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.

 

War on Terrorism justified even though..?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2004 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
(what do you call Shock And Awe, the huge bombing night on Baghdad's civilian population if not State-Sponsored Terrorism).


Because it was a military operation, conducted in a declared invasion with warning given. Terrorism, by definition, cannot be used by an official military.

If you want to use yourdefinition, then every military in existence has used terrorism, which sort of makes your singular condemnation of the US fall flat.




posted on Mar, 2 2004 @ 08:42 PM
link   
The war on terror is justifiable for many reasons, but the most simple one is this:

They will not stop attacking us. So why shouldn't we put pressure on them - go into their neck of the woods, kick their doors down, kill their familly members. It is harsh, I realize, but make no mistake - this is a WAR FOR THEM. They are making WAR against us in the form of terrorism, and if their is any country which horbors these guys, they too are our enemy. BTW, it has been proven, on this websight i might add, that saddam and OBL actually DID have contact. Saddam has used WMD before, and he probably still had them. The fact that we can't find them really isn't that big of a deal. When i was young, I wouldn't keep my beer in the fridge, cause my parents would find it. Well Saddam doesnt keep his in WMD storage facilities either!!

Back to the OBL.... It's real simple - they have a jihad against us because we are friends with Isreal (which personally, I do not support, but realistically isnt going to change because of Jewish money in the US).

They hate us because they consider us sinners - we actually allow women to show their face in public. We are sinners because we drink. We are sinners because we are "greedy" (By the way, isn't OBL funding his terrorist thing with money he made off his fathers multibillion dollar buisness?). They will not stop, so it is in our national interest to bring the battle to them! If they are running from cave to cave, they arent making plans to bomb us. End of story!



posted on Mar, 2 2004 @ 08:42 PM
link   
It still pisses me off that they used cluster bombs, and no one seemed to mind (except for the Iraqi civilians).

[Edited on 2-3-2004 by daeldren]



posted on Mar, 2 2004 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by daeldren
It still pisses me off that they used cluster bombs, and no one seemed to mind (except for the Iraqi civilians).

[Edited on 2-3-2004 by daeldren]


The wording in the Geneva Convention that could be applied to cluster bombs is sketchy, at best. If you dislike cluster bombs, it can be interpereted against them. If you support cluster bombs, you can just as easily interperet to allow them.



posted on Mar, 2 2004 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by browha
Is the war on terrorism justified (well, specifically Iraq) even though WMD arent found/ Bin Laden isnt found?
Personally I think it is because whole nations have been liberated. The deposition of a brutual dictator who was causing his country to develop backwards is undoubtably a good thing, and once Iraq stabilizies, I hope people will see this.
I'm not the one saying this, but a human rights organization has come out and stated that the Iraq invasion was not justified as a humanitarian mission.

hrw.org...

Billions of dollars spent, 10,000 dead Iraqi citizens, untold amounts of dead Iraqi soliders, and hundreds of thousands, if not millions of injured Iraqis, plus over 500 dead and thousands of injured U.S. soldiers. All this over zero WMD and terrorist ties. Was it all done to get a single man out of power? I'm glad I'm not so naive.

The war on terrorism is a sham. Its nothing but a government excuse to wage illegal wars in the name of self defense. The U.S. economy is flagging and these wars scream out that they are desperation attacks by a country who is attempting to remain afloat economically by any means necessary.



posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 12:12 AM
link   
I think this has absolutely nothing to do with keeping our economy up - if anything play the oil card!!

but in all seriousness, just about everyfriend I have over in Iraq says that the Iraqi people welcome the US - they are just upset that it is taking so long for us to get their government and whatnot in order.

Obviously, you cannot wage war without killing some people, but when you think about it, and i don't mean this to sound harsh, but to invade and occupy a country for almost a year, 500 dead is an UNBELIEVABLE result! I mean, we took over a country, and have had our men over there for almost a year and have lost less then a thousand men! that is one of the greatest millitary operations ever!

as for their dead - I am sure they lost quite a few. But think of it in terms of numbers and not individuals (I know this is hard to do, but it is a reality of war) we may have killed thousands and thousands of Iraqi's, but if we had not invaded, Saddam would have killed thousands too. Then one of his sons who were ten times worse then him would have taken over. now they kill thousands. then we have to go in anyways, and we lose our 500 and they lose their thousands, but all those other people who Saddam and his sons killed would also be dead, so it would be thousands more!



posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
I think this has absolutely nothing to do with keeping our economy up - if anything play the oil card!!
Good thing I didn't mention oil in my post then.

Anyway, yes oil played some role in the attack, but it was the oil currency that was at issue and the central reason for the invasion. The U.S. HAS to stop OPEC from switching to petroeuros in light of our continually falling economy. Going in there and switching Iraq back to petrodollars both staved off economic disaster at home plus sent a warning to the other OPEC nations about switching their currency. OPEC's retaliation? They cut oil supply by 10% instead and send our oil prices rising. Though I'm sure our government was well aware that this would happen.


but in all seriousness, just about everyfriend I have over in Iraq says that the Iraqi people welcome the US - they are just upset that it is taking so long for us to get their government and whatnot in order.
Hmm. Those frequent bombings and continued attacks seem to tell me otherwise, but who am I to judge? Some people think that shooting people is a sign of peace and friendship.


Obviously, you cannot wage war without killing some people, but when you think about it, and i don't mean this to sound harsh, but to invade and occupy a country for almost a year, 500 dead is an UNBELIEVABLE result! I mean, we took over a country, and have had our men over there for almost a year and have lost less then a thousand men! that is one of the greatest millitary operations ever!
Oh yes. Steamrolling a country that had nothing always makes for great and decisive victories. I certainly agree with you there. As a military operation, it couldn't be more successful. Its reasoning and handling leave a lot to be desired though.


as for their dead - I am sure they lost quite a few. But think of it in terms of numbers and not individuals (I know this is hard to do, but it is a reality of war) we may have killed thousands and thousands of Iraqi's, but if we had not invaded, Saddam would have killed thousands too. Then one of his sons who were ten times worse then him would have taken over. now they kill thousands. then we have to go in anyways, and we lose our 500 and they lose their thousands, but all those other people who Saddam and his sons killed would also be dead, so it would be thousands more!
Exactly. Its better for the United States to kill Iraqis than Saddam. I mean, just look at how many friends its made for us in the world community.



posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 12:44 AM
link   
I originally believed in the War on Terror, but I think Bush is picking and choosing his battles quite irresponsibly. He goes after regimes like Saddams, which I agreed with then and still do now...Yet he leaves groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah alone.

If your going to fight a war on terror you cant pick and choose the terrorist groups your going after, you need be be forceful and go after them all. I know everyone is afraid of Israel involvement and the start of WWIII, but I believe its about time we tell Israel that they need to attack these groups much more harshly and if that means Israel attacking Lebanon and Syria, then so be it. Its a war on terror and Israel is a ally, they shouldnt be discluded because of Islamic hatred....

I also believe that our efforts in Afghanistan are pretty weak and that if we were serious about catching OBL, we wouldnt be tip toeing around with only 10k troops in that region compared to 100k + in Iraq.
The war and the way it is going now reminds me of the outline we used on the war on drugs and being to passive instead of being more forceful....Im not one who believes in passive compliance with groups like terrorists.
I also understand that lots of Americans in this generation and last seem to be following a model of pussification and believing that dialogue with these groups or states will work, but IMO it never will. America has lost respect in the world arena because of our "go-it-alone" policy, which isnt actually true. But the world also needs to know that our governments #1 responsibility to the people of America is to protect us from harm and if that means being a dick and going after these terrorists, then I thumb my nose to the international community.

Anyways, thats my belief and Im sticking to it.



posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 01:02 AM
link   
Hey - I'm not saying it's "better" the US kills anyone then Saddam. The point is that regardless of what we did or didnt do, people were going to die. Its the fact that we have probably saved lives by going in now that makes our invasion OK.

as for killing people making friends and all that crud - just because you see a bunch of liberal media reports on how everyone over there hates us, DON'T BELIEVE IT! most, infact, are happy, because they can now read what they want, study what they want ect ect.

yes there are Iraqi's who hate the fact we are there, hate the fact we have killed their mother/father/son/daughter/friend - but you know what, there were a lot of Germans who hated the Allies when we won in WWII, but all the Jews didnt seem to mind. In the civil war, all sorts of southerners hated the north for coming down there - the blacks didn't seem to mind. And in Iraq their are gunna be people who hate us too - but don't think that their Olympic athletes who were beaten and forced to crawl in human # are too upset. Or how about all those "political prisoners" that were tortured? I doubt they mind either. The leader there was a tyrant, his sons who would have taken over for him were even worse. All in all, WMD's or not - it was worth it to get him out.



posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 01:05 AM
link   
as for Isreal I totally disagree - they are as bad as any terrorist - they bulldoze homes, and treat palisinians like they are less then human. unfortunatly because of the Jewish money/political clought in the US, we are unlikely to do anything much about it.

However, if they are going to be our ally, then yes, they should be more agresive. But thats not what they are about - they are about usinig the US for money.

[Edited on 3-3-2004 by American Mad Man]



posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joseph Knecht
Wake up Browa! America's wars are justifiable for the elite, while the masses are subject to trickle down propaganda.
Saddam's Inequities as rationale for the latest campaign are laughable. One finds themself looking in a mirror.
Have a look see: WE propogated Hussein's weapons programs in the 1980's to fight the Iranians. WE trained the 9/11 style Mujadeen in Afghanistan to fight the Russians. WE slaughtered the Native Americans under the religous guise of Manifest Destiny. WE sent hundreds of thousands of troops to their demise to fight a proxy war in Vietnam. WE introduced CRACK COCAINE into the ghettos of America after the Africans were removed from their homeland, slave labored, and ridiculed for the color of their skin . And oh yes, WE dropped NUCLEAR BOMBS on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Riddle me this Browa: What is your definition of terrorism?


I dont say I agree with what America has done in the past
I just say that I think this war, e.g. 'liberation' of Iraq and Iran will, in the long run, save many lives.
For example, had Hitler been killed pre-1930s, millions of Jewish people, 20million-odd Russian people, etc would never have died..
Then you have to think about how many of them could have done somethings that could have changed our lives, or how many of their children would have, or their children's children, etc.



posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Browha, This is what is so frustrating to get across: WE ARE CREATING ENEMIES TO SERVE OUR NEEDS. One of these needs is called OIL. OIL is inextricably linked with keeping America, America. And there is a reality called Peak Oil, which seems to be what we are fighting for: The Remnants of cheap oil left on terra firma. Look at the geopolitical positioning of American Military Operations and bases around the world. It's not hard to figure out.

On the other note: You not agreeing with all of America's past is ok. The point I'm trying to make is that America's past is linked with America's Future. You can't just sweep the dog deals and atrocities under the rug and and expect their reprocussions to go away. The LA Riots were one such example of a serious problem in this country that came to a semi-boiling point. 9/11 is another example. They attacked the WORLD TRADE CENTER, which was provoked in part, by our gluttonous lifestyles which again are inextricably linked to OIL.

-And for all you semanticists on this thread that try and distinguish terrorism from other acts because of military definitions, geneva conventions.... Give me a brake! TERROR IS A CONCEPT. Ask a vietnam vet what terror is, or ask an Iraqi child who survived the shock and awe campaign what terror is. Language truly is a virus.... Oh my brothers.



posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 12:35 PM
link   
SimpleTruth: "A military monster huh? Haha, well, I'll take that as a compliment. You should be happy. The nation south of you that you dislike so much is one that helps keep you safe, due to your own military impotency, and your economy and trade relies on us as well. So, you don't like us, but you know what? Beggars can't be choosers."

See, the funny thing is that Canadians make fun of Americans more than anyone else. We get to see most of the stupid US media just as most Americans. And we don't even get in trouble for it, and never will.

When I travel, I hear at least once a day "Omigod, I love Canadians, but I feel sorry for you guys for having to be forcefed American "culture"".

So, you see, Canada IS being kept safe by the US and we don't have to do anything to get it. No increased defense budgets, etc. In fact we're probably one of the most vocal countries when it comes to slamming the US. Haha. Yay!

Esoterica: "Terrorism, by definition, cannot be used by an official military. "

Er, bs. Weren't the Taliban terrorists? The Ton Ton Macoute? Ugandan deathsquads?

Terrorists CAN and ARE militarily trained.



posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 12:42 PM
link   
When I travel, I hear at least once a day "Omigod, I love Canadians, but I feel sorry for you guys for having to be forcefed American "culture"".

I am curious as to how you are "forcefed" American culture?


So, you see, Canada IS being kept safe by the US and we don't have to do anything to get it. No increased defense budgets, etc. In fact we're probably one of the most vocal countries when it comes to slamming the US. Haha. Yay!

I doubt that you speak for the majority of Canadians when you say that you are one of the most voacl countries when it comes to slamming the US. I have never known a Canadian to speak ill of the US (except you).



posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by browha
Is the war on terrorism justified (well, specifically Iraq) even though WMD arent found/ Bin Laden isnt found?
Personally I think it is because whole nations have been liberated.
The same roughly applies to Afghanistan, though from what I hear in the news it's starting to get much riskier for soldiers out there.
It wasn't justified because they haven't found WMD's or Osama Bin Laden, these were the reasons given for the war, therefore, it is an unjustified war.



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 11:41 AM
link   
yes, but do you not think that the war is somewhat self justifiying by freeing millions of people from virtual enslavement?
I agree about the earlier point of oil, my father is heavily into economics and this is one of the main points I have discussed with him, and quite a few people I know think it to be plausibile.



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Hi Browha.

In a ideal world, man would not kill each other over anything. This is not an ideal world, so I will keep going.

Regarding the saving of millions of lives form 'virtual enslavement' : What I think is worse( or equal to) being in prison or living under an overtly violent regime is NOT KNOWING that you are in prison or living under an overtly violent regime. Americans emphatically fall into this second category. America is a dictatorship, yes, a dictatorship. It is a Market Dictatorship that runs this country ( I believe Roger Waters coined the phrase). Many people in America believe that we live in a democracy. We actually live in a democratic republic which is very, very different. This semantic difference makes a WORLD of difference.


The atrocities commited by Saddam Hussein pale in comparison to the atrocities commited by OUR government. Take a fine spring stroll through your local ghetto, then take that same stroll through your suburbs. Visit an Indian reservation, then go to the mall in Washington. Something is definitley amiss here.


But, to answer your question without my tangents. Yes, ideally if someone was bent on killing millions of people, then it would be ethical to stop them from doing so. WHO's killing WHO though is paramount to my point. Who's more of threat? North Korea, China, Russia, Cuba, Iran, Syria, or that OIL laden land called Iraq? Priorities speak volumes my friend.



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by browha
yes, but do you not think that the war is somewhat self justifiying by freeing millions of people from virtual enslavement?
I think that the government doesn't really care if they freed some of the Iraqi peoples, or afghanistan. The thing to notice is the agenda behind the war on terrorism, the reasons given for Iraq war were unjustified, and America was lied to. Does Bush and Co. give a damn about Iraqi civilians, I don't think so. All they care about is the oil and profits and control.

The Iraqi citizens are now currently under a new virtual enslavement, that of U.S. Bush and Co. policies, which is pretty bad, considering what we know about Bush's agenda.

The agenda is advancing quite at an alarming rate in the middle east, and much more people will die as a result. I read somewhere that the North Korea war, which I will believe may happen, will bring thousands of more deaths on each side, U.S and N.K. All these countries being brought under the American imperialism, with American citizens not even happy with it.

When will it stop? Once the world is under the one government and people are microchipped. By then, we will not be able to think right because of CNN and the lies we are told. The governments don't listen to us in the democratic countries to stop the bloodshed, when we protest.

There was no threat from Iraq, and the Bush admins don't give a crap about Iraqi freedom.



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 11:34 PM
link   
since when did weapons of mass destruction become such a common phrase that its now an acronym???
WMD?

at first i thought you were saying WebMD, the doctor website.

the war on terror is frivolous, and im too frustrated tos peak, so i will let this wonderful crimthinc image do it for me:




posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
The war on terror is justifiable for many reasons, but the most simple one is this:

They will not stop attacking us.


what????

we kill millions every year in our stupid pursuits of "justice"...but the fight doesnt begin until we get hit in the face (9-11).

an interesting correlation- remember columbine? tragedy right? so many lives lost right? yeah, that morning, a few hours earlier, we bombed the # out of kuwait.

an eye for an eye?

WELL WE TOOK THEIR EYES FIRST!

im not unsympathetic towards 9 11 or columbine, dotn think that. well, i cant stop you from thinking that, but at least know that its not true.

im stuck in high school, columbine really sucked hardcore for me. i was in a class about censorship, then 9 11 happened. the ultimate form of censorship. sheesh burning books (farenheit 451) was enough censorshipto make me nearly break down and cry, imagine what 9 11 did!

but look, truth is, we struck first. ok, ok, ok i know im gonna get pounded by saying that.


the war on terrorism: it may not do much for terrorism, but it sure will do alot for war.

[Edited on 3-4-04 by Scat]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join