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.


Anyone know

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 26 2003 @ 10:50 PM
i agree with you Toltec. Saddam should be removed. it's politics that kept him in power. the Iraqi's have the right to choose and remove their leaders. it is the job of our government to protect its citizens. protecting us from any WMD he has can be attained through containment. and if along the way we support a coup in Iraq...well good. instead the Bushies choose all out war...200,000 US troops, an estimated 1 trillion dollar rebuilding bill, debt out the ying yang, all the while our economy is bouncing up and down like a yo-yo. and the plans for the aftermath is shakey at best.

this president said we weren't going to be investing in nation building. now we find ourselves rebuilding other nations while our nation, our problems come second. removing Saddam should be a secondary goal. trying to rebuild Iraq is irresponsible. i don't wanna pay for it and most of the countries that could actually help foot the bill won't be backing it.

i don't think war is the right option here. and i question the motives of those who believe it to be. i don't wanna democratize the whole muslim world. i could care-less about that. I say to the Bushies, make sure he has no WMD and contain him. then focus your attention on the real problems that face our nation and quit wasting my money.

posted on Feb, 28 2003 @ 03:57 PM
Hey Saphronia the US economy has not for about 40 years been on its own. Integral to its success is the survival of other economy's through- out the world. Any threat to these economies is essentially a threat to ours.

This world economy responds to all sorts of issues and amongst them is the potential for full-scale nuclear war. In essence the scenarios which exist which could lead to such an event, cause those who invest, sell, trade and purchase to hold back. And the higher you go up on the "food chain" the more information that is based on the truth is known. So as a result there is a reason why economic problems exist and these reason are apparent economically. This is because those who are afforded or have access to correct information hold back, this causes those who are paying attention to hold back (money, assets etc...) as well. This is the Yo-yo effect you are noticing.

So the real question becomes what exactly is the truth? What are the factors and how are those factors resolved. And who exactly knows the truth? Who can be trusted to present valid information in relation to what exactly are the issues? I can tell you for instance that the problems, which exist today, with our economy, are related to the Actions of Saddam Hussein. He cannot be trusted with WMD and its very likely the former Soviet Union made these WMD. Because of that if one day on a whim he elects to apply those WMD against a NATO country there is no realistic way to determine that it did not come from the Russian Republic (especially if he covertly enters that country and launches from there). And if this happened a full scale nuclear war will occur. I can tell you that because of this reason the economy is sluggish. Those who know this scenario exsit and consider it a valid consideration, are not investing, selling trading or purchasing. They are not telling anyone there reasons but because of who they are the next level of the pecking order are doing the same (This then is causing the problem).

A leader of a Nation with access to WMD who has engaged in Genocide is a threat to the world. this not just in terms of the precedence leaving him alone might cause. But as well, what he could potentially do. Under the circumstances as long as he has these weapons that fact can affect the world economy.

We have to care about every aspect of the world, this is one world economically. Democratizing is not the issue but rather guaranteeing that a government is not irresponsible is. And Saddam Hussein has proven he
is not responsible.

What are your thoughts?

posted on Feb, 28 2003 @ 07:00 PM
it is my opinion that Saddam can be contained and we can achieve all the things you spoke of without all out war. Saddam has not committed genocide in 14 years. he has been confined to his little country, made to hide, and use body doubles. we can insure that he has no WMD, and that he isn't committing these horrible acts by stronger NATO backed inspection. this kinda of interference in his government could even bring him down eventually without war.

those are my opinions. president bush said wed. a democracy in the Iraq will change the middle east, this is not a new concept and that was my orginal post. his father rejected the hawks view of how we should conduct ourselves and our foreign policy. but Dubya has taken up the cause and made it his own. it won't bring peace to israel and it won't make sharon all warm and fuzzy inside at the end of the day. the battle lines are religious ones. not even democracy can fix that. i guess this is what we get for putting someone in office with the mental capacity of a grapefruit. every speach makes him look more and more like a puppet to me.

[Edited on 1-3-2003 by Saphronia]

posted on Feb, 28 2003 @ 08:20 PM

Originally posted by TigeriS
TC with all respect, don't you think this whole Iraq thing is blown up or better said Biassed ?? I mean what kind of threat is Saddam right now ? There are bigger threats out there, North Korea for example, they are getting their war machines polished right now and your government doesn't even pay attention. OBL still walks around making plans (if he's still alive) but no, you guys want Saddam because he did some things a dozen other leaders have done or are still doing.

That's the problem, I don't understand how you folks can talk so bad about Iraq while North Korea is getting ready. So why don't Americans make a case now for a preemptive strike on North Korea to stop them ? They have more WMD's than Saddam has, they are testing missiles right now and why isn't that a problem ?. Do you get my point ?

See that doesn't make any sense and that's the problem most Americans don't see.

[Edited on 25-2-2003 by TigeriS]

Please pardon the quoting of the post, TigriS, but its been so long for me getting back to the topic, I figured you'd not know what in the world I was talking about!

I understand what you're saying, but Saddam isn't without danger. As a matter of fact, I'd place him at a higher level of danger to the American public than Kim Jong-Il because of the ties to others that want to hurt our families (they already have many times) and has personal reasons to attack America to boot. Either Iraq is invaded, Hussein is killed and his thousands of gallons of chemical and biological agents are confiscated and destroyed, or people in this country (U.S.), possibly members here on this board, are going to die from them.

There is no stopping N. Korea as easily, and an attack on North Korea could very easily cost hundreds of thousands of lives in the South. Chances are, Japan will be hit by the North. The situation with North Korea is not as easily resolved. Besides, we were already gearing up in the mid-East when N. Korea got stupid. Besides, I'm still betting alot of North Korea's noise is an attempt to help distract us from their friend, Saddam.

But, make no mistake, we will deal with Il. One way or another. According to our schedule, not his.

posted on Feb, 28 2003 @ 09:07 PM
Saphronia 14 years ago Saddam Hussein Committed Genocide and to the families of the people he committed genocide against, its was like yesterday.

Saphronia he admits to being the principal supplier of income to suicide bombers, if he is displaced that source of income will no longer exist. Specifically a source of income from an oil producing nation.

A charge of Murder has no time limit in which a person who committed the crime can be convicted. Saddam Hussein committed Genocide that is as serious as it gets.

Saphronia this is not meant to be offensive but I feel it does need to be said. How would you feel if it were a relative of yours.

posted on Feb, 28 2003 @ 10:49 PM
of course i would be sad and horrified. but that's not the point. the point is how do we solve this problem with the least of amount of blood shed. by no means do i excuse or support Saddam or any government who uses terror as a mean to rule and as i said Iraq would be a better place without Saddam but it is not my place to suppose what is better for the Iraqi people--i'm not iraqi and i wouldn't want them telling me what's best for my people. if the iraqi people are tired of saddam then let them rise up and fight. but our goal should only be to make sure he doesn't have the means to sell, transport, or build wmd.

the fact is he can be contained and shippments to and from Iraq can be monitored. we have the technology and resources to stop him from shipping wmd or developing wmd. war is not the only means we have to protect ourselves and the Iraqi people from Saddam. we have only been back in there with inspections for three months. it wouldn't be the end of the world if we used a tougher regime. we can beef up the forces outside iraq but we can't beef up the inspections inside? please...there are other forces at work here.

i think the president has mad his case for war and it's shady. that's just how i feel. dead lock?

posted on Mar, 1 2003 @ 04:55 PM
Hi Saphronia.....

How much will it cost to maintain surveillance of Iraq ad infinitum? The next government which is replaces him after he is dead, will be a leader which he hand picks we will have to monitor him as well. Who is going to pay for all the satellites and covert operations needed to maintain surveillance of Iraq?

What if another leader of another county commits acts of genocide? Are we to then spare the expense that we apply to Iraq? And for how long do we pay to monitor his or even her activities?

What you are suggesting is much more expensive than going to war and does little to deal with genocide as a crime. It portends to a situation, which makes the claim that if you reach the point of being a world leader. You can do anything you want and get away with it. It turns a leader of a country into a king or emperor.

In that sense we as the human race are going backwards not forward. Literally we are saying that if a person reaches the status of leader of a nation he is a God
and has the right to get away with Genocide as long as afterwards other countries can monitor him (in other words he can get away with it once). That is not the basis for why we set up the UN in the first place. In reality the UN was set up to guarantee, that if any leader did what Saddam Hussein did. The authority to do it again would be taken away.

This being correct (and it is) there is in fact no United Nations. If what Saddam did can be accepted as something, which can be resolved by inspections

In reality the United States of America should disband from the United Nations as it is fake (And as well FILLED WITH HIPOCRITS). The US has fought wars in relation to acts of genocide, which are much less than this (There are people who are dead as a reuslt).

Saphronia it comes down to this, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. Some one is trying to fool us twice. To be honest my response is to hell with them.

What are your thoughts?

posted on Mar, 1 2003 @ 06:22 PM
I would like to refer back to the original question posed in this string.

The fact is, many in the Bush Administration had a military assault on Iraq brewing in their minds before they were even an Administration. I would refer you all to this:

I think that in truth, the wrong questions are being asked in this whole matter. People who are pro-war keep saying that the question is "Why shouldn't we go to war against Iraq?" This is reinforced by many people who have wanted war right from the beginning, and so, it seems like they have a "point".

Isn't this a little bit backwards? Shouldn't we be asking "What needs to be done to act in the best interests of the Iraqi people, while, in the true spirit of democracy, understanding the principle of a sovereign state and true democratic diplomacy?"

Why is it that we got it in our heads that starting a bombing and invasion campaign is an action that is redeemable by more than just scattered political bullying?

What is the stance of those who have wilfully ignored the coming humanitarian crisis of the 26 million Iraqis who will suffer from a war?

It is easy for the rich to trample the poor in order to secure an illusory guarantee of safety for themselves, while leaving a path of awful destruction in the wake of this effort.

Allow me to also make a reference to the past acts of Saddam Hussein, who is one of the many, many atrocities humanity has spawned. When Hussein committed many of the atrocities that he did, where was the United States? Perhaps, since it wasn't their own national security at stake, and it wasn't Americans being threatened, they did not feel that a disarming campaign leading to war was necessary at that particular point.

Please, let's save the word hypocrites for occasions like that, not the United Nations. The United Nations has a long way to go before becoming the body we hope it to be (it is only a half-century old, compared to the lot of human history), but those, such as GW Bush, who feel that it is appropriate to suggest that they will become "irrelevant" if they do not adopt their view are simply employing destructive pressure-tactics to make others feel obliged to comply with their wishes. The United Nations and the Security Council are not at risk of becoming irrelevant, and whoever thinks so is blinded by their own ambitions. UN provides humanitarian relief, mediation in conflicts, liasons between a diversity of people groups, and in general improves the world as we know it. Just because one man/administration doesn't get their way does not make it "irrelevant".

Hopefully, it will someday be a true forum of support and consultation, rather than a place to push others to enter into a selfishly motivated war that will bring ruin to those who are unable to represent themselves.

Toltec, the reality is that the United States has always had a foreign policy that only truly intervenes when their own interests are at stake. Three-quarters of a million people were genocided in Rwanda in 1994 and nothing happened; people were being butchered all over the various central-African nations all through the last quarter of the 20th century; the Kurdish people were encouraged to rebel against Saddam by the US, and then got crunched when the US didn't back them; the list goes on and on. The United States, along with most other selfishly-driven nations of the world (face it, it is human nature; no nation is a "pure, godly" nation, ANYWHERE), sat around and let it happen. Why? Because they had more to lose than they would gain if they involved themselves.

I wish people everywhere would stop talking like their particular country is so "right" and this group is so "wrong". People are corrupt! Everywhere! Wake up! Don't be fooled by political posturing and various pleas of "acting in such-and-such's best interest"! My god, isn't this AboveTopSecret, a forum where people make it their primary interest to be suspicious rather than swallowing everything whole?!

You belong in the discussion forums on CNN, not here, if you are totally incapable of imagining the remotest possibility that people in power may be trying to pulling one past you!!

I am sorry, but I am quite pessimistic in my judgements of human character. We all have within us the potential of the unspeakable; are our leaders greater than us, really????

posted on Mar, 1 2003 @ 06:37 PM

Originally posted by SassyFella
You belong in the discussion forums on CNN, not here, if you are totally incapable of imagining the remotest possibility that people in power may be trying to pulling one past you!!

Perhaps you might be more comfortable at BlackVault or RumorMill News where outrageous conspiracy theory is accepted without retort.

The more time you spend here, the more you will discover the is the most balanced "conspiracy" forum in the Internet. Most of our experienced members have learned to apply skeptical scientific method to theories of conspiracy... hence, we may often seem reluctant to immediately accept the rantings of every conspiracy theorist.

posted on Mar, 1 2003 @ 09:38 PM
December 12, 2002


Subject: Iraq - al Qaeda Connection

This morning's front page article in The Washington Post, "Report Cites Al Qaeda Deal For Iraqi Gas," should not come as a surprise. Over the past months, we have had several detailed reports of links between Iraq and al Qaeda. For example, in "The Great Terror (March 3, 2002)," Jeffrey Goldberg of the New Yorker described the relationship between Saddam Hussein's intelligence services and al-Ansar, a bin Laden-affiliated terrorist group in Northern Iraq, which a government official in today's Post says was involved in smuggling the nerve agent out of Iraq. In the current issue of Vanity Fair, David Rose reports on additional links between Baghdad and the al Qaeda network. And in October, CIA director George Tenet flatly declared in a letter to the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee that based on credible reports "Iraq has provided training to al Qaeda members in areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs."

What all of this means is that the president has been right in saying that the coming war to remove Saddam is part of the overall war on terrorism. Regime change in Iraq and the destruction of al Qaeda are two related fronts in one war, and both fronts should be prosecuted aggressively and simultaneously.

nuff said

posted on Mar, 2 2003 @ 07:11 AM
Toltec, i don't think tougher inspections will cost as much as destroying Iraq then occupying and re-builiding. we will foot damn-near the whole bill with war...and inspections will be supported by the world community with equipment and resources.

i have to agree with SF the UN doesn't become irrelevant because the US can't get the votes it needs to change regimes in iraq. the point of having a world forum is not to make friends and bribe enemies but to share the brunt of the worlds problems so like genocide; issues that effect one community effect us all.

the goal brought before the UN was to disarm Iraq. so it seems that we are talking about two different things. while you suppose that this is about changing a brutial regime...i'm thinking along the lines of what the president has said more often, Iraq is a threat to our sercurity. on regime change, i am of the opinion that we should support Iraqi uprising and not US occupation. we have never supported the people of Iraq removing Saddam. war isn't the only way to remove a leader especially one with as little support as Saddam.

back to the orgin of pre-emptive strikes...we find ourselves reading the thoughts of men who are merely men with agendas that aren't focused on what is right for the american people. we must remember that everyone has an agenda and hate to please, such as your Mr. Kristol.

[Edited on 2-3-2003 by Saphronia]

posted on Mar, 2 2003 @ 08:10 AM
Fact of the matter is, Iraq, under the rule of Hussein, is dangerous. This is known even if ignored by some. Many nations in the U.N. do not care if we are attacked, as a matter of fact, such actions suits their desires as well. Other nations are apathetic toward our situation, but don't want anything to do with something that won't help them directly but might cost them something. Others still are commercially involved with Iraq, both above board and otherwise, and don't want any disruptions in that, nor do they want evidence of their less-than-above-board business to come to light.

That is to say, much of the United Nations is not for doing what is right, but are more interested in their own agendas. Yes, when it comes to defending America, the U.N. is very irrelavent as most other nations do not see that as their concern.

posted on Mar, 2 2003 @ 09:02 PM
By Basem Mroue the Associated press

BAGHDAD, Iraq (March 2) - With UN weapons inspectors looking on, Iraq destroyed six Al Samoud 2 missiles Sunday but warned it may suspend the destruction program if the United States indicates it will go to war anyway.

In two days, Iraq has destroyed 10 of the banned weapons, about a tenth of its stock of the missiles, which the United Nations has ordered eliminated. It has also destroyed two casting chambers used to make engines for the Al Fatah missile. Iraq destroyed those chambers in the 1990s, only to rebuild them.

Saphronia this is not cooperation and would further add that if we did continue to engage in inspections. Saddam Hussein would order those chambers built a third time.

As far as the issue of Genocide just about every speech presented by the current President, Vice President and Secretary of State presents the matter of Saddam Hussein being a mass murderer and or a leader who has committed genocide.

Not sure what you are talking about in relation to that being my issue (or for that matter your reference to "My Mr. Kristol"). That memorandum was taken from Sassyfellas site and that in and of itself was a point I wanted to make.

You are suggesting the UN or we start shipping weapons, technology and military experts into Iraq to get the people to topple him. What he will do in all probability is drop Chemical weapons on them. Why is that probable because he did just that already. The reason that weapon inspection will fail is because he is lying about his desire to cooperate. That is apparent because he rebuilt the chambers. If he really intended on cooperating ever those chambers that he destroyed would not have existed.

The only function of rebuilding those chambers was to make more missiles. Which is, was and will forever be a violation of his agreement made with the UN after Desert Storm 1.

The UN has done some every good thing in its time. But when it comes to addressing the fundamental reason it was originally created, it is behaving very much like a paper tiger.

Germanys entire military industrial complex is supporting Iraq, which today is the best supplier of Russian spare parts outside of Russia.

That Saphronia is very scary and in and of itself constitutes a threat, to not only Americas national security but the world as well.

posted on Mar, 3 2003 @ 03:37 PM
look, it isn't like your words or my words will change what seems to be already happening. i keep saying the same things and then you come back and say the same thing. and at this point i have nothing new to add. should i recap...i'm of the opinion that we can contain saddam and assist the iraqi people with insurrection. the occupation of Iraq by the US military is ill-advised and bone-headed to say the least.

from the begining a select number of Bushies were already declaring inspections a failure. these are the same folk who supported and/or authored Defense Planning Guidence. now that inspections are working they are running around lying and buying. Dubya is nearly quoting this doctrine line for line these days. it makes me wonder. (because as shocking as it may sound, i do have a fully functioning brain.) the same folk who never supported containment now sit on the highest seats fo our government saying the same thing that was rejected as imperialism 12 years ago. containment works it just doesn't attain their goals.

Saddam is locked up. he can't make a move any moves to murder or terrorize. now is the time for us to support an iraqi uprising. if not for being abandoned by the US after the Gulf, the iraqi people would have took back their country 12 years ago and we wouldn't be facing the drama we are facing now. let iraq handle their government and we handle the disarming.

my beef with people like Mr. Kristol is their agenda. to me one must take great care in protecting their own thoughts and not be easily influenced by others. a few words from Mr. Kristol and -you say dam...this proves i'm right. when there is no right or wrong way to deal with this situation. i believe both will is just bloodier and more costly. when someone says this is the only way. they will always get a sideways look from me. there's always more than one way.

ah, cousin. it'll be what it is.

[Edited on 3-3-2003 by Saphronia]

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in