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 was the real reason for the war in iraq?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2004 @ 05:34 PM
link   


Saddam paid the family members of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Palestinians are not terrorist they are freedom fighters!
No different then our founding fathers killing the English.




posted on Jan, 1 2004 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Just pointing out the specifics. In the context of Iraq, Saddam's paying the families of Palenstinian suicide bombers doesn't apply. The administration says Saddam supported terrorism (knowing its actually the above) when they know that Americans will think AL QAEDA. It's BS. The Palestinian issue is completely separate.

And you know what they say, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

The bottom line is that the BushCo. assertion as stated, is false. There is no proof linking Saddam to Bin Laden.



posted on Jan, 2 2004 @ 06:02 AM
link   
Heads up, DirtyDevil, I am telling you what was reported by most all several months ago. And I am quite sure that both Fox News and Rush Limbaugh mentioned it as Fox is a credible source of information and Rush reads from and reports credible information.
I'm curious, from what credible source of information did you get your information?
The idea that we went to war for oil was stupid before the Iraqi campaign, but for someone to blindly repeat that nonsense is genuinely moronic. Not that there is a problem with going to war over energy, and it has never been a hidden policy that we would go to war if the supply was endangered, but that was not the case. And we did not go over there and steal the Iraqi oil. We also have not even benefited from cheaper oil. No, we went and removed a dangerous butthead from a position of power.
Stop being a knee-jerk liberal towing the party line and think outside of their little illogical box. The war is legitimate, and was being conducted against us long before we ever started to actually raise a sword in our own defense. But what is being accomplished behind the smoke of that legitimate war? And to the benefit of what entity? This is where it might really get hard for you as the truth might be a little bit more complicated than your "America bad, anything socialistic good" mindset.
Little time to play nowadays, gotta go. Try and think.



posted on Jan, 2 2004 @ 06:59 AM
link   
TC: I've never never seen you go head on at the "reason" we went to war. Remember that we were searching for those oh so elusive WMDs. You may have, I just can't remember it. Please enlighten me.

The reason for war was to find the WMDs which haven't reared their ugly heads yet. People died for a lie.

Which is worse "I didn't have sexual relations with that woman" or "We are going into Iraq to find and destroy the weapons of mass destruction..."



posted on Jan, 2 2004 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Ox, the fact that the chem/bio weapons were (are) there was never in debate. The fact that Hussein did everything he could to turn the inspections into a lesson in obstruction and a general circus is documented fact as well. The fact that he hates America, had connections to terrorists and had the means and motive to ensure that the proper organization would have the agents to smuggle into the U.S. and detonate or disperse in a populated area should give any thoughtful and peace-loving person cause to be alarmed and demand action be taken.
Did Bush and Blair go overboard with the shaky info that Hussein was attempting to get uranium from an African nation? It certainly appears to be so, nobody can deny that. Was the hoopla over "liberating the people of Iraq" just a bunch of rallying propaganda? Of course. The fact that the people of Iraq are free of the monstrous regime that raped their women, imprisoned children for not becoming Baath trainees and ran people through plastic shredders for entertainment is a good by-product, but isn't a reason to wage war, one state against another. Were the people to have struggled for their own liberty, then I would have championed the cause of supporting them, but you cannot earn true liberty for someone who isn't first carrying the guidon.

Is the war on terror, part of which involved Iraq, a worthy and necessary cause? Certainly. The enemy forces have been carrying out the war tactics whether or not we responded, and it is about time we responded properly. That is not the issue to me. Do I have an issue? You bet I do.

Can the agendas of shadowy and evil groups or confederations on international levels be hidden and carried out while camoflaged behind the activities of legitimate onsgoings, such as this war on terror? Most certainly. The war is ambiguous and difficult to define for most citizens, me included. Whereas WW II came to a final and obvious end at the defeat of Germany and Japan, with signed agreements of unconditional surrender, this war on both regimes as well as terrorist organizations can be dragged on for years or decades. The war can be used to establish constraints on liberties, and as time passes, these constraints be accepted as the norm by not only this generation but especially the next generation. Then, more ecroachment upon what is accepted as "liberty" takes even more liberty from the people, until we are in an even worse predicament than we were before. And I believe there is an international conspiracy to make this happen.
The problem is sorting the wheat from the chaff.



posted on Jan, 2 2004 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Some good points Thomas. But if we are going to waste our tax dollars to free people then the international community should help fund it. Saddam did have wmd that is a fact we gave them to him and admit it. I just have a problem with that being the sole reason when the majority of those weapons had been destroyed or are long expired potency wise. Did he support terrorist no he didnt and there is no proof. I never thought he would support it because the usa would be all over ass his if he ever did.



posted on Jan, 2 2004 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Thomas Crowne, since your busy defending the BushCo. liars, can you honestly defend the fact that current and former administration members winked at Saddam in the 80's - while he was busy gassing Iranians? (With the dual-use materials provided by the U.S. to make anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs, botulism, salmonella and E Coli.) It sure didn't bother us too much at the time. He might've been a tyrant, but at least he was our tyrant.


All we've gotten from this administration is lies and hypocrisy to nth degree. I almost feel sorry for those who buy into the government's line. Almost.



posted on Jan, 2 2004 @ 02:10 PM
link   
ECK, where in your twisting of what I've said makes you think I've defended this administration? If, in your mind, not attempting to blame this administration for everything from the common cold to WW II is defending them, I suppose you are right in that I am defending them. However, that is only in your mind.

Much od what you claim we did to support him is inaccurate and pulled off of shady sites. The other thing in which you are being intellectually dishonest in saying is comparing today's envirinment to when we were doing all we could to retard the Soviet empire. Back then, we supported several groups that we would not ordinarilly supported not have, knowing that we would eventually have to deal with them as well. To throw rocks after the mission was completed is cowardly, and to compare nowto then is wrong as well.

Another interesting thing is you trying to tie Bush to the 80's, saying he supported Hussein and gave him a knowing wink. I would like for you to lend some crediblity to that statement, in anyone giving him the knowing wink as he gassed innocent men, women and children. I have never heard that suggested, not even by James Carville.



posted on Jan, 2 2004 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
ECK, where in your twisting of what I've said makes you think I've defended this administration? If, in your mind, not attempting to blame this administration for everything from the common cold to WW II is defending them, I suppose you are right in that I am defending them. However, that is only in your mind.

Much od what you claim we did to support him is inaccurate and pulled off of shady sites. The other thing in which you are being intellectually dishonest in saying is comparing today's envirinment to when we were doing all we could to retard the Soviet empire. Back then, we supported several groups that we would not ordinarilly supported not have, knowing that we would eventually have to deal with them as well. To throw rocks after the mission was completed is cowardly, and to compare nowto then is wrong as well.

Another interesting thing is you trying to tie Bush to the 80's, saying he supported Hussein and gave him a knowing wink. I would like for you to lend some crediblity to that statement, in anyone giving him the knowing wink as he gassed innocent men, women and children. I have never heard that suggested, not even by James Carville.


Thomas Crowne, I hate to break it to you, but the information I cited is very correct. Thoroughly documented. If you could just take a moment to calm down... and stop fuming, you might try looking it up for yourself. Or would you rather accept the pablum you've been fed by those who have programmed you? You're a smart guy, just trusting an establishment that has lied to us all far too long.

Here's a few facts from Lew Rockwell.com. A CONSERVATIVE site.

Eight Facts About Iraq
by Laurence M. Vance

The Bush administration, its accomplices in the news media, and the conservative talk show hacks who do the bidding of the Republican party have sold America a bill of goods. The invasion of Iraq was justified, we have been led to believe, because Saddam Hussein was the reincarnation of Adolph Hitler, Iraq was in the position of Germany on the eve of World War II, and the "elite" Republican Guard was the equivalent of the German Wehrmacht. According to the president himself: "We will end a brutal regime, whose aggression and weapons of mass destruction make it a unique threat to the world."

Right wing Christians too, who ought to know better, have also been duped because of their misplaced trust in the state just because it is currently controlled by the Republican party (the same Republican party that is expanding government at a rate not seen since the Democratic administrations of Lyndon Johnson and Franklin Roosevelt).
the rest: www.lewrockwell.com...



posted on Jan, 2 2004 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Fuming? Kid, you obviously have no clue of me, or you enjoy perverting the truth. Personally, I think it's both.

I do not think its necessary to even comment on your cited source as it is obvious to anyone with a mind the lack of objectivity and fact. Your cited site mixes documented fact with heavy slatherings of opinion and assertion.

But again, you ignore the reasons for the U.S. government's support of certain governments back in the Cold War, as if there aren't those of us who don't remember those days. Sorry, pal, you'll have to try and rewrite history on a board that has no members who were alive when the history was in the making.



posted on Jan, 2 2004 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Fuming? Kid, you obviously have no clue of me, or you enjoy perverting the truth. Personally, I think it's both.

You can deny the truth all you want, pal. It's just sad that someone as intelligent as you, could be so blinde to it. But then again, you believe all that garbage you were fed growing up. Do yourself a favor and broaden your intellectual horizons and start thinking for yourself.

I do not think its necessary to even comment on your cited source as it is obvious to anyone with a mind the lack of objectivity and fact. Your cited site mixes documented fact with heavy slatherings of opinion and assertion.

You wouldn't accept any source I offer, be it from the right or left. That's because you're close-minded and terrified to learn that everything you believe in has been turned upside down. Your Republican heroes are the ones who have perverted truth. Lew Rockwell is a solid source. Besides, the information within the article I provided is documented elsewhere. And those sources are airtight, as well. If you wish to stay in the dark, clinging to the fantasies fed to you by the elites, go for it.

But again, you ignore the reasons for the U.S. government's support of certain governments back in the Cold War, as if there aren't those of us who don't remember those days.

Uh, no. I asked you to justify the hypocrisy. Why was it ok to deal with Saddam back then even though we knew he was gassing the Iranians, and now he's a "brutal dictator" who just had to be removed? What's so different now? Why didn't we cut off relations back then, if it was so terrible? ?

Sorry, pal, you'll have to try and rewrite history on a board that has no members who were alive when the history was in the making.


I would suggest you go back and take another look at history. And learn how to seperate propaganda from truth.

The sad but funny truth is, all the people who so strenuously defend Bush et al are gonna be sorely disappointed when the axe falls. They're gonna be consumed and crushed right along with the rest of the sheep. The elites are laughing at you as you defend them.



posted on Jan, 3 2004 @ 12:03 AM
link   
Nobody here has cornered the market on truth. All fact is subject to interuptation and perception. Either way we are missing the main point here. The war didn't have to be about one thing...few things are. It was about a whole list of things. The government in their tragic wisdom chose to play the fear card because they wanted the publics support.

Saddam wasn't a threat--yet. And many conservatives will point that out to you. But, the idea that he wasn't threatening the US is ridiculous. He was working behind the scenes against the US within OPEC...he buddied up with Chavez--they've met several times. They were going after the US economically with the EU and Russia in tow. Blood in the water, and all those hungry sharks smelled it. Though reluctant, even Russia sees the good in bringing us down...loans coming due soon. Something had to be done to maintain and eventually protect our economy from these predators.

I say this not because I agree with it...but because some of you have missed the boat. We are not dealing on the surface...oil-sha'moil. Its about the future of your country. No leader--not one of them can stop this because like TC said we didn't start it. We're just fighting it. The wrong way IMO...but we've gotta fight it none the less. We need to stop looking at the wrongs especially when we're talking about this war and the reasons for it. So what you think it was wrong? So what the president lied? why did it have to happen? Research that. Damn the bechtels and the halliburtons...we have real enemies and they aren't camped out in a cave. We need real leaders with better solutions cause we can't war this away.



posted on Jan, 3 2004 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Wrong, Saphie, I have the truth cornered. It's fun to poke at it with a stick, too. Come on over, bring a stick, I have the beer.



posted on Jan, 3 2004 @ 11:02 AM
link   
How many times do you need to see the truth before you cross over from Ignorant to just plain stupid?



posted on Jan, 3 2004 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by DiRtYDeViL
How many times do you need to see the truth before you cross over from Ignorant to just plain stupid?





After reading this entire thread and agreeing with DD and ECK's words, I think that little one line'r sums it up.

Nice one DD.



posted on Jan, 3 2004 @ 01:59 PM
link   
The problem with your "truth", DD, is that it is only partial truth and partial fact designed to support a political position. Partial truths and facts coupled with intentional omissions of otehr truths and facts add up to one thing - lies. There is no reason to continue.
I also see you have a follower, one who prefers the above mentioned formulated lies over weighing all the information. No problem, after all, this is the "political mud pit" and truth need not apply here, right?

[Edited on 3-1-2004 by Thomas Crowne]



posted on Jan, 3 2004 @ 08:16 PM
link   
While oil is indeed a factor in the decision to go to war with Iraq (assurance of an oil source to exploit for at least the next 15 years and that source will be in dollars) , there is a bigger plan behind all of this.

The real reason for the war in Iraq is to start the creation of the global Pax Americana who was envisionned by the Neo Cons and various radical right wing think tanks who all call for the global domination of America in the world ( PNAC and AEI in particular).I have come to this conclusion after a very deep and serious investigation that i worked on for near 2 years now.This subject is very well documented , as much by the Neo Cons themself than by their opponents.Once you understand that picture , after that all the pieces of the puzzle fall in place and it's very easy to make a distiction between what is propaganda and what is not.This is why the theory that the U.S went to war with Iraq because of WMD is extremely laughtable and only the Bush hardliners partisans still believe in that story.

In the next couple of weeks , i will create a document with all the details , documents and facts about my investigation. I will probably call it :

" The Neo Cons : The real power behind the U.S foreign policy" or something like that.

Stay tuned.


[Edited on 3-1-2004 by ForceOfWill]



posted on Jan, 3 2004 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Oh great so now the rest of the worlds going to be like Canada living under Pax Americana. While our citizens suffer with no health care the rest of the world will have it.



posted on Jan, 3 2004 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by DiRtYDeViL
Oh great so now the rest of the worlds going to be like Canada living under Pax Americana. While our citizens suffer with no health care the rest of the world will have it.


I don't know if it was sarcasm or not but the creation of the global Pax Americana was really the principal motive behind the war in Iraq.Like the Republican congresseman Ron Paul would say :



" There is abundant evidence exposing those who drive our foreign policy justifying preemptive war. Those who scheme are proud of the achievements in usurping control over foreign policy. These are the neoconservatives of recent fame. Granted, they are talented and achieved a political victory that all policymakers must admire. But can freedom and the Republic survive this takeover? That question should concern us."

- Congresseman Ron Paul (R) , Speech in front of the house of representatives , July 10 2003



posted on Jan, 3 2004 @ 10:32 PM
link   
yea I am sorry sarcasm can't be read through text you brought up some very good points thou worth reading thanks for that.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join