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.

 

NEWS: Another Part Of US Justification For Invading Iraq Admitted False

page: 8
7
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Oh please, do you really think I give a damn whether or not Clinton was as bad as George W. Bush? Would it make you sleep easier at night if I were to say I think Clinton was a bad President who broke the law as well?

Here you go: Clinton broke the law

Happy? Partisanism is alive well!


it's nice to see that you are once again changing the facts around and proclaiming that it was an illegal war subz, but sanctions were put on that regime, the regime broke the sanctions time and time again, and other nations, not only the US, gave evidence that Saddam was planning on making terrorist attacks on the US and it's interests, but of course, to you none of that matters.

It is a case of damn if you do, damn if you don't.... I have seen you always placing the blame on the US, and even your own country nomatter what they do.




posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
it's nice to see that you are once again changing the facts around and proclaiming that it was an illegal war subz, but sanctions were put on that regime, the regime broke the sanctions time and time again, and other nations, not only the US, gave evidence that Saddam was planning on making terrorist attacks on the US and it's interests, but of course, to you none of that matters.

Huh? Changing what facts around? I proved you were wrong and that regime change was illegal. You dropped that little line pretty quickly I might add. Now you were proved wrong you harp on about the sanctions. What's that got to do with regime change being illegal? Absolutely nothing. And all your "evidence" of Saddam planning terrorist attacks are slowly, but surely, being proved false or made by people upon pains of torture, which is the topic of this thread may I add, not sanctions or any other diversion you may wish to initiate.


Originally posted by Muaddib
It is a case of damn if you do, damn if you don't.... I have seen you always placing the blame on the US, and even your own country nomatter what they do.

No its a case of play by international law when you're trying to make some one else abide by international law. It's not a hard concept to grasp. Just because your aims are to stop some one breaking the law does not give you the right to break the law yourself, ask any police officer if you must.

[edit on 17/12/05 by subz]



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Huh? Changing what facts around? I proved you were wrong and that regime change was illegal.


What facts did you change around?.... the fact that Saddam's regime broke every sanction time and again, the fact that he was still trying to exterminate minorities of iraqis on the norht and south which is why the
US, Britain and France decided to enforce a no fly zone in that area, which of course to you it doesn't matter, but then if the US and Britain hadn't done anything about and if only France took part of the no fly zone I am certain you would have blamed the US and Britain for doing nothing, which is what you normally do. Damn if you do, damn if you don't.



Originally posted by subz
You dropped that little line pretty quickly I might add.


lol....where did i drop any line pretty quickly subz?.....


Originally posted by subz
Now you were proved wrong you harp on about the sanctions. What's that got to do with regime change being illegal? Absolutely nothing. And all your "evidence" of Saddam planning terrorist attacks are slowly, but surely, being proved false or made by people upon pains of torture, which is the topic of this thread may I add, not sanctions or any other diversion you may wish to initiate.


Subz, you didn't prove anything, except your disdain towards the US and Britain, among some other states you like to blame for everything.

I am not the one bringing "diversion" to the topic, tring to hide some facts and changing others around so you can continue with your claims on blaming the US, Britain, and even Israel for everything that happens in the world.....



Originally posted by subz
No its a case of play by international law when you're trying to make some one else abide by international law. It's not a hard concept to grasp. Just because your aims are to stop some one breaking the law does not give you the right to break the law yourself, ask any police officer if you must.


You mean these?....



Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

Recalling that its resolution 1441 (2002), while deciding that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations, afforded Iraq a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions,

Recalling that in its resolution 1441 (2002) the Council decided that false
statements or omissions in the declaration submitted by Iraq pursuant to that resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, that res olution, would constitute a further material breach,

Noting, in that context, that in its resolution 1441 (2002), the Council recalled that it has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations,

Noting that Iraq has submitted a declaration pursuant to its resolution 1441 (2002) containing false statements and omissions and has failed to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, that resolution,

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and
territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,

Mindful of its primary responsibility under the Charter of the United Nations
for the maintenance of international peace and security,

Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions and to restore
international peace and security in the area,
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Reaffirms the need for full implementation of resolution 1441 (2002);

2. Calls on Iraq immediately to take the decisions necessary in the interests
of its people and the region;

3. Decides that Iraq will have failed to take the final opportunity afforded
by resolution 1441 (2002) unless, on or before 17 March 2003, the Council
concludes that Iraq has demonstrated full, unconditional, immedia te and active cooperation in accordance with its disarmament obligations under resolution 1441 (2002) and previous relevant resolutions, and is yielding possession to UNMOVIC and the IAEA of all weapons, weapon delivery and support systems and structures, prohibited by resolution 687 (1991) and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and all information regarding prior destruction of such items;

4. Decides to remain seized of the matter.


Excerpted from.
www.casi.org.uk...

[edit on 17-12-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob LaoTse

Originally posted by zappafan1

You can't strictly use dictionary definitions when speaking of tyrants and dictators.


You know-- you could've saved some shred of integrity by admitting that your use of the phrase "sovereign nation" was in error--


REPLY: Well.... since you chose to use a definition that suited your viewpoint, I will as well:

So.... as to Iraq being a "sovereign" state....

1 a : one possessing or held to possess sovereignty
b : one that exercises supreme authority within a limited sphere
c : an acknowledged leader
d : supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state.

".... the "sovereign" derives his power from a populace who have collectively given up their own former personal sovereignty and power and placed it irretrievably in the "sovereign."

Now.... which is more applicable to Iraq and Saddam... your definition or mine?

Since I was talking about the lack of freedom for Iraqi people, and the reason for liberating Iraq, it would appear that mine is accurate.

[edit on 17-12-2005 by zappafan1]

EDIT NOTE: Corrected quotes for zappa.

[edit on 12-17-2005 by Valhall]



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 12:18 PM
link   

you mean these?....


quote: Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,.......
www.casi.org.uk...


You do of course understand that this was simply a draft resolution the US proposed.

It was never even voted on.

PLEASE don't quote meaningless items.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 12:20 PM
link   
You have just been blown out by BUSH.


"There was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the attack of 9/11," Bush said. "I've never said that and never made that case prior to going into Iraq."

con tinued....


Now thats not what I seem to remember him saying.

I'm sure the Blogs will have lists of examples where this is not true very soon.

[edit on 17-12-2005 by ArchAngel]



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
You have just been blown out by BUSH.


"There was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the attack of 9/11," Bush said. "I've never said that and never made that case prior to going into Iraq."

con tinued....


Now thats not what I seem to remember him saying.

I'm sure the Blogs will have lists of examples where this is not true very soon.

[edit on 17-12-2005 by ArchAngel]


Well don't stop there...it gets better:


But he added that he believed the two issues were related even in the absence of direct ties.

"I think they are related in the war on terror because he (Saddam) had terrorist connections. Again, he was a sworn enemy and he'd had weapons of mass destruction, had used them," Bush said.


TWO reasons blown out of the water in one article.

Amazing.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Here you go: Clinton broke the law

Thank you. Exactly what I knew and suspected.




Happy? Partisanism is alive well!

Bet on it.
Your among one of the players yourself.
Happy?





seekerof



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Bet on it.
Your among one of the players yourself.
Happy?

What would be the point in me being partisan as far as Democrat and Republicans are concerned? Im an English Australian who has no intentions of holidaying in the United States, let alone live there. Remind me again why I would be a player in the sordid and tacky world of US partisan politics? If I agree with a politicians stance or what they say it doesnt matter in the slightest what political party they attach themselves too. Can you say the same thing?



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
"There was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the attack of 9/11," Bush said. "I've never said that and never made that case prior to going into Iraq."


con tinued....

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Now thats not what I seem to remember him saying.
[edit on 17-12-2005 by ArchAngel]


Of course not ArchAngel. That's because you only hear what you want to hear and you only remember what you want to remember. Bush has NEVER claimed that Hussein was part of 911. I challenge you to show where he did.

ArchAngel; let me ask you this: If you had a "trusted" friend who started to occassionally lie to you; would you be able to trust him at all? Even though he only lied to you a few times (or even once for that matter) would this friend still be credible in your continued relationship with him?

[edit on 17-12-2005 by Freedom_for_sum]



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Bush has NEVER claimed that Hussein was part of 911.


Yes, so far as I know he never DIRECTLY made that assertion. Instead, being a canny politician, he simply, when speaking of the invasion of Iraq, spoke also of terrorism and 9/11, or when speaking of 9/11, spoke also of Saddam Hussein and Iraq. He didn't make a specific assertion-- instead he employed the semantic trickery known as "juxtaposition" and allowed people to make that connection themselves, as many, MANY of them did.



[edit on 17-12-2005 by Bob LaoTse]



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Yeah, I have often wondered how many of those that were tricked by the methods of "juxtaposition" had such notion solidified further when the 3rd ID ran across this:



I would be interested to know those percentages...






seekerof



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Yeah, I have often wondered how many of those that were tricked by the methods of "juxtaposition" had such notion solidified further when the 3rd ID ran across this:


How fortunate the date can be seen on the image.

If it had been found before 911 it may have been relevant.

Denied.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Of course not ArchAngel. That's because you only hear what you want to hear and you only remember what you want to remember. Bush has NEVER claimed that Hussein was part of 911. I challenge you to show where he did.



The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
March 19, 2003
Text Of A Letter From The President To The Speaker Of The House Of Representatives And The President Pro Tempore Of The Senate

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President


Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

George W. Bush

Source



We have a signed deposition with Bush linking Iraq, and 911.

EDIT NOTE: For some reason your link died. So here is another link to the same letter...

Presidential Letter March 18, 2003

[edit on 12-17-2005 by Valhall]



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Yep ArchAngel;

Thank you for supporting what I've been saying all along: That Hussein was considered a threat as it was determined that he could provide material support (WMD) to international terrorists who wish to do us harm.

That letter DOES NOT say in any way that Hussein participated in 911.

Are you going to answer my question?



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
How fortunate the date can be seen on the image.

If it had been found before 911 it may have been relevant.

Denied.


Yeah--we all know that those soldiers had lots of time on their hands to paint that picture


If you compare that picture with others of Saddam you would see a similarity in style in the way his portrait is created. I believe Saddam had a favorite painter that he used almost exclusively.



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 10:49 AM
link   


ArchAngel; let me ask you this: If you had a "trusted" friend who started to occassionally lie to you; would you be able to trust him at all? Even though he only lied to you a few times (or even once for that matter) would this friend still be credible in your continued relationship with him?


Trust takes its greatest loss at the first lie, and it only goes down from there placing Bush at the bottom of the heap of liars.

Who has lied to us more than Bush????



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Yeah--we all know that those soldiers had lots of time on their hands to paint that picture

If you compare that picture with others of Saddam you would see a similarity in style in the way his portrait is created. I believe Saddam had a favorite painter that he used almost exclusively.


Without absolute proof Saddam commissioned the painting before 911 all you have is proof that Saddam was aware 911 happened, and gloated over it.

Or do we even know that it was Saddams painting?


Thank you for supporting what I've been saying all along: That Hussein was considered a threat as it was determined that he could provide material support (WMD) to international terrorists who wish to do us harm.

That letter DOES NOT say in any way that Hussein participated in 911.


That may be your conclusion, but all it shows to me is that the deception continued even after the war, and continues today.

Look again at what was in the document:

acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

It implies that Iraq, at minimum, aided the 911 terrorists if not claiming Saddam outright planned, authorized, and committed the attacks himself.

There is little squirming out of this one.

I would like to see the attatchment to this.

The 'evidence' used to prop up the suppositions would be even more damning than the above.

[edit on 18-12-2005 by ArchAngel]



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 12:21 PM
link   
ArchAngel;

In a previous post you stated:


Who do you trust more on what was found; Richard Miniter, or your government?


And then you say things like:


Originally posted by ArchAngel
Who has lied to us more than Bush????


It seems you don't trust anyone; whether it's a learned author OR your government. It seems you only believe those facts that conveniently fit within your paradigms.

Quite frankly; I couldn't live in a country under a government I couldn't trust. Regardless of what you believe, you MUST know that at the very least, Bush is doing what he believes is best for America. Or do you sincerily believe he is out to destroy America.



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 12:27 PM
link   

It seems you don't trust anyone; whether it's a learned author OR your government. It seems you only believe those facts that conveniently fit within your paradigms.

Quite frankly; I couldn't live in a country under a government I couldn't trust. Regardless of what you believe, you MUST know that at the very least, Bush is doing what he believes is best for America. Or do you sincerily believe he is out to destroy America.


Keep the discussion on topic, and don't try to evaluate people.

Between doing whats best for America, and destroying America there are many other motives.

Bush does whats best for him, his cronies, and his controlers.

It seems you only believe those facts that conveniently fit within your paradigms.

You seem to be the one with this issue.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join