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.

 

BBC: US strikes raze Falluja hospital

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 06:02 AM
link   
It aint a statement, it is a question. Therefore a question mark was put in.
Tell me on what info the decisions etc. where made then. On wrong info?
I fail to see the need for invading Iraq. And I agree with you that a war is a complex process yet it seems to me that some people did not think it over good and well enough given the current information there is ie. The problems there still are considering what you tend to call insurgents, the not being able to "free" Iraq. The problems still being in Afghanistan. The not being able to capture OBL. The not being able to stop the attacks etc.




posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 06:02 AM
link   
But you don't agree with who I think deserves the punishment, therefore you wouldn't agree with what I'm "prophecizing," thus, why would you think that I'm a prophet?



[edit on 7-11-2004 by cstyle226]



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by cstyle226
But you don't agree with who I think deserves the punishment, therefore you wouldn't agree with what I'm "prophecizing," thus, why would you think that I'm a prophet?


Who says prophets have to agree? Heck, who says prophets have to be right?

But seriously, I found your point profound.



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 06:10 AM
link   
I'll take that as a compliment. Praise for you as well.



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 07:37 AM
link   
Its the media's focus on the man. The crippling of the insurgent stranglehold on Falluja is the forces primary mission. The man is one element only. Why do so many people on both sides keep doing that?.

Its a fact whether you like it or not that in Saddams day he placed his command and control functions in proximity to (hell inside) hospitals and mosques and schools to try and save them. The insurgents in Najaf might have kidded themselves and thier supporters that they were protecting the Mosque there, when in fact IT was protecting THEM. Nothing is any different.

The tactic has worked for them before. They felt it was going to work for them again. Whats the safety of a few staff and kids to them if it meant they could kill a few more marines with impunity.

Anything including that is possible...but not....."we're gonna destroy a hospital for the fun of it and because we can".

But things have changed.

For one thing, I beleive that those places do not have protection if a combant uses them for combat or combat support purposes, under international law.....if anyone is bothering to follow that on either side anymore.
Two, its not an election year anymore. Bush is letting the troops focus on the mission not his re-election chances.

Three, if the Iraqis are to have any chance of a future, regardless if it is just a bi-product of Bush's aims the insurgent leaders must not win.

Four, this is the starting point to dispell the myth amongst insurgents that they have been winning this, rather than thanking Bush's political nerves for the hounds to stay on a leash.

And most importantly, because no coalition forces commander is going to accept more casualties than he has to in this mission by allowing the insurgents a safe sanctuary in any building anywhere in Falluja.

As for fellows at the hospital coming up and saying "This was just a hospital, not HQ or hideout or armoury anywhere here - Americans bad men" what do you expect. The most free to speak in an insurgent controlled area are insurgents....anybody else had better be smart enough not to say otherwise. wouldnt you in thier place. Of course they are going to say that to the journalists.

And the BBC is not above being political...either way...in this issue. They have always had thier factional struggles from the field to the studio to the boardroom.

Either by accident or necessity...this is war. Don't get used to it, just realise it.






posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 11:29 PM
link   


The occupation is a disaster as it should be. No one came to Iraq to bring "freedom."


Define Freedom, please? Wait, I will:




Thanks be to Open Dictionary.com
English
Noun
freedom

Pronunciation
IPA: /ˈfriːdəm/
The state of being free.
Translations
Basque: askatasun, libertate
Finnish: vapaus
French: libert f
German: Freiheit f
Italian: libert f
Indonesian: kebebasan f
Latin: libertas f
Norwegian: Frihet
Romanica: libertate f
Russian: свобода
Spanish: libertad f


So, the United States invaded IRAQ and deposed Saddam Hussein to rid the country of the tyranny of his rule as well as provide freedom and democratic processes to the Iraqi people. Secondarily, Iraq had become a country of high interest due to it's hatred of the American way of life and it's potential harboring of known terrorist groups. Additionally, we suspected (and were wrong, but still suspected) that SH had WMD. Several good reasons.

As a side benefit, we are able to help the country more properly utilize it's oil resources. Oil is a precious commidity in this world, and things like cars, hospitals and many other things such as food delivery via trucks to feed people -- depend upon oil. The US has a responsibility as a Super Power to help maintain a sense of balance in the world when it comes to natural resources. Would Saddam provide this balance himself? I think not.




The reasons for the invasion are all monetary. Taking Iraqi money from their resources, taking money from American tax payers, and then distributing amongst your friends, therefore fattening your pockets, and enjoying imperialism.


As stated above, the reasons were NOT monetary. We have lots of money in the US, being one of the richest countries in the world.




Thankfully, justice will be served.


From your words, it would appear that you wish harm upon the bringer of freedom, the stabilizer of countries, the US? Using your own logic then, you wish the US had left Saddam Hussein and Iraq alone?

Alone, so he could torture his people, bully his neighbors and harbor terrorist groups, resources and weapons? Indeed sir, you have a weird way of viewing justice.



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by NextLevel


So, the United States invaded IRAQ and deposed Saddam Hussein to rid the country of the tyranny of his rule as well as provide freedom and democratic processes to the Iraqi people. Secondarily, Iraq had become a country of high interest due to it's hatred of the American way of life and it's potential harboring of known terrorist groups. Additionally, we suspected (and were wrong, but still suspected) that SH had WMD. Several good reasons.


No on the first and the second. Bush invaded Iraq using WMDs as an excuse. All of that other stuff about liberty and terrorists came later when Bush was scrambling to find a real reason.

Just thought I'd clear that up. It's kind of an urban legend.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join