It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by American Mad Man
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.
Originally posted by jupiter869
Could the White House be setting the tone for a strike to free Iran’s citizens from “the unelected few” who run Iran rather than to attack Iran in order to relieve them of their weapons of mass destruction?
[edit on 4-2-2005 by jupiter869]
Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
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?
there were additional amendments enacted by Turkey in the1990's, which the international community groaned about, but accepted!
Quote: In 1936 the Treaty of Montreaux, guaranteeing free passage in peacetime of the Bosphorus Straits was signed...
Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Congress is wisely rejecting the WMD excuse, they were suckered once by it, they wont be easily fooled a second time. The US public is pretty unhappy with Iraq, once we found there were no WMD.
Human rights abuses wont promt congress to allow an invasion. After all, look how long the Taliban got away with its abuses, and no one really felt like invading.