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.
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.
Originally posted by Agit8dChop
fundly enough i was talking about the 3000 innocent civilians he ALLOWED to die in sept11..
Originally posted by Muaddib
That's BS.... there is no "juicy links and extracts"... all you gave were "claims" with no real evidence to back those claims... Where is the information that the U.S. government knew what date, from what city and what airline where the hijackings going to happen?.... or once again, did you expect the U.S. government to stop all flights from all cities indefinetely?....
Originally posted by Muaddib
I am defending the truth, and you are far away from it....
Originally posted by number1hammer
These countries didnt go in and bomb the countries infrastructure back to the stone age. It was the U.S. gov. that did
You dont fly huge planes into 2 of the largest buildings in the world in one of the most highly secured cities in the world in one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world. It just dont work like that. It automatically raises red flags when that happens. and im not talking red flags of terrorist attacks by other nations or other groups of people
Originally posted by pavil
Originally posted by number1hammer
These countries didnt go in and bomb the countries infrastructure back to the stone age. It was the U.S. gov. that did
Where do you get your information from. Bombed back to the stone age? The US took great pains not to attack the infrastructure whenever possible, as we knew we would just have to rebuild it. We intentionally bypassed major cities in the south of Iraq as we knew we would have to damage large parts of them to totally secure them. We intentionally didn't target dams for instance, when in total war you would do those things. Power plants were hit in ways to shut them down but also minimize the damage to them, again beacause we knew we were going to have to rebuild them. Tv and radio stations just had their towers destroyed rather than the whole complex. Were parts of the infrastructured damaged/destroyed, sure. Was Iraq "bombed back to the stone age", no You are stating inaccuracies as fact.
There was minimal damage to the infrastructure by US attacks, otherwise there would have been far more civillian deaths. Sure command and control targets were hammered but most other things were left alone. Only when civilian buildings were used for military purposes, ie. storing weapons ect, were they considered fair game.
Originally posted by FlyersFan
Bottom line - the war is not 'illegal'. It received proper approval through our government channels.
Originally posted by tha stillz
Originally posted by FlyersFan
Bottom line - the war is not 'illegal'. It received proper approval through our government channels.
You and semper always have the same stuff to say, citing "technically correct" items, but meanwhile sidestepping the substance.
Is it moral to CONTINUE THE WAR, when it has been determined that the premises we're ALL WRONG??
Originally posted by Reality Hurts
All people hear is "Illegal War!!! Illegal War!!! Illegal War!!!". And when pressed for facts it becomes "Er...ok...Immoral War!!! Immoral War!!! Immoral War!!!.
“ Article 2(3) and 2(4) of the United Nations Charter read:
“ (3) All member states shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.”
“ (4) All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.”
Sounds simple, reasonable and clear enough. Let me add that there are two and only two exceptions to the Charter’s Article 2(4) prohibition against the use of unilateralist force
“ … if an armed attack occurs…” (or is imminent) as contemplated by Article 51 of the UN Charter is one. Authorisation by the United Nations Security Council is the other.”
The United Nations Charter is the constitution of the United Nations. It was signed at the United Nations Conference on International Organization in San Francisco on June 26, 1945 by the 50 original member countries. It entered into force on October 24, 1945, after being ratified by the five founding members—the Republic of China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States — and a majority of the other signatories.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Originally posted by Reality Hurts
All people hear is "Illegal War!!! Illegal War!!! Illegal War!!!". And when pressed for facts it becomes "Er...ok...Immoral War!!! Immoral War!!! Immoral War!!!.
Iraq War is Illegal
“ Article 2(3) and 2(4) of the United Nations Charter read:
“ (3) All member states shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.”
“ (4) All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.”
Sounds simple, reasonable and clear enough. Let me add that there are two and only two exceptions to the Charter’s Article 2(4) prohibition against the use of unilateralist force
“ … if an armed attack occurs…” (or is imminent) as contemplated by Article 51 of the UN Charter is one. Authorisation by the United Nations Security Council is the other.”
The United Nations Charter is the constitution of the United Nations. It was signed at the United Nations Conference on International Organization in San Francisco on June 26, 1945 by the 50 original member countries. It entered into force on October 24, 1945, after being ratified by the five founding members—the Republic of China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States — and a majority of the other signatories.
The Iraq war is illegal according to International Law. It was a war of aggression against a soverign nation that posed no threat.
What don't you understand?
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The Iraq war is illegal according to International Law. It was a war of aggression against a soverign nation that posed no threat.
What don't you understand?