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: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


I think you are confusing the tyrannical dictatorship of the elitist inteligista and global financiers of the NWO, with the democratic forum of international law know as the United Nations.

The NWO is at hand, but as so many seem to have been arguing, the UN is powerless to stop Bush.




[edit on 12/12/0707 by jackinthebox]




posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 02:17 AM
link   
The UN will never stop Bush. They are part of the same body of cabalists that run the world and allow international warfare to become a common occurence. The UN will be the branch from which the New World Order will GROW, it is nothing but a global charade of governments falling in line.

This war is illegal and most of the country has admitted it. Denial is a healthy thing if you don't want to give up hope on your country. But I haven't given up hope simply because we're in an illegal war. I know that the UN will not save us, a new President will not save us, a new congress has not pulled us out... it's going to be civilians and soldiers coming together in the end to resist all of this. Nobody will care whether or not it was legal to invade Iraq at this point. We'll be fighting for control of our own country.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 02:33 AM
link   



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

I would call them enroniens or 76 ers, because the president of afganistan was implicated with bush in oil busines , was an X employ of bush oil comp share.
So it's just a pupet goverment, with pupet bush having other pupets for his self, this are the pupet masters lined up in the ass kissing formation on the stairs.

The truth is. NO WMD no proof sadam was behind the terrorist acts of 911.
There was no motive to invade iraq, sure sadam was tiranical but no more than the others that run free around in places as saudy arabia



[edit on 12-12-2007 by pepsi78]



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
[i
Show me. Please. (Now this is not a one sentence post
)


Here you go!! Hope the link works:

www.cbsnews.com...



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
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.

International laws are called TREATIES. Nations agree to terms and sign a treaty. They are then bound by them. Nations who do not sign the treaties are not bound by them.

The US is not a signatory to treaty that would include its recognition of the ICC. Therefore, the US is not bound to the treaty and cannot be subject to its terms. This is not rocket science: Treaty not signed = no subject to its laws. Thinking that the US is bound by those laws isn't akin to your career as a security guard (that you referenced).



Originally posted by jackinthebox
The War Crimes Tribunal.

What war crimes tribunal?

One could be created by the UN Security Council, but somehow I don't think that permanent members of that council like the UK, the US, and Sarkozy's France are going to create one.




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



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Reality Hurts
 


Treaties as well are not laws, but recognition of good faith. For instance, Israel signed a treaty that it would not build nuclear weapons. It did anyways. They broke the terms of the treaty, but no "law" .. unless someone bigger had a problem with it. No one has.

Many other treaties are broken by every nation in the world. Another one broken is the signed treaty banning international mercenaries. It was then replaced by "Private Contractors" who are essentially -- mercenaries.

No.. treaties are not laws because just like the reason there cannot be international law -- there is no one to enforce a treaty .. just good faith.

Also -- you guys think bush is creating a NWO for One World Government and the UN who you already consider a One World Government is trying to stop him?

How does that even remotely sound educated?



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Treaties as well are not laws


Webster's defines a Treaty as " a contract in writing between two or more political authorities (as states or sovereigns) formally signed by representatives duly authorized and usually ratified by the lawmaking authority of the state". Also, Wikipedia defines it as "an agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely states and international organizations".

So basically we are both wrong....slightly. They aren't laws, but they are legally enforceable...which was my point anyway. If the US had broken a treaty, it would be considered the same as breaking a legal contract, and would therefore be subject to legal action. It would also make this an "illegal war", which thus far, it is not.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox


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.



I was speaking about you so-called illegal Iraq war. I guess if you could not answer the question you could reach back into the past and pull out true criminals, but in this war.......Not the Americans.

By the way...bullets don't kill people, guns don't kill people. PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. Thats like when I read the news paper and it says SUV kills pedestrian. News papers have their agendas and so the people here on ATS.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Reality Hurts
 


It is a pretty much black and white issue. Is it a law or not? .. It is not a law.

When we sign a treaty, the entire government must approve -- it can even go before the Supreme Court if it feels the treaty with international entities endangers domestic rights and or sovereignty.

If the Untied States signs a treaty and then breaks that treaty out right.. if the domestic governing bodies (the House for example, or it can be contested in the Supreme Court in rare occasions) decide that acting in contradiction to the treaty signed is against what they feel our policy should be, they can take action to stop what ever action is taking place that endangers the treaty.

However..

If the entire government or even a majority or sometimes just the executive branch, decide to go ahead with plans that go blatantly against a treaty... the treaty is either nullified or frozen ..

No out side government can do anything about it.

Just this year Russia dropped out of a major arms production treaty and began plans to increase its nuclear stockpile. Broke a treaty.. made the US mad no doubt.. but what can we do?

Nothing.

If Iraq as a treaty signed and breaks it, and the US attacks it because it broke it.. that is not enforcing a law so much as pressing power unto a weaker nation to make it do as you bid.

The only way anything can be considered a law (regardless of what Wikipedia says
.. ) is if a governing force or elected assembly passes a bill and then has the ability to enforce it at what ever means necessary.

The UN does not have this ability, nor do they pretend they do.

What I am trying to say is simply this. No outside entity can bind a nations sovereignty in ANY way.. unless through out right power. Jamaica cannot suppress us with various laws. We can suppress them because we are bigger. This is why the United States is present in many governments throughout the world.. we have an agenda, we use nations.. they don't use us.

And yes, any form of "international law" is a violation of any nations sovereignty .. only they have the right to direct what they will, or will not do.. being bound by a law from other nations, regardless if agreed is breaching that. A treaty or signed affiliation of good faith does not breach sovereignty. They also have no binding powers.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


So the voters in those countries would then be puppet voters too then? Are you saying that governments that are friendly or pro-west are puppet governments, while those opposed to us are the only legitimate ones?



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja

So the voters in those countries would then be puppet voters too then?

Yes I would say so



Are you saying that governments that are friendly or pro-west are puppet governments, while those opposed to us are the only legitimate ones?

It's a simple calculation.
Pupet bush has other pupets that control other small pupets.


Here go's your democracy.

freepress.org...


Unocal has two other important operatives. One is Hamid Karzai, Unocal’s former representative in Afghanistan who was handpicked by Bush to become head of Afghanistan’s interim government.


www.cooperativeresearch.org...


Zalmay Khalilzad is appointed Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Gulf, Southwest Asia and Other Regional Issues on the National Security Council. Khalilzad was an official in the Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations. During the Clinton years, he worked for Unocal. [US Department of State, 2001; Independent, 1/10/2002] He previously worked under Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and helped him write a controversial 1992 plan for US world domination.(see March 8, 1992) [New York Times, 3/23/2003] He was a member of the neoconservative think tank Project for the New American Century. The Asia Times notes, “It was Khalilzad—when he was a huge Taliban fan—who conducted the risk analysis for Unocal (Union Oil Company of California) for the infamous proposed $2 billion, 1,500 kilometer-long Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan [TAP] gas pipeline.” [Asia Times, 12/25/2003] After 9/11, he will be appointed as special envoy to Afghanistan (see January 1, 2002) and then US ambassador to Afghanistan (see November 2003).
Entity Tags: Unocal, Paul Wolfowitz, Project for the New American Century, National Security Council, Taliban, Zalmay M. Khalilzad
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline


Yeah vote of the people my !@!#!@



I guess they needed those pipe lines badly, they just put some one to do it, and then Bush shows on TV and states"god bless america, for practicly robing other countries, iraq is the same.
They just start wars and make money of the wars, but I can't educate you since you have a vision where you can't turn your head left or right.




[edit on 13-12-2007 by pepsi78]



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


Well I hope these puppet voters don't find out, they have a puppet government that does business with the USA, and doesn't oppress them like the Taliban. There'll be chaos for sure once that subterfuge comes to light.

What type of government would you be willing to concede is legitimate based on your standards then?



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by pepsi78
 


Well I hope these puppet voters don't find out, they have a puppet
government that does business with the USA, and doesn't oppress them like the Taliban. There'll be chaos for sure once that subterfuge comes to light.

What type of government would you be willing to concede is legitimate based on your standards then?




What pupet voters, what are you talking about, they just took him and planced him as head of the state and that is about it, and about people if
any one is against anything they will just drop some bombs to solve the problem or people will get sent to guantanamo as enemy comatants.

As the invasion started afganistan was bomed with intensity, a type of bombs that when exloding suck the air out of the area and incinerate everything, tribes man, woman and children were killed , after the ocupatin took place by foot those who oposed or even surendered were captured and left to bake in the sun in carbord boxes tied up until they died.





Here is what happens if you don't vote pro usa.

www.thewe.cc...





Lt Denton wrote a nice poem

"You die, you die, you die....You can see the person but you can't see the features of his face...You just see a big dust cloud where the person used to be...I really enjoy it...I really enjoy it....You just see a big dust cloud...I really enjoy it...you die, you die...you can't see his face...you die...I really enjoy it."



And you are talking about voting
perhaps they should implement a mechanism there for grave votig, you know he dies then upon lowering the person in the grave also make him vote.



[edit on 13-12-2007 by pepsi78]



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


Point agreed upon. (Barring press manipulation) I would have to agree that Saddam Hussein was supporting "terrorism." This still does not make the invasion legal however. Nor does this fact establish "an imminent threat to U.S. national security."

As I have stated before, Saddam was clearly a very bad man, but this does no give America the right to do what it did. Nor am I willing to die because there is some bad person in a far away land. There are enough evil people right here America. "Clean up your own back yard before you go knockin' on your neighbors' door."

This quote from the link provided by "jerico65" will speak for itself:



But Saddam is not the only one giving money. Charities from Saudi Arabia and Qatar — both U.S. allies — pay money to families of Palestinians killed in the fighting, including suicide bombers.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by traderonwallst
 




I was speaking about you so-called illegal Iraq war. I guess if you could not answer the question you could reach back into the past and pull out true criminals, but in this war.......Not the Americans.


The court with the authority is the UN War Crimes Tribunal. That is the answer to your question. The same authority who prosecuted every other person who thought they were not bound by international law.




By the way...bullets don't kill people, guns don't kill people. PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.


I fully agree on this point.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 




It is a pretty much black and white issue. Is it a law or not? .. It is not a law. When we sign a treaty, the entire government must approve -- it can even go before the Supreme Court if it feels the treaty with international entities endangers domestic rights and or sovereignty.


You lack a basic understanding in the concept of law itself. A state in the United States may not agree with Federal law, but are still bound by it by previous agreements. If California legalizes marijuana, you can still be prosecuted under Federal law.

Please read the following definition of law, with examples in parenthesis as it applies to this discussion:



–noun 1. the principles and regulations established in a (global) community by some authority (the UN) and applicable to its people (of the world), whether in the form of legislation (treaties) or of custom (morals) and policies (the written word of law itself) recognized and enforced by judicial decision (the findings of the UN body or tribunals).


As far as your "law of the jungle" approach goes, I am not disagreeing outright. But keep a few things in mind. Bullies ususally get what's coming to them, and the rest of the world is bigger than the U.S. They don't much like us anymore either.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 





So the voters in those countries would then be puppet voters too then? Are you saying that governments that are friendly or pro-west are puppet governments, while those opposed to us are the only legitimate ones?


Do you really think that Bush was elected? Democracy means having a governor for brother.

[edit on 12/13/0707 by jackinthebox]



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 




Well I hope these puppet voters don't find out, they have a puppet government that does business with the USA, and doesn't oppress them like the Taliban. There'll be chaos for sure once that subterfuge comes to light.


"Money, well heck that's the easy part...That's our secret, kill ya wit kindness." - Al Pacino as John Milton (aka "I have so many names")



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 




The court with the authority is the UN War Crimes Tribunal. That is the answer to your question.


Actaully.. this is a little something called "Implied Powers" .. It is procieved power that is DIRECTLY linked to the nation that brings charges.

For instance..

NATO brought Salobanod Malosavich to trial, the US being the leader of the trial.. it was never completed and racked with complications because they had a weak case.

But.. Peru could not have done such a thing.

Nor could 170 other countries in the world.. why is justice or the right to distribute justice kept away from these nations and their national intrest? .. Because only powerful nations with wide fields of influence have the ability to administer implied powers through a third party entity to extract their wills and desires onto another nation(s).

No, the War Crimes Tribunal has no power. Only the nation manipulating the terms to meet a specific need.



The same authority who prosecuted every other person who thought they were not bound by international law.


No one has ever been brought before the tribunal for "breaking international law" either..

Many have been brought before for crimes against humanity and so forth, but none of that is listed anywhere, nor is it ever said in any trial to be a violation of International Law. The crimes committed, are again, only precieved by the NATIONS bringing the charges against them. We can use Kossovo again as an example, where the US lead the tribunal for war crimes and crimes against humanity, which are not International laws again, yet the Russians remained in the same position, in support of the Serbs, who Solobadon (sp???) .. was the President of. Who had the ability to stop or start the trial? The US. I would like to see the US achieve this now with Putin's Russia back on the stage....



You lack a basic understanding in the concept of law itself.


International relations do not follow the same concepts that govern the system of domestic laws.

Let me break this down for you..




the principles and regulations established in a (global) community by some authority (the UN)


The UN its self DOES NOT HAVE AUTHORITY OVER ANY NATION -- At any time any nation that IS a member can withdraw membership, and any treaty signed at any time unless passed into law by a domestic government can be withdrawn and void.

The UN cannot administer enforcement of any "law"..

They are called "resolutions" by the way.




nd applicable to its people (of the world)


ITS PEOPLE?????????

ITS PEOPLE?????????????????????

God .. you make me sick. I am not a citizen of the UNITED NATIONS but the UNITED STATES... when did we become "their people"....



whether in the form of legislation (treaties)


Treaties are as described by me before (what the heck did you use.. wiki? This is terrible..) .. Treaties are not laws, no nation is bound by it but bound by the reprocutions of other nations, not the treaty its self.




or of custom (morals)


The last thing the UN can agree about is Morals.





and policies (the written word of law itself)


These are resolutions, and they are not laws, and any nation with a resolution on it has most likely ignored it any ways ..




recognized and enforced by judicial decision (the findings of the UN body or tribunals).


The UN has no political governing bodies such as a Legislation branch or a Judicial branch. Who ever wrote that garbage lacked information on the UN.

Tomorrow the US could drop out of the UN.. the only thing that would happen is that the UN would collapse.

I am done with this thread, I am done repeating my self.

I just hope people like you with your "One World Government" never gain to much influence.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 





Many have been brought before for crimes against humanity and so forth...


Crimes against humanity are violations of international law.



The UN its self DOES NOT HAVE AUTHORITY OVER ANY NATION -- At any time any nation that IS a member can withdraw membership, and any treaty signed at any time unless passed into law by a domestic government can be withdrawn and void.


The UN does have authority. The inherent authority of the entire member-state roster. UN troops have been deployed to countries who failed to recognize UN mandates, with the full authority of the international community.



ITS PEOPLE????????? God .. you make me sick. I am not a citizen of the UNITED NATIONS but the UNITED STATES... when did we become "their people"....


Earth to Rockpuck. Are you not a human being of the planet Earth, or at least currently residing here?



Treaties are as described by me before (what the heck did you use.. wiki? This is terrible..) .. Treaties are not laws, no nation is bound by it but bound by the reprocutions of other nations, not the treaty its self.


Um, the dictionary.

Bound by the reprecussions indeed. The reprocussions of violating the laws set forth under international agreement. Just as police themselves are not the law, nor the judges. The law is the standard of truth and justice agreed upon by the citizenry through their representatives.



The last thing the UN can agree about is Morals


Well, I am not going to argue the effectiveness of their charge, but this is their mandate nonetheless.



The UN has no political governing bodies such as a Legislation branch or a Judicial branch. Who ever wrote that garbage lacked information on the UN


The UN is the political governing body. A body made up of ambassadors sent by member-states. The same way states send representatives to the House under our Federal system.



I just hope people like you with your "One World Government" never gain to much influence


Maybe I already have all the influence in the world already, and I'm just waiting for my friends to catch up for the 2012 rondevous.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join