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: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


Actually Karzai wasn't "just" placed in charge. Millions of Afghanis voted, and he took 55+% of the vote.

en.wikipedia.org...

And while you'll probably say "but there was fraud," but (an independent commission found evidence of fraud, but ruled that it did not affect the outcome of the poll. Karzai won 55.4% of the vote.) The fraud claim was based mainly on the the improper use of the ink to mark voters(i.e. they used the wrong ink).


That was an interesting link you provided, about all of the ills that the USA has brought since removing the highly popular, and benevolent rule of the Taliban. I'm just curious about which PR firm the Taliban hired to write that highly amusing piece of fiction. Perhaps they got the former Iraqi Minister of Information, as his credibility is about on par with that article.




posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 08:29 AM
link   



Actually Karzai wasn't "just" placed in charge. Millions of Afghanis voted, and he took 55+% of the vote.

There were not that many to vote against him, most of them were killed or they were taken prisoners.
IF you come with big guns, you eliminate the oposition, since there are not that many around to vote against you because they are dead or incapacitated then it's only normal that you win.



And while you'll probably say "but there was fraud," but (an independent commission found evidence of fraud, but ruled that it did not affect the outcome of the poll. Karzai won 55.4% of the vote.)

No, I'm saying that only a few number of people voted, other people are cut off even from water suplys , food, and other basic needs, alot were killed when the invasion took place, alot died in carboard boxes or in containers detained, so what is your point?
As for the president of afganistan x unical employ bush pupet it is only normal that he will folow the script and he will do some ass kissing, that is why he was placed there.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


Are you claiming that there were voters that were put in containers to die, or were blown up while in the process of getting to the polls, or are you claiming that the USA killed so many Afghanis, that there weren't enough left alive to vote? In either case I'm gonna have to raise the BS flag.
Additionally, what is your opposition to economic growth in Afghanistan through contracts and business deals? I think you need to read a wider variety of news and historical sources, that have a less revisionistic viewpoint.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 09:05 AM
link   


Are you claiming that there were voters that were put in containers to die, or were blown up while in the process of getting to the polls, or are you claiming that the USA killed so many Afghanis

Some of them were, if you were against? and you would know some of your country man were killed for oposing, would you not be afraid to go and vote? Would you not be afraid even to show up and wonder around?


, that there weren't enough left alive to vote? In either case I'm gonna have to raise the BS flag.

Well alot were killed alot were detained, alot are afraid to come out, and alot of them are still fighting and did not want to vote.



Additionally, what is your opposition to economic growth in Afghanistan through contracts and business deals?

What has that got to do with anything? bussines deals for who?
People live there out of the puppy production, that is their main income, and about the only bussines people can manage for outside.

If you are failing to understand, just in case, the talibans were in america on negociations for the oil pipes, they did not agree on the terms and the deal was off, meaning no oil pipes were going to be built in afganistan.
The oil pipes were going to be built by the same organisation that the curent president of afganistan was working for.

The talibans turned down the offer and the negociations just got stuck to that point, Bush invaded afganistan, eliminated the oposition and instal some one from the same company as president, then the pipes were built, why do you fail to understand that?

Can't you see that most of the countries in conflict or in direct contradiction with the united states are countries that have oil? or they are related to oil? just put it this way, alot of people die so you can pump it up in the gass station
fill her up jonny , now I know things have not gone well in recent times for you, but just wait until the US invades another country, and your luck might just be in, iran has alot of oil, some people will die , civil wars will break out because of this, woman and children will sufer, so you can later say, god bless america....I can drive my car, and were there because they hate our freedoms


[edit on 14-12-2007 by pepsi78]



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
If you are failing to understand, just in case, the talibans were in america on negociations for the oil pipes, they did not agree on the terms and the deal was off, meaning no oil pipes were going to be built in afganistan.
The oil pipes were going to be built by the same organisation that the curent president of afganistan was working for.

The talibans turned down the offer and the negociations just got stuck to that point, Bush invaded afganistan, eliminated the oposition and instal some one from the same company as president, then the pipes were built, why do you fail to understand that?
[edit on 14-12-2007 by pepsi78]



Sooooo, what you're saying is that the entire war is based on this? We invaded A-stan not because the Taliban were support OBL, who was responsible for killing 3000+ US citizens (men, women, children), but because an oil deal fell thru???



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


www.un.org...

"Taking place against the backdrop of extremists’ threat, difficult terrain and sometimes adverse weather conditions, Afghanistan’s first-ever presidential election last Saturday, while not perfect, had placed under the best auspices the Afghans’ journey towards a vigorous democracy, Hedi Annabi, Assistant Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations, told the Security Council this morning.



Presenting some “very preliminary” observations on a process that was still under way and cautioning against complacency in the challenging days ahead, he said the “patience, resilience and determination” demonstrated by Afghan women and men was a source of optimism that the election would result in the fully representative government called for in the Bonn Agreement.



While the results of the election itself would not be known for some time, the popular verdict on the process itself was “overwhelmingly positive”, he said. Many international observers had feared that the election would have been marred by violence. The fact that it had not been was a tribute not only to the Afghan voters, but also to the national army and police who had provided a safe environment with the assistance of international forces. "

Can you reconcile your claims with this UN press release? In fact I haven't seen a single source making the claims that any would be voter in Afghanistan was killed based upon who they supported.

As for the invasion of Afghanistan- I submit that the fact that the Taliban was hosting Al Qaeda and their training camps had more to do with the invasion, than their unwillingness to go along with an oil pipeline.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


I'm not going to go in to 911, this is not a 911 thread, you know my opinion for that, inside job.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
As for the invasion of Afghanistan- I submit that the fact that the Taliban was hosting Al Qaeda and their training camps had more to do with the invasion, than their unwillingness to go along with an oil pipeline.


Word, bro!!



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 10:06 AM
link   


Presenting some “very preliminary” observations on a process that was still under way and cautioning against complacency in the challenging days ahead, he said the “patience, resilience and determination” demonstrated by Afghan women and men was a source of optimism that the election would result in the fully representative government called for in the Bonn Agreement.

It was a sharade not an election.
8 milion people out of 28 milion people voted, that meaning 35% voted .




Can you reconcile your claims with this UN press release? In fact I haven't seen a single source making the claims that any would be voter in Afghanistan was killed based upon who they supported.

No but alot of people ran over border, alot died in the arial boming so few voted, I'm not doubting that the few that voted did vote, so what was it? 70% to 30% ? that would mean that 5 milion people out of 28 milions decided who is president?
Is that what you call an election?



As for the invasion of Afghanistan- I submit that the fact that the Taliban was hosting Al Qaeda and their training camps had more to do with the invasion, than their unwillingness to go along with an oil pipeline.

Alquaida is a cia invention as far as I'm concerned, and yes it has to do with bussines, saudy arabia is hosting terrorists, the majority of terrorists that kill american soldiers come from saudy arabia? so what is your point?

The rejime in saudy arabial is tiranical, bush suports them, so what is you point? if you go to saudy arabia and state your views that contradits them you will get hunged, they will cut off you head.
The terrorists were that crashed in 911 were from saudy arabia?
Tell me who was from afganistan among the terrorists?



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


The training camps were in Afghanistan. The Taliban supported and gave safe haven to Al Qaeda. I agree that we need to hold Saudi Arabia more accountable, but we're talking about citizens of Saudi Arabia vs. national policy, vs. National policy of Taliban government at the time.

How many of that 28 million were of voting age? That may change those figures a little with regards to those eligible vs. those particpating. Who's fault was it for whatever numbers did vote though, as you're claiming it was a sham? What are typical numbers in elections worldwide for comparison purposes?

The CIA didn't invent Al Qaeda. They are a very real organization. There's a big difference in having provided assistance against the Soviets, and just inventing some organization to blame evil deeds on.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 01:54 PM
link   
It is pointless to bicker about who's statistics are better. The truth is that the opposition had already been destroyed militarily, leaving few to express their views at the voting box.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
Alquaida is a cia invention as far as I'm concerned, and yes it has to do with bussines, saudy arabia is hosting terrorists, the majority of terrorists that kill american soldiers come from saudy arabia? so what is your point?


So in your world is there any organization or government other than the US that you consider as evil or totally corrupt, or for that matter real, and not a CIA creation?

It seems to me reading all your posts they say that basically everything is a CIA, Bush or other arm of the US government plot for money or oil. Also much of what you talk about would need to cross many administrations and directors terms, not just Bush’s. This would be a very big conspiracy to have basically the whole government involved for decades or more.

Is the US that far gone that everything evil in the world is from either our own sick creations or planned non-involvement? When that guy blows himself up in a market, is that a CIA operation too?

The reason I ask this is because stating conspiracies is one thing but then when you apply them in a logical sense to include how many people are involved throughout our Government, the military, foreign Governments etc., how much money it takes, and the vast time-lines spanning decades in many cases while still able to keep it as a conspiracy it all starts to unravel at the point of application.

As example, if you look at Al-Qaeda you can have a organization created by a group of extreme Muslims with vast monetary resources or you can have one designed by the US as the “bad guy” so the US has someone to blame as they execute its own agendas.

Using extreme Muslims really doesn’t have any loose ends and when you apply it, it fits very nicely in place. In the other case it has a tremendous amount of loose ends and just doesn’t flow with how the world ticks, for it is just as easy for a extreme Muslim to walk into a crowd and blow himself up for their religion as it would be for a group of them to conspire against America anyway they can.

When I see a conspiracy or run into a case, like your's where there are large numbers of them, I always like to apply just what would it take to process that conspiracy and then see how well it fits.

Most conspericies do not fit well at all at the application stage...


[edit on 14-12-2007 by Xtrozero]



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
It is pointless to bicker about who's statistics are better. The truth is that the opposition had already been destroyed militarily, leaving few to express their views at the voting box.


Wasn't the Taliban a very small minority that exerted their way of life on the majority?

One thing to always remember is these all are basically interim Governments just because you need to start somewhere. Years down the road is really where everyone’s focus should be.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Excellent post.


When looking at these supposed vast multinational, multidecade, multiadministrational conspiracies, you have to use the KISS principle.
Keep it simple, stupid. The more complex, and moving parts, the less likely something will go as planned. It's a cop out to just use the talking points of Bush, Oil, CIA, NWO, etc... and just saying that anyone that's not overly critical is a shill or disinfo agent, or belong to a puppet regime, etc...



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
The war in Iraq should be illegal!


I don't know about illegal, but it is certainly wrong.
Why and to whom is it wrong?

Killing is wrong
Torture is wrong
Stealing is wrong
Lying is wrong

But in our double-speak world..

Means justifies the end
Enhanced coercive interrogation techniques are used to protect us
Rebuilding, restructuring and privatization
Mistakes are made

So, move along - nothing to see here.



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 




Wasn't the Taliban a very small minority that exerted their way of life on the majority? One thing to always remember is these all are basically interim Governments just because you need to start somewhere. Years down the road is really where everyone’s focus should be.


Good point. I really do wonder though, honestly, if the people would have voted for a U.S. backed government over the Taliban if the "war" modifier is not applied to the equation.

You may be correct about the "down the road" thing too, but right now it smells like Bush.


Wether or not one believes that the war is illegal, intentional, etc., I still think it's safe to say that Bush has his hand up the burka.

[edit on 12/15/0707 by jackinthebox]



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja


When looking at these supposed vast multinational, multidecade, multiadministrational conspiracies, you have to use the KISS principle.
Keep it simple, stupid.


There's nothing simple about the lies intricately woven into our lives. If you want to live in a simple and fairy-tale world, by all means : keep it simple stupid.

The rest of us will continue to rely on our objective reasoning and will judge the actions AND excuses of the U.S. government, whatever that might be. In this case, we witnessed the steps leading to a war in Iraq, listened to the faulty information used to excuse that war: and have drawn our own conclusions.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 02:26 AM
link   


Actually Karzai wasn't "just" placed in charge. Millions of Afghanis voted, and he took 55+% of the vote.


I thought that it was 70 procent , even worst then, it means that about 4 milion out of 8 milion people put him as head of state.
4 milion out of 28 milion people, what an election.






And while you'll probably say "but there was fraud," but (an independent commission found evidence of fraud, but ruled that it did not affect the outcome of the poll. Karzai won 55.4% of the vote.) The fraud claim was based mainly on the the improper use of the ink to mark voters(i.e. they used the wrong ink).

They didint need to rig the election, because they knew they would win since people won't vote, they simply had other problems, war , poverty, you know air raids, dead people, starvation.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
I thought that it was 70 procent , even worst then, it means that about 4 milion out of 8 milion people put him as head of state.
4 milion out of 28 milion people, what an election.


Look how many people elect officials in the US. No way that they get a 100% turn out.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by NewWorldOver
 


You completely missed my point as usual. I'll keep it simple in my explanation so there is no room for misunderstanding.
By KISS principle, it means that as the complexity increases, the likelihood of success decreases. More room for errors come into play. It's just like a machine, or a piece of equipment. The more moving parts, the more problems one can expect. That's why in military planning(or any kind of planning for that matter), you keep the plan simple, and limit the number of variables/unknowns. That's why us skeptics have such a hard time reconciling all the moving parts in these vast conspiracies that would have to go off without error, to keep the subterfuge from being discovered.
It's also why you may have seen folks bring up Occam's razor. The simpler answer is more often the correct one, whilst the overly complex one is generally less likely to be correct.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join