It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by byteshertz
The Iraq war:
•Initial reason for invasion: The United States and the United Kingdom claimed that Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) posed a threat to their security and that of their coalition/regional allies. After investigation following the invasion, the U.S.-led Iraq Survey Group concluded that Iraq had ended its nuclear, chemical, and biological programs in 1991 and had no active programs at the time of the invasion.
•Aim: stop Saddam Hussein from obtaining weapons of mass destruction
•Result: Although some degraded remnants of misplaced or abandoned chemical weapons from before 1991 were found, they were not the weapons which had been the main argument to justify the invasion. A U.S.-led Iraq Survey Group concluded that Iraq had ended its nuclear, chemical, and biological programs in 1991. Saddam Hussein is executed by the new governement. The war continues.
- Why are you still in this country? Did you stop to think maybe they do not want the peace and democracy your country is trying to force upon them?
[edit on 8-8-2010 by byteshertz]
Originally posted by babybunnies
Originally posted by sdcigarpig
Why is Lincoln revered while Bush is remembered with disdain? Linxoln was willing to do ANYTHING to preserve the American Union, the Constitution be damned.
I'm by no means a Bush supporter, but Americans REALLY need to learn the history of their Presidency, not just what is taught in school books.
Baby, there is a fundamental difference between Lincoln and Bush. Lincoln was willing to do whatever was necessary to "preserve the Union". He was fighting an enemy from within that had a very real possibility of breaking this country half. Lincoln knew that what he was doing was "wrong" legally, but absolutely right, morally. In his mind, and those of historians, he was saving the Constitution by breaking it and putting it back together later. If he didnt do what he had done the Constitution and the country would have been destroyed.
Bush on the other hand, was bending the Constitution out of expediency.(My opinion) He isnt revered like Lincoln because, well scholars are largely Liberal and still have their panties in a bunch over the 2000 election. (Liberals, relax Im kidding. But seriously get over it already. Almost every election is stolen/rigged. Look into JFK winning the 1960 election against Nixon.....he didnt) Anyways Bush is looked down on because the country is so divided and a lot of people just dont like him.
From my view the choices that Lincoln were MUCH more difficult and were made by a man who was deeply conflicted and knew the gravity of what he was doing. Bush's decisions weren't as black and white. (Side note I also dont think "terrorists" ever posed that great of a threat to our country, we have done more harm to ourselves fighting them than they could ever do to us. More people die from Asthma each year than died on 9/11)
As a final point Lincoln's actions have had more than 100 yrs to to be proven right. Bush's are pretty new and the ramification are and will continue to be felt for many years to come. Who knows in 100 yrs Bush may be considered the greatest President we've ever had......as long as they "loose" all footage of his speaking in public
[edit on 9-8-2010 by adamc3]
Originally posted by Echo3Foxtrot
Well, if you don't like what's going on, why don't you go over there and help that poor country we invaded wrongfully. I believe in war, I believe in what America does. I think America needs to keep up with the bravado of being a tough SOB of a country. If we countinue being the "let's give piece a chance, Obama do your little peace tour", a strong enemy soldiery will invade our country, take our women, and breed a hardier race. Yeah, Chesty helped me with that last sentence.
The reason we're still there is because the moment we finally pull out without making sure the job is done and the threat to the free world, not just the US,that is festering in that area, it'll grow. You think it's just militants like it was in Iraq over there in Afghanistan? No. These are militarily trained men we are fighting. They know us, they know our procedures, they know how we work. There is a threat there that must be stopped. If you don't like it, as I said, go ahead and take a little trip out there, you might not even be heard from again.
Originally posted by rimshot
An army is like a football team. If you don't practice, you don't play so good.
War is good practice for when the real thing comes along.
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by sdcigarpig
Congress did authorize the use of force via presidential war powers. By granting broad powers to the executive, they easily sidestep their Constitutional responsibilities to declare the country at war.
Originally posted by Deuteronomy 23:13
Originally posted by works4dhs
We did have fatal terror attacks after 9-12-2001: The anthrax murders were considered terror.
Over 5000 more americans died in Bush's stupid wars and close to 30,000 severely maimed. Not to mention all of the poor people who became collateral damage. I would guess that to you justice means killing innocent people. The wars (all wars) are stupid and have accomplished nothing but more destruction.
If bush and Cheney had been awake on 9-11 instead of being a couple of incompetent idiots there would never have been any reason to have the wars in the first place.
You disgust me and your thinking sucks.