It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Should the U.S be stop?

page: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 08:17 AM

Originally posted by Heartagram
Maybe it's your nature to feel heartless for the dead I don't know.

Oh, I think you do know. I think you have created my argument for me without knowing..or at the very least wanting to acknowledge all the facts.

All of us in the US hate this war. We are losing fathers, sons, mothers, daughters, brothers and sisters every day. We see the photos of the Iraqis bombed by their "protectors" the Saudis being treated in our Army hospitals and it is sickening. However, we also see a new country emerging where females are not beaten and raped lawfully, where people are not being fed feet first into plastic shredders because some damned paranoid dictator fears them. Is the lack of these events something you miss? Of course not, but your argument that we like losing our country men or that we like it that Iraqi citizens are being killed right along with them is about as ludacrous as me implying you agreed with Saddam's reign of death. You didn't did you? I'm just giving you the benefit of being human there. I hope I do not misjudge.

But, after 12 long years of tension, after major terror attacks all over the world including here in the US, and after Saddam's blatant refusal to comply with sanctions and resolutions not to mention his continued threats of biologic, chemical, and nuclear development and use against our people and his own for that matter, it had gone about as far as it was going to go.

You lack the ability to admit all that and to also admit you are are powerless to do a damn thing about it. If it were you living under that regeme, my guess is you would be jumping straight up and down for the US to fullfil our "obligation to human rights" and deliver you from it. Thus back to my point that its easy to make the decisions for others when its not you. My other guess is you're offended because maybe, no one asked you to make the decision or gave a rats behind about your opinion..(and still don't). Just because a few squeeky wheels can't live one day without protesting something in front of a camera does not mean this county is not fully behind the mission underway or that we do not morn the dead and know they suffer or families here suffer from lose. It has always been the price to pay for the freedom of people like Saddam. This country is very much in touch with the reality of the situation..well most of us. I can't vouch for the hollywood gulfstream liberals. I think they live in a world all their own.

posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 08:21 AM

Originally posted by Heartagram

Oh,indeed U.S had committed war crimes.You can go ahead and deny it and counter it with some other country's problem.We're talking about U.S crimes and not any other.

Read on:

So what you're saying...we're hopeless?Sad.....

And thanks for the links. I can see the propaganda machine is running full speed ahead.

posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 08:30 AM
Because we aren't going to give up our sovereignity to a bunch of belgans.

posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 08:36 AM
Yes,it is true that the Iraqis are much better now.That's because of our honourable U.S friends.As much as I would like to burst your bubble that Iraq was AT LEAST much more better with Saddam around,I don't want to break you picturesque idea of them but I will.You seem to think that Iraqi are worthless and they need someone to fill in their uprising for them.Didn't you know there was less insurgency battles in Iraq then than there is now?Iraq was much safer in terms of robberies and looting than it is now?The rich in Iraq are being ransacked of their wealth by so called "liberated Iraqis".Yes,Iraq has freedom now.I am happy for them but freedom is something you can't taste nor touch.Freedom isn't there to stay.

Moreover,you should know that democracy is being rejected in Iraq.Most Iraqs rather return to the theocracy government they had than having a democratic one.What does this tells you about the invasion of Iraq?Totally just to kill some Saddam Loyalist and hunt down that damn Saddam.That's all U.S did.Kill some and arrest some and just said "oh,you people are free,have fun!".I have the guts to tell you that Iraq will be just another corrupt country like the previous Saddam-controlled ones.

Anywas,should you think U.S is just practising it's right to fulfill the OBLIGATION to help the oppressed,you should also know that by freeing others you are oppressing another.Retribution?Who are the U.S to police the world?

I understand if you have the need to defend your country.Patriotism is noble.Just don't let it control you.

posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 08:46 AM
Okay then, Good luck with all...that. I'll U2U you the telephone number of who to call and stop the whole thing, turn back time and make the world just how you want it. Check your in-box. Its on its way.

Seriously, your last post was really reaching and unrealistic. We are so far apart on this, I can see no benefit to taking this any further. All I have to say is what I have already said. Repeating isn't going to make it sink in any further. Likewise, following your links to people who have the same perception you do will not change my view because I don't buy everything I read on the net. Actually, very little of it. Just because someone uploads it to a site does not make it gospel. I can say the sky is falling on a web site. (Umm. don't take that litteraly and run for cover. Its a figure of speech.)

posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 09:21 AM

Originally posted by Heartagram

Who in the hell says this thread is about anti-America disguise with sugarcoatings kozmo?My point is straight and frank-SHOULD the U.S be stop?See at the end of the phrase there's a question mark and this shows a question.I am asking and not shutting everyone up and saying America should be stop.

Anyways,I'd love for you to explain to me and the others about the "WMD,oh no!let's change it to operation Iraqi freedom!" issue,kozmo.Explained with full details and links than I'll shut my gap up and call myself naughty.

[edit on 25/2/05 by Heartagram]

Oh heartagram, you have just crossed the threashold into the realm of Pandora's box. You want to discuss WMD in Iraq? Gladly! Links? No problem, I could actually furnish THOUSANDS!

Let's begin with the UN, shall we? 18, that's EIGHTEEN, UN resolutions passed by the UN in an attempt to delivery transparency to the Iraq/Saddam/WMD issue. Click this link for resolutions:

In reviewing the above link, I am hopeful that you took the time to read, CAREFULLY, the details of each resolution, their goals and objectives and the implied consequences for failure to comply. What is necessary to address is that these resolutions were PASSED by the UN Security Council. A "yes" vote for the passage of such resolution indicates a vote of both confidence in and agreement with the content and context of said resolution. Each resolution was passed unanamously with the exception of 1441 which saw two abstaining votes and zero "no" votes.

While vigorously campaigning the UN Security Council, Colin Powell made it perfectly clear that the "Serious consequences" in Res 1441 would mean military action and he implored each representative of the council to either abstain from the vote or enter a "no" vote if they felt that they could not support military action against a Iraq as a consequence for non-compliance. The following is the excerpt from Res 1441: "13. Recalls, in that context, the the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of it's continued violations of it's obligations; " Neither Powell nor the US minced words on it's intent to fully enforce this resolution once passed, with or without the direct aid of the UN recognizing it's full legal authority to independently preside over such article as mandated by the UN bylaws.

For a full text version of this resolution, click the following:

Now, heartagram, let me ask you a question... What good is the UN if it requires the passage of EIGHTEEN resolutions against a nation, each containing the same premise, followed by blatant violations by the nation in question and then fails to act in accordance with it's own mandates? The simple passage of such resolution clearly demonstrates that the ENTIRE WORLD believed, via it's UN representatives "Yes" votes supporting said resolutions, that Saddam Hussein had WMD?

Now let's take a closer look at those WMDs, shall we? Read the following for a listing of clandestine weapon programs as believed by the CIA: . Click here for information from both the CIA and the UK, including the testominy of Blix and Albaredei along with UNMOVIC AND IAEA reports, regarding these programs: . Also, I am providing alink to David Kay's testimony with respect to these programs AFTER the conflict began, it is here: .

Of particular importance is the following excerpt from his testimony: "Why are we having such difficulty in finding weapons or in reaching a confident conclusion that they do not exist or that they once existed but have been removed? Our search efforts are being hindered by six principal factors:

From birth all of Iraq's WMD activities were highly compartmentalized within a regime that ruled and kept its secrets through fear and terror and with deception and denial built into each program.
Deliberate dispersal and destruction of material and documentation related to weapons programs began pre-conflict and ran trans- to post-conflict.
Post-OIF looting destroyed or dispersed important and easily collectable material and forensic evidence concerning Iraq's WMD program. As the report covers in detail, significant elements of this looting were carried out in a systematic and deliberate manner, with the clear aim of concealing pre-OIF activities of Saddam's regime.
Some WMD personnel crossed borders in the pre/trans-conflict period and may have taken evidence and even weapons-related materials with them.
Any actual WMD weapons or material is likely to be small in relation to the total conventional armaments footprint and difficult to near impossible to identify with normal search procedures. It is important to keep in mind that even the bulkiest materials we are searching for, in the quantities we would expect to find, can be concealed in spaces not much larger than a two-car garage.
The environment in Iraq remains far from permissive for our activities, with many Iraqis that we talk to reporting threats and overt acts of intimidation and our own personnel being the subject of threats and attacks. In September alone we have had three attacks on ISG facilities or teams: The ISG base in Irbil was bombed and four staff injured, two very seriously; a two-person team had their vehicle blocked by gunmen and only escaped by firing back through their own windshield; and on Wednesday, September 24, the ISG Headquarters in Baghdad again was subject to mortar attack.
What have we found and what have we not found in the first three months of our work?

We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the U.N."

Notice, this statement supports SPECIFICALLY a material breach of any and ALL UN resolutions pertaining to Saddam's WMD program.

Furthermore, the international community was aware of Saddam's prior use of such weapons against his own people. In addition, evidence was surfacing regarding Saddam's material support to terrorist organizations around the the world. Some examples include paying $25K to the family of Palestinian suicide bombers, the exsistence of the Salman Pak hijacking training camp located south of Baghdad, and countless other examples. According to Ambassador Bremmer's comments, he stated, "it is incontestable that Iraq has supported terrorism. Iraq has been on the State Department list of states that support terrorism for more than twenty years. At least two major terrorist groups have had their headquarters openly in Baghdad for most of that time--the Palestine Liberation Front and the Mujahedin-e Khalq. Moreover, as the President said last night, known international terrorists like Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal have lived openly in Baghdad--in the case of Abu Abbas, more than twenty years, and Abu Nidal, for more than a decade. So it is incontestable that Iraq is a supporter of terrorism, and on that there is no disagreement. [NOTE: Public denunciation of Iraq's sponsorship of terrorism predates 9/11. The cases cited by the President were covered, for example, in the Patterns of Global Terrorism report for 2000, especially in the report's Overview, which can be accessed at: .

Now, heartagram, let's be honest here... a direct absence of evidence does not translate into evidence of absence. In fact, given just the few examples (with documentation) to support my claim, it is inherently evident that there was clearly evidence to support the existence of such weapons and programs. Were we, as a country, as the sole super-power, in the wake of a colossal terrorist attack upon our own soil, supposed to sit back and wait for the proliferation of such weapons and programs and their subsequent use prior to taking such action? Such an approach has proven to be fruitless in dealing with the likes of North Korea and Iran, both of which either possess or are near possession of nuclear capabilities. Additionally, taking a passive approach to the problem has led to massive proliferation from the likes of Pakistan's own Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan.

Am I to believe that you advocate the reactionary approach to these global problems as opposed to a proactive and preventative approach?

Now, to address the underlying contect of this thread regarding America-bashing, which is evidenct here. We, the United States, are being condemned for taking the VERY ACTION that has been repeatedly threatened by the international community. A dog's bark is not so effective as it's bite. A barking dog in the absence of it's ability to bite quickly becomes ignored. In the case of Iraq the international community had been barking for over a decade with no bite. It was becoming apparent that Saddam was becoming emboldened in the absence of real consequences.

We, the US, are not an imperialist nation. As I have stated numerous times in other threads, we have failed to take both necessary action or appropriate action in the past and I remain concinved that we, as nation, have learned from those mistakes and strive to make the global community a safer and prosperous place. As evidenced in my prior post, we have NEVER taken either unilateral or pre-emptive action against another nation without first consulting with the UN or the global community.

In the absence of strong UN resolutions against either N Korea and Iran, we have NOT threatened military, especially unilateral or pre-emptive, action against either nation. In fact, we continue to lobby both the UN AND the international community for aid in solving this problem through diplomatic channels, although the threat of military action remains. That is the potential bite of the barking dog which we hope will persuade these countries to act in the greater interest of it's people and the international community in general.

Can I now expect you to "Roll over and call yourself naughty"?

posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 09:56 AM

You seem to think that Iraqi are worthless and they need someone to fill in their uprising for them.Didn't you know there was less insurgency battles in Iraq then than there is now?Iraq was much safer in terms of robberies and looting than it is now?

Exactly Iraq wasnt a very bad place to be until americans came along, now its a warzone. Americans think they can teach other cultures how to live but they dont even know how to live themselves.

posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 10:14 AM
Hm, you know, I wouldn't put much trust into the U.N. for anything anymore.

Most of them are corrupt leaders, who they recently found were taking BRIBES from Mr. Saddam Hussein.

What were the bribes for? To keep the U.S. out of Iraq.

Other scandals? The countries that opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the main ones anyways (Spain, Germany, France, etc.), were all getting money from Hussein.

Coincidence? I think not.

Let the U.N. decide anything, this world is over.


posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 03:18 PM
Curtain Call

Originally posted by Heartagram
Can I ask you this,why did U.S withdrew from the ICC?Reminds me of Japan when it withdrew from the League of Nations and went on it's invasion spree.

The U.S. has never been subject to the International Criminal Court, and never supported it.

So if it "reminds" you of Japan, you are being "reminded" by something that never happened.

I have no idea where you got the idea from, but it's utterly false. The ICC wasn't even created until 1998, and didn't have any statutory authority until 2002. Not a lot of time to join and then withdraw.

Anyway, it's been a fun thread, but it looks more like gratuitous point-pharming than anything else to me at this point, and nothing I see here isn't addressed in-topic and in greater depth in another thread that precedes it.

As Ahnold might say: "Hasta la vista, threadie."

Heartagram, have fun, see you around and don't take any wooden merlions.

posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 01:07 PM
whats the difference either way, when its all been a staged conspiracy?.

<< 3  4  5   >>

log in