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.
Originally posted by MysticalUnicorn
You know what I mean. I am speaking in general. You take a look at this thread and you see people who want the President of the United States of America hung! Just like the terrorist Saddam.
.........................
Originally posted by Muaddib
why not hang all these people who keep lying, twisting the facts and exagerating on their hatred against anything Republican?...
Anyone who keeps exagerating and lying to the American public, and the world, which also leads to deaths of soldiers...
... so your dissent has led soldiers to their death...
BTW Benevolent, president Bush was not responsible for 9/11,
apparently these people can lie all they want without any restrictions but when they claim that "Americans were lied to" they want to start hanging people...
Originally posted by MysticalUnicorn
You know what I mean. I am speaking in general. You take a look at this thread and you see people who want the President of the United States of America hung! Just like the terrorist Saddam. You can be anti-bush, but if you want him raped, tortured, and hung, you are anti-american. You can debate all you feel like, but when you call for the President of America to be hung, IT IS ANTI-AMERICAN!
I am not condemning the site, but when you make a thread and 8 out of 10 atsers think Bush should be hung (and they are not joking), you have a generally anti-american site.
Originally posted by FlyersFan
because this illegia war,
Our government approved of the war. It was voted on and approved. It is not illegal. Oh .. and don't bother trying to throw the UN into this. The corrupt UN security council accepted millions in bribes to vote against war in Iraq. They have no moral or legal authority.
Bottom line - the war is not 'illegal'. It received proper approval through our government channels.
Originally posted by MysticalUnicorn
The sad part of this thread is I don't think any of you Bush-haters are joking. I appreciate FlyersFan clearing you guys up, and he/she has received a WATS from me.
This site is anti-american!
Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Originally posted by FlyersFan
The Americans who died in Iraq are military personel.. soldiers .. not civilians.
fundly enough i was talking about the 3000 innocent civilians he ALLOWED to die in sept11..
how else do you explain the enormous amount of intel PRIOR to the attack, he 'fortunately' misunderstood, didnt see or just plain ignored.
And your saying because 'your' governemnt approved the war, its not illegial?
No wonder the world hates you.. you decide if its 'legal' to invade and occupy people regardless of wether the proof you put forward has any shred of truth.
Bush deserves to hang, from every part of his body.
[edit on 30-12-2006 by Agit8dChop]
Originally posted by df1
The fact that the US is involved in a military conflict in iraq without a specific declaration of war by congress is clearly unconstitutional. Article I Section 8 of the Constitution spells out the requirement for waging and declaring war. It spells out quite clearly that only congress has the power to declare war. The fact that the us is militarily engaged in iraq with the tacit approval of congress does not make the situation legal, it only serves to prove that our government has been taken over by criminals that have no regard for the constitution. And the faux patriots sycophants that support this act of treason are no better than the criminals they support.
Both congress and the executive branch need to be held accountable for both crimes against all of humanity, as well as, crimes against the american people specifically.
.
Originally posted by GT100FV
90% of Iraqis feel they were better under Saddam? Who took this poll?
The Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies (ICRSS) is an independent think tank in Baghdad.
1/3 of US Soldiers are against the war?
On Nov. 13, we mailed questionnaires to 6,000 people drawn at random from our list of active-duty subscribers. The annual poll has come to be viewed by some as a barometer of the professional career military.
Originally posted by GT100FV
Quoting other folks opinions isn't evidence, so spare me the Prisonplanet BS.
Originally posted by df1
The fact that the US is involved in a military conflict in iraq without a specific declaration of war by congress is clearly unconstitutional. Article I Section 8 of the Constitution spells out the requirement for waging and declaring war. It spells out quite clearly that only congress has the power to declare war. The fact that the us is militarily engaged in iraq with the tacit approval of congress does not make the situation legal, it only serves to prove that our government has been taken over by criminals that have no regard for the constitution. And the faux patriots sycophants that support this act of treason are no better than the criminals they support.
Both congress and the executive branch need to be held accountable for both crimes against all of humanity, as well as, crimes against the american people specifically.
.
House Vote 455: Oct 10, 2002 (107th Congress)
H. J. Res. 114[107]: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Vote On Passage)
Passed: On Passage: H J RES 114 To Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
The Americans who died in Iraq are military personel.. soldiers .. not civilians.
Why? They don't want to. The insurgent terrorists do; Saddams tribe in Tikrit does because their illegal income was cut off when Saddam got busted; but the Iraqis in general don't.
Our government approved of the war. It was voted on and approved. It is not illegal. Oh .. and don't bother trying to throw the UN into this. The corrupt UN security council accepted millions in bribes to vote against war in Iraq. They have no moral or legal authority.
Bottom line - the war is not 'illegal'. It received proper approval through our government channels.
You claim that his actions killed at least 'hundreds of thousands' .. at least 200,000 Iraqi civilians? BULL. There have been threads here claiming that and all have been totally debunked.
Ya'll enjoy your Bush-hate-fest.
The sad part of this thread is I don't think any of you Bush-haters are joking. I appreciate FlyersFan clearing you guys up, and he/she has received a WATS from me.
This site is anti-american!
You can be anti-bush, but if you want him raped, tortured, and hung, you are anti-american. You can debate all you feel like, but when you call for the President of America to be hung, IT IS ANTI-AMERICAN!
The office of president of the United States deserves a great amount of respect. The person in that office has to earn it.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Originally posted by GT100FV
90% of Iraqis feel they were better under Saddam? Who took this poll?
The Iraq Center for Research and Strategic Studies (ICRSS) took the poll.
The Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies (ICRSS) is an independent think tank in Baghdad.
Next question?
1/3 of US Soldiers are against the war?
This poll was taken by the Military Times
On Nov. 13, we mailed questionnaires to 6,000 people drawn at random from our list of active-duty subscribers. The annual poll has come to be viewed by some as a barometer of the professional career military.
Edited to add:
Originally posted by GT100FV
Quoting other folks opinions isn't evidence, so spare me the Prisonplanet BS.
No one here has quoted people's opinions OR linked to Prison Planet. What are you referring to?
[edit on 31-12-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The fact that you think this has anything to do with something as shallow and irrelevant as a political party shows how out of touch you are with what I (at least) am advocating.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice... ALL of them have done just that. With 90% of Iraqis saying that they were better off BEFORE the invasion
The findings emerged after house-to-house interviews conducted by the ICRSS during the third week of November. About 2,000 people from Baghdad (82 percent), Anbar and Najaf (9 percent each) were randomly asked to express their opinion. Twenty-four percent of the respondents were women.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That's so ridiculous! They're big boys and girls and made their decision to die for their country if need be. If they're depending on us to support this occupation, then they're in it for the wrong reasons. To blame the soldiers' deaths on the people who want them to come home -- now that's some twisted logic! That's about as lame as it gets. Sorry.
Originally posted by Muaddib
I guess an authorization passed by Congress to use military force against Iraq is not a declaration of war according to df1....
A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation, and one or more others.
Declarations of war have been acceptable means and diplomatic measures since the Renaissance, when the first formal declarations of war were issued.
In public international law, a declaration of war entails the recognition between countries of a state of hostilities between these countries, and such declaration acted to regulate the conduct between the military engagements between the forces of the respective countries. The primary multilateral treaties governing such declarations are the Hague Conventions.
.................
Authorized use of force
Frequently used as an alternative to a declaration of war, authorized use of force is often used to avoid traditional barriers to the initiation of combat. Typically a full declaration must be ratified by various legislative bodies, but 'authorized use of force' may allow an elected head of state to directly initiate forceful action without further consultation. In addition, with declarations of war being increasingly regulated by international bodies, 'authorized use of force' can often be used to avoid some of the negative consequences of a declaration.
Authorized use of force is relatively common among democratic societies. The United States, for instance, has been directly involved in military activities in every decade of the latter half of the twentieth century yet has not declared war formally since World War II. For instance, in the case of the Vietnam war and the Iraq war, Congress authorized the use of force rather than putting forth a declaration of war. As noted above, there is a dispute over the constitutionality of this legislative procedure.
In addition, with declarations of war being increasingly regulated by international bodies, 'authorized use of force' can often be used to avoid some of the negative consequences of a declaration.