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.

 

O'Reilly: "We Didn't Invade Iraq"

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2008 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


And yet despite the violations there was no UN mandate given to the US to prosecute a further war or invasion.

And now bush is re-writing the rules (or trying to) to make torture legal despite clear definitions from the UN.

So shrub only cares about UN resolutions when it suits him.

In other words he's a hypocrite and a liar (wmd's) using a paid and bought for shill to further his own agenda.

And I thought the BBC was bad...



[edit on 2/5/2008 by budski]




posted on May, 2 2008 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


And yet despite the violations there was no UN mandate given to the US to prosecute a further war or invasion.

And now bush is re-writing the rules (or trying to) to make torture legal despite clear definitions from the UN.

So shrub only cares about UN resolutions when it suits him.

In other words he's a hypocrite and a liar (wmd's)



I agree with all of that. I just hate seeing propoganda from one side used to address propoganda from the other.



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


I don't think any news agency could do a worse job than Fox News. CNN is getting close. Neither of them actually report real news (which I'm sure the BBC is guilty of too).

reply to post by Blaine91555
 


Now that is a fair statement, for sure. Both sides are just as guilty of it.

[edit on 2-5-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


Agreed - but sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.

What O'Reilly said was errant nonsense and plain propaganda.



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 



Originally posted by Blaine91555

Originally posted by biggie smalls
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


We did invade Iraq, will you refute this as well?


Yes, we invaded Iraq when we liberated the country Saddam invaded. We had to, to drive him out. Then we stopped the fighting when a peace treaty was agreed to by Saddam. He then violated it over and over and over again until we went back in this time. There is no new war. That was an invention of the Democratic Party and liars in the media.


O'Reilly was trying to make the point that we did not arbitrarily invade Iraq for no reason, as Iraq did to Kuwait.




Originally posted by Blaine91555
The only thing I might be wrong about is the number of U.N. Mandates Saddam violated. It's interesting to me how people condemn the Media and the Political Parties until their propaganda happens to serve their needs.


It was actually 17 UN resolutions that Saddam violated, over a period of 12 years. But your intention was solid.



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555

Originally posted by biggie smalls
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


We did invade Iraq, will you refute this as well?


Yes, we invaded Iraq when we liberated the country Saddam invaded. We had to, to drive him out. Then we stopped the fighting when a peace treaty was agreed to by Saddam. He then violated it over and over and over again until we went back in this time. There is no new war. That was an invention of the Democratic Party and liars in the media.

The only thing I might be wrong about is the number of U.N. Mandates Saddam violated. It's interesting to me how people condemn the Media and the Political Parties until their propaganda happens to serve their needs.


We reinvaded Iraq would be the best terminology. We invaded briefly the first gulf war and left and reinvaded after the second from our bases we had in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. So Oreilly is partly right we didnt invade Iraq we reinvaded them


[edit on 2-5-2008 by mybigunit]



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


That's funny, I thought we invaded Iraq because they were constructing and storing WMDs and also harboring terrorists.

Are UN Mandates the final answer, or will that change in 6 months?



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 





It was actually 17 UN resolutions that Saddam violated, over a period of 12 years. But your intention was solid.





That is interesting. I would love to see how many UN resolutions the US government has violated during that same time span. Pot, meet kettle.

I will agree that the first Gulf War had some merit, although it was crafted under less than honorable terms and conditions. You can make the case that technically, we did have a legitimate reason to intervene.

If I recall correctly, the second time around went a bit differently. We were fresh off of the 9/11 attacks and looking to crack heads, and obviously it didn't matter who's head it was. Iraq had not attacked any other nation, had attacked no US interests, they have never been proven to have had one single thing to do with 9/11 or the terrorists that were supposedly involved. Saddam was never linked to Al Quaid and even though he likely had them, there have never been any WMD's found in Iraq.

Bush invaded Iraq in order to set up a base inside of the middle east so that the US could stage a presence in the region to help protect Israel. Also they invaded Iraq, which was a sovereign nation, in order to gain access to critical oil deposits and to rack up billions of tax dollars on government contracts, rebuilding infrastructure etc

The fact is that our military invaded and took over a foreign country with no UN approval and no world support aside from Israel and the UK, two countries who basically were forced to go along with our policies. The invading force is now an OCCUPYING forces. Clean it up, shine it up, dress it however you want. We took that country over and have brutalized it's citizens and have never provided a real and honest reason for doing so. I don't like to admit it either, but it is true.




[edit on 5/2/08 by BlackOps719]



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 01:25 PM
link   
O'Reilly is NOT....I repeat NOT a journalist!!!

He is a pundit....and not very good, at that....he is a miserable excuse for a human being, and is in the same ditch as Rush and 'Dr.' Laura ....

These are all excrement, the bottom of the barrel, the lowest form of despicable nature of atrocity to ever sour the airwaves....Oh! I forgot to mention Ann Coultergeist! She's in the pile too.....

If I left anyone out, apologies.....you know who you are!!

What is sad, is they make money doing this crap....what a crazy, crazy world.....they have a right to spout lies. OK, so be it. We have a right to call them out, when they lie. It's just, we don't get paid as well......

WW



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sublime620
I think O'Reilly should be put in prison for intentionally misinforming the public. It's a dereliction of duty.


Oh, so now you're in favor of violating the free speech amendment and jailing people just because you don't agree with what they say? Before you advocate censorship and losing a key constitutional right (such as you rail at Bush for supposedly doing), have you stopped to think about what could then happen to you when the shoe gets to be on the other foot?

Please try not to be so short-sighted and naive when writing about our constitutional rights, OK?


[edit on 5/2/2008 by centurion1211]



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


centuriion, we were writing at the same time....and posted almost simultaneously.

I hear ya, what you said to Sublime....but, what do you think about Rush? He came very close to inciting (the idea) of riots, at the DNC convention, in Denver. Is that not crossing a line??? How close did the fat gasbag get to the line? Did he cross it, or not???

WW

ps.....know the difference between Rush Limbaugh and the Hindenberg?

One is a flaming bag of hot air....and the other is a dirigible.

WW

[edit on 5/2/0808 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Wow this thread is on fire I dont even get time to throw in some comments LOL!!!!!

Like I said we reinvaded Iraq but I want to make it clear so there are no misunderstandings...reinvading Iraq was one of the biggest foreign policy screw ups in our nations history...we took out Iraq who always held Iran in check now look at what we have. Oreilly does get free speech and shouldnt be thrown in jail as someone else said but just cause he says it does not make him right.



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


I only commented on the fact this is not a new war. Which is true.

As far as the war and Bush goes, I'm in agreement with most people here.

O'Reilly is just doing the same thing they all do.



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by BlackOps719
 



Originally posted by BlackOps719
reply to post by jsobecky
 





It was actually 17 UN resolutions that Saddam violated, over a period of 12 years. But your intention was solid.



That is interesting. I would love to see how many UN resolutions the US government has violated during that same time span.

Well, what's stopping you from doing the research and satisfying your curiosity? At least you'd be doing something you enjoy doing - trash talking the US.



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 



That's a good way to put it. Oops, need a second line here and I can't think of one.



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

It was actually 17 UN resolutions that Saddam violated, over a period of 12 years. But your intention was solid.


Thank you. These old brain cells ain't what they used to be



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 


Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, apologies if so.....

Yesterday, 1 May 2008, was the FIVE YEAR anniversary of the Idiot-in-Chief's landing on the aircraft carrier, announcing 'Mission Accomplished'.

"My fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended, in the battle of Iraq, the United States, and our Allies, have prevailed. (applause)...
And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country."

Idiot's actual speech from the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln.....

Of all the carriers to use.....sheesh!!!

What a piece of crap, is GWB? He is so stupid, he doesn't know when he's being handled, by his handlers.....and shills like O-reilly, care of Fox Noise....and Coultergeist, et al, just keep the 'dream' alive....sick, sick, sick.....



[edit on 5/2/0808 by weedwhacker]

second edit, a ps....NOW, over 4000 US soldiers dead. How many 'coalition' force soldiers as well? Maybe 30,000 'coalition' maimed....families devasted....and the civilians, in Iraq? Hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, it you consider the displacements happening....it is a crying shame that this ILLEGAL administration did all of this, in the 'name' of my country....a truly sad mark in our history as a Nation. For all who read this, please know that we DO NOT support this criminal, GWB...our system allows us to criticize....and to impeach....but it takes time to impeach, and I think we've run out of time. SO, please don't pour your scorn on American citizens for the evil that our 'leaders' do...we tried to work within the boundaries of our system of government, but that system has been corrupted.....what now?

WW

[edit on 5/2/0808 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
O'Reilly was trying to make the point that we did not arbitrarily invade Iraq for no reason, as Iraq did to Kuwait.

Actually Kuwait used to be a part of Iraq, and some Iraqis still consider it a part of Iraq. During world wars, when British Empire ruled this lands, they gave a lot of money and weapons to this little sheikh, who ruled the town of Kuwait and created a protectorate - a little puppet state. Why? Because there was oil there. In any case, Kuwait is like Taiwan for Chinese. Or Kosovo for Serbs.



It was actually 17 UN resolutions that Saddam violated, over a period of 12 years. But your intention was solid.

Let us count the U.N. resolutions violated by, for example - Isreal.

I think there were 429 resolutions against Israel passed - and guess what? United States used VETO on them ALL. Talking about equal rights and justice for all huh?



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


As usual, you are confusing people trash talking bush with people trash talking the US.

There's a difference, although it seems to escape you.



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackOps719

I will agree that the first Gulf War had some merit, although it was crafted under less than honorable terms and conditions. You can make the case that technically, we did have a legitimate reason to intervene.



I think Saddam invading a country and his thugs raping and pillaging was a pretty good reason.

I made a friend a few years ago from Kuwait. He was basically the equivalent of a Mayor in Kuwait. His Wife and daughters were raped and tortured by Saddam's thugs. Then they killed his whole family and burned his home. It was pure chance he escaped because he was traveling. He's a Professor in the U.S. now and remarried. He is one of the kindest, smartest people I've ever met. He made me realize that Saddam and Terrorism has nothing to do with the Muslim people.

I think people need to remember the things that Monster did to understand the entirety of the situation.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join