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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by comppwizz
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.


America owned nowhere after the 2nd World war, well apart from America that is.




posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 01:16 PM
link   

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


America also sold weapons to iraq because they had their own agenda with iran! hypocrits!


www.lizmichael.com...
www2.gwu.edu...
www.rense.com...
www.indybay.org...
www.doublestandards.org...

Such pure hearted hero's the USA ! Bullsh*t !!!
Let me make it clear I have no problem with the American people themselves per say, excepting they appear to (majority) support a lunatic president, by vote and therefore lunatic policys aswell. Never seen a "mass" demonstration in America against their own policys! (remember 230 mil folk, even a mil folk is not "mass". Only a mushroom is kept in the dark and fed bullsh*t!



[edit on 2-12-2004 by instar]



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 01:39 PM
link   
And those arent un biased sites...LOL!! Rense? Should be called "Nonrense".

There was a time where the US had different interests in Iraq. Then the rascals went an invaded Kuwait. Things change.

Lets say you had a dog you fed every day. It was always nice to you and you treated it accordingly. Mutual benificial relationship. The dog gets food from you, you get some company. Then one day the dog bites you. You going to treat that dog the same after that? You a hypocryte if you dont?



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
And those arent un biased sites...LOL!! Rense? Should be called "Nonrense".

There was a time where the US had different interests in Iraq. Then the rascals went an invaded Kuwait. Things change.

Lets say you had a dog you fed every day. It was always nice to you and you treated it accordingly. Mutual benificial relationship. The dog gets food from you, you get some company. Then one day the dog bites you. You going to treat that dog the same after that? You a hypocryte if you dont?


Oh thats rich! thats like a family with a small child buying a ex fighting pitbull then having it put down when it attacks the kid! Common sense America, you sold deadly materials/weapons to a midddle east nation thats been inbroiled in mindless warfar for centurys! puhlease! get real!
Excuses for idiocy dont cut it!



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 01:49 PM
link   

And those arent un biased sites...LOL!! Rense? Should be called "Nonrense".



A fair enough statement, however I notice you avoid commenting on the others ????



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

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.


Explain to me how it was twisted? And you also avoided the point that George Tennet (or however you spell his name) was the Clinton appointed head of the CIA. Why would he want to twist evidence to go to war with Iraq?





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, they had to worry about being gassed, and dying a horribly painful death. Honestly, who cares who was being butchered? A human life is a human life. There are better ways of dealing with your opposition than mass genocide with nerve gas. Besides, I never said Sadam was a terrorist, but I WILL say he was a lunatic, and a very evil man.




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 ?


I don't think you read my original post. We don't need any more resources in Afghanistan. That's like having 5 people screw in a light bulb. You only need 1, the rest are overkill. That's how it is in Afghanistan. We have our resources allocated, anything else would be overkill, and ultimately, a waste of resources.




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.


I take it your British? I don't think you understand how appreciative of the British support the US is. I say a "little" help because frankly, the UK can't physically offer a "big" help. I'm not saying that to be a jerk, it's just a fact. We DO appreciate evrything the Brits have done for and with us, and if the UK could do more, we would welcome it with open arms.

Also, it's hard to get help from countries who disagree with what we're doing. It's not that we're not asking for help, in fact, it's quite the opposite. We have asked Germany, France, and Russia (among other countries) to help us, and they have declined. We do have some help from a lot of smaller nations, but my guess is that its purely because of money.

I don't think the US expects help from anyone, but any help we get, contrary to popular belief, is greatly appreciated.




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!


I've always liked chess. Was never very good at it, though...

[edit on 1-12-2004 by devilwasp]



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Instar: I have no experience with the others. I will however check them out and form an opinion soon.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
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.


bingo




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join