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.

 

POLITICS: Sheehan Attacks Israel, Refuses to Pay Taxes

page: 7
1
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 08:18 AM
link   
He got rid of them in the 1990's.

Think about;
U.N. says he can't have them.
His Military was smacked in line and he had a choice.
Do as you are told and live a nice life starving your people or die/get put to death by the Government that will follow or by a bomb.

We all know which he picked.

Saddam didn't need any weapons, he let his army rot because he had the lovely U.N. protection. Once the Kurdish Militants were destroyed there was no more internal problems. So he made a quick-buck off of selling the weapons to Syria.

However the fact still stands, the U.S. used it as a reason to go to war. If he got rid of them 6months before, two months before or 10 years he did not have them. So the reason isn't valid.

Also the lights were there as was the Police force, for years. Not months.
It was gone.

If the American Government was abotu regime change, I'd not mind. But the invasion was not. Mugabe should have been removed and should be. Maybe they should do that? No oil there - show us it's not about the oil but the regime change.




posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 08:30 AM
link   
I'm not saying that we didn't go in for the wrong reasons, and we continue to be there for the wrong reasons. You say he got rid of his weapons a long time ago, but there's no proof, only opinion. I can't prove my opinion either, so don't take that as a challenge to do so.

I admit I don't know the whole truth, no one here does, no one here can. It's all opinion, conjecture and theory. We'll never know the whole truth of what went down in Iraq. But everyone states their opinion as if it's fact. If I tried had enough I could convince some people that Saddam's grand plan was to breed dinosaurs and have a Jurassic jihad!



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 08:39 AM
link   
.
Now we have the Jurassic Park rationale for invading Iraq?

You know after you have spun the wheel enough times No one will believe any of your proposed reasons.

That leaves 4 other reasons:

1. You have some secret reason you are not telling anyone

2. You just like blood killing and war

3. You are totally insane

4. All of the above
.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 08:44 AM
link   
slank, you missed out:


    5 We were bored.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium

No in fact you might want to check.
The sources you use might also want to check.
The site and court case have been brought into question (which is why you need to check all of what your source said) by what they have found.
Al Qaeda and Bin Laden had already tried to remove Saddam from power.
Saddam in return did not help them.


How do you know he did not help them?

Iraqi military officials met with Bin Laden's officers several times


Originally posted by Odium
The Palestinian Terrorist groups do not attack America (Nation) they attack Israel.
Bombing Israel is an external problem and not Americas to deal with but the U.Ns, the Islamic World's and Israel's problem.

Abdul Rahman Yasin, fleed to Iraq after the 1993 wtc attack. This man was part of the cell that attacked the US in 1993.

Salameh made several calls also to his uncle, Kadri Abu Bakr (another terrorist) in Iraq. The totalitarian regime would have
known about this, yet did nothing.

Palestinian suicide bombers have targeted Americans, and that is also a problem that the US and not the UN has to deal with.

We also have the intelligence reports from the Russians themselves which stated that since 9/11 and up to the war in Iraq they had evidence, which they gave to the US, that Saddam was making plans to attack the US with terrorist attacks. Even Saddam himself had stated several times that Iraq was still at war with the US after the first Gulf War.

BTW, how come there are no links between Iraq and Al Qaeda when they met several times?

BTw,




[edit on 16-8-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
slank, you missed out:


    5 We were bored.



Yep bored. But rememer- THE 9-11 DINOSAURS ARE COMING! HIDE YOUR MEAT-PANTS!!



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Make this evidence public.
Charge the people.
Otherwise it is just rumour.

Will America deport the C.I.A. agents which tried to have Castro overthrown?
The ones who tried to have him assassinated?
Why should Iraq when the U.S. will not do the same?

Sorry, Israel is a U.N. problem.
Created by the U.N.
Not America.
About time America stops using the veto to protect Israel and they are punished like Iraq for breaking U.N. resolutions.

Where are the reports that show Bin Laden's men met with Saddam's? With Saddam's knowledge? Or even without?

Bin Laden tried to have Saddam over-thrown.
He spoke out about him not being a muslim.
Even during the Iraq Conflict there were reports on the BBC of Bin Laden's men saying to kill Americans but not help Saddam.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 09:09 AM
link   
.
Odium,
I think that would be the worst of all.

Killing 40,000 to 100,000 people purely out of boredom.

One would feel compelled to introduce them to the excitement of being very close to their own deaths.
.


apc

posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Everything else seems to have been answered, but Ill also toss in:

His Brother, not him.

When his brother had almost as much authority as he, yes I'd have to call that a threat.

Was Iraq a direct imminent threat to the rest of the world? No.

Was Iraq covertly aiding those that were a direct imminent threat to the rest of the world? Yes.

Seems a good enough excuse to me to take them out.

And I for one hold no compassion for this woman. Her and those who support her are a disgrace to the lives that have been sacrificed and lost in this war. Even if we were just digging for excuses to go and secure the oil, which in many ways.. we were.. that alone is a good enough reason to send troops over. Wars are always fought over land, resources, or religious/ethnic incompatibilities. This one is no different.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Make this evidence public.
Charge the people.
Otherwise it is just rumour.


The evidence has all been made public. No rumor there.


Originally posted by Odium
Will America deport the C.I.A. agents which tried to have Castro overthrown?
The ones who tried to have him assassinated?
Why should Iraq when the U.S. will not do the same?


First you ask proof that Saddam was aiding terrorist for attacks against the US and now you change your argument when evidence is presented?......

Originally posted by Odium
Sorry, Israel is a U.N. problem.
Created by the U.N.
Not America.
About time America stops using the veto to protect Israel and they are punished like Iraq for breaking U.N. resolutions.


Sorry but AMERICAN CITIZENS are the US responsibility and not the UN's....and it is our resposibility to stand by our allies...not like some other countries have done and stabbed us in the back when it is convinient for them to do so....


Originally posted by Odium
Where are the reports that show Bin Laden's men met with Saddam's? With Saddam's knowledge? Or even without?

Bin Laden tried to have Saddam over-thrown.
He spoke out about him not being a muslim.
Even during the Iraq Conflict there were reports on the BBC of Bin Laden's men saying to kill Americans but not help Saddam.


Here is one of the reports.


06 November 1998

TEXT: US GRAND JURY INDICTMENT AGAINST USAMA BIN LADEN

United States District Court
Southern District of New York
.....................
Additionally, the indictment states that Al Qaeda reached an agreement
with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that
they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons
development.


Excerpted from.
www.fas.org...


Anyways, we are really off topic here. We should be discussing what this woman is saying now. Her statements that terrorism would stop if we get off the Middle east and stop helping our allies, Israelis, is naive to say the least, and of course she does not have in mind the other statements that Islamic terrorists, including Osama Bin Laden have said about what their goals are. But, of course it furthers her agenda, and the left wing radicals' agenda against the admistration.




[edit on 16-8-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 10:46 AM
link   
.
The only thing it links with Iraq is weapons development.
With inspectors there not much weapons develoment took place.

The agreement not to work against Saddam's regime bristles with hostility.

If that is the only reason to invade Iraq it was a complete screw up.
.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 11:02 AM
link   
No, Muaddib, I made this point on the first or second page of the thread.

To conclude the training of such people makes them terrorists also makes the C.I.A. terrorists.

American people die world over on holiday, get raped, murdered, etc, a majority of which I would bet are not be "Terrorists" at all but are because of the fact people on holiday tend to have money.

Do they invade these Nations?

As for the Indictment you speak of, you again need to read my source. It spoke of that there as well and said it was incorrect.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Here is a new twist to this story. Apparently her husband does not agree with her and has filed for a divorce.

Husband of 'Peace Mom' Files for Divorce



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 11:30 AM
link   
I don't know how long her son was serving before he got called up to go into combat, but it seems that everythings fine and dandy when our children join the military to get all the benefits that are offered.

But the moment duty calls, it's wrong for them to be in the armed forces.

Almost every member of our armed forces know that the day may come that they will be called up for combat duty.

Let these fine young men and women serve honorably.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Where does that link state that the husband does not agree with her?

Am i missing something? About what? I thought we had a statement from him.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Where does that link state that the husband does not agree with her?

Am i missing something? About what? I thought we had a statement from him.


A Fox reporter tried to talk to him and he said, lets just say I am not happy with the situation and have nothing more to comment.

That was where I learned of the divorce, so I then went looking for a link to confirm it was true. Sorry for the confusion.....

I just did another search and I see USAtoday is reporting the cause as stress

[quote]Cindy Sheehan said the stress of the death led to the separation of the couple, who were high school sweethearts.

www.usatoday.com...

and another source claims this, but that will not change what I heard from his own mouth


The husband of Cindy Sheehan has filed for divorce, citing "irreconcilable differences" with his anti-war wife.


www.wpherald.com...
[edit on 8/16/2005 by shots]

[edit on 8/16/2005 by shots]



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Hey all you ignorant dittoheads...I haven't seen a word of outrage at that redneck from Waco desacrating the memorial Arlington West by running it over with his pick up truck. Where's your indignation at that? Like it or not is was a memorial to the dead, our dead and many of those crosses were made by grieving families and were draped with American flags. Where are you expressions of sorrow at such a hateful act. HUH???



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 04:10 AM
link   
Don't you all think you've beat this dead horse enough?



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by shots

A Fox reporter tried to talk to him and he said, lets just say I am not happy with the situation and have nothing more to comment.

That was where I learned of the divorce, so I then went looking for a link to confirm it was true. Sorry for the confusion.....

I just did another search and I see USAtoday is reporting the cause as stress


Isn't he the one that said she was going against her son's wishes and that he had talked to his son and said he agreed with president Bush?

I heard an interview done to one of the husbands of those two women that have made it to the news because they are left wing radicals, but I am not sure if he was the husband of Sheenan. He did say his ex-wife had become a left wing radical and he didn't agree with that. He pretty much also said she was not speaking for their son.

According to all I have read and seen in the interviews done to the father of this soldier and the rest of the family, it seems the only ones taking the left wing radical side are the mothers. It is pretty hard for a woman to lose their son/daughter and most can't accept their lose and have to blame someone for that loss.



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Muaddib, he agreed with the President before all the evidence was out. Many people did who found out the C.I.A. etc were in fact wrong, lied or whatever you wish to call it.




top topics



 
1
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join