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.

 

To everyone against the war Part II

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Okay, most people agree that Bush did not do 9/11, except one guy out there who says this:
(Oil drilling in ANWAR and in the Gulf)...wouldn't pass the US Senate, as has been evidenced already in 2003. The Iraq war was easily passed as noone dared to vote against it for fear of looking either unpatriotic and a terrorist appeaser.
His or her arguement boils down to that it is easier to stage the largest terrorist attack in history and invade Iraq to get its oil than to pass legislation in the US Congress with a Republican majority.

If you take a serious look at the facts and put all partisan reservations behind, you will see that if BushCO put equal effort into oil drilling in ANWAR as staging 9/11 as you say, he will easily get it done. There is no argument here.

So we have that sealed. Let's move on to more effective, higher arguements against the Iraqi War. Firstoff, let's tackle this arguement:

The Iraqi War is not part of the War on Terror, does not go after the ones responsible of 9/11, will not prevent future terrorist attacks, will create more terrorists than it stops, and is a lie manufactured by Bush.

I want to state firstoff that this is, in part, a more legitamate criticism than the first one. It acknowledges that the US is the good guy in the War on Terror; that the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration are good things and Osama's religious perversion is a bad thing.

But still it is faulty in many points. The first concerning the practicality of the situation we are in. In the pro-War camp, al-Qaeda and the ones responsible for 9/11 were destroyed in the Afghani war. We have taken out al Qaeda and there is no way they can start another 9/11 the way we left them.

But still the threat of Islamic terrorism lingered. The only way we can defeat this is by introducing democracy and human rights to the Arab world. True democracies participating in the free market enterprise are less likely to start wars than dictatorships. What better place to introduce democracy into the Arab world than in Iraq? Sadaam is hated by both Westerners and Arabs. They have a well educated middle class that makes up most of their population. They have a wealth of natural resources and have more advanced infrastructure in the Arab world. Thus, Iraq became the next front in the War on Terror.

WMDs had a lot to due with it also. If you read the Kay report, it does state that Sadaam's main goal was to go nuclear. He did have WMD infrastructure in place, and could start production at the drop of the hat. Also, even though he did not have stock piles, we did not know for certain. Hans Blix could not guarantee 100% that Sadaam had no WMDs. The only reason he got as far as he did was the enhanced pressure on Sadaam due to US troop mobilization. Less than a year after 9/11, we could not have uncertainity with a dictator with more military resources, more US hatred, and more terrorist experience than Osama.

So it boils down to that removing Sadaam proved to be a unique oppurtunity to bring human rights and democracy to the middle east, while further securing the US against castrotophic terrorist attacks.

Let me finish this discussion by asking the anti-war crowd that if an oppurtunity such as this fell into your lap, that you could help out millions of Arabs instantly, hopefully bring human rights to all the Arab countries, and at the same time guarantee further security of the US, would you pull the trigger?




posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedWhiteandBlood
Let me finish this discussion by asking the anti-war crowd that if an oppurtunity such as this fell into your lap, that you could help out millions of Arabs instantly, hopefully bring human rights to all the Arab countries,

hmm... for some odd reason I dont think they see it that way.
I mean if by "help out" you mean explode, and by "human rights" you mean total humiliation, religious degradation and torture, well then yes.

[edit on 19-6-2005 by Infamous Zordak9]



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 09:49 PM
link   
"Let me finish this discussion by asking the anti-war crowd that if an oppurtunity such as this fell into your lap, that you could help out millions of Arabs instantly, hopefully bring human rights to all the Arab countries, and at the same time guarantee further security of the US, would you pull the trigger"

If that was possible YES, but it ISNT possible in this situation.

Why?

Although there havent been any attacks on the US, Iraq is addmittatly becoming a terrorist HAVEN.
why not, lawless arabs running around collecting arms.. its an invitation.

They arent FREEING the ARABS, they are FORCING a way of life on them they have not known, or experienced.

If I broke ur door down and put a gun to ur head, saying accept my way of life or die, what would you do? would you be happy? would you be free?

If this war was legit and needed, why the lies, the coverups to get it to happen?
Why the hidden agenders, meetings?

Why is there so much contraversy over somethign that is correct and legal?

there are too many factors adding up on the ' against ' column for this war that makes it toooo suspicous.

There's no rebuilding of any significatn scale happening? but we are winning the war?
There's still US deaths, car bombings, kidnappings and so forth... but we are winning?

Saddam was a GRAVE and TERRIBLE threat, yet we found nothing..
Isnt it funny the Brit whom was found dead after giving his info on the WMD issue?.. c'mon thats a professional hit if i ever seen one.

Although i dont beleive this war was primarily over OIL, it was a definate cherry with the deal.

Maybe the goal is middleleast OIL, not just IRAQ?.. who knows.

Support is decreasing daily for this war...
Because the american citizens that were for it, are starting to see the light.
You dont see the people whom were against it and protesting, backflipping and agreeing with this war do you?



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Its always those in the world that dare to hope and to dream of a better world and a better future for all human kind.

Yes. . .no wars and freedom for everybody including the "poor Arab world"

Sorry to burst the bubble of hope and dream, but that is not what is going in the world right now and the actions of the present administration in the middle east and the results of these actions tells a different story.

For the starter of this thread I will say to you "keep the hope and the dreams coming" but make sure you know which are dreams and which are realities, don't caught between them.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Why couldn't this have been covered in "Against the War" Part 1. Just a question.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 10:36 PM
link   
The first thread reached 5 pages and was flowing quite well. I would encourage everyone to please continue posting their replies to the topic in that one. There is no sense in splitting the train of thought except to confuse people.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Yeah this thread really should be closed. Anyway back to Thread #1.

[edit on 19-6-2005 by NoJustice]



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by RedWhiteandBlood
If you read the Kay report, it does state that Sadaam's main goal was to go nuclear.

It does say that there are scientists who testified that Saddam probably would have wanted to resume nuclear activities, as part of their personal opinion. There is no written or material evidence of this, nor is there any evidence that Iraq had an ongoing nuclear program or was planning to start up such a thing.




top topics



 
0

log in

join