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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2005 @ 04:32 AM
link   
Oh, i forgot to put this link about empty chemical warhead missiles found in Iraq, which they were supposed to ahve gotten rid of since the Gulf War and for some reason never did.


Wednesday, February 05, 2003

BAGHDAD, Iraq — U.N. arms investigators found another empty chemical warhead on Tuesday as they pressed ahead with a dozen surprise inspections, on a mission in which President Saddam Hussein, in a rare interview, said he hopes they "reach the truth."

"The question is whether the other side wants to reach the truth or whether it wants to find a pretext for aggression," the Iraqi leader said in a television interview with British politician Tony Benn.

The chemical warhead found at the al-Taji ammunition depot, north of Baghdad, apparently was the 17th turned up since Jan. 16, when inspectors found 12 of the 122mm rocket warheads at a storage area south of the capital in their search for banned arms.


Excerpted from.
www.foxnews.com...

If you don't think this is true because it is reported by Foxnews, i have the following article from two months before the FoxNews article.


Jan. 16, 2003, 4:25PM

11 empty chemical warheads found in Iraq
Chronicle news services

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- An inspection team searching bunkers in southern Iraq today found 11 empty chemical warheads that Iraqi officials had not declared to the United Nations, a U.N. spokesman said. Iraq insisted that it had reported the rockets, which it said were old and never used for chemical weapons.

A 12th warhead was also found that needed further evaluation, and samples were taken for chemical testing, said Hiro Ueki, the inspectors' spokesman in Baghdad.


Excerpted from.
www.chron.com...

These missiles are only used for chemical weapons and they were not supposed to have...yet they had them? why have something which is banned? Why have something which they were not going to use and were supposed to have destroyed a long time ago?....

I think the anwser is crystal clear. They intended to have these because sometime in the future they were going to use them.


[edit on 30-5-2005 by Muaddib]




posted on May, 30 2005 @ 05:28 AM
link   
Yes, but one cannot go to war on perceived intentions....




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


YES.
While Saddam's constant skirting of the UN resolutions needed to be addressed, it was something that needed to be decided by the entire body, not one lone nation. However, that isn't even the point, as that reason wasn't the primary one given by the Bush administration, for war.

Bush declared to the world that he had solid intel that Iraq was not only in minor violation (such as EMPTY warheads mentioned above), but indeed was stockpiling FUNCTIONAL chemical weapons and WMDs.... Since the ENTIRE justification for this action hinged on this claim, and this justification was given to, and reluctantly accepted by the international community....once the claim was proven FALSE...it then made the war completely ILLEGAL, by just about any international law one cared to cite.

You can debate whether or not it was "right" until you're blue in the face, but the legality (or illegality as the case may be) of the action is pretty cut and dry....he screwed the pooch on this one.



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 05:33 AM
link   
I agree, just because Kofi annan doesnt agree with this war, americans think he's stupid and the UN isnt pulling its weight.
Well i disagree, it kept saddam from gaining weapons.. IT worked!

IF WMD's was the main reason we went into Iraq, and you feel that is JUST for an invasion, explain why we havent dealt with the other countries?

Explain why the WHITEHOUSE publically announced they had nothing , then turned right around and invaded them saying they did.

It doesnt make sense...

IF I saw some kid in a park with a bag,
And I ASSUMED he had a gun..
that doesnt give me the right to blugden him to death, search his bag..
upon finding no gun, I then cannot say.. well the perceieved threat was enoug hfor me to bash this fella

IT doesnt work like that..

He didnt threaten me or my family, I have no right to injure him.

Bush is the criminal here, not Saddam,

And I dont think saddam wil ever make trial because Bush knows the truth wil come out.



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

These missiles are only used for chemical weapons and they were not supposed to have...yet they had them? why have something which is banned? Why have something which they were not going to use and were supposed to have destroyed a long time ago?....

I think the anwser is crystal clear. They intended to have these because sometime in the future they were going to use them.

[edit on 30-5-2005 by Muaddib]


Well, lets look at this properly.

They had 'chemical' warheads, which were empty, so they had Warheads that could be used for chemicals. It doesn't mean they had them and it's conjecture to assume they were to be used that way.

Since it's been officially pronounced that there have been NO WMD's found in Iraq, then these warheads must NOT be considered as being associated with WMDs or any breach supporting the WMD claim, otherwise it would not be an official statement that there was nothing found. This must be considered the real truth since at the time, and from your article we have:

"It was not clear if the discovery constituted a "material breach" of the U.N. resolution requiring Iraq to itemize its weapons of mass destruction and their components."

This was in January 2003, it's news that went no where, it fizzled out to nothing. This is not justification.

What about the find, again from your article:

""When these boxes were opened, they found 122 mm rockets with empty warheads. No chemical or biological warheads. Just empty rockets which are expired and imported in 1988," Amin told reporters, adding similar ordnance was found by U.N. inspectors in 1997.

So even these suspected 'chemical warheads' that 'Saddam must of had because he wanted to get WMDs' is a proven dead end. They were pre-gulf war when the US was dealing with Saddam and they were long expired while NEVER being used for chemicals to begin with.

To come to a conclusion that this justifies the invasion of Iraq and that it's proof Saddam wanted chemical warheads to use against the USA is ridiculous. He had TWO wars against the US to use them, never did, never even prepared them for any kind of usage let alone chemical. So to conclude that Saddam wanted to use EXPIRED warheads against the US in the future which were brought in a time when the US were dealing with Saddam and which were never used for chemical weapons is pure brain washed logic and would not hold up in a court of law as evidence of justification.

It's quiet simple to work out.
IF Saddam DID have WMDs, then they most likely belong to a recpiet in the UK or USA which would be old stock and past their used by date anyway OR something would have been found.

IF Saddam DID have WMDs that WORKED and were ready, then what better time to use them than when your being invaded by the US?? What's he waiting for exactly? We know he was big on bluffing and making himself seem more powerful and threatening that he actually was, so if he knew the chances of Baghdad standing after this invasion was next to nill, then he would of used all his options to avoid the fall.

IF Saddam wanted WMDs but didn't actually have any, then the US needed proof that this was the case. This was their last leg to stand on if they didn't actually find anything.
The evidence they presented has since been proven false and that they knew it was shaky at best when presenting it. They mislead to rush into war to set a pre-emptive policy to undermind the UN and to secure a tight circle of wagons for the business/politics relationship - in other words - a New World Order where Business eventually controlls politics rather than the people controlling politics who control the business so it works for the people.

You get nothing out of this but the bill and the body bags, i can't understand why you support it??

Is your pride that stubborn that it will let others die rather than admitting things aren't right?



[edit on 30-5-2005 by TheShroudOfMemphis]



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 07:13 AM
link   
"" You get nothing out of this but the bill and the body bags, i can't understand why you support it?? """


thats the best description ive heard to date!



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Heads up TheShroudOfMemphis and others...
"Bush lied" campaign collapses
BBC - Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction
Iraq - BBC Lied about casualty figures
Iraq - BBC admit it lied about Iraq war casualties
Iraq - BBC admits it lied about Iraq war casualties.(2)
Reports on al Qaeda's Weapons of Mass Destruction and Links Between Iraq and al Qaeda


Personally, and this is certainly open for the ever continued debate, anyone who thinks Saddam did not possess WMDs, is fooling themselves, despite the lack of finding large quantities of them. Too many unanswered questions remains.




seekerof

[edit on 30-5-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 08:21 AM
link   
fooling themselves?
How is that exactly?
Being they didnt find a shred of evidence ANYWHERE...

Being the yanks have TORTURED prisoners SOMEONE by now would of given up ANY Proof of them existing...
And then Bush would of beamed it to every TV Set possible just to prove him self right..

Those people whom think he HAD them, arent fooling themselves,
Theyve been fooled by the government.



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 08:28 AM
link   
I have to say there is one thing that confuses me about Saddam and WMDs.

If he did have them, if, why did he not use them when Iraq was invaded?



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by GlobalDisorder
So your fine with what the US is doingi n IRAQ Edsinger?


Oh absolutely and I think the Iraqi and the Middle East will be better for it. I think you Tulipwalkers will soon have to find another thing to bitch and whine about, one of the reasons it has lasted so long is the press coverage which is almost 100% biased against the US and the Coalition.




Originally posted by GlobalDisorderAnd the morons such as yourself whom would believe them..


And wasnt that smooth........So I am a moron huh? Well I have a name for you also but I have to watch my step so you can just wear your badge of Tulipwalkerdom with pride!





Originally posted by Muaddib

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?


And you ask this as a question? Of course its fact but lets not cloud the issue with facts.....






Originally posted by djohnsto77
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



Very precise summation irregardless of WMD....





Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander

Saddam did jack around the world for 10+ years. Somebody in this thread said Saddam was finally going agree to some terms? Yeah, when troops surrounded Bagdad he did.
He was given notice after notice that he flat out ignored.

They were requirements of a surrender in the first Gulf War.



There you go again, clouding this very vague issue with known facts. How are we to make a determination about whether it was legal or not when you just gut the whole argument with facts. Damn, talk about deny ignorance!








Originally posted by djohnsto77

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The first Gulf War was endorsed by the U.N. nine ways to Sunday, so if that's important to you to make a war LEGAL, then you should realize all the resolutions governing it and the cease-fire agreement was still in effect and Iraq broke them! Resumption of hostilities were completely legal.

Under U.S. law, the Commander-in-Chief and the Congress, under the Constitution and the 1973 War Powers Act, acted entirely appropriately and the entire operation was completely legal under U.S. law.


Again - the facts here do not correspond with that oil for food guy, what his name koni bonemon, said? I mean come doesn't his son's retirement package mean anything to you tulipwalkers?







Originally posted by SonofSpy
How short are your memories anyways? Its like 9/11 never happened. The only way to deal with these maniacs is with hot lead. No matter where they are. From the Aryan Nations to Al Qaeda. I cannot believe how out of control the liberal media is. Newsweek should go out of business. I never thought they would get so bad that they make the loony right seem tame. If W pushes for gay marriage in Iraq will that make you happy? I thought the anti liberal stuff the right was throwing out in the 90s was bad! This is astonishing! I now realize there is just no getting through to the Bush bashers at all. Oh Ive read the Koran too. I think I may have turned a page wrong thus sparking holy war. Hot lead and lots of it. We BETTER go to 6.8mm Rem! I dont care if its HK or Barrett! Hopefully Barrett. We are really going to need bigger bullets and lots of them to make sure you people still have the legal right to hate my guts.



Uh -------









Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis

Iraq war illegal, says Annan

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led
invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.
news.bbc.co.uk...


Deal with it & accept it.



Frankly, I could give a # less what Kofi or the UN says. As I have said a many of times, I hope the US pulls out of the UN and lets it go to Geneva. I have relatives that work for the UN so you can bet the the 4th of July gets very interesting. I hold it is as much esteem as I hold a pile of dog #.







Originally posted by Seekerof
Heads up TheShroudOfMemphis and others...
"Bush lied" campaign collapses
BBC - Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction
Iraq - BBC Lied about casualty figures
Iraq - BBC admit it lied about Iraq war casualties
Iraq - BBC admits it lied about Iraq war casualties.(2)
Reports on al Qaeda's Weapons of Mass Destruction and Links Between Iraq and al Qaeda


Personally, and this is certainly open for the ever continued debate, anyone who thinks Saddam did not possess WMDs, is fooling themselves, despite the lack of finding large quantities of them. Too many unanswered questions remains.

seekerof






Wow!



Looks like you clouded the issue with facts again, damn I hate when that happens.


cjf

posted on May, 30 2005 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Saddam pushed the entire Iraqi general international and UN Human Rights issues fully aside, flagrantly defied UN resolution after UN resolution, disregarded no-fly zones, engaged in frequent surface-to-air attacks against the US and UK over flights, moved military equipment into clearly defined demilitarized zones, restricted inspectors, on and on and on.... All actions he agreed in which to not engage to stop the troops from advancing on Baghdad the first go round. Illegal? no.

As for the WMD argument (as if Saddam and his full regime wasn’t a weapon of mass destruction in its’ own right) the jury will be out a while longer on this specific issue. The WMD potential was just one piece of a mountain. Arguments citing the lack of WMD proof do not have good prospects for the future.

“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”
"Tracking Iraqi Weapons Material"

My question is will the same individuals which use the current lack of stockpiled WMD evidence, with almost microcosmic religious incessant fervor, to loudly cry from paper pulpits ‘Unjustified Attacks! No WMD!’ suddenly become silent or supportive if examples such as Iran and N. Korea dealt a crushing military blow?

And don’t forget…..
"We are going to impose our agenda on the coverage by dealing with the issues and subjects we choose to deal with." - Richard M. Cohan, Senior Producer of CBS News


.



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Name That Tune

Gee. Now where have I seen this thread before?

Was it here?

Or was it here?

Or perhaps here?

It's deja vu all over again.



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
.....................

You can debate whether or not it was "right" until you're blue in the face, but the legality (or illegality as the case may be) of the action is pretty cut and dry....he screwed the pooch on this one.


You are wrong there,.first off, it was three countries which decided to go to war in Iraq, it was the U.S., Spain, and Brittain... There were originally 4 countries which were against the war in Iraq, Russia, China, Germany and France, all of which were part of the Oil for Food scandal, by which Saddam was buying weapons, banned materials and getting rich instead of buying what was needed for the Iraqi people as agreed when the sanctions were put in place.

You are the one that can yell and bash until your face is blue from trying to claim this was an illegal war...it was not. There is more than enough reason to have gone to war. All the evidence points to the fact that Saddam did have wmd.

You alongside many other people still claim there was no reason to have gone to war because you want a reason to keep bashing at the present administration, and you prefer to believe people like Saddam instead every one of those people who defected from Saddam's regime, from the Russian military, and other experts who all said before the war there were wmd in Iraq.



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddibbecause you want a reason to keep bashing at the present administration



Can it be something as simple as this? They just hate Bush bad enough? I mean they would like to add to the risk of the troops under the gun, just becuase they hate Bush?


As I hated Clinton and was not for the Balkan deployment, once they were there , they had 100 % of my support and so did the CiC even though I could not stand him.


Am I so different?



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 07:32 PM
link   
"And you ask this as a question? Of course its fact but lets not cloud the issue with facts"

I agree, seems we havent really been given any by the bush administration yet have we? nothing but lies and fabricated evidence.
I can see how easily yuo were fooled into believign this war was ' the good thing '

"Very precise summation irregardless of WMD.... "

WMD Was the reason this invasion occured, when it turned out he HAD NONE and the evidence bush justified this war turned out to be FABRICATED... then this war became ILLEGIAL

"Frankly, I could give a less what Kofi or the UN says. As I have said a many of times, I hope the US pulls out of the UN and lets it go to Geneva. I have relatives that work for the UN so you can bet the the 4th of July gets very interesting. I hold it is as much esteem as I hold a pile of dog . "

Being the UN has been in place since the End of WWII it holds quite a lot of VALUE in the world forum. Ever since they went AGAINST the USA, and didnt agree with this war, you yanks seem to scream curroption and ignorance at every turn. How is it the world body that deeems internatiobnal law, the body that Accused the US of breaking international law became so quickly HATED amongst americans?
thats right, because once again you were fooled into believign your government was right, and the rest of the world was WRONG.

"Oh absolutely and I think the Iraqi and the Middle East will be better for it"

Lets ask these people, if they think this illegail invasion was BETTER off for them?

















Lets ask them if saddam was soo much of a threat, they feel the US needed to invade, destroy their country, remove their leaders and make it the most lawless country on the planet?

Americans cant admit theyre wrong, even when its clear in their face and they're lying through theiry teeth, they jsut cants eem to admi their faults.

what makes it worse are the sheep whom listen to the governments everystance, and try to defend it, when all they do is repeat the same idiotic lines and fabricated facts over and over and over.


-Any resort to war - to any kind of a war - is a resort to means that are inherently criminal. War inevitably is a course of killings, assaults, deprivations of liberty, and destruction of property. An honestly defensive war is, of course, legal and saves those lawfully conducting it from criminality- The Geneva Protocol of 1924

This was not a defensive war by ANY STANDARDS.

And therefore it is illegial



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kriz_4
I have to say there is one thing that confuses me about Saddam and WMDs.

If he did have them, if, why did he not use them when Iraq was invaded?


The iraqis did fire banned missiles at the coalition, at least two scuds and the rest were al Samoud 2 missiles. Saddam had agreed to destroy all scuds and affirmed they did not have anymore.


(AP) The missiles Saddam Hussein fired at U.S. and British forces in Kuwait appear to have been the same weapons he either claimed not to possess or agreed to destroy.


Excerpted from.
www.cbsnews.com...

There is also the following reasons why they did not fire more weapons upon the coalition.


Despite that prohibition and Iraqi claims of compliance, years of concealment became evident when Iraq admitted in 1995 that it had weaponized biological agents such as anthrax, sarin, mustard gas and botulinum toxin and even managed to fill warheads with some of the agents.

In written reports obtained by The Associated Press, the Iraqis told inspectors they decided not to fire those weapons during the 1991 Gulf War because they believed it would bring on a nuclear attack by the United States.


Excerpted from above link.

So you can keep bashing and blaming the US, at the end was Saddam not only hidding weaponry which he was not supposed to have, btw those chemical missiles are only used for chemicals and Saddam was supposd to ahve disposed of them, yet they were in good conditions....

To find out more of what happened to Iraq's wmd do a search on the internet for "Sarindar plan." It might open your eyes a bit, unless you are too proud to admit that the Republican president was right in wanting to oust Saddam from power...



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Globaldisorder...nice try, how many of those same people were also probably hurt or killed by insurgent attacks?...

You can see in the international press that every insurgent attack kills more iraqi civilians than coalition forces.

BTW, linking such pictures go against the new rules, here is a link where you can find pictures of what Saddam did to his people.

If you want to see pictures, perhaps you should ask these people if they wanted Saddam to still be in power...

WARNING!! VERY GRAPHIC PICTURES OF DEATH AND PEOPLE SUFFERING

members.cox.net...

Do remember that the Sunnis and Kurds together are the majority of people living in Iraq, and these were the people that Saddam was bombing, murdering and gassing.


[edit on 30-5-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 07:52 PM
link   
1) The U.N. had received bribes from Saddam Hussein during the time when it was condemning U.S. activities in Iraq.

2) Saddam DID have WMD for crying out loud! He used them on the Kurds and in the first Gulf War. How much more proof do you need?

3) Clinton did a couple things that led up to the 9/11 attacks: 1) Let down security/limited the military budget and 2) dismantled field-agents from the CIA/FBI/NSA.

These things led to 9/11 and the War on Terror.

Simple as that.

This war has been mishandled in some spots, and has not been as smooth as U.S. officials had hoped, but you cannot compare Adolf to Bush. Why?

Hitler killed 9 million innocents, plus millions more in soldiers.

Bush has killed about 20,000 innocents.

How does that compare? It doesn't.

So, to all you naysayers out there - get over it.

-wD

[edit on 30-5-2005 by WeBDeviL]



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Why doesnt the US go after every country whom has WMD then?
there are plenty of countries whom are a threat to their neighbors and to the US ... Iraq WASNT one of them.

Doest that seem FISHY to you?



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by GlobalDisorder
Why doesnt the US go after every country whom has WMD then?
there are plenty of countries whom are a threat to their neighbors and to the US ... Iraq WASNT one of them.

Doest that seem FISHY to you?


So tell me, you believed that the Russians were telling us the truth that even though there seems to be wmd in Iraq that we should have waited even more...after waiting 11 years and getting attacked, and Saddam going against the mandates set forth by the UN?..... Yet, you don't want to believe the evidence they presented to us, saying that since 9/11 up to the start of the war that Saddam was planning on making terrorist attacks on U.S. soil?....

Yes, it is fishy to me that you decide to believe them only in what is convinient for you...


[edit on 30-5-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by GlobalDisorder
Why doesnt the US go after every country whom has WMD then?
there are plenty of countries whom are a threat to their neighbors and to the US ... Iraq WASNT one of them.

Doest that seem FISHY to you?


Not at all, none of the others stuck their fingers at the world communinty except maybe Iran now.....

None attempted to have an ex US president killed.

Would you like me to keep going?





Originally posted by MuaddibDo remember that the Sunnis and Kurds together are the majority of people living in Iraq, and these were the people that Saddam was bombing, murdering and gassing.



There you go again, bringing up facts...how do you except to get your point across when you just bring facts to the table





You know, maybe the Europeans have envy, I mean has the thought occurred to you that they are so against the war because they don't have the balls to do the right thing?

The Tulipwalkers here jump on board becuase its 'cool' and 'hip'???


Just a thought...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join