Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Are You For Or Against The War In Iraq?

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 19 2005 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Codycougar91
Also, if someone says that this war wasnt justifyable, wat do you base that off of?



* Lying to Congress and to allies about intelligence
* Lying to Congress and to allies and to people at large about terrorist ties
* Lying to Congress and to allies and to people at large about the purpose of the war
* Working outside established Conventions and UN Resolutions
* Constructing multifarious and spurious Executive Orders that protected only the financial interests of the profiteers, not Iraqi or US citizens or US soldiers or any other parties.
* Constructing Executive Orders to absolve the administration from responsibility for inappropriate justification of foreign incursion/war and other criminal acts

and on and on and on...

Read up, or remain blissfully ignorant. You may be better off in the second (unread) state, perhaps, if you do not want to expose yourselve to hidden truths.




posted on May, 19 2005 @ 06:36 PM
link   
As men march off to war
so bravely for our freedom
the students smoke their dope
and liberals whine like women

The poets in their padded chairs
and actors in Los Angeles
will soon be caught in the cross-hairs
just like all the rest of us

So we must fight along with Bush
lest all our plans be foiled.
Whine all you want, you liberal,
you can’t drive without oil.

Protest this and protest that,
wave your sign all day,
while Husein gets rich and fat
and Bin Laden gets away.

We must protect our way of life
which makes this country great.
If you don’t love it, leave it--
to France with all your hate!

Stop yelling at the men who fight
for all our sons and daughters.
If you want to support our troops
you’ll help them fight with honor.


yeah i am pretty much pro war!

[edit on 19/5/05 by jayce]



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 06:45 PM
link   


yeah i am pretty much pro war!


Are you pro-war purely because there is a war or because you believe the war was right?



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 06:46 PM
link   
The rhythm and meter need work.

Is that yours, btw?




Sorry - it was plagiarized from Emily Zola, also seen here:

www.poetsforthewar.org...


I find the "whining like women" to be sexist, and the whole sentiment intends to feed an unthinking jingoistic mindset. The poem was selected very well to show up how easy it is to fall into the unquestioning trap.

But next time you ought to pay the author/poet her due.



[edit on 19-5-2005 by MaskedAvatar]



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Like I said, we will never agree.

Although, as a foot-note, I think you should be grateful for that cozy house/apartment/etc. and that nice computer and all your blessings, and remember, while we have men and women out there sacrificing so that you don't have to, you go ahead and criticize them.

Once again, "you're welcome"

-wD



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 06:50 PM
link   


The rhythm and meter need work.

Some work on scansion and we could have a modern day Virgil! Bush as Aeneas and Osama as Turnus...



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 06:55 PM
link   
signature
If You're Happy And You Know It - Bomb Iraq
If you cannot find Osama,bomb Iraq.
If the terrorists are frisky,
Pakistan is looking shifty,
North Korea is too risky,
Bomb Iraq

lmao

prior question answers

no not my poem
i am pro war in iraq, not for the reasons we went for but just to get rid of saddam as we should of done back in the first gulf war



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 06:58 PM
link   
"Support our troops!
Bring them home!"

You don't have to cry "onwards" to be supportive of our brave men and women in uniform. And if you feel you must, it behooves us to consider how best to allocate them.

-koji K.



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Are there still people around that actually support this war?

Why? Is anyone able to articulate a reasonable argument in favor of this war?

Most of the voices on the right are too indoctrinated in military-like quasi-sacred obedience to authority to question even turds like Bush and the PNAC whenever it happens to be them in the driver's seat. George W. Bush the president? He's the opposite of "presidential" (whatever that means) and has yet to be elected in a fair election!

Nonetheless, this is at least a pretend democracy--not the military. In a democracy it is important to keep your leaders in check because power corrupts, which could lead to a pretend democracy. To simply continue to unquestioningly swallow the manipulative discharge of the Bush regime is not the democratic equivalent of following orders. It is a recipe for the death of democracy.

If you are an American millionaire watching his bank account, I can understand your support for the war: murderous levels of greed. Pillaging is good for business.

What I don't understand is closer-to-average Joe America that continues to preach the support of this regime.

If that's you, please, before clicking reply, just question authority. Just one time, please, try to understand "liberal" arguments. Do some research. Its okay if you come to regret your viewpoints, you can change them. Everyone would prefer the troops at home with their families than in depleted uranium-ville... do it for the troops, and for their children.



There are those that tell anyone opposed to the war to move to France. Well, I did move to France. To those that would now send my brave friends--who signed up in the US military to defend our soil and our people--to Irak to do their bidding , I ask out of fairness that you go to Baghdad yourselves.



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by WeBDeviL
Like I said, we will never agree.

Although, as a foot-note, I think you should be grateful for that cozy house/apartment/etc. and that nice computer and all your blessings, and remember, while we have men and women out there sacrificing so that you don't have to, you go ahead and criticize them.

Once again, "you're welcome"

-wD

I dont criticize the men and women that fight for my freedom, I support the troops 100% and hope they surivive and come home.
Its the leaders and government who gave the orders to those men and women that I criticize , they lied to our men and women who are fighting for us!



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by PeaceBeWithYou
Are there still people around that actually support this war?

Why? Is anyone able to articulate a reasonable argument in favor of this war?

Most of the voices on the right are too indoctrinated in military-like quasi-sacred obedience to authority to question even turds like Bush and the PNAC whenever it happens to be them in the driver's seat. George W. Bush the president? He's the opposite of "presidential" (whatever that means) and has yet to be elected in a fair election!

Nonetheless, this is at least a pretend democracy--not the military. In a democracy it is important to keep your leaders in check because power corrupts, which could lead to a pretend democracy. To simply continue to unquestioningly swallow the manipulative discharge of the Bush regime is not the democratic equivalent of following orders. It is a recipe for the death of democracy.

If you are an American millionaire watching his bank account, I can understand your support for the war: murderous levels of greed. Pillaging is good for business.

What I don't understand is closer-to-average Joe America that continues to preach the support of this regime.

If that's you, please, before clicking reply, just question authority. Just one time, please, try to understand "liberal" arguments. Do some research. Its okay if you come to regret your viewpoints, you can change them. Everyone would prefer the troops at home with their families than in depleted uranium-ville... do it for the troops, and for their children.



There are those that tell anyone opposed to the war to move to France. Well, I did move to France. To those that would now send my brave friends--who signed up in the US military to defend our soil and our people--to Irak to do their bidding , I ask out of fairness that you go to Baghdad yourselves.


Look. I'm not an american, but is seems to me that it all comes down in the end to morality. The US is the only contry in the world that occasionly is ready to to take down some tyrent who isn't an immediat threat (arguably). It is enoght to see the huge percentage of voters in Iran the showed up despite a very real threat to their very life just so they could vote, to see that they welcome democracy very much. It also totally changed the balance of all the surrounding dictators at once.

I only wish that more countries in the world would take some responsibility and that more leaders will be willing to take to make an unpopular step for future considerations. WW2 could have been prevented if England and France behaved like that.



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 07:44 PM
link   
With respect , its not england its the UK.
Also we were hardly in a position to start another war.
Thirdly if we did things might have been diffrent but we were more concered about a certian red menace in the east than a small german anoyance.



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

So its ok to kill, mame and basically steal to ensure our survival which inevitabley will kill us anyhow.


Again, I stated this to you: I don't think you truly grasp the reality of every economy around the world is entirely dependent on oil.

In addition, right down to the marco-economic level. Your life.

Such are the ways of the human civilization.

[edit on 5/19/2005 by the_oleneo]



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_oleneo

Again, I stated this to you: I don't think you truly grasp the reality of every economy around the world is entirely dependent on oil.

In addition, right down to the marco-economic level. Your life.

Such are the ways of the human civilization.

[edit on 5/19/2005 by the_oleneo]




As they were, for example, before parchment replaced the slate, and the printing press replaced crafted manuscripts, and computer telecommunications transmission replaced the paper missive.

For every one who sees the world as dependent on any one thing, you need several to evolve and progress.

Slowly slowly catchy monkey.




[edit on 19-5-2005 by MaskedAvatar]



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
With respect , its not england its the UK.
Also we were hardly in a position to start another war.
Thirdly if we did things might have been diffrent but we were more concered about a certian red menace in the east than a small german anoyance.


If you were in no position to start war why not support the Czech and let them fight? For "Peace in our lifetime"? You were commited to the them. If you can't fight and fullfill your obligation, why betray them?



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 08:55 PM
link   
devil -

Perhaps...I don't believe the rhetoric, I'm afraid. Though I do not follow blindly, and I will say this: This war was fought with some militaristic blunders, which anyone could have pointed out.

Also, the justifications for war could have been better if they were really lying. But the simple fact that they posed things that would seem so blatantly false raises a question: What if it's the truth?

-wD



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrpaddy
You are willing to kill people so you can drive around in your car and kill the planet, slowly, but surely?



That is a very simple-minded and very narrowed view, completely absent of any understanding of the larger geo-economic and geo-political matters on the planet.

Not all oil is based on people driving their vehicles. It's much more than that. Obviously you aren't exactly well-schooled.


Originally posted by cmdrpaddy
This is sick, how can anyone morally justify a war because they want cheap oil? I would prefer to live without oil than kill people purely for the continuation of an unsustainable way of life.


Well, if you are ready to live the life of pre-industrial 19th century lifestyle, by all means, go ahead. The first thing you needed to do is to cancel your ISP subscription FIRST.
Most people wouldn't care about what you think about their ways of life.

By the way, your hardware computer device is based on oil.



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 09:27 PM
link   
I am 100% for the War in Iraq.

The World Trade Center was originally attacked in 1993. For 8 years, the US policy was to treat terrorists as common criminals, to be taken care of by the justice system.

9/11/01 changed all that, instead of waiting to prosecute them after they attack, we took the attack to them.

Saddam had the ball in his court, instead of proving to the world that he destroyed WMD's, he defiantly snubbed his nose at the world. He got what he deserved and Iraqis are getting what they deserve now...democracy.



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 09:47 PM
link   
So let me get this straight. Saddam was holding the worlds oil hostage? By taking him out of the picture we some how ensured the health of the global market?


Originally posted by the_oleneo

People here just needed to look at the big picture instead of coming up with the same weak-a**ed PC arguments on how wrong and horrible the war is: www.silverbearcafe.com...

T


Did you even bother to read the article you posted in support of your pro war argument? It doesnt say anything about the war against Iraq being inevitable in fact it says the opposite. It says how this war was an international power grab by the forces corrupting our country. here are some quotes


The upcoming war in Iraq is mostly about how the ruling class at Langley and the Bush/Cheney administration view hydrocarbons at the geo-strategic level, and the overarching macroeconomic threats to the U.S. dollar from the euro. T



Unfortunately, neo-conservatives such as George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle fail to grasp that Newton's Law applies equally to both physics and the geo-political sphere as well: "For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction."



However, in both the pre and post 9/11 intervals, the `America first' policies of the Bush administration, with its unwillingness to honor International Treaties, along with their aggressive militarisation of foreign policy, has significantly damaged our reputation abroad. Following 9/11, it appears that President Bush's `warmongering rhetoric' has created global tensions -- as we are now viewed as a belligerent superpower willing to apply unilateral military force without U.N. approval. Moreover, this administrations failure to actively engage in negotiations regarding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is unfortunate.



Facing these potentialities, I hypothesize that President Bush intends to topple Saddam in 2003 in a pre-emptive attempt to initiate massive Iraqi oil production in far excess of OPEC quotas, to reduce global oil prices, and thereby dismantle OPEC's price controls. The end-goal of the neo-conservatives is incredibly bold yet simple in purpose, to use the `war on terror' as the premise to finally dissolve OPEC's decision-making process, thus ultimately preventing the cartel's inevitable switch to pricing oil in euros.



This war will be over the global currency of oil. A war intended to prevent oil from being priced in euros.

and finally...


Paradoxically, this administration's belligerent policies may bring about the very outcome they hope to prevent -- an OPEC currency switch to euros. Informed patriots realize that militant imperialist over-reach is not only detrimental to our international status, but may also in turn create severe damage to our economic stability. Thus, remaining silent is not only misguided, but false patriotism. We must not stand silent and watch our country become a `rogue' superpower, relying on brute force, thereby forcing the developed nations or OPEC to abandon the dollar standard -- and with the mere stroke of a pen -- slay the U.S. Empire.


Seems to me the article you linked to says this war is more about the interests of the corrupt plutocrats destroying america then it does about the maintenance of cheap oil for humanity let alone joe shmoes like me. So I really dont think you should be calling people simple minded when you cant be bothered to fully read your own article.


[edit on 19-5-2005 by boogyman]



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 11:37 PM
link   
1. i say 'NO' to the war lords.

2. why? because it made many war widows and a handful of very rich companies or mercenaries. bechtel, halliburton. got 0%, nothing to do with wmd or freedom.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join