It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Archon_Adept
You're exactly right, comrade. They want to kill us by giving us all their oil and by letting us put Hussein in power. Muslims hate our freedom, a freedom that must be protected by putting more people in prison than any other country and by having one of the highest per capita police force. We must give up our freedoms through the patriot act, the military commissions act, and warrantless wiretapping in order to have freedom. I know exactly where you come from, comrade, and it's precisely why we must make the Iraqis pay for having wmd and threatening our great society. Thank you, soldier, for protecting us. I salute your skill in allowing 19 hijackers violate one of the most densely controlled airspace and ram them into the wtc. I salute your courage to kill women and children and unarmed men who hate our freedom to kill them. And when the time comes that you'd ever have to protect this country from men who would destroy our economy, send all our jobs to china, print money out of thin air so that they can loan the people's money back to the people with interest, well, sir, I know you would step in to protect the people because I know you would die for the constitution and to uphold it. Thank you, sir! Praise Israel!
[edit on 14-8-2010 by Archon_Adept]
Originally posted by Sphota
Do we belong in Afghanistan at this point? No. Obama reignited a war that should have been let go, .... split; thus, the USSR is no longer in existence. Afghanistan has now turned into a civil war.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. I'm not Obama supporter, but the guy was trashed six times til Thursday for NOT doing the surge, wasn't he???
Yes, ok, fine, the USSR is long gone and it's Afghanistan's fault. Or, was it a pretense to simply create a Russian Federation with a bunch of suzerainties that seemingly have become home to American bases, even as Russia flexes its muscles. To be honest, it all looks like a big bunch of steamy BS. Tajikistan? Seriously? Bases in Tajikistan? On China and Russia's borders? How is this possible without a Red Scare show down a la Cuban Missile Crisis?
I think there is more to all of this than you or I are privy.
Did we belong in Afghanistan after 9/11/2001? Absolutely, 100% Yes. I don't care about what type of propaganda you all he...ing in Afghanistan. Period.
Did we belong in the Chilean coup on 9/11/1973? Milton Friedman says, "Absolutely!"
Don't care about the propaganda I heard? Why, it's the same propaganda you heard as far as I can tell from what you've been saying ...guess some of us see it as propaganda and others see it as verbatim holy doctrine.
I'm pretty sure the Taliban (our ex-anti-soviet friends) said we could have anyone we wanted, just take them, Osama included. Instead we invade. Didn't they say we couldn't have the pipeline we wanted when they came to visit in '98 or '99? They really should have let that pipeline go through...maybe the Taliban were eco-Mullahs?
When it comes to the war on Iraq... It does not matter if Bush lied to us or not. Saddam's role model was noted as being Joseph Starlin. Everything Saddam had ...cold-blooded killer. Period.
Do you know what they do in Egypt or Saudi Arabia???? Seriously, Saddam was a cruel dictator is such a slap-happy, pick-and-choose excuse. Why not through a dart at Africa and take out a propped-up dictator there?
In fact, here's a thought: Why don't we just invade Fiji, they're run by a cruel dictator?
And, I think I just got me a good excuse: Fiji's dictator controls the water supply for all of our most important Americans, like the cast of The Hills. It's a conspiracy to kill scene-sters and the Hollywood chic...time to BOMB FIJI!
Sound ridiculous? Well, just polish up the edges and create a media storm and, BAM: We've got ourselves an excuse to invade Fiji. Really, I think we could easily have just as legitimate an excuse as we had with Iraq under the circumstances. I mean, seriously, cartoon drawings of Laboratory Trains at the UN? What is this, a Bond movie?
I don't care about anyone's theories or counter-arguments on what I just said, and I am not going to respond to anyone who thinks otherwise.
I wouldn't expect any differently. In fact, with your type, I either get shouted at (many registered Republicans and most avowed FOX viewers), which is a great way to really sort out the facts and get some rational dialog going. Or, I get completely ignored or the typical "eye-roll" (usually registered Democrats).
I don't like how people are addressing the United States military in these forums, and I ask you all to give them your respect.
Dissent does not equal lack of respect. In many ways, dissent is respect for human decency and that includes soldiers (at least the human ones). I do not, however, respect the drones.
Originally posted by LooseLipsSinkShips
since the dawn of war, innocents have been killed. it is the very nature of war.
Originally posted by LooseLipsSinkShipsThe only thing that is different is nowadays, technology let's the commoner see what actually happens. This really isn't surprising, is it?
The Geneva Conventions comprise four treaties and three additional protocols that set the standards in international law for humanitarian treatment of the victims of war. The singular term Geneva Convention refers to the agreements of 1949, negotiated in the aftermath of World War II, updating the terms of the first three treaties and adding a fourth treaty. The language is extensive, with articles defining the basic rights of those captured during a military conflict, establishing protections for the wounded, and addressing protections for civilians in and around a war zone. The treaties of 1949 have been ratified, in whole or with reservations, by 194 countries.
“ Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity. Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault. Without prejudice to the provisions relating to their state of health, age and sex, all protected persons shall be treated with the same consideration by the Party to the conflict in whose power they are, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, religion or political opinion. However, the Parties to the conflict may take such measures of control and security in regard to protected persons as may be necessary as a result of the war. ”
—- Article 27, Fourth Geneva Convention
Originally posted by EasternShadow
reply to post by Wolfenz
Yes. Agreed and noted. Which is why we are here to discuss it as conspiracy. Shall we?
WASHINGTON — Saying that “our ideals give us the strength and moral high ground” to combat terrorism, President Obama signed executive orders Thursday ending the Central Intelligence Agency’s secret overseas prisons, banning coercive interrogation methods and closing the Guantánamo Bay detention camp within a year.
Originally posted by Wolfenz
reply to post by EasternShadow
US violated Geneva Conventions, Bush Iraq commander says
By David Edwards 0diggsdigg
The head of the US Central Command, General David Petraeus, said Friday that the US had violated the Geneva Conventions in a stunning admission from President Bush’s onetime top general in Iraq that the US may have violated international law.
I Bought & watched the Movie called Hanoi Hilton 1987 was there a Geneva Convention at the beginning ? Conflict of Vietnam Police Action..
status in Vietnam as this movie claims you have to declare war in order it to have the Geneva Convention convention effective ? as this movie show's or should i say claimed that POW are not POW's they were considered criminals ?
Third Geneva Convention
Originally posted by Wolfenz
Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949.
Originally posted by Wolfenz
what is that ACTUAL STATUS of the Geneva Convention in Iraq &
Afghanistan Did congress declare War on Afghanistan or Iraq ?
from the grand WIKI LOL
Military engagements authorized by Congress
In other instances, the United States has engaged in extended military combat that were authorized by Congress, but short of a formal declaration of war.
2001 war in Afghanistan, also known as Operation Enduring Freedom Afghanistan
September 14, 2001
Iraq War, also known as Operation Iraqi Freedom
October 16, 2002
Bush Declares War ?(CNN)
2003 invasion of Iraq
Then this ????????????
Justice Dept. : Geneva Conventions limited in Iraq (CNN)
Legal Arguments for Avoiding the Jurisdiction of the Geneva Conventions
[edit on 16-8-2010 by Wolfenz]
The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.
Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."
He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."
Originally posted by Reign02
Shooting Children??? Please show me some evidence that we are walking around in the streets killing people!!! I would love to see this.
We are not just murdering people..... Yea innocents do get killed sometimesbut ITS WAR.
You have to remember we are fighting an enemy that HAS NO UNIFORM and can and have been using Women and children to get close to us when we pass out supplies to launch an attack.
Documented civilian deaths from violence
97,196 – 106,071
Originally posted by LooseLipsSinkShips
There were countless mistakes made by Reuters and those who entered a battlefield to get him out of there. This is the price that is paid when your enemy is too cowardice to fight on a typical battlefields like the majority of armies throughout the world. When you are dealing with a cowardice insurgent force, you have to take the battle to them.
Originally posted by Faustian Spirit
What is there for the United States to loot in Darfur? If you'd say SUDAN AS A WHOLE, ok, but Darfur? Get real. On the other hand, tyuing to cover a giant massacre with a smaller one is somewhat inefficient, as it seems.