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.

 

I Will Support This War – If Someone Can Answer 20, Logical Questions

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2003 @ 04:04 PM
link   
www.sierratimes.com...


I Will Support This War ñ If Someone Can Answer 20, Logical Questions
By J.J. Johnson

Okay, Iím convinced nothing will stop this war from happening, so we must prepare to support the troops. But as history goes on, Iím still having trouble convincing myself (or anyone else) why weíre doing this. Perhaps Iím just losing it. Hence, Iíll list out a few questions here, so maybe someone can answer them, and help me make sense of it all.
1.If George W. Bush is willing to wage war with Iraq, regardless of a United Nations Resolution supporting such a war, Why did Bush spend Monday desperately lobbying for U.N. Security Council Votes?

2.Our Government says ìIraq is a threat to its neighborsî. So, why is only one of those neighbors, ìKuwaitî, open to giving the U.S. support? (to date, no neighboring nation is supplying troops) 3.Bush said ìSaddam Hussein may provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorist organizations hostile to the United Statesî. Can anyone provide any information supporting the fact that Hussein has in fact offered any weapons of mass destruction to any terrorist organization to be used outside of Iraqís national border? (money to families of suicide bombers doesnít count ñ unless you consider money to be a weapon of mass destruction, as well as all the other Arab nations that also held telethons to raise money for the same.)

4.Government officials have stated, ìWe donít know where the weapons are, but weíll know if he (Hussein) disarms.î If we donít know where the weapons are located, how will we know if and when he has actually disarmed them?

5. Bush has stated that the potential war against Iraq is part of the ìWar On Terrorî. Our allies (and most of the world) gave their full support in this war after September 11, 2001. Why are many of these same nations (that have been assisting in this ëwar on terrorí) refusing to assist in the War Against Iraq?

6.As our nation was attacked on September 11, 2001, action was taken immediately against Afghanistan with no prior approval sought from the United Nations. If this is a war for our self-defense, again ñ why seek U.N. approval for action?

7. Why has the major news media, to this point, failed to take any government official to task for the sharp increase in fuel prices?

8. U.N. Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq must disarm itself of weapons of mass destruction, yet clearly is not willing to enforce that mandate. Why should we?

9. If WMDís can be given to terrorists to be used on U.S. soil, how will destroying Saddamís regime cause those terrorists to willingly relinquish those weapons?

10. Will this coming war halt the steady decline of the U.S. Dollar against other currencies?

11. Why does a brutal dictator allow his citizens to purchase firearms?

12. If Iraqi citizens fight back against a foreign military occupation with the firearms theyíve purchased, will they be considered ëterroristsí?

13. If Iraqi soldiers are already surrendering, why not take them into custody rather than sending them back across the border?

14. If Iraq has ties to terrorists, and must be removed from power by force, why is Yasser Arafat still breathing, and why does this country seek peace whenever Israel gets close to Arafatís neck?

15. If the Bush Administration has evidence that Iraq was in any way connected to the attacks on September 11, 2001, would it not better his position to release at least some of that information to the public to build support?

16. A previous ëcomplaintí the U.S. government had against Iraq was their ërefusalí to allow U-2 spy planes over a country in which the U.S. controls two-thirds of the air space. Since when has the U.S. government asked permission to fly a spy plane over another country?

17. Over the weekend, North Korea threaten to attack, New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington D.C if their nuclear facilities are attacked (or if any sanctions are applied on them). This while Iraq is destroying missiles with a range slightly greater than 155 miles. Please explain why Iraq is more of a ëthreatí to our freedom than North Korea at this time.

18. After the ëregime changeí in Iraq, how willing will the citizens of a war torn country be to ëfreelyí elect people favorable to their occupiers, and will they have to surrender their personal weapons?

19. Iraq is accused of murdering its own citizens. Fair enough. But has the United States ever gone to war (including the threatened use of nuclear weapons) due an enemy nation ëmurdering its own citizens?î

20. After we win this war, will there be peace?

Thatís it. This author wonít have anything else to say on the matter. When the battle starts, I will have no choice but to support our folks on the battlefield. I just want to make sure that years down the road, I have all the right answers when Iím askedÖ

ÖWhy?




posted on Mar, 12 2003 @ 07:00 PM
link   
1.If George W. Bush is willing to wage war with Iraq, regardless of a United Nations Resolution supporting such a war, Why did Bush spend Monday desperately lobbying for U.N. Security Council Votes?

Because if he can get the UN to go along with the war then there will no longer be an argument that Bush is a cowboy because we wonít be going in alone. Itís all politics, but in the long run the UN is irrelevant.

2.Our Government says ìIraq is a threat to its neighborsî. So, why is only one of those neighbors, ìKuwaitî, open to giving the U.S. support? (to date, no neighboring nation is supplying troops)

Itís obvious why Kuwait is helping us out. As far as other countries such as Turkey, they have no love for Saddam either, but they hate the Kurds even worse. They are worried that the Kurds will try to develop their own Government once Iraq is liberated.

3.Bush said ìSaddam Hussein may provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorist organizations hostile to the United Statesî. Can anyone provide any information supporting the fact that Hussein has in fact offered any weapons of mass destruction to any terrorist organization to be used outside of Iraqís national border? (money to families of suicide bombers doesnít count ñ unless you consider money to be a weapon of mass destruction, as well as all the other Arab nations that also held telethons to raise money for the same.)

Our Government hasnít publicly announced any such proof, but that doesnít mean they are providing all of their intelligence to the public either.

There is proof however that Al Queda terrorists are in Iraq and have received medical treatment in Baghdad. The US and its allies are the enemy to both Iraq and Al Queda so itís not a far leap to Sadam handing some Bio or Chemical weapons to them to wreak havoc. After all, you yourself stated that he has given money to the families of suicide bombers so itís apparent that he already works with terrorists.


4.Government officials have stated, ìWe donít know where the weapons are, but weíll know if he (Hussein) disarms.î If we donít know where the weapons are located, how will we know if and when he has actually disarmed them?

He can start by getting rid of the thousands of liters of Anthrax that we know he has.

5. Bush has stated that the potential war against Iraq is part of the ìWar On Terrorî. Our allies (and most of the world) gave their full support in this war after September 11, 2001. Why are many of these same nations (that have been assisting in this ëwar on terrorí) refusing to assist in the War Against Iraq?

France, Germany and Russia all oppose this war. All three also have lucrative oil deals with Saddam. Those deals all go out the window once Iraq is liberated.

6.As our nation was attacked on September 11, 2001, action was taken immediately against Afghanistan with no prior approval sought from the United Nations. If this is a war for our self-defense, again ñ why seek U.N. approval for action?

Go see the answer to question #1.

7. Why has the major news media, to this point, failed to take any government official to task for the sharp increase in fuel prices?

You have to ask them that.

8. U.N. Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq must disarm itself of weapons of mass destruction, yet clearly is not willing to enforce that mandate. Why should we?

We should because the reason for doing so directly affects our national security.

9. If WMDís can be given to terrorists to be used on U.S. soil, how will destroying Saddamís regime cause those terrorists to willingly relinquish those weapons?

It wonít. However it will remove the threat of Saddam giving WMD to terrorists.

10. Will this coming war halt the steady decline of the U.S. Dollar against other currencies?

Once this war is over and Osama is captured watch the DOW skyrocket. The other morning I was watching the news when they announced that Osamaís sons had been captured, the DOW was down of 30 points. Within minutes of the announcement we were up over 15 points.

11. Why does a brutal dictator allow his citizens to purchase firearms?

Are you inferring that they could revolt against Saddamís regime with firearms? They tried that once and Saddam crushed them like bugs.

12. If Iraqi citizens fight back against a foreign military occupation with the firearms theyíve purchased, will they be considered ëterroristsí?

No. They would be soldiers fighting in a conventional war. Donít worry though, they will be rejoicing in the streets once we roll into town.

13. If Iraqi soldiers are already surrendering, why not take them into custody rather than sending them back across the border?

We have some defectors that are giving up info. Some of them have said that they are being equipped with chemical Warfare protection. What do you think all thatís for?

14. If Iraq has ties to terrorists, and must be removed from power by force, why is Yasser Arafat still breathing, and why does this country seek peace whenever Israel gets close to Arafatís neck?

Mr. Arafat poses a threat to Israel, not the USA. If he starts ordering attacks in the USA and we find out about it he will be the next one on the list to be removed from power. I donít think heís that dumb though.

15. If the Bush Administration has evidence that Iraq was in any way connected to the attacks on September 11, 2001, would it not better his position to release at least some of that information to the public to build support?

Who knows if they have evidence like that. If they do, they arenít revealing it for a reason.

16. A previous ëcomplaintí the U.S. government had against Iraq was their ërefusalí to allow U-2 spy planes over a country in which the U.S. controls two-thirds of the air space. Since when has the U.S. government asked permission to fly a spy plane over another country?

It was one of the conditions included in 1441.


17. Over the weekend, North Korea threaten to attack, New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington D.C if their nuclear facilities are attacked (or if any sanctions are applied on them). This while Iraq is destroying missiles with a range slightly greater than 155 miles. Please explain why Iraq is more of a ëthreatí to our freedom than North Korea at this time.

If you noticed, Korea didnít start mouthing off until we started focusing on Iraq. They arenít stupid; they are trying to extort money from us when we have our hands full with Iraq.

Donít worry. We will get around to Korea and you will hear the left cry about it when we do.


18. After the ëregime changeí in Iraq, how willing will the citizens of a war torn country be to ëfreelyí elect people favorable to their occupiers, and will they have to surrender their personal weapons?

Iraqis want us to free them from Saddam. People said similar things when we were liberating Afghanistan as well.

19. Iraq is accused of murdering its own citizens. Fair enough. But has the United States ever gone to war (including the threatened use of nuclear weapons) due an enemy nation ëmurdering its own citizens?î

Yes we have. Bosnia is an example of this.

20. After we win this war, will there be peace?

Of course not.

A better question is: Will the world be a safer place? The answer to that is yes.


Thatís it. This author wonít have anything else to say on the matter. When the battle starts, I will have no choice but to support our folks on the battlefield. I just want to make sure that years down the road, I have all the right answers when Iím askedÖ

ÖWhy?



posted on Mar, 12 2003 @ 07:14 PM
link   
1. Because he really would rather have UN backing. However, he is prepared to do what NEEDS to be done to end 12 years of games...even if the UN isn't.

2. Kuwait has "first hand" experience of the threat Saddam poses to his neighbors. The other nations have allowed their dislike of the US to outweigh the threat Saddam poses to his more moderate Arab neighbors.

3. There is no direct proof of this no, but the threat is certainly there. After all, if he did get rid of some of them, chances are he did it at a profit...

4. When the inspectors were there before, there were certain weapons tagged. These same weapons are no nowhere to be found. The thinking is, that when Saddam finally is forced to account for where they went, they will then be found.

5. Because Bush has so far failed to provide adequete proof of the terror link, beyond sponsoring suicide bombers. The better way (imho) would have been to justify it more as finally ending Saddam's flagrant continued violations of each and every resolution against it.

6. The UN cared not for Afghanistan, so there was little fuss. Iraq on the other hand, is a much higher profile case, and the UN already had quite an investment in the outcome, and thus, it's approval was sought.

7. Actually, in my home state, Charlie Crist, the Attourney General, has done just that, and so far (at least in this state), been able to keep gas fairly stable. However, there is also the issue in Venezuela (where we get a lot of oil from), which also impacted this, so they're a little off the hook there....

8. Because we were the ones who pushed for the resolution in the first place. Again, we just want to force Saddam to live up to the agreements he made after the Gulf War. We have a vested interest to make sure the agreements are honored.

9. It will not, but it will serve as a preventative measure to keep more out of their hands, to eliminate a wealthy supporter of terrorism, and eliminate Iraq's harboring of such terrorists.

10. Once the outcome is victory, yes, the decline is likely to halt...though this is more a question for Greenspan


11. Interesting question, and one I've not heard before. However, having lived with arabs, you must understand that many are still fairly nomadic, and live in rural areas...and as such are pretty partial to their guns. Saddam knows he has nothing to fear from them, but more from educated people in cities (who are less apt to buy them).

12. If any citizen (Iraqi or not) raises arms against an invading force, they are defending themselves...not terrorists. They are fighting miltary men and targets, not civilians.

13. Most likely, there are various legal reasons involved here, at least until it is officially a battlezone....

14. The key phrase here, is "removed from power", not necessarily killing him. The US is forbidden to assassinate other heads of state. Unlike Saddam, sometimes Yasser has been moderated through diplomatic means. Of course, currently, he is no longer taken seriously, after finally being revealed to be the terrorist we all knew he was. We're content to let Isreal deal with Yasser.

15. Yes it would, but I doubt there is such info. After all, even Bush has stated that with Iraq, it is more about terrorism in general, not just the sponsors of 9/11.

16. The move was purely diplomatic. We were just playing nice for the international community, as we certainly could fly one anytime we wanted anyhow...

17. Because NK doesn't have the means to reach those targets, thus, it is seemed as the bluff that it is. We know, and they know, that if we did attack their facilities, there wouldn't be anything left to launch at the US, even if they could reach the target. Iraq on the hand, has a certain track record of lobbing missiles into Isreal, Saudi, etc. and other neighbors, thus it is more a viable threat.

18. I think they would be quite willing. Knowing a few Iraqis who made it out myself, there is a certain climate of fear of Saddam there. With that fear gone, I feel confident the Iraqi people will come around and do what's in their best interests. No, they will not have to relinquish their weapons, I'm sure that a goal is to keep the Iraqis happy after Saddam is deposed.

19. No, and it is not a reason this time either. The citing of Saddam using these weapons on his own people is used more as an example of his barbarism, and willingness to use these weapons and not just stockpile them.

20. Yes, I think there will be peace in the region (if for no other reason that any upstarts will quickly realize that they are in danger of losing power, and likewise being deposed). I think there will be diplomatic repercussions, but I think that Iraq at least will be a better place. Of course, then there is NK. There, there will not be peace, at least not for long. Kim will obviously have to go, and then re-unification. I don't think it will be as messy as people think, but it will likely take the next couple of years to come to fruition.



posted on Mar, 12 2003 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Well done Gaz and jms! I am already 100% behind the war but I think your responses could be convincing to someone who is not. You can go to the link that was provided and send your responses in, maybe you can help others see the light!



posted on Mar, 13 2003 @ 03:26 AM
link   
Those answer aren't convincing at all, nice try but all I see is the same BS being repeated over and over again. I mean where's the evidence for all these easy words ? Words are nice but actions speaks louder.

Don't forget that information most of us have are only information they want us to know, so if your government can't convince the world don't expect that you can !




17. Because NK doesn't have the means to reach those targets, thus, it is seemed as the bluff that it is. We know, and they know, that if we did attack their facilities, there wouldn't be anything left to launch at the US, even if they could reach the target. Iraq on the hand, has a certain track record of lobbing missiles into Isreal, Saudi, etc. and other neighbors, thus it is more a viable threat.


LOL, of course.... this is just one example of "stupidity" I don't say you are stupid but I'd rather say you're disinformed. Most people only believe in te things their leaders tell them. I mean what difference does it make ? US did destroy everything in Irak, so what can they attack with now ? Don't forget that US controls a large part of Iraqi air so what's wrong with the picture ?

[Edited on 13-3-2003 by TigeriS]

[Edited on 13-3-2003 by TigeriS]



posted on Mar, 13 2003 @ 04:12 AM
link   
He's right. All the answers you've given come straight from the party line. Do you make your own opinions or do you let your leaders do it for you?


dom

posted on Mar, 13 2003 @ 08:00 AM
link   
There's rather too much here to actually have a reasonable debate about, and I can't be arsed to type out all of the counter-arguments over the next 35 minutes.


I think most of the answers don't prove anything, and I think question 14 is flawed anyway. There is no concrete evidence that Yasser Arafat has any control of Hamas or a great many other palestinian terror groups. It could be argued that his organisation may have some liability for the actions of the Al-Asqa martyrs brigade, and possibly one or two others. Anyway, that's a different debate...

I would have to agree with Kegs though, that there is nothing that's stated here as evidence which isn't circumstantial. Just because George Bush says that the sky is red, doesn't make it so.



posted on Mar, 13 2003 @ 08:52 AM
link   
1. I am not affiliated with any party, as my views are not as black and white as Republican or Democratic. I have already stated that I do not condone the way Bush is handling it, but I do feel it is necessary to enforce the resolutions that have been ignored.

2. As for this:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

17. Because NK doesn't have the means to reach those targets, thus, it is seemed as the bluff that it is. We know, and they know, that if we did attack their facilities, there wouldn't be anything left to launch at the US, even if they could reach the target. Iraq on the hand, has a certain track record of lobbing missiles into Isreal, Saudi, etc. and other neighbors, thus it is more a viable threat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



LOL, of course.... this is just one example of "stupidity" I don't say you are stupid but I'd rather say you're disinformed. Most people only believe in te things their leaders tell them. I mean what difference does it make ? US did destroy everything in Irak, so what can they attack with now ? Don't forget that US controls a large part of Iraqi air so what's wrong with the picture ?


No, I believe what I saw with my own eyes (i.e. Iraqi missiles landing in Tel Aviv and Saudi Arabia). Likewise, I have done my own research on NK missile capability and concluded (without any help from my "leaders" even) that they do not possess the capability to launch a missile strike on US targets. If you truly feel the need to stoop to grade-school level name-calling, so be it, but I will not join you on such a level...


[Edited on 13-3-2003 by Gazrok]



posted on Mar, 13 2003 @ 07:26 PM
link   
i can answer your questions with a saying said by edmund burke the famous british political philospher


All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

[Edited on 14-3-2003 by f16falcon]



posted on Mar, 13 2003 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Never Sleeps
I Will Support This War ñ If Someone Can Answer 20, Logical Questions


Never Sleeps...

Why do we need you, or the original author of your questions, to support the military action in Iraq?



posted on Mar, 13 2003 @ 08:03 PM
link   
William it's a bit early for a tombstone.

It's time for me to raise our level out of Mediocrity!

I would love to get my hands on what the Etheopian "king?" said to the League of Nations oh...1936-37 I think around there.

He stood up there and told them of what the Italians were doing to him and his people, of how they were conquering, and brutalizing, and after his big long speech of all the horrors and wars the Italians were inflicting upon the Etheopians, the League of Nations, laughed him off stage.

This of course made him cry (It's manly to cry buttheads!), and as he was sobbing of the podium he stepped back and said, "Today it is men, tomorrow it will be you!"

Do we learn nothing from history?

Yesterday it was Kuait. And tomorrow is coming fast. Maybe it won't be us but certainly Israel.

But then most people these days (especially those buttheaded peace protesters) seem to be Nazis anyways and can care less if Jerusalem is nuked.

--It's hammer time--



posted on Mar, 13 2003 @ 08:34 PM
link   
nope humans don't learn



posted on Mar, 14 2003 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Gazrok, how did you do your research ? I'd like to know that. And what you mean with what you saw with your own eyes is old, very old. These are new times my brother, time changes. I don't know about recent scud attacks on Israel and S.A.

I don't understand how you can know those things for sure and even DoD stated that North Korea is closer to a Nuke than they thought.



posted on Mar, 14 2003 @ 10:03 AM
link   
I should have emphasized in my first post (as I did with my second), that my beliefs on NK capabilities are just that, my beliefs, but based on information available through publications, and reputable news sites, industry magazines, etc. Obviously, the majority of us are not privy to classified material, (or, if we were, certainly wouldn't be sharing it). but there has been NO evidence to the contrary of what I stated (that I am aware of), but there is evidence (many of which have already been cited in other threads by other posters) to support that NK does not have missiles capable of reaching targets in the US.

And further, there is evidence, such as recent documentaries and published articles, on anti-missile defenses that suggest that we would be easily able to take out such a strike if it WERE to occur.

As to the "what I saw with my own eyes" argument, the original author of the thread was asking the question as to why Iraq is a threat. As part of my arguement, I cited the fact that Saddam attacked more than just Kuwait, further clarifying that it wasn't just speculation, but something we all saw happening. A little sensationalist, I'll give you, but supportive of the arguement, nonetheless.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join