|
|
|
|
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 3/3/2008 6:04:58 PM |
It would behoove you to look it up on wicaoedia,or baybe the brittanica,or even world book.the Us is not a partie to the Geneva convention. as the constitution states,congress alone can not ratify a treaty,It has to be signed by a US president and verified by a 2/3 vote of the senate. and like i said,look up what the supreme coutr has also said.Iwon't repeat myself,those of you who are actually interested in truth,and not trying tolamely back up political dogma.take the time to look it up.
We are in a Legal and moral war.whether you like,love,hate or dispise our current president,or our country.Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
You need to stop talking out of your butt and do some of this reading you pretend to know.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebSign?ReadForm&id=375&ps=P
United States of America signed and ratified the fourth geneva convention on 12.08.1949 . The clock may be broken twice a day, but it is blatantly obvious that your clock is wrong right now. | |
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 3/3/2008 6:16:50 PM | America polices the world because they think they have the right too, because they think Russia has collapsed and poses no threat to their authority any longer. I have always thought Russia was playing them for fools to be honest just to see what America would do in their absence. If there are genuine terrorists in the world fair enough. An interesting documentary is the Zeitgeist movie found on google.co.uk, brings many subjects into focus, or is it simply a conspiracy theory ?.
At the end of WWII the allies put nazi leaders on trila for several major offences, one being Waging An Aggressive War, but, call me abit blunt, isn't that what America is doing to places like Iraq today ???.... o'h the hypocrisy !!!    | |
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 3/3/2008 6:59:14 PM | I dont think it has anything to do with terrorism, so-called.
We had the Oil for Food embargo on Iraq for a decade, it couldn't last forever. I read that he was planning on waging an economic war, not just on the US but on OPEC, by ramping up production of oil, selling the barrel in Euros, etc. and just generally be a pain the ass around the price of oil to make up for his losses, etc.
I read the neocons wanted to go in, get rid of him, and also ramp up production so that oil was dirt cheap and they could bust OPEC, so it was to get in and get out, but Big Oil wouldn't have that because their profits would hurt so they wanted an occupation to LIMIT production and world supply of oil to keep prices up, with the consent of the Saudis. So there was an internal battle here in America.
Bush was probably the only one to believe that "democratization" would take hold and spread across the Middle East and he might have been sincere about that, if misguided. No one else, though, believes that or that a military occupation would accomplish it. Bremer administrated a Republican wet dream in Iraq...privatizing everything, selling 40 year leases and contracts to US and European countries, etc., importing even concrete which is something the Iraqis do quite well with........and failed miserably. Millions of men were left with no work and al-Queda and the various insurgencies offered them a paycheck, which fueld the insurgency.
Cheney, of course, pushed for the invasion and, of course, brought Halliburton in, enough said about that.
It was misguided, botched, and ugly all around and we need, as Barak Obama says, "to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in". We've created a client state that is nothing but codependant at a cost of a half billion a day to the American taxpayer.......with no end in sight. | |
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 3/3/2008 7:24:14 PM | | It is a legal war.I stand by my statements.I prefer to go to the scource,the Library of congress web site,when looking up Unites States Treaties .Not the international red cross.Againwe are not a party to the Geneva convention.And the supreme court Decision before mentioned,still stands,and has not been overturned.sorry,i am a terrible typist and therefor am not going to type out the adress for anyone.Do Not,Take My,or anyone elses word on it.If you Want to Know the TRUTH.Go to the Library of Congress Website.I'm through wasting time with demogogues. | |
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 3/3/2008 7:49:16 PM | Actually, I was wrong about the US not signing the 1st Geneva Convention.
It was eventually signed in 1882 by Chester A. Arthur and ratified by Congress.
All 3 subsequent amendments (2nd - 4th Conventions), as well as Protocol III (signed off by none other than Dubya "hisself"), have been duly adopted and ratified. | |
|
| |
| |
| |
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 3/5/2008 3:57:09 PM | | The UN doesn't mandate any military action. It is a diplomacy-oriented organization with no military. The US election to participate in the UN does not confer upon it (the US) any right to launch attacks on any nation that does something in a way the US disapproves of or which may have something the US might benefit from taking. | |
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 3/6/2008 1:46:10 AM | The US is a founding member of the UN - It is one of the five permanent members of the Security Council (UNSC). The aim of the UN is diplomacy, however it can authorize military action if diplomatic solutions fail. A resolution cannot be passed if vetoed by any of the five permanent members.
Resolution 1441 was passed by the UNSC demanding that Iraq disarm and let weapons inspectors return or face serious consequences. The wording of 1441 was interpreted differently by different nations. Bush viewed it as an authorization for war. The UK (Blair) wanted another resolution, stating that Iraq was in 'material breach' of 1441 and clearly authorizing military action, to be passed by the UNSC. Russia and China were not in favour of invasion, France said outright that it would veto any resolution authorizing invading Iraq.
As France would veto, no resolution was presented to the UNSC - Bush said he didn't need one anyway and Blair decided he didn't either. So, if it is an illegal or legal war depends on how 1441 is interpreted.
On the other hand - Bush said he would invade with or without UN authorization (and later admitted he would have invaded whether Iraq had WMD or not)
Mr Bush meanwhile has reiterated his warning that the UN risks becoming an irrelevance if it refuses to back him.
While the Bush administration has made clear it would welcome a second resolution, it has nevertheless stressed that it will lead a "coalition of the willing" into war if it fails to win a UN mandate. . http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2791531.stm | |
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 3/6/2008 3:23:28 AM |
Too bad Congress doesn't have the gumption to admit they were scammed and act on it.
I agree frequently you hear under Article 2 Section 2 the President has the right to send men into battle on his own authority.This has been used since the korean war.When in fact Congress is the only one who can declare war,sadly Congress as can be seen has given up that right!I find it quite a disturbing action!
Consider that Congress Under the Constitution pertaining to foriegn affairs has the following regulate commerce with foreign nation's raise and support armies,To grant letters of Marque and Reprisal To provide for the Common defense and To declare War.The president and Congress share the power to make treaties and appoint ambassador's for the President he is assigned only two powers relating to foreign affairs Commander in chief of the armed forces,and the power to receive ambassadors.
Therefore Congress when it adopts resolutions authorizing the president to use military force if and how he deems necessary is clearly unconstitutional,Congress has no power under the Constitution to delegate its war making power to the President.Which of course this is exactly what it is doing by authorizing "resolutions".Therefore not having the gumption is putting it mildly.But no seems to care during the vote leading up to the Iraq war Sen byrd read from the Constitution to an almost empty house!What the hell happened since world war two? | |
|
| |
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 3/6/2008 11:35:03 AM | America is not fighting in Iraq. America's troops are fighting in Iraq, on orders of the president, who has usurped the rightful authority of Congress to declare war following adequate debate.
If America was at war, we would see the American people behind the effort, making sacrifices instead of going out in the SUV buying a big-screen television at Best Buy.
What have YOU sacrificed for this "war" today? Aside from your liberties, that is.
Where are the bond drives, the special taxes, the requisitioning of private property, the ration cards, the restrictions of driving by gas rationing and a wartime speed limit?
A crime, not an act of war, was committed on 9-11. Individuals, not a state, were behind it. The proper response is a police action to bring criminals to justice. But oh, little Georgie wants to be known as a wartime president, so pick up your gun and go kill someone - hey, Iraqis will do.
. | |
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 3/6/2008 1:40:23 PM | Yeah! The Bush, Carlyle Group, and Halliburton Families could appreciate another big, oil-rich target-nation to invade and rob from, while using our brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, son and daughters, and dearest of friends to catch bullets and detonate mine blasts. Iran most immediately comes to mind. Unfortunately for them, our military is presently too taxed with duties associated with the present robbery for it to jump right into another robbery. What to do, what to do ...?
http://www.hereinreality.com/carlyle.html
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3995.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3366.htm
http://www.antiwar.com/cole/?articleid=3524 | |
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 6/25/2008 8:07:55 AM | unfortunately, there's no simple answer to your simple question...
I hate the war. I hate the president who started the war. He's a bumbling idiot and was told it wouldn't work by the greatest military minds (and everyone else... even his own dad) in our country before he did it, but he did it anyway... I guess he had dreams of greatness...
But here's the problem...
Back in the 1970s when King Faisal of Saudi Arabia stopped selling oil to the US, it caused our whole economy to almost grind to a complete halt. Even the US military had to stop flying planes, doing maneuvers, moving military supplies back and forth overseas. The grocers were lucky to get deliveries from wholesalers and when they did, there was a shortage of goods, because the plastic used to wrap those goods was not available. The BIG grocery chains were about the only place you could shop and get everything you needed. Some small mom and pop stores only had soda and cigarettes or things they got by mail delivery to sell their customers. Greyhound had to cut their bus routes to rural areas by about 50%. All but afew popular restaurants in all communities closed within afew months. You'd have to sit in a 1/2 hour line for gas and when you got it, they'd only let you buy $5.00 worth in most places.
At that point, we realized the greatest threat to the United States was no longer nuclear destruction; but the lack of oil.
In 1975, King Faisal was assassinated by a member of his own family and the Saudis immediately started selling us oil again. The US HAD BEEN READY to invade the Saudi oil wells and TAKE the oil. The Saudis even knew this and had those well rigged with explosives to prevent the US from doing this. Faisal's assassination was probably brokered by the US somehow...
Ever since that happened, the US has done everything possible to move the US military into the middle east to prevent that from happening again.
I'll let you connect the dots from there... I'm trying not to write a history book here... but I'll tell you a couple things:
1) Many, if not most people in the middle east hate the US... for our support of Israel, for our non-Muslim ways, for our ancestors invading and subjugating them and putting puppet governments in power in their countries, for using their oil to make our societies rich while theirs remained poor for so many years... and many still are poor.
2) There' an anti-US paramilitary movement in the world which is based in the middles east which is powerful enough to throw us out if it's unopposed. Al Q'aida was in over sixty countries BEFORE 911. If the US military wasn't in the middle east, there's a good chance that the governments of many Arab nations who sell us oil would have been overthrown by now.
3) Most societies in the middle east aren't organized around nationhood as much as they're organized around religions and tribes. The US used Saddam as a sucker for many years before we set him up so we had a lame excuse to attack him and use Iraq as a base of operations for the US military there. The Saudis told us to get out of Riyadh in 1998, as they said we were becoming an extreme political liability for them. We had to find a new base of operations.
4) the US addiction to oil can't be broken by a president. Jimmy Carter tried to do that and it didn't work. His own party stabbed him in the back.
5) the US won't ever get off oil until it's forced to do so for financial reasons. We have no other energy resource right now that can replace it. It will take emergencies to do so... maybe even worse than the one we have now. If oil goes down $20 to $30 a barrel, I'll bet people will start buying SUV's again and the limits on mpg for new cars will be forgotten about or they'll keep a loophole for SUV's like they have now. There's no way for the government to force us off oil. It will have to be a market thing.
6) They're right. If we don't have oil, we'll fall apart.. quick.
Go figure... | |
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 6/25/2008 9:43:52 AM |
Saddam ....selling the barrel in Euros, etc.
That's the REAL reason right there. Were the international currency for oil convert to the Euro from the US dollar our country's economic system would crash in a big way.
The Dollar would be worth a fraction of what it is right now. Precisely the formula for breaking US addiction to foreign oil. | |
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 6/25/2008 9:45:30 AM |
selling the barrel in Euros
In about 2000, three oil producing nations stated they wanted to do this. Chavez of Venezuela (US backed coup attempt), Saddam of Iraq (Gone), and Iran (Observe current situation).
I saw the attempts at regime change, the successful regime change, and the drums of war with the 3rd nation on that list and consider it more than coincidence.
I did hear the other day though that Kuwait already stopped pinning oil on the dollar some time ago. Not sure what that means since Kuwait is not on the Imperial ambitions list as far as we know. | |
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 7/10/2008 2:37:56 PM | I guess simple questions illicit simplistic answers as in the following post:
Easy. After invading Iraq for a multitude of reasons ranging from fair to excellent the Bush Administration, instead of taking a hard and firm line when they occupied Iraq, figured they had the situation in control enough to allow freedom to both the people of Iraq and the Jihadist wanna be salifist entities they are ultimately fighting in the Global War on Terror. This allowed immediate freedom of movement to terrorist, Jihadist and criminal elements before a government and security force could be established. Along with this negative side effect, the press was also included which now gave the enemy Islamists a propaganda tool to use to coerce world opinion away from their deliberate atrocious acts of barbarism against women and children, rally recruits and, make sure that America was always cast in a negative light.
What a scholarly, (not) CROCK OF SHIT. The US Gov't, bombed the infrastruture of Iraq flat to enable its corporate Overlords to whip in and rebuild it all with big fat, no bid, contracts. Appease the Military Industrial Complex, by buying lots of new toys to kill people with...bombing a hut in the Nevada desert, to test a weapon, isn't quite as much fun as bombing a populated village. How about that Oil? How about the fact that Saddam had threatened to create a bourse to trade oil with other countries using (OMG) euros. The US is still there because they haven't quite completed all their permanent military bases which will effectively enable them to more easily thust democracy by bayonet point on any other pissant, upstart little country, who dares to think that they have the right to exploit and profit from their own Natural Resources. These and about 110 other ignoble reasons are why they went, are still there and if things don't change soon, will still be there in 20 years. For all you people who read articles or watch news created and distributed by the mainstream, I suggest that you try to balance it with other points of view from outside the insulated coccoon of BS we see everyday. I suggest, John Perkins: The Secret History of the American Empire. And for those of you who can't handle all of the "big words" in print. Google it, I believe there is a radio interview with him, kicking around on the internet.
Peace | |
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 7/10/2008 3:05:22 PM | | Jeez are we still all this stuck on stupid? Bottom line, to advance the New World Order. It was an uncontrollable nation with Saddam in place. We will not allow ANY nation who does not follow the ultimate plan of a one world governmental system to exist. This is not some esoteric conspiracy theory, its just whats happening. | |
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 7/10/2008 4:08:39 PM | | We're basically there now until some semblance of normalcy returns. The Iraqi Armed Forces simply cannot defend the citizens of Iraq and combat the insurgency on its own. And personnally I dont understand why people keep saying the war is political - ALL WARS ARE POLITICAL!!!! Singling-out any one war for being political is like pointing out a single cloud for being white. FFS, some people have this really childish idea that wars are suppose to be 'righteous' and 'just', they're not; old men make decisions and young men die, its that simple. | |
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 7/10/2008 4:23:15 PM |
Resolution 1441 was passed by the UNSC demanding that Iraq disarm and let weapons inspectors return or face serious consequences. The wording of 1441 was interpreted differently by different nations. Bush viewed it as an authorization for war. The UK (Blair) wanted another resolution, stating that Iraq was in 'material breach' of 1441 and clearly authorizing military action, to be passed by the UNSC. Russia and China were not in favour of invasion, France said outright that it would veto any resolution authorizing invading Iraq.
As France would veto, no resolution was presented to the UNSC - Bush said he didn't need one anyway and Blair decided he didn't either. So, if it is an illegal or legal war depends on how 1441 is interpreted.
Actually France said they wanted to wait until the UN weapons inspectors had reported on their current rounds of searches.
These searches were to find infractions of 1441 that U.S. and British intelligence pointed out.
Eventually Hans Blix, who was in charge of the mission and believed Iraq was in contravention of 1441 when he started the job referred to these bits of infomation as 'faith-based intelligence'. 
The U.S. and Britain, knowing that their intelligence was false, attacked before the inspectors finished their job. | |
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 7/10/2008 4:45:35 PM | From The Sunday Times
October 3, 2004
Saddam ‘bought UN allies’ with oil
Robert Winnett
A LEAKED report has exposed the extent of alleged corruption in the United Nations’ oil-for-food scheme in Iraq, identifying up to 200 individuals and companies that made profits running into hundreds of millions of pounds from it.
The report largely implicates France and Russia, whom Saddam Hussein targeted as he sought support on the UN Security Council before the Iraq war. Both countries were influential voices against UN-backed action.
A senior UN official responsible for the scheme is identified as a major beneficiary. The report, marked “highly confidential”, also finds that the private office of Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, profited from the cheap oil. Saddam’s regime awarded this oil during the run-up to the war when military action was being discussed at the UN.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How soon we forget all the facts! | |
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 7/10/2008 4:50:26 PM | Re: The Geneva Convention...
There are FOUR parts to the Geneva convention. The U.S. did not ratify 2 additions to the 4th protocol, which apparently have to do with further protection for civilians during wartime. | |
|
| |
| |
|
| Page 13 of 14
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 |
|
Home
login 
