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.

 

United States Preemptive Strike imperative

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:
GD

posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita
GD, the originator of this thread, is not a sophisticated person. He/she is a trigger happy "screw them all" type. A valid question "who exactly should the US attack" was never quite answered.

When asked "why did the US ivade Iraq", a person answers "because Iraq perpetrated 9/11" they clearly demonstrate utter lack of mental capacity. Yet I hear this argument (unfounded, of course) over and over from the likes of GD.

I agree with the British poster that it's quite instructive to hypothesize about Great Britain rolling tanks all over Ulster. It's ludicrous, but occupation of Iraw is even more so.

Somebody said that terrorism is tactics, not a nation. In that regard, "war on terror" is the same as "war against airplanes".




[edit on 30-8-2004 by Aelita]


How do you justify these statements? Because I beleive in defending my homeland and protecting my Children? I never said that Iraq perpetrated 9/11. Neither did the President.

Thats what I love about liberals and apologists. It is far easier to close your mind and let loose with insults than to actually think something through.




posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 01:06 PM
link   
AtheiX,

I agree with you one hundred percent we as humans like to blame other for our mistakes when everything in this world is human made using human decisions.

Otts

Ha, ha, ha, your rat has a name Cheney and the haliburton affair.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by GD

Originally posted by stumason
The only way to effectively deal with Terrorism is to sort out the root causes through dialogue and work for a common good, whilst at the same time using existing law enforcement to try and prevent/or capture those responsible. That is why in the UK we have one of the best anti-terrorism setups in the world.

[edit on 30-8-2004 by stumason]


Yeah, and car bombs still explode in Ulster- so it's worked real well. We will not let that happen here.


First, I'd skip the history and brush up on current events. Second, if it's going to happen, it's going to happen. The only way to reduce the chances and severity of an attack are through police action and sound investigation. "Preemptive strikes" may make for nice security-blanket footage on the news, but they won't do jack squat to reduce terror. It's time america learned the lesson that the rest of the world has known for some time now.

-koji K.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
I think Bin Laden said he was attacking the USA because of the first Gulf war, when the USA forces where deployed near sacred places, so in his view, he was replying to a first action by the USA.

No because that would justify us going after Saddam and we all know Saddam is innocent.
If Saddam never invaded Kuwait, we would have never went over there and been depoyed near sacred places so Osama wouldn't have had a reason to attack us....so that theory is gone



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by GD

How do you justify these statements? Because I beleive in defending my homeland and protecting my Children? I never said that Iraq perpetrated 9/11. Neither did the President.



Please read this paper, among amny others. Just use Google.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
It is the worst solution....


You obvioulsy don't have any idea how it really works.. as an American I know for a fact that terrorist are bad... and if we blow up the world and kill every human on it then there will be no more terrorists.. see problem solved.

(incase anyone missed it.... that was sarcasm)

but seriously, your right, the last IRA series of bombings I remember was about 20ish years ago there was a letter bomber going arround.

Heres a question, we as a nation are vicioulsy going after all terrorists and the countries who harbor them. Fine..

What about the militia groups in our own country that teach anti-government ideals? Are tehy not Terrorist traoning groups on our own soil? Ohh wait .. I'm sorry.. their "Patriots" or "Freedom Fighters" who are simply exercising their constitutional rights bear arms. Right... nevermind... best to go to a differant country to enforce our supirior ways of life.

Wraith


GD

posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita

Originally posted by GD

How do you justify these statements? Because I beleive in defending my homeland and protecting my Children? I never said that Iraq perpetrated 9/11. Neither did the President.



Please read this paper, among amny others. Just use Google.


I read it, and it doesn't prove your point. Show me a quote from the President, from a reputable source, stating that Iraq was responcible for 9/11



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 01:24 PM
link   
I come from Romania. It`s one of the ex warsaw-pact countries. We had the only blood-soaked revolution when we got thru with the communism in 1989. Now we are one of the first allies of USA. But that doesn`t mean I or others like me agree with preemptive war. It`s bullsh*t. If the american secret services did their job right, then there would have never been a 9/11.
I once thought that the US government staged the attack over the Twins, so that they would have a reason to attack other countries where they would have economical interrests. Maybe it`s true. And think that winning these anti-terrorism wars is almost impossible.
God have mercy of our soldiers.


GD

posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by wraith30

Originally posted by stumason
It is the worst solution....


What about the militia groups in our own country that teach anti-government ideals? Are tehy not Terrorist traoning groups on our own soil? Ohh wait .. I'm sorry.. their "Patriots" or "Freedom Fighters" who are simply exercising their constitutional rights bear arms. Right... nevermind... best to go to a differant country to enforce our supirior ways of life.

Wraith


Actually, some are considered terrorists, however, the problem is not as large as it once seemed. I think most of these middle aged men grew up and went back to work.

Militias- dosesn't this topic elicit enough emotion without dragging in the John Titor folks?



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 01:29 PM
link   


A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans
believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.


The paper clearly states that Mr.Bush NEVER said in plain English that there was a link between Saddam and 9/11, and I see that. However, there was a deliberate attempt to create an impression that there was one. Obviously, as per the above quote, it worked.

The "preemption" route is a dead end anyway. According to every credible source, if anything, the Iraq adventure proved a boon to Al Qaeda, by creating new possibilities of recruiting among the disgruntled Iraqis. If the threat was coming form a nation state, there'd be a shred of logic in preemption, but with terrorism being a tactic, and Al Qaeda having bases of operation worldwide, look like you are looking at preempting the world.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by ArMaP
I think Bin Laden said he was attacking the USA because of the first Gulf war, when the USA forces where deployed near sacred places, so in his view, he was replying to a first action by the USA.

No because that would justify us going after Saddam and we all know Saddam is innocent.
If Saddam never invaded Kuwait, we would have never went over there and been depoyed near sacred places so Osama wouldn't have had a reason to attack us....so that theory is gone


Actualy what happend was starting back in 83' was this. Sadam and Osama were both financed and equiped by us to use whatever means to keep the Communists out of Afganistan. After several years Saddam (using the equipment and weapons we sold them) started to go after Kuwait. Saudi had a choise, they could use the USA's offer to help defend Kuwaite and subsiquently their boarders or they would agree to let Osama and his group deffend Kuwaite. Osama actualy went to Saudi and requested that they not let the USA go in becasue this was an issue for the people of the Middle East to resolve and not the USA.

Saudi went wih the USA, this pissed off Osama. Osama then vowed to do as much damage as possible to the USA who had come in and "Seduced" the middle eastern people.

If you want to blame anyone political policies for what is going on with Osama you could say it was Regan, Bush Sr., and Rummy. Scary that it has escalated back to this level and Bush Jr. and Rummy are still involved.

Not pointing fingers just making an observation.

Wraith


GD

posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita


A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans
believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.


The paper clearly states that Mr.Bush NEVER said in plain English that there was a link between Saddam and 9/11, and I see that. However, there was a deliberate attempt to create an impression that there was one. Obviously, as per the above quote, it worked.

The "preemption" route is a dead end anyway. According to every credible source, if anything, the Iraq adventure proved a boon to Al Qaeda, by creating new possibilities of recruiting among the disgruntled Iraqis. If the threat was coming form a nation state, there'd be a shred of logic in preemption, but with terrorism being a tactic, and Al Qaeda having bases of operation worldwide, look like you are looking at preempting the world.


Yeah, because liberals perceived it to be an issue it must be true. Typical.

The nations that harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists. If you murder a man, and I hide you from the police in my house, then I am an accomplice, and can be charged as such (in the United States).




[edit on 30-8-2004 by GD]



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Aelita,

Thanks for the link occur many Americans still believe that Iraq invasions were link to 9/11, so sad.

The Afghanistan bombings were applause by everybody in US including me the sense of being patriotic and the feelings of taking revenge were very strong.

I think the president took advantage of all this patriotism to get approval to invade Iraq and people got confuse in the difference of both countries.

Iraq and Afghanistan never declared war on US nor US never declared war on any of them so as you can see some Geneva Convention rules were broken during these conflicts.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 01:41 PM
link   
marg - First of all... your avas are incredibly cute, where do you get them?


Second - I'm going to use sarcasm here... don't you know that rules like the Geneva convention or those pesky UN regulations only apply to countries that are not the United States of Bush?


GD

posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Otts
marg - First of all... your avas are incredibly cute, where do you get them?


Second - I'm going to use sarcasm here... don't you know that rules like the Geneva convention or those pesky UN regulations only apply to countries that are not the United States of Bush?


WE are prosecuting those that broke the law at Abu Gharib. Name one other county that has EVER done that.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Otts,

I know, Only bush is the one that regulates the Geneva rules and rendered the UN useless.


And for the avatars I got them in the internet.


[edit on 30-8-2004 by marg6043]



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by GD

The nations that harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists. If you murder a man, and I hide you from the police in my house, then I am an accomplice, and can be charged as such (in the United States).



Well yeah. The question is who you are going to preempt. In my opinion, Afghanistan was the only case when there was demonstrable, documented and sizeable support and abettment of Al Qaeda by the Taliban.

Should the USAF join the Russian AF in bombing raids over Checnya (I know for a fact there are many Arab mercenaries fighting there against Russia)?



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita

Originally posted by GD

The nations that harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists. If you murder a man, and I hide you from the police in my house, then I am an accomplice, and can be charged as such (in the United States).



Well yeah. The question is who you are going to preempt. In my opinion, Afghanistan was the only case when there was demonstrable, documented and sizeable support and abettment of Al Qaeda by the Taliban.


And they should have focused on it because occupying simoultaneously 2 countries costs incredible money. An anti-Bush site says it's bilion dollars per moth or something



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by GDShow me a quote from the President, from a reputable source, stating that Iraq was responcible for 9/11


He didn't come right out and say it but he did say that al-Qaeda was responsible for 911 and he made statments about Iraq that tied them to Al-Qaeda so the public put two and two together.

Here's a list of misleading statement from a US government website (if that's reputable enough for you):

House.gov: IRAQ ON THE RECORD: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON IRAQ

President Bush:
In remarks on May 1, 2003, announcing the end of major combat
operations in Iraq, President Bush stated: “The battle of Iraq is one
victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001
— and
still goes on. . . . [T]he liberation of Iraq . . . removed an ally of al
Qaeda.”

...

In a November 7, 2002, speech, President Bush stated: Saddam Hussein is
“a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. . . . [A] true threat facing
our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by
Saddam could attack America and not leave one fingerprint.”

...

In his January 28, 2003, State of the Union address, President Bush stated:
“Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and
statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and
protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without
fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or
help them develop their own.”

...

his statement on October 10, 2003, that
Saddam Hussein “had an established relationship with al Qaeda.”

...

Dick Cheney:
On January 22, 2004, Vice President Cheney said in a National Public Radio
interview, “I think there’s overwhelming evidence that there was a connection
between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government. .


Colin Powell:
In his February 5, 2003, remarks to the United Nations, Secretary of State
Colin Powell stated: “what I want to bring to your attention today is the
potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda
terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and
modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network .ed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi an associate and collaborator of Usama
bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants.”




posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Hang on a second there Desperados.

Preemption is a severely brash and, more importantly, an extremely dangerous position to put the United States into.

First, the "preemptive" war on Iraq has turned out to be a complete sham in terms of what we dictated we were preempting, ie no immediate threat and so far no WMD's. Iraq was no where near capable to attack the US.

Second, by saying that we have the power of preemption then certainly other state sponsored governments can take the same doctrine, ie a golden ticket to attack anyone at any time based on reasons that, in some cases, could probably be made up.

I think it's dangerous and just plain irrational.

[edit on 30-8-2004 by LukeNYC]




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join