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 loam
Originally posted by zappafan1
again... to those who don't like how America is, there are many other countries to choose from. The is no "right" to live here.
Wrong. As an American citizen, I absolutely have that right.
As well as the right to criticize it for its occasional foolish policies...
I'd suggest you read the constitution.
Originally posted by loam
Originally posted by Astronomer68
The American public simply would not put up with some sort of blatent exploitation of Iraq. They would insist on dealing fairly with the country once everything settles more or less back to normal.
I find that comment very amusing considering our long history in our own country of slavery, native American annihilation, Japanese internment, and government sanctioned prejudice well into the 20th century....
Do you think the public has really changed all that much in the last 40 or so years?
[edit on 9-12-2005 by loam]
Originally posted by subz
Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
It's been proven that Al Zarqawi was in Iraq before the war, receiving medical treatment. There's your Al Qaeida connection.
Whoah, hold the phone there, that constitutes a connection?
The New Yorker magazine, in its December 13 edition set to hit US newsstands on Monday, reported that according a longtime acquaintance from his native Saudi Arabia, bin Laden made at least one trip to the United States, in about 1978, with his wife and oldest son, who needed medical treatment.
Bin Laden Visted US For Medical Treatment
Wouldn't a Bin Laden connection trump an al-Libi connection any day? Well according to some decks of cards it does.
Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
You guys seem to forget (or probably never knew) that this war is a legal continuation of the first Gulf war.
That required a second resolution remember? Thats what the Blair camp was vying for as it would sure up the legal right to invade. That never eventuated, the UN did not approve and hence it was never legal.
Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
I'd like to point out that when the US saved Europe's ASS years ago (they would likely all be speaking German and wearing swastikas if it weren't for the US) we stayed; and in fact, we are still there (by invitation). We'll be in Iraq for many years to come. I'm willing to bet that Syria and Iran are next to go in the next 10 years.
Flash back to grade 2
Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Lighten up FOOLS!! You have the ability and the freedom to criticize all you want largely because of US policy.
I'd rather hold onto the view that we have the freedom to criticize INSPITE of recent US policy.
Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Why do you suppose then that the UN isn't persuing the US for war crimes?
Originally posted by ArchAngel
Because it is not the UNs job,
Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Originally posted by thermopolis
(very deep breath) OK folks picture the days when saddam was in power, defying the UN, breaking 17 resoultions, shooting at no-fly-zone aircraft, putting people in wood chippers............
Now picture saddam today on trial in Iraq................
Democracy in action people....................get it?]
your right, how could we miss those important facts
defying the UN? ... didnt the US just do that inorder to INVADE?
breaking 17resolutions?... Iraq turned out not to have 1 single WMD... not 1..
he wasnt building them, supplying them or nothing. back in gw1 i agree he did.
But the 5yrs prior to the iraq invasion , saddam was no more a threat to the western world than france was..
shooting at aircraft?... every country has the RIGHT to a defence, and to stop other countries interfering. The no fly zones was not a WORLD saftey thing, it wasnt a UN imposed restriction. It was the USA and BRITAN imposing its own rules and regulations. THE US doesnt OWN Iraq, they didnt CONTROL it.
They had no right to say we are going to fly planes over your territory as we please...
If we did that to china?.. would you really expect them not to shoot us down?
HELL, if CHINA did it to the USA, would the US NOT SHOOT THEM DOWN ?
People in woodchippers...
What about the people in falluja?
Or the people in Abu Grahib
Or the tortured people found in the prison 2weeks back?
what about the mothers of dead sons?
the fathers of dead daughters?
the babies of murdered families?
what about the parents back home in the US thinking of there murdered son?
saddam killed people with an even method, it makes no different if the us kills people quickly or in the same methods.
You dont kill innocent people and try to justify it in any way.
Saddam on trial today, I agree the man should be held accountable,
but under no circumstances should any contry feel they have the right to invade, and hold the countries leader on trial for crimes he commited years nad years and years ago.. its UNETHICAL and UNJUSTIFIED
What is the difference in saddam ordering his henchman to kill 144people in a town that tried to assinate him.... then bush sitting in his leather arm chair ordered helicopters to destroy houses, media networks, schools, weddings, so forth and so forth.
Democracy barely works in your own country at the moment, how the hell are you going to make it work in the middle of the fricken hostile arab lands.
Originally posted by Qoelet
Originally posted by thermopolis
OK (big gulp) please provide any alternative country with higher values, ethics, or overall better history ofr saving this planet from it's own stupidity.
Well I think that ethics-wise, the US has a very 'distinct' moral and ethical outlook, especially when it comes to social welfare and wellbeing... I think N Europe particularly has the edge there (esp. the UK and the Scania countries)...
as for history of saving us all mere mortals from our 'stupidity'... well I find that a *little* patronising seeing as US isolationism and UK appeasment actually helped the 2nd WW on it's way (I assume you're bleating on about the war.. right?) so it was stupidity all round for that one.. I'll have my portion with freedom fries please...
or d'ya mean the Cold War? You made loads of nuclear weapons... well done... fight stupidity with stupidity... great stuff...
the best was saving us from Iran by arming a chap called Saddam... oh wait...
Originally posted by marg6043
Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
It's been proven that Al Zarqawi was in Iraq before the war, receiving medical treatment. There's your Al Qaeida connection.
You guys seem to forget (or probably never knew) that this war is a legal continuation of the first Gulf war.
Here, here, people we have found another justification to the war in Iraq.
Is because Its a continuation of the first Gulf war
Occurs 10 years later.
Do you think Bush will buy your idea?
Originally posted by BlackThought
I find it ironic that some of these people who support the president ignore common facts to keep from answering real questions like.
Where are the WMD, Mobile chemical Labs, and Yellow cake from Niger, and Links to Al-Qaeda.
None of that was proven. The biggest laugh was when the bush Administration tried to portray 911 done by Iraq. LOL Most of the republican leadership is in some type of corruption trouble yet that did not stop them from illegally invading (UN Said) another sovereign country BTW a country the United States help setup. The 800lb gorilla is now ten 1-ton Gorillas in tutus dancing the 1812 overture.
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Originally posted by thermopolis
Nixon had enough intergity to step down.
I'm sorry, I can't stop laughing enough to respond to this statement... every time I try... well...
--whew--
You can look elsewhere for deflection from the real issue as much as you like. In the end, a war was started that killed our soldiers and countless innocents based on data that is increasingly laced with lies and deception. Debating past issues has no relation to this very important current issue.
Originally posted by zappafan1
Geez.... I just checked, and nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say that anyone has the "right" to live here.
Originally posted by zappafan1
Also... spelling, punctuation, etc, etc is a good indication of ones reading abilities, and therefore the ability to aquire a viewpoint facts.
Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
You're absolutely right.
"...aquire a viewpoint facts."
Iraq was most certainly NOT a sovereign country.
Originally posted by ArchAngel
Iraq was most certainly NOT a sovereign country.
Could you explain this please?
The Iraqi STATE was recognized by the UN, and its leaders were Iraqis operating under a constitution ratified by the people.
What makes it un-sovereign?
Originally posted by zappafan1
YellowCake? came from the Congo, not Niger.
Does the whole Plamegate not surround "Nigerian Yellowcake"? Or is it now "Congolese Yellowcake"? Such vitriole would be best assisted with atleast being accurate.
Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
Originally posted by zappafan1
Geez.... I just checked, and nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say that anyone has the "right" to live here.
Are you actually claiming that the entirety of the Constitution is the Bill of Rights?
Are you actually claiming that our rights are limited ONLY to those that are listed in the Bill of Rights?
Amendment IX-- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Are you actually claiming that the point of the Constitution is to list our "rights?"
Seriously?
The Constitution is a list of the offices of the federal government, the qualifications necessary to hold those offices, the manner in which those offices are to be filled, and the VERY SPECIFIC powers that are to be granted to those office holders.
Nowhere in the Constitution is any officeholder of any branch of the government granted the power to exile an American citizen.
Amendment X-- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Since the federal government is not granted the power to exile an American citizen, nor are any states, then American citizens DO indeed have the "right" to continue to live in the United States, if they might so choose.
However, that viewpoint relies on a misperception of the nature of the Constitution, since its focus is NOT our "rights," but rather the government's powers.
And of course, the entire argument is moot. The problem with your assertion that anyone who feels that the US government might legitimately be criticized should, rather than offering that criticism, leave this country, is your frightening intolerance and your complete and utter failure to understand that the right to hold dissenting views is exactly what separates this nation from many others, and is the source of much of its strength.
And again-- it seems obvious to me that since you are so completely unable to tolerate dissent, YOU are the one, if anyone, who should move to another country. There are many nations in the world that share your opinion that dissent is not to be tolerated, but the United States, thankfully, is not one of them.
Originally posted by subz
Originally posted by ArchAngel
Iraq was most certainly NOT a sovereign country.
Could you explain this please?
The Iraqi STATE was recognized by the UN, and its leaders were Iraqis operating under a constitution ratified by the people.
What makes it un-sovereign?
I agree, I'd like to know how that one is explained. I'd also like to know how you explain the follow too:
Originally posted by zappafan1
YellowCake? came from the Congo, not Niger.
Does the whole Plamegate not surround "Nigerian Yellowcake"? Or is it now "Congolese Yellowcake"? Such vitriole would be best assisted with atleast being accurate.
Originally posted by ArchAngel
Why do you suppose then that the UN isn't persuing the US for war crimes?
Because it is not the UNs job, and because the US has a UN veto.
If any nation were to bring a resolution before the Security Council that we did not favor it would be vetoed.
And since the US has not agreed to join the International Criminal Court how could they do anything?
No entity has the power to demand Bush, and any other warcriminals present themselves for trial.
Originally posted by zappafan1
When the country is run by a dictator, who's opponents were imprisoned or shot, and the people are not free to believe what they want, then it is not a sovereign nation.
sovereign: Self-governing; independent: a sovereign state
Originally posted by zappafan1
"....Does the whole Plamegate not surround "Nigerian Yellow cake"?
That's the entire point; The CIA knew for five years that Saddam did not look to Niger for yellow cake, so why did they send Wilson to Niger?
Originally posted by zappafan1
Plamegate is a large red herring, aspecially since she was already "outed", and her status was not covert. What should be investigated is who sent Wilson, and why.
Originally posted by zappafan1
The idea of sending someone on this type of mission, who was not a CIA employee and had no experience in this type of intelligence gathering, is rather curious.
Originally posted by zappafan1
You should read his entire report, as it shows Saddam did, indeed, make connections in his search for yellow cake.