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.
It was an illegal invasion by the US.
Originally posted by nenothtu
Originally posted by FoosM
No its not a war.
You seem to have an odd idea of what constitutes war to me. Having at least two bunches of guys shooting at each other with automatic weapons and blowing stuff up is enough for me.
It was an illegal invasion by the US.
Its a war crime.
Support your case. Cite chapter and verse of the law which makes the invasion "illegal". make sure it's a "law", which has been broken - otherwise, nothing "illegal" about it.
Under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, to which the United States is a party, a nation's use of force is authorized under only two circumstances: in individual or collective self-defense, as outlined in Article 51, or pursuant to a Security Council resolution, as outlined in Article 42.
Since it was not directly attacked by Iraq the United States did not have an obvious right to self-defense.
notion of pre-emptive self-defense is not mentioned in Article 51 of the U.N. Charter and is therefore illegal under international law. Moreover, some have noted, Article 51 allows for self-defense "until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." This suggests that the right to self-defense exists only when there is no time to take the issue before the Security Council, and that if there is time for deliberation, the use of force is not justified. In the case at hand, the threat posed by Iraq has neither occurred nor is imminent, and time clearly exists to take the case to the Security Council. Thus, many claim, there is currently no legal justification for using force against Iraq in self-defense.
Broadcast: 16/04/2003
Bush declares Iraq war over
US President George Bush says the war is over and a new era in Iraq can begin. Those comments came as delegates met in southern Iraq to begin reshaping the country's political future. In Baghdad, order is slowly returning the streets.
Nations at war are required to follow the law of war, also known as international humanitarian law. Based on the Geneva Conventions of 1949 as well as customary international law, the law of war regulates military operations in an attempt to protect civilians from the devastation of war.
Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by FoosM
It was an illegal invasion by the US.
Oh really? Our invastion of Iraq, was NOT illegal. Saddam Hussein was given specific instructions as a result of the Gulf War CEASE FIRE....not armistice, not surrender....a cease fire. In other legalistic words, it means if he doesnt abide by those instructions then the war is ON again. He failed to do so, and we had a President that was tired of screwing around with the issue.
Originally posted by nenothtu
Originally posted by _Phoenix_
reply to post by nusnus
That's deep. I don't know what to think. I guess he didn't have time to think in that situation.
How obvious is it if they have a bomb? If he saw her green eyes, could he not see if she had a bomb or not? Or was the bomb usually somewhere else?edit on 8-9-2011 by _Phoenix_ because: (no reason given)
The bombs are roadside bombs - the kids don't actually carry them. Instead, the kids are used to stop the convoys in the kill zone so the roadside bombs can have greater effect. They do that because they learned early on that US soldiers, many of them just kids themselves, have a heart, and are reluctant to just mow kids down.
They use their own kids as bait, put 'em on the hook and drop 'em in the grease. Then the US soldiers are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. Diabolical, eh?
Originally posted by FoosM
It was not only immoral, but very much illegal,
and actually Iraq had every right to have invaded the US for its imminent threats of invasion towards it.
You warmongers want to twist the laws only when it suits you best. Thats cowardly.
Stealing other nation's resources while rolling over their children with tanks. Thats disgusting. Pure evil.
Originally posted by FoosM
As diabolical as making the whole thing up just to demonize the local population in order to breakdown a soldier's barrier to killing innocent civilians.
I doubt any Iraqi mother or father would be doing that to their own children. I can imagine though there are special black ops, or any one of the many mercenaries groups there, who would gladly kidnap kids, put them out in the middle of the street to conduct these false flag ops.
Yes, thats right, to keep the fighting going you attack your own people. Its psychopathic I know, but the US military is full of psychopaths.
Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by FoosM
So then, what you are saying is that you can't find a law to cite which has been broken, so you'll fall back on the UN Charter, which is NOT law?
Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by nenothtu
The invasion was 100% illegal! It was a war of aggression that walked into another's country, supposedly to catch a villian. It had no right to ever be done.
And don't bring up the "laws" that are crimes in this world, as proof.
The real "law" or rather virtues are in our hearts.
Period.
Sparta? The two renegades fighting amongst themselves, and walking over this world to do it, and everyone in it, with their talons. Not interested in this either.
Originally posted by nenothtu
Originally posted by FoosM
It was not only immoral, but very much illegal,
"Immoral" is subjective, and depends on your religion. That's why "law" doesn't deal in "morality", it deals in law.
So far, you have utterly failed to produce a broken law to make it "illegal".
and actually Iraq had every right to have invaded the US for its imminent threats of invasion towards it.
True, Iraq had every right to invade the US. There is NO law against it, threat or not.
Home invasion is the act of illegally burgling or entering a private and occupied dwelling for the purpose of committing a crime (such as robbery, assault, rape...
Originally posted by nenothtu
Originally posted by FoosM
As diabolical as making the whole thing up just to demonize the local population in order to breakdown a soldier's barrier to killing innocent civilians.
Yeah.
"Making things up".
Let's roll with that, shall we?
Here's YOUR go at making things up:
I doubt any Iraqi mother or father would be doing that to their own children. I can imagine though there are special black ops, or any one of the many mercenaries groups there, who would gladly kidnap kids, put them out in the middle of the street to conduct these false flag ops.
Pretty good. Whole cloth, not even a hint of evidence.
Iraqis angered by the violence questioned how anyone managed to plant bombs in an area where the government had deployed an additional 30,000 security forces and brought in the use of bomb-sniffing dogs and other intelligence and surveillance equipment.
As reported in The Guardian:
Britain allowed “IRA informers to organise ‘human bomb’ attacks,” a tactic which “involved forcing civilians to drive vehicles laden with explosives into army checkpoints.”
The Times reported:
“MI5 arranged a weapons-buying trip to America” where detonators were obtained, “later used by terrorists to murder soldiers and police officers,”
“British intelligence co-operated with the FBI to ensure ['Fulton's] trip to New York in the 1990s went ahead without incident so that his cover would not be blown.” Further, “the technology he obtained has been used in Northern Ireland and copied by terrorists in Iraq in roadside bombs that have killed British troops.”
Sinn Féin has also had close ties to British Intelligence.
In 2006 it was revealed that Sinn Fein’s chief negotiator Martin McGuinness was accused of being a British spy by former Army intelligence officer Martin Ingram, who identified Belfast republican Freddie Scappaticci as a double agent 2 years before that. [8]
Let me try again.
Maybe they are being cloned in bio labs aboard the mother ship by Grey Reptilian Zeta Clones, and aren't human children at all.
How's that? It's no less speculative than what you just wrote.
Originally posted by FoosM
Originally posted by nenothtu
Originally posted by FoosM
It was not only immoral, but very much illegal,
"Immoral" is subjective, and depends on your religion. That's why "law" doesn't deal in "morality", it deals in law.
Were do you think laws come from? They are codified morals of society. Some societies take it too far and codify the most mundane acts.
True, Iraq had every right to invade the US. There is NO law against it, threat or not.
Of course there is.
When I go travel to other countries, am I simply allowed to cross the border willy nilly or do I have to bring my passport? An official document to allow me to pass through the port onto another country?
And if I dont have a passport, am I in that country legally? Of course not, I would be labelled as an ILLEGAL immigrant, and summarily thrown out of the country or jailed.
If a person broke into my house, without my consent, are they there legally? Can they be arrested? Do I have a right to kill them if I feel threatened? Of course. Its called a home INVASION.
Home invasion is the act of illegally burgling or entering a private and occupied dwelling for the purpose of committing a crime (such as robbery, assault, rape...
Now, would you call your country your home? Would anybody call their country their home? Do Iraqis call Iraq their home? Did the US invade their home? Yes. The very nature of INVASION is an illegal act. Thats why its considered an act of war. In other words, the legal occupiers of a nation, go to war to dispel the invaders of their nation.
Originally posted by FoosM
Originally posted by nenothtu
Here's YOUR go at making things up:
I doubt any Iraqi mother or father would be doing that to their own children. I can imagine though there are special black ops, or any one of the many mercenaries groups there, who would gladly kidnap kids, put them out in the middle of the street to conduct these false flag ops.
Pretty good. Whole cloth, not even a hint of evidence.
How so not even a hint of evidence?
Are you suggesting that, in this case, western nations have never use false flag operations to begin conflicts/wars or prolong a conflict or war?
Let me try again.
Maybe they are being cloned in bio labs aboard the mother ship by Grey Reptilian Zeta Clones, and aren't human children at all.
How's that? It's no less speculative than what you just wrote.
Oh yes it is. Mine is based on historical precedence.
Its a plausible scenario.
Yours, well... what can I say, it says a lot about where your mind is at
wideshut.co.uk...
www.smdailyjournal.com...
Originally posted by nenothtu
Laws come from legislation, not Ms Manners Big Book O' Morals. Therefore, THAT'S where I think laws come from. Furthermore, until they are made "law" via that codification by legislation, they are NOT law. "Morality" and "Law" are not the same thing - not even close. If you would rather society be ruled by "morals" than by "laws", which groups morals should we run it by?