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.



page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 6 2003 @ 10:17 PM
Dear Readers,

I dont understand why US will spend about 80B US$ in the war. I mean there could be following reasons:

a. US has so much money that they need to waste.
b. US is acting solely based on Philanthropic ideas.
c. US needs Iraqi oil and 80B US$ is an investment for gaining hundred folds in return.
d. Bush has been directed by Satan in his dreams to kill innocent people.
e. Personal rivalry between Bush and Saddam.
f. To test Americas latest arsenal.
g. To control and dominate the Arab region.
h. To destroy Islam.
i. ALL OF THE ABOVE (except b)

Please post comments.

posted on Apr, 7 2003 @ 01:03 AM
It's mainly philanthropic. It has no monetary re-investment. A few people will make maybe a few billion in rebuilding, but the Government has nothing to make off it.

It entirely comes from 2 things, in my opinion.

The need to put a Democracy in an Arab nation (to counter the hatred of the Democratic Israel).

And the need to prevent Saddam from getting Nuclear weapons.

Now the American people would obviously never understand the first reason so they didn't pedal that one, just the WMDs one.

And the side-benifit is we save Iraqi lives, and end a murderous regeime.

posted on Apr, 7 2003 @ 08:24 AM

Originally posted by 5POF
It's mainly philanthropic. It has no monetary re-investment. A few people will make maybe a few billion in rebuilding, but the Government has nothing to make off it.

Let's see how *few*. BTW: Economic revenues made by the industry will go back to the government in the form of... yeah, you got it... taxes.

And the side-benifit is we save Iraqi lives, and end a murderous regeime.

See the link on my signature.

posted on Apr, 7 2003 @ 08:34 AM
but not necessarily just a monetary one.

1. As was mentioned, the installation of a democracy in the Middle East, will help to offset some of the overall radicalism of the area. (One might argue well, that it will incite the radicals even further, but...with the influence there, it's hoped it can be curbed)

2. We aren't going to "grab" the oil. Rather, we'll be installing a government that is friendly to the US (thereby ensuring that Iraq's UN reserves go back to the dollar vs, the euro), and we'll likely be able to get a good price on oil we buy from the new government.

3. Contracting from US firms to rebuild (paid for by the rebuilding fund) will help boost the US economy as well.

4. We're getting rid of a high-financer of terrorism, as well as eliminating one more "safe haven" for them.

5. We're getting a friendly staging area to take action against other states that harbor and support terrorists. In fact, it's a staging area right smack between two of the biggest offenders of such (Syria and Iran).

6. We're also getting the message across that we will not stand for attacks made on our soil. Those that do, those that harbor them, and even those that support them, had better rethink it. Our days of standing idly by and chatting with those who smile at you while plotting your demise, are over.

7. We're also taking one more dictator out of power. This is a man who is a threat to his own people, as well as being a threat to his neighbors...who can't even manage to live up to his own agreements and terms of surrender, defying the UN for over a decade.

Now, many of those who are anti-war believe these benefits do not outweigh the risks of this war. As an American, I disagree, and I think these benefits are worth the risk.

posted on Apr, 7 2003 @ 09:15 AM
It's about your 2) and 3) points we are so touchy. It's significative you put those 'on the podium' of reasons. The 7) is the last for a reason, also: you had Mussrasaf at hand when in Afghanistan war (he is the Pakistanian dictator you needed to cooperate to be able to bomb Afganisthan).

[Edited on 2003-4-7 by MakodFilu]

posted on Apr, 7 2003 @ 11:45 AM
Dammit, fine we'll take out Pakistan's guy if he's really bugging you that bad but it'll have to wait at least a week.

posted on Apr, 7 2003 @ 11:54 AM
(I kept coming back to writing the post while checking the news, so apologies if it got weird to read...

I can understand that others (i.e. not Americans) would be touchy about some of those an American, I'm not so touchy about it...
I still however think, that even the secondary reasons make it worth while, even to those in other nations...


posted on Apr, 7 2003 @ 12:01 PM
I think those reasons are probably not far off. I'd say that 4) isn't necessarily true these days (if we go back a little bit then there's some awful US actions in South America which count as terrorism), and 6) is probably not true (at least the implication, that Saddam did 9/11).

But overall these reasons are exactly why the whole world *should* be hostile to this attack. It's not like the US is some poor 3rd world country trying to pull itself from the muck. Instead it's a country which makes it's money from the rest of the world, is the richest country in the world, and is trying desperately to stay at the top (and will succeed for the foreseeable future).

posted on Apr, 7 2003 @ 12:04 PM
It's not just because Iraq supports terrorism, but because the regime supports those who may be, or at least are believed to be allied with, those responsible for 9/11...(not saying there's proof of this, but saying that the perception of this, is why it is a reason...despite if it's a valid reason or not).


posted on Apr, 7 2003 @ 12:09 PM
ahh, I see what you mean.

Isn't it true that over 50% of Americans think Iraq did carry out 9/11? That kind of things just worries me...

But yeah, that may be one of the reasons the US people support it, I can't really believe that those in the know believe it though (GWB, Rumsfield, etc). They've never tried to say that directly...

posted on Apr, 7 2003 @ 12:20 PM
(from what I've seen of various polls) believe that Iraq was not directly responsible for 911. However, most do believe that Al-Queda or Al-Queda-friendly splinter cells do operate in Iraq, and have at least some concessions provided by the Iraqi regime...I can say, that this is certainly my belief.

Edit: I should add, that I do not speak for most Americans, but I am citing a complilation of polls from various sources when asked whether or not they thought Saddam was behind 911...the majority said no, but a similar majority agreed that Saddam harbors terrorists that are, or are allied with, Al Queda....

[Edited on 7-4-2003 by Gazrok]

posted on Apr, 7 2003 @ 01:00 PM
Just heard the U.S. had control of Salman Pak and confirmed a terror training camp complete with aircraft outfitted to train terrorist how to hi-jack commercial aircraft. of course blind eyes don't wanna see that link.

posted on Apr, 7 2003 @ 06:35 PM

Originally posted by astrocreep
Just heard the U.S. had control of Salman Pak and confirmed a terror training camp complete with aircraft outfitted to train terrorist how to hi-jack commercial aircraft. of course blind eyes don't wanna see that link.

No one will see anything, be it blind or not, cause, as allways, you posted *nothing*. Where is that link of yours?

posted on Apr, 8 2003 @ 01:14 AM
I have yet to meet anyone in the US that thinks Iraq had anything to do with 911, but I am sure there are plenty of backwoods rednecks who might.

As for the terrorist camps, that sounds like a bit of propaganda to me. I bet it's just a military training camp. I am sure their is probably documentation that covers siuicde bombings and simillar stuff as a strategy against the coalition which is easily turn used to make it sound like terrorist camps. This is my speculation on that.


posted on Apr, 8 2003 @ 04:17 AM
Yes indeed. This camp has been known about for a long time. In the 80's British military intelligence were training Iraqi's at this site in how to deal with terrorist hijackings of aircraft. (hence the aircraft at the site)

I love the way that a counterterrorist facility has suddenly become a terrorist facility. It's possible I guess that since the Gulf War the use of the site has changed, but I'd want to see some good evidence for that, not just "look, a plane, a training camp, must be terrorists".

posted on Apr, 9 2003 @ 09:45 AM
yeah, like some terrorist is gonna hi-jack a plane that belongs to Hussien.

I heard a radio news report, hard to post a link to it but I can give you the freq. Its world band though not a US source. I had heard of this camp before too and wondered if they would be able to confirm reports they were training Alqeada there. No, i did not expect training to be in progress when they rolled in. Lets just say if it was a hi-jack training operation, its not anymore. I still wonder why everyone is so afraid that Saddam will be linked to Alqeada like if this link is found, it will make all arguments against this action mute. If he was, we should not cover it up or want it covered up. Why do so many people on this board seem to have personal interests in qualling this notion? Am I stepping in a forum that is more than a friendly exchange of info? Is this more than I think it is? I need to be clued in if this has alternative uses and I'll leave.


posted on Apr, 9 2003 @ 10:01 AM
astrocreep - don't be such an idiot.

The Iraqi's are one of the most secular states in the Middle East (not-religious). In the late 80's they were involved in an idealogical war with Iran. Secular versus Islamic. Which side do you think the Islamic terrorists were on?

Now can you see why the Iraqi's might be worried about terrorists hijacking their planes?

Don't swallow everything the US media says in one chunk. Investigate a little bit. Don't just dismiss "leftist sources". Read both, examine the evidence, form your own opinion.

posted on Apr, 9 2003 @ 10:26 AM
Thats like satan worrying about someone poking him in the ass with a pitchfork isn't it? I do investigate and form my own opinions. I was a leftist and was sheilded from so much information. The world is not as cut and dried as you think but what i do see is a lot of grey areas fading. When I was more liberal in my thinking, my first answer to anyone who disagreed with me was to personally attack them and avoid their point. ie.."don't be an idiot" and things like that. I soon found out that the side that has to turn a blind eye to half the evidence and pretend things were as I wanted them to be left me feeling less than vendicated. yes, I had to take lumps and admit my closed-mindedness in a lot of issues but its better , in my view, to have seen my ways and wanted to change them to informed opinions. So, to you I guess I will be an idiot. better than dealing with my points.


posted on Apr, 9 2003 @ 10:35 AM
Then deal with my point, to quote you directly...

"yeah, like some terrorist is gonna hi-jack a plane that belongs to Hussien"

And I think I just showed you that this statement is incorrect. The risk was clear and present in the late 80's.

I only call you an idiot because you're parroting what the media are telling you. Mainly that Saddam is the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the world. That's simply not true. For some reports from the other side of the line try

I'm sorry if I hurt you by calling you an idiot, I was just pointing out that your initial statement is wrong. Plain and simple.

posted on Apr, 9 2003 @ 12:55 PM
Look Dom, I;m not going to accept opinion pieces by un-credible writers as anything other than just that. I have seen nothing to or heard nothing about hi-jackings of Iraqi planes in the 80s. Most of us have let the 80s go. Might be time for you to as well. All I'm saying is, you have to look at who hi-jacks planes. Now, I'm giving you credit for being intelligent enough to work that one out for yourself. You are going a long way out on a thin limb to try and tell me Saddam trained people to repel hi-jackers and not how to hijack themselves. This is how I deal with your point, as far as I know, now American has ever hi-jacked an Iraqi plane, thousands of Arabs have hi-jacked American and European planes. Now, if I were a hi-jacker to be and had money to pay someone to train my guys, who in the mid-east could I get to do that? Hmm. ? George Bush!! Yeah thats it. Now, if I were going to try to piss off one man against my organization and hi-jack his planes, who would that be? Saddam, hell yeah, whats the most he would do to me? He's a Teddy bear! I think this conversation cannot stand to grow any more silly than it has and I hate that I have resorted to sarcasm to explain a point. But, when logic goes out the window, we don't have much left now do we?

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in