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.

 

Blood on Obama's Hands

page: 8
29
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


If you post your address with ID card (screencap it) I'd make sure it get's delivered to your home.




posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by LarryLove
I am still interested to know why the Semperfortis hasn't responded to any of these posts. I would expect a thread starter to be integral to the evolution of his opening post considering how many pages this has gone.


Well he has a job and a family. Unlike most of us he has a life.

@ jerico65, sorry, I forgot the fragile nature of the American psyche. I'm on my knees right now sucking Uncle Sam's member.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by LarryLove
I am still interested to know why the Semperfortis hasn't responded to any of these posts. I would expect a thread starter to be integral to the evolution of his opening post considering how many pages this has gone.


Probabaly because Semperfortis is semperworking. Give the man time, not everyone has the luxury of sitting in front of a computer all day.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Crimson_King
 


OK, maybe if I type this very slowly so you'll get what I'm asking for.

Can you post something that states clearly from the UN that supports the claim that it was illegal? Or will you simply continue to regurgitate the same MSM article of what his opinion is from different sources?

The last I knew he is not the entire UN.

Thanks Again.


[edit on 4-8-2010 by SLAYER69]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crimson_King
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


If you post your address with ID card (screencap it) I'd make sure it get's delivered to your home.


Uh, where did this come from, man? I wasn't requesting anything at all in that post, merely was making a semantical observation.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Let's do away with semantics. Are you saying that the UN sanctioned the attack on Iraq?



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hadrian
Maturity alert! I, for one, love Canadian bacon and it has an unbelievably small amount of fat and calories, especially compared with (American?) bacon. I must side with my country, though, (oh, how it pains me) to admit that our bacon is actually better.


I've alerted the proper authorities about your slanderous comments on the all mighty bacon. Prepare to be escorted to the border where you can have all the round bacon you crave.

Heratic.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crimson_King
So that proves UN indeed said Iraq War was/is illegal.


It was Kofi making that remark. Was there anything official in the UN records? Nah, just him making a statement, then quickly running away to count his cash. I mean, since the cash cow was now officially dead.


Originally posted by Crimson_King
Bush's military records.......


Feel free to stop right there. His "military records". Now, you said he had no military experience. How can a person have no military experience, yet have military records?


Originally posted by Crimson_King
Bush was a draft dodger


So did Clinton. I guess they are in good company with each other. At least Bush made the attempt. Clinton and Obama haven't.



[edit on 4-8-2010 by jerico65]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Well he has a job and a family. Unlike most of us he has a life.


Or a job that doesn't have a lot of downtime.


Originally posted by intrepid
@ jerico65, sorry, I forgot the fragile nature of the American psyche. I'm on my knees right now sucking Uncle Sam's member.


OK, now you get to pay for my therapy to have that picture removed from my mind.

But hey, don't let me get in the way of you and a good time.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by SLAYER69
 

Let's do away with semantics. Are you saying that the UN sanctioned the attack on Iraq?




Nice Try...

He made a claim. He needs to provide proof. I'm simply asking for something from the UN stating that it was illegal. He cant provide it, yet he and many others will simply continue to make that claim.

It's easy...

Here for example is an "Official UN Statement" regarding another recent event. Now I'll even provide him or anybody else their official website. www.un.org Now, Can anybody show me where they make the claim that it was "Illegal"

Please.


[edit on 4-8-2010 by SLAYER69]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by Crimson_King
 


OK, maybe if I type this very slowly so you'll get what I'm asking for.

Can you post something that states clearly from the UN that supports the claim that it was illegal? Or will you simply continue to regurgitate the same MSM article of what his opinion is from different sources?

The last I knew he is not the entire UN.

Thanks Again.



[edit on 4-8-2010 by SLAYER69]



Although I know that this statement from the "neocon warhawk" isn't anything "official" I find it very interesting to see these words from your own Richard Pearl:


War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal



International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.
In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."


www.guardian.co.uk...

Here in Europe we've been blasted from Television news and newspapers saying the same:

"The Iraq war was illegal because they didn't wait for a second resolution from UN"

You now also have the Chilcot Inquiry in the UK - a British public inquiry into the United Kingdom's role in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

www.iraqinquiry.org.uk...



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   


Originally posted by SLAYER69
Let's do away with semantics. Are you saying that the UN sanctioned the attack on Iraq?




Nice Try...


Nice? I think it's a "good" try. Can you provide a UN source that said the Iraq invasion was UN sanctioned?

Edit: Damn BB code.

[edit on 4-8-2010 by intrepid]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Nice? I think it's a "good" try. Can you provide a UN source that said the Iraq invasion was UN sanctioned?


I never claimed it was or was not.


I asked for him to support his claim and provide proof that it was as HE claimed illegal.

He couldn't.

Oh I'll agree there are plenty of published OPINIONS but nothing "Official"




Edit: Damn BB code



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


That BB code can be a PITA.

Canada was with America the whole way in Afghanistan. Chretien(Canadian PM) said "No" to Iraq though. Without UN sanction he wouldn't move and seeing the results there, he was right.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


People make many assumptions about my possible stance. Hey, What if I'm on the fence about the invasion and wanted to see some real proof that it was illegal to convince me one way or another?

So far I haven't seen any creditable proof.

As far as the Iraq war. I hear ya.
The war is over and I'm glad we are finally leaving.
Oh sure they have been blowing each other up [Sunni vs Shia] for the past 3 years or more [Sectarian Violence] but US Combat operations have been over.

I know, that's another ATS sticking point. But that's for another thread. I'm glad my son is out of there.




posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   
I haven't got into this thread yet, but a quote from Douglas MacArthur immediately sprang to mind:

“It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it.”



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Crimson_King
 


What does Bush have to do with Obama's rules of engagement in Afghanistan! Nothing! What are you here to spread talking points that nobody in their right minds buys any more? Somebody tells the truth about Obama and you don't have a comeback go to Bush?

I'm no Bush fan and we were wrong to go into Iraq, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with this topic. It only labels you an agent of a corrupt political Party by spreading their talking points to divert attention. Nobody is being fooled by this.

What next? Spitting on Soldiers?



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by LarryLove
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


Blaine, with respect that article originates from one of the most right wing websites I have ever read. To call it intelligent analysis would be stretching the truth somewhat.


This has been in the news for a while now. It was widely reported when the change to the rules of engagement changed. This is not fiction, it is fact. When dealing with facts, that have been in the news for months, does the source matter? Only facts matter. The fact is Soldiers are dead who were forbidden from defending themselves by an incompetent Commander and Chief with an ideological agenda.

I'm no Republican, but neither am I an insane Democrat Progressive who thinks the answer lies in total government control. I don't have any love for Bush, but I can't stomach Obama either. I'm floored by those who will still defend him.

Attacking the source won't change the fact that it contains the truth. Google is your friend. You will find that article is accurate. If you care.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Stay with it
The facts are on your side.

Some pertinent info.

Another ongoing operation is the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), which was established by the UN Security Council at the end of December 2001 to secure Kabul and the surrounding areas. NATO assumed control of ISAF in 2003. By July 23, 2009, ISAF had around 64,500 troops from 42 countries, with NATO members providing the core of the force. The NATO commitment is particularly important to the United States because it gives international legitimacy to the war.[31] The United States has approximately 29,950 troops in ISAF


Not only did the UN back us going into Afghanistan, they set up their own forces. The reasons have not changed.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 10:28 PM
link   

I am still interested to know why the Semperfortis hasn't responded to any of these posts.


It looks as if the thread is progressing just fine...








 
29
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join