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.

 

US government wants Iraqi regime change!

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2005 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Old news you say?
You're right


Iraqi Liberation Act - 1998


Claim: Iraq has WMDs!
Old news again?
Yep
Operation Desert Fox


We're at war with terror!
New news right?
Nope
WTC bombing - 1993
Khobar Towers - 1998
Embassy Bombings - 1998
USS Cole - 2000 (close to Election time!)

US responds:


The US attacked Sudan and Afghanistan with cruise missiles as a response to the attacks on the embassies. The US attacked an alleged chemical weapons producing plant in Sudan with 13 cruise missile which resulted in the death of the night watchmen. This attack has come under a great deal of criticism because there has been no corroborating evidence to support the attack. The Afghanistan attack came in the form of over 70 cruise missile at three separate terrorist camps. This attack killed an estimated 24 people but failed to get Osama Bin Laden.

americanhistory.about.com...


North Korea may have nukes! US wants to stop them.
Let me guess....old news?
Indeed it is.
NK claims nukes - 1994


US led coalition attacks sovereign nation without UN backing. Many innocents killed.
Has to be something new right?
Afraid not.
Kosovo War - 1999



No, this is not to start so great political debate. We have PTS for that

It's just that alot of people on this board seem to have short term memories, or at least alot of recent post have been showing this.
This is just a reminder to everyone that, what you see going on now is nothing new. People like to place the blame on the Bush administration and the evil neo cons, but simple fact is this isn't some Dem vs. Rep thing as this spans years and years, well beyond the past 10-15 years I posted above. People just weren't paying attention then.



J_3

posted on May, 17 2005 @ 01:40 PM
link   
People like to blame it on the Bush administration because so much incriminating activity has taken place under his "reign". I don't think the problem is subject to Democrats vs Republicans, but based on what has been happening in this country over the few decades our government seems to feel it is above any of the worlds law.

And you are right, and it's unfortunate that people not only on this board but most people in general seem to have a very short-term memory or just refuse to put the pieces of the puzzle together and see .



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

US led coalition attacks sovereign nation without UN backing. Many innocents killed.
Has to be something new right?
Afraid not.
Kosovo War - 1999



Thats a joke right? You display tha here like the US just went in and bombed the place without reason. You forget about the ethnic cleansing that was going on? This generations holocaust? Man, here you are trying "clarify" things, and you simply put your own spin on events. The purpose of your post you say is to clarify, but the very sources and commentary you use are as clouded and biased as the rest of the posts on these forums. Man.



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
Thats a joke right? You display tha here like the US just went in and bombed the place without reason. You forget about the ethnic cleansing that was going on? This generations holocaust? Man, here you are trying "clarify" things, and you simply put your own spin on events. The purpose of your post you say is to clarify, but the very sources and commentary you use are as clouded and biased as the rest of the posts on these forums. Man.


1. I know very well what happened in Kosovo. The link I provided was from Wiki so anyone who wants to can look up the whole history of that region.

2. You completely missed the point of....everything. NOT ONCE did I say doing what we did in Kosovo was wrong. NOT ONCE did I even hint that it was done for no reason. The whole point of everything was to show that everything that has gone in the past 5 years under Bush has happened before in the past. I didn't say I'm clarifying anything (funny you put it in quotes, because I never said that). I said I'm just showing people this is not some new stuff the current admin just thought of out of the blue.

3. As far as the commentary and sources

Don't worry too much about them. They're random googled sites. Just showing that those events have happened during past administrations, they've happened during this administration, chances are....they'll happen again during future administrations.



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 02:25 PM
link   

This is just a reminder to everyone that, what you see going on now is nothing new. People like to place the blame on the Bush administration and the evil neo cons, but simple fact is this isn't some Dem vs. Rep thing as this spans years and years, well beyond the past 10-15 years I posted above.


Of course, it's been this way for 50 years or more.

The thing is, as far as I can tell, no President has ever lied more to the US public than George W. Bush and his cronies.

No President's public lies have directly led to the death of over 100,000 civilians.

No President's lies have stripped away the Constitutional Rights of Americans more than Bush's.


The United States was looked upon warily and even some times with hostility before Bush was President. Now, AFTER BUSH, the United States is without a doubt perceived by the MAJORITY of the population of the planet as "The Evil Empire".

Bush didn't start that, but he sure finished it.

"You're either with us, or against us."

He made your bed, you and your children of military age get to die in it.

Your Commander-in-Chief is directly responsible for making the world a more dangerous place for YOU, the American Citizen.


jako



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 03:19 PM
link   
You done?

Good, now welcome to reality Jakomo.

Originally posted by Jakomo
The thing is, as far as I can tell, no President has ever lied more to the US public than George W. Bush and his cronies.



You owe me a new computer monitor. I spit my drink out after reading that one. No seriously, say it again. I want to see if you can do it again with a straight face.



No President's public lies have directly led to the death of over 100,000 civilians.

I can't believe people still believe this nonsense. The lastest high count is not even 25,000.
Note: this comes from an anti Bush site -
www.antiwar.com...
Another note: getting close to half of those now are/were done by terrorists and insurgents


No President's lies have stripped away the Constitutional Rights of Americans more than Bush's.

Name one constitutional right you as a citizen had before Bush came that you now don't have.
"But, but the Patriot Act does this and that...."
Please, I can bet most haven't even read the PA. If they did they would know it still has to follow the constitution. People like to leave out stuff when quoting from it.

Shouldn't you be in jail or somewhere suffering btw? You know from all those rights Bush took from you.


The United States was looked upon warily and even some times with hostility before Bush was President. Now, AFTER BUSH, the United States is without a doubt perceived by the MAJORITY of the population of the planet as "The Evil Empire".

I'm glad to see you can speak for the majority of the population. Wish I could have that ability

But seriously, I listed 5 terrorists attacks in that first post. Someone had to be real pissed at us right? That's not looking upon "warily" or just looking upon with hostility. That's pure hatred.



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 04:00 PM
link   
ThatsJustWeird:

You owe me a new computer monitor. I spit my drink out after reading that one. No seriously, say it again. I want to see if you can do it again with a straight face.


The thing is, as far as I can tell, no President has ever lied more to the US public than George W. Bush and his cronies.

Wasn't hard.


The lastest high count is not even 25,000.


Ok, my mistake. Bush's lies have only cost 25000 people their lives, sorry.


Name one constitutional right you as a citizen had before Bush came that you now don't have.


Was there always Protest Zones, fenced areas away from the public for protestors? Was the FBI always able to wiretap your phone without a warrant? Were Muslim-americans rounded up and jailed periodically?


Please, I can bet most haven't even read the PA. If they did they would know it still has to follow the constitution. People like to leave out stuff when quoting from it.


Prove it.



But seriously, I listed 5 terrorists attacks in that first post. Someone had to be real pissed at us right? That's not looking upon "warily" or just looking upon with hostility. That's pure hatred.


Hatred? WHY!?! They hate you because of your foreign policy over the last 50 years, and Bush has wracked it up a notch with his "with us or against us stance".



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 04:03 PM
link   
The fact that the U.S. has been saber rattling at Iraq since 1991 doesn't make the actual final invasion and occupation any less illegal and based upon lies, which was committed to by the Bush administration.



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 05:56 PM
link   
I give it to Jakomo on points, because he made some, and because he is able to post without drooling on his computer monitor.



Not only is the Bush administration the most mendacious of all time, but it has also abused the intelligence service more often, and its puppet "president" has signed more Executive Orders with the specific purpose of attempting to absolve itself from criminal actions, than any previous administration.

It stinketh.



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 06:16 PM
link   
'No President's public lies have directly led to the death of over 100,000 civilians.'

Err Gulf of Tonkin? LBJ's lies led to the deaths of over a million Vietnamese and 58,000 Yanks (sorry not sure how many Ozzies / ROK's / Kiwis etc)

[edit on 17-5-2005 by CTID56092]



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 06:21 PM
link   
A couple of thoughts:
Ok, my mistake. Bush's lies have only cost 25000 people their lives, sorry.
Well when you first say 100,000 and then you go down 75,000 by batting an eye you whole arguement loses credibility. It makes it sound like you are making things up as you go. And then just cavalierly saying, Oh 25,000 sorry really makes you look like an ass.
And it's not like we are throwing lives away for nothing. If you believe this, please tell me how Islamic terrorism can be defeated and Arab lives made better with Saddam Hussein in the middle of it all.
There will be no chance of Iran or the Syrians disarming because they have the excuse of Saddam Hussein. He is awful to the region and caused a lot of the problem we are having.


Bush lied
No he didn't. If he did, then his opposition lied as well. Hans Blix couldn't say for sure if he had WMDs or not. All our intelligence agreed.
The agruement we got was no UN mandate, no war; the war would cost tens of thousands of lives; It will help the terrorists, It will take focus away from al Qaeda; or that we can safely contain Hussein.
There was no Bush lied rhetoric prior to the war. Everyone sat on the sidelines and crossed their fingers and hope we wouldn't find the stuff.

Bush lies than any other president...
Okay name the lies. I bet the most will be subjective, like the WMD issue or wack job ideas that there is no terrorist threat.
Oh and you might want to look up presidents name Taft, Hoover, Jackson, Nixon and Clinton.

Bush abuses fed. agencies
Like what, the FBI and the CIA? He let's them talk to one another and break down the way that Jamie Gorelick put in place to prevent another 9/11?
He goes to congress and ask for an authorization for a War in Iraq, so he abuses the military?
He makes sure the FBI enforces Visa laws and arrests people like Jose Pidelia for a law he already broke?

The patriot is constitutional...prove it
Everything in the patriot act is constitutional. Judges still need to approve wiretaps and sneak and peaks like any other search warrants. If there is no grounds for a warrant you can have it supressed at trial by a totally different judge, and you can also appeal it if you are found guilty.
And if you've ever read the patriotic act, you would see it is a series of ammedums to already existing legislation. It activates old law that Congress halted after Watergate, such as the sharing of information between the FBI and CIA.

And the Patriot Act has only be used twice in drug cases, not terror.

Please give concrete facts to back up statements like:
puppet "president" has signed more Executive Orders with the specific purpose of attempting to absolve itself from criminal actions, than any previous administration
Instead of making up fictituos actions by Bush to absolve himself of fictituos crimes you made up.
Look at his bills objectively and leave your insane mindset of Bush IS THE ONLY ONE RESPONSIBLE FOR 9/11 AND ALL EVIL behind you.

What probably happened is that your mommy and daddy raised you on JFK and LBJ and therefore all Republicans are evil.



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 06:26 PM
link   
A couple of thoughts:
Ok, my mistake. Bush's lies have only cost 25000 people their lives, sorry.
Well when you first say 100,000 and then you go down 75,000 by batting an eye you whole arguement loses credibility. It makes it sound like you are making things up as you go. And then just cavalierly saying, Oh 25,000 sorry really makes you look like an ass.
And it's not like we are throwing lives away for nothing. If you believe this, please tell me how Islamic terrorism can be defeated and Arab lives made better with Saddam Hussein in the middle of it all.
There will be no chance of Iran or the Syrians disarming because they have the excuse of Saddam Hussein. He is awful to the region and caused a lot of the problem we are having.


Bush lied
No he didn't. If he did, then his opposition lied as well. Hans Blix couldn't say for sure if he had WMDs or not. All our intelligence agreed.
The agruement we got was no UN mandate, no war; the war would cost tens of thousands of lives; It will help the terrorists, It will take focus away from al Qaeda; or that we can safely contain Hussein.
There was no Bush lied rhetoric prior to the war. Everyone sat on the sidelines and crossed their fingers and hope we wouldn't find the stuff.

Bush lies than any other president...
Okay name the lies. I bet the most will be subjective, like the WMD issue or wack job ideas that there is no terrorist threat.
Oh and you might want to look up presidents name Taft, Hoover, Jackson, Nixon and Clinton.

Bush abuses fed. agencies
Like what, the FBI and the CIA? He let's them talk to one another and break down the way that Jamie Gorelick put in place to prevent another 9/11?
He goes to congress and ask for an authorization for a War in Iraq, so he abuses the military?
He makes sure the FBI enforces Visa laws and arrests people like Jose Pidelia for a law he already broke?

The patriot is constitutional...prove it
Everything in the patriot act is constitutional. Judges still need to approve wiretaps and sneak and peaks like any other search warrants. If there is no grounds for a warrant you can have it supressed at trial by a totally different judge, and you can also appeal it if you are found guilty.
And if you've ever read the patriotic act, you would see it is a series of ammedums to already existing legislation. It activates old law that Congress halted after Watergate, such as the sharing of information between the FBI and CIA.

And the Patriot Act has only be used twice in drug cases, not terror.

Please give concrete facts to back up statements like:
puppet "president" has signed more Executive Orders with the specific purpose of attempting to absolve itself from criminal actions, than any previous administration
Instead of making up fictituos actions by Bush to absolve himself of fictituos crimes you made up.
Look at his bills objectively and leave your insane mindset of Bush IS THE ONLY ONE RESPONSIBLE FOR 9/11 AND ALL EVIL behind you.

What probably happened is that your mommy and daddy raised you on JFK and LBJ and therefore all Republicans are evil.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 08:41 AM
link   
What's up with luke's post? It's good, but you can't see it (except in the reply)


Originally posted by Jakomo
The thing is, as far as I can tell, no President has ever lied more to the US public than George W. Bush and his cronies.

Wasn't hard.

Wow, then I must apologize. I know it's not good to laugh at the mentally handicapped.
Seriously though, you just haven't been paying attention.

1st of all name those lies? The first thing everyone would bring up is the WMD in Iraq. But, that is the same "lie" that was said during the previous administration. That's why we attacked them several times. Was it a "lie" then? Or was it really bad intelligence?
Speaking of the previous admin. Remember....
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman......"

Oh that's just a lie about sex.

A lie is a lie.

Since you don't know, here's the list of President's who have "lied" just as much or more than Bush. (It's a long list....I could go back to Lincoln and Jefferson, but I'll just stick to 20th Centuray and up)
McKinley
Roosevelt
Taft
Wilson
Coolidge
Hoover
Roosevelt
Truman
Eisenhower
Kennedy
Johnson
Nixon
Ford
Carter
Reagan
Bush 1
Clinton



Ok, my mistake. Bush's lies have only cost 25000 people their lives, sorry.

See luke's post
And CTID's



Was there always Protest Zones, fenced areas away from the public for protestors?

Where in the constitution does it say "thou salt not have protest zones"?
And for the record, as one who works in DC and see protests all the time, yes. Even now, you may see one or two protestors roaming the city (not in any zones), but if there's a large group, they have to have a permit and they have to stay in the designated areas stated on their permits. This has always been the case (at least here in DC). Absolutely nothing has changed since Bush came in office.


Was the FBI always able to wiretap your phone without a warrant?

Nope and they still can't. More proof you haven't read anything.


Were Muslim-americans rounded up and jailed periodically?

Nope and they're still not.



Prove it.

Prove what?

Tell me what Constitutional rights the PA takes away first then I'll do my best to prove a negative.




Hatred? WHY!?! They hate you because of your foreign policy over the last 50 years, and Bush has wracked it up a notch with his "with us or against us stance".

Prove it.....



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frith
The fact that the U.S. has been saber rattling at Iraq since 1991 doesn't make the actual final invasion and occupation any less illegal and based upon lies, which was committed to by the Bush administration.



Once again, I still don't seem to understand where people get the whole "illegal war" thing from.
1st of all you have the near constant shooting at american and british planes during the previous 12 years to the invasion, which in itself is an act of aggression against the US and Britain, hence justification for the whole war all in itself( after all, Iraq did aggree to the surrender set forth after their "illegal" invasion of Kuwait in 1990.)

2nd you have countless UN resolutions since the end of the gulf war I which include Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, 677, and of course the final resolution 1441.

3rd you have the HR resolution 114 Dated 10 Oct 2002 that authorized the President to declare war on Iraq.
I will gladly post the text from UN Resolution 1441 or House Resolution 114 if any one would like.
Really how many times do you give someone one more chance? Just so happens that this administration actually had the cojans to follow thru with there threats unlike the Clintons.

Please I'd like to see if someone can produce documentation showing how it is Illegal other than Kofi Annan saying it was.( just so happens he personally had a lot to loose from the US invading ie.. oil for food ).

Really if you want to say France, Germany, Russia, China say it was illegal that doesn't fly because they approved UN resolution 1441, and they all had billions of $$ to loose in contracts with Iraq when once again oil for food was done.....



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 11:58 AM
link   
ThatsJustWeird:

Where in the constitution does it say "thou salt not have protest zones"....Absolutely nothing has changed since Bush came in office.


It's called FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY. Now, you have to go in FENCED protest areas away from the media. This IS a change, I guess you just haven't been around long enough to know.

ALSO, the FBI now can take any of your personal info (including your reading habits) without a warrant, and with only the slimmest of suspicion, up to and including wiretapping your phone.

www.westernfrontonline.com...


quote: Was the FBI always able to wiretap your phone without a warrant?
Nope and they still can't. More proof you haven't read anything.


THE FBI CAN WIRETAP YOUR PHONE WITHOUT A WARRANT.

www.epic.org...

Electronic surveillance OF Americans BY Americans is at an all time high.



quote: Were Muslim-americans rounded up and jailed periodically?
Nope and they're still not. ]


Where do you live exactly? How can you not know this?


Tell me what Constitutional rights the PA takes away first then I'll do my best to prove a negative.


Obviously you're unaware that your own BASIC rights are being trampled, so just wallow in ignorance, it's safer for you. That I, a Canadian, know more about your government should disgust you.

redpig01:

Once again, I still don't seem to understand where people get the whole "illegal war" thing from.
1st of all you have the near constant shooting at american and british planes during the previous 12 years to the invasion, which in itself is an act of aggression against the US and Britain, hence justification for the whole war all in itself( after all, Iraq did aggree to the surrender set forth after their "illegal" invasion of Kuwait in 1990.)


The UK and US set up a No-Fly-Zone that was unsanctioned by the UN and they conducted bombing runs for 12 years on Iraqi positions. are you saying How dare the Iraqis try to defend themselves? I don't understand. The Illegal No Fly Zone is somehow Saddam's fault?



2nd you have countless UN resolutions since the end of the gulf war I which include Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, 677, and of course the final resolution 1441.


Israel has violated more than 90 Resolutions. Is it because they're whiter than Arabs that they are allowed to continue?


3rd you have the HR resolution 114 Dated 10 Oct 2002 that authorized the President to declare war on Iraq.
I will gladly post the text from UN Resolution 1441 or House Resolution 114 if any one would like.


I DARE YOU, LOL!! NOWHERE in Resolution 1441 does it say that INVASION is justified. Nowhere. The US Administration took the stance that no matter what the resolution said, they would take it as tacit permission to invade. NO MATTER WHAT IT SAID.

So post your text from Resolution 1441 and please underline the passage where military force is justified. Here's the link even.

www.un.int...

Go for it.


jako





[edit on 18-5-2005 by Jakomo]



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Yeah, CTID56092 is right about LBJ and the Gulf of Tonkin, that is much worse than Bush and Iraq. However, if Iraq was guilty of so many things that would justify a war against it, than why were those not used?

And whose deaths did Clinton's lie cause? Noone's it's just some hyped neo-con bs

The main ORIGINAL justification was Saddam's threat to the world with his Weapons of Mass Destruction, which was somewhat odd since the UN Sanctions on Iraq were successfully making any attempt to develope nuclear weapons etc. near impossible. Granted that Saddam could have had Bio/Chemical Weapons from before, if you look at a satellite picture and your looking hard enough for chem/Bio weapons labs, you're going to find them. Listening to Iraqi exiles who want to tell you what you want to hear isn't another great source for intelligence either.

Saddam was a bad man who gassed the Kurds (among other things), but that too can be linked to the US who told the Kurds they'd support their uprising and then didn't leading to Saddam gassing them back in the 90's. However, there had to be a better way of getting rid of him, as he was responsible for a lot of bad things and NOT the Iraqi people, many of whom have suffered greatly since the war.

I'm not saying Bush is the only president to lie, mislead etc. but he is the one in the spotlight right now, and thus the focus is on him.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
It's called FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY. Now, you have to go in FENCED protest areas away from the media. This IS a change, I guess you just haven't been around long enough to know.

Did you not read my post?

Where are you getting your info from? Because like I said, I see protest ALL THE TIME.


ALSO, the FBI now can take any of your personal info (including your reading habits) without a warrant, and with only the slimmest of suspicion, up to and including wiretapping your phone.

www.westernfrontonline.com...

?
No where in the article does it say they can do all that without a warrent. You know why? Because they can't.



THE FBI CAN WIRETAP YOUR PHONE WITHOUT A WARRANT.

www.epic.org...

In this article it STILL doesn't say anything about being able to wiretap without proper authorization. I wonder why....




Where do you live exactly? How can you not know this?

Where do you live where that is happening?
Can you provide any proof that it's happening?



Obviously you're unaware that your own BASIC rights are being trampled, so just wallow in ignorance, it's safer for you. That I, a Canadian, know more about your government should disgust you.

Ahhhh, this explains all. You're Canadian. Should have known you weren't from the US
Which means you haven't a clue as to what's really going on, you just think you do because you read it on the internet somewhere. Typical.


You didn't answer my question btw. Tell me what those rights are.


ponderosa:


And whose deaths did Clinton's lie cause? Noone's it's just some hyped neo-con bs

Well, we attacked Iraq several times for the same reasons we did with this admin. I'm pretty sure people died in those attacks.
Also, that admin had a heavy hand in allowing China to be the nuclear power it is now...we'll see how that plays out in the future.
Also, basically, their soft stance with NK and not seeing if they were abiding by the Accords and Treaties they agreed to has led us to the point where we are now....we'll see how that plays out in the future.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 08:57 PM
link   


Well, we attacked Iraq several times for the same reasons we did with this admin. I'm pretty sure people died in those attacks.


Well im quite certain that Iraqi SAM and radar sites targeting planes in the no-fly zone were the things taken out by the airstrikes, and not civilians. Plus that's not the point i made, Clinton lied about his sexual relations, Bush lied about a pretext for war, whether Clinton attacked Iraq is not the point.



Also, that admin had a heavy hand in allowing China to be the nuclear power it is now...we'll see how that plays out in the future.


This very true, I agree with you here, but Bush isnt helping anymore with his BMD plans because that just makes China/ India/ Pakistan/ NK create more and more nuclear weapons in order to thwart the shield, so way to go Bush!




Also, basically, their soft stance with NK and not seeing if they were abiding by the Accords and Treaties they agreed to has led us to the point where we are now....we'll see how that plays out in the future.


True as well, but what i find odd is how since Saddam was supposed to have and be developing Weapons of Mass Destruction they were willing to take the chance that he wouldnt use them on the US or its allies, and invade him. Now NK has, as far as we know, nuclear weapons but he is unwilling to invade NK and take the same risk as they did with Saddam.

Makes you wonder why if Saddam was seen as such a big threat and needed to be invaded to ensure the safety of the free world, why NK isnt?




[edit on 18-5-2005 by Ponderosa]



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Jakamo-
In as much as you are correct, that 1441 does not specifically state: "an invasion is allowed", 1441, does however, whether it is believed or not, does allow for such action. It clearly recalls all of the previous resolutions, which are also covered by and outlined in HR-Resolution-114; 1441 clearly states:

-"Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long- range missiles poses to international peace and security,
-"Recalling [resolution] 678, authorized Member states to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to 660 [ ] and to restore international peace and security in the area,[...]
-"Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments...with regards to terrorism, end repression of its civilian population [...]
-"Recalling [ ] resolution 687 the Council declared that a cease fire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraqi compliance.
"2. Decides...to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations...

Certainly this list can go on, particularly with the approval of HR-114, please read it. Again, while there isn't the exact wording "time to invade", what is the intent of this resolution? Was it intended to by and give Saddam more time to hide WMDs?; continuing his payments to Security Council nations, i.e. France and Germany?; was it intended to provide continued proof that the UN is really an organization that cannot be counted on as proof by its actions in Rwanda? If the intent of this resolution, as stated: "Recalls, in that context, the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;" What then, are we to make? That the world community will continue to make threats that will only lead to more threats, which in turn will lead to more threats if compliance is not met? Of course the world has the opportunity and the right to disagree and protest, but should not the protest be against the former regime of Iraq for its failed compliance to the world community and not at the United States for its principle to honor life, defend liberty and make the UN relevant?
-President Kennedy stated: "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, [and] oppose any foe..."
-President Roosevelt stated: "No matter how long it may take to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people...will win through to absolute victory."
-President Lincoln stated: "The probability that we may fall in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just"

The point here is, there are times when doing what is right is not always popular, and what is popular is not always right. Another question, was it ok when President Clinton stated: "Earlier today, I order America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end the that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government..." (Dec 16, 1998) Mr. Clinton did not have approval from the UN to "invade" or launch a missile strike against Iraq, was it ok then? Yes, of course, because the United States is a sovereign nation, and the terms of the ceasefire agreement had been violated as well as the previous UN resolutions, just like now. Did Mr. Clinton have UN approval to "invade" Kosovo? President Bush, whether it is agreeable or not, has the right to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States" (Article 2, Section 1) and "protect each [state] against invasion; (Article 4, Section 4). Basically, what it comes down to, why is it ok for terrorist to fly airplanes into buildings, ok for terrorist to murder children, ok for terrorist to cut the throats of innocent people, but it is not ok, for a nation to defend its citizenry? Terrorist are justified and not accountable, but the United States is? The main reason the Security Council rejected the use final use of force is simply because of the oil-for-food profiting; talk about illegal activity.
Finally, I wonder, should the principles outlined within the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, should those principles only apply to this nation and to humanity, or should we somehow forget that "all men are created equal"? We, as human beings must remember that the nation or person who does not honor and defend life and liberty, will soon find it under the rule of terror and tyranny. There are many in a long line throughout history in which this can apply. Humanity should not continue on the same course and reflect on the causes of action, but rather reflect on the causes when there has been inaction. It is far better for all of humanity to live without fear of oppression and tyranny, then to continue in the squalor of unjust and unrighteous bondage.



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ponderosa
Well im quite certain that Iraqi SAM and radar sites targeting planes in the no-fly zone were the things taken out by the airstrikes, and not civilians. Plus that's not the point i made, Clinton lied about his sexual relations, Bush lied about a pretext for war, whether Clinton attacked Iraq is not the point.

Ahh but it is the point. Bush said there was WMDs in Iraq. We attacked (and invaded).
Clinton said there were WMDs in Iraq. We attacked.
What I want to know is, why is it when Bush says it, it's a lie. But when the previous Admin said it, it wasn't a lie.


(btw Desert Fox took out more than Sam and Radar sites)



This very true, I agree with you here, but Bush isnt helping anymore with his BMD plans because that just makes China/ India/ Pakistan/ NK create more and more nuclear weapons in order to thwart the shield, so way to go Bush!

I'm pretty sure India and Pakistan could care less about the shield and are more worried about the other having nukes.
China and NK maybe, but I don't think so. More nukes = more power. More power = more influence. And in NK's case they're probably still trying to make sure any they do have work, let alone whether it can get pass any BMD.




True as well, but what i find odd is how since Saddam was supposed to have and be developing Weapons of Mass Destruction they were willing to take the chance that he wouldnt use them on the US or its allies, and invade him. Now NK has, as far as we know, nuclear weapons but he is unwilling to invade NK and take the same risk as they did with Saddam.

Makes you wonder why if Saddam was seen as such a big threat and needed to be invaded to ensure the safety of the free world, why NK isnt?

Well, we are dealing with a different region. Russia and China have much more powerful armies than the ones in the middle east and may not like too well a superpower fighting so close to them.
Also, history. Desert Strom showed that invading Iraq would be easier than they thought at first. Last time we were in NK, it wasn't all that pretty.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join