It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.



page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 28 2003 @ 04:29 PM
Well I am, as some of you now know, a former US Marine. Something that bothers me is what Bush doesn't tell the American people. Iraq, we faught and died to protect the world, from a leader that was a terrorist himself, and who had weapons of mass destruction. Did he? Didn't he? Was he? Wasn't he?
What the media is great for, is creating contravorsy and turmoil and uprise. Here I refer to emotional. They have reported lightly if at all on things that would make us like Bush and heavely on things that don't, it gives them more news.

Well here is what I am getting at.

Sadam, was a terrorist. Proof? He had a city of his people irradicated. Killed. No more. That is a fact. Man, woman, child, elderly and infant killed using bio-chemical weapons. See, that happened in the 90's and everyone forgets about that but that doesn't mean it should go un punnished. More current, when I was in Iraq they shot 6 scuds at us. 4 were blown up by our patriots and two hit us anyways. We suited up and had our masks on and trust me it wasn't so we didn't get sand in our lungs. I have photos I took with my camera of scuds while we were over there. On top of all of that we witnessed some 20 Iraqies in full level bio suits uncovering and moving a football field of 50 gallon drums. Heh, sence we didn't know what was in them, or want to mess with the # we blew them all to hell. But believe me when I tell you they weren't wearing those suits to keep their clothes from getting dirty.

What I am wondering is if Bush knows, which he does, that there is or at least were before we blew them up, weapons of mass destruction over there, why not tell the American people? At least then he would have a larger party on his side.

Anyhow homework is hell, but I wanted to get that out in the open.

posted on Sep, 28 2003 @ 04:35 PM
Actually, I believe Bush has some WMD's in Iraq under extremem military guard.
Our great President will probably reveal these weapons about a month before presidential elections, or, within the last year of this term.

Just out of curiosity Lost,
Were you in Iraq during Desert Storm or Iraqui Freedom (my mind in drawing a blank... the war started in April...)?
*salutes LOSTTWARE*
- Tass

posted on Sep, 28 2003 @ 04:39 PM
The second gulf war, Iraqui Freedom.

posted on Sep, 28 2003 @ 05:30 PM

You have tried to show that Saddam is a murderer, not a terrorist, and it certainly was not for the US to unilaterally go and dish out American cowboy justice.

Bush's admin simply varied the language from "we know with absolute certainty where the WMDs that can be deployed within 40 minutes are" (a lie) to "he had weapons programs" (a nothing statement). Bush has already tried what you said, and thankfully, it has failed miserably on the world stage (the one that matters) and now honest American citizens are catching up to how useless and corrupt the incumbent admin is.

[Edited on 28-9-2003 by MaskedAvatar]

posted on Sep, 28 2003 @ 05:36 PM
I think everybody agrees Saddam was a very bad man. Who killed people within his own country all the time. You must realize that the U.S. has never made it a standard duty to go out and take out murderous dictators who kill their own countrymen wherever they pop up. Otherwise we would be at war constantly. We allowed Mao Zedong (among others) to kill tens of millions of China's populace. This alone does not make Saddam a world threat. He was a threat to his own people, that is all. Its good that he is gone, but the reasons for this war have proven to be very much fabrications.

[Edited on 28-9-2003 by heelstone]

posted on Sep, 28 2003 @ 05:54 PM

The question isnt whether or not Saddam was an asshole, he was.

However, he was not an asshole that should have concerned us. Countries have the right to be assholes to thier own people, so long as it stays within thier borders.

Saddam wasnt bugging us. He wasnt a problem for us.

Everyone knew he had suds there, i remeber during my time in Saudi how many SCUD alerts we had, and how many bombing missions were flown into Iraq. Quite a few.

It still didint justify us going over there. Scuds do not have the range to hit the US. If they did, they would probably end up hitting the ocean or an empty area.

Saddam wasnt our bizness. Theres worse dictators in the world ten times more vile than he. What he does to his own people is his business, not ours.

We do not have the right to go invade people simply because they are bad, otherwise, our military would be in 90% of the coutnries on this planet.

posted on Sep, 28 2003 @ 06:23 PM
first of all, as you've stated, I proved he is a murder but not a terrorist? Define for me what you think a terrorist is because if you do some research on the matter the reason he irraticated that city is becuase he held an election for office. In that city some people voted for someone other than Sadam. So he had the whole city killed, thus using the force of "terror" to make sure no one else would go against him. As far as us haveing justification in the war or Sadam posing a threat to us, he most certantly did. For one it has been found that he was one of the largest financial contributers to Alqueda which claimed responciblilty for 9-11-01. He might not of planned it, but he surely funded it, and with money that belonged to his people. Likewise and I don't think there is any argument here, he hated America and CIA sources showed he was close to producing Nuclear weapons. At the same time he was improving his GBMS, bombs that could reach us. Don't think for one minute that if he had achieved his goal he wouldn't have used them agains us.

More justification? Since the last gulf war we had 41 United Nation's resolutions telling him to dissarm. Let me break down those 41 resolutions for you. First of all for the UN to pass anything, there has to be an anonymous vote passed with all of the countries belonging to the UN in favor. Each of those resolutions said dissarm or else. or else what? Duh. But instead of attacking Iraq the UN kept giving him chances, proving them selfs useless in this matter, and frankly sad to say, but imbarassing. If some one told you do this or else I will kill you and you didn't do it and they didn't kill you, why would you listen to them? The UN turned into a JOKE. not after he violated the 1st or 2nd or 3rd resolution, but after 41, Bush FINNALLY stepped in and said enough! Sadam was getting to close to achieving a nucleor arsenal. Bush then was KIND enough to go through 3 more resolutions with Iraq. Why on the 44th the French and Germans wouldn't vote yes. Over 100 other nations agreed with us. I didn't fight alone over there you know; I had English Men, people from Holland, Scottland, Denmark, Even Jemacia by my side. It isn't like Bush just said we are going it alone. He DID say he was fed up enough to do that if he had to, but other countries agreed with him. Even Poland sent troops.

Don't let the media blind you. Look at facts closely and pick out the things that count. If Bush was wrong, do you really think over 100 countries would have backed us?

posted on Sep, 28 2003 @ 06:32 PM

This is very strange. There are not 100 nations backing the US unilateral effort at all, and your other assertions are questionable at best.

You are right about one thing - don't bother with U.S. media.

For me, Bush wasn't 'kind' enough to go through any resolutions and he didn't 'finally' decide to invade to save the planet and the people of Iraq. You are lapping up a lot of bull#.

The Iraq War was planned by the neo-cons of PNAC, well before Bush was assisted into being resident of the White House. Whatever was going on with the UN made not a shred of difference to the agenda.

I feel for you, because of the direct involvement in the region you say you've had, but you are trying to justify the unjustifiable, and your truth is not the truth.

posted on Sep, 28 2003 @ 06:32 PM
For what its worth - a salute to you for being there - the world will be a better place for the loss of Saddam. Your bravery is saluted.

If we talk semantics remember this "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter"

If your Marine - i believe i should say "Semper Fi" !

Perhaps if the attitude of Bush and Blair had been prevalent in the months before WW2 then many allied lives could have been saved.

Before I catch it for being a Blairite - Im a card caryying conservative - but think that at times appeasement is just stupid and burying you head in the sand merely means your backside gets burnt.

posted on Sep, 28 2003 @ 06:54 PM
Bush Admin itself in the news said that there is no link between Saddam and 9/11.

Saddam is not a terrorist, as Masked said, hes a mass murderer. Big difference. Terrorists fight via non corperal means such as bombings in other countries by random persons. Saddam was a dictator, not a terrorist.

He is dead. Thats nice. Is Iraq any better? No. Are we any better? No.

Theres scarier people in the world than saddam.

You said earlier you saw the Iraqi's moving big drums of crap from a football field or similar sized area, and that you guys had blown them away to pieces. Did you check later what was in those drums? if the drums ruptured, and carried hazardous materials, you did get some protective gear and evacuate the area, did you not? otherwise, id be worried about possible exposure to whatever was in those things. That # can travel feet per second, and dissipate into the air, creating great health hazards. if you blew it away and did not get chemical teams out there to check out what was in those drums, id be really concerned about possible getting some sort of illness from it all.

What unit were you in when this happened, and what location in Iraq? Were there any other incedents like this in the area? Were other units warned?

posted on Sep, 28 2003 @ 07:00 PM

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

Saddam is not a terrorist, as Masked said, hes a mass murderer. Big difference. Terrorists fight via non corperal means such as bombings in other countries by random persons. Saddam was a dictator, not a terrorist.

Yeah, Saddam was a 'mass murderer'.. the executioner of terrorists.

Funny how US attacks Saddam and Iraq.. when infact Saddam would have been one of the best candites as ally in war against terror.

Maybe Saddam had something against 'Bush crime family' as Colonel would put it..

posted on Sep, 28 2003 @ 07:06 PM

Funny how US attacks Saddam and Iraq.. when infact Saddam would have been one of the best candites as ally in war against terror.

>>>cla clap clap clap clap clapclap clap clap

posted on Sep, 28 2003 @ 07:12 PM

thanks for coming here man, good that there is someone around that knows the truth.

be forewarned there are lots of socialistic types around here.

they don't care what the truth is they just want lefties running the white house no matter what.

posted on Sep, 28 2003 @ 07:27 PM
Well, NEO,
we need the socialists and commies to counterbalance the fascists and Talibanites that roam this board on the right wing.

I am niether left nor right, nor do I want to see either take over this country. Right now its the right wing.

Regardless, i wanna know exactly what happened after they blew to hell these iraqis and thier toxic drums of suspect materials, because if there is that stuff running around, and it leaked or was dispersed, then we have a serious problem on our hands and might have some serious issues environemntally as well as the health of the locals and the troops.

Fire wont destroy chemicals, so if they used indinaries to disnintigrate them, that wouldnt have relaly dont much.

They should have busted the iraqis or shot them, then sent out inspection personnel to investigate the issue, some NBC folks. We had polish troops there for that purpose, to Id and isolate any chemical threats.

And Where these materials were located, and why the white house has not been informed of thier extstance, since they have decided to call off the search for WMD over there.

If they got wind of this, then they perhaps know what to look for and can resume thier search for WMD.

posted on Sep, 28 2003 @ 07:42 PM

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

Funny how US attacks Saddam and Iraq.. when infact Saddam would have been one of the best candites as ally in war against terror.

>>>cla clap clap clap clap clapclap clap clap

posted on Sep, 28 2003 @ 07:47 PM
ok, I am not going to sit here an argue with people who overlook facts or obscue the truth. Sadam was a dictator who remained in power by force and the use of terror thus a Terrorist, per the Deffinition a terrorist is someone who uses Terror to get their point across.


and per the ... there were not 100 nations backing us blah blah blah blah blah

Do you know how many nations are in the UN?
Do you?

It is a VERY large number. I am not going to state facts here I am not sure of like others, but I believe it to be around 150 to 250 nations.

France and Germany were the ONLY two who voted No.

Do the mother Freaking math.

That Means that more than 100 nations were backing us.
True, Bushes actions were unique and ballsy, going against the UN could mean us being forced to leaving the UN, but it was the UN who said for OVER 10 years and through 41 previous resolutions Disarm or Else to Iraq. He in fact did not dissarm I infact have pictures from a camera that I took with me, one of 5, of Scuds and war heads.

Bush was just acting on one of the resolutions that the UN was not. Pick one, there are 43 to choose from (41 previous to Bush, and 2 after Bush) Which according to the resolutions, they should have acted. In fact every time the UN went ahead and made another, they were mearly steping on the toes of the previous and overlooking the fact the Iraq was defying them.

Bush is extream, I give you that, but it is about time someone stood up for themselfs and enforced one of the many countless resolutions that Iraq agreed to, and then defied, while mocking the UN.

BTW, Yes, I was a US Marine, and Seper Fi.

posted on Sep, 28 2003 @ 07:52 PM
Seems to ME that the LOSTTWARE has no vision..

With no concept of reality.

This (he) isnt something we need here.. yet a another Bush lover.

(would say something nasty, but i really am trying not to..)

[Edited on 29-9-2003 by Bandit]

posted on Sep, 28 2003 @ 08:00 PM
Um, No, Russia and germany werent the only ones who voted no. Russia, china, several others also.

And last I checked, there was 163 Nations in the UN. But it was the security council that voted. You need to do a bit more looking into.

I say again, who cares if Saddam was a bad man who was mean to people? So? We support china, and they rule by brute force. We support the Saudis, who abuse foreigners who work there, abuse thier women, mutilate thier daughters, ect. We support far worse than Saddam, why aint they being removed?

Why aint we going after Mugabe in Africa, after all the twisted # he has done to the white people there? Why didnt we remove that uganda dictator who died recently? Why havent we removed castro, who everyone claims is evil?

Why Iraq?

Cuz Saddam was sitting on a #load of oil,t hats why. Saddam was not worth the time it took to remove him.

And I asked you some questions, because I am very concerned about what happened with the barrels of junk you blew up.

Please answer them. Theres alot of peoples lives and health at stake here. Not just yours, but other troops and Iraqi civilians.

I still dont understand why the US military must go and remove bad guys int he world instead of worrying about the security of America.

Bush is scarier than Saddam.

Ill ask you again, what happened with those barrels? Did you get teams out there to smaple what was in those things? For gods sake, what if something really nasty was in them? And you dont care?

posted on Sep, 28 2003 @ 08:06 PM

Maybe you are the one who should do your 'homework' better.

Castro is not 'evil'.

Batista the man whom Castro 'exited' was.

And all the Cubans in exile (most of them anyways..) are supporters of Batista.. or just power / money hungry opportunists.

posted on Sep, 28 2003 @ 08:48 PM

Sorry bud, but you seem to be devoid of facts on the United Nations, the Security Council and the nation states that make up the world.

I have done the maths, thanks. I know how the Security Council operates. I know how many nations there are in the world, which are in the UN, which are not, and why, and I follow their voting patterns.

I know which Committees have voted the US off, to no longer participate, and how the rift is growing. I know the international sentiment against the Bush admin and the US, and what the cause is.

You are clutching at thin air, and as you are attempting to argue from no knowledge base, I will try to mitigate against your further embarrassment in this topic.

I do encourage you to get some semblance of understanding of the issues you want to discuss, before you post on a public message board, for your own sake.

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in