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.

 

will america be punished for attacking iraq for no reason???

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 07:24 PM
link   
now that is is OFFICIAL (that there are NO WMD's in iraq), will america be punished for attacking iraq for no reason???

the only / main reason we went to war with iraq was because of these scary WMD, but now that they don't exist (or ever did) will america be punished for attacking iraq, a country that NEVER did ANYTHING to hurt america or americans in ANY way???

the answer is NO but america should be punished...





posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Some how I doubt it whose going to front up to bush and challenge a nuclear country. Besides why not throw the UK into this as they stood by bush and helped will they be punished as well I say very unlikely.



posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Again, it has to be stated for those who were asleep the last 12 years, Iraq was liable for a smackdown because of the violation of all the agreements they made to end the original hostilities. The attack was not illegal.

Again, you as well as everyone else know Iraq had chemical and biological weapons and was working on nuclear (actual WMD's) weapons. Again, the question that needs to be asked is WHERE are the weapons and materials at this time. Thanks to our "alies", Hussein had months to smuggle everything out. By the way, we know they probably wnet to Syria as sat. photos indicate convoys went to Syria in the weeks before the attack.

Anyway, would you like to punish us?



posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 07:32 PM
link   
We are being punished. We still have Bush as our president. Just think, if he had agreed to join the international war crimes tribunal, his days would be numbered.



posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Yes....
The US and Coalition are next in line to see God.

Realistically, other than economic sanctions, which are highly unlikely, what particular nation or coalition are you thinking of that will come and punish the US?

Besides they see ALL, your use of 'never' and 'anything' is contradictive and subjective, is it not?




seekerof

[edit on 6-10-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Sorry Thomas, but the same way we can not find bin-laden we will never find any MWDs in Iraq, why? because it was just an illusion and a reason for invading Iraq.



posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Hmm im not sure on this one,

Ok No chemical and biological weapons were found,
But, the bigger picture tells that he was planning too,

To be honest Saddam gave the UN weapon inspecters the run around,

I think that at some point we would of had a good reason to go to war with him, He still broke rules, and i still believe this man needed to be taken down,

just my $2 but have not read up on this fully yet so ill go do that lol



posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 07:37 PM
link   
I disagree with your opinion, Marg.

Are you also wanting to punish us? Are spankings going to be administered?


Seeker and I have been baaaad boys!!



posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 07:39 PM
link   
asala,

here you go!
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Contradicting the main argument for a war that has cost more than 1,000 American lives, the top U.S. arms inspector said Wednesday he found no evidence that Iraq produced weapons of mass destruction after 1991. He also concluded that Saddam Hussein's ability to develop such weapons had dimmed - not grown - during a dozen years of sanctions before last year's U.S.-led invasion.

Here is the whole story.
www.insightbb.com.../XML/1107_AP_Online_Regional_-_Middle_East/2c0af345-4ef9-4742-9828-f612f063c65d.xml&top=TOP



posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Again, it has to be stated for those who were asleep the last 12 years, Iraq was liable for a smackdown because of the violation of all the agreements they made to end the original hostilities. The attack was not illegal.

Again, you as well as everyone else know Iraq had chemical and biological weapons and was working on nuclear (actual WMD's) weapons. Again, the question that needs to be asked is WHERE are the weapons and materials at this time. Thanks to our "alies", Hussein had months to smuggle everything out. By the way, we know they probably wnet to Syria as sat. photos indicate convoys went to Syria in the weeks before the attack.

Anyway, would you like to punish us?


well, what is the point of having a country (iraq) if you have to follow another's rules (the UN's rules and regs.)

saddam was the leader (or whatever you call him) and he had the right to do whatever he wanted because it was his country and not the UN's...





posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
I disagree with your opinion, Marg.


Seeker and I have been baaaad boys!!



Ha, ha, ha, and how do you want me to "administer" the punisment? Only one at a time.

You know I am starting to like you very much.


And again US will never be punish for his deeds but the American people will be when terrorist target them outside the US.



posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 07:46 PM
link   
As far as abiding by the U.N.'s rules, I agree with you for the most part. However, the 1991 war did not end because the enemy was conquored, but because the two sides came to an agreement to end the hostilities. Hussein agreed to these terms, and then violated them. Weapons inspectors were also played for fools, shell games were played with weapons. Inspectors were eventually pulled because of thefutility and stupidity of it. U.S. and British warplanes were continuosly being fired upon as they patrolled the no-fly zones set up to keep Hussein from slaughtering the Shiites in the south and the Kurds in the North.
The reason combat ceased to begin with was a ruse on the part of Hussein.



posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Marg, we have been targets for years and years. Being attacked within our borders is what took us off guard. This war is not new, we have just now decided to really take it as such - a war. That is where the mistake was made, in attacking us within our country. Had that not happened, we would have continued to watch sitcoms and reality shows and drank crappy beer.



posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
As far as abiding by the U.N.'s rules, I agree with you for the most part. However, the 1991 war did not end because the enemy was conquored, but because the two sides came to an agreement to end the hostilities. Hussein agreed to these terms, and then violated them. Weapons inspectors were also played for fools, shell games were played with weapons. Inspectors were eventually pulled because of thefutility and stupidity of it. U.S. and British warplanes were continuosly being fired upon as they patrolled the no-fly zones set up to keep Hussein from slaughtering the Shiites in the south and the Kurds in the North.
The reason combat ceased to begin with was a ruse on the part of Hussein.


rules were meant to be WHAT???

why are there rules to war...

a war is (here is my rough example) two countries going at it in ANY means in order to kill everyone in the country or take over it. we had a war, we killed, how can there be rules to war???

for example: no nukes can be used in war. WHY???

the countries in a war are fighting WHY can't they use nukes, WHY are rules made to war???

this makes no sence to me...





posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 07:56 PM
link   
We DID have reason to attack Iraq. We attacked Iraq b/c they posed a security threat to our nation. Let's think about this logically. Saddam Hussein, who's murdered hundreds of thousands of his innocent people (he gased a town of Kurdish Iraqis and killed about 6000 people), was working on and probably had WMD's. Saddam wasn't a young fellow. He was probably pissed about that little gulf war ordeal in '91. And you know what, i doubt he'd have cared what happened to this world after he wad long gone. I think that if saddam had WMD's (he did, he transported them to syria, like someone has already stated), he may have used them on America or our allies in a "last hurrah". He was crazy. He still is crazy. And crazy dictators should be taken out at any cost aside from nuclear attacks.



posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by they see ALL
[
saddam was the leader (or whatever you call him) and he had the right to do whatever he wanted because it was his country and not the UN's...




I agree with you he was the leader, and if during the first gulf war US and bush father did not took him out when the opportunity was there and later when he killed so many of his countrymen then the reason was obvious bush father knew it was not smart to do that, now over ten years later bush son wanted to avenge the people of Iraq? whoa kind of late in the game.

It was a reason back then it was not reason now.



posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Ok, Mr. Circular logic, why do you think we should be punished? We did nothing wrong to begin with, but had we, that's war, and there are no rules in war that were not meant to be broken, right?

Case closed. Don't forget your briefcase on your way out the door. All rise, the honorable Thomas Crowne is leaving teh courtroom for a beer (or two). While arisen, you might as well follow to the pub. The honorable TC is buying the first round, TSE is buying the next three rounds!



posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Thomas, it was bih-laden and Al-queda who attack US not Sadam.

Just a friendly remainder, and again we just forgot about the real perpetrator of 9/11 and that bothers my security and my country's security.


[edit on 6-10-2004 by marg6043]



posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
All rise, the honorable Thomas Crowne is leaving teh courtroom for a beer (or two). While arisen, you might as well follow to the pub. The honorable TC is buying the first round, TSE is buying the next three rounds!


That's not that same crappy beer you were refering to a few posts back is it?
If so, I'll have a Rum.



posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Yo, Marg, let's say I'm beating you with a stick. The first few times a cop walks by, he doesn't do anything. The last time, he stops me. Gonna argue he can do nothing because it took so long to get around to it?

Besides, this had nothing to do with the suffering of theIraqi people. Their freedom is a side benefit. Hussein was the logical one to go after first, he has the weapons, has used them before, has used his country as a safe haven for the world's most sought after terrorists, supported terrorist activities, and last but not at all least, is a great place to have troops if one were to go after other large threats, like Syria and Iran. The legal groundwork was already in place for Iraq.




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join