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.

 

A Constitution Drenched In Blood

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2004 @ 11:03 AM
link   
No offense here, but You guys are just as bad as the media, only giving one side to a story, You are either so far left or Right your blind.

Bush may be an @ss and Pushy etc.. Maybe the war could have not happened. But it did and I think the Constitution will be a good thing, The Shiites did sign it, after some rewording, as with any great document, it takes alot to get everyone to agree, especially with the religious groups and hatred involved. This is a pretty big thing.
You say Bush is installing a government. lol.. He probably wont even be in office before the first election.
Will America have say. YES.. but not because of a puppet government, but because we have control over alot of governments we went to war with, or at least they ask us what we think behind closed doors, Japan would be a good example. and we fund alot of money to people (which in my opinion, We should worry about the US first) But as with anyone who lends greats sums of money, they get certain special privileges. IT may be a little sneaky, but its called Capitalism and that what we are.

I think our soldiers went there to HELP the people. I think the Government went there to get some more allies in the Middle East. and Now with Libya, its not looking So bad. Bush had some long lost hatred to Sadaam and no ones shedding tears for that guy. Whether or not you believe the truth is, if he could he would have helped terrorists attack us on a huge level. Did he, probably not, but he would and we do not need that. So there lots of stuff Good and Bad to this.

Try and see it all not just the stuff you dislike.

Sorry for the Rant =)




posted on Mar, 9 2004 @ 11:08 AM
link   
What most people don't understand is that no one has ever been able to 'control' those people for long. There is something about them and that place, for sure. The most memorable thing I ever heard about Saddam Hussein came from an old Iraqi man (and I'm paraphrasing):

Saddam Hussein was a hard man. And the Iraqi people are a hard people. He had to be a hard man. If he was not a hard man and did not rule with an iron fist, he would be dead tomorrow. The Iraqis would kill him.

So true. He was as successful at ruling them as anyone's been in a long time. And it was precisely because of the fear he inflicted upon them. The US, unfortunately, has bitten off more than it will be able to chew - without becoming as brutal and oppressive as Saddam.



posted on Mar, 9 2004 @ 11:20 AM
link   
I think our soldiers went there to HELP the people. I think the Government went there to get some more allies in the Middle East. and Now with Libya, its not looking So bad. Bush had some long lost hatred to Sadaam and no ones shedding tears for that guy. Whether or not you believe the truth is, if he could he would have helped terrorists attack us on a huge level. Did he, probably not, but he would and we do not need that. So there lots of stuff Good and Bad to this.

Soldiers are sent to kill people and destroy property. Military 101.

Try losing allies.

Libya?


Long lost hatred? Hmm.. that was never a stated reason for invading Iraq, if you'll recall.
Besides Dubya's personal resentments should have no bearing on US foreign policy.

There's plenty of reason to believe that G.W. Bush is actually using "Al Qaeda" to further the NEO CON agenda. So will the real terrorists please stand up?

Right/left partisan politics is passe', btw. Both parties are full of corruption.



posted on Mar, 9 2004 @ 11:27 AM
link   
ECK: "If you call overthrowing the leader of a sovereign nation and installing cherry-picked Iraqis to make up an interim government - friendly to the overthrower - democratic, then I beg to differ."

I understand that an interim government with cherry picked members friendly to the overthrower is an easily debateable scenario that I am not that far from you in opinion of; however I did qualify my statement with; "it may not be an absolutely free democratic environment..." but they are participating in an electoral process which gives more democratic freedom than Saddam's election a couple of months before the invasion where he was the only "cherry picked" candidate on the ballot.

"Islamic democracy" was a wrong terminology on my part, Arab democracy is actually what I was intending to convey.
I am also quite sure that a democracy is not going to "just bloom" without the damned if you do - damned if you don't presense of the US military.
But it is certainly a valid hope to have an indigenous democracy spring up from this new governing body, albeit puppet gov't.
It is a start however, with a constitution, bill of rights, democratically elected parliament, etc. even though the statesmen/women who are allowed to run are subject to a US filtering process.

Should this gov't take root, and as the US relaxes it's grip on the country (and it will, if for no other reason to free up military assets for other endeavors) then I look for the Iraqis to have an increasingly free election process.

Regarding the past 150 years of that region does not necessarily make this democratic endeavor an exercise in futility - it should be studied, held in consideration to better understand the geopolitical landscape as well as the Iraqi people's world view... but their past does not have to damn their future.

I suppose I am more of an optimist regarding this unpleasant situation but in regard to the democratic process, they have to start somewhere... under the circumstances and looking forward not back, this is as good of a start as any, and leaves a hopeful future.

[Edited on 9-3-2004 by intelgurl]



posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Very thoughtful comments, Intelgirl.


I share your hope that it can all work out for them and that the U.S. can remain on good terms with whatever government they wind up with.

A lot of people believe that the Iraqis are dumb and dirtpoor. That's a huge and unfair misconception. Given the right tools and environment, I'm sure they'll figure it out - I just hope it doesn't go theocracy. That would be serious bad news.

I saw an interview with some Americans who went there to help get the country ready for elections. It was fascinating. I've thought about going myself. It would be nice to go back, not as a soldier/destroyer, but as an emissary of peace.



posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 01:21 PM
link   
You all make very good arguments. I know Saddam was an evil man and he got what he deserved but I think our government should not interfere with establishing a democracy in Iraq. Once the Iraqi people start voting I can almost assure you that our government will be behind the curtains over seeing the elections and that's not a good thing IMO. Why? Look at the last election between Bush and Clinton and what happened in Florida. I wasn't sure what the heck was going on then. But I'm now getting a clear picture of what did.

The U.S. soldiers in Iraq need to leave once the new Iraq is established. If we stay, we're merely showing them who is in control of that country. It will turn into another police state and then the Iraqis will surely get pissed. Should we've gone in and gotten Saddam out? Yes, but under different circumstances. All I know is that I'm sick and tired of seeing the U.S. bail other countries out of trouble and then lie straight to our faces about why they did it. Bush lied about why we went to Iraq. To find WMD. Where are they? Ooops I'm sorry. There not there.

I think we went into Iraq to take over that country. Not directly but indirectly. And I bet the next stop will be North Korea. I just hope Bush doesn't get re-elected. Then again I'm not so sure about Kerry either but it looks like we don't have much of a choice at this point.



posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrmulder

I think we went into Iraq to take over that country. Not directly but indirectly. And I bet the next stop will be North Korea. I just hope Bush doesn't get re-elected. Then again I'm not so sure about Kerry either but it looks like we don't have much of a choice at this point.


We started the taking it over in the run-up to the Gulf War. Gotta have those bases there to protect the petro. Kerry will basically follow the same oil agenda.

Don't worry about N. Korea. They don't have any oil.



posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
They don't have any oil.


That is the one thing that connects all of the events leading from 9/11, the start of the 'war on terror'. A hunt for oil it seems in part, imperialism in action. These events are not promising good for the future in my opinion, not at all. .



posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by earthtone
That is the one thing that connects all of the events leading from 9/11, the start of the 'war on terror'. A hunt for oil it seems in part, imperialism in action. These events are not promising good for the future in my opinion, not at all. .


Well, I believe all this concerning oil and 9/11 all leads up to UFO's and the technology to rid the world of fossil fuels.

Fanatics like bin Laden are hell-bent on running America out of the Middle East because they view our presence there as a virtual invasion of their land, culture and values. They view us as an imperial power colonizing their region in order to secure cheap oil, and it is resented. To a lesser extent, they are concerned about our support for Israel, but bin Laden himself has made it very clear in numerous speeches that their main concern is getting the US out of Saudi Arabia, the land containing the most holy sites in the Islamic world. For decades, our foreign and military policy- whether in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran or elsewhere- has been driven by our strategic oil and energy interests.

As we learned on 9/11, the price of oil has been much higher than we thought.

While never condoning the evil deeds of bin Laden et al, we must recognize that such malevolence does not evolve in a vacuum. The milieu that gave rise to such atrocities must be understood and corrected.

The good news is that the Disclosure Project can prove that we have a replacement for oil, coal and conventional energy. In a decade we could reach energy independence: bin Laden et al may keep their oil, for we will not need it.

For 50 years, America and the world have had their destiny hijacked by rogue, shadowy projects that have abused the national security act to suppress these energy and propulsion systems. Our foreign policy, oil and energy policy and environmental policy have all been driven by what is hidden in clandestine projects. Our leaders, scientists, policy makers and the people have not known that the definitive solution to the world's energy, environmental and poverty problems have been stolen from us. It is time we take them back.


www.disclosureproject.org...

What this article from Disclosure shows is that the U.S. government is clearly shooting themselves in the foot.



posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 02:55 PM
link   
"What this article from Disclosure shows is that the U.S. government is clearly shooting themselves in the foot."

Our whole energy policy/infrastructure is just plain suicidal. But the architects of it didn't care. They knew they'd be long gone when the well ran dry.


Apart from that, the Neo Con agenda has been like one big game of national Russian roulette.







 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join