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.

 

Is this an Illegal War?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2005 @ 10:52 PM
link   
I know this has been covered extensivley..
but I want to get it out for once and for all.

Do you think this is an ILLEGIAL war?
And why?

I personally beleive it is.

The UN Charter states a country cannot invade another country unless threatend or attacked. They cant CHOOSE to invade a country, it must be a last resort.

Bush did just this. He decided to invade.
He lied to invade.
And he still after all that has happened tells the world it was the right thing to do.

Guilty as charged.



external image

Edit: Sized down image.


[edit on 30-5-2005 by ZeddicusZulZorander]

[edit on 30-5-2005 by John bull 1]




posted on May, 29 2005 @ 11:05 PM
link   
I think your blowing this way out of proportion, that picture you posted alone shows your attitude. I think it is still a bit of a stretch to say that bush is akin to adolph hitler. Hitler murdered millions of people in ways such as gas chambers, incenerators,hangings, etc. did bush not get approval from the UN? Even if he did not, take into consideration that the UN's existence rests largely on the shoulders of the US. So if the US decided to take action against another nation why should a body that the US mainly supports have to approve it? There was also evidently some insurgents in iraq with connections to bin laden. They communicate every once in a while. There were weapons discovered in iraq but not of the number indicated by the intelligence. I would also like to point out that the faulty intelligence was collected under president clinton, should he bear responsibility? I personally dont think so.



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 11:28 PM
link   
C'mon, u cant possibly blame clinton..
It was bush's administration that decided to go in there.
There are even US Officials whom said the gvt's stance after sept 11 was Iraq...

Im not comparing him to hitler, he's not there yet..

And the UN is the WORLD BODY dedicated to peace and stability.

It has been in place since the 1940's.

Beign saddam didnt obtain or make ANY WMD's since the UN was set to contain them, seem they did their Job.

The UN Was in place for the world stage, and the US defied and ignored them.

Now look at the predicament their in.
They went in gun smoking to eradicate the WMD Threat, the UN Said there were no WMD's... Bush didnt care and went in..
What did we find? NO WMD's..
yet we are still there..



This picture is made to look out of place.
IT shows what would happen, if the US Wasnt the superpower.

IT seems they have the ability to make, break and re create rules when it suits them



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 11:35 PM
link   
The US won't be held responsable for it's war crimes simple because it has no one to hold it responsable. The Nazi's had to be crushed before they were brought up on trials.
Maybe in 10 - 20 years IF America do fail in this last bid effort to gain the top spot in the new peak oil world and Europe becomes the Super-Power, will American's start being trialed for this war and the wars that will follow before then.

Thou don't forget Operation Paperclip, should we really be surprised as to why America acts like it does? Look who made the post WWII American miltary and intelligence agencies...


"The U.S. Military rounded up Nazi scientists and brought them to America. It had originally intended merely to debrief them and send them back to Germany. But when it realized the extent of the scientists knowledge and expertise, the War Department decided it would be a waste to send the scientists home. Following the discovery of flying discs (foo fighters), particle/laser beam weaponry in German military bases, the War Department decided that NASA and the CIA must control this technology, and the Nazi engineers that had worked on this technology.

There was only one problem: it was illegal. U.S. law explicitly prohibited Nazi officials from immigrating to America--and as many as three-quarters of the scientists in question had been committed Nazis."

Here are a few of the 700 suspicious characters who were allowed to immigrate through Project Paperclip. ARTHUR RUDOLPH; During the war, Rudolph was operations director of the Mittelwerk factory at the Dora-Nordhausen concentration camps, where 20,000 workers died from beatings, hangings, and starvation. Rudolph had been a member of the Nazi party since 1931; a 1945 military file on him said simply: "100% Nazi, dangerous type, security threat..!! Suggest internment."
But the JIOA's final dossier on him said there was "nothing in his records indicating that he was a war criminal or and ardent Nazi or otherwise objectionable." Rudolph became a US citizen and later designed the Saturn 5 rocket used in the Apollo moon landings. In 1984, when his war record was finally investigated, he fled to West Germany.
.....

www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...




[edit on 29-5-2005 by TheShroudOfMemphis]



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
I think your blowing this way out of proportion, that picture you posted alone shows your attitude. I think it is still a bit of a stretch to say that bush is akin to adolph hitler. Hitler murdered millions of people in ways such as gas chambers, incenerators,hangings, etc.


The methods used by the Bushes and Clinton to kill around 1.5 million iraqies aren't comparable to wellness holidays either.


did bush not get approval from the UN?


No.


Even if he did not, take into consideration that the UN's existence rests largely on the shoulders of the US.


Not really. The UN is mostly concerned with global issues (third world, violence, developement aid, environnemental protection, climate and magnetic field change), the very existence of which is mostly being denied in the US.

Or do you mean the US lending it's strong arm to UNSC decisions ? I'd have to partially agree. Partially, for two reasons : 1. No nation intervenes somewhere militarily without clear economic advantages to be drawn and 2. The US helps create more human rights violations as it helps solve


So if the US decided to take action against another nation why should a body that the US mainly supports have to approve it?


Maybe you noticed the OP's hint : The soldiers keeping the war criminals are american soldiers. And the question ought to be rightfully asked : Is it legal, according to US federal laws, to manufacture intelligence that inevitably leads to the death and maiming of tens of thousands of american citizen ?



There was also evidently some insurgents in iraq with connections to bin laden. They communicate every once in a while.


Oh no !


There were weapons discovered in iraq but not of the number indicated by the intelligence.


Vade retro, satanas !




[edit on 29-5-2005 by Moretti]



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 11:58 PM
link   
But you do agree it is guilt of war crimes?
America's doing what Germany did, accept its doing it under todays terms.

Its not calssifying it as an invasion or occupation, but a FREEDOM, a LIBERATION...

We're not rolling across borders and burning everything in our parth..
We're sending in Jets to bomb everything, so our forces need only sift throug hthe destruction not fight theyre way through...


Theyve already conquered Afghanistan, and are now looking theyre sites at IRAN...



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 12:22 AM
link   
This whole thing is so evil : First bomb their infrastructure and industry, starve them off ten years, then bomb them again, lift the sanctions you imposed, and say "hello here's the liberator ! you got food and medecine now, well guess what, that's thanks to US". To me this is ultimate crime.



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 12:34 AM
link   
Kinda fshy isnt it..

Bush SNR tricks them into invading Kuwaitt

What did they say
'' We will not get involved in anything regarding IRAQ & Kuwaitt" >

They invade, so the US goes in an kills thousands...
Sanctions kill many more thousands..

Sorta SOFTENING the place up for his son in a way..


Bush SNR SNR was even a banker for the NAZI's during WWII, while his SON Was fithing them...

Thats too many coincidences, involving to many questionable world conflicts if you ask me!



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 12:36 AM
link   
Give me a break - let me give you a flash back ok?


UN >>>> Saddam "Let us do inspections unannounced"

Saddam>>>UN " Go frick yourself and bite me!, while I buy my way out, surely the French will help me."

1 year > 2 years > resolution #1> Resolution #2 etc etc etc


Now keep in mind the terms of his surrender after Gulf War 1, which he did not abide by.


As was the Treaty of Versailles a temporary peace treaty from WW1 through WWII


1991-2003 was a decade long "second chance' for Saddam.


Therefore it was totally legal in that reason alone......PERIOD.


If you remember the build up to hostilities the Lawyers where checking into this and they did find the clause in the UN document that allowed this to happen, it is just the UN didn't like it.


The Bush 1 ----- Tulipwalkers 0



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 12:46 AM
link   
So your fine with what the US is doingi n IRAQ Edsinger?

your only fine with it because its YOUR COUNTRY doing it...

Saddam had no WMD, sanctions worked.

the UN wanted MORE TIME to investigate, and SADDAM gave them access to eveything towards the end, but the US didnt care.

The US Accused them of having WMD,
when it had been told by many many many sources they were wrong. that the evidence was forged.

the US didnt care.. why because they never wanted to get in and remove the WMD's...
that wasnt there ULTIMATE aim..
thats the aim they knew the PUBLIC would half heartedly follow.

And the morons such as yourself whom would believe them..

Even tho they turned up nothing, found saddam wasnt hiding alqaeda and they were WRONG in there pre invasion accusations, they are still publically declaring they were right to go in, and remove this DANGEROUS threat, which again was a load of BS.. but it didnt matter, as long as the morons such as your self beleived theyre BS their is always room for more lies, and more war.

America 1600 - IRAQ 160000


If your a country that had been attacked and tricked into war by a country, your sure as hell not going to lay down roses for them are you?

This war was as illegial as it comes... and the US wont be held accountable until the GULLABLE souls such as yourself stop looking for protection behind a goverment that would as quickly murder you in a fixed terrorst attack, then admit guilt.



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 12:53 AM
link   
Lawyers? you mean American Lawyers?
Surely your not that naive

Second Chance for Saddam?
When did he break this chance?
He didnt build WMD's, HE didnt Attack or invade countries did he!

Why cant you admi the US Craeted this war out of thin air, turned as many people AGAINST each other as they could..

Accused the UN of curroption because they didnt follow them?

Now there in IRAQ, turned out everything they thought was a load of CRAP!

So who really has the credibiliy here?
A Lying country who has murderd mamed and destroyed a soverign country?
Or the party that has been in place for 60yrs now, whom spoke its HONEST Thoughts, whom has been in countless countries to help the survival of mindkind, and whom new Iraq had NO WMD?

thats a no brainer edsinger, even for you!



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Now keep in mind the terms of his surrender after Gulf War 1, which he did not abide by.


US infiltrated the inspection teams with CIA personnel, Saddam legally kicked them out.


As was the Treaty of Versailles a temporary peace treaty from WW1 through WWII


France and UK declared war on Germany as a result of their assistance treaty to Poland, not the Versailles treaty.


1991-2003 was a decade long "second chance' for Saddam.
Therefore it was totally legal in that reason alone......PERIOD.


"second chance" is not a legal terminology. please explain.


If you remember the build up to hostilities the Lawyers where checking into this and they did find the clause in the UN document that allowed this to happen, it is just the UN didn't like it.


could you be more precise please ? I have never heard about the clause.



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 01:02 AM
link   
And how is it a coalition?

HE bought and bribed as much as he could to get numbers behind this war!

I laugh everytime the NEWS media says
'' the USA and its coalition partners ''
it should read
"The USA and all its hired hands "

It makes me laugh here in Australia.
Jonny Howard was soo pleased to be joinnig the ranks of the US president in his office suite, he would of been prepared to ride into IRAQ on a tank if Georgy boy offered.
Howard THOUGHT he was going to get a excellent economic advatage if he went in to IRAQ with the US. Thast the ONLY reasno australia went it.

Turned out when the time came to negotiate this free trade greement, bush renegged and gave australia JACK ALL!

Cant blame him really, he's turning his country into economic DISASTER

France and Germany to me are the onyl two countries with enough balls to stand against the USA.

You all accuse them of being cowards, or ' tulip walkers'

why because they wouldnt follow this ILLEGIAL war?

They new saddam didnt have WMD's, and they new the economic perils and public BACKLASH if they agreed to the war.

America is that pathetic they went on to change french fries to freedom fries.
hah
people in 10yrs will look at their menu's and see' freedom fries'
they will hang their heads in shame, and be embarresed to be called an american, if they arent already.

F****N bush and his supporters, you make me want to throw up.
Grow some balls and speak up against this attrocity that is called your leaders!



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 01:07 AM
link   
OCTOBER 8, 1997 – IAEA SAYS IRAQ FREE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
CIA Director George Tenet's January 2002 review of global weapons-technology proliferation, he did not even mention a nuclear threat from Iraq, though he did warn of one from North Korea
(This says a lot, especially since NK Have turned out to have Nukes)

FEBRUARY 23 & 24, 2001 – COLIN POWELL SAYS IRAQ IS CONTAINED
"He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors

SEPTEMBER 16, 2001 – CHENEY ACKNOWLEDGES IRAQ IS CONTAINED
Vice President Dick Cheney said that "Saddam Hussein is bottled up" – a confirmation of the intelligence he had received



This speaks VOLUMES to me.
before and during sept 11 period they whitehouse publically declared saddam had NO WMD or wasnt a threat.

“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
Dick Cheney August 26, 2002

“Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program”
Dick Cheney

I want to know what proof they had, i wanna see this DEFINITIVE piece of paper that made them 1000% CERTAIN HE had wmd ?


“If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.”

It didnt have any, the US prooved that, but where is the peace?

“If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world." G. Bush

He did declare he was FREE, and declared inspectors ACCESS to anything, yet it didnt matter to the bush administration!.

Pack of Mungrels.
Bush, you killed and mamed thousands of innocence for your illegail war,
I hope you rot in hell,
I hope the next terror atack is on your family,
i hope it wipes everyone you love off the planet, and leaves u burner, charred and limbless , just so u can expierence a FRACTION of the pain youve inflicted on IRAQ.

The only person guilty of the next terrorist attack on the USA IS George W Bush!



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 01:11 AM
link   
This simply wasn't an "ILLEGIAL" (sic) war. If it was you'd have better proof than some Photoshopped picture!


The fact is the U.S. was at as state of war with Iraq and they violated the cease-fire agreement. Therefore it was completely legal to resume hostilities by any measure.

You can criticize the war in myriad ways, but you can't truthfully call it illegal.



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 01:15 AM
link   
Starters i never called the photo shop picture proof.
being your using it as collateral for your claim speaks volumes.

SO in your opinion the US Was correct in invading IRAQ for WMDS?
When it turned out that was full of S**T?

ITs an illegial war because they CHOSE to invade, they wernt attacked or threatend.
IRAQ agreed to inspections, but they still invaded.


and when it turned out the USA fabricated evidence, they created another reason.

What about this is LEGAL?



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 01:18 AM
link   
Err...Saddam said he would accept the weapons inspectors once again after the president said the operations of the war had started....

I remember watching everything on tv, and that Saddam decided to come out and claim to the public after president Bush said operations had started, that Iraq would admit unrestricted inspections now....

We have been going over this so many times it is not funny anymore...

I think some in the left are just trying to see if they can just get responses from those people who have no idea as to the facts of the war and why it began.


The anwser to the question of the member who started this thread is simple.

Was it an illegal war? No.

If you know this has been covered so many times, and evidence has been presented time and again, why in the heck start such a thread again?....

Could it be because you want to bash and blame the U.S. again?

[edit on 30-5-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 01:19 AM
link   
What can't you understand about this?

1. U.S. at war with Iraq from 1st Gulf War
2. U.S. and Iraq sign cease-fire agreement
3. Iraq breaks cease-fire agreement by firing at U.S. and UK planes monitoring no-fly zones
4. U.S. resumes hostilities

Totally legal, any other reason would just be icing on the cake



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 01:20 AM
link   
And even when SADDAM wanted to sit with George, directly and talk about this , George declined.

Now , wouldnt a fair and just leader be willing to hear the OTHER side's case before invading?

Not George, he didnt care for what Saddam had to say.

As george said he was going into IRAQ with or without the UN, with or without the international community.
The US ALONE couldnt handle IRAQ.


So no matter what anyone said, no matter how much proof AGAINST the claims were delivered the USA was going to invade no matter what.

This isnt a country seeking freedom and democracy around the world, its a country seeking CONTROL!

Why is it so hard to see this?



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
The fact is the U.S. was at as state of war with Iraq and they violated the cease-fire agreement. Therefore it was completely legal to resume hostilities by any measure.

You can criticize the war in myriad ways, but you can't truthfully call it illegal.


Your exposition could serve to justify the attack on Iraq according to federal law alone, if the administration had not only claimed it possessed intelligence indicating such a violation, but indeed possessed it. However, as a signatory to the UN Charter, the federal governement is also bound by its terms and provisions, who subordinate the material act of warfare to a prior or imminent aggression or to a UNSC decision detailing the legality of an aggression.

So neither is Bush II clear by domestic nor international law.



new topics




 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join