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.

 

Reasons for WAR

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 12:44 PM
link   
My problem is that President Bush never really gave us a good reason to invade Iraq. Colin Powell presented to the UN hours of evidence that they were actively perusing weapons of mass destruction, we didnt find any, then it was to protect the people of Iraq form this ruthless dictator. We would have more support today if we invaded because of broken UN resolutions.


[Edited on 14-2-2004 by kinglizard]




posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Congress would have never approved military action to uphold UN mandates, so in that case, we would have not invaded in the first place.



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Only one reason... greed. Everything else is just a bullsh1t excuse



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 12:51 PM
link   


My problem is that President Bush never really gave us a good reason to invade Irac.


He gave us a good reason it was just bull#. The only real question is whither he KNEW it was bull#. If he did he should be impeached. And eather way heads need to roll, I would think I wa depending on this intelligence to protect the country.

What I am saying is they are eather liars or incompitent eather way they need to go.



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Why not incompetent liars?
They lied, but they did such a #ty job, they couldn't keep it consistent or believable enough. They were tripping over their own conscience


[Edited on 14-2-2004 by lilblam]



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeltaChaos
Congress would have never approved military action to uphold UN mandates, so in that case, we would have not invaded in the first place.


It could be argued that the war was never over. We had a conditional cease fire. Therefor we could just continue the war.



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinglizard

Originally posted by DeltaChaos
Congress would have never approved military action to uphold UN mandates, so in that case, we would have not invaded in the first place.


It could be argued that the war was never over. We had a conditional cease fire. Therefor we could just continue the war.


Could also be argued that there is no such thing as Korean War or Vietnam War. They were "police actions". War was not officially declared either in both conflicts, or at least one of them (I'm not 100% on which one, unless it's both).

Our government has many dirty little political tricks up its sleave


[Edited on 14-2-2004 by lilblam]



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 01:04 PM
link   


at least one of them


Nam

My Dad was in Korea I am not sure about it plus dozens of other police actions that are over before much can be said one way or another. Its how the get by congress



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Yes the reasons for our invovlement have always been a little (lot) obscure in nature...transforming at that too! Some people think that is justified...but really, it aint.

If Congress and the American people would have been a bit more clear about the whole issue, I think Mr. Bush may have been impeached, at least. I think it's sad when you compare the reasons Clinton was impeached, to the possiblities of reasons for Mr. Bush to be impeached, and realize what the public is actually cognizant about.



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Could also be argued that there is no such thing as Korean War or Vietnam War. They were "police actions". War was not officially declared either in both conflicts, or at least one of them (I'm not 100% on which one, unless it's both).

Our government has many dirty little political tricks up its sleave


[Edited on 14-2-2004 by lilblam]

Agreed, but war was declared in Iraq. I don't see the connection with Vietnam conflict.


[Edited on 14-2-2004 by kinglizard]



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk



at least one of them


Nam

My Dad was in Korea I am not sure about it plus dozens of other police actions that are over before much can be said one way or another. Its how the get by congress


You know.. our views aren't in such direct opposition as long as we avoid the subject of God etc.. interesting..



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 01:07 PM
link   


I don't see the connection with Vietnam conflict


If it keeps dragging on everyone will



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinglizard


Could also be argued that there is no such thing as Korean War or Vietnam War. They were "police actions". War was not officially declared either in both conflicts, or at least one of them (I'm not 100% on which one, unless it's both).

Our government has many dirty little political tricks up its sleave


[Edited on 14-2-2004 by lilblam]


Agreed, but war was declared in irac. I don't see the connection with Vietnam conflict.


The connection is, even though the war was declared OVER, nothing changed. It is now more of a "police action" so it seems. Unless all it was is a cease fire, in which case the war might never be over... our own governmetn is speculating it might be many years before this war is over.

Btw, is this the war on terrorism, or is this a war on Iraq, a separate conflict? Because the war on terrorism cannot be won at all, just like war on "evil" can't be won either.

[Edited on 14-2-2004 by lilblam]



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 01:10 PM
link   
We didn't need to end the war in Vietnam like WW2 because war was never declaired. War WAS declaired on IRAQ.

[Edited on 14-2-2004 by kinglizard]



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinglizard
We didn't need to end the war in Vietnam like WW2 because war was never declaired. War WAS declaired on IRAC.


Is it still going on? Even though their leader is gone?



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 01:14 PM
link   


You know.. our views aren't in such direct opposition as long as we avoid the subject of God etc.. interesting..


Scary aint it


But hey even a stopped watch is right twice a day



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Depends on your definition of war. I'll say that major combat is still going on here.



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 01:20 PM
link   


I'll say that major combat is still going on here


Thats what I am afraid of, that we are involved in another "police action" that we will be "winning" for the next 10 years. I am just courious Medic whos side are the people on? You can save a people but not from themselves. I would like to hear what you have to say not the government or the media

[Edited on 14-2-2004 by Amuk]



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 01:21 PM
link   
The reasons to get rid of the regime have been around for over 5 years if not longer.

I agree heads need to roll, but who's? No matter what way they go it will be crapped all over by some group or another.

WMD was just the selling point, not the only reason. It's proved a bad one recently.



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by medic
I'll say that major combat is still going on here.


That is not in question, war is still going on in Iraq, because we still have a war to fight.




[Edited on 14-2-2004 by kinglizard]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join