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.

 

Veterans Group Calls for Refusal to Deploy to Afghanistan and Iraq

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by FortAnthem
legality of Saddam's trial


That's just saying that the GC would have a problem recognizing the trial. Saddam was tried by an Iraqi court, not a US court. Heck, the Iraqis were pissed that the US said he was a POW, they wanted to have him on trial themselves.


You asked for proof that his trial was criminal. He got a show trial by a puppet Iraqi govt.


Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by FortAnthem
Saddam Suddenly Looks Innocent


Great. You do know that's just one persons opinion. Granted, he has a right to that, but it's not really a decent source.


I'll take Wanniski over the MSM anyday.




posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
I should think that flying our planes into our towers and killing our citizens qualifies as justification for wanting the people responsible held accountable for their actions. Call it blood lust if you wish, but the fact of the matter is that our country was attacked, he claimed responsibility, and he's should be held accountable for that attack.



2,976 dead on 9/11. Tragedy. And your right. We were justified in a reaction. 4,372 Americans dead seeking justice in Iraq. 927 Americans dead seeking justice in Afghanistan. 5,299 Americans dead to avenge 2,976 dead Americans. Justice is a mothertrucker.

Death Toll Numbers Source



[edit on 17-12-2009 by Aaron_Justin]

[edit on 17-12-2009 by Aaron_Justin]

[edit on 17-12-2009 by Aaron_Justin]



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aaron_Justin

Originally posted by Jenna
I should think that flying our planes into our towers and killing our citizens qualifies as justification for wanting the people responsible held accountable for their actions. Call it blood lust if you wish, but the fact of the matter is that our country was attacked, he claimed responsibility, and he's should be held accountable for that attack.



2,976 dead on 9/11. Tragedy. And your right. We were justified in a reaction. 4,372 Americans dead seeking justice in Iraq. 927 Americans dead seeking justice in Afghanistan. 5,299 Americans dead to avenge 2,976 dead Americans. Justice is a mothertrucker.

Death Toll Numbers Source



[edit on 17-12-2009 by Aaron_Justin]

[edit on 17-12-2009 by Aaron_Justin]

[edit on 17-12-2009 by Aaron_Justin]


Those soldier death toll numbers are bull#. I believe the amounts are higher. With the high amount of Americans opposed to those "wars" the government HAS to give us false numbers.

[edit on 18-12-2009 by Pains Wisdom]



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
Congress authorized Bush to use force in finding those responsible for 9/11 (seeing as how it's a group and not a country), and authorized it's use in Iraq. You don't have to like it, I certainly don't when it comes to Iraq, but there it is. It is constitutional no matter how many people feel otherwise.




Instead of formal war declarations, the United States Congress has begun issuing authorizations of force. Such authorizations have included the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that greatly increased American participation in the Vietnam War, and the "Authorization of the Use of Military Force" (AUMF) resolution that started the War in Iraq. Some question the legality of these authorizations of force. Manywho support declarations of war argue that they keep administrations honest by forcing them to lay out their case to the American people while, at the same time, honoring the constitutional role of the United States Congress.

Wickipedia

While, I agree, the wars are tehcnically legal under the present framework (meaning whatever laws congress passes are legal, Constitution be damned), I doubt the founding fathers would agree with our country going to war without a formal declaration.

Congress passing an "Authorization to use force" is a cop out. They are protecting their political carreers by passing the buck to the President, leaving all the blame for the consequences of their actions squarely on his lap.

And yes, there is no formula for writing a formal declaration of war, however it is customary to lay out one's grievances to justify an attack in such a declaration.

We need to justify it to whom? The citizens who will be called to fight in the war and the world community who will be affected by the fighting.


Originally posted by Jenna
And technically speaking neither Iraq nor Afghanistan are wars, they are authorized uses of force. Just one step shy of a war, but not quite there yet.


We invaded their country, overthrew the established government and installed one more to our own liking (puppet govt). If that isn't a war, then I don't know what is.



Originally posted by Jenna
The Taliban offered to turn him over well before 9/11 even happened and changed their minds because they thought the people looked up to him after the embassy attacks. Not because of any sense of fairness or justice. After 9/11 they said they would with evidence. I'd say a taped confession counts as evidence. Yet they still refused. They never intended to hand him over, all they did was buy him some time to hide.



Bin Laden initially denied involvement in the WTC attacks and there is some doubt as to the authenticity of the confession tapes.

Bin Laden "confession tapes"

Also, the FBI admits they have no hard evidence to tie Bin Laden to 9-11.
This could explain why we haven't been looking very hard for him. If we do find him we have no case to present against him.

FBI says, “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”



Originally posted by Jenna
Since when did the US stop being a sovereign country and start being controlled by the UN? UN standards have nothing to do with whether or not the authorizations are legal.


Bush sought out UN approval before entering into both wars. The Iraq war was supposedly done in order to enforce UN resolutions. The UN said it was unjustified, Bush went ahead and invaded anyway.



Originally posted by Jenna
Not exactly. From USConstitution.net:

Q108. "Who has the power to declare war?"

A. There is a short answer and a much longer answer. The short answer is that the Constitution clearly grants the Congress the power to declare war, in Article 1, Section 8. This power is not shared with anyone, including the President.

The President, however, is just as clearly made the Commander in Chief of all of the armed forces, in Article 2, Section 2. In this role, the President has the ability to defend the nation or to take military action without involving the Congress directly, and the President's role as "C-in-C" is often part of the reason for that.

What this has resulted in is the essential ability of the President to order forces into hostilities to repel invasion or counter an attack, without a formal declaration of war. The conduct of war is the domain of the President.

[...]

It may be correct to say, then, that an act or war committed against the United States can place the United States into a state of war, if the United States wishes to see the act in that light. A declaration of war by the Congress places the Unites States at war without any doubt. Absent a declaration of war, the President can react to acts of war in an expedient fashion as he sees fit.




The President's authority allows him to order forces into hostilities to repel invasion or counter an attack, without a formal declaration of war.

There was no invasion to repel or iminent threat that needed immidiate action. The attacks had already occurred (during which, the armed forces suspiciously did nothing) and there was no reason we could not continue to negotiate for those we felt were responsible. The Taliban had Bin Laden in custody up until it became clear the US was not sincere in it's desire to have him brought to justice.

Both wars were brought on us by impatience and deception . They have done nothing to make us safer and have cost many more American lives than were lost in the attacks.

The whole world sees the US as a lawlessnes nation due to our conduct in these wars. It is time for the soldiers to say enough is enough and refuse to participate in American atrocities any longer.

Jenna, I applaud you for the courage of your convictions and stating the legal arguement for the wars.

I tend to look at things through the lense of right and wrong. Just because the law says the govt can do something does not always make it right.

[edit on 18-12-2009 by FortAnthem]



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem
While, I agree, the wars are tehcnically legal under the present framework (meaning whatever laws congress passes are legal, Constitution be damned), I doubt the founding fathers would agree with our country going to war without a formal declaration.


Probably not. Alas, they are not here to lead another revolution to straighten this country out.


Congress passing an "Authorization to use force" is a cop out.


Agreed. Unfortunately it's about 8 years too late to do anything about it, and seeing as how the majority of the country was all for it back then there's really not too much anyone can say about it without being a hypocrite. Hindsight is always 20/20 but it still can't change the past and we are far too deep now to just say "Oops, our bad. We'll all go home now."


We need to justify it to whom? The citizens who will be called to fight in the war and the world community who will be affected by the fighting.


As I said above, the vast majority of this country were all for the wars (yes I call them that even though they technically aren't) when they started. They had plenty of justification put right in front of their eyes on live TV on the morning of 9/11.


We invaded their country, overthrew the established government and installed one more to our own liking (puppet govt). If that isn't a war, then I don't know what is.


Doesn't change the fact that technically speaking they are not wars. The devil is in the details.


Also, the FBI admits they have no hard evidence to tie Bin Laden to 9-11. This could explain why we haven't been looking very hard for him. If we do find him we have no case to present against him.


Or it could be a case of Bush focusing on Iraq because he wanted to finish what his daddy started.. But that could just be my intense dislike of Bush rearing it's ugly head.


Bush sought out UN approval before entering into both wars. The Iraq war was supposedly done in order to enforce UN resolutions. The UN said it was unjustified, Bush went ahead and invaded anyway.


Yes he did. Do you know why he went ahead anyway? Because we are not puppets of the UN. We take their decisions into consideration, but they do not control us.


The Taliban had Bin Laden in custody up until it became clear the US was not sincere in it's desire to have him brought to justice.


The Taliban had decided in 98 that they weren't handing bin Laden over to us because their people looked up to him over his attacks on our embassies. Why on earth would they change their minds 3 years later when their people still looked up to him? They wouldn't. Any talk on their part about handing him over was just that, talk. They had no intentions of doing so.


Both wars were brought on us by impatience and deception . They have done nothing to make us safer and have cost many more American lives than were lost in the attacks.


Perhaps, but once again hindsight is 20/20. People die in war. It's a simple fact that is unavoidable. Doesn't make it right, doesn't make it a good thing. That's just how it works. Who's to say that if we hadn't sent troops over there that there wouldn't have been another attack? Or multiple attacks for that matter? We'll never know what would have happened if we had just let 9/11 slide and not reacted to it.

We can pretend that nothing else would have happened but for all we know there would have been another and it would have been worse. Then everyone would be complaining about not going to war soon enough. So which is the better choice? Do nothing and risk another larger attack? Or react and risk losing troops? Either way there is potential for death and tragedy. There was no good choice and we did what we thought was right at the time. Now we must live with our choice because it is impossible to know what would have happened had we made a different one. This isn't a video game where you can just reload if you don't like the outcome of your choices. Second guessing past decisions does nothing. The only thing we can do is learn from past decisions and mistakes and not repeat them.


The whole world sees the US as a lawlessnes nation due to our conduct in these wars. It is time for the soldiers to say enough is enough and refuse to participate in American atrocities any longer.


The whole world saw us as demon-spawn before 9/11 and will continue to see us that way long after these wars are over. The only time they like us is when we're helping them out and even then they find something to complain about. I'm ok with that. Everyone has to have someone to look down on and the current trend is to look down on the US. Yet all of these countries up on their lofty perches seem to forget that we've done nothing they haven't already done. There wouldn't be half as many countries as there are today if there had never been war before we came around. It's nothing more than a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

You see the actions of the soldiers as atrocities, I don't. There are a few who have done horrible things and they've rightly been held accountable for their actions. I have several generations of military men in my family and my husband is currently serving. I have been around hundreds of men and women who are serving or who have served. I have first hand experience with the kind of people that join the military and every single one of them are intelligent, caring people who had the brass ones required to do the thankless job that being a soldier is. They didn't do it for money or glory. They did it to serve their country so that the rest of us don't have to.


Jenna, I applaud you for the courage of your convictions and stating the legal arguement for the wars.

I tend to look at things through the lense of right and wrong. Just because the law says the govt can do something does not always make it right.


Thank you. I really do appreciate the kind words.


Things aren't always either right or wrong, there are varying shades of gray between the two and sometimes you have to choose between the lesser of two evils. Killing someone is wrong. Killing someone because they're trying to kill you is still killing someone but it's less wrong because you're saving yourself in the process. It's those shades of gray that we get to choose between the vast majority of the time. Perfectly black and white, right or wrong situations are rare.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem

These wars were not fought to protect Americans. They were fought to fill the pockets of the elites.

Americans do not want an empire. We want to live in peace with the rest of the world but our leaders refuse to listen.




Truer words were *never* spoken.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are illegal, aggressive wars. Started by a clearly criminal administration and now being continued by an illegal scumbag politician in the "new" administration.

It's time to flush our political toilet.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 




Doesn't change the fact that technically speaking they are not wars. The devil is in the details.


I would be interested in hearing your take on what exactly defines a military action as WAR?




You see the actions of the soldiers as atrocities, I don't.


I don't either. The actions of the politicians who sent them there and the policies the soldiers were sent there to enact are the atrocities. Most of the torture and abuse was carried out under the auspices of the CIA, not our soldiers.

I have nothing but respect and admiration for the soldiers. I think our soldiers are the victims of Bush's violent foreign policy. They are pawns in his game of global dominion. Obama is continuing on with those same games.

I am a Desert Storm vet. I've been over there and I'm glad GH Bush had the wisdom to not invade Iraq. Here are my views of my service in that conflict.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem
I would be interested in hearing your take on what exactly defines a military action as WAR?


Declaring war. We didn't do that though in either Iraq or Afghanistan. My only point with that was that we didn't declare war, so technically speaking neither of them are.


I don't either. The actions of the politicians who sent them there and the policies the soldiers were sent there to enact are the atrocities. Most of the torture and abuse was carried out under the auspices of the CIA, not our soldiers.


Agreed, and my apologies. The line of yours I quoted and was responding to made it seem as though that's what you were getting at.


I have nothing but respect and admiration for the soldiers. I think our soldiers are the victims of Bush's violent foreign policy. They are pawns in his game of global dominion. Obama is continuing on with those same games.


Agreed except the part about global dominion. The troops were definitely Bush's pawns but I doubt he had such lofty goals as world domination. He was a bumbling fool who couldn't eat a pretzel without choking, I find it very difficult to believe he had the mental capacity to plan a world-wide takeover. Especially since he did a very poor job of it if that was indeed the plan.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 03:09 AM
link   


Unfortunately it's about 8 years too late to do anything about it,


No, Obama had a mandate from the People to stop this thing. He broke that promise and lots of people are not happy.

It should be clear that Enough is enough. Yes, the Grand Chess Game will be disrupted but do we have the resources to win in this kind of neigborhood? Heck we are paying the Ruskies to transport stuff through their territory to Afganistan.

Soviets couldn't do it, British couldn't do it, Rome couldn't do it, and the Mongols stayed but in the end had to leave. We must also. $1 billion/day should be reason enough when so much needs doing at home.

Make a deal with the Taliban is viable, making a deal with the devil has been done before. Just read deeper in history.

On the other hand, we are not bombing North Korea and they threatened our Japanese allies.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 03:47 AM
link   
O/k, here is a hypothetical for you.

The President and Congress (of mythical country X) decides to attack the twin towers and destroy them killing many American civilians..

This was a well planned surgical strike, brilliantly performed, and a complete success.

That is a completely legitimate and legal war act, approved by the government of country X

So America has no right to complain.

Now Gulf War Two, may have been approved by Bush and the US congress, that does not make it a legitimate legal war according to INTERNATIONAL LAW.

It may appear legal to Americans, but it sure is not legal according to international law, established principles, or the United Nations.

There are two and only two legitimate reasons to legally war with another nation:

1/ They attack you first, and you are certainly allowed to defend yourself WITH REASONABLE FORCE.
This is a common thread that runs through all law, common sense, and justice everywhere. It is a well understood principle.

2/ Or other nations may all get together at the UN and vote on some crisis or other, and decide to carry out some sort of corrective multinational police action against some country.
ALL nations decide if this action is warranted, and exactly what should be done.

Bush invaded Iraq simply because he lied, and claimed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
This was denied by the CIA, the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq, and every other intelligence agency on the planet. They all knew the truth.

As those weapons (that only ever existed in Bush's head) were never used against the US, or even threatened the US directly, the self defense doctrine did not apply.

America cannot just decide to invade and occupy another country, anymore than Saddam could invade and occupy Kuwait.

The fact is, Gulf war one was sanctioned by the UN, and fifty nations took part as a LEGAL multinational military police operation.

Gulf war two was illegal, and only the US and Britain participated.
The other forty eight nations stayed right out of it, because it was an obviously an ILLEGAL war by definition of international law.

Bush did try to raise the WMD argument at the UN, but he was just laughed at.
Everyone knew the truth except the US public that were lied to by your politicians and your news media.

So Bush decided to invade Iraq all by himself with only the British backing him up.
As we all know, even Britain has now pulled out completely from Iraq, leaving you guys with a complete mess.

[edit on 21/12/2009 by Silver Shadow]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 03:55 AM
link   
good , finally , american troops are realising the iraq war is a a farce and trying to stop it



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by shakespear1
 


Decisions made 8 years ago cannot be undone. Unless of course someone has invented a time-travel machine that I am unaware of, which I suppose is not completely outside the realm of possibility.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
reply to post by shakespear1
 


Decisions made 8 years ago cannot be undone. Unless of course someone has invented a time-travel machine that I am unaware of, which I suppose is not completely outside the realm of possibility.


Why not just publicly admit the truth, that Iraq never had any weapons of mass destruction to begin with.
The whole original purpose of the war was bogus.and a lie.

End this useless war, and bring all the US military home.

They are achieving NOTHING in Iraq.

While the entire world is now supporting the Iraqi people with aid, weapons, explosives, ammunition, and manpower against America, it is an unwindable war for the US.

The whole world knows the truth in all this anyway, but Americans just do not have the balls to admit they were ever wrong..

Do you honestly believe that the US with 160,000+ battle troops and the best technology available cannot subdue a few civilian insurgents in a cruddy little sand pit like Iraq.after seven very long years of warfare ?

Why is that ?

The reason is, massive aid is pouring in to Iraq from EVERY NATION ON EARTH..
Even countries like Canada and Australia are pouring aid into Iraq.
And that aid is going straight to the insurgents.

But the US media and your lying totally corrupt politicians will never tell you that, or make clear what is really going on in Iraq..

They say you are fighting insurgents in Iraq.

Who are these insurgents ?

Where do all the resources come from to fight the most powerful military nation on Earth to a complete stalemate for seven years ?

Think about it for a while.................

Who is backing these insurgents enough to win against the US military, and keep on winning for seven years.
That takes a lot of muscle, a lot of organization, and a LOT of resources to do that. and we
(THE REST OF THE WORLD) are doing it, and can keep it up indefinitely.

Can America ?








[edit on 22/12/2009 by Silver Shadow]

[edit on 22/12/2009 by Silver Shadow]

[edit on 22/12/2009 by Silver Shadow]

[edit on 22/12/2009 by Silver Shadow]

[edit on 22/12/2009 by Silver Shadow]



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join