It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Shades1035
Why isn't there more debate on the reasons for attacking Iraq? Sure, it gets mentioned quite a lot but seems to be shrugged off by republicans. Some democrats are criticizing it but not enough imo.
If you start a war that has resulted in maybe as much as a million dead and a country in chaos then imho the people that started it should be put on trial.
Everyone knows by now (except the Fox news viewers) that Iraq in 2003 had no weapons of mass destructions and no links to Al Qaida.
Why isn't anyone in a high ranking position demanding that Bush is put on trial for starting a disastrous war based on lies? Clinton was put on trial for receiving a blow job. It makes no sense!
[edit on 18-4-2008 by Shades1035]
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Grab a pillow my friend...it will be a long night! This topic is avoided by everyone...even by the liberals. I think its a case of 'winner takes all'.
If you lose the war you get tried and executed...much like saddam which deserved it. But doesn't bush and blair deserve the same fate for acts of aggression? The nazis got hanged after WW2 but they lost...if they had won the allied generals would be guilty........See my point?
And the Clinton trial was beyond ironic. He got caught lying about having an affair while the neo-cons that managed to fabricate a ton of "evidence" to justify an immoral/unethical war get away with it.
An old saying comes to mind: "We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." Aesop - (c. 550 B.C.)
Originally posted by emeessa
I have to ask.. Is there realy any way of winning that war at all? When can that war be over?