It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Was the US better off before the war with Iraq?

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 22 2004 @ 10:23 AM
Was the war that the US started with Iraq really worth it? Was the US better off before or after the war with Iraq? President Bush's whole reason for going to war was for "Weapons of Mass Distruction" And we didn't find a single one. The US went against the UN. Do we have more Allies now? or is it less?
Now that we've gone to war, the fighting in Iraq still continues. Countless members of the US army, and other armys that are over there, are loosing their lives every day to suicide bombers, and attacks. Not to mention the inoccent civilians that are dying. I'm kinda on the fence here, I can't decide whether it was a good idea or not for us to go to war. I'm glad we caught Saddam. But if I remember correctly weren't we (the US) the ones that put him in power in the first place?

[Edited on 3/22/2004 by smilingsarah82]

posted on Mar, 22 2004 @ 11:32 AM
Before the war in Iraq, the US was viewed by the international community as a somewhat-neutral country that seemed to be reforming or at least reconsidering its previously aggressive nature. And then Bush was elected.

After only a month or two in office, this dolt of a number one almost starts a war with China. but das ok, we're still here.

Then, a few months later, Bush's PR guys realized that the general population was thinking that this guy needs to be impeached. So they begged for a green light on 911, and *boom* 3K+ people died for a political agenda. I hate to sound so cruel, but the truth knows no emotion. Bush's approval rating skyrocketed because our movie-bound culture loves a good drama with special effects. To fortity his approval rating, he invades Afghanistan under the guise that the guy responsible for the 911 attacks is hiding there. After bombing a country that was already bombed to the stone age before, bush couldn't wait to finish his dad's job. That was part of the idea in the first place.

So, then, Bush's approval rating starts to go down again. He comes out and invents this WMD thing, when everyone who remembers the UN inspectors during the Clinton Administration can recall the fact that they found nothing. Not even a hint of a program in that desolate-by-sanction country. Quite simply, Bush was taking cheap shots. Kicking people when they were down. And the international community, generally more educated than the populous of America (not our fault. blame the public schools system and the government for enforcing scholastic regulation without increasing incentives for the teachers) , disproved of this because they saw the pattern that was unfolding.

So, with international hate and skepticism growing, Bush pushes the idea to get WMD out of Iraq. The worst part about this is that they never found WMD, thus damaging US credibility in front of the world (what very little of it was left since the beginning of 2001).

Oh and we havent caught saddam. if we did, he would be subject to the laws of the Geneva convention. Furthermore, he would face more identity tests than an easily-rigged DNA test. Until I see fingerprinting done, I will never believe that that look-alike is Saddam, and neither will the rest of the world. As far as bush and his cronies are concerned, US credibilty matters as much as roadkill, because this is all part of the NWO plan to make the US into the next Nazi Germany. what I mean by that is we are to make everyone around us hate us to the point that they will try to invade us in an attempt to save us from our OWN terrorist regime.

posted on Mar, 22 2004 @ 11:36 AM
yes we were better off with out going to war with iraq.. we could make america safe and fight terrisom another way. and just because we cought sadam and soon to catch bin laddin and etc. doesn't mean terrisom will end

posted on Mar, 22 2004 @ 11:44 AM
Omega, you said it all. The world had to expect a reaction to 911, which I still think had some gov. involvement, so we had Afganistan. Then Iraq, now people are thinking "Who's next?" You have to wonder, if you live in an Arabic, "am I going to have to defend my country?" Maybe they will see no alternative but try something pre-emptive.

Last point- Afganistan was sanctioned by the UN, Iraq was not.

posted on Mar, 22 2004 @ 11:47 AM
Yeah except 15 of 19 of the 9-11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and the Bush Adminstration didn't do a damn thing at all about that.

Say what you want, but THAT'S the crux of the argument. They shied away from Saudi Arabia and even went so far as to delete 18 pages of info about it from the Congressional Report.

Apparently there are things that the US voting public can't know. I'm sure it's for your own good, though, so forget about it and go buy something.


posted on Mar, 22 2004 @ 11:51 AM
We needed a scape goat, and we needed one fast. Everyone seems pleased that Saddam was captured, even though it still has absolutely nothing to do with our current enemies. See, America doesn't care who gets it, as long as someone does. We still can't be sure that OBL had anything to with the attack either. After all, some of the terrorists that supposedly flew the planes are still alive. There still has been no attempt by our gov't to explain why this is, and those on the list really want their names cleared. To me, this also means that OBL may not have anything to do with this at all.

new topics

top topics

log in