I cried watching this. Americans and NATO bombing babies, Every human much watch. Spread It!

page: 20
90
<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Jace26
 



Just the fact that these two wars were ILLEGAL is enough to silence you.


That statement above is certainly not a "fact".

F.Y.I., the war in Iraq was not "ILLEGAL". The first gulf war was ended by a "cease-fire armistice", not a peace treaty. Meaning, that if any side in the cease-fire armistice violates the terms of said cease-fire then military operations can resume under international law.




posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Jace26
 



Just the fact that these two wars were ILLEGAL is enough to silence you.


That statement above is certainly not a "fact".

F.Y.I., the war in Iraq was not "ILLEGAL". The first gulf war was ended by a "cease-fire armistice", not a peace treaty. Meaning, that if any side in the cease-fire armistice violates the terms of said cease-fire then military operations can resume under international law.



Yes while your correct about the ceasefire, HOWEVER, you failed to mention that the invasion of Iraq was based on the fact Saddam had WMDs, which later turned out to be false.

In other words= A war based on a lie.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 03:33 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jace26

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Jace26
 



Just the fact that these two wars were ILLEGAL is enough to silence you.


That statement above is certainly not a "fact".

F.Y.I., the war in Iraq was not "ILLEGAL". The first gulf war was ended by a "cease-fire armistice", not a peace treaty. Meaning, that if any side in the cease-fire armistice violates the terms of said cease-fire then military operations can resume under international law.



Yes while your correct about the ceasefire, HOWEVER, you failed to mention that the invasion of Iraq was based on the fact Saddam had WMDs, which later turned out to be false.

In other words= A war based on a lie.


Irrelevant. The first time Saddam and his regime violated the cease-fire armistice we had legal right to resume military operations. That's the first violation of the "no-fly" zone.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 08:11 AM
link   
I don't think it is irrelevant that this war was started on fake Intel. It is irrelevant that we had a no fly zone over a foreign country where our direct security was not threatened. That is indicative of the mentality that a lie that disseminated IGNORANCE to the American people was justified based on a moral imperative. You will need to argue morality while defending war, violence, to justify what is actually an illegal act of aggression.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Jace26
 
A pictures worth 1,000 words,this ones worth 100,000...Shaking Hands,Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld,then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan,in Baghdad on December 20,1983 > www.gwu.edu...

edit on 12-1-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Jace26

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Jace26
 



Just the fact that these two wars were ILLEGAL is enough to silence you.


That statement above is certainly not a "fact".

F.Y.I., the war in Iraq was not "ILLEGAL". The first gulf war was ended by a "cease-fire armistice", not a peace treaty. Meaning, that if any side in the cease-fire armistice violates the terms of said cease-fire then military operations can resume under international law.



Yes while your correct about the ceasefire, HOWEVER, you failed to mention that the invasion of Iraq was based on the fact Saddam had WMDs, which later turned out to be false.

In other words= A war based on a lie.


Irrelevant. The first time Saddam and his regime violated the cease-fire armistice we had legal right to resume military operations. That's the first violation of the "no-fly" zone.


What did they violate? Saddam actually wanted peace talks with America despite the illegal invasion based on a inside job. Besides, a no-fly zone enforced by America is an act of war. Just face the fact that America has killed over 1.5 million people in the last 10 years.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Jace26
 



What did they violate? Saddam actually wanted peace talks with America despite the illegal invasion based on a inside job. Besides, a no-fly zone enforced by America is an act of war. Just face the fact that America has killed over 1.5 million people in the last 10 years.


Okay, please stop saying "illegal", that's not correct as I've already explained the enormous difference between a "cease-fire armistice" and a "peace treaty" under international law.

It's not an "act of war" in the context of the first Iraq war Sir. It was an agreed upon condition of the cease-fire armistice in 1991. Meaning Saddam agreed to allow not one, but two no-fly zones as a condition to get NATO, (not the US), to stop military operations inside the country. Just like anything else with him, it was all lip service.

The fact that we waited over 10 years to resume military operations when we could have after the very first violation is a testament to our extreme patience.


edit on 12-1-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


He's got good views and opinions also an open mind which you seem to lack. and i can't believe you haven't heard of Joe Rogan (fear factor). Who gives a sh*t about the language if your a mature enough adult it won't bother you, i did warn people of language. It's just a wise video that everyone can understand he puts it into the best and truthful words so everyone would watch it not just us conspirators.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Jace26
 



What did they violate? Saddam actually wanted peace talks with America despite the illegal invasion based on a inside job. Besides, a no-fly zone enforced by America is an act of war. Just face the fact that America has killed over 1.5 million people in the last 10 years.


Okay, please stop saying "illegal", that's not correct as I've already explained the enormous difference between a "cease-fire armistice" and a "peace treaty" under international law.

It's not an "act of war" in the context of the first Iraq war Sir. It was an agreed upon condition of the cease-fire armistice in 1991. Meaning Saddam agreed to allow not one, but two no-fly zones as a condition to get NATO, (not the US), to stop military operations inside the country. Just like anything else with him, it was all lip service.

The fact that we waited over 10 years to resume military operations when we could have after the very first violation is a testament to our extreme patience.


edit on 12-1-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)


Illegal,illegal,illegal it was illegal. AMERICA has invaded a sovereign country on the basis of supposed WMDs, which never existed. Much like what your war-monger country is now doing to Iran.
What you fail to realise is Iraq was never a threat to America, but you insist the murder of 1.5 million innocents is worth it. You insist that an invasion of Iran is worth it too.
America fights for freedom. Don't make me laugh, America invades and kills innocents for their military industrial complex. Profiting off of the suffering of others.
The entire world hates your country for what you have done. Pissing on dead soldiers, blowing up dogs, picking up civilians then blowing them up, torturing people in concentration camps, raping hundreds of thousands of young girls and women, kill teams in Afghanistan, invading families homes, killing civilians then placing weapons on their bodies.
Yet you refuse to acknowledge it, oh I didn't do that, but if you call yourself an American then you did do it. And if you supported these wars, no doubt you still do, than you are a war criminal.

You have been fed lies after lies from the media, yet continue to support the their story. By claiming it wasn't your fault, and that the invasion of Iraq was legal. Your the type of American who wouldn't even know where Mexico is on a map.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jace26

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Okay, please stop saying "illegal", that's not correct as I've already explained the enormous difference between a "cease-fire armistice" and a "peace treaty" under international law.



Illegal,illegal,illegal it was illegal.


Okay, I'll play your silly-assed game. If it was "illegal", it must have broken a law. Otherwise, it cannot have been illegal. Please cite the law that was broken that made it such.




edit on 2012/1/12 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


The first time Saddam and his regime violated the cease-fire armistice we had legal right to resume military operations. That's the first violation of the "no-fly" zone.

You really buy that "no fly zone" propaganda? The term so oft repeated really means "only WE fly zone". The media has gotten past our cognizance and into our mind with their rhetoric.
It's misleading like "no one" can fly but really is like a siege, disallowing all flights over the targeted nation. This includes air lines, air transport, oh and any relief effort of food and medical during the siege. A premeditated effort to reduce the combat effectiveness of any resistance to dismantling infrastructure with air strikes and make ANY airborne object in the ZONE of operations an enemy combatant (except ours of course). Less hassle trying to identify friendlies.

So we got that now from now on right? it is purely a military directive caged for civilian digest to make it seem benign. And a warning to other nations to stay clear and intervene at their peril. Imagine someone declaring a "no outside zone" around your house. In that if you come out side for any reason, we will shoot you. Period. Until further notice. Really until you starve and are so weakened or dead that you can be "invaded" with little effort.

Declaring a no fly zone over Iraq was just part of the ongoing effort to reduce that nation for subjugation and invasion during the finishing round under Bush JR. There was no 1st and 2nd Gulf war, just an ongoing Multiphase operation to conquer Iraq for that nations oil. Oh, and Libya too.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Jace26
 

Hear Hear, Sir. Sock it to 'em . Tell it like it is.
I am an American and I applaud you for your stand..



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Epic Rock and Roll Band Pink Floyd masterpiece effort "The Wall" produced a movie by the same name. in it are numerous anti war references based upon losing his dad in WWII. Although this one is about the German Blitzkrieg of London, it is as pertinent today. The animation coupled with the lyrics and music are timeless and draw relevant parallels to American and English efforts to control the world today. Just like the Nazi's did over 70 years ago.




posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 06:19 AM
link   
US should take a back seat and have a holiday. Getting involved in other nations' problems is a thankless job. Take a rest..you need it brfore it bankrupts you. Korea,Vietnam,Iraq,Kosovo,Afganistan,and Iraq again. Who's next..Iran..North Korea? Careful you are not being "lead by the nose" by people who like to see your decline. Just my opinion. American people are great but certain people are war mongers and paranoid thereby creating fear and senarios that calls for intervention and more destructions.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jace26
What did they violate? Saddam actually wanted peace talks with America despite the illegal invasion based on a inside job. Besides, a no-fly zone enforced by America is an act of war. Just face the fact that America has killed over 1.5 million people in the last 10 years.


The No Fly Zone was approved by the UN. The US was the main supporter and enforcer.

And the US killed over 1.5 million people in the last 10 years? I'd really like to see a source for that number. And that sorry excuse of a Lancet survey doesn't count.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jace26
Another American patriot who refuses to acknowledge his own country's war crimes. Just the fact that these two wars were ILLEGAL is enough to silence you. Nobody needed to die but America pursued her own interests and decided to carpet bomb Iraq, and Afghanistan. Chemical warfare agents ARE responsible for the deaths of at least 900,000 people from Iraq. Now, couple that with those who survive the toxic leftover, their children are then born with mutant limbs, blindness, etc. So the effects of Americas aim to spread democracy are still to be felt. Future generations will thank you I'm sure, as you sound like the type who would support an invasion of IRAN too.


Carpet bomb? Sorry, but carpet bombing was no done in Iraq or A-stan. How about doing a bit of research on what carpet bombing is before you throw around the term.

900,000 dead due to chemical weapons? Care to duff up a source?? Because I have a hunch that the area you are speaking of was a toxic waste dump that Saddam created years before the US entered Iraq; just a tiny detail that most people fail to notice.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jace26
..... but you insist the murder of 1.5 million innocents is worth it.


OK, I've seen you run your suck and spout off this number over and over again. How about coming up with a freakin' source for the US killing 1.5 million innocents?


Originally posted by Jace26
The entire world hates your country for what you have done. Pissing on dead soldiers, blowing up dogs, picking up civilians then blowing them up, torturing people in concentration camps, raping hundreds of thousands of young girls and women, kill teams in Afghanistan, invading families homes, killing civilians then placing weapons on their bodies.


Hyperbole much? Raping hundreds and thousands of women? Where are you coming up with your facts and numbers? Just pulling them out of your fourth point of contact?

"Entire world hates your country". Yeah, I bet they do. I'll keep that in mind when the next disaster hits and someone needs aid.


Originally posted by Jace26
Yet you refuse to acknowledge it, oh I didn't do that, but if you call yourself an American then you did do it. And if you supported these wars, no doubt you still do, than you are a war criminal.


I'm in Harrisburg, PA. Come and arrest me for being a war criminal.



Originally posted by Jace26
Your the type of American who wouldn't even know where Mexico is on a map.


Annnnddd it ends with a personal insult. How lame. And it's "You're", not "your".



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   
As a result of hitlers invasion of russia,operation barbarossa,from june 1941 through april 1945,a period of only 3 years and 10 months,around 30 million russians were killed on the eastern front.12 million soldiers and 18 million civilians,around 5 million of whom were children!...Who crys for them?
edit on 13-1-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
If not Illegal then certainly unconstitutional

The Congress has the sole authority to declare war

Congress cannot abrogate this authority

Unconstitutional or illegal -- a moot point really

Madeline Albright did not contest that the policy of the US through the no fly zone and embargos on essential health products caused the death of 500,000 children in Iraq

She admitted this on 60 Minutes





top topics
 
90
<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in

join