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: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 07:34 PM
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.

What hapend in iraq might hapen in iran it's very posible.
I will not be amased if they start to draft you guys it hapend in vietnam so it can hapen again.
I dont trust the iranian president he may be lieing and building a nuke but first people must prove it.
What evidence have we got so far?
I think un inspectors must be sent in.
Uranium enrichment is also used for a power plant so maybe their trying to realy build a power plant or maybe not.
Evidence must be colected, a word from some one is just not enough.
If evidence is colected and it indicates that a nuke is being constructed then I'm for going in and takeing it out with any mejure(war included)
But I can not agree to a war with no evidence what's so ever, Nuclear energy is the right of every nation.
The fact is that we dont know if Iran is building a nuke, no evidence.
Right now I dont stand on any part of the fence i just think that iran may be telling the truth or may be lieing.
I truly hope it's not a nuke, war serves no one but it will be necesary if it's a nuclear missle.
I hope it's a darn power plant and the rest are just paranoid(some will hope it's a nuke)some people just want's war to go on really bad.
Iraq is just a bad episode that never ends(like the young and the restless episode 20231423234 and going really bad show)
It will never end with the fanatics around there, if they are willing to blow them selfs up then I dont see how it's going to end.
The curent situation is going from bad to worse, It does not matter that they have a constitution as long as they cant sleep at night.



[edit on 18-3-2006 by pepsi78]




posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78

I dont trust the iranian president he may be lieing and building a nuke but first people must prove it.
What evidence have we got so far?
I think un inspectors must be sent in.
Uranium enrichment is also used for a power plant so maybe their trying to realy build a power plant or maybe not.
Evidence must be colected, a word from some one is just not enough.
If evidence is colected and it indicates that a nuke is being constructed then I'm for going in and takeing it out with any mejure(war included)
But I can not agree to a war with no evidence what's so ever, Nuclear energy is the right of every nation.
The fact is that we dont know if Iran is building a nuke, no evidence.
Right now I dont stand on any part of the fence i just think that iran may be telling the truth or may be lieing.
I truly hope it's not a nuke, war serves no one but it will be necesary if it's a nuclear missle.
I hope it's a darn power plant and the rest are just paranoid(some will hope it's a nuke)some people just want's war to go on really bad.


Thats just it. The inspectors are in there, and there is a reactor plain as day. The Russians built it. Iran is not asking for anything more that what the NPT gives them. America is demanding that they give up the right to enrich fuel. Sounds like they really want to control the supply of nuclear fuel to keep the price sky high.



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 12:36 AM
link   
The real question that should be posed is:
On what grounds do you dare AGREE with war in Iraq?

There are many grounds for disagreeing with it, not least of all, the fact that Iraq had not initiated any action against countries outside their own. From what I can gather there are only two reasons supporting the war in Iraq:
1. The housing of Weapons of Mass Destruction.
There have been no WMD's found to date despite intensive searching for almost 4 years. Wouldn't it be advised to find them prior to waging war with a country on the belief that they have them? I for one, am quite surprised that they haven't been found. I was sure they would find something as there are many countries with WMD's. At any rate I don't see that had this been the case, it would be sufficient justification for waging war. What hypocrites the US are. They have an enormous number of them, and what's worse, they are a greater risk of using them than many of the other countries, inlcuding Iraq, that have them. The US should be waging war on themsleves on this basis. They already have the proof!

2. Liberation to the people of Iraq from an oppressive dictator.
Whilst this may seem like an honourable cause, it was and is not up to the US to decide what's in the best interests of another country when that country's actions is not affecting any other countries. It's up to Iraq to sought these things out for themselves. On this basis, as an earlier post mentioned, the US should now be invading ALL of the many other countries controlled by oppressive dictators. The fact that there is a possibility that Iraq may be better off without Saddam is a convenient by-product of the war, not a motivating factor for the invasion.



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Stratrf_Rus,

ne pizdi pindos.



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by mytym
The real question that should be posed is:
On what grounds do you dare AGREE with war in Iraq?

I agree to it because if the coalition went in there and screwd up at least maybe they can fix it, if we leave now iraq will fall in to fanatics hands.
No body should of gone in there, we screwd them up really bad screwd their society so what we can do now is fix it, it would be even worse to eave now, it would be like we blew you up now were leaving bye bye.
I think iraq is turning in to another palestina, just look at palestina and israel, they invade them they do air raids on them and the palestinans still find the means to get inside israel and blow them self up.
It has been going on for years, iraq can become that, it can become another palestina.
What we can do is win the people back (iraqys) but not by harasing them and molesting them.
I have a feeling that bush does not want the war to end, he makes huge profits from it.
Soldiers must change their atitude in order to win the people back.



[edit on 19-3-2006 by pepsi78]



new topics

top topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join