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.

 

War in Iraq--Travesty, waste of time and lives

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2005 @ 03:18 PM
link   
This is in reply to edsinger's post. Now I have nothing against edsinger, mind you.

What's wrong with the war in Iraq:

--It's unconstitutional. Nation-building is forbidden by the Constitution. Any Trekkers out there remember that Prime Directive thing about non-interference? We have our own Prime Directive, called the Constitution, that politicians conveniently ignore.

--It's based on lies. Where are those WMDs again? Know the reasons I've heard justifying this war? Anything from "freeing a nation" to "WMDs" to "hunting down terrorists." None of which is valid.

--Saddam wasn't even a threat. All you had was the Bush Administration running around like a bunch of Chicken Littles screaming that the sky was falling. They're good at crying wolf, aren't they?

Yeah, it's great if Iraqis get to vote...but one has to wonder if the new Iraqi government isn't some kind of PUPPET government. I wouldn't be surprised if it were! In that case, the "freeing a nation" thing is a load of hooey.


Oh--and I'm not a liberal. If it were a just war, say Iraq actually DID attack us, then I'd say go kick some tail.

I'm just against unconstitutional wars. Thirty years ago it was Viet Nam. Today it's Iraq. And I'm wondering who's next. Probably a toss-up between Iran and Syria.




posted on May, 9 2005 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
This is in reply to edsinger's post.



If this in reply to edsinger's post, why not post it there?

Sorry for the one-line response, but that is the only item in this post to which I care to reply.



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 03:30 PM
link   
dats yer opinion, i dont know wats unconstitutional animore.



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 03:35 PM
link   
A couple questions, not trying to start anything, I honestly want to know.

- When the Clinton Administration bombed Iraq on several occasions, what was that considered? Where they also "chicken littles" or "crying wolf"?

- How does Iraq possibly having a "puppet" government affect you in a negative way?



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
A couple questions, not trying to start anything, I honestly want to know.

- When the Clinton Administration bombed Iraq on several occasions, what was that considered? Where they also "chicken littles" or "crying wolf"?


Clinton bombed Iraq? What for? And where were the liberals screaming about Iraq then? (Curious how they perpetuate the Republican vs. Democrat scam, isn't it?)


- How does Iraq possibly having a "puppet" government affect you in a negative way?


Think New World Order. That's what this stuff is leading up to.



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 05:29 PM
link   
I agree with you 100%

...except I think you have a misconception of liberals here...


Originally posted by Amethyst
Oh--and I'm not a liberal. If it were a just war, say Iraq actually DID attack us, then I'd say go kick some tail.


Most liberals would agree with you that if the United States were to be attacked by another country...that would be a "just" cause for war. Please don't take broad generalizations such as "peace loving liberal", "hippy tree-hugger" "heart bleeding liberal", etc. too seriously. Trust me...liberals do not tolerate being walked on, why do you think the other side feels so threatened that they resort to name-calling/liberal bashing whenever a liberal takes a stand?

I'm sure there are tons of issues we disagree on...but not this.


I'm just against unconstitutional wars. Thirty years ago it was Viet Nam. Today it's Iraq. And I'm wondering who's next. Probably a toss-up between Iran and Syria.


Exactly. Iraq was a waste of time, money and most importantly...lives, on both sides...it disgusts me. You yourself prove that it doesn't take a liberal to figure that out (I know you are far from it lol), that this is beyond petty politics.

What really boils my blood is when certain individuals bring up that the Iraqi's can vote now...as if we only had good intentions for the people of Iraq, we were only trying to help. It's those same people who swore up and down that there were WMD and rather than admitting we were wrong, they make excuses to justify themselves (and their savior GWB who does no wrong). or they will announce that disagreeing with war means you hate America.

Sure, it would be great if the middle east were to become a democracy, it would make everything a whole lot easier, but I'm not willing to send our own troops to die for another country's "freedom" (notice the quotation marks)..."freedom" that people didn't even ask for. I don't like the fact that our tax dollars are spent on building another nation...call me selfish if you want, but United States has some problems of its own to deal with.

When the world's superpower starts abusing their own power...it doesn't take long for the rest of the world to notice.



[edit on 5/9/2005 by Lecky]



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
A couple questions, not trying to start anything, I honestly want to know.

- When the Clinton Administration bombed Iraq on several occasions, what was that considered? Where they also "chicken littles" or "crying wolf"?


Clinton bombed Iraq? What for? And where were the liberals screaming about Iraq then? (Curious how they perpetuate the Republican vs. Democrat scam, isn't it?)


- How does Iraq possibly having a "puppet" government affect you in a negative way?


Think New World Order. That's what this stuff is leading up to.


It's obvious by your response that you are not a history expert. Clinton bombed Iraq? Jeesh how old are you? 12?

We took Sadamm out of power because he failed to follow UN resolutions. Plain and simple. No WMDS? Then why did Sadamm kick out inspectors, if there was nothing to hide?



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 11:39 PM
link   
Fact: no WMDs

It’s time to accept this

Here you go…I even included Fox News to be “fair and balanced”

USA Today - No WMDs
MSNBC - CIA Final Report - Nada
BBC - USA Gives up search for WMDs
CNN - yadda yadda yadda
FoxNews - No WMPs made in Iraq after 91'

Back in January, the government accepted that there were no WMDs, why can’t you?


“The United States is taking steps to determine how it received erroneous intelligence that deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was developing and stockpiling nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Wednesday.” CNN


Even FoxNews can’t hide from the truth this time, although in their efforts to be “fair and balanced”, they include responses from the White House! Bush’s response:



“There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks. In the world after Sept. 11, that was a risk we could not afford to take.”


(note the use of inappropriate linkage to 911!)

Basically this means that we went to war b/c Saddam could have maybe supported terrorists in the future…the same terrorists that he has NO TIES to (as stated numerous times in the above articles).

Soldiers died for crimes that Saddam may supposedly commit in the future…BUT IT WAS ALL WORTH IT RIGHT? Keep telling yourselves that.



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 04:34 AM
link   
Carseller,

"We took Sadamm out of power because he failed to follow UN resolutions. Plain and simple."

No he did not. Try getting your facts right

"No WMDS"

Well done on getting this right. There were no WMDs in Iraq until the US moved in recently.

Then why did Sadamm kick out inspectors, if there was nothing to hide?"

The inspectors left as opposed to being kicked out. They feared for their safety when the US attacked, not from the Iraqis but from being killed in a raid by American bombs.

Cheers

BHR



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
Carseller,

"We took Sadamm out of power because he failed to follow UN resolutions. Plain and simple."

No he did not. Try getting your facts right

"No WMDS"

Well done on getting this right. There were no WMDs in Iraq until the US moved in recently.

Then why did Sadamm kick out inspectors, if there was nothing to hide?"

The inspectors left as opposed to being kicked out. They feared for their safety when the US attacked, not from the Iraqis but from being killed in a raid by American bombs.

Cheers

BHR


Sadamm originally kicked out UN inspectors in 1998. 1998 to 2002, 4 years is a long time to destroy, and hide WMD's. To say there was never WMD's is just plain dumb.



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 07:07 AM
link   
Carseller,

So where are they?

I am not denying that prior to 1991 there were WMDs. I might even admit to there being some after that period but not many.

However, when we come to 2000 onwards I think that the facts we know today speak for themselves. No evidence of WMDs, no evidence of programs to create them. 2002 onwards and inspectors prove this.

We then move to the Iraq Survey Group. Can I ask you what their findings were?

This is a team sent by the Bush Administration to find evidence of WMDs.

Handpicked by the US to get the proof that the war was justified on the grounds of world security. So what did they find? I look forward to you answering this little question.


To respond in kind, to say that Iraq had WMDs that posed a threat to anyone is just plain dumb.

Cheers

BHR



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
Carseller,

So where are they?

I am not denying that prior to 1991 there were WMDs. I might even admit to there being some after that period but not many.

However, when we come to 2000 onwards I think that the facts we know today speak for themselves. No evidence of WMDs, no evidence of programs to create them. 2002 onwards and inspectors prove this.

We then move to the Iraq Survey Group. Can I ask you what their findings were?

This is a team sent by the Bush Administration to find evidence of WMDs.

Handpicked by the US to get the proof that the war was justified on the grounds of world security. So what did they find? I look forward to you answering this little question.


To respond in kind, to say that Iraq had WMDs that posed a threat to anyone is just plain dumb.

Cheers

BHR


All Sadamm had to do was prove they were destroyed, he refused, and that was in direct violation of several UN resolutions. So really the dumb one was Sadamm. He got what he deserved and now the citizens of Iraq are getting what the deserve...freedom!



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 07:37 AM
link   
Carseller,

He did prove they had been destroyed.

Try reading some of the reports. I think you will find it easier to get on in this thread with some facts to hand.

Do you have any answers to the questions I posed in my last post?

Cheers

BHR



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lecky
I agree with you 100%

...except I think you have a misconception of liberals here...


Originally posted by Amethyst
Oh--and I'm not a liberal. If it were a just war, say Iraq actually DID attack us, then I'd say go kick some tail.


Most liberals would agree with you that if the United States were to be attacked by another country...that would be a "just" cause for war. Please don't take broad generalizations such as "peace loving liberal", "hippy tree-hugger" "heart bleeding liberal", etc. too seriously. Trust me...liberals do not tolerate being walked on, why do you think the other side feels so threatened that they resort to name-calling/liberal bashing whenever a liberal takes a stand?

I'm sure there are tons of issues we disagree on...but not this.


I'm just against unconstitutional wars. Thirty years ago it was Viet Nam. Today it's Iraq. And I'm wondering who's next. Probably a toss-up between Iran and Syria.


Exactly. Iraq was a waste of time, money and most importantly...lives, on both sides...it disgusts me. You yourself prove that it doesn't take a liberal to figure that out (I know you are far from it lol), that this is beyond petty politics.



Well, it seems that if you're against the war, you're a liberal--that's what the sheeple tend to bleat. It's like people say if you're a conservative, you'll worship Bush as God, and you'll blindly go along with everything he says and does (even though they can be two different things). It goes back to perpetuating the conservative vs. liberal myth.

I'm a Constitutionalist. Bear with me, because I'm starting to really study the Constitution. I think more people ought to actually read and study it--Google it, go to a site, print it out.

Iraq is also an undeclared war. I even learned this in school--we can't go to war unless Congress approves of it, and I believe it's by a vote.

Wrong is wrong, and it doesn't matter what political party points this out. You can't blindly follow one side or the other--you have to listen to the other side sometimes to get perspective.

That's why I'm third party!



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Carseller,

I was wondering if you were going to respond to my last post?

You still seem to have left some questions unanswered.

Cheers

BHR




top topics



 
0

log in

join