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.

 

Iraq stands firm against US threat

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Iraq stands firm against US threat


atimes.com

The threat by the George W Bush administration last week to withdraw all economic and military support from the Iraqi government if it does not accept the US-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) has raised the stakes in the political-diplomatic struggle over the issue.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 03:31 AM
link   
The war criminal Bush administration in it's latest blackmail scheme: Accept long-time dominion or loose 16bn per year in support. This comes on top of other reported threats of stealing iraqi oil money and resources. When will the warmongers in governement be held accountable by the american people ?

atimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 03:35 AM
link   
The US is fighting hard to free the Iraqi people... from their money, control and natural resources. Operation Freedom is succeeding.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 04:09 AM
link   
Wait a minute....what is this?

They keep saying that we need to stay in Iraq yet they are threatening them to leave?

What in the world is happening?!?!



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 05:24 AM
link   
Nah the Iraqi don't have anything to steal we already get the oil but of course like all oil it has to be paid for anyway.
Its about keeping troops there to ensure company's like Haliburton keep there contracts which steal tax money from the American people.
$100 for an unwashed bag of Laundry etc.
Big profits it makes for Bush and his buddies.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 06:32 AM
link   
Oh and i bet Iraq is really scared about American troops pulling out and not giving them any funding WHAT A JOKE

Good ole Bush and his do as i say Or i'm taking my Bat and Ball home and not playing any more



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by duffster
Oh and i bet Iraq is really scared about American troops pulling out and not giving them any funding WHAT A JOKE

Good ole Bush and his do as i say Or i'm taking my Bat and Ball home and not playing any more


I've been there and my brother trains sunnis on a daily basis. I can promise you, they do want us there. All of this is nothing more than posturing, so as to not look weak. IF we were to leave the country really would devolve in to a civil war and America's enemies would rejoice and create propaganda for years to come.

Also, Bush is not a war crimminal. The war is not illegal and you need to educate yourself with more than prison planet and DailyKos. They are turning a lot of people in to alternate history buffs.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Marcus Calpurnius
 


You sir are a misinformed, probably brainwashed so I won't hold it against you.

Ask ANY international law or constitutional lawyer what their opinion is of the legality of the Iraq invasion. You'll get the same answer from 90% of them. ILLEGAL.

Bush not a war criminal? Bush is certainly a murderer.
An excerpt from Vincent Bugliosi, former prosecutor of Charles Manson...

"Bush intentionally misled Congress and the American people about the evidence that he said mandated going into Iraq and overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Therefore, the deaths of over 4,000 American soldiers and 100,000 Iraqi civilians since hostilities began (as of spring 2008) amount to murder. He further states that any of the 50 state attorneys general, as well as any district attorney in the United States, has ample grounds to indict Bush for the murder of any soldier or soldiers who live in their state or county. Bugliosi says that if he were prosecuting the case, he would seek imposition of the death penalty, and that impeachment alone would be "a joke", considering the magnitude of Bush's alleged crimes."

Please double check the blind, patriotic ferver before posting nonsense based solely on a brainwashed opnion



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Marcus Calpurnius
 


what makes this invasion legal then? since there is NO UNmandate to allow the USA to kick down any countries doors when it feels like it wants more oil.

The iraqi`s don`t want the USA there - you say you`ve been trainign suunis - interesting you mention religion - and what of the baathists or shi`ites there as well? or do you just blow them up?



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Marcus Calpurnius
 




Also, Bush is not a war crimminal. The war is not illegal and you need to educate yourself with more than prison planet and DailyKos. They are turning a lot of people in to alternate history buffs.


Bush first went to the UN to be allowed to invade Afghanistan and then Iraq.He was denied the right.He then went to Congress.They too denied him.

The Bush administration then changed US law to say that a terrorist attack can now be recognized as an act of war.The invasions began.

As i said in another thread,despite all the rhetoric we have heard by the Bush administration Congress never declared war against Afghanistan or against anyone.There is technically no state of war today against anyone as a matter of constitutional law as formally declared.These 2 wars have never been approved by the U.N. Security Council so technically it is illegal under international law.It constitutes an act and a war of aggression by the United States against Afghanistan and Iraq.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
Wait a minute....what is this?

They keep saying that we need to stay in Iraq yet they are threatening them to leave?


Remember the National Security concerns expressed by the corporate regime regarding the dire need to spy on the US telephone network without restriction? Remember how people wanted to sue the telecommunications companies for breaking the law and allowing the tapping of their phones without warrant?

Remember how our corporate-sponsored political representatives pretended they were 'outraged' and refused to offer retro-active immunity to the corporate giants for breaking the clearly specified laws regarding such issues?

Remember how President Bush and his administration threatened to veto this vital legislation (to allow this to go on despite the people's objections) unless it INCLUDED retro-active immunity?

Where was the logic there?

This is about getting what a small group of powerful men want. Not about anything as mundane as 'protecting American and Iraqi people.' After all, it's the same reason we ended up in this war in the first place; because corporate concerns drove to the political machine, used the media, and generally rested upon their own hubris and desire for ideological supremacy as justification.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 12:22 PM
link   
I can see I'm dealing with a lot of historical revisionists. The fact is, the US government was on a path to war with Iraq since the UN resolution that ended the first Gulf War. The same democrats that asked Bill Blinton to deal with Saddam in 1998, voted for the war!. Bush simply used the same argument that had been made for the previous 8 year prior. Even Al Gore agreed and actually started the rhetoric about Saddam and WMDS/Terrorist links.

The UN may not have mandated the war, but there are also 14 broken resolutions that back up the argument for it. In the end it came down to the fact Iraq had been America's problem since 1991 and we decided to finish the job. Congress approved of it and so did 75% of the country. All this crap now is nothing but revision to try and distract from where the blame lies.

If Bush was guilty of any of the things you claim he is, he would be charged and impeached. The reason he hasn't, is either because the people who would charge him are also implicated, or there is no ground to stand on.



The iraqi`s don`t want the USA there - you say you`ve been trainign suunis - interesting you mention religion - and what of the baathists or shi`ites there as well? or do you just blow them up?


I didn't train Sunnis, my brother did and thats because he was working in Ramadi. A place where the Sunnis used to ally with AQ and fight us. I brought it up to illustrate a point.



reply to post by Maxmars
 


This is about getting what a small group of powerful men want. Not about anything as mundane as 'protecting American and Iraqi people.' After all, it's the same reason we ended up in this war in the first place; because corporate concerns drove to the political machine, used the media, and generally rested upon their own hubris and desire for ideological supremacy as justification.


I'm sorry, but this type of theory ignores an awful lot of history and facts. Why do you ignore the decade run up to war?


reply to post by bigdog36
 


You sir are a misinformed, probably brainwashed so I won't hold it against you.



Its more likely you are the one who is brainwashed and misinformed. I've been following our involvement in Iraq since 1991 and have not only been a part of operations there but have a close working relationship with the military there since we invaded. The difference between us is that I take in all the facts and you just like the ones that fit your fanatically partisan point of view.

[edit on 1-11-2008 by Marcus Calpurnius]



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Marcus Calpurnius
 


again interesting how you mention broken resolutions - and what of Israel and teh 206 broken UN resolutions? will the USA enforce those and kick down the doors in that country?



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 


That inst relevant to this discussion or the sittuation. We have nothing to do with that conflict. We have basically been at war with Iraq since 1991.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Wow. Marcus is the only one in this thread with even an ounce of common sense.

War ciminal? Illegal war? Just wow.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Marcus Calpurnius
 


you mention broken resoulutions dating back to 1991 - which btw were closed at teh end of that conflict; so it is VERY relavent to this discussion


but why do you think otherwise? do you not want to discuss Israel in the same contest of broken resolutuions as Iraq?

remember this is the same Israel that has openly threatened to kill any UN inspector going near dimona



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 01:06 PM
link   
The US is not in the business of enforcing UN standards across the board, it's in the business of supporting action that strengthens American interests.

It's spelled U-S-A, not U-N-I-C-E-F.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 



you mention broken resoulutions dating back to 1991 - which btw were closed at teh end of that conflict; so it is VERY relavent to this discussion


What? No they weren't. The 14 resolutions were built up over the course of the 90's, under Clinton and up until the invasion. Saddam broke every resolution, which were extensions of the original resolution that ended the war.I'm not saying that the resolutions ALONE were enough, but just that we were working with the UN and it obviously didn't work out well. What good are resolutions with threats that aren't backed up?

I even gave you a link to the chronology of the UNSCOM mission in Iraq. Didn't you read it?



[edit on 1-11-2008 by Marcus Calpurnius]



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Marcus Calpurnius

The chronology of the UNSCOM mission in Iraq you linked to differs highly from this one;www.casi.org.uk...


In the resolution proposed by Spain,the US and the UK on March 7th 2003 it states that Iraq

has demonstrated full,unconditional,immediate and active cooperation in accordance with its disarmament obligations under resoultion 1441(2001)and previous relevant resolutions,and is yielding possesions to UNMOVIC and the IAEA of all weapons,weapon delivery and support systems and structures prohibited by resolution 687(1991)

www.casi.org.uk...



Some other interesting information.

In the Declaration Russia,Germany & France,May 5th 2003 it states,

Our common objective remains the full and effective disarmament of Iraq, in compliance with Resolution 1441....

We moreover observe that these inspections are producing increasingly encouraging results:
o The destruction of the Al-Samoud missiles has started and is making progress.
o Iraqis are providing biological and chemical information.
o The interviews with Iraqi scientists are continuing....

We consequently ask that the inspections now be speeded up, in keeping with the proposals put forward in the memorandum submitted to the Security Council by our three countries....

In these circumstances, we will not let a proposed resolution pass that would authorise the use of force.

www.un.int...


ADDRESS BY HIS EXCELLENCY DOMINIQUE DE VILLEPIN FRENCH MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS BEFORE THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL.March 19th 2003.(the day before the invasion.)

....To Mr. Blix, who presented his work program to us, and Mr. ElBaradei, who was represented today, I want to say thank you for the sustained efforts and results achieved. Their program is a reminder that there is still a clear and credible prospect for disarming Iraq peacefully. It proposes and prioritizes the tasks for such disarmament and presents a realistic timetable for their implementation.

In doing so the report confirms what we all know here: Yes, the inspections are producing tangible results. Yes, they offer the prospect of effective disarmament through peaceful means and in shorter time-frames....


To those who choose to use force and think they can resolve the world’s complexity through swift and preventive action, we offer in contrast determined action over time. For today, to ensure our security, all the dimensions of the problem must be taken into account: both the manifold crises and their many facets, including cultural and religious. Nothing lasting in international relations can be built therefore without dialogue and respect for the other, without exigency and abiding by principles, especially for the democracies that must set the example. To ignore this is to run the risk of misunderstanding, radicalization and spiraling violence. This is even more true in the Middle East, an area of fractures and ancient conflicts where stability must be a major objective for us....

To those who think that the scourge of terrorism will be eradicated through the case of Iraq, we say they run the risk of failing in their objectives. The outbreak of force in this area which is so unstable can only exacerbate the tensions and fractures on which the terrorists feed....

No country by itself has the means to build Iraq’s future. In particular, no state can claim the necessary legitimacy. It is from the United Nations alone that the legal and moral authority can come for such an undertaking. Two principles must guide our action: respect for the unity and territorial integrity of Iraq; and the preservation of its sovereignty....

www.un.int...



From article:Senate approves Iraq war resolution.

The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed....

The Bush administration and its supporters in Congress say Saddam has kept a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons in violation of U.N. resolutions and has continued efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Bush also has argued that Iraq could give chemical or biological weapons to terrorists.

Iraq has denied having weapons of mass destruction and has offered to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to return for the first time since 1998. Deputy Prime Minister Abdul Tawab Al-Mulah Huwaish called the allegations "lies" Thursday and offered to let U.S. officials inspect plants they say are developing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

"If the American administration is interested in inspecting these sites, then they're welcome to come over and have a look for themselves," he said.

The White House immediately rejected the offer, saying the matter is up to the United Nations, not Iraq.

archives.cnn.com...



The US-UK Draft Resolution on Post-War Iraq states;

the right of the Iraqi people to freely determine their own political future, welcoming the commitment of concerned parties to support the creation of an environment in which they may do so as soon as possible, and expressing resolve that the day when Iraqis govern themselves must come quickly;Encouraging efforts by the people of Iraq to take the first step toward forming a representative government based on the rule of law that affords equal rights and justice to tall Iraqi citizens without regard to ethnicity, religion, or gender;

www.globalpolicy.org...
Revised US-UK-Spain version.
www.globalpolicy.org...



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marcus Calpurnius

Originally posted by duffster
Oh and i bet Iraq is really scared about American troops pulling out and not giving them any funding WHAT A JOKE

Good ole Bush and his do as i say Or i'm taking my Bat and Ball home and not playing any more


I've been there and my brother trains sunnis on a daily basis. I can promise you, they do want us there. All of this is nothing more than posturing, so as to not look weak. IF we were to leave the country really would devolve in to a civil war and America's enemies would rejoice and create propaganda for years to come.

Also, Bush is not a war crimminal. The war is not illegal and you need to educate yourself with more than prison planet and DailyKos. They are turning a lot of people in to alternate history buffs.



I approve this message..G.W.Bush......................lol




top topics



 
1

log in

join