Harsh Reality of Iraq. ** warning image may disturb

page: 5
18
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 03:41 PM
link   


THAT IS WHAT WE WANTED TO PREVENT! PREVENT THESE DEADLY MATERIALS FROM REACHING USA. GOT IT? VERY VERY DEADLY = WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION.


MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE INVADED NORTH KOREA, THEY HAVE REAL NUKES. THEY ARE ABLE TO DELIVER THEM. THEY SELL VERY VERY DEADLY MATERIALS ON TH BLACK MARKET. IRAQ HAD NO WEAPONS.

[edit on 9-3-2007 by rich1974]




posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by LogansRun


So in your infinite wisdom, what are we to do? Stay there and keep killing "insurgents" until there aren't any more? You will kill everyone in the ME if you go that route.


This is your opinion... because you are controlled by the media, and disinfo. Go to Iraq and you will see 10000's of people peacefully going on with their lives with US troops around.

We don't kill people unless they are carrying a gun in their hands. Thats that.... we don't just go kill random people, get that out of your head! As long as the Iraqis follow the law's, everything will be fine.

So we will stay in Iraq untill all the lawless ones are arrested. We don't kill first, we arrest first, kill last. It's simple...



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 03:44 PM
link   
I can only picture my 3 year old in that type of scanario. It litrerally makes me ill. Bush and his cabinet are scumbags
I think Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfied should all grab a gun and hit the forntlines. Rice too, I doubt if anyone would miss them once they returned to Arlington Cemetary. C'mon Bush, if you are so sure about this war then grab a gun. Oh and aren't your daughters of fighting age as well? Gonna sign them up?



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich1974
MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE INVADED NORTH KOREA, THEY HAVE REAL NUKES. THEY ARE ABLE TO DELIVER THEM. THEY SELL VERY VERY DEADLY MATERIALS ON TH BLACK MARKET. IRAQ HAD NO WEAPONS.

[edit on 9-3-2007 by rich1974]


Did you just say Iraq had no weapons?!!?!?! I'm sitting here proving they did and still do!!

We are NOT done in Iraq, there can STILL be more found. GOT IT?

North Korea does not have a religion or way of life that revolves around killing Americans for no reason. They are NOT a threat. Iraq was a threat, big time.


Also WMD DOES NOT MEAN "NUKES", GET THAT OUT OF YOUR HEAD!

[edit on 9-3-2007 by Connected]



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

And I rest my case and stand for what I said, just because Saddam was killing his own people it was worse, compare to the death toll that is going on since the liberators got rid of Saddam . . .now the occupation is bringing death and . . .

Is all justified . . . right muaddib?


So you would have accepted the deaths of 500,000 more Iraqi children under the age of 5 years old...more deaths of Iraqis who said anything against Saddam....

That would have been justifiable right Marg?... Just don't do anything, don't try anything, let them kill their own people... Who cares? .... Right Marg?....

[edit on 9-3-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
So you would have accepted the deaths of 500,000 more Iraqi children under teh age of 5 years old...more deaths of Iraqis who said anything against Saddam....

That would have been justifiable right Marg?... Just don't do anything, don't try anything, let them kill their own people... Who cares? .... Right Marg?....



Marg doesn't care about a dictator killing thousands of innocent children. She only cares when the USA does it, because she is anti-American.

[edit on 9-3-2007 by Connected]



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Hi Marg, The whole Iraq issue was a lie, Bush went around the country telling everyone Saddam was behind, 9/11 when he was not, then it was the WMD'S which was another lie because it was the West that supplied him so we knew exactly what he was capable of.

Of course Saddam was a good friend of the West pre Kuwait, he provided a bulwark against Iran and yes we knew what he was doing to people in Iraq but hey he was our pal. Once things started to unravel then it was a case of sorting him out oh and to steal the oil, build permanent bases as a spring board for Iran, afford Israel more security because the US Goverment are scared to death the Israelis will start a nuke war.

So you have a pretty poor country, 3rd world really thats bombed to hell, impose no fly zones and impose sanctions that result in a Million Iraqi's losing their lives and if thats not enough you do it all again and claim its for freedom and liberation.

The definition of Iraq 1 a bully and a braggart picking on a light weight.

The definition of Iraq 2 a bully and a braggart kicking an old blind man to death.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Are you going to post any of the images of the people who Saddam gassed, electricuted, tortured, burned, boiled, shot, stabbed, hung, There a real nice one of this guy who accidentally told a French reporter that Saddam was mean and got fed to hungry dogs, i'm told.




posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 03:50 PM
link   


Did you just say Iraq had no weapons?!!?!?! I'm sitting here proving they did and still do


No, all you are proving is that you are dillusional. One more time so you can understand, okay Iraq h..a...d n...o w..e...a..p..ons of m.a...s..s
d...e..s..t.r.u...c.t..i..o..n. No weapons, none, zero, zip, nada, nothing.


0 0.0


[edit on 9-3-2007 by rich1974]

Mod Note: Please Stay on Topic

Mod Edit: Please Review the Following Link: Courtesy Is Mandatory


[edit on 9-3-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Hi Marg, The whole Iraq issue was a lie, Bush went around the country telling everyone Saddam was behind, 9/11 when he was not, then it was the WMD'S which was another lie because it was the West that supplied him so we knew exactly what he was capable of.


Yet another blind man....

No, we wanted to go to Iraq because thats where the insurgents from Afghanistan (the place we attacked first), ran off to hide to. Then because of that, we feared that Saddam's chemical weapons (wmds) which WERE FOUND, would end up in the hand of these insurgents, so we had to go after Saddam.

Get it? Let me clarify.

After 911, we attacked Afghanistan to find osama and his insurgents. Those insurgents ran off to Iraq (the ones we didn't kill). Thats when we feared their connection to government officals in Iraq. We feared they would be supplied weapons, not by Saddam himself, but by his officals. So we went after Saddam and his weapons at the same time we went after insurgents.

We DID find WMD's...

I don't see the problem.


Mod Edit: Please Review the Following Link: Courtesy Is Mandatory


[edit on 9-3-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   
About the WMD issue... since i see that no warnings were issued for going to that side of the debate i will add a few things...

First of all, Saddam's regime fired banned missiles at the start of the war against coalition forces in Kuwait...this was in 2003.... "Banned missiles which were part of the WMD Iraq was not supposed to have"...

Saddam ordered Iraqi scientists to bury key parts of centrifuges needed to enrich uranium for weapons grade....

There were empty chemical warheads, which could still be used and were found in Iraqi sites... but i guess the naysayers think the purpose of these was to fill them up with candy and throw them at the children...

There were the banned parts found in scrapyards around the world, which the UN reported were being shipped since May 2003...10 days after the invasion, but i guess the Coalition was sending all those banned parts over there even if these banned missile components were being sent just 10 days after the attack on Bagdagh...

There were the tons of documents dealing with WMD programs which Saddam was not supposed to have either...

Then we have defectors from Iraq, and Russia all who said that the Russians had plans to help regimes like Saddam get rid of their WMD programs, so these program couldn't be traced back to countries like Russia... One of those plans was called "Serindar".... do a search on google and you migth find some interesting information...

The latest defector to speak up about the regime of Saddam getting WMD out, was the second in command of all Iraqi Air forces, Georges Sadas...which said that airplanes were being used to get wmd out...

But despite all this, and despite the fact that even Russian defectors were saying even before the war that the regime of Iraq and Russia had such plans and they would be implemented you still get people claiming this is not true... Despite the fact that banned parts of a wmd program as well as documents dealing with wmd programs were found in Iraq...

Never mind the fact that the regime of Iraq gave medals, right before the war started, to former Russian generals, who are still living happy and as millionaires in Russia...

Never mind the fact that even the U.S. administration accused the Russian government of providing to the regime of Saddam intelligence on U.S. troop movement...

You still get people claiming Russia did not help the regime of Saddam...

[edit on 9-3-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich1974



Did you just say Iraq had no weapons?!!?!?! I'm sitting here proving they did and still do


No, all you are proving is that you are dillusional. One more time so you can understand, okay Iraq h..a...d n...o w..e...a..p..ons of m.a...s..s
d...e..s..t.r.u...c.t..i..o..n. No weapons, none, zero, zip, nada, nothing.


0 0.0



Ok since im debating with underage people.. I will have to talk like I'm in elementry school...

Lets clarify the term "WMD". It means Weapons Of Mass Destruction. First word, weapons is plural meaning multiple types of weapons, not just one. These weapons can be chemical, biological, or nuclear, or even just a really really really large pile of TNT. Got it?

WE FOUND CHEMICAL WEAPONS!!! Old or not, they CAN STILL BE USED AS A WMD!

Got it? We DID find WMD's.

Proof
www.defenselink.mil...


---So---
Back on subject...

The Iraq war is justified, only because in the future, there WILL be peace in the middle east. And Bush did NOT lie about the WMD's, nor did he claim we went to Iraq for 911, ever.


God help all of my Marine borthers who have faught and died, just so the blind people could say the war was not justified.

[edit on 9-3-2007 by Connected]

Mod Note: Please Stay on Topic

Mod Edit: Please Review the Following Link: Courtesy Is Mandatory


[edit on 9-3-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom

America was told that this would be the outcome of an invasion but you still went ahead with your agenda anyway. You started this mess so at least have the gonnads to say its your fault instead of blaming everyone else you can think of.

Your lack of compassion for your fellow mans suffering is a disgrace






You have voted magicmushroom for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.


This post you made was worth the warning my friend. That warning was needed because you broke the T&C, no doubt it was a good call by the moderator. Slow down on the warns though I like your opinion and would not want to see you end up unable to participate.

[edit on 9-3-2007 by LoneGunMan]



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Connected you havent got a clue have you, its not about WMDs, it did not matter if they were found or not its about oil, its about permanent US bases in the ME and its About Israel.

WMD's, 9/11,and 7/7 they were just the vehicles that were used to propogate war and further the US's influence in the ME and to put it nearer to the Far East, us Brits used to have coaling stations around the globe to refuel its fleet and therefore its Global power.

You can choose to believe the truth or not the choice is yours.

Thanks Lone, yes it was worth the warning, sometimes in life one has to stand for what is right irrespective of the consequences, failure to do so means an enslaved mind and body and I will never be one of those people.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 05:16 PM
link   
I was just browsing the CIA's page on Iraqi information...
TALK ABOUT A RE-WRITE OF HISTORY
READ ON!!!

Okay, so it's not a complete re-write, but they sure make it sound like events were different.



Iraq seized Kuwait, but was expelled by US-led, UN coalition forces during the Gulf War of January-February 1991. Following Kuwait's liberation, the UN Security Council (UNSC) required Iraq to scrap all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles and to allow UN verification inspections. Continued Iraqi noncompliance with UNSC resolutions over a period of 12 years led to the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003 and the ouster of the SADDAM Husayn regime.

www.cia.gov...

Continued? CONTINUED?!
They DID dismantle their weapons program... and alot of it with UN observers present!!!! They complied to those orders!



In the aftermath of Iraq's defeat, the U.S.-led U.N. coalition was able to compel Iraq to agree to an inspection and monitoring regime, intended to insure that Iraq dismantled its WMD programs and did not take actions to reconstitute them. The means of implementing the relevant U.N. resolutions was the Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM). That inspection regime continued until December 16, 1998

www.gwu.edu...


CONTINUED until december 16th, 1998... 12 years non-compliance my ass.
So, what's going on here? Did the CIA live out a totally different history to the one we did? Or are they just *really* stupid, and thing we are gullable enough to suck this stuff down?

They claimed they were in non-compliance for 12 years before the war, which is absolute bull.
Excuse me, but if they were in non-compliance, then how the hell was Saddam awarded the Nobel Peace Prize...



Hussein awarded Nobel Peace Prize for not possessing weapons of mass destruction

www.recoilmag.com...

FOR NOT POSESSING WMD'S!!!!

Wow... okay.
Anyhow, HOLD ONTO THAT LINK...
slowly but surely all news reports from back then regarding Saddam's Nobel Peace Prize are being taken down.


So to recap.
CIA says Saddam was in violation of UN security council over Weapons Of Masss Destruction for over 12 years.

The CIA is lying. The CIA seem's to be living in some fairytale version of history in which the Iraqi's have done nothing but evil in their entire existance, and the US has done nothing but good.

You are being fed an alternate version of history. And the worst part is, this altered version is probably in your school system by now... so kiss goodbye to the truth.

[edit on 9-3-2007 by johnsky]

Mod Note: Do Not Evade the Automatic Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 9-3-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Connected you havent got a clue have you, its not about WMDs, it did not matter if they were found or not its about oil, its about permanent US bases in the ME and its About Israel.


Actually I have more of a clue than you could even fathom. I know the rest of the story, you don't have to tell me. I was not talking about the main agenda's, I was talking about why the war is still going.

The thing you are forgetting is, we could not bring peace to the ME, or get their oil, or set up permanent US bases unless we get rid of the insurgents, and their ability to obtain WMD's. You see I was talking about the problem, and you are thinking about the final outcome. Which is why your last post is irrelevant to me on this subject.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Okay, I am going to start this off with saying I am 100% anti-war.

But, some of you need to open your eyes, there were WMD's, whether or not there were as many as we thought they were there.

But, let's look at a few points, some of you are saying this war is being fought to stop fighting. Isn't that a bit hypocritical. I know your supposed to fight fire with fire, but generally i've noticed two flames just make one big flame.

Also, the US itself has more WMD's then Iraq, so if the US can get angry about Iraq having WMD's maybe they should take a step, and get rid of all of theirs.

That, in my opinion would gain plenty of respect.

But all in all, if a war is ever going to happen this is a situation where I can except it a bit, because well there is no denying Saddam was a horrible tyrant of a leader, like many other leaders of now.

Let's just agree, that we all just want peace, sure right now, it seems impossible, but world peace without civil war, or world war, is what war seems to be trying to lead to. Ironically I guess.

Also Marg you keep stating this is ATS and we are supposed to Deny Ignorance, well your doing the opposite while blaming the others for doing it (which they are to an extent). But remember... it goes both ways.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 05:50 PM
link   
I didn't know that the U.S went to mess up iraq just to appeace the minds of the israelis, so they won't be starting a nuclear war with the middle east.
Confusion is in mind who is evil, and who is good ?????



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 05:50 PM
link   
The scary thing is...

People with connected's mentality are in the US armed forces over there. Falling for the elite's agenda hook, line, and sinker, contributing to this mess all the while...



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Connected
Yes I said Saddam started the "war" not the "invasion". Want to know how? He didn't turn over any of his deadly weapons, nor did he do anything to stop the terrorists against USA.

All he had to do was show us his bio/chemical weapons, or dirty bombs, or any other type of WMD, and then insured us that he would not give these weapons to the terrorists against USA, and Iraq wouldn't have been invaded.

Since he didn't do any of the above, we could not trust him, and we went to business.


You know what, I was going to actually reply to this guys stupid reply to me, but having read this statement from him, I am not going to bother.

What would be the point? So far into the lie's he actually believes them. This isn't the raving's of a crazy loon, but I can actually prove you wrong on everything you have said that there would be no pojnt. You actually think what you have said is true and that is sad.





top topics
 
18
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join