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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Reality Hurts
 



Just because I don't "recognize" the laws does not mean that I am not bound by them. Hitler didn't recognize the authority of the League of Nations, that seemed to work well for him.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

As a security guard, I had a lot of people fail to recognize my authority. "You're not a cop," they would say. The judge didn't much care about their opinion. They all had to pay their fines or serve their sentences.

International law exists regardless of wether or not it is upheld by the US.

There were plenty of Nazi war criminals put to death who were only "carrying out orders." In fact, they were actually legally bound to under their system. But then they suddenly learned the painful truth that international law supersedes national laws.

Thanks President Bush, for making all Americans war criminals.




posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


I am in the military. Once we handed over sovereignty to the Iraqi government, we had to get approval for military ops, so to answer your question- yes if they asked us to leave, I believe we would. I don't think they'll ask us to leave anytime soon though, until Iraqi forces are capable of handling all of the security issues. As far as the government being a puppet government- a greater percentage of Iraqis voted in the elections, than Americans. The USA didn't decide who the candidates were, or the victors.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 03:23 PM
link   
NWO -

You obviously need to mature a little and with that attitude I don't belive ATS is the right place for you.

Most people here share ideas and have discussions and do not resort to namecalling or being obtuse.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


The Iraqis were told they'd be killed if they did vote by the insurgents. Please stop with the BS revisionism- there was no American threat to blow anything up PERIOD. We had to pull security so that they could come out and vote. They risked their lives to vote, and came out in greater percentages than American voters- .

I suggest you start here, and read up a bit more about what the real story was.

www.guardian.co.uk...

images.google.com...



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


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.



You're wrong about the "large segement" not represented. It's a small number of folks trying to intimidate the rest through violence. Some of them for political reasons, some for religious reasons. The vast majority of Iraqis just want stability, and the ability to provide for their families. It's a small group that want to sabotage that effort, and of this group, it's not even comprised solely of Iraqis.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 04:59 PM
link   



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 




The Iraqis were told they'd be killed if they did vote by the insurgents. Please stop with the BS revisionism- there was no American threat to blow anything up PERIOD. We had to pull security so that they could come out and vote. They risked their lives to vote, and came out in greater percentages than American voters- .


I must concede your point on this fact. I did not bother to visit your links, but I know you are accurate on this point. I vastly oversimplified my position with my previous statement, and I apologize.

There may be those who would argue that US troop security was actually an intimidation tactic during the voting process, but I would disagree with them.



You're wrong about the "large segement" not represented. It's a small number of folks trying to intimidate the rest through violence. Some of them for political reasons, some for religious reasons. The vast majority of Iraqis just want stability, and the ability to provide for their families. It's a small group that want to sabotage that effort, and of this group, it's not even comprised solely of Iraqis.


I do agree that there are foreign fighters exploiting the situation in Iraq, but I also believe that they are being used to keep Iraq destablized as part of the deliberate strategy of the Bush Administration. Yes, I do believe that Bush is intentionally prolonging the war.

Again I agree with you, the vast majority of Iraqis do want stablity. This does not mean however, that they do not support the religious and political agandas of the insurgents who are not represented in the government.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 


I think that you and I are on much the same line here, but let me even take it one step further.

Wether or not there were any WMD's is even beside the point, as is the whole "Saddam was a bad man" argument.

The Iraqi people actually had a relatively high standard of living with effective social programs, a secular government (albeit dominated by a cult of personality), and generally positive relations with both western and Asian nations for decades.

On the other hand, there is another country that is led by a real loony-tune who has no grip on reality whatsoever and has let his people starve to death by the millions. He also has nuclear weapons, as a matter of fact, and his country has been isolated by the world since the 1950's. Saddam Hussein may have been a viscious and brutal dictator, but he was also effective in controlling a diverse and violent country with positive results for the people. Kim Jong Il is the real madman, and he's still standing over there in his platform shoes.


Edit to add in hindsight:

But please don't get so hot under the collar there. There are a lot of Americans here.


[edit on 12/11/0707 by jackinthebox]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox

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."


Come on dude, we understand your point, but when you make comments like this they truly distract from any of your points that are not totally based on opinion. You play with your opinions as if they were all facts, and they are not. Don’t mix and match opinions as facts just to support your side for in the end they all start to have zero credibility.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 



I did kinda shoot myself in the foot there. Sorry. As I stated above, I vastly oversimplified my own opinion anyway.

Please see my reply to BlueRaja.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox

Wether or not there were any WMD's is even beside the point, as is the whole "Saddam was a bad man" argument.

The Iraqi people actually had a relatively high standard of living with effective social programs, a secular government (albeit dominated by a cult of personality), and generally positive relations with both western and Asian nations for decades.


I think that it all depended on who you were. If not for the US there would not be a Kurd alive in Iraq.



On the other hand, there is another country that is led by a real loony-tune who has no grip on reality whatsoever and has let his people starve to death by the millions. He also has nuclear weapons, as a matter of fact, and his country has been isolated by the world since the 1950's. Saddam Hussein may have been a viscious and brutal dictator, but he was also effective in controlling a diverse and violent country with positive results for the people. Kim Jong Il is the real madman, and he's still standing over there in his platform shoes.


You are very right here with old Kim, but there is a small difference between the two. In Saddam’s case he actually invaded another country and used WMDs on his own people and Kim has not gone so far as to push the button in either case. Because of that the world sees Kim as a loon, but also a containable loon where Saddam was not containable and that ultimately lead to his down fall.

Kim is smart enough to know he can saber rattle all he wants much like Iran does too, but both know if either actually opens the flood gates of war then they are history as Saddam was.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 




If not for the US there would not be a Kurd alive in Iraq.


This is quite an exaggeration. The Kurds have been at odds with the central government in Baghdad since the Baathists took control. The US did nothing to support the Kurds for decades, and they managed to survive. In fact, the US sold the chemicals to Iraq that were used to gas the Kurds and are therefore complicit in those acts of terrorism. Furthermore, the US betrayed the Kurds after Gulf War One. The US promised to provide material and political support to a popular uprising, but then actually pulled all of the resources when the uprising actually ocurred, costing many lives among the opponents of Saddam's regime.



You are very right here with old Kim, but there is a small difference between the two. In Saddam’s case he actually invaded another country and used WMDs on his own people and Kim has not gone so far as to push the button in either case. Because of that the world sees Kim as a loon, but also a containable loon where Saddam was not containable and that ultimately lead to his down fall.


Don't forget though, that Saddam only invaded Kuwait after the US gave him the go-a. behind closed doors. The US basically told him it was of no concern to the US what happened to Kuwait. Even if you choose not to accept the evidence that has gone around on that topic, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in no way justifies the US invasion of Iraq a decade later. Iraqi forces were ejected from Kuwait, and sanctioned by the UN. The fact that no-fly zones and other measures were put in place makes it even more impossible for me to believe that Iraq posed any threat to anyone, much less the US.

Aside from US complicity in the chemical attack on the Kurds, there is of course the moral concern that Saddam would actually do this to his own people. There is no doubt that he tortured and murdered thousands of Iraqi people. But, Kim has literally left millions of his own people dead of starvation. Which "WMD" has been more effective?





[edit on 12/11/0707 by jackinthebox]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Only liberals and terrorist sympathizers believe Iraq war was not justified. If you think Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism as a whole, well then you're not as informed as you may think yourself to be. There's even footage of Saddam handing out checks to families of suicide bombers, but I guess that can't be counted in the liberal agenda....seems like liberals would much rather support terrorism than the security of the United States.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
NWO -

You obviously need to mature a little and with that attitude I don't belive ATS is the right place for you.

Most people here share ideas and have discussions and do not resort to namecalling or being obtuse.


You need to show me where I did anything of the sort. Carry on.

[edit on 11-12-2007 by NewWorldOver]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by laiguana
Only liberals and terrorist sympathizers believe Iraq war was not justified.


I find it sad that people can be simplified to such an extent. The war in Iraq has been painted so thoroughly with political bias that we have people walking around actually SPOUTING things like this... in the year 2000 no less.

Yes. We love terrorists. We are all dirty liberals


Who was it who told me I need to mature? I don't walk around calling every pro-war person a gun-toting redneck, do I?



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by laiguana
 




...There's even footage of Saddam handing out checks to families of suicide bombers...


Show me. Please. (Now this is not a one sentence post
)



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox


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.



And name me the court that has the authority over the United States? I am sorry, how many people have been indicted. Surely if it were ILLEGAL, someone would have been indicted by now. Well,......anyone???

I think not!



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox

Saddam Hussein may have been a viscious and brutal dictator, but he was also effective in controlling a diverse and violent country with positive results for the people.


[edit on 12/11/0707 by jackinthebox]


It was not Saddam Hussein that was effective in controlling a diverse and violent country with positive results for the people, it was the death squads led by his two sons that regularly executed people who disagreed with the thoughts of the dictator.

If you gonna "tell it like it is", try telling it like it really was.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by traderonwallst
 


I find one thing ironic..

Just reading replies in this thread.

Who do conpiracy theorist say want to implement a New World Order?

Republicans. you know. Those infamous NeoCons.

Who in this thread and in many, many places not only SUPPORT a One World Government....

But actually think it already exist...

Liberals, who probably vote along Democrat.

Interesting to say the least.... very interesting. They should know though. The UN is not a government, and does not hold sovereignty over ANYONE and does not represent international law..

Though if we had it your way the federal government would be bowing to the . of the UN, who would then be what.. ruler of the world?



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by traderonwallst
 




And name me the court that has the authority over the United States?


The War Crimes Tribunal.



I am sorry, how many people have been indicted. Surely if it were ILLEGAL, someone would have been indicted by now. Well,......anyone???


Well, all the Nazis got were indicted, and a lot of them were hung. Then there were all those people from the Balkan wars. Just recently there was a dictator from Africa. And a lot of people have been distancing themselves from the Bush Administration, especially with some of the stuff that has been coming out lately. Now I'm not predicting he will be indicted, but it's possible.



It was not Saddam Hussein that was effective in controlling a diverse and violent country with positive results for the people, it was the death squads led by his two sons that regularly executed people who disagreed with the thoughts of the dictator.


Are you kidding me? Who do you think his sons and those death squads were working for? No wonder you're having such difficulty seeing the bigger picture. I don't think it was Saddam or his sons, or the death squads. I blame the bullets. The bullets killed all those people.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join