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.

 

Do you have the answer?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 07:59 AM
link   
So what am I supposed to tell this guy the next time I see him. We are at war with Iraq because...?

Can someone at least give me the official story? Official story meaning what was told by the government to the mass media.




posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 08:03 AM
link   
I have the answer, have had it for years. The answer is: 42



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
I have the answer, have had it for years. The answer is: 42


So the next time this guy from the Czech ask why our country is fighting the war, I should say '42'?

Don't let me down AboveTopSecret.com. Someone here is bound to have an answer. It's inevitable.



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Sim, many people have given you the answer already. Oil. Im sorry thats to simple of an answer for you, but its true. And please understand my answer of "42" was in jest, but its more than just "42".

Can somebody please explain to Sim why the answer "42" is relative to his question? As in an answer that is completly unexpected (too simple) and maybe its the question that needs to be looked at more closely. Google "42" Sim and read a bit.



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 08:42 AM
link   

en.wikipedia.org...
The answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything, given by the supercomputer Deep Thought to a group of mice, is "forty-two". According to the Guide, mice are 3-dimensional profiles of a pan-dimensional, hyper-intelligent race of beings. They built Deep Thought, the second greatest computer of all time and space, to tell them the answer to the question of life, the universe and everything. After seven and a half million years the computer divulges the answer: forty-two.

"Forty-two!" yelled Loonquawl. "Is that all you've got to show for seven and a half million years' work?"
"I checked it very thoroughly," said the computer, "and that quite definitely is the answer. I think the problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you've never actually known what the question is."


Clever.



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 08:48 AM
link   
The irony is, after all that time, they lost sight of what the question really was, what they really wanted to know. The answer 42 was "correct" or all intents and purposes based on thier actual question, its the question that needed more attention.

Your question seems "huge" and "Deep" to you. But the plain truth is the answer to your "complex" question is quite simple. OIL!! 42!!!!

Oil is industry and money. And industry and money is politics. And thats enough to invade countries now days. Oil.

[edit on 1-12-2004 by skippytjc]



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jaruseleh



Hindsight is 20/20 my friend. the intellegence wasn't twisted, it was wrong. There's a difference. Also, don't forget that the head of CIA at the time was appointed by Bill Clinton. Why would he want us to go to war with Iraq?

it was wrong AND twisted mate. the original evidence still didnt support it so they twisted it.




You think the country would be safer if we left? Let me ask you this? Do you think it was safer there before we did what we did? Because if we were to leave, it would go right back to where it was. A terrorist leader butchering millions of people just because he can.

probably yes.
yes because atleast then they didnt worry about running into fire fight.
actually saddam wasnt a terrorist , he was a general in the army and made a coup and stole the gov. he only killed shiates which where the people killing our troops not so long ago, isnt that ironic?


No, read above why we invaded Iraq. All I'm saying here is that the hunt for Osama is still on, and has been the whole time.

well why invade iraq and use valuable reasources when you could have used it against OSB ?



Do you think other countries WOULD help? Although I do agree, we could definately use the help of other countries, but I don't think there are any countries that WILL help. I believe we have a little help from the British, but that's about it. I just don't think anyone out there cares that much anymore since so much focus has been put on Iraq.

with the way america is doing buisness right now? doubt it.
a little help?
we went every where with you. hell we saved 2 intel officers lives and it was little? we look after basra and its little.



Are we playing chess? lol

lol
technically we are playing a game like chess....
also 42 is a good answer, its from hitchhikers guide to the galaxy a very funny thing!

[edit on 1-12-2004 by devilwasp]



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 12:39 PM
link   
we should fight a war on porn next .



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 01:47 PM
link   
So how many times after the first war ended and the second began did Saddam say he had no WMD's only to be later revealed that he infact had them? Once, twice, thrice? Each time we let him off the hook was when we should have done something about it, instead he continued to see the US as weak and unwilling to do anything, all the mean while there was a Dem in the Whitehouse. Then after about the 3rd time he failed to comply with the UN sanctions Bush gave him an offer he couldn't refuse: either give us evidence that proves beyond a resonable doubt that you have destroyed all WMD's and all facillities capable of making these ordance or be destroyed. Instead, Saddam threw a fit with the UN inspectors, a precursor history had shown us that he was not complying, and demanded for them to leave. He chose the path to have a US led coalition invade and dispose of his rule.



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 02:02 PM
link   
I just called Dubya on his special line (we go way back) and I asked this question to him. And he said: "Oil". And I said "Thats what I thought"

Bottm line is nobody is going to really know but a handfull of people in Washington and they arent going to tell anytime soon. Heck, it could be some ultra secret really good reason to be there. But I dont think its any more complicated than Oil.

Terrorism was the stated reason, Oil and $$ is the real reason.


42



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 03:02 PM
link   

I think you should read the previous post. I disagree with you. It's illogical to fight for oil when new alternative energy sources are being created daily. Not to mention the world's fossil fuel supply is going to run dry in a few years.


Illogical?! You do know who your President is right now? Not to mention the people who support him, his "base", do you really think they want people off fossil fuels so they can stop making a profit?


*Added Quote tag

[edit on 1-12-2004 by TrickmastertricK]



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Ok. I'm going to try this one more time.

What is the 'official' story regarding the War on Iraq by the United States of America?

By official, I mean the actual story manifested by the government that was spread to the mass media.



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 03:53 PM
link   
It's a good question...Why did we go to war in Iraq?

There are many reasons.

1. Saddam was pushing hard for OPEC to switch their reserve currency to the Euro versus the dollar. In fact, he switched Iraq's to that currency after GW1.

2. Bush believed he had enough to make a case against Saddam to the international community to justify the war...which later turned out to be bogus...

3. With the eventual pullout in Saudi, we needed another oil-rich ally in the middle east, other than the very small nations where we also have bases.

4. With the war on terror, centrally located bases will be essential to warfare in the middle east.

5. Iraq has been (albeit on a minor scale) a sponsor of terrorism.

There are others to go into as well, but I think you are starting to see the point... Not that I agree with the above necessarily, but it's between the lines...



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Gazrok comes through in the clutch. Thank you. Now I actually have something to tell this guy besides concepts like '42' which would have been completly elusive and incoherent to a guy that struggles daily with the English language.



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 04:27 PM
link   

And then there is oil. No, we didn't go into Iraq to steal their oil....we went into Iraq to develop long-term stability of the region.


Why? why is it Americas buisness? Whats the benefit to America? Who made America the global policeman?


Thus, considering:

(1) Saddam H. = Deposed, imprisoned.
(2) WMD = None Found.
(3) Western Democracy = Islam prevents this concept.
(4) Beating Terrorists = We will never defeat them globally, and as long as we continue killing innocents in Iraq, more moderates will convert to radicalism and we will continue to fight an unending stream of 'insurgents'

We have left: OIL.


[Background]

Occam's Razor (also Ockham's Razor or any of several other spellings), is a principle attributed to the 14th century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham that forms the basis of methodological reductionism, also called the principle of parsimony.

In its simplest form, Occam's Razor states that one should not make more assumptions than needed. When multiple explanations are available for a phenomenon, the simplest version is preferred. A charred tree on the ground could be caused by a landing alien ship or a lightning strike. According to Occam's Razor, the lightning strike is the preferred explanation as it requires the fewest assumptions.


I like it but I think there is more to it.


quote:
People never see the GOOD things we're doing there, rebuilding hospitals, getting clean water flowing, getting electricity back online, etc...these are not newsworthy to our media. All the general public sees is the killing, the bombing, the rebellion...that's what gets ratings over here. You never hear about the people who are actually HAPPY that we've done what we've done, and are HAPPY that we're there, trying to keep them safe while the country is rebuilt.


Are you serious? So America bloody well should, you blew them to hell in the first place, you expect gratitute from the folk of iraq? You wonder why the world considers America Arrogant #@##'s !

War on terrorism, is nothing but a slogan to excite acceptance from the masses, nobody wants loonys blowing up their city afterall. By definition, a war on terrorism, is a fallacy and an unending task, giving good excuse to continue the agenda indefinatly.
terrorism is a mindset, you cant win against a mindset with bombs, its very simple. You cant stop it by capturing or killing saddam/osama, because there will be more saddams and osamas waiting in line infinitum.
The only way to win against terrorism is to learn the true cause of it and remove it.
BEFORE YOU SAY IT... The cause is not saddams and osamas, they are the effect. Why are folk flying jets into buildings in the first place? Because they are desperate to be heard. What is it they want to say? to happen?
Surely the Alledged greatest nation on earth can mediate? What can the wealthiest nation on earth possibly want from the middle east? What are they unwilling to compromise?
A nation who value "Freedom" so much, try to deny it from another nation?
You have a democracy and you enjoy it, good for you, but why impose your way of life on the rest of the world?
Yes saddam was a cruel dictator and most of the folk hatedand feared him, so get on your big white American horse and take him out. Thankyou very much America. Please repair your massive destruction on the way out!
But dont assume iraq folk are mentally disabled and cant think for themselves, let them get back on their own feet politically. A peacekeeping force is a swell idea, but your still killing iraqi folk. Let them elect there own ruler/s. Ive heard nothing about election to date.
Your such a swell generous god fearing folk, so pay their own soldiers to keep the peace, instead of shattering it, money talks dont it. A soldier paid more $$$ to keep the peace will do so rather than "work" for troublemakers. If you want to Help them, give them the means to help themselves. Remove trade sanctions!
America seems to think that if you build a man a fire, he's warm for day, but if you set him on fire, hes warm for the rest of his life !!

One word Mr Bush...........OVERKILL !!!!

P.S. Simulacra, i realise this dosent answer your question really, I think the answer is:
America beleives it is the centre of the world, the very heights of human society and therfore wish to spread the great American way across the globe by any means. A war against perceived "baddies" in the middle east,(which incidently has whats left of the oil~Bonus) is a great way to start phase 2 (physical occupation) eventually they will think of "reasons" to occupy more and more of the globe, while cleverly having the world beleiving its justified.
Phase 1 has been hollywoodisation of global society, make them love you and they you can do no wrong in their eyes. They wont see you coming till its too late. In short, America wants to dominate the world in much the same way germany did excepting not only by direct force but by seduction aswell.

[edit on 1-12-2004 by instar]

[edit on 1-12-2004 by instar]



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Apparently I'm not the only one that has absoultely no idea Why or What America is fighting. I stumbled on this Alternet: MediaCulture news story that was published yesterday.




The War on What, Exactly?

We know we're supposed to win the war on terror, we just don't know exactly what it is and the press isn't helping.

The term "war on terror" began to seriously malfunction when the administration turned its attention to Iraq. Part of the reason for this, says Kathleen Hall Jamieson, the director of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania and the author of several books on political rhetoric, including "The Press Effect and Dirty Politics: Deception, Distraction and Democracy," is that public understanding of a metaphor like the war on terror rests on the relationship between a specific audience and the moment the metaphor is introduced. In other words, its meaning is dependent on context. One could argue, for instance, that the American Revolutionary War was won by terrorist means, or that the United States sponsored terrorism when it funded the Contras in Nicaragua and Pinochet in Chile. The Iraq war instantly confused the definition of the war on terror and several attendant terms like weapons of mass destruction, Islamic extremism, and even terrorist. Suddenly it was unclear who exactly was a terrorist. Terrorism has been defined as a violent act carried out by a nonstate group (like Al Qaeda) for political purposes. But in light of the war with Iraq and escalating tensions with Iran and North Korea, it is unclear if the definition has come to include hostile states that have ambitions to obtain weapons of mass destruction. The point isn't that the United States is waging a dishonest war. Rather, it's that when the media allow the government or anyone else to frame the news in language of their choosing, we end up with phrases like the war on terror that invite conceptual incoherence and cloud the ability of the public, the press, and legislators to assess policy.


Full Story



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Honestly......it was the only available reaction to an enemy you cannot truly see or has not only one country of origin. To do nothing after 9/11 was unthinkable. I'm a democrat yet I agree what Bush did in Iraq. Don't agree with his bull# exuse but the fact is......"you wanna knock down 4 building and kill thousands of Americans on American soil.....we'll take you're number one terrorit country!" Something for the terrorists to think about while they plan their next attack because if we didn't go into Iraq........the terrorists would feel they could operate with impunity.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 10:06 AM
link   
I have the answer and it is very simple. Firstly Iraq was never a terrorist nation. Saddam despised religious fanatics and they were the greatest danger to his hold on power. That is why he made sure to do a good job of keeping them out of Iraq.

The reason President Bush decided to go to war was because he had evidence Saddam had WMD's and he knew Saddam wanted to use them against the US. Based on this evidence Bush had no other choice in the matter. You cannot let a psycopath with WMD's get a chance at a first strike against your own country. Plain and simple. We now know this evidence was incorrect. Bush was setup by whomever.

But that doesn't change the fact that Bush destroyed the political infrastructure in Iraq that his father made sure to keep intact so now it is our obligation to fix it. That is why we are still there. Unfortunately by removing Saddam we removed the one barrier keeping terrorists out of Iraq and it is now indeed a terrorist nation and now falls under the umbrella of the War on Terror.

All this may seem bad news for the US but Bush has unintentionally created a nice place to sweep the terrorists under the rug far away from the US. Nowdays if you have a beef with America you don't go to NY to stir up trouble you head straight for Baghdad and setup some roadside bombs.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Note of course, my reasons given are the behind the scenes reasons, not the publicly stated ones.

Bush publicly stated the reasons as...(emphasis on #2)

1. Repeatedly ignoring UN resolutions for years....
2. A believed (now shown to be false) program for developing WMDs...
3. A State Sponsor of terrorism...(this can actually be proven somewhat, from his donations to families of suicide bombers in Isreal...though on a pretty minor scale. We also have testimony from former Iraqi officers that attest to the allowed establishment of desert training camps for various terrorist organizations). Still, not enough to go to war on...
4. Tenuous (though unsupported and likely false) ties to Al Queda.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 11:34 AM
link   
INSTAR You think we want to run every thing well lets see after world war 2 how much of the world did we own?
Japan most of the islands in the pacific 3/4 of Europe most of the Middle East and what did we do with it all? Oh thats right we helped the peoples rebuild all the crap THEY did to them selfs and then we gave it back. Hell in my opinion we should have kept it all if we had we would not be setting hear listening to all this bull about how America is such a
Dictatorship and out to takeover the planet. Lol we all ready owned it once and figured out really fast we did not want it.

As to the original reason for this post, the reason why we took out Saddam and invaded Iraq is because NO ONE ELSE would do it. The Germans the Italians and most of the rest of the world were making to much money trading weapons and such to Saddam for his OIL. And yes we had bad Intel as to whither he still had WMD but whose fault was that really? His or ours?
Lets look at this for a moment Iraqs neighbor Iran you know the one HE attacked and was in a 10-year war with and would really love to kick his ass, but didnt try because they thought he had WMD the UN would not do anything for the same reason and oh there is The US with a punk who was more worried about getting you know what sucked than dealing with terrorism and Saddam. So for 10 years he continues to LIE Cheat and KILL until some one with BALLS CALLS HIS BLUFF.

Now probably the biggest reason we took him out was not so we could get the OIL I mean look at the facts most of his oil fields are trashed to the point that it will take 10 to 20 years to bring them back on line. That does every one a lot of good doesnt it?
Oh and by the way just who was it that destroyed them? No it was not FOR the OIL but what he was doing with it. That was taking the sale of his oil off the dollar and saling it under the Euro what would happen to the dollar if all of the oil exporting countries did that? Since it seams some of you do not understand just how the world really works I will tell you. The Dollar under which most of the world economies runs would become so devalued that the world economies would basically collapse. That would lead to a world wide DEPRESION the likes of which no one has ever seen. Which would lead to mass layoffs, unemployment, starvation, riots, killings and probably World war 3.

So in reality you can tell your friend he should be thanking US for letting him stray in school and probably have a nice JOB to go to when he is done.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join