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.

 

Weapons Meet WMD Criteria

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe

Originally posted by semperfortis
Here ya go.
From the NY times that you all seem to love so much.


Oh please... quotes without source articles?

Bad things happening at Abu Ghraib? Death tolls from the Iran/Iraq war?? Death tolls from the GULF WAR??? Child mortality numbers caused by SANCTIONS IMPOSED???

WHERE are the "millions" of Iraqi's killed by Saddam Hussein?


If you have a problem with the NY times, not my problem. Yet here I will help, take your mouse, click on the google icon, type in NY times and them look for death tolls from Saddam.

Get you right there.

Semper




posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 07:51 AM
link   
ceci2006 that argument really isn't pertinent, nor is the statement that to some extent we had a President who wanted to revenge his father.

The ideals espoused by America are good and, speaking as a patriotic male, proper ideals that are well worth fighting and dying for. However, the average American mother simply isn't going to allow her children to go into some foreign place to fight for such things. Mothers are much too protective of their children for that to happen. The average American male on the other hand needs to feel that what our country does is the right thing to do in the name of honor. As a nation we therefore need to demonize our enemies first and if possible construe them as a threat to families. That's the only way we can get general public support for such things. Exactly how it happened in the case of Iraq is really not very important in the overall scheme of things--It happened, it worked, we are there.

I don't have any empathy and not much patience with those politically opposed to the war. They drag up everything they can find to make it all seem worthless and even counterproductive to our country, when in fact, that isn't true. Just bear in mind their desire is to sway public opinion away from support for the war. If they are successful then the war loses support and the country is forced to end it and bring our kids home. I personally don't want to see that happen--at least not yet--because then our purposes in going there to begin with will not have been realized. Let's not get caught up in our own lofty rhetoric however and mistake that for the real reasons we went there--oil.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 07:52 AM
link   
Actually no I don't believe Iraq had WMD's. Because the weapons inspectors from the UN did not find any.

But, it is true that the U.S. did give arms to Iraq. But a lot can happen between the 1980's and now.

However, since so many lies have been told about this war--especially close to elections, what if these latest weapons are planted? Anything is possible.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 07:56 AM
link   
We either gave them to them or we didn't.

If we gave them WMD's, by definition, they must have them.

Can't have it both ways.

Semper



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
If you have a problem with the NY times, not my problem. Yet here I will help, take your mouse, click on the google icon, type in NY times and them look for death tolls from Saddam.

Get you right there.

Semper


The NY Times is a big place. I'm sure you've been around here long enough to know that links to the actual source article and "ex" tags are proper netiquette. At any rate, the numbers you posted only show a high end estimate of 300 000 deaths that could be directly attributed to Hussein's policies during the Bathist regime. A horrifying number I admit, but many governments including our own are responsible for equal numbers around the world.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 08:02 AM
link   
I guess I'm not proper.

When was the last time a US President killed 300K of his own people?

Semper



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 08:22 AM
link   
I apologize to everyone for my behavior the last few posts.

Been a long week, but that's no excuse to take it out on you all.

Thanks Grover for the wake up......

Semper



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
I guess I'm not proper.

Semper


I think it's very odd that you can't be bothered to even provide a link to back it up.

Could it be that it didn't come from the NY Times?



Originally posted by semperfortis
When was the last time a US President killed 300K of his own people?


I believe the last time would have been in 1865 when 415 000 US civilians died in the civil war. Would you care for the numbers from more recent conflicts the US has been involved in?



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 08:35 AM
link   
You guys(?) shouldn't be so hard on Semperfortis he is to a large extent exactly the kind of person that made this country great to begin with. He has passion, principles and honor and we really need those things in our society. I'm proud he is American. Now me on the other hand, well I'm a cynnical old bastard with a thick skin, so have at me all you want.

[edit on 9-7-2006 by Astronomer70]



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Oh YE of little faith.

www.frontpagemag.com...

It really is just the third option on google.

"sigh"

Semper



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Thanks Astro,
you know that even after all of these years, I get a swelling of pride when ever someone says stuff like that.

Semper



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
Oh YE of little faith.

www.frontpagemag.com...

It really is just the third option on google.

"sigh"

Semper


You know I was just going to let it go because you're having a bad day and we're supposed to feel sorry for you. But... that isn't even the article you quoted.

Is this an example of the "passion, principles and honor" that we're supposed to be proud of?



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Oh I don't gang up on Semper...I wish I had more debating partners that could actually admit that they might be wrong for once....I just don't want him to get away without at least thinking about the options.


BTW Semper glad you liked my happy birthday America piece....you are the only one who replied....SOB!!!



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe

Originally posted by semperfortis
Oh YE of little faith.

www.frontpagemag.com...

It really is just the third option on google.

"sigh"

Semper


You know I was just going to let it go because you're having a bad day and we're supposed to feel sorry for you. But... that isn't even the article you quoted.

Is this an example of the "passion, principles and honor" that we're supposed to be proud of?


Feel sorry for me??????

Grover. Almost too much to not lay it all out, yet I wont grace this with any kind of response, no matter how childish it is.

Yes, the first two quotes on my post are from that EXACT article. The last one is farther down the line.
I expect a certain amount of competency from members I debate with and have never before felt the need to walk them through things like this, until now of course.

MAN!!!
I know that post is intended only to goad and inflame, but sometimes that's just what it does. I know I should be above that stuff, but every once inawhile.......

sheessh

Semper



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 09:17 AM
link   
it was an excellent piece grover,

a lot more people should read it.

Semper



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Astronomer70, sorry for not seeing your post above mine. I was answering Semper and missed what you said. I'd like to type a short reply to you.

I understand what you are trying to say. Rhetoric in any sense is counterproductive. However, what I said wasn't rhetoric. As for being anti-War, yes, I am against this war because it doesn't have logical, sound reasons for conducting. This war has been badly mismanaged on shady reasons from the start. However, for people who support the war, they forget that Mr. Bush changed his reasons for going over there many times since the war started.

There are alternative reasons to why this war was fought and I brought up some of them. However we both agree it is about oil, however.

However, we disagree on the validity of these new weapons being connected to WMD's. I also submit that this story about WMD's is also indicative of a war of misinformation to keep people distracted from real issues until the November elections.

I am skeptical of the story because such ploys have happened before in the press. And weeks later they have been false. This story seems to me something representative of that vein. But, I will retain an open-mind on this one despite my feelings and further read to get the facts straight.

But my question about comparing Mr. Bush and Mr. Saddam is very much pertinent in this idea of why the war was fought. Mr. Bush has done some of the same brutal things as other dictators around the world. However, his way of doing it is "sanitized" before the public and therefore not taken as extremely as it would in other places.


To Semper: sorry to beat up on you back there. I will think about your answers and answer you later in full.



[edit on 9-7-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
You can also add, grover, Mr. Bush's revenge for Saddam Hussein trying to assassinate the elder Bush too.

If America was so concerned about "saving the little children" and building schools, they would have helped Sudan stop the genocidal war.


and as i have presented so many times before, they tried, but China out of all countries once again stopped the United States....


Originally posted by ceci2006
But as far as I'm concerned, I've feel that the U.S. government believes oil is more important than lives. That is why the U.S. mostly protected the areas of the oil repositories and not the civilians at all.


Well according to grover it doesn't matter what president is in office, and that all that matters is oil.... Then why didn't we get all the oil, in fact why didn't we make Iraq ours when it was ours for the taking in the first Gulf War?.....



Originally posted by ceci2006
...................
He disregards the Geneva Convention.
..................


Really?.....what did he "disregard about the Geneva Convention"?....


Originally posted by ceci2006
And until recently (2004), he used immunity so that any U.S. Soldiers would not be prosecuted for war crimes in the ICC.


As it should be, we have our own tribunals, and they do work. There is a lot of rhetoric going around and some people in the "international community" will twist


Originally posted by ceci2006
People who express dissent are arrested or carted away to "Free Speech Zones".


Now that's an exageration and a lie... People who talk about vilent acts, and who become violent are arrested. i already showed you how wrong you are about "that nurse you claim was all but a saint and she was arrested for nothing"...


Originally posted by ceci2006
Not to mention the arrest of a filmmaker in Iraq by the U.S. military. This director was sent to a detainee camp indefinitely until he fought the government to get out. Now he's suing Rumsfeld for violating the Geneva Convention.


...............Who in the world are you talking about?..... Are you talking about the Iranian born journalist who was arrested by Iraqi security forces when he was travelling in a taxi in Iraq with 35 washing machine timers?...



Originally posted by ceci2006
When do we draw the line with our own leader--if we are so concerned with the likes of other leaders from other countries who brutally do the same thing to their people?


Perhaps you should start by not exagerating trying to spread whatever propaganda you are trying to spread?...



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 04:54 PM
link   
people most certianly have been arrested for having the termity of protesting within sight of the president and also to say that international laws and conventions should not apply to U.S. soldiers is bullhooey muaddib and you know it. the only way there can be any form of international law is for it to apply to all, including us.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
............
This war has been badly mismanaged on shady reasons from the start. However, for people who support the war, they forget that Mr. Bush changed his reasons for going over there many times since the war started.



And i have shown time and again the speech president Bush gave to the world which shows you, and others like you who like to make the same claim, are wrong... There were several reasons given for going to Iraq, from the beginning....


Originally posted by ceci2006
However, we disagree on the validity of these new weapons being connected to WMD's. I also submit that this story about WMD's is also indicative of a war of misinformation to keep people distracted from real issues until the November elections.


And that's your opinion, and the opinion of some other people, but it is still an opinion alone. It doesn't make it true.


Originally posted by ceci2006
...............
But my question about comparing Mr. Bush and Mr. Saddam is very much pertinent in this idea of why the war was fought. Mr. Bush has done some of the same brutal things as other dictators around the world. However, his way of doing it is "sanitized" before the public and therefore not taken as extremely as it would in other places.


Now that is taking it way out of proportion. You either don't know anything abut Saddam, or you are knowingly exagerating once again.


[edit on 9-7-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
people most certianly have been arrested for having the termity of protesting within sight of the president and also to say that international laws and conventions should not apply to U.S. soldiers is bullhooey muaddib and you know it. the only way there can be any form of international law is for it to apply to all, including us.


Perhaps they were arrested for trying to jump or destroy the fences that were build so some of those same people wouldn't 'resort to violence to express their opinions"?.... as it usually happens...

Second of all you are talking about the same international community in which China, Russia, and a couple other countries, which if you call fair and partial i will just laugh my butt off, have a lot of weigh on.. The same international community group which has given nobel prize nominations to dictators, such as castro, and the same international community groups which would use any U.S. soldier they would put on trial and make up exagerations trying to send a sign to the United States... So please, don't try to claim that "this international community group" is going to be fair and partial, because if you are going to claim it, i will show you some of the things this "fair and partial international community group has done".

[edit on 9-7-2006 by Muaddib]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join