It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Fact and Fiction, The Iraq Conflict

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 12:06 PM
reply to post by antar

I agree with that 100%

This is an emotional issue made more so by us all having friends and family over there in harms way.

We are all bound to have differing ideas and viewpoints.

I would ask only that take a moment and imagine yourself living in a totalitarian regime, afraid to speak in public about President Bush, knowing that if you do, squads of men will come and drag you out of your house and kill you in front of your family and neighbors.

Then imagine another country where you can get on ATS and say anything you like about anyone you like. You can walk out of your house and disrespect the President, Pope or your mother if you so wish. Freely. Oh yeah, we live in the one and have brought freedom to the other...

They are humans too, they are our brothers and sisters and no more deserve to live in constant fear than we do...


posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 12:14 PM

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.

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"?

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.

So the current president of Iraq, who managed to come to power after an invasion of his country by a US led coallition and the deposition of the previous president asks you to stay
Back in the old days the US used to condemn the Soviets for installing "puppet" governments that wanted them to stay. Whats the difference?

Did you miss the Iraqi Election? Where they voted for Democracy almost unanimously? I saw it...

A saw an election that had been set up by the US, after a US led invasion, where candidates acceptable to the US were allowed to stand, while a standing US army sat and watched the whole thing. Now those elections may have been free and fair, but if such a thing had happened anywhere else in the world involving any other countries the US may well have been crying "foul".

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...

But its not about "now" is it? Its about the future. Its about setting up a power base in a strategically advantageous area. Its forward thinking. Thats what PNAC was all about, isn't it? Setting up the world so that the US continues to dominate. In that sense you are right, its not just about oil. Its about oil and power and influence....

Facts are facts, spin or not..

Depends on who's facts they are

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 12:26 PM

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?
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.

we knew who and what Saddam was when we allied with him and sold him these things, we are just as much responsible for his actions as he is...

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?

The previous actions of previous Administrations reflect the people, there actions are relevant here...
Government by consent of the Governed, what they do reflects on us, and what we allow them to do reflects on us...

So we made mistakes in who we supported? What does that prove? Does that mean we should not help a people live free?

Ask the hundreds of thousands of people who have died in the aftermath and as a result of of the deaths of 4000 of our countrymen by handful of men who died committing that act how free they are...

Our medaling in the affairs of other countries which I might add goes against the better wishes and judgement of our founding fathers and founding documents, has resulted in continuous failures and blowback...

the facts are there are many countries who violate U.N Sanctions who violate human rights, no one cares about Africa...

Yet ironically the only countries we care to invade happen to posses critical American interests...

its not about democracy or lives or freedom, our foreign policy around the world proves this.

Its about Money, Power and Control.

[edit on 29-1-2008 by C0le]

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 12:39 PM

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"?

Attempting to gain the support of the international community is not the same as "needing" the support of the international community.

I would rather the United States not follow the lead of most countries. Especially where democracy is not present.

So the current president of Iraq, who managed to come to power after an invasion of his country by a US led coallition

He did not MANAGE to come to power... He was fairly elected in an election the entire world was watching and to my knowledge could find no major fault with.

Using hyperbole such as "Puppet" and "Managed to come to power" is not effective when the facts are he was elected in a democratic process overseen by the entire world.

Its about the future.

Is it?

By your thinking we should have invaded Saudi Arabia then Kuwait, then Mexico etc... See list here..
Worlds largest oil fields

We would not have gotten around to Iraq until what? 5th on the list. Heck we have number 13 only a meezzly 7 billion below Iraq... The war for oil BS just doesn't make any common sense when we have as much in TX and Alaska as anyone on the planet.

Depends on who's facts they are


1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.

Online Dictionary

Seems cut and dry to me.


posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 12:45 PM
reply to post by semperfortis

Agreed, however it is becoming apparent that the day will come when our forces will have to take matters into their own hands to defend the right to speak freely and or remain safe from the perilous traitors that would love to make our country a totalitarian regime. Now that is going to define the home of the brave.

The day will come when soldiers will have to make critical decisions based on their oath to defend our country and to stand up against oppression in all countries.

This task will be much more successful if we do manage to open other borders to democracy first.

If our own people are leary of the direction, then it is only common sense other countries will have similar fears about change into a system of democracy. They will also think that it solely based on the dollar. Face it they think we are a Nation of commercialized materialists already.

The unfortunate aspect of this is that the Fascist Islamic regimes (our sworn enemies) will have the ability to spread propaganda as fast as we can attempt to stabilize territories.

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 12:47 PM
Semper, I have a great deal of respect for you as a debater, but this may be taking things too far. You seem almost vicious in your posting and I can't help but wonder if your emotions have gotten the best of you.

But if you want FACTS as to why this war was illegal, within the framework of US law, then please read.

I guess we should start at Congress's Joint Resolution HJ 114 EH. (My source is the US Congress's .gov website).

In order for a war to be legal in the eyes of the UNITED STATES, it must adhere to the resolution. Presenting knowingly FALSE claims to Congress and the international community is ILLEGAL in the UNITED STATES.

HJ 114 EH

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;

This has all been proven to be FALSE by checking the FACTS. Saddam cooperated with inspectors to a reasonable degree and yet the US began to bomb Iraq before the inspectors finished their jobs. FACT.

UN Weapons Inspectors: War in Iraq not Justified

While this is one example of the many misconstrued lies from the administration - there are many more. If you read the whole resolution you will find blatant disregard for the facts.

The FACT is that the US administration KNOWINGLY lied to congress to go to war. Just read about the 900+ lies recorded in a 2 year period. You do the math.

Or wait. Is lying to Congress legal now?

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 12:50 PM
reply to post by TruthWithin

I'm sorry you got that impression my friend.. I never intended on being vicious at all...

If I have appeared that way to anyone else, I am truly sorry.. Such was not intended...

I'll watch more carefully from now on, especially with issues like this...

Thanks for the heads up TW..


posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 12:59 PM
reply to post by semperfortis

No worries my friend.
This is clearly an emotional topic.

As I said, I have a great deal of respect for your ideas and opinions. I don't always (rarely)
agree, but if we all agreed it would be no fun.

Keep fighting the good fight, and iwill see you in the debate!


posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 01:07 PM
Here comes that peer pressure you were talking about. I don't expect you to cave, but you can't blame a guy for trying.

Originally posted by semperfortis
Notice I said conflict and not war.

You are a gentleman of the profession of arms my friend. Does terminology really bother you when you're being shot at? If this ain't a war, it will certainly do until a war gets here.

We are there in support of the Democratically Elected Government of Iraq, at THEIR request.

Let's analyze that claim for a moment.
This "Democratically Elected Government" was democratically elected under the provisions of the Iraqi Constitution.

The Iraqi Constitution did not require approval- it merely had to avoid a veto. A veto required a 2/3s vote of NO in 3 provinces. This means that had the constitution recieved exactly 33.34% support in all but two provinces, and 0% in the two largest provinces, the constitution would still have been considered valid.

In fact, 3 provinces- the number required for a veto- DID reject the Iraqi Constitution. If we had used the majority rule that we expect and demand here in our own country, the Iraqi constitution would have been rejected and the government which has been cooperating with us would have no mandate to rule.

I will make no inferences and jump to no conclusions. Those are the facts, do with them what you will.

As for your question about "illegal war", that's an easy one. Anti-war groups think that all war should be illegal. The words "war" and "crime" and "illegal" just go together in those people's minds. It falls out by no fault of their own whenever they open their mouths. I have to admit that the war is, by the letter of the law, probably legal (The biggest question there being the congress' ability to delegate the power to make war- and it can be argued that they were fulfilling their purpose under the war powers resolution of '73. I happen to believe the War Powers Resolution of '73 is unconstitutional, but I'm not going to kid myself into believing that Roberts and company would so much as grant cert on the issue).

Even if the war was illegal, I acknowledge that the war could and would be waged legally if it had to be. The democrats DO have the political power to end this war. The matter is not in Bush's hands anymore. Unless there is some way for the Republican minority to fillibuster an appropriations bill into existence, ultimately this war is only possible because the democrats allow it. It also bears mentioning that the Democrats had the votes to stop the war in the beginning but chose not to.

So if the war were illegal, the Dems would just give Bush a formal declaration and make it legal. Count that among the several reasons that I didn't become a Democrat per se when I parted ways with the Republican party.

I guess I'm just fond of reminiscing, but I remember all the bold and valiant speeches

The words your looking for are "grandstanding" and "factually deficient". I'm taking about the Republicans AND the Democrats. They were wrong.

We fight the Islamic Fascists that want nothing except to control everyone and everything under their version of religion.

Only on the weekends. On Mondays and Wednesdays we fight Iraqis who expected us to do the decent thing for them (like they were told we would do in 1992- oops) without expecting inappropriate influence over their government in return. On Tuesdays and Thursdays we fight Iranian agents who are trying to exploit the instability that our war created. On Fridays we carry out less conspicuous actions outside of Iraq to develop our strategic goals for the coming decades under a separate and far more questionable mandate (a war with no enemy and no limits). Recently those operations have been seen in Somalia, where a couple of destroyers, an aircraft carrier, two infantry companies and AC-130s from CJTF-HOA were all involved in an operation which ultimately killed 2 known terrorists (and completely destroyed a village). We really need to hire an efficiency expert to take another look at our military budget. But that's another argument.

I wonder how vocal you all would be on this issue if all of a sudden you were walking to work?

You'll like my post in this old thread. But even though I see things that way, I can't help thinking we could do better.

I would also like to point out the inherent contradiction of claiming that the war is not about oil, then asking how we'd feel about it if we were stuck walking. Which of your two arguments do you believe in?

What can I say, I've gotten in the habbit of debating with you now.

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 01:09 PM

Presenting knowingly FALSE claims

Knowingly being the key word...I have yet to see "Proof" of knowingly false..

Saddam cooperated with inspectors to a reasonable degree

Now I seem to remember at the time how UNREASONABLE he was being in excluding certain sites, like those where our military found gas canisters..

Some interesting facts often ignored.

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.

UK Telegraph

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."

Fox News

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.

World Net

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.

Source 1

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.

Washington Poat

Now I could go on, but the pattern is very clear. You may choose to ignore FACTS, but that does not make them disappear.

Of course you can find instances where the MSM has said Bush Lied. All of the proof I supplied you above was I am sure, RIPPED from them as they have followed in the politically correct vein and hate Bush as much...

However, what was found, was in fact found and removed.

That's why you hear much noise about legal action, but in all these years you have seen none and you wont. They know the truth, but they are not going to tell you and risk not getting elected..


posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 01:16 PM

Which of your two arguments do you believe in?

What can I say, I've gotten in the habit of debating with you now.

Now you quit sneaking up on my darnit....

Seriously though..

It is not a contradiction because I have stressed time and again it is about all the issues... I have made it clear I am opposed mainly to the picking of the more flaming politically correct issue and singling it out because it is the correct fashion of the day and not putting due thought into it and looking at established facts to support the argument.

We are getting more and more people that are jumping on the bandwagon so to speak, all because they want to be seen as "In the know" or popular and with the "I hate bush", Illegal War" crowd. Yet most of their statements are unsubstantiated and complete nonsense.

As for the semantics of the verbiage "Illegal and "War" , nice try....

The meanings of each word can of course cross the lines and appear appropriate, yet "WE" know exactly what the meaning is it's most current popular usage.

My point stands...


posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 01:20 PM
Can you imagine what the present would look like had Saddam been allowed to continue his rein of terror? The ego of that man was incomprehensible, yes we hate when innocent people become involved in conflict, yet what of all of the innocents that he tortured and killed? His own people!

I would not like to see what he would have planned for the US had he still been alive. 911 was a wake up call.

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 01:48 PM
Very interesting thread.

I personally think war is evil regardless of the players, but let me add this: I think Saddam, as horrible as he was, was only needed for a certain length of time, and after that, who cares?

I watched a documentary speaking about the 1991 gulf war. As I understand it, the Kuwait government was drilling for oil on Iraqi land. When Saddam informed the US that someone is trespassing on his lands, they told him to use whatever means necessary to secure his oil fields.

When he confronted the Kuwait authority, the US declared that Saddam is attacking Kuwait, and the rest is history.

Also, correct me if I am mistaken, but didn't the US sell him some 'farming equipment' and then claimed he got all these nasty WMDs that he used on his own people and the Kurds? If that is the case, that means the US sold him the actual weapons, knowing full well of their capability, threw out the receipt, and then talked about how he bombs his own people.

There was also mention of sanctions against Iraq. I read that the sanctions actually prevented clean water, food, and medicine to get into the country.
The UN/US knew of this, but sanctions continued.

I will try to find the supporting links on this, so please be patient as I search.
If I can't find any supporting evidence, I will still stand by this post, however, since I can't prove it, it will remain just an opinion.

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 01:56 PM
when saddam was in place, there suffered much less people. inform you about sunni and shi'it. comparison
saddam is a sunni and the sunni are in my opinion the moderate ones. there are few shi'it and they mass up in the problem regions.. now the western world gangs up with them. but don't think they do it for their sake.. yes i am sure its all about oil and the dollar.
dont say saddam was fanatic, he had tariq aziz as his foreign minister, who was a christ!

many times the question comes up why iraq is destroyed so badly (over 150000 victims), some come up with the "fact" that all would be worse if saddam would still be there.
unfortunately this is false, as history shows that there were less deaths and even less torture crimes, for abu graib and the others are not better!
don't forget that saddam was once the right hand from the cia as was "the base" al quaida.
now who gave saddam the gas he shot over to iran? who trained al quaeda?
who made up the lies?
noone can seriously believe the usa are there for democracy!

if that what the people vote in democracy is bad in the view of the eagles eye, then this poor land gets a new dictator, sponsored by the cia!
open your eyes, look what your coutry has done to your image.

look at the hamas in palestine, lebanon, algeria... the western world is not accepting the outcome, although it is democratic.
mahmud abbas (abu mazen) hasnt any right to decide any thing, but he is the one bush and bushs willing (brainless) friends talk with.

and all the time they talk with him and israel says it is willing to come along with the palestenians, they kill while talking some dozens. because they have some revenge to do cause kassam rockets blew up in the sand.
did someone ever mention that circumstance?
they talk, they kill. the let them starve until one of them freaks out. and then again, one year bombing on the heads. then a talk again, whilst bombing and killing goes on.
now why are they doing this? they want a confontation so bad, but noone of the arabic nations is giving them one.
arabs and muslims by nature are aggressive and heat up real easy. but they cook much colder than they talk. the western world talks in high places but in the end, they sell weapons of mass destruction to all who wnts it, they even give it away for free!
the only reason why, is written in the stones

:georgia guidestones

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 02:09 PM
What a debate! I think Semper is winning so far, which takes a lot for me to say because I think Bush really messed things up. (Opportunity lost! We could have done better!) I've made that clear in other threads...

But given that we are discussing the Iraqi conflict itself, and not the USA President, I think he Semper has successfully refuted his opponents on all points. I can't think of any new argument to throw in to the mix.

Good work Semperfortis! (And good work to the other debaters also.)


I wanted to mention that nobody debates that the conflict is actually won. I think the USA has been victorious. Unqualified victory. That is important.

So long as we are occupying this strategic area, are not in a position to be forced out, we have won, irrespective of our motives. I think that is a very common and reasonable definition of victory, that is, to hold territory. (We may choose to go, but nobody is going to force us out!)

What is more, I think the war was actually over about the time that the "Mission Accomplished" banner was unfurled on the USS Abraham Lincoln. (See: here to revist that day.) Since then, all it has been is post-game bickering.

And what is it precisely that we accomplished? For better or for worse, we countered a terrorist attack by generating enormous fear in the world. We set out to accomplish the downfall of an enemy state. And we accomplished that in just a few days. Now, the world hates us. The world fears us. (Not sure that is good or moral. I would say not, but we are arguing facts here, and not morality. We accomplished our mission.)

What comes next? Fortification or withdrawal?

EDIT: To fix spelling and add link.

[edit on 29-1-2008 by Buck Division]

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 02:17 PM

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.

Illegal still would not be the appropriate word for the matter.. since no war was declared to begin with.. and there is no guide lines as to "reasons we can send troops into conflicts" essentially the president can attack who he wants when he wants so long as Congress supports him. Which they did. Does not matter if they are lies or not. As for the legality of intelligence data, there also is no law the puts guide lines to the data.. essentially it could be said that they went to war on bad information. Not illegal information. In all wars all evidence is drastically exaggerated to fit a perspective, to thinks others wise would be crazy.. but again, there is no legal limitations to exaggerations.. and there is very little proof of openly fraudulent data being manufactured for the sake of lying.

Also, most ATS'ers who say the war is illegal actually think there is a law that has been broken.. and a vast majority honestly think the UN holds laws against us which we broke....

ready for it?

International Law.

Which does not even exist. Basically, Semper is right that those who say the war is "illegal" use a personal bias, when legally it is perfectly legal.. they should re-word it as the war in Iraq is "immoral" not illegal.

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 02:19 PM
reply to post by Buck Division


I want you on the judges panel for the upcoming Debate Tournament...

Just kidding, (Well not really)

You make some good points and they can be factually backed up...

I especially like your contention that the "War" is and has been over... We are simply and succinctly there in support of the new government, at their request no less....

Answer yourselves this?

Would we abandon Japan if they come under attack?
The Philippines?

Of course not...

So why are you advocating abandoning Iraq?
What differences are you drawing from Iraq and Japan, Germany or The Philippines?

Just wondering?


posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 02:19 PM
haven't read the whole thread as i have to go out but ill just make a few quick points, sorry if any have already been mentioned.

is the Iraq war legal?

well as far as i understand it the Iraq war was unconstitutional because it wasn't declared by congress and every reason given for starting the war was proven to be fabricated lies so they had to eventually settle for the "were there for the Iraqi people" excuse.

then when you take into account the recent report about the hundreds of false statements released by the bush administration in the run up to the war, it kind of stacks up that the war was founded on lies. if the people are misinformed to get into a war, isn't that illegal?

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 02:21 PM
reply to post by semperfortis

Interesting that you have the need to make this thread to kind of reassure yourself of why we have a conflict with Iraq, why we are in that nation and why our nation is going down the drain economically supporting the unsupportable for the sole purpose of global and elite domination of the last vast resources of fuel in the world.

I see you are starting to have you own doubts even if you do no want to realized it yet.

Just look at the global economy, the mess US is in financially, all the debt owned to foreign, communist and now terrorist states and see that obviously something is very wrong with our present government and its wars.

Nice thread.

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 02:24 PM
reply to post by marg6043

Nice thread.

Thanks, but I really only agree with your "Go Giants" comment..

I have seldom found the need to reassure myself in any manner, as I can not recall ever being unsure. If you have doubts about that, we can discuss it via U2U...Or you can examine some of my other threads... Please point out any uncertainty you may find.


new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in