Are You For Or Against The War In Iraq?

page: 12
0
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Identity_Unknown
A question for all my fellow Brits that do not support the war.....

Do you support the 'War On Terror' now that OUR homeland has been attacked?

What is that supposed to mean? Is it among others supposed to mean "do you support the war in Iraq", despite the fact that none of the bombers were Iraqis and most even had British nationality? For "your homeland to be attacked", doesn't that require a foreign aggressor?




posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Simon666

Originally posted by Identity_Unknown
A question for all my fellow Brits that do not support the war.....

Do you support the 'War On Terror' now that OUR homeland has been attacked?

What is that supposed to mean? Is it among others supposed to mean "do you support the war in Iraq", despite the fact that none of the bombers were Iraqis and most even had British nationality? For "your homeland to be attacked", doesn't that require a foreign aggressor?

LAMO do you realise that your govts sponsered terroe to up the police state and bring about matrial law and have NWO.
DO some research.(9\11 and the london bombing were an inside job).Watch alex jones 9\11:martial law documentary and then yoou would realise.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 07:32 AM
link   
if i m there i ll go for the war might be joint the
BRIGADE LE RESISTANCES BOMBER

or may be i become a SNIPER WITH UV/IR,GPS/GPRS,AND SATELLITE GPRS
SCRAMBLER well equipt then that give more challenging to the US/JOINT FORCES,to fell the red face



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I have always supported and still support the War in Iraq.

I supported the war because Saddam was in violation of the cease fire agreement with the U.S. and allies from the original Gulf war as well as all later UN Security Council resolutions. I also supported it because I thought it would be good long-term for the Iraqi people and the region in general.

Oh I forgot to mention Saddam was also firing on U.S. and British planes monitoring the no-fly zone under UN mandate.

[edit on 5/17/2005 by djohnsto77]


Yeah, well, the U.S. sure showed Saddam, didn't they? Watch this and tell me how you can continue to support this war.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by MickeyDee
Just curious as to wether most of you are against the war due to the lies we were told before the invasion!

Mic


The misinformation given to the public about the reasons for the war are unexcusable. With that being said, I still support the troops fighting in the war and I think that removing Saddam was needed to shake the ME a bit. When the region quiets down and the rest of the ME sees that democracy is an option, the rest of the dictators in the ME will start feeling the pressure of the people for change. THIS IS ONLY THE BEGINING.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by TacOps Security
When the region quiets down and the rest of the ME sees that democracy is an option, the rest of the dictators in the ME will start feeling the pressure of the people for change.

Democracy doesn't come by force, but when the people demand it in masses. That was shown in Lebanon. If the Iraq war has shown anything so far, it is that the US can overthrow regimes at will but can't make the desired aftermath, a democratic society, work.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simon666
If the Iraq war has shown anything so far, it is that the US can overthrow regimes at will but can't make the desired aftermath, a democratic society, work.


This is true, democracy cannot be forced.
But was this the reason that, we the global community, were given for starting the conflict in the Middle East?
How many reasons have there been?
9/11, Saddam Hussein, al-Queda, Osama Bin Laden, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Oil . . .



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Firstly all leaders that take us to war should be on the frontline, there would be no wars again.

For all you who are for the war, do you support your troops coming home with Gulf War syndrome, while their offspring are disabled. Where is the government to take care of the troops then? Where is the outcry from you lovers of war, why do you not cry injustice then, or is it all for glory in war?

300,000 dead, depleted uranium in the atmosphere for thousands of years, cancer causing, babies deformed.

While all this goes on people fill there pockets and increase tension in the world to bring about a clash of civilisations to serve their agendas. The world will eventually annihilate and massacre each other while the leaders are in their Billion dollar bunkers.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 03:39 PM
link   
operation iraqi freedom was a war that was needed not only for the safety of the usa. but as well as for the rest of the world. the regime of saddam hussein posed not only a regional threat but an ongoing threat to all mankind. in my opinion wmd's or not the ongoing saddam shenanigins was enough to declare war and finally free the iraqi people and the rest of the world from that tyrant. and i am well pleased that our president george w. bush was the man to take on the challenge head on.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Whether or not invading Iraq was the "right thing to do," it has not made America any safer.

One of the greatest fallacies is associating it with the war on terror. Bush and co. is well pleased that he could sell the war under the auspices of "protecting America." Even here on ATS, we talk of Iraq in the forum called "War on Terrorism." Orwell would have something to say about this use of politics and the english language.

Iraq is now yet another breeding ground for terrorists, much like Chechnya. The russians pursued fundamentalists and insurgents there with perhaps the same kind of brutality some hawks would like to see the US use in Iraq, and yet what were the results? A stalemate, and increased terror attacks in Moscow.

Young Muslims now have another source of anger that can factor into the process of "falling over the edge" and become extremists. And they can find new sources of experienced terrorists to be their mentors.

The war itself is handled well by our military, but our politicians... yes, sadly, that means Bush, have made all the wrong policy decisions. Such as disbanding the entire Iraqi army, creating scores of *domestic* discontented, organzied, trained Iraqi insurgents. And failing to cultivate a true global consensus in the strategies appropriate to fighting terror, squandering the willingness of the world to work with America in the wake of 9/11.

Iraq did not represent half the WMD threat North Korea or Pakistan did (and continue to do.) Or the terror threat Saudi Arabia does (It was a secular country, for the umpteenth time!)

It's not Bush bashing. Anyone could have made these mistakes and misrepresentations, but it was this administration which did, and the insitgators of this war should hang for their incompetance and the damage they have done to American safety, American lives, and global stability.

Most Americans would like to see some kind of revenge or justice done for 9/11. But they've been had. Iraq is not it. This administration has taken the people's anger and fear and used it to pursue a war they had long been planning beforehand.

Maybe someday we'll have a true "war on terror," but not as long as the neocons run the show.

-koji K.





[edit on 18-7-2005 by koji_K]



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 05:00 PM
link   
How can I support an illegal war (not that I support any kind of war)? How can anybody do it? There are three legal bases for a war:

1)Self-defence
2)Humanitarian intervention
3)UNSC authorization

None of those were met, despite the attemts of Bush and Blair to obtain a UN resolution (strongly opposed by most UN members and mostly by Germany, France, and Russia). Here is a quote from the famous Smoking Gun memo:



Sir Richard Dearlove reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.


So the war is illegal according to the international law. Furthermore, purposefully using "fixed" intelligence in a discussion of the UNSC and lying about WMD (contradicting with the inspectors' report) and Al-qaeda links, is also a crime. Thus US, Britain and their allies (who were they?) are aggresors in a sovereign country. Thus a retaliation against them is legal... With only this said, Bush and Blair can be tried at the tribunal in Den Haag (The Hague), if, of course, it had the real power to do it...

So how can I support war criminals responsibe for the death of (hundreds of) thousands?! Of course, I am totally and fully against...

I am not even mentioning the other proven lies, the abuses of POWs, and the highly suspicious 9/11 and London bombings...



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 05:26 PM
link   

And this thread is for people to answer just two questions that i have:

1. Do you support the war in Iraq?


I have always supported fighting the terrorists in Iraq


2. Why?


Because I would rather have a bunch of those magots flow into one area which just so happens to be Iraq, so each countries army that is for ousting those fkers can do so in that vicinity.

I look at Iraq as a twofer, those countries armies that have participated in fighting terrorism also had a chance to help the citizens in Iraq rid themselves of a tyrant and at the same time help them establish a democratic nation, where they can vote, and actually vote for more then one person on the ballot.

Remember Sadam said 99% of the people in Iraq voted for him? That was because he was the only one on the ballot. Anyone else who dared run would be killed.

I would like to emphasize the importance of having these islamic terrorists infiltrate into one area, rather then have them scattered about, hidden out of sight where countries would have to spend much time and resources trying to find them, and if they could find them (all).

This way is much better... These guys dont mind dying, and these army men don't mind killing them. And I don't mind them killing them either.

It's good for the innocent citizens of this world...



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueLies
I would like to emphasize the importance of having these islamic terrorists infiltrate into one area, rather then have them scattered about, hidden out of sight where countries would have to spend much time and resources trying to find them, and if they could find them (all).

This way is much better... These guys dont mind dying, and these army men don't mind killing them. And I don't mind them killing them either.

It's good for the innocent citizens of this world...


Like the innocent citizens of London? Madrid? Moscow? Turkey? I don't mean to pick on your post, but I've been seeing this argument a lot lately and I can't see the logic in it at all. "All the worlds terrorists" are not flocking to Iraq... Iraq is just breeding new ones. There are and always will be plenty of terrorists for every country to deal with. If Iraq is attracting the worlds terrorists somehow, why didn't they all die out in Chechnya?

-koji K.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K

Originally posted by TrueLies
I would like to emphasize the importance of having these islamic terrorists infiltrate into one area, rather then have them scattered about, hidden out of sight where countries would have to spend much time and resources trying to find them, and if they could find them (all).

This way is much better... These guys dont mind dying, and these army men don't mind killing them. And I don't mind them killing them either.

It's good for the innocent citizens of this world...


Like the innocent citizens of London? Madrid? Moscow? Turkey? I don't mean to pick on your post, but I've been seeing this argument a lot lately and I can't see the logic in it at all. "All the worlds terrorists" are not flocking to Iraq... Iraq is just breeding new ones. There are and always will be plenty of terrorists for every country to deal with. If Iraq is attracting the worlds terrorists somehow, why didn't they all die out in Chechnya?

-koji K.


No, the one's that are already in the middle east like in pakistan and syria, iran, and saudi arabia, they are all flocking to iraq to fight the 'infidels'
they want the infidels out of riaq but yet it's ok for them to stay there and kill kurds and iraqi's???

The one's in madrid and the uk, and elsewhere in the world have been there for a while, with their cell, waiting for thee time to detonate themselves...

Of course not all are flocking there... I'm saying the ones that are in the middle east.


xu

posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 12:57 AM
link   
what was the apparent reason for Bush&Sons Co. to invade Iraq: WMDs

what is the apparent reason for Bush&Sons Co. to continue to stay in Iraq: Insurgency, Insecure environment in Iraq

we all know the the excuse for the first one was a lie and staged, therefore I can easily assume that the second is also staged to form the neccessary excuses, I think Bush&Sons Co. needs to stay in Iraq for some reason. It would be insane to believe that the people of an invaded country, start to systematically kill their own countrymen during the invasion. if they were trying to discredit the invaders success they would only concentrate on the invader force instead of their own poeple.

so it is a joke that the iraqis are killing and bombing iraqis and because of that Bush&Sons Co. needs to stay in iraq more to secure iraqi people.



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Simon666
If the Iraq war has shown anything so far, it is that the US can overthrow regimes at will but can't make the desired aftermath, a democratic society, work.


You certainly do jump to conclusions easily. What did you expect instant success? It took 12 years in the U.S., for us to formally adopt a Constitution and a democratic form of government, why should it take less for some other country?



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by TRUTH SEEKER 77
the regime of saddam hussein posed not only a regional threat but an ongoing threat to all mankind.

He was not a regional threat, his army was one of the weakest in the region due to ten years of sanctions and he was no threat "to all mankind" either since there were no WMD. You're talking from a certain smelly bodypart.



Originally posted by Astronomer68
You certainly do jump to conclusions easily. What did you expect instant success? It took 12 years in the U.S., for us to formally adopt a Constitution and a democratic form of government, why should it take less for some other country?

Well, you are right that it may be a bit early, but the way things are looking and evolving now, if you're waiting for a functioning democratic Iraq, I think you will be waiting for Godot.



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 07:43 AM
link   
I'm STRONGLY against the War in Iraq. I can't even begin to put it into words, but I'll try.

This war wouldn't be possible if it weren't for racism, fear of foreign religions, and political powermongering by a wealthy few.

If democracy were being practiced, this war would not be going on right now.

It is time for a pullout! Iraq deserves PEACE!

Now for the punch line...
I definately think that the terrorists should pull out of Iraq. Bin Laden and his henchmen should give up their own dreams of personal power and let the people of Iraq have what they want- peace and prosperity.

I had my reservations about this little camel hunt, but it was hardly without justification. Saddam was an evil man. Saddam did not prove that he had disarmed, probably because he didn't until he saw us coming. I had more than just reservations about the way in which we fought this war. Bush and Co. completely mishandled this war because they were trying to do it small, fast, popular, and profitable when they should have been thinking about WINNING overwhelmingly and bringing our guys back quick and alive.

My problem with the way the US is fighting the war isn't that we aren't getting out. My problem is that we aren't making it possible to get out. The blame for not getting out when they should goes to the terrorists- and to Bush for not forcing them to.

I don't want the war to end tomorrow. I don't want a date set. What I do want is an official public estimate on how much Iraq needs in the way of troops and hardware to become independently secure, and I want a clear and accountable program underway to accomplish that as fast as humanly possible. I want the US out the day after the terrorists are done for, and I want our Lame Duck in Chief to play whatever political cards he has left to get that done as quickly as possible. Maybe Halliburton will let him do just this one thing for America, since he's already done so much for them.

I'm against Bush, I'm against the terrorists, I'm against the war, but I'm not FOR a simple pullout. We're in, we have a reason to be in, we should win, and then we should get the hell out. God, you'd think this was a complex question or something the way everyone argues about it, but from where I sit, that all seems pretty simple- except for the part where we have to get politicians to act in the best interest of the American people. I'm sure it must have happened before though... at some point... once in the last 200 years at least, so it's not completely impossible- just highly unlikely, right?



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 08:20 AM
link   
Study cites seeds of terror in Iraq
War radicalized most, probes find
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | July 17, 2005

WASHINGTON -- New investigations by the Saudi Arabian government and an Israeli think tank -- both of which painstakingly analyzed the backgrounds and motivations of hundreds of foreigners entering Iraq to fight the United States -- have found that the vast majority of these foreign fighters are not former terrorists and became radicalized by the war itself.

The studies, which together constitute the most detailed picture available of foreign fighters, cast serious doubt on President Bush's claim that those responsible for some of the worst violence are terrorists who seized on the opportunity to make Iraq the ''central front" in a battle against the United States.

Let's deny ignorance, shall we? Article

Well done, America...you've managed to create a nightmare even worse than Vietnam!



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
It is time for a pullout! Iraq deserves PEACE!


Do you really think there will be peace in Iraq if we pull out now?

There would be an uprising by the insurgents and within a couple of years they would rule the country!

Peace is a long way off in Iraq and our presence is needed at the moment to keep the streets of Iraq as safe as possible!


Mic





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join