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.

 

On what grounds do you dare disagree with War in Iraq?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 04:42 AM
link   
There are many variant reasons:

Build homes not bombs

Bush has gone in just to finish what his dad started

The UN said not to


Etc.

The list is not so important; everyone has their reasons. So ask yourself if your reasons for not going to war out-weighs the result.

Iraq is liberated from decades of tyranny; a tyranny almost none of you know. But to anyone from behind the Iron Curtain it's a well known feeling. A man once told me what it was like to watch our world from the perspective of a liberated mind (he was an American); he said it was the most terrifying thing. Here, in Russia where he was visiting during the last years of the Cold War, were huddled children (in mind; not in age) frightened by their masters into beleiving that at any moment for no logical reason; the USA might Nuke them.

Dr. Obeidi (Saddam's chief Nuclear Scientist) explains that the feeling of liberation was strange. That he had entered a world where he no longer had to fear death from what he was thinking; though he had many other concerns before finally escaping to America.

I'm sure those of you in Germany may relate to your Eastern cousins; those of you in the US need only find the right immigrant; to learn what liberation truly is.

So Iraq is liberated: it has problems, yes we all know this.

Coming to the finality of my argument: how do you forsake the good in liberating them for the problems that come with it?

The US casualties are too high?

The civilian casualties are too high?

The cost is too high?

The cost of war

Here you will find a list of the costs of war: but I want you to read only the costs of the Revolutionary War, which created your nation.

The Revolutionary War was supported by about 1/3rd of the population; and opposed by another 1/3rd.

These figures do not take that into account, so when 200,000 men served in the military; they came from a family of 1 million; not 3 million.

When more than 10,000 were wounded or killed in action; they comprised almost 1 out of every 200 people. This was a war killing 55 people a month. This is without the figures for battle deaths due to illness and other non-battle ailments...

Judging that medicine was in fact worse before the Civil War; and the Civil War casualties (deaths and non-battle wounded) were 50% due to disease and famine. The actual number of deaths can be almost doubled; we'll increase it by 75% for sake of some wounded were battle related.

That's about 1 out of every 70 people that would consider themselves brothers and sisters. 1 out of every 140 people that weren't loyalists.

If you knew 70 people and sided with the US; you probably knew someone who died or was seriously wounded in the war. If you knew 140 people; you had very good chances.

In a world where you knew the entire town; you probably knew more than 140 people.

In today's Iraq war; less than 1 out of every 20,000 have been maimed or killed.

But it doesn't stop there.

A great divide in the Revolutionary War occurred; 100,000 loyalists were forced out of the new United States.

That's 1 out of every 50 people had to leave.

If you know 50 people; one of them would have had to flee the nation.

The cost of the war in 1990s dollars was 350billion (approximately). More than the first Gulf War.

Still more than the current estimated cost by a bunch of raving lunatics who hate the war in Iraq: who set the cost at a measley 248 billion USD in 2005 dollars.

So in conclusion: How can you not support the Iraq War?

It is so cheap compared to the Revolution (so if you're an American you're especially being illogical) and the investment yields a far greater return.

24 million liberated people.




posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 07:44 AM
link   
Liberation from dictatorship and torn into civil war. I hope youll agree to the fact that no country in this world will accept interference from an alien body. US interference on the basis of WMD was the starting phase of the episodes to unfold.

The families during the regiem, suffered alot and the poor people had a lot to worry about. Invading a country and destruction results in not much but the situation that we have at present. It starts with insecurity and than there is fear and then there are desperate measures to satisfy those insecurity. US was not the only nation in the world who understood that the country was facing problems. There were humans in that country and they could have fought for their own right to live the life they wanted. It would be correct, that Saddem rules for a long time, but how long did the British rule over India. No one attacked Britan? The point that i am trying to say, is that there are ways to do it. India followed a non violent approach to achieve independence. The civil rights then were due to difference between the Hindu's and Muslim's. However it was there problem not the worlds, in there case, it was not the problem of the British Government.

On the point of money spent, i will have to strongly disagree that the amount spend was for some great cause. There has to be US interest. There is nothing like a free lunch and I am sure in the coming future, what is in the lunch box will be there for all of us to see.



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
There are many variant reasons:

Build homes not bombs

Bush has gone in just to finish what his dad started

The UN said not to


Etc.

The list is not so important; everyone has their reasons. So ask yourself if your reasons for not going to war out-weighs the result.

Iraq is liberated from decades of tyranny; a tyranny almost none of you know. But to anyone from behind the Iron Curtain it's a well known feeling. A man once told me what it was like to watch our world from the perspective of a liberated mind (he was an American); he said it was the most terrifying thing. Here, in Russia where he was visiting during the last years of the Cold War, were huddled children (in mind; not in age) frightened by their masters into beleiving that at any moment for no logical reason; the USA might Nuke them.

Dr. Obeidi (Saddam's chief Nuclear Scientist) explains that the feeling of liberation was strange. That he had entered a world where he no longer had to fear death from what he was thinking; though he had many other concerns before finally escaping to America.

I'm sure those of you in Germany may relate to your Eastern cousins; those of you in the US need only find the right immigrant; to learn what liberation truly is.

So Iraq is liberated: it has problems, yes we all know this.

Coming to the finality of my argument: how do you forsake the good in liberating them for the problems that come with it?

The US casualties are too high?

The civilian casualties are too high?

The cost is too high?

The cost of war

Here you will find a list of the costs of war: but I want you to read only the costs of the Revolutionary War, which created your nation.

The Revolutionary War was supported by about 1/3rd of the population; and opposed by another 1/3rd.

These figures do not take that into account, so when 200,000 men served in the military; they came from a family of 1 million; not 3 million.

When more than 10,000 were wounded or killed in action; they comprised almost 1 out of every 200 people. This was a war killing 55 people a month. This is without the figures for battle deaths due to illness and other non-battle ailments...

Judging that medicine was in fact worse before the Civil War; and the Civil War casualties (deaths and non-battle wounded) were 50% due to disease and famine. The actual number of deaths can be almost doubled; we'll increase it by 75% for sake of some wounded were battle related.

That's about 1 out of every 70 people that would consider themselves brothers and sisters. 1 out of every 140 people that weren't loyalists.

If you knew 70 people and sided with the US; you probably knew someone who died or was seriously wounded in the war. If you knew 140 people; you had very good chances.

In a world where you knew the entire town; you probably knew more than 140 people.

In today's Iraq war; less than 1 out of every 20,000 have been maimed or killed.

But it doesn't stop there.

A great divide in the Revolutionary War occurred; 100,000 loyalists were forced out of the new United States.

That's 1 out of every 50 people had to leave.

If you know 50 people; one of them would have had to flee the nation.

The cost of the war in 1990s dollars was 350billion (approximately). More than the first Gulf War.

Still more than the current estimated cost by a bunch of raving lunatics who hate the war in Iraq: who set the cost at a measley 248 billion USD in 2005 dollars.

So in conclusion: How can you not support the Iraq War?

It is so cheap compared to the Revolution (so if you're an American you're especially being illogical) and the investment yields a far greater return.

24 million liberated people.


you sir are my hero...



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Policy Analysis- Iraq: The Wrong War


President Bush asserts that U.S. military action against Iraq was justified because Saddam Hussein was in material breach of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. But even if Iraq was in violation of a UN resolution, the U.S. military does not exist to enforce UN mandates. It exists to defend the United States: its territorial integrity and national sovereignty, the population, and the liberties that underlie the American way of life. So whether Iraq was in violation of Resolution 1441 is irrelevant. The real question is whether Iraq represented a direct and imminent threat to the United States that could not otherwise be deterred. If that was the case, then preemptive self-defense, like Israel's military action against Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq in the 1967 Six Day War, would have been warranted. And if Iraq was not a threat, especially in terms of aiding and abetting Al Qaeda, then the United States fought a needless war against a phantom menace.


From ex CIA director George Tenet:


Tenet also said that the Iraq war was "rightly being challenged," but the CIA was making important strides toward success in the greater war on terrorism, according to the reporter.

Tenet added that while the CIA boasts "tremendously talented men and women," the agency "did not live up to our expectations as professionals" regarding the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the search for WMDs in Iraq, according to Clark.

"We had inconsistent information, and we did not inform others in the community of gaps in our intelligence," Tenet said, with surprising frankness, as recorded by Clark, who recently covered a speech by Paul Bremer before the same group. "The extraordinary men and women who do magnificent work in the CIA are held accountable every day for what they do, and as part of keeping our faith with the American people, we will tell you when we're right or wrong."


Other analysts:


The defeat of Saddam Hussein, he told the American people, was "a crucial advance in the campaign against terror." In fact, the consensus now emerging among a wide range of intelligence and counterterrorism professionals is that the opposite is true: The invasion of Iraq not only failed to help the war on terrorism, but it represented a substantial setback.

In more than a dozen interviews, experts both within and outside the U.S. government laid out a stark analysis of how the war has hampered the campaign against Al Qaeda. Not only, they point out, did the war divert resources and attention away from Afghanistan, seriously damaging the prospects of capturing Al Qaeda leaders, but it has also opened a new front for terrorists in Iraq and created a new justification for attacking Westerners around the world.


More analysts:


Saddam has not been involved in any terrorist plots against the West since his attempt to target Bush Senior during his 1993 visit to Kuwait. Nor is there any reason for the Iraqi leader to aid the apocalyptic goals of Islamic fanatics, who are seen to threaten his secular regime and his bid for leadership in the Arab world.

So the case for the pre-emptive use of force seems to boil down to conjecture at best. Certainly our European allies, who have access to much the same intelligence, are not convinced that Saddam poses a threat. Nor, seemingly, is the security-conscious Israeli government, which chose to derail the Administration's timetable on Iraq by pursuing its aggressive strategy in the West Bank.

Even if there were more evidence that Iraq possesses or is about to possess weapons of mass destruction, members of Congress should challenge the notion that pre-emptive force is the best way to deal with this problem or to bring about a change in the Iraqi regime. Given that Saddam's first goal is self-preservation and his second is leadership in the Arab world, it is highly unlikely that he would use these weapons in a premeditated way. In fact, the real danger of the use of chemical or biological weapons arises not from a calculated Iraqi attack but from a US intervention that forces Saddam's hand, as Pentagon officials acknowledge.


In summary, while you reach to draw a parallel between our own Revolutionary War and a distant Iraq preemptive war fought for entirely different reasons- diverting lives, energies and monies away from bigger problems here at home and abroad- the bottom line is really for all the reasons listed above, and more, the Iraq war WAS wrong, and constitutionally illegal, IMO.



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 01:03 PM
link   
I have to agree...the U.S. military is not constitutionally permitted to interfere with another soveriegn nation's internal affairs, regardless of the repugnancy of it's oppressive regime. How many times have you heard,"If I do it for you, I'll have to do it for everyone"? So, if the U.S. is in Iraq to liberate it's people from an oppressive dictator, we must logically invade every country with an oppressive dictator, and free them too. Not very likely. I assert that the U.S. is in Iraq not to prevent terrorism, or to liberate anyone, but to place a military presence within striking distance of China. China is a threat to us, both militarily and economically. They have been rattling their sabers for some time, and have the potential to destroy us whether through nuclear weaponry, or by simply overwhelming us with sheer numbers. They can afford to lose several hundred million people in a war...we cannot. The U.S. has to place military bases in the region in order to quell their ambitions. And that, I believe, is the real reason for our presence in the Middle East. All the other excuses are camouflage.



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 01:21 PM
link   
On what grounds do you dare disagree with War in Iraq?

In no particular order:

1. The money spent waging the war is better spent at home;

2. US citizens shouldn't be dying for oil;

3. The conflict isn't worth the loss of innocent indigenous life;

4. The conflict isn't worth the loss of US respect in the world;

5. It's a war that can't be won by the US.



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 01:30 PM
link   
The entire people are dying for oil thing has no base whatsoever. I still dont get how anyone can use an argument they can not prove in any way. If this war is for oil I'm not feeling any better going to the pump to pay 2.50 for a gallon of gas. It aint getting any lower I'll tell you that much. In my opinion that argument is completely baseless and refutable on the point that our gas and oil prices certainly are not lower than 3 years ago when this war began.



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Greetings Fellow Believers,

Comparisons between the war in Iraq with the Revolutionary War is repugnant.

Our Founding Fathers (spare me with the liberal term "Framers") sought to break free of British rule.

The Revolutionary War was over. In 1789 the fundemental governing principles of this nation were drawn up. The British didn't leave until 1812--and with a hissy-fit for losing territory in the United States they burned down the White House.

We are seeing the Iraqi people pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps. American and Allied soldiers are still there trying to maintain order where a Civil War is inevitable.

The United States also had a Civil War.

I submit to you that the Allied forces in Iraq should pull out before the Civil War occurs. Let Iraqi blood be shed by other Iraqis.



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ludaChris

The entire people are dying for oil thing has no base whatsoever. I still dont get how anyone can use an argument they can not prove in any way. If this war is for oil I'm not feeling any better going to the pump to pay 2.50 for a gallon of gas. It aint getting any lower I'll tell you that much. In my opinion that argument is completely baseless and refutable on the point that our gas and oil prices certainly are not lower than 3 years ago when this war began.


I don't recall stating that the price of oil would get any cheaper.

Edit follows:

And why would it? Big Oil has proven it can do whatever it wants with the price of gas without fear of government reprisal because an investor in Big Oil occupies the White House.

What happened when gold was discovered in California? Everyone rushed out there to strike it rich. Claims were jumped. People were murdered.

It's all about having the most marbles whether you need them or not.

[edit on 3/18/2006 by brEaDITOR]



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ludaChris
The entire people are dying for oil thing has no base whatsoever. I still dont get how anyone can use an argument they can not prove in any way. If this war is for oil I'm not feeling any better going to the pump to pay 2.50 for a gallon of gas. It aint getting any lower I'll tell you that much. In my opinion that argument is completely baseless and refutable on the point that our gas and oil prices certainly are not lower than 3 years ago when this war began.


When people say its about oil they are right, but its not about low oil prices. The government is not doing this for your benefit.

Its about control of a commodity. In the not too distant future the supply/demand curves for oil will diverge with some nations simply not getting what they need. If Iraq decides to not sell its oil to America we will bomb them from bases right inside Iraq. They would know this long before any deceision against America was considered.

The power of delivering death in Iraq ensures the oil supply for what ever purposes America decides. The individuals that make up the government cannot have the will to stand against us with our shadow so fully covering them.

[edit on 18-3-2006 by Malichai]



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   
For every soldier that dies, eight soldiers are wounded.
Body armor protects the torso; and to some extent, the head. It doesn't do much to protect the extremities.
I dare to disagree with the war in Iraq because my countrymen and women are losing fingers and toes, arms and legs, eyes and ears; the ability to work, the ability to hold their children, the ability to be a productive member of society... And for what?
For 25 million people on the other side of the planet?
How very generous of us. That we would sacrifice so much for their freedom.

Hey, I know! Let's throw every able bodied American (not to mention the citizens of every other country giving life, limb, and productivity to this war) at each and every country that suffers under tyranny.

And then, when we're a nation of cripples, they can support us.



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   
I think that we did the right thing by going into Iraq, but more and more I think the execution has been seriously flawed and the Bush admin, for some reason or other, isn't doing anyting to improve the situation.



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 03:30 PM
link   
What a spurious argument--the war is relatively cheap, so how can you not be for it? The cost of the war has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is a righteous war or not. It has a lot to do with the level of hardship (if any) that gets imposed on the population of the U.S. as a result of the war. Wars, all wars, divert money into relatively useless purposes and cause casualties that do not need to be caused. More than anything else, wars reflect a failure of diplomacy & negotiation.

Sometimes admittedly wars are necessary to support national ideals & objectives or reinforce or restore the fundamental rights & freedoms of human beings, but the Iraqi War is not in either of those categories. It could have been, it should have been, but it was not entered into for any pressing need or national objective (at least none that have ever been made public and agreed to by the population at large). Therefore, the Iraqi War is and was unnecessary at best and immoral at worst.

Having said all the above however, does not mean we should immediately pull out. We have created a situation in that region that would leave millions of people in dire jeopardy if we pulled out. Further, the damage done to relationships with our friends and neighbors would become almost irrepairable if we pulled out right now. Moreover, the two most henious regimes in the entire mid-east are poised to take advantage of the power vacuum we would leave behind. In short, we must continue our efforts until such time as a stable government of some kind is established in Iraq. Hopefully, whatever that government is will be friendly towards us and respectful of the rights of its own citizens.

I don't want to get into whether Bush, Cheney, Congress, the CIA, et-al lied to the American people to justify the war in Iraq. The WMD issue was used as the primary justification for invading Iraq and the vast majority of Americans supported the decision on that basis. Apparently the intelligence information this country possessed was totally wrong on the issue of WMD's. Some will say our leaders knew that before deciding to invade, others will say we did not know until after invading. The truth is, it just doesn't matter anymore--we're there, we invaded and now we have to live with our actions.

[edit on 18-3-2006 by Astronomer68]



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 03:59 PM
link   
I oppose the war in Iraq because the Iraqi's national economy should not be in the back pocket of Bush's golf buddies.

I oppose the war in Iraq because all the death and destruction makes me violently sick.

The Global Resource Offensive, which is what is ACTUALLY being fought, will doom us all.



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 04:17 PM
link   
ill take a dare on. it did have to do with oil BUT did not have to do with the supply or price of oil. it is the reason we went to war with iraq, and probably will go to war with iran unless we want a good possibility of economic failure in the US because a collapse of the dollar.

why? one word, currency. few understand the real importance of a country switching trade currency for oil, though many will be effected if not the entire world will be effected. want the proof?

www.energybulletin.net...

well id prove more of how corporations really control our nation but i suggest you buy a month of the Really Above Top Secret access in your control panel and check out member: thelibra
thread called: "Hard Evidence: Tip of the Pyramid, Gov. Contrator Conspiracies"



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
ill take a dare on. it did have to do with oil BUT did not have to do with the supply or price of oil. it is the reason we went to war with iraq, and probably will go to war with iran unless we want a good possibility of economic failure in the US because a collapse of the dollar.

why? one word, currency. few understand the real importance of a country switching trade currency for oil...well id prove more of how corporations really control our nation

That is quite correct. Saddam's petroeuros are once again petroDOLLARS.

But I think it is the Banksters who REALLY have power. The Lenders.

The petrodollar is the ONLY thing keeping the US from collapse.



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by pRoPhEcY
The petrodollar is the ONLY thing keeping the US from collapse.


Are you completely daft? How about the number of new ideas & inventions pouring out of the U.S. yearly? How about the extensive research & development being conducted by colleges, universities, corporations, private individuals and the government?



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68

Originally posted by pRoPhEcY
The petrodollar is the ONLY thing keeping the US from collapse.


Are you completely daft? How about the number of new ideas & inventions pouring out of the U.S. yearly? How about the extensive research & development being conducted by colleges, universities, corporations, private individuals and the government?

No, not completely.

The dot.com bubble was rolled over into the housing bubble, and so now what?
The Fed will no longer reprt M3, and there is a reason for that.
The US cannot absorb any more debt. If there were no need for petrodollar reserves, the dollar would soon disappear.



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 07:08 PM
link   
From what I have been able to discern, the U.S. dollar would take about a 25% hit (reduction in value) if everyone switched over to something besides dollars for petroleum transactions. That would indeed be a serious, but not a mortal blow, to the U.S. economy, and would end up hurting many other nations worse that us.



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Why did I disagree with the Iraq war ?
Before the war the pro war agrument went something like this " Saddam has WMDs that could threaten America " and there was the weak link to 9-11.
Pro war supporters never asked the following.
How is Iraq a greater threate then the likes of Iran and North Korea ?
Why isnt/wasnt a preemptive war planned for the likes of North Korea ?

But it gets worse certain leaders claimed that the coalition would be out of Iraq in three years. Pro war supporters didnt question the fact that no preparations were made to combat a post invaison insurgency nor did they question the lack of post invaison planning.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join