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.


How can we get the governemtn to stop the war????

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 23 2003 @ 02:29 AM
ilovepizza, if you are going to believe in something perhaps you should know what it is you believe in.

Believing in no war against Iraq means more innocents die, means Saddam's sons will take his place, to kill even MORE innocents, all the while the fat cats of Eurpoe get rich off the evil regiem.

America's cause is Just, and worth dying for.

As for the UN, it has hated America since its inception, which they gave the Soviet Union 5 votes vs. America's 1.

France's entire reason for opposing the resolutions and our actions, is their 60 billion dollar oil deal with Saddam (not Iraq), which they stand to lose if the Iraqi people have anything to do with it, because that is Iraqi oil Saddam is placing under the control of France. It's as if France suddenly had texas added to it.

If you say you aren't there just to be there, than good, means you are one of the few, but I don't think you fully understand your position.

Afterall, at 17, especially if you are in America, you can't believe that the history you've learned from school, is all of the history you need to know.

There are thousands of tomes yet unopened to you, unless you are truly a rare breed.

And history is humanity's magic, a lot of reading, but a lot of power comes to the one who's read it all (which I also can most assuredly say nay).

posted on Mar, 23 2003 @ 02:34 AM

the UN doesnt hate america. All you're doing here is spreading racism. And the Soviet Union, like the US, had 1 vote, not 5.

posted on Mar, 23 2003 @ 02:40 AM
No it had 5, and France, shouldn't even have ever been on the Security Council, why were you there? America's good graces, and this is how you repay us.

Look into the UN's charters and sanctions, they have done nothing but slap America, and Israel in the face.

Just before 9/11, because America decided not to go and vote on the Slavery issues the UN wanted to pass resolutions on, the UN came back heartedly by saying we support Slavery.

We? The USA? The only nation that lost 400,000 men in battle to end slavery (not the actual goal until 1863 but still).

Here is the only nation on earth, where war ended slavery, and they repay us by saying we support slavery.

The UN, if not anti-American on purpose, uses poor judgement when dealing with the world's last super power.

And now they don't like us knocking over tin-dictatorships, because it is hurting their economies.

posted on Mar, 23 2003 @ 02:45 AM
The UN is a democratic institution. The united states have shown their discontempt for democracy on an international level by vetoing more than 73 resolutions.
Your false reasoning is trying to isolate France, Germany Russia and China, when it is the US that is isolated against the rest of the world at the moment, again showing their discontempt for democracy, human rights and international law when those concept dont serve the ends of the petroleo-militaristic complex.

And you still believe the myth that the civil war in USA was about slavery ?

[Edited on 23-3-2003 by Rascar Capac]

posted on Mar, 23 2003 @ 02:55 AM
Not really, the only nations who do not support America is France, Germany, Russia, and China.

The rest of the world that has voiced their opinions, agree with the US.

As for a democratic institution? No. That implies it is a governing body, the UN is no such thing.

No nation in the UN must listen to the other countries, nor must it agree with the general consensus, even if America did stand alone, which it does not, not even by other Arab nations, then it wouldn't matter, because the idea of a UN takes away from a country's independance.

Frankly I don't want the wussy French, or dictatoral Iraqis, Chinese, or North Koreans, making policy for the whole world.

What you do in your own borders is fine, but when it comes to global politics the only thing that stands true is might, might in economy, and might in war.

And the rules are governed by the victors. While warfare has always had a standard of "honor" that must be followed, so as to not become too inhuman (death isn't inhuman by far, but the French, so removed from war, have forgotten this), is the only rules that have ever been set between nations.

That and the proper treatment of diplomats.

That is all fine...but the UN's attempt at governing other nations is wholy facist.

posted on Mar, 23 2003 @ 02:57 AM
Rascar, what do you seriously think the American Civil War was about?

I know exactly what it was about, and you I doubt have any clue, so before anything more from you, I want to hear what you think that war was about. (I'll give you a hint, it had to do with something no other nation has ever had, though Britain and its commonwealths come close.)

posted on Mar, 23 2003 @ 03:04 AM
Excuse me, but more than 80% of the world's countries are against this war. you cannot talk your way out of that

And yes, the UN has a very real power on international law. And it has outlawed violence, except in the case of self-defence. Exeptions are made. But as this intervention is, according to an enormous majority of countries, premature if not unnecessary. It was outlawed.

And you're talking about honorable warfare when the US is currently in disrespect of the human rights charta, on the treatment of POW's and on forbidden weapons ? Forget it

[Edited on 23-3-2003 by Rascar Capac]

posted on Mar, 23 2003 @ 03:09 AM
LoL, there are only about 170 countries on this planet, and over 40 declared their agreement with the USA. Even more nations are totally indifferent or have no valid say in this. And the top and only real opposers are the 4 nations I've read.

The UN has no power (we just proved it), that is a French conception to make themselves feel big.

And the attack on Iraq is not "outlawed" if that is what you are I want to hear what you think the War between the states is all about.

Since you seem to think it so funny I pointed out the slavery issue (that was adopted in 1863) but then of course, you don't know when the hell the war started probably, so I guess the date is of little consequence.

*EDIT* Uh yeah, we only fed the Germans better than our own soldiers (have my Grandparents to attest for that), so I can see how we're "inhumane", in reality though, we've treated all our POWs better than they ever lived before, which is usually why a great deal moved here after the war was over.

[Edited on 23-3-2003 by 5POF]

posted on Mar, 23 2003 @ 03:19 AM
Seems you misunderstood me.
Seen historically, the United States have often provided a valuable contribution to civilisation in this world. Yet im not completely sure that the treatment of POW's in Germany was as marvelsome as you depicted it.

But we're talking about today, and tomorrow, not about yesterday.
The current treatment of POW's however is clearly in contradiction to international conventions.

posted on Mar, 23 2003 @ 03:30 AM
Not really. International conventions only demands that we the US treat our prisoners as well as the enemy treats their officers.

Since the enemy treated their officers far worse than we have (if the even have officers), we are not violating any thing, unlike what the liberalist fools would have you believe.

Actually we simply are obeying the international conventions.

Now, why do you keep avoiding my Civil War question to you?

I don't like it when people make fun of something I said, especially when something I said was right (re-read my post) and when I know a lot about what I said.

Where as you, seem to know nothing about the Civil War, or you know one thing, that it had nothing to do with Slavery.

Well Slavery was its catalyst, slavery was made an issue by Lincoln after the Union seemed able to win regardless if the Confederacy fought to the end or not. Slavery is a big part of the Civil War, what people mean or at least used to mean, when they said Slavery wasn't the issue, is that there was an underlying sub issue that was the ROOT of the problem, and the consequences of the War shakes the very foundations of the Constitution to this day.

posted on Mar, 23 2003 @ 03:37 AM
If you want to talk about the civil war, this is not the thread nor the forum for it. I can hardly see how the civil war is related to iraq's WMD
It seems you are making fun of me

Naking POW's and showing them on tv or showing them parading around is illegal. Torture is illegal. MOABs and Daisy Cutters are illegal. Depleted uranium ammunition is illegal. EBombs are illegal.

And last but not least, aggression without the approval of the UN security council which until some days ago the administration psychodramatically conveted is and remains illegal.

[Edited on 23-3-2003 by Rascar Capac]

posted on Mar, 23 2003 @ 03:40 AM

we relinquished you pro wars to 1945 and 1863

sounds like a blizzarding victory to me

was fun, SPOF & cya tomorrow !

[Edited on 23-3-2003 by Rascar Capac]

posted on Mar, 23 2003 @ 04:14 AM
Well Rascar, while I respect your opinions, you are horribly confused. Which is why I bring up the Civil War, because you said something, and usually someone who is confused such as yourself is not confused in one spot.

Now, MOABs and Daisy cutters are perfectly legal conventional weapons.

The UN currently is researching the effects of Depleted Uranium Weaponry, which also is not illegal.

DU weapons were researched by the USA for over 40 years before first used, I doubt that it is truly an "illegal" weapon.

But then, the UN did see to it that the Bayonetts are smaller than a French *ahem* man's procrational tool. Which I think is retarded...bring back the 3 foot long bayonettes, maybe then the french will get tough again?

Eh...enough French bashing, it's not your fault, it's your "mob rule" fault, you don't have much individual thinking over's a rigid society, and the mob says "BOO AMERICA"....

Next time you hear your fellow countryman say such, watch him and see where he is coming from.

posted on Mar, 23 2003 @ 09:58 AM
Gei it straight. Bush is acting against the rest of the world in violation of international law. Nobody says boo america, it is Bush's widely undiplomatic stance that has brought these problems for the us.

Why have i been banned ?

posted on Mar, 23 2003 @ 10:07 AM

posted on Mar, 23 2003 @ 10:14 AM
the reason for that is I don't need to hear it. I know what is right and what is wrong.

Going to war with Iraq was never wrong. It was only unjust. The whole affair is quite a fiasco and is more complicated then most people think. The simple facts are that Saddam is a war criminal, a dictator, an oppressor, and a madman. This man needs no more time ruling over others than he already has. The reason the war was protested is because it wasn't about freedom or oppression, it was political. In other words personal, thats what politic is, it's personal.

Why let this man rule??? Just tell me that and I will go away.

I am waiting.


posted on Mar, 23 2003 @ 10:20 AM
There is a good reason to remove him.

The thing I object to, personally, is that we've suddenly seen this moral argument come from the US/UK administrations, after their legitimate war-reasons were exposed as false. (WMD, terrorist links simply didn't hold up to scrutiny).

So out comes the "let's free the Iraqi people" argument. If only that was why we were going to war, then perhaps I wouldn't mind so much. But it isn't. It's just these administrations trying to justify their actions.

Bush/Blair have gone against world opinion to bring this war. 5POC, you don't know what you're talking about when you say the majority of the world support you. Even amongst the "coalition of the willing" a considerable number of those governments aren't inline with their own public opinion, and aren't sending any combat troops.

Get used to the fact that the US/UK have gone it alone, and are currently trying to spin their way out of it.

posted on Mar, 23 2003 @ 10:33 AM
Uh, yes, the legitimate reasons did hold up to scrutiny. Both the chemical/biological weapons reason as well as the terrorist connection. How do you figure they did not hold up?

As far as the moral arguement, I have a problem with that as well. Are we going to go around dictators and despots that are brutal? How about the difficult ones such as China? Why have we done nothing to Sudan for murdering and enslaving people? When are we going to go into the entire African continent and straighten them out? Even if the U.S. and Britain decided to be the moral saviors of the world, who would finance this misguided operation?


posted on Mar, 23 2003 @ 10:40 AM
Exactly TC, we are not going to war for moral reasons. It's just a cover argument, something that makes it easier for civilians to swallow.

WMD argument - inspectors say they have some unanswered questions but haven't discovered anything much. Any large-scale production facilities are too big to hide. Any chem/bio weapons stock-piled from before we destroyed those facilities in the mid 90's would now have become useless (anthrax liquid in 3 years, Sarin in 5, VX in 3 months, etc.) No evidence of SCUD's. Al-Samoud have been destroyed. Still no evidence in the public domain...

terrorist argument - Still no evidence of a link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda (except for a disputed phone call in Eastern Europe which the CIA don't believe happened). Limited evidence of involvement in Israel-Palestine, definitely giving money to families of suicide bombers, no evidence of providing explosives etc.. terrorist training camp turns out to be counter-terrorist training camp, etc. etc.

So yes, I think the arguments don't stand up to scrutiny. We can discuss this again if you'd like, I'm ready and willing.

posted on Mar, 23 2003 @ 11:00 AM

The governments of the US/UK axis are yes men to the public. They just give you the answer yes instead of no. They give you good over bad. Lies over truth. Contradiction after contradiction, this is how the system works, this is politics. I wonder if Washington was right?? Well, it's too late for that bed side request.

We have defied the died, and the dead was our 'founding father', take us away and make us one.

That is all he asks. Free the country of political parties and stay away from foreign affairs. Did we follow that path???? I think not. Look at the price we have paid for that??? Do I have to name all the deaths and destructions that could have been spared our blood and sweat??? Is this what I have to do to convince those that our ways are wrong??? When will this nation learn that we can't make fat promises of freedom and look the other way when our allies are being the worst of nations. Nations like Nigeria, China, and Israel. These nations are oppressive. So are many more, but what can we do about it with this undecided stance on foreign policy. The only policy the capitalist system knows is MONEY.

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in