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.

 

Kennedy Calls For U.S. Withdrawal From Iraq, UN Involvement

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by quango

12 years and no war and no WMDs

i'd rather all the money in the world pass under the table if it helps keep the peace. and guess what? it was.


I'd say I can't believe I just read this, but I'd be lying.


There have been a number of incidents where small caches of chemical weapons were found. Just last May a sarin bomb was used against US forces. (largely unsuccessful--nobody died) So, Saddam managed to dispose of most of the weapons. He had them before, and we know because he used them. So what if he disposed of them in the months before the invasion? He did that because he was afraid. Even if he had hidden, sold, or otherwise disposed of everything, he only did so because he was afraid of the USA. He thought maybe he could have gotten off the hook that way. Sorry, but no. While we got him to get rid of his WMD without an invasion (yet), he was still a tyrant who spent ridiculous sums of money on big palaces while terrorizing his own people. He still had a whole nation at his disposal, a nation largely composed of normal people not so different from us, people who did not deserve to have such a government, people whose will to fight back was squelched when their rebellions in 1991 failed. As far as I'm concerned, saving 25 million people from a tyrant is one of the finest reasons possible.

Containment is not peace. When the kitchen is on fire and you close the doors into the kitchen, you might save the house but everything inside the room is probably going to be destroyed. Then again, you have no guarantee it's going to stop at the kitchen, especially if you don't call the fire department. I went into a metaphor there, excuse me. There is no peace when a tyrant is in a position of power, there cannot be peace, there must not be peace, because things are not going to get better by leaving tyrants in place. They will continue to prey upon their own people even if they are not permitted to prey on anyone else. These people must be stopped, and many of them won't stop until they die. So what if there may be a few other reasons? It is this reason that makes it all worth it. I'll denounce some of the less worthy justifications right along with you, but never forget the important one.




posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by BeefotronX


I'd say I can't believe I just read this, but I'd be lying.


There have been a number of incidents where small caches of chemical weapons were found. Just last May a sarin bomb was used against US forces. (largely unsuccessful--nobody died) So, Saddam managed to dispose of most of the weapons. He had them before, and we know because he used them. So what if he disposed of them in the months before the invasion? He did that because he was afraid. Even if he had hidden, sold, or otherwise disposed of everything, he only did so because he was afraid of the USA. He thought maybe he could have gotten off the hook that way. Sorry, but no. While we got him to get rid of his WMD without an invasion (yet), he was still a tyrant who spent ridiculous sums of money on big palaces while terrorizing his own people. He still had a whole nation at his disposal, a nation largely composed of normal people not so different from us, people who did not deserve to have such a government, people whose will to fight back was squelched when their rebellions in 1991 failed. As far as I'm concerned, saving 25 million people from a tyrant is one of the finest reasons possible.

Is that why the US CIA said that there was NO , i repeat NO weapons of mass destruction in iraq before and after iraq.


Containment is not peace. When the kitchen is on fire and you close the doors into the kitchen, you might save the house but everything inside the room is probably going to be destroyed. Then again, you have no guarantee it's going to stop at the kitchen, especially if you don't call the fire department. I went into a metaphor there, excuse me. There is no peace when a tyrant is in a position of power, there cannot be peace, there must not be peace, because things are not going to get better by leaving tyrants in place. They will continue to prey upon their own people even if they are not permitted to prey on anyone else. These people must be stopped, and many of them won't stop until they die. So what if there may be a few other reasons? It is this reason that makes it all worth it. I'll denounce some of the less worthy justifications right along with you, but never forget the important one.

How are we able to justify going into another country and telling THEM how to live?
Please if you think we are the Creme de la Creme of the world you are very much mistaken.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Devil wasp be careful where you tread...

Man I bought some shoes ECCO's, made in Scotland!!! Man they are awsome!! Why would nike want to make shoes in Tiawan or Korea/??



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by fourth horseman
Devil wasp be careful where you tread...

I am always careful....be careful yourself.


Man I bought some shoes ECCO's, made in Scotland!!! Man they are awsome!! Why would nike want to make shoes in Tiawan or Korea/??

Really???
Wow, Dude did they have the adress on them? I want to find that place!
Well its cheaper in korea and tiawan than here.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Devilwasp, it saddens me that my family left Scotland and Ireland many years ago. Now I know why.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 05:54 PM
link   
GI_Wolf in sheep's cloathing?
Looking for little Bo Peep?

PEEK-A-BOO! I see you..

Have you lost your SHOE??

"For lightning comes from the east and is seen as far as the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be. Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather."

Suggested listening, U2's "Electrical Sorm"....Awsome!!!!



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Is that why the US CIA said that there was NO , i repeat NO weapons of mass destruction in iraq before and after iraq.

Why the obstruction of the inspections? Does it really take five weeks to Swiffer the floor of the baby formula factory? While it is believed that no new WMDs have been built in Iraq since 1992,
Saddam was working towards restarting production of chemical weapons in Iraq. Did we or did we not prevent him from doing this? If he did rebuild his chemical arsenal, what are the odds that he would use it for humane purposes? And again, we cannot rule out the possibility that there are WMDs just because they're not in Iraq.

WMD's aside. They weren't the only reason for going into Iraq, despite Babs Boxer's simplistic assertions to the contrary.




How are we able to justify going into another country and telling THEM how to live?
Please if you think we are the Creme de la Creme of the world you are very much mistaken.


I wasn't aware we were telling them how to live. Unless you consider "letting them tell themselves how to live" telling them how to live.

The USA is far from perfect. Our presidents, congressmen, military, judges, and all other government officials are human beings (You guys from the UFO/alien threads shut up) and are by their natures incapable of doing everything right. Though the USA is made of imperfect people, it is founded on perfect ideals. It made its way to the top of the world because liberty has made its people powerful, making the nation powerful. And with that power comes responsibility. With all the liberty we stuck ourselves with, it was only a matter of time before the rest of the world got stuck with American hegemony. Resent it all you want, but consider how things got to be this way.

You want to call the USA imperialist? Look back to the aftermath of World War II. The whole world was devastated, and the USA came out of that war with the world's most powerful navy, a battle-hardened military, and the atomic bomb. We could have had our way with any nation anywhere with nobody to stop us. We didn't. We helped rebuild, and then we went home. You want something more modern? Try the first Gulf War. We saved Kuwait and could have taken whatever we wanted. They were probably grateful enough to give it up. We didn't take any oil though. We put out the fires and went home. Creme of the world indeed.

[edit on 1/28/2005 by BeefotronX]



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by GI_WOLVES
Devilwasp, it saddens me that my family left Scotland and Ireland many years ago. Now I know why.

Difficult to leave 2 countries at the same time mate....
Also if you want to insult my country like that just publicly say it.


Originally posted by BeefotronX
Why the obstruction of the inspections? Does it really take five weeks to Swiffer the floor of the baby formula factory? While it is believed that no new WMDs have been built in Iraq since 1992,
Saddam was working towards restarting production of chemical weapons in Iraq. Did we or did we not prevent him from doing this? If he did rebuild his chemical arsenal, what are the odds that he would use it for humane purposes? And again, we cannot rule out the possibility that there are WMDs just because they're not in Iraq.

Firstly the scotsman gets its information from who?
The MOD, and where does the MOD get its information from? MI5 and MI6 both declared after that they where wrong.
Also before sep11 colin powell publically , i just watched the statement on the programe farenhieght 9/11 , that "iraq has not restarted its WMD program."


WMD's aside. They weren't the only reason for going into Iraq, despite Babs Boxer's simplistic assertions to the contrary.

Yet, the reason GWB and blair gave was WMD , otherwise we wouldnt have gone in.




I wasn't aware we were telling them how to live. Unless you consider "letting them tell themselves how to live" telling them how to live.

You come and ENFORCE democracy, how do you know they want this!


The USA is far from perfect. Our presidents, congressmen, military, judges, and all other government officials are human beings (You guys from the UFO/alien threads shut up) and are by their natures incapable of doing everything right. Though the USA is made of imperfect people, it is founded on perfect ideals. It made its way to the top of the world because liberty has made its people powerful, making the nation powerful. And with that power comes responsibility. With all the liberty we stuck ourselves with, it was only a matter of time before the rest of the world got stuck with American hegemony. Resent it all you want, but consider how things got to be this way.

Then the USA has no buisness in going into soverign nations and telling them how to run their country.
If liberty is what you stand for then your country should respect the liberty of other nations , the liberty of soverignty.


You want to call the USA imperialist? Look back to the aftermath of World War II. The whole world was devastated, and the USA came out of that war with the world's most powerful navy, a battle-hardened military, and the atomic bomb. We could have had our way with any nation anywhere with nobody to stop us.

See that "red devil" you shouted about, they could have gone in but with the help of other nations we created an equal force, enough to hurt.



We didn't. We helped rebuild, and then we went home. You want something more modern? Try the first Gulf War. We saved Kuwait and could have taken whatever we wanted. They were probably grateful enough to give it up. We didn't take any oil though. We put out the fires and went home. Creme of the world indeed.
[edit on 1/28/2005 by BeefotronX]

With a UN task force sitting there, might want to remember that little fact pal, our forces where on the same front lines as yours.
Also how exsactly would the US have been able to take the oil with out the UN knowing? They couldnt thats the point, the fact is that with its position right american oil companies now have the opertunity to get all the oil they want.


[edit on 28-1-2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by GI_WOLVES
my family left Scotland and Ireland many years ago.

Difficult to leave 2 countries at the same time mate....


Uh .. no it's not. My family left Ireland AND England.
Two countries .... My grandmother (Flanagans) left Ireland
and my grandfather (Lathropes) left England.

My husband's family left three countries ... Switzerland,
France, and Italy. One Grandpa left France. One Grandma
left Switzerland. Other Grandpa left Italy.



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by BeefotronX
people whose will to fight back was squelched when their rebellions in 1991 failed.


where were we then?




Containment is not peace.


In this world, containment is peace.
Otherwise, the alternative is killing everyone of a certain mindset.
And regardless of the result - that's not peace.



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Uh .. no it's not. My family left Ireland AND England.
Two countries .... My grandmother (Flanagans) left Ireland
and my grandfather (Lathropes) left England.

So your meaning whole family.


My husband's family left three countries ... Switzerland,
France, and Italy. One Grandpa left France. One Grandma
left Switzerland. Other Grandpa left Italy.


This is getting padantic....



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 12:25 PM
link   

from devilwasp
Firstly the scotsman gets its information from who?
The MOD, and where does the MOD get its information from? MI5 and MI6 both declared after that they where wrong.
Also before sep11 colin powell publically , i just watched the statement on the programe farenhieght 9/11 , that "iraq has not restarted its WMD program."


That is correct. Iraq's WMD program was on hiatus since 1992. They were trying to restart the program, though. Saddam believed the sanctions would lapse soon, and then he could restart his WMD program. What he was doing was preparing for that, so that when he could restart the WMD program, it could start rapidly. Why else was he playing these games with the UN inspectors?



You come and ENFORCE democracy, how do you know they want this!


Look at a dictionary. Letting the people have the government they want is democracy.



Then the USA has no buisness in going into soverign nations and telling them how to run their country.
If liberty is what you stand for then your country should respect the liberty of other nations , the liberty of soverignty.

No!
It is about individual liberty. I am talking about people. In Iraq, there are 25 million of them. The fact that Saddam and his henchmen had a government that was legitimate in appearance did not legitimize their tyranny. Voting against Saddam was suicide--often literally.


With a UN task force sitting there, might want to remember that little fact pal, our forces where on the same front lines as yours.
Also how exsactly would the US have been able to take the oil with out the UN knowing? They couldnt thats the point, the fact is that with its position right american oil companies now have the opertunity to get all the oil they want.

We could have requested a little payment for our services in the form of oil. What position would they be in to refuse? Except that we don't just take the oil. We give money in exchange for it, and that is how things have continued. We are now in a position to get all the oil we want, and guess what? We do. We pay for it, too. Don't forget this is the same UN that refused to follow through with an invasion of Iraq. Thousands of people rose up to overthrow Saddam, except they failed because we listened to the UN and didn't go in to back them up.



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 03:33 PM
link   
BeefotronX:

Why the obstruction of the inspections? Does it really take five weeks to Swiffer the floor of the baby formula factory? While it is believed that no new WMDs have been built in Iraq since 1992,
Saddam was working towards restarting production of chemical weapons in Iraq. Did we or did we not prevent him from doing this? If he did rebuild his chemical arsenal, what are the odds that he would use it for humane purposes?


What are the odds indeed? Considering when he HAD WMD's in the Gulf War I, he didn't use them on invading troops. Are the only countries in the world allowed to have WMDs only the ones the United States of America deems acceptable? Israel, Pakistan, India, Russia, China, North Korea? ?


WMD's aside. They weren't the only reason for going into Iraq, despite Babs Boxer's simplistic assertions to the contrary.


It was your President's assertion, leading up to the war that Saddam's WMDs posed a clear and imminent danger to the USA. Even though there were none.

The chances that Americans would die if Saddam got a hold of a nuke? Close to zero. A dictator's main purpose is to STAY in power. He might have been a wacko, but he was not a suicidal wacko.
He launches a nuke and he's toast.


It made its way to the top of the world because liberty has made its people powerful, making the nation powerful.


Take a history class. And a reality pill. There are DOZENS of countries in the world that are "freer" than the USA (try Holland for starters).

Your country is the richest in the world for a variety of reasons. The main two are:

The IMF (International Monetary Fund)
The World Bank

Educate thyself.


The whole world was devastated, and the USA came out of that war with the world's most powerful navy, a battle-hardened military, and the atomic bomb. We could have had our way with any nation anywhere with nobody to stop us. We didn't. We helped rebuild, and then we went home.


The USA had no infrastructure to rebuild, it had not had an attack on its' home turf. You joined the war late. In 1941, and only after Pearl Harbor was attacked.

The RUSSIANS won World War II. They lost tens of millions of troops and if it wasn't for Hitler being bogged down on the Eastern Front, he would have been able to more effectively defend Fortress Europe from the Western Allies.

Again, read a history book, I am not making any of this up.

As for the "we went home" part, that's laughable.

There have been US troops in Germany SINCE the war ended. Thousands on bases.

Ditto for Korea! More than 50 years ago and there is STILL a US presence there. Where do you get your facts?


Look at a dictionary. Letting the people have the government they want is democracy.


Do the Iraqis WANT democracy? What if they vote for a secular Islamic government that campaigns as anti-American? Are they allowed to vote for them?

Being able to VOTE doesn't mean you live in a democracy. it's the first, easist step. But just the first. And a tiny step.


Thousands of people rose up to overthrow Saddam, except they failed because we listened to the UN and didn't go in to back them up.


Okay, that ones total BS. In 1991 the Kurds rose up to attack Saddam after his defeat in the Gulf War. What did the USA and the UK do, even when they were initiating No Fly Zones and still occupying most of Iraq? Nothing. The Kurds were slaughtered while you watched and Saddam held on to power.

The UN had nothing to do with it. Blame them when it's relevant.

jako




[edit on 28-1-2005 by Jakomo]



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by BeefotronX
That is correct. Iraq's WMD program was on hiatus since 1992. They were trying to restart the program, though. Saddam believed the sanctions would lapse soon, and then he could restart his WMD program. What he was doing was preparing for that, so that when he could restart the WMD program, it could start rapidly. Why else was he playing these games with the UN inspectors?

Really, where's THIS info from?
Or just your opinion?
Probabaly getting Peed off at the UN.



Look at a dictionary. Letting the people have the government they want is democracy.

You cant enforce a democracy while its still under occupation , in the UN laws actually.
Its actually just the majority that votes, and half of the population there probably doesnt know what "voteing" is...



No!
It is about individual liberty. I am talking about people. In Iraq, there are 25 million of them. The fact that Saddam and his henchmen had a government that was legitimate in appearance did not legitimize their tyranny. Voting against Saddam was suicide--often literally.

Do you know who put him IN power?
The UK, do you know what he did IN power?
He put down the major factions in iraq that where causing unrest a few months ago....



We could have requested a little payment for our services in the form of oil. What position would they be in to refuse?

You already did, american pipelines?


Except that we don't just take the oil. We give money in exchange for it, and that is how things have continued.

Yeah just like in afghanistan where the two main people are EX american oil company consultants?


We are now in a position to get all the oil we want, and guess what? We do. We pay for it, too. Don't forget this is the same UN that refused to follow through with an invasion of Iraq. Thousands of people rose up to overthrow Saddam, except they failed because we listened to the UN and didn't go in to back them up.

...Wha?
Please refresh me on YOUR version of history since it doesnt seem to coincide with mine or the documented version of events.



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Kennedy never learned the Vietnam lesson, did he?
(Friggn' drunk egomaniac lunkhead! - and I'm being nice!!)


Laura Bush school of driving?
Bill Frist Veterinary Academy?


Lets try to keep it "pithy" shall we?



posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Please refresh me on YOUR version of history since it doesnt seem to coincide with mine or the documented version of events.


All you have to do is point me to the oil that we are taking without paying for.



posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by BeefotronX
All you have to do is point me to the oil that we are taking without paying for.

Your getting it at half the price you usually would.


[edit on 29-1-2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 11:49 PM
link   
Back on topic. IMO Kennedy is being irresponsible by calling for this. He knows that what he proposes is unworkable; it is much the same tactic used by Charley Rangell and Fritz Hollings irt the draft.

All that Kennedy hopes to do is spread more of his divisive rhetoric in the country. He is extremely bitter that Kerry lost the election; he was hoping for a revival of his fading, lackluster career with a Kerry win.

Once you give a set timetable for withdrawal, you give the terrorists an enormous advantage. Not a good idea.

As for the UK's Kennedy, he is more reasonable in his assessment. We will leave when asked to, and we won't be asked to until the Iraqis feel capable enough to handle their own security. Event-driven, rather than time-driven, schedules. That's the way to do it.

I'm glad I don't live in Massachusetts anymore. Having Kerry and Kennedy as my senators would be too embarassing.



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 12:15 AM
link   
I am back, Maties! LOL
Wow! Kennedy needs some sobbering up before flapping his gums in public. Withdrawl, no way since the votes are casted by Iraqis now. Why do some give up to easy. Hard work scares them? We set out to do a job, finish what we started to. We left them once before when Bush Sr. was in office because of the other countries asking the USA not to invade and let sanctions work. They want us there, Kennedy blowing smoke up our a**.
We could use more honest men in Washington.
Hey, glad to see all of you again and keep posting. Yahooooooo!

PolarBearExpress.......



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Uhh... We'll drive over that bridge when we get to it, Senator Kennedy.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join