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.

 

Are We Changing the Reasons to Attack Iran?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by metalmessiah
he had to make sure everyone was on board. I'm not taking up for the moron Bush here either. just dont let the fact that he is a complete idiot and bald face liar fool you into thinking Hussein was anything close to a sane individual.


Nobody is defending Saddam but more like bringing the facts about the why we invaded Iraq and why the administration is starting its, brainwashing to prepare the nation for an invasion of Iran or an attack.

Saddam was a man that though himself of being decedent of kings he had a supreme personality complex.

Bush does not follow far behind, bush has his own personality complex he thinks himself as a divine supreme being.

Yes Saddam killed his people, but Bush with his war on freedom has been killing many also, including our troops, civilians and anybody caught in his divine crusade.




posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Nobody is saying it was a bad idea to take out Saddam. It is just interesting that the US Government used the tactic of WMDs (Weapons of mass destruction, for those that forgot) to initiate a war and take down Iraq. When that tactic didn't yield positive results, the quest to "liberate" Iraq went into very successful effect.

Perhaps Rice and the White House are laying the upfront groundwork here, preparation conditioning, if you will, to get us in the "right frame of mind" to attack Iran sometime in the future.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jupiter869
You've got to be kidding me. It's plastered all over today's news.

As expected you completely missed the point....

The point is, this is nothing new. What Rice has said is extremely old news and has been said by many people before anyone knew who Rice was.
No one is changing any reasons to do anything.


If we do somehow engage Iran, it won't be an invasion type attack. It'll be attacks on any nuclear or suspected nuclear sites. Any suggestion otherwise is pure speculation (and/or wishful thinking) as no one, with any kind of power whatsoever, has yet to even hint at anything else.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Bush does not follow far behind, bush has his own personality complex he thinks himself as a divine supreme being.

Evidence?


Yes Saddam killed his people, but Bush with his war on freedom has been killing many also, including our troops, civilians and anybody caught in his divine crusade.

We attacked Afghan (which any president would have done in that position regardless of politcal party) and Iraq. Wow. That's some crusade.....




btw, under Clinton we had military actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Somolia, Sudan, etc. At least 3 times more countries than Bush (and that was during PEACE time). I'm curious, was Clinton on a crusade as well?



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 03:25 PM
link   
well we support iran pro-democracy groups so such an idea of invading to help the people would fit right in.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 03:26 PM
link   
You don't need a link he has said so himself he follows a higer been and he has messages from the stars.

Oh, let's not forget his conversations with God himself.

So get over it, Bush is insane in the mainbrain.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
You don't need a link he has said so himself he follows a higer been and he has messages from the stars.

So...everyone that believes in God is insane?

You're going against the grain marg as most people on earth believe in a higher being.


Plus, you said he thinks himself to be a divine being. Please provide evidence to back up your claims.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 03:55 PM
link   
What I saw in the linked story was that 300 to 400 thousand were estimated by the provisional Govt

[QUOTE] The mass graves announcement was made November 8, 2003 by Sandra Hodgkinson, at the time director of the Provisional Authority’s Mass Graves Action Plan. Hodgkinson reported that there were “reports” from Iraqis and that they believed the estimates of sites and bodies. She said they had confirmed 40 sites and identified 2,115 bodies.
[/QUOTE]

Blaire later said that the provisional may have over estimated by 88% on that 300,000 to 400,000 which puts it in the range of 36,000 to 48,000 murdered.
I did a quick search and found that very little resource is being given to this, and that those same sites are still being counted, as new sites are popping up all over.

All of that brings me to this. What has that got to do with Bush or Iran???

The US will not be invading Iran.
People really need to put aside their feelings. THe election is over already.
Its time to hate someone else.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 04:09 PM
link   
They should just come clean with the real reason for needing to go to war with Iran because once the real reason is known the streets will be filled with pro-war protesters. Last time i checked there was no Bush statue there, so it is absolutely immperitive that we act now to remedy this. How could you let the people of Iran live under a regime that doesn't give them the god given right to a Bush statue? I for one could not be happier about the real reason for any future war with Iran.

[edit on 4-2-2005 by Trent]



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 04:12 PM
link   
I just don't understand how can half of the population of the US could reelect this mother****** ...
I think maybe 5 percents of you're population is just crazy and want to dominate the world like Bush, the half is controlled by the media and the propaganda and the rest is against Bush and his ideas of put the earth in ashes...



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trent
They should just come clean with the real reason for needing to go to war with Iran because once the real reason is known the streets will be filled with pro-war protesters.
[edit on 4-2-2005 by Trent]


Well I will have to agree with you on this one, you are right they need to stop going around the "bushes" and tell the American people what is in our God Send president agenda.

For what I have gathered so far, due to some leaks from the white house on time magazine is that the time table has been set for June, and that the so call "attack on strategic areas" has been on the table at the white house since the invasion of Iraq.

So what is the big deal on misleading the American people? Well unless they are waiting for another 9/11 to blamed this time on Iran I will have to said that they like to play with our minds.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043


For what I have gathered so far, due to some leaks from the white house on time magazine is that the time table has been set for June, and that the so call "attack on strategic areas" has been on the table at the white house since the invasion of Iraq.

So what is the big deal on misleading the American people? Well unless they are waiting for another 9/11 to blamed this time on Iran I will have to said that they like to play with our minds.


So what you are saying is the white house ALREADY has plans to invade Iran? So I suppose they are still telling the truth when Rice says we have NO plans to go to war "at the present time".

And all this talk about the oppressive regime in Iran is talk to acclimate us to the idea of invading. Sounds like the only thing stopping the U.S. from going into Iran is the prep thats needed to soften up the American public.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 09:23 AM
link   
I must apologize for my earlier post as it seems it was ill placed.

I now see this thread was meant as a place to come and support their political view and bash those who oppose it.

Sorry for the wasted space. I will immediatly form a personal opinion on the issue based on zero facts, and then coat it with generous amounts of sarcasm and then get back to you ASAP.

Again, sorry for the inconvenience


Jake



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 09:37 AM
link   
It's not so much that the US is CHANGING it's reasons, but more that it's adding to the existing list.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Anybody who says they care about Iran's human rights violations probably didn't care until somebody in the government mentioned it.

I doubt they truly even care at all. Nobody cared about Iraq until told to.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Well it does not surprised me, remember that the Invasion of Iraq, started with the MWDs, and then move on to Sadam was a brutal dictator that killed many of his citizens, and then US never found the hundreds of thousands of mass graves and either the MWDs.

So is just the same pattern we are seen here.


Mass graves: "The scope of the problem is immense. ... [There are] an estimated 300,000 missing people," says Haglund. "Easily, this is a 50-year job."

www.insightmag.com...

Let's turn the page to Aljazeera and scoop their story: " During his reign, Saddam pushed hundreds of thousands of Arabs into Kurdish areas to force the locals out. He is accused of widespread abuses against the Kurds, including the "Anfal" (The Spoils) campaign in 1988, during which thousands died in a mustard gas attack. Human Rights Watch estimates that more than 50,000 Kurds were killed during the campaign." Human Rights organizations also estimate that more than 300,000 people during Saddam's 24-year rulewas killed before US-led forces toppled his regime.

"Some of the mothers died still holding their children. One young boy still held a ball in his tiny arms." Marge, regardless of how many thousand Iraqi was killed, be it one thousand or one million, where was the international community when that little boy was shot..."still holding a ball." How inhuman of anyone to use a post about the "number" of people murdered by Saddam to justify attacking Bush.

Kurds were killed because of their ethnicity. Shiites because of their religion. Sunnis killed because of their political views. Egyptians, Kuwaities, Iranians killed because their lives meant nothing to Saddam, his sons and their followers.

english.aljazeera.net...

www.taipeitimes.com...

I lay the present terrorist blame at Carter and Ramsey Clark's feet. Carter allowed Khomeini to seize power in Iran and, as a result, we are now reaping the harvest of anti-American fanaticism and extremism. Khomeini unleashed the hybrid of Islam and Marxism that has spawned suicide bombers and hijackers. President Jimmy Carter, and the extremists in his administration are to blame and should be held accountable.


www.americanewsnet.com...

www.venusproject.com...

www.iranianvoice.org...



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
In months past, I would have said that doing so, would be political suicide...

However, Dubya has proved me wrong. I would think that an illegal war would be political suicide, but it ended up getting him re-elected, go figure...
It seems that over half of America (or so they'd have us believe) has given Bush carte blanche for any action that he fancies..


What war that has ever been fought was legal? All wars are illegal because they involve murder.

Is it differnet to defend yourself from attack or if you attack someone because you think they will attack you later on?

[edit on 5-2-2005 by cryptorsa1001]



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001

Is it differnet to defend yourself from attack or if you attack someone because you think they will attack you later on?

[edit on 5-2-2005 by cryptorsa1001]


Yes, very different.
Pre-emptive warfare or 'attacking because they were going to attack us' is being the catalyst for war, the initiator; it is being the perpetrator of the death and destruction. Such actions are not classed as defending yourself, but rather label you as the aggressor.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
This government will tell you what works and has worked in the past.
Now they will say they have to free them from the evil goernment.
And then there will be talk about a Bush statue there too.
How many statues do you think he'll get before someone drops the big one on us?

Bush, "the mad liberator"


Right, anything they can say to have population "with them" manipulation of the masses by saying that they want to free iraquis, terrorism and all the speech
Don't forget, speech that the president say is all think by professional of "communication in politics' to make the message right for people to accept it and LOVE it. It's pure and total manipulation...Bush said "freedom" 21 times and "liberty" 14 times in his opening speech....That is all register in people minds, you have to protect yourself from the "waves" of manipulation....
They have a dark agenda, nothing is good about these war or attacks, it's all for their own purpose, nothing to do with poor population

Ameliaxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Denied ignorance yourself.



Horrors of Iraq’s mass graves’ 1. www.shianews.com...

Link, speculation not actual accountability.



Pics of Muhammad Sakran village. 1. hrw.org...

Old pictures no accountability.



Iraq's Legacy of Terror: Mass Graves’
1. www.usaid.gov...
If these numbers prove accurate, they represent a crime against humanity surpassed only by the Rwandan genocide of 1994, Pol Pot's Cambodian killing fields in the 1970s, and the Nazi Holocaust of World War II.


Contradictory at the end speculations of accountability. Most of the graves found where from the first gulf war.




Mass Graves of Iraq: Uncovering Atrocities’
1. www.state.gov...



Old news of again speculations.






1. www.abc.net.au...


Old speculations of mass graves.



Tony Blair’s office admitted that the number of bodies that had been found in mass graves had been exaggerated by 88%. The number of bodies was put at 5,114 and the estimates of 300,000-400,000 unsubstantiated. They further stated that the remaining 215 suspected grave sites had yet to be examined and confirmed. The larger numbers were only based on estimates of estimates and when forensic teams went to the sites, claims of 10,000 buried converted into several hundred.

The British are the source of USAID’s report on the subject. Therein they also cite Human Rights Watch. But Human Rights Watch did not consider the conditions in Iraq defensible in terms of humanitarian intervention: “The lack of ongoing or imminent mass slaughter was itself sufficient to disqualify the invasion of Iraq as a humanitarian intervention.” Amnesty International is also enlisted as support.


The mass graves where never found the total of speculated to the amount of actually bodies found did not match.

www.interventionmag.com...

Now how many Iraqi has lost their lives since the invasion?

Speculation under the hundreds of thousands.

Reality we will never know because tags are not kept on civilian deaths since the war.

Deny ignorance, more people have been killed in Iraq since the invasion that during Sadams regime of terror.

But will remind speculations just like the mass graves.




I guess since there aren't millions of people in mass graves, and only thousands found so far, that it is OK.

You know - your right. Sadam isn't so bad after all now. He only had a few mass graves. And yeah, he tortured a lot of people, but they were his own people so in retrospect, I guess it was OK.



How can you all try to argue that Saddam wasn't that bad.

It is really sick that you do it just to attack Bush. I bet if it was your father/son/mother/daughter/friend, you would think a bit different.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join