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.
Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by mideast
+ Germany and USA are making dangerous chemical weapons. Who gives the right to other countries to attack them ?
What are you even talking about? I've read all of your posts and they all end up off topic or about nonsense such as this. What is the point of this thread?
Chemical weapons violate the Geneva Convention. Just ask Syria who inherited Sadam's cache of chemical weapons of mass destruction before we were able to seize and destroy them. Just ask the Kurds from Halabja. I'm sure you know were that is. Right? Those who survived could tell you a thing or two.
Please provide a source to prove your allegations regarding Germany and the United States. I'm beginning to think that you are simply a troll based on uncorroborated statements like that. Just looking for an argument with some dumb gun proud Americans?
Stay on your own topic if you can.... too many distractions thrown by you....edit on 18-1-2013 by jibeho because: (no reason given)
There has been people being killed since 2001 in Afghanistan. Liberties were taken and infra structures being destroyed.
You care about guns but don't care about lives ?
They are people like you.
IMO , you that sit there and watched the invasion to two countries , should sit and watch your rights being taken.
Because the reason's are the same.
I need some brave people to answer ME.
Originally posted by NavyDoc
reply to post by mideast
Okay, I have to ask this question: when Sadaam invaded Kuwait and was killing and raping and torturing the Kuwait people, do you agree or disagree with the US going in there and driving Sadaam out of Kuwait?
Originally posted by ldyserenity
reply to post by mideast
There has been people being killed since 2001 in Afghanistan. Liberties were taken and infra structures being destroyed.
You care about guns but don't care about lives ?
They are people like you.
IMO , you that sit there and watched the invasion to two countries , should sit and watch your rights being taken.
Because the reason's are the same.
I need some brave people to answer ME.
Well if they would have kept their wretched arses over in afghanistan we wouldn't bother them, but now that didn't happen did it? NO they had to come over here and take three towers down in NY on 9/11.
Originally posted by WhiteWitch2002
reply to post by mideast
I care about both the war and the new proposed gun control laws. I think people seem to be more outraged at the gun control issues because that is happening at home. I agree that the war needs to be recognized but it is hard for most people to connect with since it is so far away. When something is right in your face people seem to pay more attention.
Originally posted by ldyserenity
reply to post by mideast
Why do you care what's going on in the USA? HUH?
Originally posted by mideast
Originally posted by NavyDoc
reply to post by mideast
Okay, I have to ask this question: when Sadaam invaded Kuwait and was killing and raping and torturing the Kuwait people, do you agree or disagree with the US going in there and driving Sadaam out of Kuwait?
I ask you "why did US give him such power ? why did US give him WMD's ?
Saddam was a deluded dog who thought he could take over Iran in 3 days.
And US which had lost one major puppet and resource was mad at Iran and backed him.
So , he thought he is a real number.
Originally posted by NavyDoc
Originally posted by mideast
Originally posted by NavyDoc
reply to post by mideast
Okay, I have to ask this question: when Sadaam invaded Kuwait and was killing and raping and torturing the Kuwait people, do you agree or disagree with the US going in there and driving Sadaam out of Kuwait?
I ask you "why did US give him such power ? why did US give him WMD's ?
Saddam was a deluded dog who thought he could take over Iran in 3 days.
And US which had lost one major puppet and resource was mad at Iran and backed him.
So , he thought he is a real number.
And yet Kuwait and Saudi called upon us to put him down. The US is in a damned if you do damned if you don't situation very much of the time. If we had not liberated Kuwait, we would have been damned as not caring.
When we took out Saddam the second time around we were hailed as liberators, the peace went south when Sunni and Shia extremists started killing each other and fighting to jockey for power in Saddam's absence and then we stayed in the role of peace keeper. THe majority of killing in post Saddam Iraq was muslim on muslim. We should have left and let the fanatics fight it out, but then we would have been blamed for abandoning the people in that instance too. You want to point fingers for violence in Iraq? Then point them at the deserving like bloodthirsty bastards like Al Sader, who used violence to try to gain personal power.
Originally posted by mideast
Originally posted by NavyDoc
Originally posted by mideast
Originally posted by NavyDoc
reply to post by mideast
Okay, I have to ask this question: when Sadaam invaded Kuwait and was killing and raping and torturing the Kuwait people, do you agree or disagree with the US going in there and driving Sadaam out of Kuwait?
I ask you "why did US give him such power ? why did US give him WMD's ?
Saddam was a deluded dog who thought he could take over Iran in 3 days.
And US which had lost one major puppet and resource was mad at Iran and backed him.
So , he thought he is a real number.
And yet Kuwait and Saudi called upon us to put him down. The US is in a damned if you do damned if you don't situation very much of the time. If we had not liberated Kuwait, we would have been damned as not caring.
True. Like some one who puts glue on the dynamite and lights it. Damned if he runs and if he stands. US helped Saddam.
When we took out Saddam the second time around we were hailed as liberators, the peace went south when Sunni and Shia extremists started killing each other and fighting to jockey for power in Saddam's absence and then we stayed in the role of peace keeper. THe majority of killing in post Saddam Iraq was muslim on muslim. We should have left and let the fanatics fight it out, but then we would have been blamed for abandoning the people in that instance too. You want to point fingers for violence in Iraq? Then point them at the deserving like bloodthirsty bastards like Al Sader, who used violence to try to gain personal power.
The problem of Iraq is not just because war of Shia-Sunni. But also because of their life style.
Saddam maybe knew how to treat them , but I don't know how. Maybe it wasn't right.
The problem is that there was no intense war as long as US was out of there.
And now that 1600 people in Iraq embassy , there is high probability that US is one of the reasons of wars.
This is not ordinary.
Originally posted by WaterBottle
IDK this right wing fanatic gun hysteria is getting really boring tho.
They're brainwashed and believe anything they read off a right wing extremist blog. These people are the easiest controlled political group in the USA, yet they think they're above everyone else. They run off pure paranoia and lose all ablity to think logically.
Sad really.
edit on 18-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)