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.

 

What is all this stuff about stopping the iraq war?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 07:43 AM
link   
how come all of the sudden with the american presidential race starting we have all this stop the war stuff. i see people here stating that the war will end and they will bring the trooops home, what are you basing this judgement on.

for me america is in iraq perminately, and the worse the situation gets the more likely america will never leave in the short term. if americans did not want to start this they should of not gone, but now they are there they have to go all the way. they know they have to take over the whole middle east, and no amount of public displeasure will stop that. there is just to much at stake. And no obama has no power to stop the war even if he was president, which he will not be.

so can the people who think the war is going to end, please state your reasons why.

[edit on 2/11/2007 by andy1033]




posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Well, for starters, anyone that wants to win the hearts and minds of the 80%, or better, of the public support, of course they are going to preach about bringing home the troops from Iraq. Polls have shown upwards around 85% or so disagree with the war in Iraq. So, I guess you could say, in order to get the votes, they'll promise something that will never happen.


I would tend to agree, that the US will remain in Iraq and the surrounding areas indefinitely.


Something that I have noticed, that people in general tend to forget is that a "War" in Iraq was never declared by Congress. President Bush was given the authority to use military force "in Iraq" to fight the war on terror. An official declaration of war was never given against Iraq.

H. J. Res. 114 - Bush's blank check for the war on terror in Iraq.


SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary
and appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.—In connection with the
exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force
the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter
as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising
such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his
determination that—
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic
or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead
to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist
organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.—
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.—Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory
authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the
War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—Nothing in
this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War
Powers Resolution.



Unless, or until, an official "declaration of war" is given against Iraq (which the later won't ever happen), they have no exit strategy. There's never been put in place a means of "We're going in to do *this*, so when *that* is done, we can come home."

[edit on 2/11/2007 by Infoholic]



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 02:19 PM
link   
ron paul says in this article that the last time congress declared war was 1941.

www.lewrockwell.com...

yep, it is amazing your country has not even declared wars against countries since 1941, but your people have fought in many wars. so your elected persons have no voice what so ever in going to war or stopping wars.

so american congress has not declared war since 1941, how messy a system you lot have over there. these loopholes you point out are amazing and just shows the double speak of peoples that get your votes.

obama talks about changing washington, but really he has no chance in doing that. look what happened to the last president that steped on your real leaders toes, i.e jfk, and then bobby kennedy.

i am just amazed that there will be people who believe him when he says, he will stop the war and he will change washington. washington hardly ever changes and your representatives should tell you that before they go there.



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
how come all of the sudden with the american presidential race starting we have all this stop the war stuff.

Its been going on for a long while, long before the election buzz.


i see people here stating that the war will end and they will bring the trooops home, what are you basing this judgement on.

They're not saying that the war will end successfully, they are saying that we will simply leave.


if americans did not want to start this they should of not gone, but now they are there they have to go all the way.

Clearly, that is not the case.


And no obama has no power to stop the war even if he was president, which he will not be.

How do you figure the commander in cheif can't stop a war?
Heck, congress could stop the war.


so can the people who think the war is going to end, please state your reasons why.

Because democrats were elected to do just that. THey're going to stick with it, just like the republicans are sticking with the idea that they wree put into power to start a war, and are sticking with it.


so your elected persons have no voice what so ever in going to war or stopping wars.

Congress voted FOR the vietnam war and the iraq war. When there is a loss in public support, the representatives will pull us out of the war.



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 06:18 PM
link   
About the war in Iraq
Vietnam recovered, people of Iraq will too.

It was after millions of Iraqs died where the coalition forces came up with the idea "Win the hearts and minds of the iraq' people and we win the war." To me this was too little too late.

Other lessons learned include "coalition force members should not be doing UN work." It blurs the line between civillians and army personnel. It also paved the way for suicide bombings.

Conclusions about what it means to end the war
"A sort of play on words if you will."
By stopping the war, one can think the candidate means not declaring more war. The candidate in this position thinks it is best to finish off what was started and not add to problems such as declaring more war with other nations. Results of declaring more war include "economy going down the toilet" and "a ballooning deficit"; which are all the precursors to an economic recession. Not that this isn't in the works already, just that the results will hit home harder.



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 04:44 AM
link   
People want the Iraq war to end because there as been no net gain Iraq is in a civil war that most people saw coming. There is no way out that wont lead to a bunch of Islamic wack jobs taking charge other then partitioning the country along tribal lines.

So here's where things are heading Iraq will become an Islamic state and the US will lose the Economic war to China because politicians choose to borrow money rather then reduce spending but alas I am covering other topics.



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 05:09 AM
link   
no offence to americans but usa is there to stay. your country is building megger bases, and now you want to leave. theres no chance in that happening, there is to much at stake. not only iraq but the whole middle east. if america did not attack iraq, then maybe it would be ok to leave alone, but now they have they have to take over the whole middle east. obviously they do not need to use military force in all countries, but with iraq and iran they do.



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 05:15 AM
link   
why do I think the war will end??

www.abcnews.go.com...

if the war were to end today...it would take three years to catch up on the repairs to the military equipment that's been damaged in this war....three years.

that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the damage the blunder of going into Iraq has caused.

we'd be crazy to go into Iran in this condition...but well...the Iraq war just might end when the forces that are there and in afghanistan are ordered to invade IRan and bring her down. Americans are such a crazy bunch, ya know.

I heard clinton promise to end it if she becomes president, and well, the first words out of my mouth is that she was lying through her teeth. none of these candidates can in good conscious and honesty promise much of anything as to what they will do if they get into the white house. it's too far away and there's no telling what the situation will be then. they are just saying what the people want to hear...give me your vote, please....blah, blah....
show me an honest politician running for the white house and I will vote for him or her...but I think honesty flew out the window awhile back. American politicians willing to run for president are the craziest bunch of all. they'll lie, cheat, and steal to get themselves a job that will take decades off their lives in the four years that they have it. and the pay, although impressive isn't near enough reward for the hassles of the job.

we'll end the war when the crazies have dried up all our resources and they have no choice.



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 05:28 AM
link   
Dawnstar I don't understand where your coming from concerning American losses in Iraq.
Are you saying that the US cant produce replacements or that the US cant afford to pay for the replacement equipment ?
For an economic point of view a lot as to do with how money is spend there is gross wastage in the US defence budget.

The US isn't going to leave Iraq because of the loss of equipment and life the US will leave Iraq because the US public is feed up with the results of a botched occupation.

[edit on 12-2-2007 by xpert11]



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 05:30 AM
link   
dawnstar- in that link they say that the pentagon got more money to help with repairs. i cannot see how your argument on resources holds up, as usa will give what ever money and resources that are needed to win.



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 05:48 AM
link   
yes, they're giving them more money, and cutting projects that they really would rather have. less money for all those other things..ya know paybacks for votes and such...

so, you think that because we, the people have decided we don't like this war....that they'll stop...how long from the time the american public decided they didn't like vietnam did it take for them to end that one?
seemed like it was awhile to me.

the unthinkable happened...the republican neocons lost the congress...oh my!!....so all of a sudden the tune has changed. the agenda isn't, it might take on a new form, but it'll still be played out. they're singing a nice song for the voters to hear, until election time comes around, and hope for the best. then go on their merry way and do what they want. like always.

I kind of think that they are willing to let this war last until there is no more resources for them to make war with....unless of course, you are invested heavily into defense industries...then, well, ain't gonna help much since you'll have to pay off the bills sooner or later.

but then, someone might eventually get the idea that america is too wrapped up in it's middle east meddlings....with over 40 % of it's military engaged there, and well, decide to hit us...



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 07:54 PM
link   
The war has been over for quite some time, any gesture to 'stop war' is nonsense and halfassed thinking on the prosayer's behalf. No is going to bring the troops home. They have been stationed overseas in Italy, Korea, Japan, Guam, Cuba, Spain, British Isles, Horn of Africa, and elsewhere for hundreds of years in some cases and less than a half dozen in other cases. Bringing the troops home: it aint gonna happen.



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by etotheitheta
The war has been over for quite some time, any gesture to 'stop war' is nonsense and halfassed thinking on the prosayer's behalf. No is going to bring the troops home. They have been stationed overseas in Italy, Korea, Japan, Guam, Cuba, Spain, British Isles, Horn of Africa, and elsewhere for hundreds of years in some cases and less than a half dozen in other cases. Bringing the troops home: it aint gonna happen.


I both agree and disagree, etotheitheta.

#1- It has never been a declared war (that goes for all the referrals of the "war".

#2- You are right on the money, nothing will bring the troops home. As you pointed out, there will be troops stationed everywhere, whether that's in Iraq, Iran, Italy, Korea, etc. etc, forever as they have been forever.



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033

...they know they have to take over the whole middle east, and no amount of public displeasure will stop that. there is just to much at stake.


Take over the whole Middle East


The US will take the world down with it



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
how come all of the sudden with the american presidential race starting we have all this stop the war stuff.


It's not a new thing that has emerged because of the elections, it's
just got twice as much coverage because of the upcoming elections,
but believe me, it's been there, and over the last two years has
gained considerable strength.




i see people here stating that the war will end and they will bring the trooops home, what are you basing this judgement on.


Well honestly I think it's quite ignorant to think that all the sudden
all the troops are going to board our planes and boats and all come
home at once, not only will it take time to actually transport them all
home, it will most likely be something more like 3-5 years of troops
being recalled and not sending replacement troops.

I am basing the judgement on the fact that a large mjority of the
country no longer wants to be there and, since this is a democracy,
and the congress is Democratic and our next president will probably
be a Democrat, and will definately be anti-war.




for me america is in iraq perminately, and the worse the situation gets the more likely america will never leave in the short term.


It does'nt matter if the siuation gets worse or not, we will in, at the most a decade, have started a large pullout from iraq.




if americans did not want to start this they should of not gone, but now they are there they have to go all the way.


First of all Americans were'nt given a vote on whether or not they
wanted to go to war in Iraq.
Secondly the entire reason for going to war was based on incredibly
faulty intelligence data, so in essence we did'nt know the truth at the
time.
Thirdly our president is a complete moron who does what he wants,
not what the country wants, add to that the fact that the Congress at
the time was completely useless and was willing to just do whatever
Bush wanted so they would'nt have to do extra work and a twisted
sense of patriotism.

We do not have to go any further, people don't care if we 'win' or
not, we just want to end it as soon as possible.




they know they have to take over the whole middle east, and no amount of public displeasure will stop that. there is just to much at stake. And no obama has no power to stop the war even if he was president, which he will not be.


Excuse me, but why in the hell would we want to take over the
Middle-East, not only is it a giant worthless hto sandbox full of
psychotic religious zealots, but there is no way that America
could ever take over the entire region.

You seem to think that America is not a democracy, and in fact
you seem to think that there is some force beyond the government
that dictates what will happen.

Normally I would'nt say this, but considering you're not American,
you really have no place saying what will and what wont happen.

Obama may be elected, and even if he is'nt the next president will
be anti-war, and be for pulling troops from Iraq, and considering
the Congress will ahve no qualms, that will be what happens.




so can the people who think the war is going to end, please state your reasons why.


Right, well to condense what I've said thus far;

1. America is a democracy.
2. The majority of people want to pull-out of Iraq.
3. The current Congress and the next president will be of the
same opinion and will do it.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
Excuse me, but why in the hell would we want to take over the
Middle-East, not only is it a giant worthless hto sandbox full of
psychotic religious zealots


Yes, but a giant worthless sandbox full of psychotic religous zealots and lots of oil. Gee, I cant think of one war fought over oil.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Most of the people who whine about the war have never served nor do they care to. I can't speak for them. I can't really speak for anyone but myself in the fact that I believed in it in the beginning. The only thing I really have problems is the lack of a real plan(That works), once we occupied Iraq. The people designing the war screwed the pooch on this factor. Maybe they could have learned more by studing Alexander's conquest.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Royal76
Most of the people who whine about the war have never served nor do they care to. I can't speak for them. I can't really speak for anyone but myself in the fact that I believed in it in the beginning. The only thing I really have problems is the lack of a real plan(That works), once we occupied Iraq. The people designing the war screwed the pooch on this factor. Maybe they could have learned more by studing Alexander's conquest.


I disagree with going to war over falsified information and/or direct lies. Our men and women (even those of other nations) should not have ever been there for the reasons given.

If the "war" (of which it's never been declared *sigh*) was declared, an exit strategy would have been on the table as well as the steps, goals, and desired outcome of the "war".

Are you suggesting that since I've (or anyone else who has whined about the "war") never served in the military, then we have no right to be concerned about the soldiers that are put in harms way due to lies and misrepresentation of our people?

Must I yet again remind you, and anyone else... "war" was never declared.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join