It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in


posted on May, 30 2005 @ 10:09 PM
Another justification for the war by Bush and Blair was the previous authorization of force by the U.N to go to war over Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. However, Resolution 687 brought the Iraq war to an end and previous agreements were terminated. "I can't see how the UN Charter could possibly justify what Bush and Blair did in Iraq this year,"

Just because the US was given orders to invade in 1991, doesnt mean 12yrs later the permission still stands.

Again that was how many YEARS AGO?

This had NTHING to do with the US invading in 2003,

Its justification was WMD's adn IRAQs THREAT,
which was all FABRICATED by your government.

Can you spell that word..
how about MADE UP...

Lying is just as easy to say!

Your government LIED, so the public would follow.
When these lies came to light, your government took a different stance..
' We had to remove a dangerous regmie '

"Attorney General Lord Goldsmith describes regime change in Iraq as a disproportionate response to Saddam Hussein's alleged failure to disarm, illegal in the eyes of international law"

All those terror attacks on your website have never been proved to be iraqi's.
Certainly middle east, but even after the US went through all of Saddams palaces and so forth they never found any proof linking iraq to them

Typical US stance,
Unless your with us, your against us,
France is worthless,
the UN is curropt.

I am not european for that matter,
But regardless... it doesnt change the fact of the matter the US lied to go to war.

No nation will protect you, not any more.
If he had them, or was making them...
there would of been SOEMTHING.. SOMETHING to prove it.
but they found nothing.

The UN Sanctions was Working, and their was no need for the US to invade.
You went in simply for your administration and theyre big fat half full wallets/vaults.

posted on May, 30 2005 @ 11:27 PM

Originally posted by GlobalDisorderThe UN Sanctions was Working, and their was no need for the US to invade.You went in simply for your administration and theyre big fat half full wallets/vaults.

If they were working so well, how come that grand organization was passing new resolutions to bring Saddam into compliance. I bet you would not feel that they were working if you were Iraqi, when the money from oil was supposed to be going for food ad Medicines and instead was going into Saddam's, the French, Kofi's son, the Russians pocket?

The sanctions were just fine if you were Sunni, but what about the others?

Saddam was a threat, since you didn't notice, lets go back to the Oklahoma City bombing for a second. Why did Bill Clinton suppress the reports that showed an Iraqi Intel tie to McViegh? Why?

Tell that to the Israeli's that had to bury their dead and watch the Palestinians get a $25k check every time one martyred themselves to kill evil Jews?

Yeah Saddam had to go, all those links were not intended to point the finger at Saddam, they were intended to establish a trend that finally someone had the balls to confront. Plain and simple. You can put your head in the sand because it was not your nation that watched 3000 die in one day by a fanatical attack. They would have kept coming.

Now the war is in their front yard, not yours or mine.

posted on May, 30 2005 @ 11:50 PM
No, you took the war to THEIR doorstep, to the innocent families of IRAQ,
and now they are going to bring the war to your door step.

Yoru president had a chance to stop 911, but he didnt. He knew it was his ONLY chance to hit IRAQ

HE Lied to get the invasion in Iraq.

Fabricated the case.

Nothing else matters.

Thats an illegial war.

doesnt matter about the past, the present of the future.
Being your president lied to the international community and its public to justify an invasion, makesi t illegial

posted on May, 30 2005 @ 11:55 PM
So what? Clinton lied all the time and you loved him!

And I am so sick of your leftist propaganda, the WHOLE world thought Saddam had them, they just didn't want to do anything about it.

We did, and we did. He doesn't have them now either and you probably don't want to say it will be on our doorstep, it will only be cowardice attacks as they can't fight on the battlefield. So where is Allah when the Arabs are on the battlefield huh? It would seem they have been shut out the last 100 or so years, I wonder why. So they take to killing civilians ON PURPOSE.

Yeah Cowards, so keep cheering them on will ya?

posted on May, 31 2005 @ 12:01 AM
NO NO NO , the whole world DID NOT.
the USA did, and lied, fabricated and altered the FACTS to convince a COUPLE of people that they did.

Britan never believed it, memo's coming uot now show this.
Even your administration didnt believe this.

The only people whom beleived it was the gullable american public.

\Im not cheering them on,
im just not backing you or your admin up.

Because yuo still seem to believe ur doing the right thing.

You invaded IRAQ, after IRAQ did nothing.
Your killnig innocents..

when theyre freedom fighters kill you, you call it terrorism.

Everything is spun to make the USA look like the good guy, and everyone else the bad guy.

And that makes you a sheep.
Because all you do is follow your leaders stance.
As illegial as it is.

posted on May, 31 2005 @ 12:59 AM

Originally posted by GlobalDisorder
Bush and Blair tried to justify the intervention on the presence of so-called Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and by drawing an implicit connection of the Hussein regime to Al Quaeda.

"Neither of these contentions stood the test of scrutiny," "No WMD ever existed at the ready with a hands-on-the-trigger scenario. Not only were these weapons ever found, but there is no evidence that they could have been deployed even if they had been found."

Of course, most of the weapons and a lot of the evidence were hiden away or destroyed. Saddam feared what the U.S. would do if they ever used wmd this time around. Saddam wanted to make sure the wmd survived until they could be stronger once again, but he surely had started a wmd program again, and there is more than enough evidence for this.

Why in the world would he keep banned materials, banned missiles, missiles which are only used for chemical weapons, tons of documents dealing with wmd and how to re-start these programs, centrifuges and bw agents which iraqis scientist were told to hide until further notice, etc etc?...

The anwser is simple, Saddam wanted to start a wmd again, and he did.
Where are the stockpiles now?

Ion Mihai Pacepa, identified as "the highest-ranking intelligence officer ever to have defected from the former Soviet bloc," thinks he knows what happened to the Iraqi stockpiles of WMD. An insider's view, and an analysis to remember as more is disclosed by our investigators currently working in Iraq.

As a former Romanian spy chief who used to take orders from the Soviet KGB, it is perfectly obvious to me that Russia is behind the evanescence of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. After all, Russia helped Saddam get his hands on them in the first place.
The Soviet Union and all its bloc states always had a standard operating procedure for deep sixing weapons of mass destruction — in Romanian it was codenamed "Sarindar," meaning "emergency exit." I implemented it in Libya. It was for ridding Third World despots of all trace of their chemical weapons if the Western imperialists ever got near them. We wanted to make sure they would never be traced back to us, and we also wanted to frustrate the West by not giving them anything they could make propaganda with.

All chemical weapons were to be immediately burned or buried deep at sea. Technological documentation, however, would be preserved in microfiche buried in waterproof containers for future reconstruction.

Excerpted from.

The Iraqi government even gave medals to former soviet military officers who are believed to still be working for ex-KGB president Valdimir Putin.

The two retired officers were identified by the newspaper as Col. Gen. Vladimir Achalov and Col. Gen. Igor Maltsev, both former high-ranking officers involved in Soviet rapid-reaction and air defense forces.

Both generals were photographed receiving awards from Iraqi Defense Minister Sultan Hashim Ahmed in early March 2003, only days before the war began on March 20, 2003. The photographs were taken in a building that was bombed by U.S. cruise missiles during the first air raids on Baghdad, the newspaper stated.

The mission and the reason the generals received the awards were not disclosed in the April 2, 2003, report. However, Gen. Achalov told the newspaper that he "didn't fly to Baghdad to drink coffee."
The comment bolsters the claims of Pentagon officials who say Russian military advisers and special forces units were helping Iraq's military and intelligence services before the Iraq war.

Excerpted form.

As to why would the Russians provide Saddam Iraq with banned technology and wmd and then take both sides with the US, giving us evidence that Saddam was planning on making terrorist attacks and then claming to the world that there was no reason for the US to attack is one of the reasons why I think they did this.

MOSCOW – In the US's easy defeat of Saddam Hussein's army, Russia sees a lesson for its own conventional forces.
The Iraqi Army - which was cloned from the Red Army in the final decades of the Soviet Union - mounted only a feeble defense before falling apart.

"The key conclusion we must draw from the latest Gulf war is that the obsolete structure of the Russian armed forces has to be urgently changed," says Vladimir Dvorkin, head of the Russian Defense Ministry's official think tank on strategic nuclear policy. "The gap between our capabilities and those of the Americans has been revealed, and it is vast. We are very lucky that Russia has no major enemies at the moment, but the future is impossible to predict, and we must be ready."

Excerpted from.

There were reports that the Russian military were closely watching the war in Iraq to learn from it, upgrade and improve their own military.

Also, do note that we did find tons of documents dealing with wmd programs, which Saddam was supposed to have destroyed alongside the other material which was found and was banned from Iraq, yet they still had them.

Signs of WMD found in Iraq
04/08/2003 20:33 - (SA)

Stockholm - Swedish arms experts found signs of an Iraqi programme for manufacturing prohibited weapons during a secret visit there in June, their supervisor said on Monday.

Military and government officials played down the claims and criticised the visit, saying it wasn't authorised.

Two chemical and biological weapons experts travelled to Iraq to help a television team evaluate information it had obtained about Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction, said Aake Sellstroem, from the Swedish Defence Research Agency, who authorised the visit.

The information indicated Iraq had a programme for making chemical and biological weapons as late as last year, but yielded no clues about whether any actual weapons were made, he said.

"What this shows is that there was interest, organisation and activities involving weapons of mass destruction until 2002," Sellstroem told The Associated Press. "But I haven't seen any information about how many weapons there were."

Excerpted from.

Let's see some more evidence of the clandestine wmd programs that existed in Iraq before the war. I am just excerpting some parts, the rest of the information can be foudn in the links.

Why are we having such difficulty in finding weapons or in reaching a confident conclusion that they do not exist or that they once existed but have been removed? Our search efforts are being hindered by six principal factors:

1.From birth all of Iraq's WMD activities were highly compartmentalized within a regime that ruled and kept its secrets through fear and terror and with deception and denial built into each program;

2.Deliberate dispersal and destruction of material and documentation related to weapons programs began pre-conflict and ran trans-to-post conflict;

We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN.

Excerpted from.

Originally posted by GlobalDisorder
Regarding Bush and Blair's claims that Saddam supported "terrorism," Weston said it was "difficult to believe that there was any serious connection with Al Quaeda, especially when bin Laden saw Saddam as an infidel, although he supported Hamas and Hezbollah."

I guess you never heard the phrase "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Enemies have many times gotten together to fight a common enemy... Perhaps you should educate yourself to this fact. Anyone claming that there was no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda is delluding themselves. The only thing the 911 commision confirmed was that “no evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out attacks against the United States were documented. you can find that in page 66 in the 911 commision report. So they are saying no evidence was "documented" that Iraq had cooperated with Al Qaeda on the September 11 attacks.

The commision did not say that there was never a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

Let's actually see some of the evidence presented in the 911 report, something that obviously very few people seem to have done.

To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi brokered an agreement that Bin laden would stop supporting activities against Saddam ... In 2001, with Bin laden's help they reformed into an organization called ansar al-islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar Al islam against the Kurdish enemy.

With Sudanese Govt acting as intermediary, Bin Laden himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 and 1995. Bin Laden is said to ask for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request. As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections.
Page 61

In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraq intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis.
Page 66

Excerpted from.

Originally posted by GlobalDisorder
U.N. Resolution 1441 didn't authorize the immediate use of force, only the inspections for WMD in Iraq. "The war wasn't authorized by Article 39, so it was an act of aggression by Bush and Blair," said Weston.

Saddam was given 11 years to get rid of all the wmd and all related material including missiles which purpose is only to carry chemicals for wmd, documents dealing in how to start/re-start and maintain a wmd program among some of the agreements that were reached, but Saddam did not keep his part of the bargain, not only that but as some members have already said, Iraq/Saddam attacked coalition aircraft that were enforcing the Northern no-fly zone several times... That in itself is a declaration of war.

Iraqis fire missiles at ONW aircraft
UNITED STATES EUROPEAN COMMAND (20 Feb 00) -- Iraqi forces threatened Operation Northern Watch (ONW) coalition aircraft again today. This time, the Iraqi forces fired multiple surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) from a site north of Mosul at ONW aircraft conducting routine enforcement of the Northern No-Fly Zone.

Coalition aircraft responded to the Iraqi attacks by dropping ordnance on elements of the Iraqi integrated air defense system.

All coalition aircraft departed the area safely.

Coalition aircraft have been enforcing the Northern No-Fly Zone for more than eight years. Since Dec. 28, 1998, Saddam Hussein has opted to challenge this enforcement by firing at coalition aircraft with surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) and anti-aircraft artillery and by targeting them with radars. Operation Northern Watch aircraft respond in self-defense to these threats while continuing to enforce the No-fly Zone.

For more information, please contact the Combined Task Force Combined Information Bureau at +90-322-316-3704.

Updated 20 February 2000 at

Excerpted from.

So keep telling yourselves this was an illegal war.

[edit on 31-5-2005 by Muaddib]

posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 01:44 PM
Sorry I'm late to the party.

No, it is not an illegal continuation of a previously started war, as Hussein did not live up to the agreements that ended hostilities.

Why do we seem to continue to ask the same old, stale questions, such as "Is this an illegal war?"

Why not dig a bit deeper than that? This is, after all, a conspiracy board; where are all the true conspiracists who used to dig deep?

Aren't these comparisons to Nazism a bit old, too? While I agree that it is smart to be vigilant and not allow another Hitler rise up, anyone who thinks Bush likens Hitler should be dragged by the hair through Dachau and Auchwitz. Ignorance of history is no excuse nowadays.

One should also learn to stop focusing on the puppet and follow the strings. Were one to learn to do that, one just might find, to their horror, that the hands controlling the puppet are on more than one continent, and have been there for centuries.

posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 11:45 PM
Anyone who thinks that the Iraqi people were better off under Hussein is missing both oars and has a hole in his boat, and all the pitiful pictures in the world won't change that.
Silly rhetoric and pictures are good for nothing but emotion-swaying. If that is what you want, tune in to the NBC evening news. Rather, I'd like to ask a question.
Do any of you remember way back during the first episode of the Gulf War Show? Back then, we only had one 24 hour cable news; CNN. I was an addict. Because of this, I was watching when CNN announced that our female ambassador (or was it merely a diplomat?) led Hussein into believing that we would not intervene if he attacked Kuwait as we had no defence treaty with them. That tidbit of information ran maybe twice, before being snatched off the news lineup. I suspect CNN was sharply rebuked for letting that cat out of the bag! Apparently, not many who saw that realized what they were hearing, as I seem to be the only one who remembers it.

Remember the coalition? Pretty big one, huh? How many were controlled by the same power that controls the U.S.? A few, such as those members who are in the Middle East, were just duped into going along. They were told they were doing the right thing. Seems we all want to believe that song, huh?

posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 12:28 AM
Hüsker Dü

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Do any of you remember way back during the first episode of the Gulf War Show? [...]

I was watching when CNN announced that our female ambassador (or was it merely a diplomat?) led Hussein into believing that we would not intervene if he attacked Kuwait as we had no defence treaty with them.

Not only do I remember, but I cannot forget.

That was one of my first relatively uncensored glimpses into how American foreign policy really works.

Wheels within wheels, feints within feints.

The next World War began long ago.

posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 01:02 AM
I think that perhaps, at one time, there was a purpose to this war. However, it has been long overused and no longer stands for anything, and I believe this war is out of control.

posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 01:54 AM

Originally posted by GlobalDisorder

This war was as illegial as it comes

I agree 110 % with this statement !!! Bush DID lie and thousands have died because of this idiot's intentional rampage of murder and theft of a country that had done absolutely NOTHING to us and had no means to speak of to do anything to the USA !!!

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.

Very well stated, GlobalDisorder and true to form, Bush has nothing to lose now that he's in his second term of office, whats the people of the US gonna do,.... vote the sucker out,....... it's alittle to late for that

Bush doesn't give a dam about anything or anyone, he's having to much fun playing war with our soldiers and the other countries soldiers, some get killed and he just sents more over there to be killed,.... as long as it's no one from HIS family and his lap-dogs that surrounds him families,... he doesn't care !!!!!

If Bush was such a caring, christian, human-being, he'd pull our troops out,.... hell,.... he never would of started this illegal war in the first place if he really cared about the human-race.

Naw, I agree with GlobalDisorder, and the one's that helped to keep that FOOL in office is just as guilty as Bush is from Election Day until Bush finally has to leave the White House at the end of these four years .

As the saying goes >>>>> If the pile looks like crap, smells like crap, well by god it must be CRAP !!!! That's what I think of GW Bush,..... he's CRAP !!!

posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 03:20 AM

Originally posted by Gazrok

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.

That might be so, but, this paragraph above could also be made to say the same about GW Bush,..... ....

Anyone who STILL beleives George Bush's LIES ( so-called truths) for invading Iraq, are fooling theirselves and are totally brainwashed by our Gov't's deception !

However, when you invade, then have control of the region, and then find NO (zero, zip, nada) such weapons to hold up as a smoking gun (just could have beens, what ifs, etc.), then you've screwed the pooch....and that's exactly what happened.

I totally agree with this statement and thats exactly what's been going on

posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 03:42 AM

Originally posted by Muaddib

Perhaps you should learn to read the facts and realize that this was not an illegal war, instead of resorting to bashing the U.S.

The fact is,.......... Bush LIED and THOUSANDS have died !!!!!!!!!! I am an American citizen and as a Citizen of the USA I agree with the others IT IS AN ILLEGAL WAR,......... it may not have started out that way BUT not to long after the invasion of Iraq, it became apparent that the USA and other Nations that went with Bush's decision to attack Iraq,..... had been lied to by Bush & CO, no WMD's were found to speak of, there for it was an Illegal war that Bush started,............. PERIOD !!!!!

It was none of our business what Saddam did to the people of Iraq,.... that was his country to do as he pleased with,...................................................... and don't give me that crap about our going in to free the people of Iraq and their country,.......................... that just doesn't wash, specially when Bush has done NOTHING to help the people in Sadan, talk about mass-murders, and Bush hasn't sent any of our troops there to FREE those people !!!! What a JOKE
, but thats nothing new for GW Bush because HE is a JOKE

I detest LIARS and Bush is the biggest one so far !!!

OH and BTW, after this last USA RIGGED-Election, I've decided that I will not be voting at Election time anymore,.... it does no good when the votes are stolen !!!
So don't start that nonsence about "left wing", "liberal " crap, because I'm not Left, Right or Inbetween as of March 2005 !!!!

posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 12:35 PM
didnt we like help the people of Liberia and Haiti, i mean they didnt have oil but why would Bush send troops to countries that have no oil.
i wonder why.

posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 06:24 PM
Because he knows the public wont sit idly by and let places like that just rot into hell.

Public backlash is very important to a government.
Especially to a Government hoping to win power again.

Its like the good deed to go to heaven deal,
if ur stopped at the gates of heaven because u never did a good deed,
ud straight away help an old lady cross the road..

Well Bush needed to be reelected, so he did the easiest thing he could,
and that was help those countries with the minimum amount of aid/men as he could.

posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 06:33 PM

Originally posted by GlobalDisorder
Well Bush needed to be reelected, so he did the easiest thing he could,
and that was help those countries with the minimum amount of aid/men as he could.

i think sending troops overseas does not get u reelected. in ani case Bush pretty much decided to do it for pressure and he sould have resisted but i guess somewhere he felt compassion about saving lives as long as it does not endanger troops on a mission that has no interest for America, no resources i meant.

posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 08:29 PM

Originally posted by nanna_of_6I detest LIARS and Bush is the biggest one so far !!!

SO I guess Clinton doing this under oath is nothing. Do you have proof that Bush lied? Or are you assuming he knew beforehand he had bad intelligence?

posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 09:19 PM
Edsinger, do you even comprehend what people are saying

Clinton never INVADED Another country on FABRICATED evidence.
Clinton never IGNORED terrorist warnings.

CLINTON was a saint compared to Bush.
Name one thing bush has done, that INCREASED America's standing in the world, increased their level of living?

All he has done is bought a huge bill, killed many americans, and made it less safe

STOP COMPARING Clinton to bush because u sound stupid, and like ur clutching at straws u dont even beileve are there.

posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 09:23 PM
Lemme guess, your next post will be somtehing like
'' He cheated while in office, rah rah rah monica this monica that ''

Your a jerry springer/Dr Phil finatic arent you?

George bush is a LAME Duck president,
he's done nothing for america, but everything for himself, and his friends.

He brought terrorism to the world, in its INCREASED FORM Today.

The invaded a soverign country, without being attacked, or threatend.
They made a case for war based on lies.

Why would any decent american follow him?

posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 07:54 PM

Originally posted by GlobalDisorder

Clinton never IGNORED terrorist warnings.

STOP COMPARING Clinton to bush because u sound stupid, and like ur clutching at straws u dont even beileve are there.

Well that sure is horse#e.

I compare because BUSH did something instead of talking the talk, he actually did something about it...

Invaded on fabricated evidence - you really hate the man don't you?

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in