Blood on Obama's Hands

reply to post by burdman30ott6


At least your honest with your opinion. Here's the thing my end. Blair lied out of his teeth about WMDs to take us to war and the horrible truth is finally being revealed through the Chilcott inquiry where ex cabinet minister and former heads of intelligence services are now explaining how they doubted the evidence to go to war.

I don't like the idea we have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people based on lies. It kind of disturbs me.

Edit: Again, I mean you no disrespect, but I am astonished that you post this way.

[edit on 4-8-2010 by LarryLove]

Originally posted by LarryLove
reply to post by burdman30ott6

 

And yet you are happy with the fact that Osama Bin Laden was supported by American administrations? As you assert, all of Europe treats terrorists with kid gloves and yet the CIA was financing Osama and Saddam until they were of no use or became problematic.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Throughout history this has occurred and it likely will never stop. We sided with Russia in WWII to fight Japan... over the next 50 years Japan became our closest trading partner and a good friend while we went to the brink of anihilation with Russia. Had we not supported Hussein & bin Laden at that time, Russia would have owned Afghanistan and Khomeini would have had a summer villa built in Baghdad. At the time it made sense and was the wise thing to do.

Criticism is always so much easier in hindsight.


[edit on 4-8-2010 by burdman30ott6]

reply to post by LarryLove

I was waiting for an entry point for Iraq, and you gave me a way into this conversation. Since the Iraq war ended up tainting the Afghanistan War, I think people have missed a long history between Iraq, Afghanistan, and the world.

PBS: Frontline: Gunning For Saddam

PBS: Frontline: Introduction

PBS: Frontline: Readings & Links

PBS: Frontline: Secrets of Saddam

PBS: Frontline: Massive Background on the History of Saddam & Iraq War

When you think about all the things Saddam has done, I personally think he really needed to be eliminated. Regardless about how they sold the war to the public, Bush did do something in which many-many people believe should have happened.

[edit on 4-8-2010 by Section31]

reply to post by burdman30ott6


By proxy, we were fighting Russia in Afghanistan, but Russia cut their losses and ran. Iraq was about Iran and the real truth about that war is yet to be properly revealed. Forgive me, but it almost reads as if our support of Saddam and Osama was an attempt to keep Communism at bay?

Originally posted by LarryLove
I don't like the idea we have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people based on lies. It kind of disturbs me.

It's these quotes that piss me off.

Hundreds of thousands of innocent people were killed by US Forces? Really? How come no one here on ATS ever thinks of the insurgents that were doing the killing? An insurgent makes a car bomb, sets it off and kills civilians, and here on ATS, it's the fault of the US.

And the excuse of, "Well, they wouldn't have done that if the US wasn't there" holds absolutely no water. How's that "striking a blow against the US military"???

reply to post by jerico65


In all my posts where I say hundreds of thousands have been killed, nowhere do I single out US forces. I am referring to wars where hundreds of thousands of people have been killed by the Taliban, al-Qaeda, NATO and any other faction involved in the conflict.

In my country, it is becoming clear that the reasons for these wars were based on lies. Neither the Iraq nor Afghan war were necessary.

Edit: I am not going to argue with you, but the UK is now realizing that the blood on its hands were as a result of lies spun by Blair and Bush. The times are changing.

[edit on 4-8-2010 by LarryLove]

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
Criticism is always so much easier in hindsight.

And so is blame. Didn't we learn anything from the unwinnable Asian wars of the 50's and 60's? I guess not. The UN only became useless when the Soviet Union fell. Until then it was a place of discussion and moderation, by international standards.

Now there are only 2 superpowers. The US and by default Israel. There's no "ying" to the "yang". The US does whatever it wants, regardless of the UN. WHY? Who's going to stand up to them militarily? Who's going to shoot down their UN veto?

Empires fall. History has taught us that but those supporting the US as the "world's police" seem to miss this piece of information. It'[s already happening. The US better get with the program or they will be destined to relive history. As a "past" super power(not even a long one, mere decades). The world is growing up. Come with us please.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


Kinda like we're siding with Pakistan to kill ourselves

The enemy of my friend is me?

reply to post by semperfortis


Semperfortis, we are several pages into this and you have created quite an emotive thread. What are your thoughts?

reply to post by intrepid


It must be pretty easy to sit back and judge a country that you don't live in and it is it 'immature'. 9/11 was the catalyst that sparked the Iraq war. Despite who perpetrated 9/11, many noble lives were lost and the event brought this country together in patriotism, at least for a time. God forbid something like 9/11 should happen again, but if it should ever happen to your mother country then maybe you would have some ground to spout your judgmental crap.

Originally posted by LarryLove
In all my posts where I say hundreds of thousands have been killed, nowhere do I single out US forces. I am referring to wars where hundreds of thousands of people have been killed by the Taliban, al-Qaeda, NATO and any other faction involved in the conflict.

Your quote says, "we". No where in your posts do you say anything about the Taliban, etc. And they are the ones killing civilians intentionally.

Originally posted by LarryLove
Edit: I am not going to argue with you, but the UK is now realizing that the blood on its hands were as a result of lies spun by Blair and Bush. The times are changing.

And I never expected you to blame anyone but.

reply to post by jerico65


Okay, just to settle this. I haven't said US forces are to blame, I have used the word we. We and everyone else have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent lives and it disturbs me. Not just me, but my new government and ex cabinet ministers and heads of intelligence services who now seriously question the legality of both wars.

reply to post by burdman30ott6

The United States does not answer to Kofi Annan or the UN.

If you had paid attention the other guy asked me whether UN said it was illegal war and I provided proof that indeed UN said Iraq war was illegal.

Any blurring of the lines between the UN and the USA's role in regards to the UN are the fault of the United Nations, itself.

And not in the hands of permanent members of UNSC who make and enforce legislations and have veto power? You do know that United States is member of UNSC right?

over this issue and attempt to blame all the deaths of Iraqis on Bush and the US for being there in the first place,

So are you trying to claim that 1 million deaths in Iraq was not due to the result of "illegal war" led by Bush (who had no military experience...yes I love to rub it in again and again)?

then let's go back a bit further, shall we? We'd have never been involved with Iraq in the first place

Wrong
How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical Weapons

had it not been for the UN pissing and whining about how we were needed to enforce UN policy and sanctions on Hussein.

If I remember correctly it was UNSC that passed the Resolution 661 and Resolution 668. And surprise surprise United States is member of UNSC and was actively involved in the sanctions.
US Battles to Enforce Iraq Sanctions

US actually tried to enforce those sanctions not UN. So no without United States involvement these sanctions wouldn't have gone through (you know veto power etc etc).
And you are wrong again because 2 of United Nations representatives resigned in protest because of the harsh sanctions and resolutions against Iraq so United Nations was not as trigger happy as you proclaim.

The UN started the fight, worked both sides, tucked tail, and then ran straight to the principal's office to squeal when punches were thrown between the US & Iraq.

US did as proved above.

The United Nations plays a high level game of "distract people away from seeing just how ineffective and worthless the UN is by villifying and finger pointing towards one of the Western nations."

Worthless and ineffective because of 5 permanent members enforcing and bending rules and sanctions on their whim.

They are a yapping dog which sorely needs to be kicked squarely between the ribs yet, grievously, are pandered to by the current administration to an absolutely sickening degree.

This I agree with, due to the misuse of United Nations by the 5 UNSC members it should be disbanded or more permanent members should be brought in with veto powers from allover the world not only "WEST".

Simple, easy to understand FACT: Afghanistan would have never occurred had the Taliban handed bin Laden over directly to the usa. Instead they attempted to save face by placing conditions upon turning bin Laden over and only turning him over to a third party nation... likey a European country. Sorry, we saw what Europe does with the terrorists they convict... they release them back to their country of origin where they get a hero's welcome. (Lockerbie terrorist).

What you failed to mention that United States did not provide proof to Afghanistan even when asked of Osama Bin Laden's role in 9/11 attack. So how can you expect a country to extradite it's citizen without it being given proof.

The Taliban's agreement on extradition is of a piece with its position all the way through this crisis. The Taliban Information Minister, Qudrutullah Jamal, said early on, 'Anyone who is responsible for this act, Osama or not, we will not side with him. We told [the Pakistan delegation] to give us proof that he did it, because without that how can we give him up?' (Independent, 19 Sept., p. 1) Three days later, Taliban Ambassador Zaeef said, 'We are not ready to hand over Osama bin Laden without evidence' (emphasis added, Times, 22 Sept., p. 1).

When US Secretary of State Colin Powell promised to publish a US dossier of evidence against bin Laden (an offer subsequently withdrawn), Ambassador Zaeef responded positively. 'The ambassador said it was "good news" that the US intended to produce its evidence against Mr bin Laden. This could help to solve the issue "otherwise than fighting".' (Independent, 25 Sept., p. 3)

On Sun. 30 Sept, the Taliban made another offer which was completely distorted and misrepresented by the Government and the media. The Taliban Ambassador to Pakistan said - in a quotation that appeared only in one newspaper, the Independent, and incompletely even there - 'We say if they change and talk to us, and if they present evidence, we will respect their negotiations and that might change things.' ('Bin Laden "hidden by Taleban", BBC News Online, 30 Sept.)

Read more here.

Thus, here is the scenario
-> US asks Afghanistan/ Taliban to hand over Osama Bin Laden
-> Taliban okays extradition treaty and even possible extradition to US if it submits proof of Osama Bin Laden involvement
-> US refuses to submit proof
-> Attacks Afghanistan

As the CIA chief of 1980 in Afghanistan puts it eloquently

"We never heard what they were trying to say," said Milton Bearden, a former CIA station chief who oversaw U.S. covert operations in Afghanistan in the 1980s. "We had no common language. Ours was, 'Give up bin Laden.' They were saying, 'Do something to help us give him up.' "

Source: Diplomats Met With Taliban on Bin Laden

There would be no justice at all in imprisoning bin Laden. The only justice for that animal is a bullet between the eyes or a long ride on the lightning express. Bottom line.

I wonder if the Afghanis and Iraqi's think the same about Bush.

[edit on 4-8-2010 by Crimson_King]

Originally posted by intrepid
And so is blame. Didn't we learn anything from the unwinnable Asian wars of the 50's and 60's? I guess not. The UN only became useless when the Soviet Union fell. Until then it was a place of discussion and moderation, by international standards.

Really? I can see the UN did a bang up job with the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. And all the little BS wars that were going on in Africa that the Soviets were getting involved in.

Originally posted by intrepid
Now there are only 2 superpowers. The US and by default Israel.

You might want to break that news to Russia and China.

Originally posted by intrepid
Empires fall. History has taught us that but those supporting the US as the "world's police" seem to miss this piece of information. It'[s already happening. The US better get with the program or they will be destined to relive history. As a "past" super power(not even a long one, mere decades). The world is growing up. Come with us please.

Here's a great idea. How about not screaming for US assistance and aid everytime there's a disaster/war/beer fart?

reply to post by Crimson_King


I clearly remember Bush telling the UN to piss off.

Oh and something about Freedom Fries....

Oh and Bush and Blair lying their asses off really loudly and then retracting their lies really [size=-4]quietly.

[edit on 8/4/2010 by ~Lucidity]

Originally posted by Crimson_King
If you had paid attention the other guy asked me whether UN said it was illegal war and I provided proof that indeed UN said Iraq war was illegal.

OK....

We all know you posted what HE said and how he felt, Now show anybody reading this "ANYTHING OFFICIAL" from the UN stating that it was "Illegal" His personal opinion doesn't matter then nor now.

Originally posted by semperfortis


Here you go folks..

Vietnam all over again.

When the politicians start running the military, it's the soldiers that pay for their incompetence; with their lives.

When I read this, I first got mad as hell, then I just grew more and more sad. More and more I thought of the fat cat politicians sitting in their mansions all safe and sound while my brothers and sisters are living in tents in sweltering heat, fighting and dieing for this country.

Dieing because some MORON that has never stepped into combat is making decision about the battle.

It is this simple.. Let the military fight the war or get the hell out.

frontpagemag.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I rarely agree with your posts, but I must say I agree with your points here. I would rather there be NO war, but since we are in one, you are right, let the military do their job and the fat cat politicos can shove off or go first when they suggest new policies. Better yet, let their wives and kids go first to test out their ideas.

I am sure we can find fatigues in Michelle's size, and Malia and Sasha's (I think that is those kids names.)

Originally posted by black cat
It must be pretty easy to sit back and judge a country that you don't live in and it is it 'immature'.

OK mate, you went there. Do you have any idea what you are speaking about? Our troops have been in Afghanistan since the beginning. You're welcome......... ass.

9/11 was the catalyst that sparked the Iraq war.

No, it was a report from Russia that said they had WMD's that lead to the Iraq invasion. Learn modern history dude.

Despite who perpetrated 9/11, many noble lives were lost and the event brought this country together in patriotism, at least for a time.

Oooohhh, that's a good one. Whomever was responsible America got it's dick in the air. How nice for the world.

but if it should ever happen to your mother country then maybe you would have some ground to spout your judgmental crap.

I've got plenty of ground mate. My mother country has been attacked 3 times by Americans. Will they never learn to attack those that will fight back? 3-0. And you can shove your "judgmental crap."

Originally posted by Section31
reply to post by LarryLove

 

I was waiting for an entry point for Iraq, and you gave me a way into this conversation. Since the Iraq war ended up tainting the Afghanistan War, I think people have missed a long history between Iraq, Afghanistan, and the world.

PBS: Frontline: Gunning For Saddam

PBS: Frontline: Introduction

PBS: Frontline: Readings & Links

PBS: Frontline: Secrets of Saddam

PBS: Frontline: Massive Background on the History of Saddam & Iraq War

When you think about all the things Saddam has done, I personally think he really needed to be eliminated. Regardless about how they sold the war to the public, Bush did do something in which many-many people believe should have happened.

[edit on 4-8-2010 by Section31]

No offense to you personally, but I always have trouble with this oldie, but goodie. If dictatorial state leaders are a suitable prerequisite for "official," "proclaimed" war, I don't know why we aren't warring with several Central and South American countries, as well as a fair amount of Africa?

North Korea, of course, would also be a keen foe, but I guess the threat of nuclear retaliation of some kind, somewhere is a stop-gap?

[edit on Aug 04, 2010 by Hadrian]

Originally posted by jerico65
Here's a great idea. How about not screaming for US assistance and aid everytime there's a disaster/war/beer fart?

We don't need you. Get over yourselves. Read an international paper, not something publish that makes you go "Rah, Rah, Rah."