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.

 

America's Secret War - The True Reason for war in Iraq...

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Yanks should be glad they have a right to bare arms, the second amendment.
You've got to think a bit farther on these kind of things, because the sad cold reality is that sometimes governments turn on their citizens, possibly become fascist or something else that the citizens don't want. The people own the government, not the other way around.
So as for citizens in countries that don't have the right to bare arms, if their government starts to turn into something the people don't like, the people will have a hard time to change or overthrow the government.

Americans still have the second amendment, however it's being limited more and more. Soon you might loose it, or at least virtually loose it.




posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by SwearBear
Yanks should be glad they have a right to bare arms, the second amendment.
You've got to think a bit farther on these kind of things, because the sad cold reality is that sometimes governments turn on their citizens, possibly become fascist or something else that the citizens don't want. The people own the government, not the other way around.
So as for citizens in countries that don't have the right to bare arms, if their government starts to turn into something the people don't like, the people will have a hard time to change or overthrow the government.

Americans still have the second amendment, however it's being limited more and more. Soon you might loose it, or at least virtually loose it.


I couldn't agree with you more on the right to own weapons.

One thing I will say though, is that our gun regulations are actually becoming more lax since Republicans control just about every branch.

For instance just the other day I traded in my Mini 14 for an M-4 with collapsable stock and flash supressor. Had the Brady bill not had a sunset clause, and Republicans had not been in office, I would not have legally been allowed to get the rifle.



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
But your so tied up in the ability to carry a gun to church, you dont stop to think of the families who have lost loved ones.
Or the families who's sons and daughters are going to come back mentally unstable from this war.


I carry my gun everywhere I go. Church (twice a year w/ my mom and dad, I'm not a religious man), the supermarket, to walk my dog.

You want to know why? It's not because I am obsessed with guns, it's because I have gone to school in two VERY bad areas (up town New Orleans and west philly). I

I witnessed my first shoot-out before I was 10 years old, and I grew up in a very good nieghborhood. Unlike you, I'm not going to stick my head in the sand and hope it never happens to me. # happens to good people, and I am not going to be the idiot who didn't do all he could to protect himself, his friends, and his family.

It is our right as Americans to carry a firearm, and a lot of us choose to exercise that right. I pitty those who do not have the freedom to protect themselves with the most effective tools available.



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Yes, since there is a Republican in office and since the congress is a Republican majority gun laws have become more lax. A law that president Clinton passed in 1996 banning automatic assault rifles expired last year and this administration did not re institute it.

The right to bear arms is important, the only things our founding fathers though were more important than it were the rights of speech, religion and press.


[edit on 1-9-2005 by WestPoint23]



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Faust - get real will you? PLEASE?


I have walked the walk, fired the shot and missed, and have had 4 mates killed because of the Blair-Bush coalition - 1 in Afghanistan, 1 when he returned home after his tour of Iraq and 2 more to suicide car bombers, also in Iraq. If I was young enough, I'd be out there but at 53, my country does not need me!


So please, unless you have been 'there' and done 'that', you ain't qualified to talk the talk.

Seriously though Faust, I got a little carried away about my post on Clinton and Yeah, I Got That One Wrong!
[At least I apologise when I cock things up!


I seriously think this Iraq business is
up my head. I also keep forgetting what the
I was typing about.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Just a minor point but I would like to point out that Clinton's
assault weapon ban did not ban fully automatic weapons like AK47s
and M16s. Fully automatic weapons (machine guns) like the
Thompson or any other shoulder fired machine gun was made
illegal in about 1932 and are still illegal even after Clinton's
ban as expired. For people to possess machine guns
since 1932 it has been necessary to buy the federal license
to do so.

Clinton's ban did not target machine guns (fully automatic
weapons like AK47s and M16s) They made illegal certain
semiautomatic weapons. For example a civilian AR-15
that could function as a semi automatic (self loading) but
not fully automatic (machine gun) could still be sold under
Clinton's gun ban. The difference was that you could not
buy the gun with a flash hider, a bayonet mount, a collapsible
stock, or a magazine larger than 10 rounds. After his ban
expired you could buy your AR with a flash hider and you
can buy large magazines for them.

Clinton's ban basically made certain cosmetic versions of
rifles unavailable. Even the civilian AK (semi auto) was still
available but you could not get it with certain features like
pistol grip, bayonet mount etc.

Also another point to make is that concealed carry of handguns
is gaining acceptance over many areas over the past 20 years.
In every case where they have made this legal, crimes rates
have decreased. My state is one that started allowing concealed
carry of handguns about 10 years ago. Many states now have
reciprocal laws whereby you can carry in those states if the other
allows it. These laws allow citizens without criminal records
to carry once a required safety course is completed. It has
no effect on criminals carrying weapons since they will do so
regardless of what any law says. That's why they are criminals,
they have no qualms about carrying illegal guns since by definition
breaking laws is what they do. Also criminals can't get a permit
to carry because of their felony record.

Also during the past 25 years any place enacting more banning of
guns by citizens have seen an increase in crime rates with each
ban. This has been especially true throughout the English
speaking world. It was observed in Canada, England, and Australia.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 11:12 AM
link   
I want to revisit a point here because I believe
it is very important.

As I pointed out before Agit8dtchop likes to make up
what he thinks happened and then argue against it.
This is a common trick of the far left liberals
that I have observed. One area that they have
been very successful in is promoting their notion
that Bush lied about Iraq.


Agit8dtchop has carried one of these well promoted
lies forward when he has said is that Iraq had no
weapons and we attacked anyway so that we could
kill lots of women and children. This is a prime
example of his twisting the facts.

Here is an explanation of how the facts were distorted
to show the Bush Lied.

UN inspections broke down because Saddam would not
let his nuclear scientists be interviewed in an
environment without Iraqi coercion. The Bush team
interpreted this as proof that Saddam was hiding a
nuclear weapons program. AS things turned out this was
proven to be true and hiding of the program
was documented by the scientist in charge of the
Iraqi centrifuge program. So Bush did not lie
when he said that Saddam was hiding a nuclear
weapons program.

UN inspections did not fail because Saddam was
hiding weapons. UN inspections failed specifically
because Saddam was hiding a weapons program,
trying to develop weapons (nukes). The far left
have taken this and twisted it. They have proclaimed
in effect that Bush claimed they had nukes, and
since none were found he lied. This is absolutely
not true. UN inspections failed specifically
because Iraq refused proper interview of their nuclear
scientists and it was suspected that they were
working on developing weapons, not specifically
having them.

Also make note of the fact that Saddam would
still be there in power today, if he had not
insisted on keeping this nuclear program a
secret. If he had let his scientists be interviewed
properly then UN sanctions would have worked and
the case would have been closed. These facts make
the case effectively that Iraq was the liar, not
the US.

But since Agit8dtchop has insisted that Bush lied
and attacked Iraq so that we could kill innocent
children and women I decided to take this a little
further and revisit the fact that UN inspections
failed on the point of interview of Iraq's scientists
concerning the hiding of their nuclear program nuclear.
Since it has been confirmed that Iraq was indeed
hiding a nuclear weapons program then it has to
be acknowledged that Bush, in fact, was correct
in his assumption that this was evidence that
they were hiding this weapons program.


Since Iraq's top nuclear scientist should know more
about Iraq's nuclear weapon program than Agit8dtchop
I decided to include some quotes from their top nuclear
scientist, Mahdi Obeidi concerning the hidden nuclear
program in Iraq.


Concerning the detailed drawings, dimensions, blue prints
and instructions for making the centrifuges and the
prototypes buried in his garden Mahdi said this:
===========
These drawings, documents, and prototypes represented the
accumulated knowledge of the Iraqi nuclear centrifuge
program. They were not actual weapons of mass destruction,
but they were probably the most valuable building blocks
for WMD that Iraq ever possessed. Saddam's son Qusay had
ordered me to keep them safe from inspectors in 1992,
and the Iraqi government concocted a story that they
had been destroyed by the security services.
===========


Mahdi also gave details of how the scientists and their
families were threatened and never given free access to
the inspectors. In 1998 during the last attempts of
the UN inspectors to question nuclear scientists, The
closest the scientists ever came to being given free
access to inspectors required that Iraq get tape recordings
of the questioning, thereby letting the scientists know
that they could not divulge any thing secretly to
inspectors. At one time Scott Ritter questioned Mahdi
and he gave accounts of that. Scott Ritter as you may
recall was a tough inspector who became convinced at
one point that Iraq was not hiding anything. Here
is what Mahdi said of the Scott Ritter interview.
============
Then Mr Ritter turned his attention to me with a penetrating
stare.
"We're onto you" he said. "I know you're hiding things"
He was looking for any inch of hesitation. The image of the
documents and components buried in my garden flashed into
my mind. I knew what could happen to me and my family if
he were to get any hint that those secrets were buried there.
I went on the offensive as my best defense using what I knew
to be his weakness: his lack of knowledge in the nuclear
field.
============
At the above point Mahdi was able to make some arguments
that sounded convincing enough that Ritter gave up and
later apparently believed Iraq was not hiding a program.


As final comments to his account of the Iraqi nuclear
program Mahdi had these things to say:
=============
As I try to make sense of my past and put it in perspective,
one thing is clear. Although Saddam never had nuclear
weapons at his disposal, the story of how close Iraq came
to developing them should serve as red flag to the international
community. The threat of nuclear weapons is not going away.
........The centrifuge is the single most dangerous piece
of nuclear technology. Because it is the most efficient
and easiest method to hide, the centrifuge will
continue to be the preferred method for illicitly producing
bomb-grade uranium. With advances in centrifuge technology,
it is now possible to conceal a uranium enrichment program
inside a single warehouse.
=============



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 03:42 PM
link   
I have just received my copy from Play.com and to be honest, in just 2 short days, I have read 4 chapters.

I can thoroughly recommend it to one and all. It does make for a very interesting read.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
From your post to me there, it is also evident that in your mind, the problems began after Carter lost the election. I suggest you remove the political shades and try to see the world in an objective manner.


- No, that is what I am saying at all; I am well aware that this kind of geopolitical messing about was happening under Carter (and long long before too, obviously).

The difference is specifically the degree and level of involvement post Carter and the deliberate inflamation of radical fundamentalist Islam - specifically to be directed at those, first and foremost and most dangerously, to be considered 'infidel' as well as invaders/occupiers/illegitimate rulers.

IMO thanks to the different magnitude of cash and direct involvement/training from people like North the genie was well and truely let out of the bottle - quite deliberately - post Carter and in a way it never was before.

I'd suggest it was ironically the use of those very 'political shades' that blinded those people (North, Poindexter & Reagan et al) to exactly what it was they were doing and what the perfectly foreseeable consequences of that meddling was likely to be.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 04:33 AM
link   
the reason???????, the oil is a strong variable in the equation.

but, what i found interesting is that the lack of results and hopeless effors to capture mr.Osama, just showed the US vulnerability, politically the US just cant been in that state, so well Mr.Bush just needed someone to attack, Iraq was perfect, it was vulnerable, with bad public opinion, and have oil, hmmm delicius oil....., ahh and dont forget the mass destruction weapons



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Holding All The Cards

I'm pretty sure the U.S. knows exactly where Osama is, but is deliberately holding off on capturing him in favor of using him as a surveillance magnet, and to maintain a degree of coherency in Al Qaeda's structure.

By doing this, U.S. intelligence can track down the membership of AQ from top to bottom.

When the time is right, the probable scenario is that a large number of AQ members will be captured at once in a coordinated world-wide sweep, including Osama, Zawahiri and friends.

I am sure that careful attention is being given to making sure Osama is captured alive if at all possible.

In the intelligence business, the only thing you can count on is that nothing is as it seems.

Also, I think it should be painfully obvious why plans like these aren't announced in press conferences every week.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 05:31 PM
link   
hmm, i think that all terrrorism cells are related in wrong way with AlQueda, perhaps is by the US interests, the first bomb attack the WTC wasnt planned by Ben laden , there are different terrorism cells, different faces of the islamic extremist resistance to say that all the international islamic terrorism is Al Queda is crap, but the US selected Alqueda and the Talibans, perhaps to take control over that proportion of asia, maybe even Ben Laden isnt the author of the WTC fall, but is the more convenient for the US interests, now Ben Laden acept that -remember that first he deny that-, why???, is more favorable to him, now he is a hero in some islamics comunities, remember that the US didnt liked mr. Laden, they always tried to destroy his organization, they trow tomahawks against Afghanistan, but mostly because his influence over some important institutions over the islamic world than by attacks against the US

so well, the 9/11 have come, i doubt that Laden was the author, but the US needed a convenient guilty, and he is Ben Laden

Magic,im pretty sure that if the US would know where the hell is Laden they would capturated or killed him, perhaps some guys think in that "begin from the bases" tactic, but it sound more a excuse of the lack of sucess

[edit on 7-9-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 05:36 PM
link   
With respect grunt I dont think so.
I mean many of the terror cells have thier own rules that strangely enough are similar to most country's laws.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 05:41 PM
link   
i also saw a video which described how our first president, (bush) only took out iraq's army
the first times we invaded. leaving saddam still in iraq. see we could have taken out saddam as well but why leave him there?

so we could have another excuse to go back and' and make more money! it makes perfect sense.

even the cleanup crews which helped restore the country after the war inherited millions of dollars. (us cleanup that is)



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Many good points that make sense... Attacking Iraq to show the Saudis we mean business: THAT truly makes sense.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
With respect grunt I dont think so.
I mean many of the terror cells have thier own rules that strangely enough are similar to most country's laws.


international terrorism cells isnt a network, yes there are cooperation between different cells, but the reason why you seem them sooo similar is just because............IS EXTREMIST RELIGIUS TERRORISM


is like to say that the FARC, ELN, or "senderuo luminuoso" were the same in the latin-america guerrilla, only because all were communist rebelds



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by nightbreid
Many good points that make sense... Attacking Iraq to show the Saudis we mean business: THAT truly makes sense.


isnt as you think , is attack iraq,not because is a real enemy, is JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN ATTACK, but Bin Laden is different, it take time, and perhaps is useless

also that have relation with some americans way of thinking , i mean, you must attack someone, or you will be ridicoulus!!!!!


Osama ben laden -if he was-, just put in a ridicoulus, and complicated situation of US, the americans didnt think well what they could do, and made the huge mistake to attack iraq, now they are trapped there, and actually the extremisms will increase in the zone by that unwise move




[edit on 7-9-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajorCee
We attacked Iraq because they were hiding a nuclear weapons program from UN inspectors, in violation of UN sanctions.


Did you get this assumption, notice the first three letters, out of the book you read? I'm still amazed that fellow Americans actually believe this rhetoric. FYI that's not why we went into Iraq. Excuses are means for collection plans, and engagements, drafted through leakmen for the purpose of MCD (manipulative comms deception). We don't go to war based on what we tell committee's, especially the EU. LOL. Time for more tea,



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by grunt2
international terrorism cells isnt a network, yes there are cooperation between different cells, but the reason why you seem them sooo similar is just because............IS EXTREMIST RELIGIUS TERRORISM


Ok cells was the wrong word, many networks dont have links with alquida.
I do see what you mean though, many diffrent networks will have links with them purely on religion.



is like to say that the FARC, ELN, or "senderuo luminuoso" were the same in the latin-america guerrilla, only because all were communist rebelds

Not familiar with those groups mate...I'll take your word on it.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 11:08 PM
link   
This war isnt about WMD's, MajorCEE's nuclear programme or freeing the IRAQI people.

why?

1. There was no solid PROOF prior to the way about WMD's for invasion.

there was too much reasonable DOUBT, which is why the international community COULDNT Back it. Bush would make you think they are imcompitant.. but as it turns out saddam didnt get WMDS again, so actually they were successful!

2. Freeing the IRAQI people. After years of sanctions, murder and all the difficulty put on the iraqi people, how is in there best interest to bomb there infrastructure, destroy there basic DAILY needs, and remove there leaders. This puppet government has made IRAQ an American ASSET.
Just like Israel. And its the IRAQI people who will die.
.... but I spose you are free when you die.. this must be bush's logic

Iraq is simply a stepping stone.
Bush doesnt know WHO to get next.. but he knows sooner or later someone is going to hit them in IRAQ.. All the finatical muslims in all the surrounding countries arent going to stand by and let america create a military base... ... it just wont happen... could u see pakistan letting INDIA craete a base in there backyard?.. of course not.

This is a never ending war for bush..
which means a never ending presidency..

A middleastern base is exactly the reason for this war, and you fools who believe in the WMD scenario are doing nothing but ensuring the war that is coming.




top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join