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.
Originally posted by WheelsRCool
And what's this about "thousands" killed in Fallujah? About 1200 insurgents were killed in Fallujah, and that was a brutal fight for the U.S. troops. But it was a major blow to the insurgency.
www.iraqbodycount.net...
"[...] the Iraq Body Count (IBC) website has published its analysis of the civilian dealth toll in the April 2004 siege of Falluja. This analysis leads to the conclusion that betweeen 572 and 616 of the approximately 800 reported deaths were of civilians, with over 300 of these being women and children."
"The IBC totals are based on multiply-cited reports from doctors and eyewitnesses that no less than 308 of those killed were women and children. This number demonstrates the huge impact of US attacks on civilian areas, and allows the conclusion to be drawn that many of the males killed must also have been non-combatants."
"The project's Principal Researcher, Hamit Dardagan, commented "The unique IBC Falluja Archive allows members of the public to examine for themselves the multiple violations which yielded this shocking toll. These include attacks on ambulances and sniper fire at children as well as the aerial bombardment of residential areas."
Second, the U.S. will now have a base of operations in the Middle East.
The U.S. is not a bully; a bully pushes other people around for their own enjoyment or because they feel weak. The U.S. pushes other countries around that pose a possible threat to national security, that threaten the U.S..
and that means squashing countries that pose literal threats. By "global presence," I do not mean have troops stationed all over the world, but rather by being involved in all the world affairs and watching what goes on, so if a threat arises, you can quelch it.
Saddam Hussein, he used chemical weapons against the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war without much thought, however.
It is not up to other countries to dictate to the American people how justice should be.
And yes, to the person who said this, if the UN disagrees with the United States on something regarding national security, in a ridiculous manner, the U.S. will go against them. With the knowledge held at the time on WMDs, and the fact that Saddam BROKE THE CEASE-FIRE, plus the other five reasons, the U.S. had every right to go into the Iraq. That is by international law. There is nothing illegal about the war.
The UN is one of the most corrupt organizations on the face of this Earth.
Originally posted by 5ick8oy
The idea that the heroic Americans simply killed a load of 'insurgents' is military propaganda not backed up by ANY reliable and 'independent' source.
Your reference to the devastation caused during certain bombing campaigns during the Second World War is, in my view, irrelevant to this discussion. The situation was entirely different to the current one in the Middle East.
Originally posted by firebat
Let me guess... you got all this information of of the Fox News?
Because that's exactly the same nonsense they feed their gullible and insecure viewers. Scare they heck out them then offer Bush as the only and only political savior.
Nothing from Fox News can be trusted.
It has already been shown that that former Marine, who wrote a book that he knew that the liberals would eat up, is now a liar. He made lots of bogus claims, about how he and his men supposedly had to kill innocent Iraqis, even a little girl (as to the age of this girl, it varies by his stories, sometimes she is 3 years-old, sometimes 6 years-old, etc....). He was proven a liar, even though he served over ten years in the Marine Corps.
Personally, I think that SAS soldier is just out for money, same as that Marine.
Here is a quote from a British security contractor in Iraq about his American counterparts: "I hate those bastards more than the scumbag insurgents." A British colonel recently returned from a tour in the country said that, in our next war, he would sooner fight alongside the Russians than the US.
This is another quote from a British security contractor: "The American way is not my way. I don't mind a scrap but I draw the line at mooning the enemy and inviting him to shoot at my backside, and that's virtually what the Yanks are doing. I'm also convinced that many Americans hate the Iraqis, not just the insurgents but all Iraqis… What a mess."
Those last lines are taken from a rather good new book about the experience of Iraq today, Highway To Hell, written by an ex-SAS man who signs himself John Geddes. My point in all the above, is to show that Ben Griffin, the former SAS soldier who vents his dismay about what is happening to Iraq in today's Sunday Telegraph, is not a lone voice.
There is a widespread belief in both British special forces and line regiments that American tactics are heavy-handed and counter-productive; that firepower continues to be used as a substitute for a "hearts and minds" policy; that local people will never be persuaded to support Coalition forces unless Americans, in uniform and out, treat ordinary Iraqis vastly better than they do today.
You really expect me to take seriously the words from a very, VERY pro-liberal entertainment magazine?? At least get some better sources. Rolling Stone is known for manipulating the news left and right.
As for your claim that "the U.S. must pay to have favorable news stories printed in the Iraqi press," that is a lie, and the source you have used (New York Times) only shows it. You talk to half the soldiers over there ... and they will tell you that the American media NEVER covers these accomplishments. They only cover the bad things that happen there. The Iraqi press, however, does cover these things.
The Pentagon stipulates that the Rendon Group will receive $400,000 for four months of work. Details are confidential, but according to the San Jose Mercury News, Rendon will be monitoring international news media, conducting focus groups, creating a web site about the US campaign against terrorism, and recommending "ways the US military can counter disinformation and improve its own public communications."
"How is it that the country that invented Hollywood and Madison Avenue has such trouble promoting a positive image of itself overseas?" asked Rep. Henry Hyde, chairman of the House International Relations Committee. President Bush has expressed similar bafflement. "I'm amazed that there's such misunderstanding of what our country is about that people would hate us," he said. "We've got to do a better job of making our case."
HOWEVER, the use of certain techniques to obtain information is justified under certain circumstances, which is pretty much what Rumsfeld said.
Originally posted by WheelsRCool
Second, the U.S. will now have a base of operations in the Middle East.
Third, the U.S. will have a very friendly ally in the Middle East aside from Israel, which will create a better balance of power there, plus as I said, the terrorism will start to die down as there won't be so much hatred of the United States.
I do not get your claims for referring to the U.S. as a "bully" or in essentially making out as if Iraq was a good country. Iraq is a sh**hole, always has been, thanks to Saddam. Have you ever seen how much wealth he consumed for himself that could have been used for his own people? Or how about how he tortured people? You make out as if life in Iraq was nice for folks, when in reality it was a very oppressive regime.
[edit on 20-4-2006 by WheelsRCool]
Originally posted by deltaboy
Dude who do you think we were fighting in Fallujah...children with guns?
Originally posted by WestPoint23
Well, let me enlighten you then....
you specifically said that we bombed them back to the stone age which is completely false.
I then remind you of what real unrestricted bombing does and that it is not in any way comparable to the damage suffered by some of the Iraqi cities.
However we have no choice but to fight in that terrain, the enemy chose that battlefield and we have to engage them [...]
they claimed it is "beginning to look a lot like Vietnam," something that is totally blasphemy.
anyone who has read or watched the major news sources (CNN, NBC, ABC, newsweek, NYT, LAT, etc...) can tell you the majority of them are very liberal.
What this report most shockingly reveals, however, is that the billions of dollars of oil money that has already been transferred to the US-controlled Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) has effectively disappeared into a financial black hole. For all the talk of freedom and democracy for the Iraqi people – before, during and after the war which toppled Saddam Hussein – there is no way of knowing how the vast majority of this money has been spent.
This situation is in direct violation of the UN resolution that allowed Iraqi assets to be transferred to the CPA. Indeed, the body that is supposed to oversee how Iraq’s assets are used has not even been set up yet.
Originally posted by WheelsRCool
Regarding that "base of operations" in the Middle East, if the Iraqi government wants the U.S. to leave, I am sure we will.
And it would allow the U.S. to operate more effectively in the Middle East.
Originally posted by Gembelindo
Well Iraqi Houses are made of plster of stacked stones that are stuck together with plaster or mortar some lined with asbestos and tin roofs.
]
Besides NO American Bomb has ever landed on an iraqi house, Pictures from Frnech TV (More Gore) shows that the victims suffered no burns,[...]
[...]they were merely crushed by their own Houses. In every war there will always be Civilian casualties!
The Insurgents were not armed children!
Originally posted by XphilesPhan
What you dont like the General Lee?! Southern pride!
It is ADMITTED that the Pentagon puts out fake news stories in Iraq; hell, they do it here too!
Expecting them to 'engage' the might of the US armed forces on an open battlefield is more than a little naive.
Originally posted by WestPoint23
And expecting the US military to not engage the enemy when they seek refuge in civilian center is also a little naive don't you think?