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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Damn.

I pushed the wrong button, now I feel I have to say something to justify this post being here.

Thanks for teaching me something in that last post of yours, JohnNada!



[Edited on 14-2-2004 by MaskedAvatar]




posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by THENEO

Originally posted by John Nada

Originally posted by THENEO
Iraqi's are getting more now than they did under Saddam, the only tragic thing is all the resources being wasted to rebuild the country and the money spent to police it from communist backed terrorists.


In other words you can't answer a single question I asked.
Ooohhh, they get a bit more hot water a day than under Saddam, that was worth their oil being stolen from them.


Nada you seemingly have an inability to see beyond your preconceived notions which makes me wonder why you believe that you are able to engage in debate with other people?


HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! That's rich coming from you!!! The nerve of it.


Many people have changed my mind about the way I see things, even on this board. Never you though because you are ignorant and a fraud. You pass off your opinions as fact which is very scary, when considering some young or ignorant people could come here and actually swallow the shit that you spew.

There are many people on this board that follow similar beliefs in politics as you such as Seekerof, Thomas Crowne e.t.c. The difference is they have actually earned my respect through backing up their claims, and never forcefully trying to convert people by making them feel stupid if they don't agree with you (well, TC at times but that's just funny) and most of all they make it known it is just their opinion, not fact.
You do not deserve the same curtosy.



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Some acts of terrorism have been committed by 'us.' But that does not consider other countries and organizations and of course the terrorists themselves (which do exist btw). Sorry but this is a socialist fantasy put forth to serve selfish aims and it is starting to get weary to hear it and have to debate it.



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by THENEO
Some acts of terrorism have been committed by 'us.' But that does not consider other countries and organizations and of course the terrorists themselves (which do exist btw). Sorry but this is a socialist fantasy put forth to serve selfish aims and it is starting to get weary to hear it and have to debate it.


Some eh? try like 99% of attacks. A fantasy eh? Prove it!!!! I am not a socialist, I am not a liberal. I have told you this a thousand times yet you keep associating me with them, do you not listen to a word anyone says?



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Hey, can't we all get along? If not, I will put Anthax in my next post.



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by jezebel

Originally posted by kinglizard
I think you are missing the point. Desert Storm never officially ended. Bush Senior declared a cease fire on the condition that they would follow and abide by UN RESOLUTION 687 (1991)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 2981st meeting,
on 3 April 1991. They have broken that resolution for 12 years and kicked out UNSCUM. They also continually shot at our military aircraft in the no fly zone. That gives the us the right to continue the war to enforce resolution 687.



How is it that we can use a broken UN resolution as an excuse to invade another country, when we, at the same time, were telling the UN that they couldn't tell us what to do. Bush said we would not take orders from anyone else. That would be admirable, except for the fact that the justification for declaring war was Saddam's failure to obey the UN. Bush said we were protecting the credibility of the UN, by telling them to go to hell and acting without their approval, to enforce their resolution. That type of reasoning just doesn't hold water.

Also, it was the US that kicked out the UN inspectors, not Saddam. He just didn't want the US to be a part of the inspections because of an assassination attempt earlier by the US.


Well, we went to the UN and said we wanted to invade because they had weapons of mass distruction, this was a mistake. We made our stand on the wrong issue, and we couldn't go back and say anything else.

I believe if we went to the UN Secutity Council and insisted we enforce the resolution that was already signed. This way we would be protecting the credibility of the UN by honoring and upholding the resolution, otherwise a resolution from the UN would "hold no water". Moreover we would have support of the security council to take action or they would make themselves irrelevant by not enforcing their own resolution.



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Hey, can't we all get along? If not, I will put Anthax in my next post.


No worries mate, I already sprinkeld dried mad beef all over my posts.



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Nada,

you ain't no conservative that is for sure. I don't know what your beliefs are but that is not really important anyways. Your need for attention though is tiring.



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

Originally posted by THENEO
Nada,

you ain't no conservative that is for sure. I don't know what your beliefs are but that is not really important anyways. Your need for attention though is tiring.


MY NEED FOR ATTENTION??? What about you? You're a complete joke.
Everything about you is arrogance, it is all posturing.
What about posting in EVERY single thread in todays topics every day, regardless of whether you know anything about the subject or not??? Even if you don't know anything about it, you pass off your opinions as if they are fact!!! That isn't arrogance or attention seeking???
There are people such as Zzub who only post when they actually know anything about the subject and do so with dignity. Yet people like him are always looked over for TWATS because of lack of exposure. Yet you cried like a little baby when you didn't win it and felt you deserved it. This isn't attention seeking? WTF is?
What about that stupidly bright avatar of yours? That isn't attention seeking? What about your need to build up your points because for some strange reason you seem to think points = intelligence and superiority?

Point out how I seek attention? This is a typical knee jerk reaction of someone who has been proved wrong and is too arrogant and has lack of integrity to prove it. Keep at it THEEGO, you're not fooling anyone except the comatose lame brains.

[Edited on 14-2-2004 by John Nada]



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Nada,

thanks John, it is nice to know that you still care. But it seems you recycled that post from a past effort and I thought you could do better than that.



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by THENEO
Nada,

thanks John, it is nice to know that you still care. But it seems you recycled that post from a past effort and I thought you could do better than that.


Maybe that's got something to do with the fact that you haven't changed or learnt one single bit. You're still a fool. Prove me wrong, go on. I know you can't.



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Nada,

it is not possible to prove anything to you that does not meet your already narrow preconceived notions thus why would I bother. My commentary is for the benefit of other inquiring minds. Please do not be confused by that.



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by THENEO
Nada,

it is not possible to prove anything to you that does not meet your already narrow preconceived notions thus why would I bother. My commentary is for the benefit of other inquiring minds. Please do not be confused by that.


Trust me I think they already know what you are about.



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 04:12 PM
link   
'They' as in your friends Nada? 'They' as in the gang that runs things around here or tries to (depending on who you talk to).

'They' as in fairies and sprites and such things you see at night?

'They' as in the beasts of the darkside you cavort with?

'They' as some majority of people around here that you claim to speak for or relate to?

'They' who John?



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by THENEO
'They' as in your friends Nada? 'They' as in the gang that runs things around here or tries to (depending on who you talk to).

'They' as in fairies and sprites and such things you see at night?

'They' as in the beasts of the darkside you cavort with?

'They' as some majority of people around here that you claim to speak for or relate to?

'They' who John?


'They' as in the people who Deny Ignorance, which would instantly mean denying you. It is our moto you know? Not that'd you'd know it talking to you.



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Nada,

you love the ignorance it is the realm of the lunch bucket crowd cheering at the union hall that votes democratic and thinks that politics is about being moralistic even though they drive their SUV's and cannot figure out why there is a was in Iraq?

Do you mean those people that deny ignorance John? Those people need to deny THEMSELVES before they can rightly deny others.



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by THENEO
Nada,

you love the ignorance it is the realm of the lunch bucket crowd cheering at the union hall that votes democratic and thinks that politics is about being moralistic even though they drive their SUV's and cannot figure out why there is a was in Iraq?

Do you mean those people that deny ignorance John? Those people need to deny THEMSELVES before they can rightly deny others.


Again you're ignorance and stereotyping shines through THEEGO, you're a laughing stock man.


I don't vote democrat, I don't go to the Union Hall, I don't drive ANY care never mind a big car, I belive in using my feet and I know EXACTLY why there was a war in Iraq.

Watch out everyone, the King of Assumptions has struck again.



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinglizard
Well, we went to the UN and said we wanted to invade because they had weapons of mass distruction, this was a mistake. We made our stand on the wrong issue, and we couldn't go back and say anything else.

I believe if we went to the UN Secutity Council and insisted we enforce the resolution that was already signed. This way we would be protecting the credibility of the UN by honoring and upholding the resolution, otherwise a resolution from the UN would "hold no water". Moreover we would have support of the security council to take action or they would make themselves irrelevant by not enforcing their own resolution.


We used both the "threat" Iraq posed to the US and their "failure" to comply with resolutions 1441 and 687 as our basis for invasion. The problem is that a single member of the Security Council does not have the right to unilaterally enforce a UN resolution. The council as a whole must decide how to react to a breach in a resolution. Bush said that if we didn't react with military force to their non-compliance, then the UN would lose it's credibility.

So, Bush was acting without regard to what the UN wanted, in order to preserve the UN's credibility? Isn't that like "father knows best" or rather "child knows best" thinking?

"According to most members of the Security Council, it is up to the council itself, and not individual members, to determine how the body's resolutions are to be enforced. This was made clear in a Security Council meeting on Dec. 16, 1998. That day, U.S. and British warplanes launched air strikes against Iraq after learning that Iraq was continuing to impede the work of UNSCOM, the weapons inspectors sent to Iraq at the close of the Gulf War, and thus was not in compliance with Resolution 687. When the Security Council met that night to discuss whether individual member states could resort to force without renewed Security Council consent, it was clear that the Security Council members did not all agree on the legality of the U.S. and British resort to force.

According to the press release from that meeting, the U.S. representative claimed his country's actions were authorized by previous council resolutions (as many in the Bush administration are arguing again today). The British delegate similarly argued that because Iraq had not complied with the terms of Resolution 687, military force was justified.

But others saw things differently, arguing that it was the job of the Security Council as a wholeand not individual member statesto determine when a resolution had been breached and how to enforce it. The Russian representative insisted that no one had the right to act independently on the United Nations' behalf. Costa Rica's ambassador agreed, arguing that force could be authorized only by the Security Council as a whole. According to the press release, the Brazilian delegate believed that "the council remained the sole body with legal authority to mandate actions aimed at reinforcing compliance with its own resolutions."

The argument that the council alone is authorized to decide how to deal with a violation of Resolution 687 is bolstered by the text of the resolution itself. Paragraph 34 says: "The Security Council decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required." This language indicates that the decision to use "all necessary means" is left to the Security Councilnot to individual states."
www.worldpress.org...



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Do you think it's about oil, or having a foothold in the middle east, for future operations against other Arab states?



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 09:36 PM
link   
I would say all three reasons.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join