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.

 

Welcome to Freedom, Iraqis!

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2004 @ 09:15 PM
link   
I will admit that I am not a member of the armed services but, I have a first cousin and several close friends over there. So no I am not just sitting back doiling out lives from the comfort of my armchair. I want them to come home as much as anyone, but there is a job that has to be done and it is not yet finished. To leave now would be catastrophic.

Ok so what is your logic 10 years from now there will be another problem in Iraq if we leave. Why would we not finish the job now instead of letting the problem arise again. To do that would make absolutly no sense. What is the logic?




posted on Jun, 8 2004 @ 10:05 PM
link   
The big problem with the right wing is that they choose nationalism/patriotism/religion over facts/observations/reality. Nationalism or jingoism is the biggest cause of political blindness.



posted on Jun, 8 2004 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Let me see and guess RedOctober, this is solely restricted to the Right Wing? No such thing for the Left Wing?

I hear ya.




seekerof



posted on Jun, 8 2004 @ 10:11 PM
link   
As an American Socialist I trust a lefty over some bible thumping right-winger anyday.

[edit on 8-6-2004 by RedOctober90]



posted on Jun, 8 2004 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
IOk so what is your logic 10 years from now there will be another problem in Iraq if we leave. Why would we not finish the job now instead of letting the problem arise again. To do that would make absolutly no sense. What is the logic?


Well, the only logic I can give you is that we can control them without putting troops on the ground. We can control the threat without troops. We never needed troops. Still do not. Our forefathers fought and died for a free america. All I am saying is let the Iraqi's now fight and die for there own freedom. If you could do a poll on U.S service men most would certainly agree that they must do what there gov tells them to do but I've yet to find anyone I work with (im military) that agree's that we need to be there. If in fact what our governemnt has us doing goes beyound the scope of what the constitution requires of its military then they should be brought home regardless of how anyone feels about it as they volunteered to defend our country not Iraq. I will not argue further on this. Most people just cannot understand why its wrong to let americans die for causes instead of defending our nation as was intended by our constitution.

American soldiers should not die for politcial motives foreign or domestic. They should only need to be in harms way in defence of a threat which Iraq has none. In fact Iran is the bigger threat and I can think of several more...



posted on Jun, 8 2004 @ 11:08 PM
link   
My first reaction is, why don't we just let the Iraqis decide if we stay or go? I mean, it is thier country. But then I remembered that we are only giving them limited sovereignty (BBC) so I guess the decision is ours to make. I guess they have waited all of these years for a democracy, a free society, they can wait a little longer.



posted on Jun, 8 2004 @ 11:44 PM
link   
I am so glad Bush finally took the advice of Kerry and went to the UN to seek the Iraqi thing being internationalized. But it is unfortunate that he insulted most all the rest of the world that Bush was forced to accept all the demands of the French, Germans, Russians and even the Iraqi's to get final UN approval.

And Bush's attempt to get others to share the costs and contribute to help providing security with additional troops was dismissed out of hand.

Just goes to show you when you burn your bridges and piss off folks your going to always eat crow as they get their pound of flesh..............Expect that one or all will soon prompt Iraq to trigger their option to use their "unilateral determination authority under the resolution to tell the USA to get the hell out of the country......................



posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 12:09 AM
link   
The original logic to go to war was that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction and with the heightened terror presence it was thought that Saddam could give terrorists chemical biological or even nuclear weapons. This would be a serious threat to the american people. I know the same old thing well they don't have any WMD's but that remains to be seen I personally think they were smuggled to Syria. Also to say that Bush cooked this all up for Politics is a bunch of bologna.

What does Clinton Have to say?


President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line



President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.



Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face



Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983



Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country



Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real


Need I go on, or have I made my point?

Whether or not these people say that they beleived there was WMD's in Iraq is irrelevant because before we went to war there they did just as Bush did. I don't see how this is a political statement since before the war everyone thought he had WMD's.



[edit on 9-6-2004 by BlackJackal]



posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 07:31 AM
link   
ThomasCrowne:

As far as the freedom of telling us to get out, they should have, as a nation, rid the world of Hussein so that we would not have had to do it for our own security


I see, you still seem to believe that Iraq was an actual threat to US security, despite all the proof otherwise. Despite the last 2 years, despite the firing of a CIA director, despite admissions of guilt from the media and the adminstration.

How can I argue with someone who doesn't even live on this planet?


It was us who paid the price for their freedom, not them. Anything that comes cheaply isn't respected or valued, and it was very cheap for them.


Yeah, well there's about 12,000 dead Iraqi civilians who might disagree if they weren't dead. I guess they're just some of the eggs you gotta break to make an omelet, huh?

You're so arrogant it's almost sad. It was YOU who paid the price? "US" as in the US military or US as in the American public? And what price? 500 dead soldiers vs 12,000? Your tax money?

Muaddib:

There are other countries that are doing worse, yet you still find new ways to show your own ignorance of the events happening in Iraq, or the rest of the world for that matter, and blaming the US for them.


You're entitiled to your opinion.


I have a question to any pro-CPA flunkies.

Is it right to force democracy on a population that might not want it? If they don't want it is it alright to force them to do it at gunpoint?


As far as I'm concerned, when it comes to Iraq, you broke it, you bought it. If the future of Iraqi history is to be written in blood, then it ought to be written in the blood of those who invaded it and made this big mess in the first place. So I guess it's fair. Your average Iraqi citizen has suffered enough over the last while, time for them to get a break.

BlackJackal:

Whether or not these people say that they beleived there was WMD's in Iraq is irrelevant because before we went to war there they did just as Bush did.


Um, except that since there are NO WMDS IN IRAQ THEN THERE WAS NO THREAT TO THE USA. You follow that?

It's touching that you trust your politicians so much. Touching and a little naive, but you'll eventually realize that it's better to trust the IRS than your politicians.





jako




[edit on 9-6-2004 by Jakomo]



posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Don't listen to Jakomo, he is writting his daily "I hate America, all American administrations and all Americans in general" garbage. It seems he does not feel good or wanted, unless he bashes the US everyday.


Well then, if Jakomo actually hates America he seems to be standing in line with almost the rest of the world muddie me boy.

Seems that in essence that was the end result of the UN Resolution we are now calling a Bush success - the one where we agreed to every demand of France, Germany, Russia, and Iraq...........the only folks who didn't get any of what they wanted was USA and the Kurds.

We didn't even get anyone to share one dime of the cost of the damned fool-hearty venture nor peace keeping support of additional of other nationals troops to maybe spell our over worked and demoralized boys.

Look for Bush to cut and run the first chance he gets to leave the Middle East in a worse mess then when Saddam was in power.

That's what a real coward would do. Right!

Wonder how he's going to blame this one on Clinton?

The other thing I find so puzzling is why so many folks still think they must defend Bush and his actions? What an untenable position to be in.............To me it is not any demonstration of 'loyalty' ..........it's more so a dogged futility.


Each to his own......................



posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
Um, except that since there are NO WMDS IN IRAQ THEN THERE WAS NO THREAT TO THE USA. You follow that?

It's touching that you trust your politicians so much. Touching and a little naive, but you'll eventually realize that it's better to trust the IRS than your politicians.


Yeah I follow you, but I need to know what your point is. Is your point that since there were no WMD's found that we now need to pull out of Iraq? Is that your logic?

Is your point that all politicians lie? Well we all know that but they all seemed to lie the same way on this one, republicans, indepentdents, and democrats.

Is your point that in your all knowlegdable point of view that WMD's did not exsist in Iraq when they have been used in the past and all intelligence pointed to the exsistence of them?



posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 11:13 AM
link   
BlackJackal" :

Yeah I follow you, but I need to know what your point is. Is your point that since there were no WMD's found that we now need to pull out of Iraq? Is that your logic?


My point is that if Iraq was invaded because it was seen as a potential threat by WHO? The Bush Administration? Because they've already admitted some of their info was "faith-based". So in other words they already KNEW that there were none, or that there very well might be none, yet they invaded anyway.

So that means there was NO threat. So that means the war was illegal. So that means you should get the eff out of Iraq because you went there under totally false pretenses and you false pretenses have resulted in thousands of deaths.


Is your point that all politicians lie? Well we all know that but they all seemed to lie the same way on this one, republicans, indepentdents, and democrats.


Yet you support the biggest most blatant liar of all of them, George W. Bush.


Is your point that in your all knowlegdable point of view that WMD's did not exsist in Iraq when they have been used in the past and all intelligence pointed to the exsistence of them?


They DID exist in the past but they were all gone. WMD's degrade over time, like anything else. You don't keep biological weapons in a lunchbox.

And when they were using their WMDs for 30 years, gassing Kurds and Iranians, THE UNITED STATES WAS SELLING THEM TO IRAQ. So all your "America the Protector" BS is just that, total BS.

And it's not just me who sees, it EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD because they don't just blindly believe what they're told.

But you go on doing that if it's working for you. Ignorance is bliss as they say.



posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Jackmo,

I have yet to see credable evidence that the USA gave Iraq WMD's and if you can produce some credable evidence I would love to hear it. Make sure you don't just plug somebody's anti-war website.

Also just because WMD's degrade over time doesn't mean he didn't make new ones. All intelligence said he had them so thats why we went to war to rid the world of a mad man with WMD's just because he didn't have doesn't mean we need to pack up and head back home and leave the country to its own demise. We are better than that we are Americans we will finish the job we started.

Also I think I have found the root problem in this discussion. You are from Montreal, Canada the most liberal place on the face of the planet. The province of Quebec even wants to become its own sovereign nation because even the liberal canadian government isn't liberal enough. Once you take care of your own problems you come back and critisize someone else or do you like to through rocks from within your glass house?

One last thing if we leave do you think Canada will lift a finger to help Iraq out? I didn't think so your too busy worrying about smoking pot.

www.ctv.ca...

www.rocler.qc.ca...



posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 12:42 PM
link   
BlackJackal:

I have yet to see credable evidence that the USA gave Iraq WMD's and if you can produce some credable evidence I would love to hear it. Make sure you don't just plug somebody's anti-war website.


Hey is the National Security Archive at George Washington University a "credable" source for you? Just because you don't think things are true doesn't mean they aren't.

www.gwu.edu...


Initially, Iraq advanced far into Iranian territory, but was driven back within months. By mid-1982, Iraq was on the defensive against Iranian human-wave attacks. The U.S., having decided that an Iranian victory would not serve its interests, began supporting Iraq: measures already underway to upgrade U.S.-Iraq relations were accelerated, high-level officials exchanged visits, and in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism....

The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the Middle East...

...The U.S., which followed developments in the Iran-Iraq war with extraordinary intensity, had intelligence confirming Iran's accusations, and describing Iraq's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons, concurrent with its policy review and decision to support Iraq in the war...

....In April 1984, the Baghdad interests section asked to be kept apprised of Bell Helicopter Textron's negotiations to sell helicopters to Iraq, which were not to be "in any way configured for military use"....

...During the spring of 1984 the U.S. reconsidered policy for the sale of dual-use equipment to Iraq's nuclear program, and its "preliminary results favor[ed] expanding such trade to include Iraqi nuclear entities" [Document 57]. Several months later, a Defense Intelligence Agency analysis said that even after the war ended, Iraq was likely to "continue to develop its formidable conventional and chemical capability, and probably pursue nuclear weapons"...

Later in the month, the State Department briefed the press on its decision to strengthen controls on the export of chemical weapons precursors to Iran and Iraq, in response to intelligence and media reports that precursors supplied to Iraq originated in Western countries. When asked whether the U.S.'s conclusion that Iraq had used chemical weapons would have "any effect on U.S. recent initiatives to expand commercial relationships with Iraq across a broad range, and also a willingness to open diplomatic relations," the department's spokesperson said "No. I'm not aware of any change in our position. We're interested in being involved in a closer dialogue with Iraq"

...The documents included in this briefing book reflect the realpolitik that determined this country's policies during the years when Iraq was actually employing chemical weapons. Actual rather than rhetorical opposition to such use was evidently not perceived to serve U.S. interests; instead, the Reagan administration did not deviate from its determination that Iraq was to serve as the instrument to prevent an Iranian victory. Chemical warfare was viewed as a potentially embarrassing public relations problem that complicated efforts to provide assistance. The Iraqi government's repressive internal policies, though well known to the U.S. government at the time, did not figure at all in the presidential directives that established U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The U.S. was concerned with its ability to project military force in the Middle East, and to keep the oil flowing.


Read as much of it as you can before you ask me another question that is contained in the National Archives for all to see.


jako



posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Jak's favorite pastime is standing on the side lines and throwing $hyte grenades. Loves to point out problems but never offers a solution.

In his mind, if America is attacked, well, we got what we deserved because we are brutal capitalist war mongers bent on world domination.

If we attack a threat to us, well, there goes those brutal capitalist war-mongering Americans again, out to dominate the world!

Why don't you just come out and say that you hate Americans, our leaders, our government, our society, our way of life and get it over with? That way you could save you (and us) some time and you wouldn't have to create those mega-posts bashing our actions.

A big, fat leech stuck to our side, offering nothing in return but disease and discomfort. With the US to the south and west, NATO to the east, and the Arctic Circle to the north, you guys are all snug as a bug in a rug up there, aren't you?

Run your mouth all you want. We will give it as much conisderation as it is due. And guess what? We don't care if you think that's arrogant, because maybe it is. It's an unfortunate side-effect of leadership - especially by leaders who face multiple critical problems with little or no support from those who they lead.....whether they chose to lead or not.

Sorry, but people like this grate on me after a while......



posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 02:04 PM
link   
That's not saying that the USA gave or supplied chemical weapons to Iraq.

It was mostly German chemical companies which did.

The USA ignored Saddam's atrocities because they were more worried about fighting Iran.

However, the USA was pretty small in its support and commerce as opposed to the USSR (overwhelmingly its principal weapons supplier), China, France, and in industrial materials Germany.

Most of the nuclear and chemical equipment and factories came from Europe.

I don't understand this reasoning for bashing the USA here.
If you take the position that Saddam was a monster then in fact it was the USA and UK who recognized this first and lead the way to undo the acquiesence of the West to Saddam's depravity.

Does this make the US bad---sure they could have been better in the 1980's.

Does this make the positions of the Russians, Germans and French better? No they wanted to lift sanctions against Saddam so that they could ply their trade just like in the good old days. And be able to bash the USA.

The idea of the USA bashers seems to be that unless the USA is absolutely perfect, it can't ever try to help fix things, but other major powers can get away with naked self interest no problem (as long as it opposes the interests of the USA).

And when exactly did Cote D'Ivoire present a pressing threat to France, justifying their recent, non U.N.-approved military intervention?

Anyway, the real reason for invading Iraq and getting rid of Saddam was to get rid of Saddam. The strategic reason is now becoming apparent: there will probably be a fundamentalist revolution in Saudi Arabia. Hence, it was necessary to remove the US troops from Arabia and try to have at least a semi-decent regime in Iraq. The prospect of Osama bin Laden ruling Arabia and Saddam in Iraq---unfettered by sanctions---was horrible. And that was the previous direction that things are going.

In Saudi Arabia there is no plausible military intervention strategy possible. There is only get out and prepare for the worst.



posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Pyros:

Jak's favorite pastime is standing on the side lines and throwing $hyte grenades. Loves to point out problems but never offers a solution.


I do offer a solution. Get out of Iraq and the security will improve for your average Iraqi. The ones that are dying are collateral damage because the guerrillas are trying to kill Americans.


If we attack a threat to us, well, there goes those brutal capitalist war-mongering Americans again, out to dominate the world!


Haha, again with the threat garbage. If Iraq was such a threat to the US, why exactly did it take less than 150,000 troops TWO WEEKS to take over the ENTIRE country?


Why don't you just come out and say that you hate Americans, our leaders, our government, our society, our way of life and get it over with? That way you could save you (and us) some time and you wouldn't have to create those mega-posts bashing our actions.


Once your government stops doing stupid things, I'll stop bashing them.

And I only hate your CURRENT leader, and have serious misgivings about your government. But average Americans? I don't hate them, don't love them, don't really care either way.


A big, fat leech stuck to our side, offering nothing in return but disease and discomfort. With the US to the south and west, NATO to the east, and the Arctic Circle to the north, you guys are all snug as a bug in a rug up there, aren't you?


And WILDLY popular around the world!


We don't care if you think that's arrogant, because maybe it is.


I'm not sure why you should care at all, to be honest. When BlackJackal slammed Quebec I didn't even respond because why should I care what he says about Quebec, since he obviously knows very very little about it.

Why does it annoy you so much that I slam an obviously unfair, unjust United States foreign policy? Are you somehow in charge of it? You really have absolutely no say in it, actually, even though you're a voter.

mbkennel:

I don't understand this reasoning for bashing the USA here.
If you take the position that Saddam was a monster then in fact it was the USA and UK who recognized this first and lead the way to undo the acquiesence of the West to Saddam's depravity.


It took the invasion of Kuwait for the US and UK to do anything. If Saddam hadn't have done that, he'd be happily slaughtering Iraqis now, with no US involvement.


The prospect of Osama bin Laden ruling Arabia and Saddam in Iraq---unfettered by sanctions---was horrible. And that was the previous direction that things are going.


Bin Laden in power in Saudia Arabia? On planet Earth? Huh?




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join