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 question for those against the war in Iraq: Would you support it if WMD were found?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 12:22 AM
link   
It's a simple question, and I'd like to keep it civil.




posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 12:54 AM
link   
You know the thing is that lots of countries that hate us have or claim to have WMD's, of course one that comes to mind is Korea. The thing that makes me angy about our going into Iraq unsanctioned by the UN is that we are footing the entire bill, and that also means we are also dividing up the spoils of war, oil contracts (looks kind of fishy since the pres. was a businessman dealing in in oil, along with the VP) and I'm betting some of the biggest contributors to their re-election are people who made their money in oil. And the thing is our intelligence could not come up with the smoking gun to get the UN to sanction it. And while I know that all these arguments are tired their still valid, we are losing American's over there, and if it is only for adding wealth to someones pockets then thats criminal because no amount of money can replace or equal the value of human life. And if someone sent our people over there based on lies to add money to someones bank account, what kind of monsters do we have running our gov. and while many would argue we are helping the Iraqie people by removing their monster in their gov. there are countries all over the world with as bad or worse in charge and we turn our back on them, at one time we were friendly with the devil Saddam because it benefitted us to be friends with him.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 12:59 AM
link   
Of course not. At least the Dems in politics. The repubs are no better, however. Everything is about politics and getting your man in as president. There is nothing Bush could have done right, in the extreme left's opinion, and there is nothing Clinton could have done wrong. If you don't believe me, check out all of Colonel's posts. Any leberal scandal is a lie, every conservative scandal is the end of the world. It's sad, and I know there are conservatives like that, too. I just don't have an antithisis to Colonel on this website, he's one of a kind here on ATS...



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 01:00 AM
link   
Honestly? No.

I am of the impression that our involvement in middle eastern affairs (aside from the world) is the brush that paints the target on our backs.

I'm not saying we should do nothing and be a paper tiger, but our "War on (fill in the blank)"s have not been too effective thus far.

Considering the events surrounding the proliferation of weapons with Iraq, I am not even sure that the reason is not economic security. Although that is important, I would like to see us get off the oil tit so we can tell them to go screw themselves over in the middle east.

The extremists will be there whether or not we fight them. We also can not afford the type of war on terror that is proposed. It is too cost and time intensive which would only serve to draw more to the cause.

In times of war, I have found that people are more inclined to join the military (the fight) than in times of peace. Wouldn't the same be true should they have a solid enemy?

I think so. Even if we do find WMD nothing will change.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Of course not. At least the Dems in politics. The repubs are no better, however. Everything is about politics and getting your man in as president. There is nothing Bush could have done right, in the extreme left's opinion, and there is nothing Clinton could have done wrong. If you don't believe me, check out all of Colonel's posts. Any leberal scandal is a lie, every conservative scandal is the end of the world. It's sad, and I know there are conservatives like that, too. I just don't have an antithisis to Colonel on this website, he's one of a kind here on ATS...


Agreed

It's sad that some conservatives fall into that realm as well - maybe Republicans is a better fit.

And yeah - I remember the first time Colonel got on a thread I was on.......
- he's one of a kind



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 01:45 AM
link   
if weapons were found, my first thought would be that they were planted there and conveniantly "found" when everyone was doubting.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 02:20 AM
link   
the simple answer is no...

The long answer is:

even when i was deluded into believing these weapons exsisted i was against the war, i felt the situation could have been resolved peacefully via the UN. The fact there were no weapons has only reduced my respect for the administration and your media to close to zero



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 02:23 AM
link   
Good question Mad Man i would support if WMD were found but seeing as it was all a plot for the oil i sure as hell dont support it now, all these innocent hostages being taken is all the co-allitions fault



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 08:19 AM
link   
I probably still wouldn't agree with it...I am naturally against war unless we have our backs to the wall (Situation in Europe in 40's) or we have been attacked by a clear entity. I like and support the War on Ter-ra. (Even though it is laughable to think that we would kill all terrorism.) I do not like this Iraq War.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by lost
if weapons were found, my first thought would be that they were planted there and conveniantly "found" when everyone was doubting.


hahaha - well, I guess that is to be expected on a conspiracy site.....

Do you think the US has OBL and his holding him till closer to elections? I've heard this one too.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 08:33 AM
link   
They caught OBL ages ago they are holding him in the same place as Saddam Hussein, they are probably cell neighbours



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by drunk
They caught OBL ages ago they are holding him in the same place as Saddam Hussein, they are probably cell neighbours


I'm sure that was said in jest...so HA HA!



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 04:07 PM
link   
The premise of going in(WMD) really had no effect on the security of this nation. Iraq had no delivery systems that would even come close to reaching this nation. If we were to invade every nation working on such weapons you and I would be in some outpost trying to police the territory. This nation has never invaded and occupied another unless provoked, and we were not. We were under no imminent danger even if they had the WMD. It's as simple as that.



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 07:51 AM
link   
This question is meaningless. The only way WMD will be found is if the CIA/special ops forces are successful in planting them. It didn't work during the invasion, and it probly won't work now. Iran is already leaking the deal. But you know, BushCo. doesn't learn anything, ever. They just lie and move on to the next deception.



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 08:36 AM
link   
No. Any weapons of mass destruction that Iraq might possess still can not be used to attack the United States...we all know they HAD weapons, we gave them to Iraq...if they were found it wouldn't really change my opinion at all...but they won't be found, so..



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
The premise of going in(WMD) really had no effect on the security of this nation. Iraq had no delivery systems that would even come close to reaching this nation. If we were to invade every nation working on such weapons you and I would be in some outpost trying to police the territory. This nation has never invaded and occupied another unless provoked, and we were not. We were under no imminent danger even if they had the WMD. It's as simple as that.


True.

There was no need to go in there because there was no way that you would get hit. Unless they did develop some kind of deployment. I think the only reason why the USA had gone in, in the first place is because they were scared that Iraq would soon have weapons that would cause irrepairable damage e.g anthrax, small pox. If these diseases were caught when the missle hit, then it would be very difficult to cure everyone because you have the weather carrying it all around the place and more people get infected.

Even if they didn't launch their WMD's, i still support them in creating them. How the hell can you tell me that a biological weapon is a WMD when a Nuclear Bomb ain't called that. A nuclear bomb destroys the target and then kill everything around it and radiates the ground so all living organisms die!
What the hell is the difference.

Also, Iraq isn't the only country who has any chemical or biological weapons. The US and Russia, and other countries, also have these types of weapons. I know that they were manufactured after WW2 so i dont think that they have stopped making them or researching them. Why doesn't the UN go after the US.

To sum it all up, no i didn't support the war because it was just plain stupid. The US is scared and thats the only reason why they went in.



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by revenge
Also, Iraq isn't the only country who has any chemical or biological weapons. The US and Russia, and other countries, also have these types of weapons. I know that they were manufactured after WW2 so i dont think that they have stopped making them or researching them.


Of course, where do you think the Anthrax used in the attacks shortly after 9/11 came from?



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by revenge

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
The premise of going in(WMD) really had no effect on the security of this nation. Iraq had no delivery systems that would even come close to reaching this nation. If we were to invade every nation working on such weapons you and I would be in some outpost trying to police the territory. This nation has never invaded and occupied another unless provoked, and we were not. We were under no imminent danger even if they had the WMD. It's as simple as that.


True.

There was no need to go in there because there was no way that you would get hit. Unless they did develop some kind of deployment. I think the only reason why the USA had gone in, in the first place is because they were scared that Iraq would soon have weapons that would cause irrepairable damage e.g anthrax, small pox. If these diseases were caught when the missle hit, then it would be very difficult to cure everyone because you have the weather carrying it all around the place and more people get infected.

Even if they didn't launch their WMD's, i still support them in creating them. How the hell can you tell me that a biological weapon is a WMD when a Nuclear Bomb ain't called that. A nuclear bomb destroys the target and then kill everything around it and radiates the ground so all living organisms die!
What the hell is the difference.

Also, Iraq isn't the only country who has any chemical or biological weapons. The US and Russia, and other countries, also have these types of weapons. I know that they were manufactured after WW2 so i dont think that they have stopped making them or researching them. Why doesn't the UN go after the US.

To sum it all up, no i didn't support the war because it was just plain stupid. The US is scared and thats the only reason why they went in.


I would like to remind both of you that you don't need ICBM's for a delivery system. A cargo boat would do just fine - put a bomb in a shipping container for example, then it goes off when US customs gets it. Or how about getting a smugler to get across the mexican boarder? Just some thoughts.

A nuke is a WMD - WMDs are Nuclear Biological and Chemical - hence the term NBC protection.

You are very correct that Iraq wasn't the only country with WMD. The difference is that Russia, if you've noticed, hasn't used them in a VERY long time. Saddam has used them time and time again in the past, and was also KNOWN to be ACTIVELY seeking to aquire nuclear abilities. Now take a step back - is this the type of guy you want having nukes?

As for your summation, I agree
The US is scared. Remember - the US mainland hasn't been attacked in like 100 years. We all saw our people die in those towers, and the US wants to prevent that from happening again. It is one of those things where everyone will remember exactly where they were when it happened. Now, I would ask 1) do you blame the US for being paronoid and 2) Do you think the world would have been safer with Saddam in power then without him?



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 10:35 AM
link   


No. Any weapons of mass destruction that Iraq might possess still can not be used to attack the United States...we all know they HAD weapons, we gave them to Iraq...if they were found it wouldn't really change my opinion at all...but they won't be found, so..


You know...the Chinese and the Russians have given/sold weapons, WMD included, to the middle east and others, they still do. So do not even go there that the US has been giving them weapons. Yes, we did when they were fighting the Russians and Iran, but that was long ago.

Russia, and China, among others, "are still giving/selling to them" all kinds of weapons. If you want to look at who is giving still all kinds of weapons to terrorists look at those two countries, and any other that don't want the US as a world power.



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 10:40 AM
link   


Well said Muaddib




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join