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.

 

War on Terrorism justified even though..?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by IMMORTAL

Originally posted by browha
Is the war on terrorism justified (well, specifically Iraq) even though WMD arent found/ Bin Laden isnt found?
Personally I think it is because whole nations have been liberated.
The same roughly applies to Afghanistan, though from what I hear in the news it's starting to get much riskier for soldiers out there.
It wasn't justified because they haven't found WMD's or Osama Bin Laden, these were the reasons given for the war, therefore, it is an unjustified war.


Wrong Iraq wasnt about OBL at all and if you know anything about foriegn policy you would know that it was about WMD's and 12 years of broken resolutions. 1441 through the UN was passed which gave us reason to attack Iraq if they didnt comply, the onus was on Hussien to show hedestroyed WMD, not the president of the US.....Hussien failed to comply and we attacked as justified by 1441.




posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 11:48 PM
link   
heres another great image about the war on terror....hahahahah! war on terror....




crap same one as before! my most heartfelt condolences!

[Edited on 3-4-04 by Scat]



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 11:50 PM
link   
So scat your against the war on terror, whats your plan?



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dreamz
Wrong Iraq wasnt about OBL at all and if you know anything about foriegn policy you would know that it was about WMD's and 12 years of broken resolutions. 1441 through the UN was passed which gave us reason to attack Iraq if they didnt comply, the onus was on Hussien to show hedestroyed WMD, not the president of the US.....Hussien failed to comply and we attacked as justified by 1441.
UNSC Resolution 1441 did not include anything about war. The words used in the document were "severe consequences", which is what the U.S. used as the justification. The UNSC would have never approved Resolution 1441 if there was war wording within it. Much as Hans Blix has recently said it would have required a second resolution to make the Iraq invasion legal. This did not happen.

Also, as Katherine Gun pointed out for the world, the NSA was pressuring the UNSC to get this invasion, of which the UNSC didn't comply with NSA wishes.



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dreamz


Wrong Iraq wasnt about OBL at all and if you know anything about foriegn policy you would know that it was about WMD's and 12 years of broken resolutions. 1441 through the UN was passed which gave us reason to attack Iraq if they didnt comply, the onus was on Hussien to show hedestroyed WMD, not the president of the US.....Hussien failed to comply and we attacked as justified by 1441.
"us"? Since when did you become a part of the Bush administration. His presidency was rigged and he don't give a hell about the people he is supposedly to serve. This is not about "us"--It's about the Bush administratioin and what they do.

So I guess this means you believe all the lies?



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Everyone knew what the severe consequences would be when it was approved 15-0....So anyone who says otherwise is full of it.....It was well reported that the wording was set forth as to allow for a legal invasion without a second resolution.
The second resolution was an option that wouldve went through if France had not said it wouldve veteod any bill that would be introduced before anything was introduced. Obviously seeing the ties to France and Saddam post war has shown a very good reason as to why France wanted to keep Saddam in power. The threat of Saddam giving WMD's or know how to terrorists was just to great of a threat and was something, even with bad intelligence that could not be allowed to happen.



posted on Mar, 5 2004 @ 12:03 AM
link   
"us"? Since when did you become a part of the Bush administration.I didnt mention that did I
His presidency was rigged and he don't give a hell about the people he is supposedly to serve.Like it or not the president is elected by the electoral college and has been since our constitution was adopted. You complain about the illegal wire taps and so forth and how civil liberties are being taken away yet you dont or cant admit that the 2000 election was done according to our constitution. This is not about "us"--It's about the Bush administratioin and what they do.Yeah Bush is taking it to the terrorists because he is trying to protect himself and doesnt care nothing about American lifes.

So I guess this means you believe all the lies?Or that you cant fathom a president who really is looking out in the best interest of national security or what I would like to call the presidents #1 resposibility.



posted on Mar, 5 2004 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dreamz
Everyone knew what the severe consequences would be when it was approved 15-0....So anyone who says otherwise is full of it.....It was well reported that the wording was set forth as to allow for a legal invasion without a second resolution.
So you're basically saying that execution orders merely require the wording "severe consequences", right? Severe consequences means nothing and you know that. The UNSC is a pawn of the United States, but did not want to sanction this blatantly illegal war, so they gave themselves an out by agreeing to the severe consequences line. Its that fine legal line that in any real legal sense means jack #.


The second resolution was an option that wouldve went through if France had not said it wouldve veteod any bill that would be introduced before anything was introduced. Obviously seeing the ties to France and Saddam post war has shown a very good reason as to why France wanted to keep Saddam in power. The threat of Saddam giving WMD's or know how to terrorists was just to great of a threat and was something, even with bad intelligence that could not be allowed to happen.
Please. With the U.S. knowing there was no WMD or terrorist ties before they went in, this is all bull#. Ahmed Chalabi the liar coupled with the Office of Special Plans created this atmosphere that most of the gullible public bought into. Now that Chalabi has admitted he lied and is willing to "fall on swords" if he has to, just how legal was this war? It wasn't and you know it.



posted on Mar, 5 2004 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dreamz
So I guess this means you believe all the lies?Or that you cant fathom a president who really is looking out in the best interest of national security or what I would like to call the presidents #1 resposibility.
Creating a problem was his number one responsibility and fooling the people by saying it was "terrorists".

Killing a few thousand innocent Americans is not looking out for the interest of national security, it is to further his agenda for global conquest.



posted on Mar, 5 2004 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by heelstone

Originally posted by Dreamz
Everyone knew what the severe consequences would be when it was approved 15-0....So anyone who says otherwise is full of it.....It was well reported that the wording was set forth as to allow for a legal invasion without a second resolution.
So you're basically saying that execution orders merely require the wording "severe consequences", right? Severe consequences means nothing and you know that. The UNSC is a pawn of the United States, but did not want to sanction this blatantly illegal war, so they gave themselves an out by agreeing to the severe consequences line. Its that fine legal line that in any real legal sense means jack #.


The second resolution was an option that wouldve went through if France had not said it wouldve veteod any bill that would be introduced before anything was introduced. Obviously seeing the ties to France and Saddam post war has shown a very good reason as to why France wanted to keep Saddam in power. The threat of Saddam giving WMD's or know how to terrorists was just to great of a threat and was something, even with bad intelligence that could not be allowed to happen.
Please. With the U.S. knowing there was no WMD or terrorist ties before they went in, this is all bull#. Ahmed Chalabi the liar coupled with the Office of Special Plans created this atmosphere that most of the gullible public bought into. Now that Chalabi has admitted he lied and is willing to "fall on swords" if he has to, just how legal was this war? It wasn't and you know it.
Call it internationally illegal all you want, America is a soveriegn nation and the power to war was passed by congress so doesnt that make the UN insignificant anyways. Or should we only be allowed to go to war with permission of the international community while terrorists get their approval from ???

You want to talk about Chalibi, what about Hans Blix report to the UN on 1-27-03....that states the following....

"Chemical weapons


The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.

Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tonnes and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said, that the agent was never weaponised. Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.



UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.



There are also indications that the agent was weaponised. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.




I would now like to turn to the so-called Air Force document that I have discussed with the Council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi Air Force Headquarters in 1998 and taken from her by Iraqi minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs, by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. I am encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC.

The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.



Oh and here is the link to the above UN report.
www.un.org...





[Edited on 5-3-2004 by Dreamz]



posted on Mar, 5 2004 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dreamz
Or should we only be allowed to go to war with permission of the international community while terrorists get their approval from ???
Yeah about that terrorist thing. Obviously there aren't that many terrorists or the stuff we were told about Iraq would have come true. It didn't. As for the supposed Al Qaeda terrorist network, there has been one conviction so far, and it was a guy in Germany, not in Afghanistan or Iraq. He is also getting a retrial soon as he just got an appeal.


There are also indications that the agent was weaponised. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.
I cut out the rest because it was superfluous. "Indications" is a meaningless term. Questions as to the fate of precursor chemicals means nothing either. Proof of nothing. Blix himself even said that if he had been given 6 more months in Iraq, he could have stated without uncertainty that Iraq had complied with disarmament. The U.S. wanted to invade, so they had to attack before Blix had the chance to do that.


The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.
Another meaningless document. As I stated the U.S. knew that Iraq had no WMD before the invasion. These documents that give questions, but provide no answers are not proof of anything. Had there actually been people there to find out, they would have found nothing, much as the U.S. did after they invaded. Don't be ridiculous.



posted on Mar, 5 2004 @ 12:50 AM
link   
Heel, Im not saying there "were" chemical or biological weapons, I dont disagree that the intel was false. My point is that it was on Saddam to provide proof that none existed and he never did. Had he provided proof and cooperated when he 1st had sanctions and weapon inspectors we wouldve never had any of these problems. Do I think the war was justified, yes by our congress it was. Do I think that the terms in the UN were debatable, yep...they are.



posted on Mar, 5 2004 @ 02:50 AM
link   
Just for the record,
Iraq admitted, before or after the First Gulf War, not sure exactly when, to having enough botulinum (1 gram kills a million people if perfectly disperesed) to kill the world like 6 times over...



posted on Mar, 5 2004 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joseph Knecht
Hi Browha.

In a ideal world, man would not kill each other over anything. This is not an ideal world, so I will keep going.

Regarding the saving of millions of lives form 'virtual enslavement' : What I think is worse( or equal to) being in prison or living under an overtly violent regime is NOT KNOWING that you are in prison or living under an overtly violent regime. Americans emphatically fall into this second category. America is a dictatorship, yes, a dictatorship. It is a Market Dictatorship that runs this country ( I believe Roger Waters coined the phrase). Many people in America believe that we live in a democracy. We actually live in a democratic republic which is very, very different. This semantic difference makes a WORLD of difference.


The atrocities commited by Saddam Hussein pale in comparison to the atrocities commited by OUR government. Take a fine spring stroll through your local ghetto, then take that same stroll through your suburbs. Visit an Indian reservation, then go to the mall in Washington. Something is definitley amiss here.


But, to answer your question without my tangents. Yes, ideally if someone was bent on killing millions of people, then it would be ethical to stop them from doing so. WHO's killing WHO though is paramount to my point. Who's more of threat? North Korea, China, Russia, Cuba, Iran, Syria, or that OIL laden land called Iraq? Priorities speak volumes my friend.



Yes, I suppose these are fair points...
Makes me proud not to be American.
But perhaps the attack on Iraq was to secure long-term supplies of oil so as to ensure that future wars on the rest of 'terrorists' states can be carried out? I'm not saying this is what I believe, but it is a possibility.



posted on Mar, 5 2004 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by browha
Just for the record,
Iraq admitted, before or after the First Gulf War, not sure exactly when, to having enough botulinum (1 gram kills a million people if perfectly disperesed) to kill the world like 6 times over...
Words and nothing more. When you are about to be slaughtered most people would say anything to attempt to stop that from happening.



posted on Mar, 5 2004 @ 06:17 AM
link   
Heelstone,
Can you provide some evidence to back up some of the claims that you have made here. All I see is a lot of

:so01:

coming from your direction.



posted on Mar, 5 2004 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Heelstone,
Can you provide some evidence to back up some of the claims that you have made here. All I see is a lot of

:so01:

coming from your direction.
Back up what claims? I need to know specifics before I can respond. I haven't made up anything yet. If I had, I would admit that right now. Perhaps you aren't as up to speed on the news as I am, but I am fully prepared to defend my position.

So what points do you want me to clarify?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join