Bush did not pursue Saddam after his Army was run out of Kuwait because the UN Resolution did not allow it. Everyone is always whining because the US doesn't dance to the UN's tune, but in this particular instance, the US did just that and no one remembers.

Can it be that no one here is actually old enough to remember? Is it selective memory? Or is it just more liberal lies?


lol, I remember the situation just fine. Yes, we followed the UN resolutions... because we wrote them. The United States had the leading role in the United Nations decsions. The rest of the world was fully behind us, including a coalition of Arab states.



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Liberal lies? You mean versus conservative lies such as the existance of WMD? Bush 41 should have been charged with war crimes for being a direct cause of the extermination of many Iraqi freedom fighters after the 1st gulf war. After we promised support to overthrow Saddam and then us not showing up as promised. Thousands died because of us. It really is no wonder these people don't want us.



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 09:30 PM
link   
The reason the first Gulf War worked is because it was carefully planned and executed with nearly unanimous international assistance. It was as close to a naval engagement as you can get on land, meaning the only population where the majority of the fighting took place were a few beadouins. It properly employed the US military - which is constructed and designed to decisively destroy enemies.

This time, in Gulf War 2, we are not coming close to the success of the first Gulf War. We did not properly plan. In fact the entire rationale for the war provided to the public and the facts of it were false. We did not acquire nearly the international assistance that we did the first time. The majority of the fighting is taking place in urban areas. The US military is being used as a police force, which it is not suited for.

The differences between Russia and Chechnya, and the United States and Iraq, are much different.



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
You mean versus conservative lies such as the existance of WMD? Bush 41 should have been charged with war crimes for being a direct cause of the extermination of many Iraqi freedom fighters after the 1st gulf war.


Saddam had WMDs. He used them against his own people. He played cat and mouse with weapons inspectors for 10 years and after 9/11 when inspectors returned he did the same thing.

There was simply no reason to expect that he did not. And the fact that none have been found is no proof that they aren't somewhere. Even the sainted John Kerry is on record stating that Saddam had WMDs at the time of the invasion.

So GHW Bush, assembles a caolition of nations to extract Iraq from Kuwait and writes a resolution that has a chance to get passed and now people are calling him a war criminal.

I think he should have gone all the way to Baghdad, but those like yourself would still be screaming bloody murder.

You're just an inveterate anti-American.


Here's an account of the Persian Gulf War.

[edit on 04/8/23 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Bush did not pursue Saddam after his Army was run out of Kuwait because the UN Resolution did not allow it. Everyone is always whining because the US doesn't dance to the UN's tune, but in this particular instance, the US did just that and no one remembers.

Can it be that no one here is actually old enough to remember? Is it selective memory? Or is it just more liberal lies?


Thank you for bringing up that excelent point. We did finish the job then we went and did what we were sposed to do. The orders were to defend and liberate kuwait not to topple saddam. I knwo many pilitary people in SF that knew they had sadams in their crosshairs but were told to stand down cause that wasnt the objective.

ALso conservative lies about WMD. I dont wanna go into that discussion because its everywehre you look. I jsut wanna point out ur man clinton on more then one occaision alluded to or out right said saddam had or was on his way to possesing nuclear weapons. Also there are tons unaccounted for in the Iraq weapons report made by Saddam b4 gulf war 2.


And how can you say were are losing. Some people have watched too much CNN that only shows the horrors of the war. IT is one sided people they dont want Bush to succeed. Talk to soldiers if you can about over there. Yeah they will say it is hell cause war is hell but ask em who is winning. This media bullcrap is doin the same thing in Iraq as it did in Vietnam. Its lowering the morale of teh soldiers and that will make us lose people. "Oh you supports the troops but not the war." That is total bs. Pray for the troops to come home and pray for us to win. Dicuss if it was right or wrong later. Cause if we pulled out now the death toll for the us would rise alil and the Iraqi civilian casualties would grow tenfold and the new government would collapse.

edit: to add final point.

[edit on 8^23^04 by Quicksilver]



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott


You're just an inveterate anti-American.


Shouldn't you save charges of anti-Americanism for those who fight against America if someone was invading our country? The worst you can say about Americans protesting Gulf War 1 is that they are anti-Kuwaiti.



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
You're just an inveterate anti-American.


I disagree 100%. Do not confuse anti-Bushism with anti-America. Thinking George Bush is a bad president doesn't effect your support of your country. I love the constitution. Even the parts Bush took out. I love America, even though its not the same America our founding fathers created.

Bush is anti-American. Don't play his game.



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 09:45 PM
link   
No I'm just a smart person and can see through a load of crap. I for one thought we should have gone into Baghdad to get him in the first place. I thought we were fools for not doing it. And when you set people up like we did the freedom fighters and so blatantly allow them to get exterminated that in my opinion is a war crime. Certainly a crime against humanity.

Saddam HAD WDM. Hell.. we gave them to him. We are just as guilty as he is when it came to the use of the gas. If I supply a hitman with the weapon to pull off the hit I am just as guilty as he is. I don't get to wash my hands of it because i wasn't the one that pulled the trigger. But I'll be nice and not blame us for him gassing his own people. In all honesty there is a chance we didn't see it coming. BUT setting up the freedom fighters like that is an unspeakable crime.

Its funny how people who can think for themselves and don't resort to violence to solve every problem are either called liberals or anti-American. So by that I can assume that people who resort to violence and lie to wage war are called American and conservative.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join