Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Are You For Or Against The War In Iraq?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 17 2005 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I keep hearing the term 'illegal war' from people, but have yet to find out a good explanation on how it was illegal. At least from the perspective of the United States, I don't see how any war approved by Congress and executed by the President could possibly be illegal,
[edit on 5/17/2005 by djohnsto77]


First Off the president was never supposed to have the power to go to war. That was to be congress' duty as outlined in the constitution, under article 1, sec 8. So there is your constitutional violation of law.

www.usconstitution.net...
www.cato.org...
www.cato.org...

Now on to international law. Easy...the USA has signed Global treaties, which we are constitutionally bound to uphold if we sign (and we did) that specify, and lay laws of war, amongst other things.

There are also a series of very specific laws:

The use of asphyxiating gases is prohibited. The U.S. violated this by its use of fuel-air explosive bombs on Iraqi frontline troops; these bombs are terror bombs which can burn the oxygen over a surface of one or two square kilometers, destroying human life by asphyxiation.
These fuel-air bombs and the U.S. use of napalm are also outlawed by the Hague and Geneva Conventions, which prohibit the use of weapons causing unnecessary harm to combatants. The level of U.S. evil is demonstrated by the sending to the Gulf of a stingray blinding laser system which is supposed to knock out optics on enemy weapons, but has the side effect of blinding soldiers as well who operate the weapons.
The bombing of peaceful nuclear power facilities is forbidden and particularly so because of the dangers of the spread of radioactivity. The UN International Atomic Energy Agency classified the reactors as peaceful, yet the U.S. bombed them, not caring about the spread of radioactivity. The bombing was intentional and planned in advance, clearly in violation of international law.
Both the Hague Convention of 1954 and Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions prohibit attacks against historic monuments, works of art, places of worship and sites which constitute the cultural and spiritual heritage of a people. Catholic churches, a 4th century monastery and a Sunni Moslem mosque represent just some of the massive violations that occurred. [See Fadwa El Guindi's essay on archaeological destruction, Waging War on Civilization.]
Protocol I of the Geneva Convention also requires protection of the natural environment against widespread and severe damage - the U.S. massive bombing, the blowing up of reactors, the hitting of oil storage facilities all violate this prohibition.

deoxy.org...




posted on May, 17 2005 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I keep hearing the term 'illegal war' from people, but have yet to find out a good explanation on how it was illegal. At least from the perspective of the United States, I don't see how any war approved by Congress and executed by the President could possibly be illegal, but beyond that we have the breaking of the cease-fire agreements from Gulf War I and further UN resolutions. Even if, as you anti-war people say, Bush & Blair lied and there were no WMDs etc., I still don't see how that affects the situation at all.

[edit on 5/17/2005 by djohnsto77]


That's a really scary POV. Your country decides? The Russians, North Korens, Saddam etc could all use that justification for any action they choose - it'd be legal via their system.

There is a higher authority where a number of countries provide a balanced view of legality. It's called the United Nations, you may have heard of it


I notice Fox is your major news source, is this fact and your blinkered view in any way connected?



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by CTID56092
There is a higher authority where a number of countries provide a balanced view of legality. It's called the United Nations, you may have heard of it



It was legal under there own rules ffs, only diff is, they were greedy aholes who wouldnt enforce there own reolutions, because half the sobs were getting money from that dictators, oil for food.

America going to war for oil HAH, Several counties DIDNT go to war FOR OIL



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 09:46 PM
link   
The U.S. Congress did approve this war, and the Constitution gives the full authority to authorize war to the Congress and the full authority to wage war to the President. These Constitutional duties cannot be abdicated or assigned or signed away by a treaty, because that treaty would be unconstitutional. The only thing that could change these duties is an Amendment to the Constitution which is a much higher standard and hurdle to pass than a treaty.

that being said...

I still see nothing wrong with this war from an international law/UN perspective. The first Gulf War was fully endorsed by the UN and those resolutions and the cease-fire agreement with Iraq was still in force and was being violated by Iraq, making the resumption of hostilities completely legal.

And on top of that there were more post-Gulf War I resolutions demanding more from Saddam, and none of those were followed either.

The only conclusion I can draw from all this is that the only illegal thing about this war is that it wasn't prosecuted much earlier!

[edit on 5/17/2005 by djohnsto77]



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 10:31 PM
link   
I'm all for a full military strike against Iraq in 2003 for three reasons:

1 - the removal of Saddam Hussein. Simple three words: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
2 - to reassert American dominance over a global energy order for the long haul.
3 - to prevent further oil price volatility between OPEC and non-OPEC oil producers for long term global economic benefits and geopolitical issues.

Without the United States being the global guarantor of a stable oil order, you would have the OPEC's machinations and volatile oil prices in determining the world's affairs based on the countries' ability to pay, comply and it'll be like 1970s all over again in this decade and the next. Saddam Hussein, as the ruler of Iraq and with billions barrels of oil reserves, was a troublesome thorn to the US, Saudi Arabia and OPEC because he can and had defied all of them at whim and throw the whole global energy order out of equation. Saddam Hussein, despite the lack of his actual WMD programs, was the real WMD to a future global energy order and the global economy, with the USA leading the way.

However, Bush and Blair did the wrong approach in using Saddam's WMD programs as the rationalization for war to remove Saddam Hussein from power, IMO. In spite of Saddam's 12 years of constant stalling, deception, lying, bribery, corruption, threats and a willingness to defy the UN, the US, the UK, Europe, Saudi Arabia, the OPEC, etc, etc. in the process, of which I'm still mystified by his actions over the years.


[edit on 5/17/2005 by the_oleneo]



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 11:01 PM
link   
I have always been against this war and despite all the excuses given nothing has changed my mind on it. Its a worthless rathole that we are pouring our countries lifeblood down (no offense to iraqis Im sure your countries very nice I just dont think its worth over a thousand american lives and three hundred billion dollars and climbing). The more I think about it the madder I get its a heavy burden that thas been forced on the back of the american people for no good reason.

I wouldnt be so mad if Bush had come right out and said that this was a war to free the Iraqis and not bothered with the WMD BS. I mean come on I never bought all this doomsday intel that they kept on throwing at us. Yeah you have an intelligence report thats god knows how old you got from god knows who saying Iraq can attack us with WMDs. Yet on the other hand the UN inspectors actually on the ground giving you live data say there's nothing to be found. I mean who would you believe?

The thing is now we're stuck whether you supported the war or not with this war. We cant just turn around and leave you break it you bought it. I dont know Im just disgusted and Im damn near fed up with America as whole left right and center (mostly at the right though I cant believe you idiots reelected this guy). If I wasnt in a relationship Id probably move out to the woods and turn my back on society



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 11:15 PM
link   
I am against all war of any kind and violence. I was shocked to see how quickly we went into war without much action being done to see if there really was weapons of mass destruction. It seemed at one week we were still looking for them but then that very next week, we plunged into war.

Two years later, I saw on the news that intelligence was a failure and there was no such thing as WMDs for Iraq. I was really upset at this.

It's believed that 100,000 innocent civilians have died in this "war" alone. Outrage. Filth. Terrorism indeed...



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
The U.S. Congress did approve this war, and the Constitution gives the full authority to authorize war to the Congress and the full authority to wage war to the President. These Constitutional duties cannot be abdicated or assigned or signed away by a treaty, because that treaty would be unconstitutional. The only thing that could change these duties is an Amendment to the Constitution which is a much higher standard and hurdle to pass than a treaty.

that being said...

I still see nothing wrong with this war from an international law/UN perspective. The first Gulf War was fully endorsed by the UN and those resolutions and the cease-fire agreement with Iraq was still in force and was being violated by Iraq, making the resumption of hostilities completely legal.

And on top of that there were more post-Gulf War I resolutions demanding more from Saddam, and none of those were followed either.

The only conclusion I can draw from all this is that the only illegal thing about this war is that it wasn't prosecuted much earlier!

[edit on 5/17/2005 by djohnsto77]


Wrong I'm afraid Goldsmith's advice (and Kofi Annan's opinion) on this was quite clear; without a second specific mandate from another resolution authorising an invasion the war was not legal. This was sought but not gained so there was no legal basis for the war.

You can use the 'might is right' argument and 'our system says it's ok' justification if you like but don't bleat when China uses it to reclaim Taiwan.

That's the overall point we're trying not to live in a lawless world. If the US wants to change that and recreate the wild west on a global scale then fine but it cuts both ways



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dances With Angels
I am against all war of any kind and violence. I was shocked to see how quickly we went into war without much action being done to see if there really was weapons of mass destruction. It seemed at one week we were still looking for them but then that very next week, we plunged into war.

Two years later, I saw on the news that intelligence was a failure and there was no such thing as WMDs for Iraq. I was really upset at this.

It's believed that 100,000 innocent civilians have died in this "war" alone. Outrage. Filth. Terrorism indeed...


FYI the UK Govt chartered heavy lift shipping capacity to move the tanks over 8 months before the start of the war - so the military weren't reacting to the political situation but working to a separate (secret) timetable



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 06:23 AM
link   
against,

there was no good reason to go to war, don't care, it's a fact, if there was a good enough reason then tony and george wouldn't have lied,

and as for "we needed to remove the evil dictator",
give me a dictator who's from the same country as me over a forigen power any day, the evil dictator had at least one iraqi's best interests at heart,(his own) american occupiers naturally only have americas best interests at heart,

or should that read american multi-nationals best interests at heart



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 06:58 AM
link   
I am FOR the war in Iraq.


I think the Bush/Blair administrations may have exaggerated and not fully been up-front with the people...but even with all the lies and the BS fed to the people....just the fact that Saddam was directly responsible for more deaths during his reign than the combined death toll for the war is reason enough for me. Wars have been fought over much less by other nations. Despite what you may hear by others, the majority of Iraqis want us there....yeah it sucks for them and times are hard, but things will be much better in the end. Most of my friends over there say that the people love them and want them to say...they know this by all the support and cheers they get all the time, which far out number the negative.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 07:29 AM
link   
FOR

If it is in the US best interest then I am for it. If the US government deems Iraq a vital area then I am for the war.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 07:36 AM
link   
I am against the war for the sole fact that the agenda changed once we got there. As a US citizen, I was told that we went to remove the WMD stockpile under the Iraqi regime. There are no WMD's. So they told us that the war is now for the removal of Sadam. I don't think that Sadam was a threat anymore so that still didn't work for me. Then it became all about liberating the Iraqi people who were under oppression. Personally I don't care about the oppressed people. I feel that if they want liberation, they should rise up against their own people. It's not like they don't have the ability to fight back, because they sure seem to be able to band together against out troops.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 08:32 AM
link   
I'm against the war.
This is mainly because Bush/Blair knowingly 'managed' evidence to suit their aims.





just the fact that Saddam was directly responsible for more deaths during his reign than the combined death toll for the war is reason enough for me.

Because you've killed less people that Saddam, makes the war right?




without a second specific mandate from another resolution authorising an invasion the war was not legal


Also, Lord Goldsmith said that regime change was a completely illegal reason to go to war.



the majority of Iraqis want us there

I'm sure the majority of Iraqis are happy that they were 'liberated'. But I'm pretty sure they would prefer foreign troops not to be present in Iraq.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by SportyMB
I am FOR the war in Iraq.


I think the Bush/Blair administrations may have exaggerated and not fully been up-front with the people...but even with all the lies and the BS fed to the people....just the fact that Saddam was directly responsible for more deaths during his reign than the combined death toll for the war is reason enough for me.


Wake up everybody, we are up to the ears in debt, and this is going to weigh on our and our childrens shoulders! The nation already feels the hurt. There is less money for education and science and other programs. Gas prices went throught the roof. Or maybe you are not driving and dont' know.

Personally, sorry, Saddam was an SOB but so are many other rulers in this day and age. We can't be fixing political lives of other countries by using our own massive military force. We should have never gotten involved in that sh-i-t, period.

And look at your forgiveness... "Bush maybe exaggerated, maybe not upfront, so what". Hello! He's our elected leader and he lied to us. Next time he's going to lie to us about our basic rights (which could be conveniently revoked) and you'd still be happily marching to his stupid tune.

Wake up America before it's too late.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita
Or maybe you are not driving and dont' know.


I don't drive, I havent driven for about a year. But from what Ive heard from friends and family and on ATS the price of gas has freakin sky rocketed.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by boogyman
I wouldnt be so mad if Bush had come right out and said that this was a war to free the Iraqis and not bothered with the WMD BS.


I'd have been happy with, "We just want their oil because OPEC and Venezuela squeezes our balls, and we want to fight all the Jihad scum on Iraqi soil, oh, and also I want to kick Sadaam's arse for talking too much," but that wouldn't have gone over too well.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by vincere7

Originally posted by boogyman
I wouldnt be so mad if Bush had come right out and said that this was a war to free the Iraqis and not bothered with the WMD BS.


I'd have been happy with, "We just want their oil because OPEC and Venezuela squeezes our balls, and we want to fight all the Jihad scum on Iraqi soil, oh, and also I want to kick Sadaam's arse for talking too much," but that wouldn't have gone over too well.


And there is a reason for that (not gone over too well). Through its long history, humankind figured out a proper way of conduct to help peace last. As such, arguments "let's invade coz we want more oil" are not appealing to culturally developed humans.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita
And there is a reason for that (not gone over too well). Through its long history, humankind figured out a proper way of conduct to help peace last. As such, arguments "let's invade coz we want more oil" are not appealing to culturally developed humans.


I find it quite appealing, and so does Ann Coulter:


Ann Coulter
Why not go to war just for oil? We need oil. What do Hollywood celebrities imagine fuels their private jets? How do they think their coc aine is delivered to them?


Unfortunately the facts belie this noble mission. A good war for oil would have nuked the population centers and only seized the oil fields, lining them with soldiers to protect the machinery shooting any civilian survivors on sight if they ventured to our new found oil.

Ahh our gov't is way too nice...


cjf

posted on May, 18 2005 @ 10:31 AM
link   
I am and have been for the action in Iraq (and Afghanistan for that matter). The Iraqi train was on a collision course with the rest of the world; as a consequence it was intentionally derailed.


Originally posted by cmdrpaddy
I'm against the war.
This is mainly because Bush/Blair knowingly 'managed' evidence to suit their aims.


The evidence may have been ‘managed’ for public dissemination, but to simply 'home' into one and only one specific reason to justify aggressive action is almost too simplistic. As to the WMD, ties to terrorism and known breaches of UN resolutions findings by nations (not just the US and UK), many intelligence agencies had finding as to similar claims although some did not support the war such as Germany’s BND, Australia, Belgium and Poland to name a few at the time.


Originally posted by cmdrpaddy


without a second specific mandate from another resolution authorising an invasion the war was not legal


Also, Lord Goldsmith said that regime change was a completely illegal reason to go to war.


UN Security Council Resolution 1441 from 8 March 2002 is still being argued.

“Regime change can not be the objective of military action” is one of many statements made by Lord Goldsmith in the now declassified 13 page document to which you are referring. But the sentence before is omitted. This particular part of the document is on page 13 and is somewhat of a summation of the prior 12 pages of legal discussions and positions, it really states that regime change can not be the only reason for military action:




That is not to say that action may not be taken to remove Saddam Hussein from power if it can be demonstrated that such action is a necessary and proportionate measure to secure the disarmament of Iraq.
But regime change cannot be the objective of military action.” --Lord Goldsmith emphasis added
Link to Full PDF Document


Later in March 2005 he would continue to support and defend his findings:



"I do not accept your account of events. In particular, I do not for one moment accept your allegations that I failed to comply with the ministerial code or that I misled the cabinet....At its meeting on March 17 2003, I reported to cabinet that I had answered a parliamentary question on the authority for the use of force in Iraq. I produced the text of that answer for cabinet and made an oral presentation. That answer set out, as I have repeatedly stated, my genuine, independent view that the use of force in Iraq was lawful.” --Lord Golsmith
Link to Article


As to his position on the current legalities, Goldsmith has issued cautions and potential areas of concern and continues to grapple with the 'legalities' of the action by the UK. And that said, he also does not speak for any other nation--just the UK. But as it is obvious, pointing to a single event or statment without looking at what surrounds the 'event' may be oversimplifying very complex issues.

.

[edit on 18-5-2005 by cjf]





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join