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: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 02:30 PM
reply to post by thesaints2012

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.

I agree that to send troops ANYWHERE open war MUST be declared.. but the law stands that Bush could send troops anywhere for 90 days I believe until he got backing of the Congress..... which he did? Even Kerry, Edwards, Clinton all admitted Iraq was a threat, they all passed the same legislation .. then they said "we didn't know what we where doing!" .. Damn right they didn't, I doubt many know what they are doing on a daily basis.

So, you are incorrect in saying it was unconstitutional .. under revised law, it was perfectly legal.

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 agree 100%.. the war helped the economy a good deal, no doubt about it, but we have seen our dollar collapse 25%+ and falling still since 2001.. we are a poorer people, and I believe the war helped bring that about.

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.

isn't it hilarious Marge that we went to war for oil, resources and $$ .. yet our financial system collapses on us..... and who buys us out?

China, Singapore, and the UNITED ARAB EMERITES. Not to mention the Saudis ... we went to war to get profit from Arabs, and Arabs are buying out OUR economy.

Saudi Arabia's stock markets went through the roof because of our wars.. Arabs profited more then America.

Stupid war. Illegal? No. Stupid, most definitely

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 02:32 PM
Semper, I do like some of the things you post but on this one you really need to get a grip. For a start what facts, you mean the facts put out by an corrupt American Goverment along with their corrupt and controlled media.

WOT bogus, WMD's bogus, an administration that does not adhere to the Geneva convention, one that openly says it will and does use methods of torture, Gitmo, internment without trial, endless lies about Saddam being behind 9/11 all this and much more and you expect us to believe the lies of a corrupt Goverment who are in the pay of the oil cartels, you cannot be serious.

Just take Iraq alone, if there was no oil in Iraq not one person in the US would give a toss about what Saddam Insane did or not, come to that most Americans would not even know where Iraq was. So I think it is rather disengenius to use so called facts and only American ones at that as proof positive of the facts and reality of the Iraq war.

America and those who control it are merely following the policy of PNAC and the whole issue of stating that 3rd rate countries like Iraq (no disrespect to Iraqis or others) can possibly be a threat to the mighty US is absolutely pathetic and anyone believing such nonsense needs a head transplant.

No I'm sorry it just wont wash even half the US population think the WOT is bogus so are you really expecting everyone outside of the US to believe the bullcrap. You may want to believe but your so called facts comes out of the mouths of liars, murderers and proffiteers.

Perhaps you have forgotten the US supporting Saddam in the Iran/Iraq war, or the Muhajadeen in Afganistan against the Russians and they are just a few things we do know something about. And If you want facts I'll give you some, if America (and I mean the parasites that run and support it) want to impose its will on others, if it wishes to rob, murder and torture in the name of greed and power then it will face attacks at home and abroad, you keep stickin the boot in and your going to get it back, how do you like those facts.

America meddles in the affairs of many countries, they (successive Goverments) support despot regimes whilst screaming outrage and injustice at another, a administartation that allowed/actively invovled in the murder of over 3k of its own citizens, no no one will believe the facts spewed out of the mouths of devils.

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 02:36 PM
I hope you dont mind me jumping in on one specific issue I see pop up constantly when discussing US foreign intervention.

Originally posted by semperfortis
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?


Specifically i want to address the bolded piece in this post over on page two of this thread.

It seems, that successive US administrations make the same mistakes over and over when it comes to foreign intervention and supporting a certain government and/or system of government. How is this possible? How is it possible to expect different results when supporting despot B after supporting despot A ended with horrific results? US intervention history is rife with examples of US support falling on the side of the well armed death squad against the poorly armed popular uprising. So much infact, Im willing to bet US support has fallen almost entirely on the side of the dictator attempting to suppress popular rebellion and democratic action, rather than the other way around.

So again I ask, how is it possible for the US government to support a despot time and again, and expect different results?

My answer, they dont expect different results, the results garnished from such support (money, troops, equipment, training, logistics, etc.) are exactly what the US administration wants.

When Saddam got support from the US government, it was to stop the Iraqi revolution. Saddams express purpose was to crush any revolutionary forces, both politically and socially and he did just that.

Just as the Contra's helped to quell the democratic revolutionary uprising in Nicaragua, or just as Pinochet helped crush the democratic forces of Salvador Allende, and RENAMO in Mozambique for the same reasons.

These arent mistakes, they are calculated moves designed to overthrow democratic peoples revolutions. Revolutions who's aims are (generally) to overthrow an entrenched comprador class of leaders that prostituting their country to multi-national investors.

I believe the old saying goes some like: "The definition of Insanity is repeating one's actions and expecting different results".

I guess you can either believe that your government is insane, or is cold in its planning and meticulious in its implimentation.


posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 02:36 PM
reply to post by semperfortis

Thanks for the go giants, you know I respect your commitment to the military and to our government.

But even you after walking the memory line and the entire last 8 years you have to see how well planned and executed the events that is almost bringing our nation to its knees economically it has a lot to do with the Iraqi and middle east conflicts.

Occurs this thread has to do with just the Iraqi war, but perhaps just put one and one together and even you will see that is some forces at play here and makes Iraq look like nothing than a child's play to what the optimal goal developing since 9/11 actually is.

Just remember that right now the money funding almost everything in our nation is not longer American base.

We the American people have been played at for the benefit of the few with the power to dictate, shape and manipulate the fate of this once great nation.

I am so mad semper that you can not even imagine how bad I feel we are nothing than sitting ducks in this big game.

Iraq is nothing rght now compare to what our future as a nation is been geared to be.

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 02:43 PM
reply to post by Rockpuck

Let me tell you, now no only China but Arab nation will own the majority of investments in American's most powerful financial institutions, they have sold themselves to keep from going bankrupt but ironic that is not even a hint of this in the news.

Right now we are surviving the markets due to their steadily buying of America.

And people have no clue of what is done to our sovereignty and our children legacy.

We have traitors running our government and national security now comes with a price tag.

Iraq was nothing but the show the spectacle to keep America blind until the take over.

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 02:58 PM
Nice one semper,

Warming up for the debate tourney by taking on allcomers on some very dodgy ground.

For myself, I have a few questions.

Where are the WMDs - and if they aren't there, doesn't it bring into question the legality of the war?
The no fly zones are a bit of a non starter - we shot at them as well - and just who the hell are we to set up no fly zones over the territory of another sovereign nation.

If the US was so concerned about the massacre of the kurds, why did they wait so long to act.

Where are the strong links between al'qaeda and the previous regime (saddam)

1 in 3 tax dollars spent on defense in iraq and afghanistan now goes to private contractors - FACT.

A new report suggests civilian casualties are about 151,000 with the higher end of the range at 223,000 - does this sound like iraq is a better place to live? report

What about the 4 million+ displaced persons - do they think iraq is a better place to live?

Where was the evidence that iraq was in ANY way involved in the 911 attacks - OBL consistently denied it. If it had been him, wouldn't he have shouted it from the rooftops?

Why is the US only NOW willing to do something about terrorism?
They weren't so concerned about it when they allowed the PIRA to raise funds for use on the mainland of its supposed ally (by "they" I mean the US government) and to murder innocents with the weapons that the money bought.

[edit on 29/1/2008 by budski]

[edit on 29/1/2008 by budski]

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 03:49 PM
Hi Semper,

This is a lengthy transcript of a hearing whether the US helped 'create' Saddam or not. It mentions the USS Stark incident where 37 crewman died. This was initially blamed on Iran, and following this, a civilian airline was blown up (US claims it was an F14) and 290 civilians were killed. After some pressure, they eventually admitted that it was an Iraqi missile that hit the USS Stark.

Why didn't they do something then?

Answer: because they needed Saddam back then. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Please note there are more excellent points in the FAS.ORG link I provided but there are too many to post here.

Off Topic - Perhaps ATS can have a 'royal rumble' style of debate, with more than 2 people arguing... oh wait, it's called a thread.

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 04:01 PM
Hello Semper,

You're definitely a great debater, and as such, I will start with facts. Although somewhat irrelevant to some, let's not forget that we armed Saddam Hussein and even provided the chemical weapons he used on his own people.

Let's not forget that April Gillespie, US Ambassador to Iraq, met with Saddam days before he invaded Kuwait in August 1990. During the meeting, Saddam told her Kuwait was slant drilling on Iraqi oil and he wanted it to stop. The US Dept of State's response: we have a policy of non-intervention in Middle Eastern affairs. I am not a fan of Saddam; however, if you are Saddam, what would your interpretation be? Go ahead, do what you have to do. Saddam did, and we know the rest. I know the UN resolutions stated that we were only authorized to remove Saddam from Kuwait, not that we would remove him from power. Knowing what we know now, I would have finished the job back then; when we had a solid coalition around us - we could have easily compelled the coalition and gotten plenty of help from the Arab world. Today, we are alone. Saddam didn't have that many fans in the region back then either and most wanted him out.

Are you forgetting that even after Saddam invaded, people in the United States did not feel that we had to get involved? Have you forgotten that the alleged Kuwaiti girl who cried in front of the world and shared the "stories" of babies being removed from their incubators and left on the floor to die was a hoax? The girl was the Kuwaiti Ambassador's daughter acting. Even George Bush Sr quoted the girl's words to sell us the war, knowing she was acting.

I didn't mean to digress. I just wanted to state some facts related to this conflict. You stated it perfectly: CONFLICT. The war indeed ended in just a few days. Why didn't we strategize on a fully executable plan, from beginning to end. Oops. Did we forget that a power vacuum would attract CIAeda, I mean Al-Qaeda, to Iraq? Why is it that in a previous interview, Dick Cheney acknowledged it would be a big mistake (don't get me wrong, I voted for Bush twice), to invade Iraq. He was very aware of the sectarian violence that would erupt between Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis. Selective amnesia or selective lies to sell us the invasion?

Without Saddam, who ruled with an iron fist, the only way to end this conflict is to divide the nation into three. As the moderator stated, if the means to justify this conflict (I call it invasion) were inaccurate, then the reasoning for being there can be categorized as illegal.

In my opinion, things were better in the US with Saddam in power. At least, he kept the region in check and posed no threat to anyone. Now we're spending billions and billions and the price of gas keeps climbing. I am yet to see one single benefit coming from this conflict. Not to mention our loss of life. We don't have enough money to repair our own bridges but in Iraq, we bomb them and then repair them immediately. As a US citizen, I find that unfair. Don't you? That is only the tip of the iceberg.

Knowing what we now know, I would be willing to bet military recruiters would have had serious difficulty tapping into the "all volunteer" military if we had truly known.

You don't have to be that smart to connect the dots and wake up! We armed both, the Iraqi and Iranian armies, during their eight-year war. It's just the military-pharmaceutical-energy-prison-industrial complex at work, my friend. And this one is no different. Al-Qaeda is just a patsy group, indirectly created by the CIA through our Pakistani puppet: the ISI. We can debate this forever.

This war, conflict, invasion, or whatever we decide to call it, has no end in sight. Who is the enemy? Can we wipe them out? No. Osama? They are better off keeping the illusion that he is alive and on the run...

In summary, for business, this is the perfect war.

"I would rather keep my mind open by wonder than closed by belief."

[edit on 29-1-2008 by manticore]

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 04:30 PM
Lots of people still have their head in the sand about Iraq. There were no weapons, no ties to Al Qaeda, absolutely zero threat to America. That much is obvious at this point. Anyone denying that should not even be here at ATS, as their childish minds have not yet grasped the fact that everything they see on Fox News and the TV in general isn't true. When the Iraq discussion is over, these fine people will be happy to tell you of the evils of Marijuana and how liberals ruin everything.

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 04:34 PM

The "War", the "Conflict" what ever you wish to call it, is not illegal. Not even close. The fact that it has been tested in the courts and found to be perfectly legal should satisfy any thinking person. (Remember that just because you WANT it to be illegal in no way makes it so)

The United States entered this "conflict" under a UN resolution.

Where in the constitution does it authorize congress and/or the president to take such an action? If the UN said that no parent is allowed to spank their child - and it's punishable by death, what would you think?

The last time Congress declared war was on December 11, 1941, against Germany in response to its formal declaration of war against the United States. This was accomplished with wording that took less than one-third of a page, without any nitpicking arguments over precise language, yet it was a clear declaration of who the enemy was and what had to be done. And in three-and-a-half years, this was accomplished. A similar resolve came from the declaration of war against Japan three days earlier. Likewise, a clear-cut victory was achieved against Japan.

-Ron Paul, 2002 Source

The rest of the speech is worth reading.

We have the United STATES Military. Not the United NATIONS Military.

The UN does not have power over the United States simply because our leaders say it does.

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 04:37 PM
The argument put forth is the same argument that the Soviets used when they invaded Afghanistan. They performed an incursion into Kabul, then installed a puppet government, which then asked the Soviet Union to come in full force.

We invaded Iraq, under false pretense, destroyed their country and government, installed a puppet government by allowing those brace enough to come out to vote, at gunpoint, to "elect" some puppets.

And now those puppets ask us to stay.

Going back further in history, Hitler used the same sham on Austria and the Anschluss.

Those that don't learn from History's mistakes are doomed to repeat the.

As Pete Seeger once wrote in song- "When will they ever learn?"

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 04:37 PM
The UN Used to be the decider on legality of international conflicts.
I mean, afterall, the allies ( Mainly the US ) Helped create this notion after World war 2.

Now, the UN had deemed that the US Invasion is indeed illegial.
But it seems so many people now ignore the UN, because they are curropt.
True, there has been many issues arise from the coffers of the UN, but I find most faily to appreciate the a large number of the allies in this 'illegial-war' are involved in the curroption of the UN.

And that also, its these same allies that are the loudest doing the drum roll OF the UN being curropt.

I get the feeling they are more trying to dis-credit them, to make them look worse than they are in the publics eyes.

Secondly, when most people rebutt the ''illegial notion'' they declare
'' US Congress declared the war, therefore it is LEGAL ''

Well, im afraid international law stretches a hell of a lot further than the halls of D.C.

The truth of the matter is, and I dont think ANYONE can argue this is

1. ALL Iraqi WMD intellegence was WRONG
2. ALL Iraqi intellegence has found to be 'faulty-fraudulent-madeup-over- blown '
3. The US gvernment was advised of the faulty intellegence, but chose to us it anyway
4. The US Government lied about nigeria uranium, and outted a SPY when they declared as much
5. The US government used blatant propoganda to fool the public.
6. The US Government has pushed large multi-national corporations into Iraq, corporations tightly tied to US Government officials.

Now, being Iraq had no WMD's, but plenty of oil, it raises a lot of questions.
Being the VP was ceo of halliburton, whom happens to have won many billion dollar no-bid contracts also raises a lot of questions.
Being GW Bush declared he wanted Iraq LONG BEFORE 911, also makes you wonder.

I find the concept of legality with Iraq is split amongst 2 groups

1 group believes the US Is the superpower, unmatched there fore should be able to do as it pleases when it pleases

the 2nd group believes
that for there to have been any justification in this war, there had to be WMD's, or atleast EVIDENCE of WMD's... not just lies.

The war is illegial, because Iraq didnt attack the USA and because the USA tricked the world into believe WMD's existed, when they knew from dat dot they didnt.

in the 30's it was the evil stealing monster Jews.
Today, its WMD's.

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 04:50 PM
I am not sure, but didn't we, that is, the US, go into Iraq illegally? Isn't that the main argument that people use (or used to use anyway)? I have heard that many times in the past. Hell, that's what they are teaching in colleges (well, in mine at least - my professor mentioned it once or twice). Wasn't the US supposed to have gone to the UN first and, if the UN allowed the war, then the US could have legally entered the war? I am sure that I have heard about this somewhere
. Or maybe I have been on ATS for far too long
. But if the US was supposed to wait for UN approval, then, yes, the US started a war/conflict illegally.

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 07:15 PM
reply to post by Agit8dChop

The UN Used to be the decider on legality of international conflicts.
I mean, afterall, the allies ( Mainly the US ) Helped create this notion after World war 2.


The largest nations on the Security Council used to and still do the "legality" of situations.. of course, legality is a perception of one or more of these powers. For the Iraq war, it was divided, however the US does not need UN permission to do anything. Anything at all, and we are better off leaving that POS institution.

Now, the UN had deemed that the US Invasion is indeed illegial.

No it did not, and even if it did "legality" only holds enough power as those backing it... who dares say America is in an illegal conflict and impose sanctions on us? No one.

But it seems so many people now ignore the UN, because they are curropt.

The UN is symbolic, never had power, never will have power, and yes is ignored because it interferes with sovereign affairs.

And that also, its these same allies that are the loudest doing the drum roll OF the UN being curropt.

The UN by nature is corrupt, and it is the leading powers that understand that the UN is nothing but a mirage .. a forum and nothing more. Only smaller countries benefit from unions like these, and they already have a group, I forget the name, they met in Cuba last year.

Secondly, when most people rebutt the ''illegial notion'' they declare
'' US Congress declared the war, therefore it is LEGAL ''

US Congress never declared war.. they gave allowance to military actions overseas. No war at all.. military conflict, approved by Congress.. yes, in America it was done in a perfectly legal fashion.

Well, im afraid international law stretches a hell of a lot further than the halls of D.C.

Man, folks like you make me cringe.. International law does not have effect on American citizens, or its law makers, or anyone in the world for that matter.. it does not come near DC, it cannot come near our sovereign borders, it is effectless..

And the day international law becomes the laws of my home land, is the day people like you who support it can count on retribution from folks like me.

1. ALL Iraqi WMD intellegence was WRONG

Not illegal.

2. ALL Iraqi intellegence has found to be 'faulty-fraudulent-madeup-over- blown '

Exaggerations are not illegal.

3. The US gvernment was advised of the faulty intellegence, but chose to us it anyway

The US does not have to take any other source but its self as relevant.

4. The US Government lied about 'n-word'ia uranium, and outted a SPY when they declared as much

nword? Lying about intelligence is not illegal. Most wars are started on such principles.

5. The US government used blatant propoganda to fool the public.

Politics mate, not illegal either.

6. The US Government has pushed large multi-national corporations into Iraq, corporations tightly tied to US Government officials.

Reaping the spoils of war. Not illegal either.

Immoral, maybe. Not illegal.. I suggest a nice long college level course on International Affairs..

1 group believes the US Is the superpower, unmatched there fore should be able to do as it pleases when it pleases

Power is only relevant that no one can counter our international affairs.. no one sanctioned us, nothing.. political BS aside, no one cares.

that for there to have been any justification in this war, there had to be WMD's, or atleast EVIDENCE of WMD's... not just lies.

Or in your case you believe we should bow to the UN as our overlords right?

The war is illegial, because Iraq didnt attack the USA and because the USA tricked the world into believe WMD's existed, when they knew from dat dot they didnt.

That is an excellent reason why the war is immoral, stupid, reckless, dangerous, etc, etc.. not illegal.. a war cannot be legal or illegal, war is war.

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 08:10 PM
reply to post by semperfortis

According to our Constitution all wars must be declared by congress. Thus by your own addmission that "the war was over when we got Saddam" makes it illegal.

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 08:52 PM
reply to post by joeinwy

Constitution? What Constitution? We were recently told it was "just a piece of paper". I know exactly what Bush & Co are doing with "our piece of paper", before they flush it down the toilet again and again... and it doesn't smell nice.

More and more our presidents are behaving like kings: ruling by decree, rather than by the people's choice.

More and more we will be governed by Emergency Rule than our Constitution. Martial Law is closer than you think.

[edit on 29-1-2008 by manticore]

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 08:59 PM
reply to post by manticore

Manticore- You are right. The constitution is being stepped on by the Executive branch. More Americans need to speak out at the ballot box and express their concern about this. Congress can do something about it, but seems not willing to make the move. I'm afraid that those that say our system is broken are correct. This problem did not come about suddenly. It will take time to fix, but time is running out.
"First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the communists
and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me -
and by then there was no one left to speak out for me."

Pastor Martin Niemöller

We cannot be Pastor Niemollers. We must speak all speak out.

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 09:08 PM
reply to post by semperfortis

Once yet again Semper you have made a great argument by stating facts that support your argument.

I personally am against this conflict. I support our troops and know that they are doing their jobs. However I am against this conflict in the sense that it is not our job to create a stable Iraq it is the job of the Iraqi people and the Iraqi government to create a stable Iraq.

I don't think that American military personnel should be used to fight a civil war for another country. It just does not make sense to me. I believe that now is the time for us to begin letting the Iraqi military rein in insurgents and regain control of their own country. I agree that the complete withdraw of our forces would be asinine but perhaps a backing off of our troops to more of a support roll than a front line force? I think that the Iraqi government will never gain strength, credibility or the support of the people of Iraq.

It is true that we are making great gains in the Iraqi theater. This is the time that we need to back off and let the government of Iraq stand on their own two feet. We do need to stay but in my opinion in a support role.

You were right about the Iraq war being a legal war, it was a legal war. congress voted on it and it passed. That in itself made it a legal war. An immoral war is another debate entirely. We did go to war with the false impression of finding WMDs WMDs that weren't there. There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and UBL or Al Quada. These are the reasons that in my opinion made it an immoral war.

but here we are and hopefully the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people take a stand to make their country theirs and let it be possible for our brave men and women to come home to their own country and their own families.

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 09:20 PM
reply to post by ProfEmeritus

Hey Prof. Well said. The concept of "Separation of Power... and religion" seems to be a thing of the past. Our Congress is asleep at the wheel, and even whey they are driving they seem to be going nowhere. They remind me of George Romero's movies, which end by "Something" of the Dead (i.e., Dawn of the Dead). I see this as "Congress of the Dead". Just a bunch of zombies, with a few good voices (i.e., Ron Paul) that are laughed on and ridiculed.

If a few good men (the significant few) seem to be making sense to most, how do we allow the rest (the insignificant many) to rule our destiny?

As long as there is electronic voting (i.e., Diebold), there will be manipulation. We have experienced it twice in a major election and it seems to be happening now during the primaries. What tells you it won't happen again in November.

[edit on 29-1-2008 by manticore]

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 09:25 PM
Don't forget, WE created this civil war. We were not authorized. Declaration of War by Congress = Authorization. We were not authorized. If you want to use semantics, as it relates to being authorized to engage in preemptive wars, then yes. However, if the reasons for getting into this "conflict" are false, thus, it is illegal. Then we have no leg to stand on. This particular event has caused us to be despised by the international community.

We all remember what happened to the bullies in high school. We seem to be heading that way, unless TRUE CHANGE slaps these bullies out of their enchanted and psychopathic path.

[edit on 29-1-2008 by manticore]

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in