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.

 

SECURITY: The War in Iraq

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 09:21 PM
link   
This is not an error of logic, on the cotrary as with all current events it is impossible to know an ending for certain until after an event is history. Thus, by taking the fight to the terrorists, as outlined by Mrs. Rice, one thing is for certain----terrorists are dying and since 9/11 there has not been a terrorist attack in the US. So as of right now it appears taking the fight to the terrorists is working.




posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000

Originally posted by f16falcon
....
but the fact that many WMD's are still unaccounted for raises the question, where are these WMD's?


Well the way I see it there is 3 possibilities and mind you they are only my personal opinion but here they are.

1. Saddam moved out of Iraq when France warned them about US invasion plans, suspected countries Syria and Iran. Maybe both...

2. Saddam did destroy all weapons but did so secretly so his enemies would think it was a ruse, because an Iraq without WMDs isn't so intimidating as one with them.

3. Saddam hid them really well inside Iraq, and the US need more time to find them.

The most likely scenario is #1 IMO.

Regards,
Chris


I'm going to go with scenario 3. The coalition has had some small WMD discoveries to date. I believe these finds were of things that Saddam didn't hide so well. And I still believe that they are somewhere out there in the desert.

I don't think scenario two is what happened because in a last ditch effort, Saddam would want to kill as many Americans as possible, and therefore would save his WMD.

Scenario one I don't think would have occured because any leader with a brain would know the liability if found with these weapons.



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 10:01 PM
link   
I was responding in relation to this statement,


Originally posted by BlackJackal
How many times do you hear on the news of terrorist attacks in Iraq and not in the United States?


I thought we were talking about terrorism on American soil in the first place. If you want to know what I think about a military base in Lebanon, its that it shouldnt be there.

Also, I think you are forgetting about the fact that we went to war in Afghanistan as well.



Not really all the difficult to prove. Condoleezza Rice outlined the reasons for the Iraq war in a speech to the National Legal Center for the Public Interest.


That really didn't prove anything, sorry. But maybe this does...



terrorists are dying and since 9/11 there has not been a terrorist attack in the US. So as of right now it appears taking the fight to the terrorists is working.


Well, we went to war in Afghanistan and didnt have a terror attack since then, so mission accomplished right? And Afghanistan was justified because of their open support of terrorism.

But, we don't have that in Iraq. There are claims that terrorists were in Iraq and as a result we killed tens of thousands of innocents. Well, there are terrorists in America according to the latest warnings, should we bomb ourselves?

As well, the ends do not justify the means. First off, if we didn't go to war in Iraq there probably still wouldn't have been an attack on US soil. Second, the means which you want to forget about include the mass killing of innocents, looting of priceless artifacts, looting of businesses, loss of personal wealth, destruction of economy, and much more. All in all, your reason for the war is basically trying to say that the American people are more important than the Iraqi people, yet we claim to liberate them by destroying them.

And finally, to make such an assertion about the war in Iraq, you will need to prove that Saddam sponsored terrorism in the first place.

Also, someone else brought up a good point:

I don't think scenario two is what happened because in a last ditch effort, Saddam would want to kill as many Americans as possible, and therefore would save his WMD.


So, if there were WMDs, why didnt he use them. If you throw out #2 for this reason surely you would have to throw out #3.

And to be defined as a WMD, something has to be a weapon of mass destruction. Also, I doubt that anyone was trying to hide the two roadside bombs with sarin, I mean they were just lying there right. But the original premise was a stockpile of WMDs and to claim that the two sarin roadside bombs could cause mass destruction would require a very personal and specific definition of what mass means.

[edit on 7-8-2004 by Jamuhn]



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
This is not an error of logic, on the cotrary as with all current events it is impossible to know an ending for certain until after an event is history. Thus, by taking the fight to the terrorists, as outlined by Mrs. Rice, one thing is for certain----terrorists are dying and since 9/11 there has not been a terrorist attack in the US. So as of right now it appears taking the fight to the terrorists is working.

Sorry yet again. Your conclusion remains unsubstantiated.
www.onelook.com...
www.onelook.com...
www.onelook.com...
www.onelook.com...



posted on Aug, 8 2004 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by scottsquared
www.onelook.com...
www.onelook.com...
www.onelook.com...
www.onelook.com...


Can you speak in complete sentences. Instead of quoting the dictionary why not pony up some facts to back up your stance.



posted on Aug, 8 2004 @ 06:37 PM
link   

As well, the ends do not justify the means. First off, if we didn't go to war in Iraq there probably still wouldn't have been an attack on US soil. Second, the means which you want to forget about include the mass killing of innocents, looting of priceless artifacts, looting of businesses, loss of personal wealth, destruction of economy, and much more. All in all, your reason for the war is basically trying to say that the American people are more important than the Iraqi people, yet we claim to liberate them by destroying them.


Ok, let me get this straight you think that we should have just staid away from Iraq. Left Iraq to itself and let Saddam’s regime remain intact. Ok I completely understand because you must approve of Saddam’s tactics.

God forbid that we kill 12,000 civilians in an effort to save many more[1]. I am not saying that the killing of any innocent is permissible but by not liberating Iraq we were turning a blind eye to the killing of innocents by the millions.


The killers kept bankers' hours.

They showed up for work at the barley field at 9 a.m., trailed by backhoes and three buses filled with blindfolded men, women and children as young as 1.

Every day, witnesses say, the routine was the same: The backhoes dug a trench. Fifty people were led to the edge of the hole and shot, one by one, in the head. The backhoes covered them with dirt, then dug another hole for the next group.

At 5 p.m., the killers -- officials of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party -- went home to rest up for another day of slaughter.

In this wind-swept field in the central town of Mahaweel, witnesses say, this went on without a break for 35 days in March and April of 1991, during a crackdown on a Shiite Muslim uprising that followed the first Gulf War.

"I watched this with my own eyes," said Sayed Abbas Muhsen, 35, whose family farm was appropriated by Saddam's government for use as a killing field. "But we couldn't tell anyone. We didn't dare."

The mass grave at Mahaweel, with more than 3,100 sets of remains, is the largest of some 270 such sites across Iraq. They hold upward of 300,000 bodies; some Iraqi political parties estimate there are more than 1 million. [2]




[1] www.iraqbodycount.net...
[2] www.pittsburghlive.com...



posted on Aug, 8 2004 @ 06:48 PM
link   


Ok, let me get this straight you think that we should have just staid away from Iraq. Left Iraq to itself and let Saddam’s regime remain intact. Ok I completely understand because you must approve of Saddam’s tactics.

God forbid that we kill 12,000 civilians in an effort to save many more[1]. I am not saying that the killing of any innocent is permissible but by not liberating Iraq we were turning a blind eye to the killing of innocents by the millions.


Yes, I don't think we should have gone to Iraq when we did. And there is no reason why I have to support Saddam's tactics for having that opinion.

You see, there are many dictatorships and even worse ones all throughout the world. But I guess only we have the luxury to choose where we want to go and who we want to help. Look at Africa for example. So when we go into Iraq, we decide to turn the "blind eye" to all the rest of the horrid things going on in the world.

So, you have to ask yourself, why Iraq? We are so intent on "liberation" through death and destruction in Iraq, but then when we talk about that poor country in Africa with minimal resources, we feel it is not our place.

And the second article you brought up, we pushed these people to revolt and left them hanging, but I won't say more on that aspect. That happened well over 13 years ago, and when you say millions more are dying, show me the recent statistics. You want to talk about the oil-for-food program, then why don't you explain to me why we don't go after the companies participating in the those deals with Saddam that undercut the efforts of oil-for-food.

You'd like to place all the blame on Saddam, but that is just not how it is. All of what had happened would not have been possible if it weren't for the actions of parts of the "civilized Western world."



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by scottsquared
I claim no Doctor of Jurisprudence degree, but I think planning does indeed prove intent.


The pentagon plans for just about any type of scenario you could ever imagine. We had a good laugh about it, but I have no doubt in some dusty room in the pentagon there is a contingency plan for Canada.
That being said, how does plannin prove intent?

I have plans in place if my house burns down, does that show I have premediated intent to torch my house? No. Planning for a variety of senarios in this case is a national security exersize plain and simple.



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal

Originally posted by scottsquared
www.onelook.com...
www.onelook.com...
www.onelook.com...
www.onelook.com...


Can you speak in complete sentences. Instead of quoting the dictionary why not pony up some facts to back up your stance.

Please, it is not my job to teach you logic, rhetoric, dialectic or grammar. I linked to the dictionary so you could research how to phrase an argument without contradicting yourself or otherwise draw unsubstantiated conclusions. I will happily discuss legitimate points of discourse, otherwise, I suggest that you do your homework first and not waste time with indefensible arguments that include just opinion(unless you state it as such)or leaps to conclusions that have no basis in fact.

I apologize for having to be gruff or seem condecending to you. This forum is alleged to be informative, not misleading. Discourse, debate, rhetoric, etc., all have accepted rules of procedure. I am confused by the fact that you do not see the errors of logic or leaps to unsubstantiated conclusions that you continue to make.
It is most certainly not my desire to alienate or otherwise curtail the discussion.



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by scottsquared
I claim no Doctor of Jurisprudence degree, but I think planning does indeed prove intent.


The pentagon plans for just about any type of scenario you could ever imagine. We had a good laugh about it, but I have no doubt in some dusty room in the pentagon there is a contingency plan for Canada.
That being said, how does plannin prove intent?

I have plans in place if my house burns down, does that show I have premediated intent to torch my house? No. Planning for a variety of senarios in this case is a national security exersize plain and simple.


Plan and intent are synonymous. www.onelook.com...
www.onelook.com...
I never mentioned the Pentagon, I was talking about the PNAC. I also allowed for hypothetical scenario planning by defense organizations, the PNAC is not one of those.



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 11:44 AM
link   
No, they're not. We don't have a situation that logically supports that statement: Najaf having 100's of insurgents killed(ABC News) has actually lead to the pro-coalition, pro-interim Sunni and Shiite Muslim Clerics to call for the international community to step in to rein the Americans, over what they saw as a "bloodbath".

It's undeniable that this was a business man's war of first resort: by no definition could Iraq have been labeled a clear & present danger. By no definition did they exhibit the capabilites to be one.
The Pentagon has plans on every possible attack scenario, true enough. But, the PNAC authors were not working for or even affiliated with any arm of the federal government when they authored this game plan. They ARE NOW in the key policy making arms of the US government & have applied their opinion fully.

THe cost in dollars: from the

Washington Note:

AMERICA SPENDING $15,000 PER WORKING AGE CITIZEN TO LIBERATE & DEMOCRATIZE IRAQ

THUS FAR, THE COST FOR INVADING AND OCCUPYING IRAQ (not counting lives lost) is approximately $166 billion. The President has just asked for an extra $25 billion on top of his FY2005 defense appropriations request -- and most expect another $25 billion request during the next fiscal year, bringing the conservative estimate of accumulated Iraq related costs to approximately $216 billion.

When one considers that there are 14.38 million working age Iraqis, the per capita working age costs thus far amount to $11,548.00 -- and will soon rise to $15,026.00 after this next year's expenditures.

In a country where per capita GDP is $1,600.00 (and this is an overstatement since the broad swath of non-elite Iraqi society that lives closer to the $500 per year level), the amount spent just in defense dollars is staggering, nearly ten times the per capita income levels. If any significant portion of these defense resources were leaking out to average citizens and improving lives and choices, support levels for America would be far better. What is going on?

While I think that just pumping money into another country creates unhealthy dependencies, clearly American planners could have found ways to provide business loans, micro-credits, family support credits and grants, education vouchers, and other high quality social impact investments that might have won back the affections and support of Iraq's citizens. One of the reasons for the relative success of the American occupation of Japan is that we engineered land reform, breaking up aristocratic estates and getting much broader distribution of rice producing land to farming families. America knew at that time that it had to leave a new class of economic and political winners in Japan; something we have not done at all in Iraq.

The real tragedy of this situation is that despite Iraq's debt problems, and its substantial potential as a generator of hard currency through oil exports, the U.S. has nonetheless spent a vast amount of money in Iraq -- though see today's Washington Post story, "$1.9 Billion of Iraq's Money Goes to U.S. Contractors.....and not achieved security or stability there and has not succeeded in winning the support and affections of the Iraqi public whom we helped liberate from Saddam Hussein. All this money seems to be going into a black hole with little accountability for the poor returns on this investment.

At a macro level, America has 5% of the world's population and is spending roughly half of what the entire world spends on defense but is not getting the security deliverables it deserves from the Pentagon. In the case of Iraq, the U.S. is spending about 10 times the per capita GDP of the average Iraqi citizen and is largely reviled and unappreciated.

Clearly, we are not getting good returns on this taxpayer money -- and our thinking about what constitutes security and stability -- and what the U.S. should spend money on to achieve its foreign policy objectives needs to be seriously rethought.



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Scottsquared,

Maybe before you open your mouth and stick your foot in it you should look in the dictionary yourself. Have you ever heard of the word Politics? It’s the entire purpose for this discussion, it is what you are supposed to be discussing. Here let me be gentlemen and give you a link to the definition.

www.m-w.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Politics- the political opinions or sympathies of a person

Also let me explain to you that in the real world politics are not purely facts and for the most part are Opinionative. Whenever politics is discussed in America 99% of it is opinion with 1% fact. Turn on the TV and watch 60 minutes, any round table, etc and you will hear mostly opinions. If you listen to talk radio of Rush Limbaugh, Drudge, etc you will hear opinions 99% of the time. If politics were purely facts then there would not be a need for this forum.

What's more you certainly have not adhered to your own rules of engagement. Allow me to point out the ways:

Post 1


Sorry Zed, I'm with Gools on this. You seem to have taken the bait; hook, line, and sinker. Check out this link:home1.gte.net...
It would appear that it was in fact Henry Kisinger who first proposed the invasion/occupation of Iraq back in '73! Every other excuse is just that, an excuse to hide the real reasons. Global hegemony of our own, so-called, "benevolent" superiority. Try reading The PNAC mission statement:www.newamericancentury.org...
These are the clowns running the show. I just hope it's not too late to derail thier doomed scheme.


Hmmm….. the real reasons….. So are these real reasons happen to be substantiated by anything other than your mind? So PNAC is running the show really??? I don’t remember seeing that news flash come across as fact.

Post 2


Be very careful in making "if-then" statements or using the much defamed ethos of "the ends justify the means" arguments. Neither is considered legitimate in my school of debate.


Again, your school of debate isn’t that just your opinion?

Post 3


I was actually pointing out an error of logic, I most certainly empathize with the plight of real-world defense organizations needing to hypothesize. By concluding that our invasion and occupation of Iraq has precluded subsequent attacks is unsupported.


Once more, your opinion

Post 4


I claim no Doctor of Jurisprudence degree, but I think planning does indeed prove intent.


Do you see a pattern?

Post 5


Another error of logic. You must include the statement: All else remaining the same.
It may be argued that our invasion/occupation has actually increased the number of terrorists/potential terrorists.


Hmmm does this go back to your school of debate?

Post 6


Sorry yet again. Your conclusion remains unsubstantiated.
www.onelook.com...
www.onelook.com...
www.onelook.com...
www.onelook.com...


Post 7


Please, it is not my job to teach you logic, rhetoric, dialectic or grammar. I linked to the dictionary so you could research how to phrase an argument without contradicting yourself or otherwise draw unsubstantiated conclusions. I will happily discuss legitimate points of discourse, otherwise, I suggest that you do your homework first and not waste time with indefensible arguments that include just opinion(unless you state it as such)or leaps to conclusions that have no basis in fact.

I apologize for having to be gruff or seem condecending to you. This forum is alleged to be informative, not misleading. Discourse, debate, rhetoric, etc., all have accepted rules of procedure. I am confused by the fact that you do not see the errors of logic or leaps to unsubstantiated conclusions that you continue to make. It is most certainly not my desire to alienate or otherwise curtail the discussion.


These last two are definitely opinionative with what I gather an attempt to say that I am stupid which I believe was outlawed www.abovetopsecret.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">here. You seem to be confused because I don’t believe your opinion on this matter. Well you have given two legitimate links and the rest has been opinions. So you shouldn’t be confused because you have not fulfilled your burden of proof to make me even halfway believe your side.

I suggest you quit quoting the dictionary (I noticed you did this to another member) and start putting down some facts that support your side of this argument. You must think that you are smarter than everyone here and you don’t need to produce facts because all you have produced thus far are opinions just like the rest of us. So don’t pretend to be better than anyone.

Remember having an opinion is fine but believing yours is the only one that matters is arrogant.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join