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.

 

This war is wrong!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2003 @ 04:41 AM
link   
I think the US has really opened up a can of worms.
They got more then what they bargained for.

I am sorry about people dieing on both sides but the US this time has asked for it.

Bush calls Saddam a war criminal, but has he recently asked himself what is the meaning of launching thousands of bombs onto Bahgdad and killing civilians and destroying property?

I get the feeling this forum is very much pro war and just feel that I am not with you on this.

This does not mean I support terrorists. I support peace.

The world has been told the biggest lie of all that the US is there to liberate Iraq. What a lot of crap!

To me it looks like when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939. Or when Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1991.

With this I am not saying the Bush is like Hitler or Saddam, but he has radical views and takes radical actions.

THIS WAR IS WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!




posted on Mar, 24 2003 @ 08:24 AM
link   
No one care if the war is wrong or not, it all has to do with pride, power, megalomania and the New World Order. And you can't convince most Americans here that it's wrong.



posted on Mar, 24 2003 @ 08:32 AM
link   
It's a war. People die in war. On BOTH sides. This is a given...not a surprise. Sure, all you are focusing on, on TV is mostly the BAD news. You see a snippet here of a chopper down, or a tidbit there, about POWs. You have to look at ALL of the news out there, and put it all together to get a good picture of what's going on here. I'll agree that it seems like the spin doctors are on hiatus or something, but the war appears to be going well. Only a few days into this, and a large part of the country is no longer under Saddam's control. We have far more POWs and kills, and suffered, comparatively, few casualties. We have taken out numerous military targets, Saddam has taken out none. Some cities are already under coalition control, and the march to Baghdad is ahead of schedule. More than we bargained for...no, I disagree...



posted on Mar, 24 2003 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by zaxatron
The world has been told the biggest lie of all that the US is there to liberate Iraq. What a lot of crap!

To me it looks like when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939. Or when Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1991.

With this I am not saying the Bush is like Hitler or Saddam, but he has radical views and takes radical actions.

THIS WAR IS WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!


By giving these 2 examples that is exactly what you are saying.
Your reasoning is completely flawed. I'll ask you what do you think the US forces are there for ? Ahhh let me guess OIL. How surprising, do the math and you'll soon work out ( you need to use more than you fingers for this ) that the US is never going to recuperate the cost of warring and rebuilding in Iraq. So please, why are they there except to liberate the Iraqi people.
I just love how absolute morons love to equate US policy with tyrants of the past. Grow up and get an education.



posted on Mar, 24 2003 @ 09:43 AM
link   
"the US is never going to recuperate the cost of warring and rebuilding in Iraq. So please, why are they there except to liberate the Iraqi people?"

Though often part of my justifications, I've never stated this in my supporting arguements. Good point MS.



posted on Mar, 24 2003 @ 10:28 AM
link   


I am sorry about people dieing on both sides but the US this time has asked for it.....

This does not mean I support terrorists. I support peace.


Your sorry about our guys getting killed yet you justify it by saying we asked for it. Then you say that you support peace. I think your confused....

A lot of Americans demonstrated and "supported peace" during WWII and millions of people died at the hands of the Germans.

Keep supporting peace and let the military keep the peace.


dom

posted on Mar, 24 2003 @ 10:33 AM
link   
I thought the Iraqi oil was for the Iraqi people, and so we'd be using that oil to pay for the rebuilding? To be honest, most of the press hasn't concentrated on that, but I'm sure I've heard that statement.

Also, it's not just about Iraqi oil, it's about regional power. A large pro-US state in Iraq is exactly what the US needs in the region. A powerful country with which to move the whole region over to a pro-US bias...

This war is not about liberating the Iraqi people, at best that is a tertiary objective.



posted on Mar, 24 2003 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by dom
I thought the Iraqi oil was for the Iraqi people, and so we'd be using that oil to pay for the rebuilding? To be honest, most of the press hasn't concentrated on that, but I'm sure I've heard that statement.

Also, it's not just about Iraqi oil, it's about regional power. A large pro-US state in Iraq is exactly what the US needs in the region. A powerful country with which to move the whole region over to a pro-US bias...

This war is not about liberating the Iraqi people, at best that is a tertiary objective.


On the contrary, from the point you have just made the liberation of the Iraqi people would be a primary objective.
The hope would be, that a democratic and prosperous Iraq would be an inspiring example to the rest of the suppressed peoples of the middle east.



posted on Mar, 24 2003 @ 10:47 AM
link   
"I thought the Iraqi oil was for the Iraqi people, and so we'd be using that oil to pay for the rebuilding? To be honest, most of the press hasn't concentrated on that, but I'm sure I've heard that statement.

Also, it's not just about Iraqi oil, it's about regional power. A large pro-US state in Iraq is exactly what the US needs in the region. A powerful country with which to move the whole region over to a pro-US bias..."

On BOTH counts...
As MS stated though, I don't think that Iraqi liberation is tertiary at all, but I would lump that right in there with the goals you stated. I also disagree with the idea that it would move the entire region into a pro-US bias. However, it would take the edge off the hostilities a bit... Then again, Saudi is supposed to be our friend, and look where the hijackers were from...



posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 07:22 AM
link   
So far we have seen that the liberation of iraq have proved to be the biggest fiasco of this administration. I don't think this president knew the turnaround of this war it he has known we will not be in Iraq at all.



posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 07:29 AM
link   
Try telling the liberated victims of Saddam's 30 years of horror that the war is wrong. Tell the families of the millions murdered, raped, maimed, and missing that the war was wrong.

I'm sure the Palestinian homicide bombers would agree with you that the war is wrong. Afterall, Saddam was paying the families of the homicide bombers $50,000 each time some nut blew themselves up and murdered innocent people. Now that Saddam is gone, the homicide bombers families aren't getting paid for their murders. Bet they'd agree with you that the war against terror is a bad thing.



posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 07:35 AM
link   
I am talking on the military stand point not the reason we may have gotten in iraq.
This administration did not weight the results of the war. Liberating a country from tyranny was very nice, but the mess we are now is not, let me tell you we are in a mess with capital letters.


[Edited on 3-6-2004 by marg6043]



posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 08:06 AM
link   
I love how people tell you to focus on all the "good stuff". "No, no, don't focus on only the negative, get the whole picture."

Quite the crock of poo there. You need to look at ALL the news? What about the pictures of the dead Iraqis rotting in the sun? Children with their limbs blown off, people's guts leaking out of them as they beg for the release of death, hospitals filled to the brim with "collateral damage"?

See, THAT'S fricking war. Not some stupid sanitized CNN version ("Lookit the pretty missile launching") or some rah-rah cheerleader report about the fact that schools are open.

People dying for no goddamn reason AT ALL. THAT'S a "good picture of what's going on." If you wanted to save the Iraqis from Saddam you had 30 freakin years to do it, and then suddenly it needed to be done RIGHT AWAY with or without UN or world support. Within a 2 week period. TOTALLY engineered.

U.S. tax dollars at work, making the world more dangerous for everyone. Especially Iraqi civilians.



posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 08:07 AM
link   
"On the contrary, from the point you have just made the liberation of the Iraqi people would be a primary objective. "

I think your president came clean today and pointed out that the "liberated people of Iraq" are amongst those fighting the coalition because they "hate the occupation"

Probably his first moment of clarity since this entire debacle began.

I don't believe the US attacked Iraq for oil, nor do I believe its intentions were completely hostile. I do however believe that it made a massive miscalculation thinking that it could invade the country, bomb the cities, kill civilians, torture POW's and then be regarded by the people as benevolent liberators.

As Bush is rapidly realising the only thing the US can do is get out of there as quickly as possible and hope the place rebuilds itself some how and that no one mentions the massive mess we made of it.



posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 08:10 AM
link   
War is wrong? When the people of this country get feed up with its own goverment, And we go to war with the tyrants of this nation. Will that be wrong?



posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 08:12 AM
link   
The chance to take out saddam and liberate the Iraqi people was available in 1990, Im tired of hearing this justification for the current war in Iraq. You say Saddam took out no military targets yet in the same sentence fail to acknowledge the pitiful state of the Iraqi military. Possibly the only chance Saddam had to achieve mass casualties on US military targets was to use his Weapons of Mass Destruction. Where are they again?



posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 08:15 AM
link   


TextAs Bush is rapidly realising the only thing the US can do is get out of there as quickly as possible and hope the place rebuilds itself some how and that no one mentions the massive mess we made of it.


And that, ladies and gents is my point, this administration did not even consider the repercussions of going into war even if it was for liberation.

We are a country of compassion and that is what this administration propaganda of war in iraq was all about, but the ugly pictures are another story. Reality is sinking very fast.



posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
What about the pictures of the dead Iraqis rotting in the sun? Children with their limbs blown off, people's guts leaking out of them as they beg for the release of death, hospitals filled to the brim with "collateral damage"?

You need to look at ALL the news? Not some stupid sanitized CNN version or some rah-rah cheerleader report about the fact that schools are open.

People dying for no goddamn reason AT ALL.


To use your words on the flip side - What about the pictures of the mass graves? What about the pictures of the 5,000 kurds gassed and murdered by Saddam? What about the pictures of people maimed with their limbs chopped off by Saddams 'police'. Hospitals filled to the brim with collateral damage? I don't think so. There are some Iraqis who will die while gaining freedom, but that's the cost of freedom isn't it? There definately won't be millions, or hundreds of thousands, or even tens of thousands who will die like they did under Saddam.

You need to look at ALL the news? You are right, and that includes the NEW schools being opened WITHOUT having weapons depots hidden in them like Saddam did. It includes the fact that Saddam isn't able to continue to steal the billions of $$ that he was from the Iraqis. His sons are not torturing and raping thousands of people. And OIL PRODUCTION is higher now than prewar levels. That coupled with the fact that Saddam isn't stealing the $$ from the oil program means A LOT MORE money for the Iraqis and a better standard of living.

Oh, and the lights are on in cities other than Bagdad. Electric service was minimal outside of the immediate Bagdad area. Our engineers have brought electricity to other parts of the country that didn't have it before because Saddam horded it for Bagdad.

CNN sanitizes the news? Well, I think you are right. But I would say it goes the other way. CNN = Communist News Network. They lean so far to the left that I'm surprised they are still standing.

IMHO



posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
with or without UN or world support.


The coalition of the willing has 30 nations active and 15 other nations not active that support the war in Iraq. Just because France, Germany and China didn't support the effort doesn't mean that we are wrong. They didn't support the effort because they had their own greedy needs to fill. They put their own $$ and contracts above the lives of the Iraqi people. Also, there is now light shining upon the UN scandal about the oil for food program with Koffi Annans own family involved in the theft of funds from it and contract improprieties. A war in Iraq would mean a loss of big $$ for France, Germany, China and the corrupt officials at the UN.

UN = Useless Nations. They are corrupt. They are useless. Ask the Rwandans. Oh wait, you can't. The UN stood by and watched them be butchered. I don't know how many Rwandans are actually left alive for you to ask.



posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 08:44 AM
link   
FlyersFan"

To use your words on the flip side - What about the pictures of the mass graves? What about the pictures of the 5,000 kurds gassed and murdered by Saddam? What about the pictures of people maimed with their limbs chopped off by Saddams 'police'. Hospitals filled to the brim with collateral damage? I don't think so.


What exactly was the United States of America's government doing WHILE SADDAM WAS MURDERING HIS OWN PEOPLE FOR 30 YEARS? Well they were actually funding him and supplying him with arms.

So, then suddenly Saddam must be eradicated. Coincidentally while Iraq is at it's weakest point because of 11 years of sanctions. All of a sudden it must be done immediately, within a 2 week period of time, whether or not the rest of the world thinks it's right.

Do you have any idea at all how many repressive regimes are propped up by the United States around the world? Any idea at all? Don't assume everyone is as ignorant about this stuff as you are.

We're talking 3 decades of horror inflicted upon the Iraqi people while the US didn't do a damn thing, then suddenly BAM. And don't tell me it was 9-11 because it's been proven time and again there were NO ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq.


The coalition of the willing has 30 nations active and 15 other nations not active that support the war in Iraq. Just because France, Germany and China didn't support the effort doesn't mean that we are wrong.


Yeah, quite the Coalition. Pulau. Marshall Islands. Micronesia.

France, Germany and China are on the Security Council, and if the Security Council doesn't vote for war, there is supposed to be no war. This is to make sure countries don't unilaterally invade other countries for false reasons.

And your claim that the UN is useless is tainted by the fact you know nothing about it.


[Edited on 3-6-2004 by Jakomo]




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join