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.


POLITICS: 53% of America says Iraq war was not worth it

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 04:09 AM
Well we got Saddam and killed his kids. Was that worth $300 billion? We don't have Omar (head of the Taliban). We don't have bin Laden and his right hand man. We didn't get the WMD. The people of Iraq aren't safe. We have lost over a thousand men. Was it worth it? What do you think?

posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 07:04 AM

Originally posted by warthog911
I smell a civil war.John titor could still be right and i dont want him to be right.Why cant the congress impeach bush as no wmd were found.

Titor did say to look at the voting maps to see the breakdown of the civil war. From the article they are implying that there was a clear split in political parties for people who supported the war and people who were against it. However, I can't see this being the reason for an all out civil war. Now if evidence was brought forth to reveal a government plot of 9/11 and the War on Iraq was the after effect then yes...I could see some Titor in it.

posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 12:48 AM

The Cost of War calculator is set to reach $207.5 billion at the end of fiscal year 2005 (September 30, 2005)
We are spending about 200 Billion dollars as of Sept 30, 2005.

1/5th of a TRILLION dollars! For WMDs that didn't exist.

In the 'name' of Homeland Security we spend 10 billion on trailers for hauling lawnmowers to the annual lawnmower race in Converse TX, Segways in Santa Clara CA, But citizens of AZ, who are just plain fed up with the millions of illegals crossing through their lands, have to take on the job the Federal government has failed to do.

Yet the Federal Government can't come up with a single billion to secure our southern border with Mexico, where Millions of illegal aliens violate our borders each year.

Because Cargill meatpacking and other American corporations want to be able to hire slave labor.
The federal government supports shipping high tech jobs overseas to low-wage techies elsewhere. In support of American corporations it wants to flood the US labor market with illegal aliens.

Culturally and Economically this country is on the ropes.
And since the Government who should be a referee has sold out to big business I think it is a lost cause.

We spent a 1/5th of a Trillion dollars for WMDs that didn't exist,
While not securing our immediate borders.

That is like tracking down the neighbor down the street and shooting and killing him for a robbery he didn't commit, while in the meantime our own home is left wide open. It makes no sense. Is it any wonder that the majority of Americans don't support this pointless war? My question is why do they support this government at all.

posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 12:51 AM
I like some of your points.

Message to Mexico:

You want to come across our border, FINE, DO IT LEGALLY! Bunch of foolish jerks i tell ya!

posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 01:29 AM

Originally posted by Indy
Well we got Saddam and killed his kids. Was that worth $300 billion? We don't have Omar (head of the Taliban). We don't have bin Laden and his right hand man. We didn't get the WMD. The people of Iraq aren't safe. We have lost over a thousand men. Was it worth it? What do you think?

We toppled a regime that was using and would have continued using and funding terrorists against the US and our allies. Even if Saddam/Iraq was a scapegoat thrown in by the Kremlin to lure us into this war, it would have happened sooner or later.

BTW could you tell us how exactly where the Iraqi people safer with Saddam in power?..... Are you one of those people who seems to think that Iraq is only Baghdag?

One more thing, do you even know how many people in Baghdag were killed by Saddam?...

Survey: Saddam killed 61,000 in Baghdad
( 2003-12-09 08:49) (Agencies)

Saddam Hussein's government may have executed 61,000 Baghdad residents, a number significantly higher than previously believed, according to a survey obtained Monday by The Associated Press.

The bloodiest massacres of Saddam's 23-year presidency occurred in Iraq's Kurdish north and Shiite Muslim south, but the Gallup Baghdad Survey data indicates the brutality extended strongly into the capital as well.

The survey, which the polling firm planned to release on Tuesday, asked 1,178 Baghdad residents in August and September whether a member of their household had been executed by Saddam's regime. According to Gallup, 6.6 percent said yes.

Excerpted from.

Even if the poll is not accurate, which I really doubt it is, it does show that Saddam was killing even civilians in Baghdag, and let's not mention the ways in which his two sons killed people and the reasons why....

Now iraqis are actually working on starting a government...their new-found freedom can be seen in their ability to protest against the coalition...something which they could not do with Saddam in power.

[edit on 23-4-2005 by Muaddib]

posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 02:55 PM

Originally posted by Muaddib
What "new" enemies?.......

Everyone in Iraq who thinks we shouldn't have attacked them. Every relative of innocent civilians who were killed. You honestly think you can invade a country (and without reason!) without making new enemies?

Every intelligence agency believed that Saddam had WMD, former president Clinton also believed there were wmd....we also have evidence that seems to point that the Russians helped the Iraqis hide these weapons because it was not in their best interest for the coalition to find who gave Saddam these wmd....

They were wrong. That's why we generally make sure we have real evidence before we condemn people.

There were truckloads of documents dealing with wmd programs which we found. Saddam kept them for a reason and not to look good in some bunkers....

Papers? Oh yeah, those are very dangerous.
They were probably all 20 years old too. BTW, I can do research on WMD and have as many documents as I want in my basement. Does that mean I have WMD?

We also found traces of some of that weaponry that Saddam was not supposed to have...first they fired 4-6 missiles which were banned and they were not supposed to have upon the coalition at the beginning of the war....(whether it was 6 or 600 doesn't matter, they were not supposed to have them according to the UN sanctions...) and also several missile parts and rockets were found in scrap yards around the world which were banned and Saddam got rid up before the war started.... The list of evidence is long and we have discussed it and presented this evidence in these forums...

Even if that's true, they weren't a threat to the US. Not even close.

Even if Kerry would have been choosen as a president or anyone else would have been choosen as president the only solution that we had at the time was exactly what was done.

And that makes it right? Sorry, that doesn't do it for me. Two anti-logic idiots don't make logic.

I just don't understand why people are so blind after all the evidence that has been presented and which even comes from other countries.....

There really is no evidence of anything that was:
1. Dangerous
2. A threat to the US.

Even authorities in Spain found evidence of a link between Al Qaeda and the iraqi embassy among some other evidence they found.....

Saddam was aidding and abetting terrorist against the US and Israelis.... so, he was a threat towards the US and US interests....

Even the Russian put in the last luring trap telling us after 9/11 and up until the war started that their intelligence agencies, and by the word of Putin himself, Saddam was seeking terrorists to make attacks on US soil and US interests..... of course the Russians knew this information and it was true...they helped to set this up.

BS hearsay.
If I say I'm planning to attack you, there's nothing you can do about it, legally, until I do....unless someone finds real evidence suggesting so. This aiding and abetting is complete BS, IMO. There's about as much proof to support that as there is Iraq had WMD.

We toppled a regime that was using and would have continued using and funding terrorists against the US and our allies. Even if Saddam/Iraq was a scapegoat thrown in by the Kremlin to lure us into this war, it would have happened sooner or later.

Where do you get this crap? They made statements that claimed they had evidence, but never produced any! You're the one who's blind, if you don't see that yet. Your president even admitted it, and you still don't believe it??? Read...

“I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection,” Mr. Powell said, in response to a question at a news conference. “But I think the possibility of such connections did exist, and it was prudent to consider them at the time that we did.”

Mr. Powell’s remarks on Thursday were a stark admission that there is no definitive evidence to back up administration statements and insinuations that Saddam Hussein had ties to Al Qaeda, the acknowledged authors of the Sept. 11 attacks. Although President Bush finally acknowledged in September that there was no known connection between Mr. Hussein and the attacks, the impression of a link in the public mind has become widely accepted ? and something administration officials have done little to discourage.

"The evidence now shows clearly that Saddam did not want to work with Osama bin Laden at all, much less give him weapons of mass destruction." So claimed Al Gore in an August 7 speech. "There is evidence of exaggeration" of Iraq-al Qaeda links, said Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who recently launched an investigation into prewar intelligence. "Clearly the al Qaeda connection was hyped and exaggerated, in my view," said Senator Dianne Feinsten. Chimed in Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Select Committee on Intelligence, as reported in the National Journal, "The evidence on the al Qaeda links was sketchy." Jay Rockefeller, the ranking Democrat on the Senate side of that committee, agrees. "The evidence about the ties was not compelling."

[edit on 25-4-2005 by Moe Foe]

posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 08:32 PM

For relevancy...

posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 10:21 PM

Originally posted by Simulacra
I think what's notable in the article is that most democrats are less likely to support the war as opposed to republicans which is bizarre in the least.

If our president was a Democrat and used the same methods as George Bush would democrats still oppose the war?

Yes I think that. I'm not a Democrat but I might as well be one... so don't mind me if I say "we" in reference to Democrats. We have a tendency to oppose other Democrats on a larger scale than than Republicans opposing other rebublicans. I mean look what we did out here in California. WE voted out Davis and we replaced him with Schwarzenegger! WE! SCHWARZENEGGER! Now I didn't vote for him, but he had excellent public opinion up until just recently. It's like everyone was surprised when he started acting like a Republican.
"Hey wait a minute, I though Arnold was going to support bussinesses in the way that Democrats supported businesses! I thought he was going to give more money to the school system! What's going on here?"

Except for the fact that my college tuition has more than tripled since Schwarzenegger's been in office, I've always found the whole thing to be quite hilarious.

But anyway, back to Bush vs. Democrats. I think it's safe to say that most people who count themselves as Democrats do so because they are liberal and don't want the Republicans to run the country (whoops). We lack a certain kind of party loyalty that's required to actually win many elections. We also lack the type of loyalty required to support our politicians in government. I think that if a Democrat went to war, maybe more Democrats would support it, but not many more... I know I wouldn't.

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in