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 semperfortis
As for the legality or illegality of any action taken by my Country, I am only concerned with the laws of the United States.
As the use of force was authorized by congress, in an almost unanimous decision, the war is not illegal.
Whatever Bulgaria, France or "Hippopotimia" decide is of no relevance to me.
What one sees and what is happening is not connected factually. The FACT is that the current President of Iraq has asks us to stay, numerous times. He has also assured us that us leaving will destroy his country.
Did you miss the Iraqi Election? Where they voted for Democracy almost unanimously? I saw it...
What country provides the majority of oil to the US? Here I'll answer it for you Canada...
Using your "round about" thinking, we should have invaded Canada...
Facts are facts, spin or not..
Don't even begin to assume I support this man, he deserved everything he got however the blatant hypocrisy and our actions do not go away, what we did contributed greatly to his actions.
Originally posted by semperfortis
reply to post by C0le
If you are defending Saddam I can not argue with you... If you have it in your mind that he was a good guy and not the murderous tyrant he was, how is it I could ever give you an argument?
Looking at previous actions by previous administrations is not relevant here. I could show you historically where every single government in existence made similar or even more horrific mistakes. What does that prove?
So we made mistakes in who we supported? What does that prove? Does that mean we should not help a people live free?
But its an international conflict with international repercussions, not an American conflict with American repercussions. If the US is all that matters, why did it need to validate its actions with a "coalition"?
So the current president of Iraq, who managed to come to power after an invasion of his country by a US led coallition
Its about the future.
Depends on who's facts they are
FACT
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Originally posted by semperfortis
Notice I said conflict and not war.
We are there in support of the Democratically Elected Government of Iraq, at THEIR request.
I guess I'm just fond of reminiscing, but I remember all the bold and valiant speeches
We fight the Islamic Fascists that want nothing except to control everyone and everything under their version of religion.
I wonder how vocal you all would be on this issue if all of a sudden you were walking to work?
Presenting knowingly FALSE claims
Saddam cooperated with inspectors to a reasonable degree
Saddam Hussein's regime offered a $2 million (£1.4 million) bribe to the United Nations' chief weapons inspector to doctor his reports on the search for weapons of mass destruction.
Rolf Ekeus, the Swede who led the UN's efforts to track down the weapons from 1991 to 1997, said that the offer came from Tariq Aziz, Saddam's foreign minister and deputy.
WASHINGTON — The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers said Wednesday.
"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon.
Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."
In virtually every case -- chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic missiles -- the United States has found the weapons and the programs that the Iraqi dictator successfully concealed for 12 years from U.N. weapons inspectors.
The Iraq Survey Group, ISG, whose intelligence analysts are managed by Charles Duelfer, a former State Department official and deputy chief of the U.N.-led arms-inspection teams, has found "hundreds of cases of activities that were prohibited" under U.N. Security Council resolutions, a senior administration official tells Insight.
WASHINGTON, JULY 8-- Iraqi radiological and nuclear materials with a potential use in weapons programs or dispersal devices have been removed from the country and airlifted to the United States, according to a July 6 press statement from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
In a joint Energy and Defense Department operation, 1.77 metric tons of low-enriched uranium and approximately 1000 highly radioactive sources were secured from Iraq's former nuclear research facility, packaged and then airlifted on June 23, the press statement said.
BAGHDAD, Aug. 13 -- U.S. troops raiding a warehouse in the northern city of Mosul uncovered a suspected chemical weapons factory containing 1,500 gallons of chemicals believed destined for attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces and civilians, military officials said Saturday.
Which of your two arguments do you believe in?
What can I say, I've gotten in the habit of debating with you now.
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Originally posted by semperfortis
I have been wondering why I encounter perfectly rational and even intelligent members here that I have debated on many a subject, that use the phrase, "Illegal War.
From what I've seen mentioned in many critical mainstream media analysis of the situation is that the notion of "illegal" stems from what is shaping up to be a fabricated rationale for invasion.
If the basis for launching the war is based on illegally manufactured or exaggerated "evidence," then the previous tests for legality of the war are out the window and there is a strong possibility that the invasion/war were indeed illegal.
Nice thread.