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.

 

The war in Iraq should be illegal!

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Reality Hurts
 


Point noted, but the "spreading democracy" is of economic benefit too, as well as a matter of personal freedoms. In any event, a stable country is better than an unstable one. I agree that there have been mistakes, miscalculations, etc..., but I think that the final intent was made in good faith, even if the execution has had flaws. I still don't see how the view that Saddam in power is considered to be a superior situation, than a democratically elected, free society, or that the US are the bad guys for wanting that.




posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewWorldOver

Absolutely ludicrous.

This is the self-imposed ignorance that I speak of. We had asbolutely no right to go after Saddham because of that NONSENSE which you mentioned. I didn't bother quoting it. It was a pathetic excuse when Bush offered it, and it is still a pathetic excuse when other people try to use it.


Why is it when someone doesn't agree it is from ignorance? I guess you and others with like opinions are the keepers of all truths.

The intelligence at the time was what it was. Whether at a later date this intelligence proved faulty on the WMDs does not show proof that Bush lied, and just like many still believe that the WMD programs were shipped to Syria without empirical data in either case these beliefs mean little.

You tend to over look the severity in Saddam defiance of all those United Nations resolutions. WMDs was just a part of it, and with or without the WMD part the justification was still there even though the Bush administration did blunder in leaning so heavily on the faulty intelligence.

Saddam Hussein was required to fulfill many obligations beyond the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait that he failed to do and so after ten years of 27/7 no fly zones protecting many of the Iraqi people and failure across the board to fulfill his obligations from his invasion in Kuwait the US removed him, and after his removal the war was over, period.



As far as the 'war' we are in ... it is with Iraqis. We are lied to constantly and told that it's Saudi terrorists moving into Iraq who are fighting with us.

No. We are fighting and killing men and in some cases, young boys, because they want us out of their country. Plain and simple. They saw us march in years ago, blow up little children and their homes on accident, then patrol their streets for years more. They are sick of it.

We are fighting a war against 'insurgents' who are nothing more than the battle-worn, sickened civillians of an occupied nation.

It makes me SICK that Americans can still justify this. That we can sit around and say 'war? what war?'


Actually what makes me sick is this type of view. Why don’t you spend a year or two over there and actually get a proper view as to what is going on instead of just sitting in front of your computer spinning everything to fit your extreme sense of reality.

Let me give you some reality.

Saddam needed removal plain and simple, but it was a mistake only in the fact that the Iraqi people have failed until recently to do anything other than secular fighting and personal corruption.

Because of this the US has been obligated to continue to stay in that hellhole and waste a trillion dollars. We do not want to be there, but the chaos and death that would follow on our departure is something the US is not willing to allow.

As fast as we can give a city to the Iraqis we do and as I said until recent gains it has been an up and down process for over four years with no real forward progress.

As for Americans killing everyone here is some reality on that.

This site is used by many that are on either a pro or anti-war side so it is about as non-bias as they come. Body Count

If you look at the resent events of deaths caused by violence it gives a running daily tally from 30 Mar 2003 up to today. It lists as much information as possible such as Date, Name, Age, Sex, Location, Occupation and case documents. If you open up the case files it tells you how they died as much as possible.

Just looking at the last week of violence deaths we see listed at the bottom of my post. We see 10 were killed by US forces and 192 killed for the week from secular/insurgent attacks. For the month of November 73 adults and 2 children were killed by US forces.

For Sept- Oct we see this total;

US forces have killed 96 Iraqi civilians in October, including 23 children.
In September they had killed 91, including 7 children.

OCTOBER TOTAL: 1,187 CIVILIANS KILLED

So out of about 1200 deaths a month about 100 are from the US. Now these monthly numbers for the US are pretty constant, but the older death totals before the surge was 3000 to 3500 a month with US killing still about 100 per month.

These are the realities of what it is like over there. The US does kill innocence people because of collateral damage and mistakes on the part of the US AND the innocent persons killed, but the majority are not innocent, and just go back and read as far back as you can to comprehend the true chaos that the US military is forced to operate in everyday, and then imagine what it would be like if we were not there "Occupying" as you spin it

This is why when you spin this all as you paint your extreme opinion picture you are not even coming close to what the reality actually is.




Monday 10 December : 27 dead
Baghdad: 8 detainees die in mortar attack at detention centre; gunmen kill 2, Karrada; gunmen kill mental hospital director, Baladiyat; 6 bodies.
Tuz Khurmato: roadside bomb kills 4 policemen.
Mosul: 2 killed by roadside bomb.
Buhriz: 2 killed in clashes.
Basra: woman's body found tortured.
Ramadi: body found.

Sunday 9 December: 23 dead
Baghdad: mortar attack kills 1, al-Rashid; 5 bodies.
Baquba: 3 killed in clashes.
Mosul: 3 killed by US helicopter fire in separate incidents.
Hilla: police chief and guards killed by roadside bomb.
Muqdadiya: 6 bodies.
Wassit: head found.

Saturday 8 December: 26 dead
Baghdad: roadside bomb, shooting, kill 2; 3 bodies.
Baiji: suicide bomber blows up truck, kills 11.
Numaniya: rocket kills family of 4; gunmen shoot dead contractor working for US forces.
Mahmudiya: mortar attack kills child.
Suwayra: 2 bodies.

Friday 7 December: 32 Dead
Baghdad: 3 bodies.
Muqdadiya: suicide bomber kills 16, including 3 children.
Dali Abbas: suicide bomber kills 5 anti-al-Qaeda Sunnis.
Rabiaa: gunmen kill 5 policemen.

Thursday 6 December: 23 dead
Baghdad: bus driver shot dead, Yarmouk; 5 bodies.
Dhuluiya: policeman shot dead.
Kut: woman shot dead.
Rutba: child killed in bomb explosion.
Rabia: 4 neighbourhood police killed in drive-by shooting.
Tel Kaif: 4 killed by US forces.
Kirkuk: man killed by gunmen.
Muqdadiya: gunmen kill US-backed security volunteer.
Talia: gunmen kill farmer.
Saadiya: body found.
Abbasi: body found.

Wednesday 5 December: 45 dead
Baghdad: car bomb kills 19, Karrada; 4 bodies.
Baquba: car bomb kills 6; another civilian dies in separate bombing.
Kirkuk: car bomb kills 3.
Mosul: bombs kill 4.
Kut: gunmen kill sheikh.
Asriya: roadside bomb kills civilian.
Tuz Khurmato: gunmen kill policeman.
Muqdadiya: gunmen kill policeman.
Hay: 3 civilians killed by US forces during raid.
Dhuluiya: body found.

Tuesday 4 December: 26 dead
Baghdad: 6 bodies.
Jalawla: suicide bomber kills 8 at police station.
Mosul: 4 killed in separate incidents; 3 bodies.
Mahaweel: 2 bodies.




[edit on 11-12-2007 by Xtrozero]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


Well, if the UN acted on any of the resolutions they past we would not have had to do their job. If the UN did it according to their own rules, it is not illegal, but if the USA acts in its place, doing its job again and again and again.........and again. We are acting illegal??? The resolutions were there. We acted according to the resolutions. We did not need that approval of the UN to do what we did.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by codex code
War is wrong!


Does not make it illegal.


Why can’t we all get along?


Did you know that the guy who said that is back in jail after being drunk at a party and partaking in domestic violence?????


In the end, we all have the same beating heart! The same blood that goes through our veins!
I love my planet, I love my race (even though its messed up



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Well put!!!!! Very well written response.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Spreading democracy and taking out saddam hussein.

Ok. If you really think the mess we are in was worth ANY of that hokum, it's pointless debating with you.

Brainwashed is a light term to use. The excuses I hear in here have been stuffed down your throat by the Bush administration and you still manage to regurgitate it as if it is legitimate.

We are not spreading democracy. Saddam Hussein was none of our business. End of discussion on my (and the rest of the worlds) part.

You lot who believe this war is anything but ludicrous are now the minority. But there are still far too many of you.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
^ I'm sorry, but nobody has the time or energy to deal with hokum like that. You manage to come off as completely arrogant and argument-intensive, picking out quote by quote whatever you can disagree with... and none of it is really interesting or relevant.

I'll never understand how some people can sit down and argue with quotes without realizing the futility of it. In the end, as far as threads go, one-sided arguments like that tend to kill the conversation. You over-did it.

[edit on 11-12-2007 by NewWorldOver]


Isn't that how we debate here? You state your case and someone debates it. Quoting is a way to focus your argument towards the person you are responing to, and I think he did a rather good job at it.

BTW

Actually it is a two sided argument or more when you quote people and then reply to the quotes.

[edit on 11-12-2007 by Xtrozero]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by NewWorldOver
 


So what would you call the democratically elected governments in Afghanistan and Iraq, that have replaced the Taliban and Saddam? I submit that it is not I who is brainwashed.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
Spreading democracy and taking out saddam hussein.

Ok. If you really think the mess we are in was worth ANY of that hokum, it's pointless debating with you.



Wow,

Now you are starting down a totally different path.

"Do you think the mess we are in was worth it"

Even if Saddam would have killed millions more it was not worth it, how’s that for ethics. The reason here, and even a worst case scenario of Africa, is that no matter what we do to help the populace really do not want it, and are more willing to kill each other when they can get away with it or join together to kill the Americans when they can than doing it all with non-violence by coming together to form a free moderate society. As brutal and primitive as it sounds that is their way of life, and ever time we assume they are better they show us how wrong we are.

Personally, I have reached the point that I would like to see a more Ron Paul approach in we play with the rest of the world economically only and let the UN flounder on their own while the world does what they may no matter how heinous it is. This will allow other countries to put their actions where only their mouths have been doing all the work.

Sadly, the results of this would be a extreme depopulation in many parts of the world affecting billions in the end.

See how we can agree on somethings



[edit on 11-12-2007 by Xtrozero]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 



Legally speaking, you are correct. The puppet government in Iraq is officially recognized as legitimate. The problem is that legally speaking, the US never should have invaded invaded in the first place.

You also fail to recognize that large factions of the legitimate government do not approve of the US troop presence in Iraq. Furthermore, a large segment of the population is not even represented in this "democracy" because the US has deemed them "terrorists" in their own country. Violent resistance to the presence of a foreign power is not terrorism.

Lastly, do you honestly believe the US would pull out of Iraq if their President asked us too?! There are already long-term plans for the US military in Iraq, regardless of the level of violence there. If those plans were challenged, I'd bet on another regime change in Iraq. After all, any Iraqi who doesn't want Americans there must be a terrorist.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Reality Hurts
 





It would only be described as a dictatorship if the US's scope of control was complete and global. Does the US rule the world? Are you subject to the laws of the US?


Huh? Are you trying to say that a dictatorship cannot exist without global dominance? What does ruling the world have to do with the definition of a dictatorship. Saddam Hussein was a dictator and he didn't rule the world.

Furthermore, being subject to the laws of the US has nothing to do with international law.

Talk about irrational leaps.



[edit on 12/11/0707 by jackinthebox]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 




It puzzles me why some folks seem to think that the notion of spreading democracy is a bad thing. The truth is, that democracy helps promote not only peace(democratic nations typically don't war with one another), and economic improvement/business. Who are we to impose personal freedom- that's just arrogant I suppose. I can see how terrible these things must seem to some though.


There's nothing wrong with spreading democracy. This is not democracy. If it was, it would not have to be imposed. In fact, it could not be imposed based upon the very nature of democracy itself. There is the proof that what we are seeing is imperialism. The US imposed its will upon Iraq. There was nothing democratic about it.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Reality Hurts
 





I am not an advocate of the war in Iraq, as it is currently run. The "spreading democracy" line is a talking point, and doesn't reflect the real reason why we are there. It was an economic play- the plan was to quickly remove a persistent pain, stabilize, and get out. Mismanagement, policy wise, and bad advice led to where it is now.


You assume that the plan was to get out quickly. I seriously doubt this was or is the case. I think the US has deliberatley fanned the flames there to legitimaze its long-term presence.




That having been said, the problem I have in this thread is how people like Agit8dChop allow their wants and emotions to trump law and reality. Calling the war illegal has no basis in fact. Sure some lawyers (who are opposed to the war) might have drawn up some papers expressing their opinion. However, the reality of it is that it is not illegal. The UN approved the use of force. Even earlier, the treaty after the 1st Gulf War stated that force could be used if Iraq acted militarily against the multinational forces enforcing resolutions, which he did every time he fired a missile at planes patrolling the no fly zones. Beyond even that, the US is not party to any treaty that would hold them accountable.


As an American, I am not arguing that the invasion of Iraq may actually be justifiable. I am only saying that is has not yet been justified, and that it was in fact illegal.




The invasion of a single nation by another nation or group of nations is only legal under the UN Charter if such an invasion has been sanctioned by the vote of the UN Security Council. This did not happen in the case of the recent Iraq invasion, since the United States and Great Britain, led by the U.S. Secretary of State Powell, withdrew on March 17, 2003 their resolution to stage such an invasion from consideration by the UN Security Council when they realized that the majority of its members would vote against it. Instead, Powell and others insisted that this approval was unnecessary, since UN Resolutions 687 and 1441 (the latter of 8 November 2002) had already granted this right. However, this is simply not true. As demonstrated by a close examination of the UN Charter and these particular resolutions, there is no possible interpretation that preempts the need for a final decision by the Security Council. Because the U.S. and U.K. withdrew their resolution, there could be no decision permitting an invasion. As a result, the invasion of Iraq was illegal, and those who brought it about can be held responsible for war crimes by an impartial international tribunal, for example the International Criminal Court (ICC). -Written by Edward Jayne and Ronald Kramer



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Just to interject, War is always, after it is unavoidable, transformed into a means of profit.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 





I'll say this slowly:

The US. Withdrew from. The Rome Statute.

That means. We don't recognize. The authority. Of the ICC.

No US citizen. Can be prosecuted. By the ICC.

And have it. Upheld by. The US Government.


Nice try though.



s]

[edit on 11-12-2007 by Reality Hurts]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 






...but I think that the final intent was made in good faith, even if the execution has had flaws. I still don't see how the view that Saddam in power is considered to be a superior situation, than a democratically elected, free society, or that the US are the bad guys for wanting that.


The US are the "bad guys" because it was none of Bush's business how Saddam decided to run his own country. There wasn't even any legitimate political opposition to his regime that the US could support. The US simply and arbitrarily decided that "they know best." I may belive in democracy, but that is only my own personal opinion. The Vietnamese happen to believe in Communism, and they won that right.

The point is not wether or not Saddam was a "bad guy." There are plenty of those in the world. Look at Bush himself. As far as the Iraqis being better off, they all agree that things are much worse in Iraq now than when Saddam was in charge regardless of their opinion on Saddam.

(And please don't go into the "getting better" speech anyone.)



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by newyorkee
 



Can't disagree there. In fact war is known to be one of the largest motiviators to spur technological development, as well as providing the means for such development. For example radar might not exist today if it were not for war.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox

There's nothing wrong with spreading democracy. This is not democracy. If it was, it would not have to be imposed. In fact, it could not be imposed based upon the very nature of democracy itself. There is the proof that what we are seeing is imperialism. The US imposed its will upon Iraq. There was nothing democratic about it.



Amen.

The guise of 'spreading democracy' is so shallow and insulting to the real american spirit that I am ashamed of all the Americans who parrot the Bush Administrations laughable excuses for staying in Iraq.

As I said earlier, people will twist and skew perspectives till the sun goes down in order to avoid admitting guilt on part of the government or Bush administration. Why? Do they honestly believe that we are spreading democracy by forcing elections on a select handful of citizens? No. They are parroting tired and ridiculous excuses.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by traderonwallst
 




Well, if the UN acted on any of the resolutions they past we would not have had to do their job. If the UN did it according to their own rules, it is not illegal, but if the USA acts in its place, doing its job again and again and again.........and again. We are acting illegal??? The resolutions were there. We acted according to the resolutions. We did not need that approval of the UN to do what we did.


To make the invasion legal, the US needed a resolution to be passed by the UN Security Council. The US knew that their intelligence was weak/non-existant, so they didn't even bother to call for a vote. Previous resolutions in no way granted the US the authority to invade if the terms of those previous resolutions were violated. That's like saying it's justifiable to hang someone for speeding. Legally, we did need UN approval for what we did.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 





So what would you call the democratically elected governments in Afghanistan and Iraq, that have replaced the Taliban and Saddam?


I know what I call them. Puppets. What sort of democracy can you have when you are basically told "go vote or I'll shoot you and blow up your home."



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join