Preemptive War Criminals

czardogs

Electoral Member
Jul 25, 2002
234
0
16
103
BC
www.canadiandemocraticmovement.ca
Preemptive War Criminals

by Jeff Gates

Half the Iraqi population is under 15 years of age, including half of the five million Iraqis living in Baghdad. As part of the U.S. military’s “Rapid Dominance” posture, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld proposes a “Shock and Awe” strategy designed to devastate Iraq’s capital city. Day One of the war calls for launching 500-800 Cruise missiles on Baghdad packing an explosive punch equivalent to a nuclear device. As a war planner boasted to CBS News, “There will not be a safe place in Baghdad.” On Day Two, the Pentagon proposes to do it again, launching another 500-800 high-explosive missiles.

Not since the blanket bombing of European cities during World War II has such premeditated devastation been planned for a civilian urban population. A team of international investigators recently completed the first pre-conflict field research, concluding that casualties among Iraqi children will likely be in the thousands, probably in the tens of thousands, “and possibly in the hundreds of thousands.”

Even without another Gulf War, the impact on Iraqi children has been horrific. In the late 1980s, the mortality rate for Iraqi children under five was 50 per thousand. By 1999, it had reached 130 per thousand. In 1998, Secretary of State Madeline Albright was asked her view of sanctions in light of the fact that an estimated 600,000 Iraqi children had died due to sanctions-related effects, largely dysentery after the U.S. bombed sewage and water purification facilities and then used the embargo to block the import of replacement parts and medicines. Albright’s assessment: “We believe it is worth the price.”

Two UN chiefs of Iraqi sanctions have since resigned in protest over their impact: Peter van Walsun, chief of the UN Sanctions Committee, and Hans von Sponeck, chief UN coordinator. Noting that “chronic malnourishment cannot be repaired,” American Denis Halliday, former UN representative in Baghdad, charges “we are running a genocide program in Iraq,” thus far killing almost three times more Iraqis than the number of Japanese killed in U.S. atomic blasts in WWII.

Reversal of Fortune

Before the Gulf War, Iraq was a rapidly developing country, with a living standard approaching that of southern Europe, featuring free education, ample electricity, modern farming, a large middle class and, according to the World Health Organization, access to health care for 93 percent of the population. A once proud and prosperous nation fell apart as 525,000 Iraqis were killed in wars since 1980, including 375,000 in an 8-year Iraq-Iran conflict in which the U.S. sold arms to both sides.

As a portion of their population, Iraqi casualties in that conflict were equivalent to 5.6 million deaths in the U.S. population, more than 100 times the number of Americans killed during the Vietnam War. With their economy in tatters, many Iraqis left the country. With the collapse of oil revenues, education collapsed, helped along by the U.S. who insisted that printing equipment for schools be banned as a “dual use” item disallowed under its interpretation of the sanctions. That same rationale was used by the U.S. to block the import of textbooks, medical journals, dialysis machines, dental supplies, yogurt production equipment, disinfectants, pesticides, insecticides and, until recently, cancer medications because they contain minute traces of radiation.

Compared to other economies in the region, Iraq experienced dramatic improvements, especially after Hussein nationalized Iraq’s oil fields. Despite his nefarious treatment of political enemies and ethnic minorities, that diversion of oil-based income from off-shore investors to Iraq enabled the typical Iraqi’s well-being to surge ahead of their neighbors, including Iraq’s embrace of a culture of modernity that remains missing in its neighbors.

Since the Gulf War, Iraqi culture has collapsed. Violent crime soared as cultural, social and ethical values were steadily degraded in a nation where the first human civilization emerged 6,000 years ago. In this ancient cradle of humanity featuring hundreds of thousands of historic sites, child beggars now work alongside prostitutes as Iraqi society fell apart. Corruption has become endemic. Iraqi living standards are now equivalent to Sudan as their nation was reduced to something akin to a vast refugee camp.

In March 2002, after numerous objections from the U.S., a UNICEF official was allowed to report on the inhumane conditions in Iraq since the imposition of sanctions. Fully 25 percent of children in south and central Iraq suffer from chronic malnutrition, which is typically irreversible, and nine percent from acute malnutrition. One in four Iraqi babies is born prematurely and underweight. Few survive. With only six week’s supply of food in the country, UN agencies estimate that an invasion risks the deaths of nearly 1 million children.

The UN Genocide pact, which the U.S. refuses to join, forbids the deliberate infliction of conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction. In January 1991, before the Gulf War, the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency projected that sanctions would destroy Iraq’s ability to provide safe drinking water within six months. As U.S. war planners rightly predicted, “epidemics of such diseases as cholera, hepatitis, and typhoid could occur.” They could have added to that list water-borne diseases, leprosy, cancers, heart defects and child starvation. Seasoned weapons experts now charge that sanctions are a modern-day implement of war, an inexpensive weapon of mass destruction.

In the Gulf War, an estimated 150,000 Iraqis were killed as the U.S. exploded ordnance equivalent to seven Hiroshimas, unleashing more explosive force in six weeks than during the entirety of the Second World War. U.S. casualties totaled 148 (1000:1 ratio), mostly from accidents and friendly fire. But that didn’t end the deadly effects of the war. Of the 696,778 U.S. troops who served in the Gulf War, more than 220,000 have applied for medical benefits. As of May 2002, 159,238 had been awarded service-connected disability due to a war-related ailment vaguely described as Gulf War Syndrome.

Foreseeable Criminality

The counterpoint to preemptive war is preemptive war crimes and the need -- quickly and preemptively – to indict foreseeable war criminals. Under the Geneva accords, weapons can only be used in the field of battle, defined as military targets of the enemy during war, and can only be used for the duration of the conflict. International law also forbids the use of weaponry that is either unduly inhumane or has an unduly negative effect on the natural environment. Yet American and British troops are poised to deploy in the Gulf once again armed with depleted uranium munitions which, on explosion, create a firestorm of fine radioactive ceramic particles that are easily inhaled and readily absorbed by plants and animals, becoming part of the food chain.

By the Pentagon’s own studies prior to the Gulf War, exposure to this aerosol uranium under battlefield conditions can lead to cancers of the lung and bone, kidney damage, neurocognitive disorders, chromosonal damage and birth defects. In 1990, the UK’s Atomic Energy Authority estimated that if 50 tons of depleted uranium (“DU”) munitions were left in the Gulf, those would lead to 50,000 extra cancer deaths in the following decade. Experts estimate that 300 to 900 tons of DU debris were left behind, its residue travelling wherever the wind blows. Children are 10 to 20 times more sensitive to the effects of radiation than adults.

In Basra, the southernmost point of entry for any U.S.-led invasion, pediatricians report an increase of six to 12 times in the incidence of childhood leukemia and cancer as radiation levels in flora and fauna reached 84 times the safe limit recommended by the World Health Organization. In practical effect, the first Gulf War was a nuclear war. Dr. Huda Ammash, a U.S.-educated environmental biologist at Baghdad University, calculates that the 10-year impact of this radiation is equivalent to 100 Chernobyls.

Iraqi doctors reported 11 birth defects per 100,000 in 1989. By 2001, the rate was 116 per 100,000, including a doubling of congenital malformations in newborns among exposed populations and an increase in late-term spontaneous abortions due to congenital effects (reportedly now two or three cases each day). A photographic record from Basra General Hospital chronicles babies born with no eyes, brains, limbs or genitalia, with internal organs on the outside, and with grotesquely deformed heads and bodies.

Due to the risk, Iraqis of child-bearing age now often choose not to marry as everyone knows couples coping with grievously ill or deformed babies. Iraqi men in their mid-30s are now dying at record rates. “They are not ill,” reports Felicity Arbuthnot, “they just give up – especially young men between the ages of about 30 to 35. Their youth has been sacrificed to the embargo and they see middle age approaching with no hope, no dreams, no aspirations or ability to provide for those they love.” If cancers continue to grow at the present rate, an estimated 44 percent of the population of southern Iraq will develop cancer by the time today’s 15 year-olds are 25.

Iraqis are not the only people in harm’s way. Depleted uranium remains radioactive for 4.5 billion years. One-third of U.S. tanks used in Desert Storm were armed with DU munitions, ensuring whole-body radioactive exposure by U.S. troops. Likewise for those handling aircraft ordnance, including airmen, pilots and mechanics. Of the 29,000 British troops who served in that conflict, more than 8,000 are ill and over 400 have died. In 1999, a coroner in the north of England reported that he handled one suicide a week among Gulf War vets. Similar health effects are being recorded among troops from Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and among others exposed to DU munitions, including residents of Kosovo and Bosnia.

Historically, war crimes have been committed against an enemy. In this case, the crimes include both the premeditated slaughter of innocents and the premeditated impairment of our own troops as, without informed consent, many military personnel were exposed to a toxic soup of unproven vaccines (for anthrax, nerve gas, etc.) and then ordered to deploy using munitions laced with a known trans-generational toxin, deadly both to those exposed and to their unborn offspring.

To preempt the rush to preemptive war, sovereign nations must mount a preemptive strike against those who dare wage this war. That’s best done by ensuring that U.S. war planners and civil leaders are preemptively indicted as war criminals. That indictment should include not only Gulf War and sanctions-related activities but also those foreseeable war crimes they have shown their intention to commit.

Former counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance and author of Democracy at Risk, Jeff Gates is president of the Shared Capitalism Institute
 

Anonymous

Electoral Member
Mar 24, 2002
783
0
16
Reading that article broke my heart, and I feel very bad about a war in the middle east again. Children are innocent and the U.S.A. is attacking these poor souls.

Why would America want to put millions of children at risk? Im almost in tears
 

Anonymous

Electoral Member
Mar 24, 2002
783
0
16
V TECH said:
Reading that article broke my heart, and I feel very bad about a war in the middle east again. Children are innocent and the U.S.A. is attacking these poor souls.

Why would America want to put millions of children at risk? Im almost in tears

pussy
 

Andem

dev
Mar 24, 2002
5,643
128
63
Larnaka
You people are sick! Did you even read the article?

Keep your mouths shut until you do some research.
 

Anonymous

Electoral Member
Mar 24, 2002
783
0
16
Oh, I read it. It makes me smile that we can help so many starving young children to never, ever feel those hungar pangs again.

Don't think for a second that they would treat us any better if the roles were reversed.

I think it's about time we used all these boom sticks I've been paying for all these years.
 

Cyberm4n

Electoral Member
Jun 6, 2002
259
0
16
43
Toronto
And killing children solves the problem? You don't have the right to judge people.. Andem, back me up here.
 

Andem

dev
Mar 24, 2002
5,643
128
63
Larnaka
Cyberm4n, there's not much I can say that will satisfyingly condemn the deliberate murder of children.

As czardogs' article says, it's because of American sanctions why the children are starving and disease ridden.
 

czardogs

Electoral Member
Jul 25, 2002
234
0
16
103
BC
www.canadiandemocraticmovement.ca
Everyones opinion is valid even the above war supporter and child killing glee.

To quote JANEANE GAROFALO:

That's hard to say. I would say that if we were given more accurate information and more authentic debates on the issue -- of course the poll numbers would shift. Unfortunately though, in this country, as in many countries, there's always going to be groups of individuals who want war anyway. They like to be aggressive. They like to have an us-and-them attitude. They like to be isolationists. They like to be somewhat exclusionary and racist in their thinking anyway. If they have the opportunity to wrap it in a flag, so much the better -- you know what I'm saying?

You have a lot of people out there who are just straight-up bullies and thugs, no matter what. But if they can hide behind the flag and pretend to have the moral high ground, they are in hog heaven. They are absolutely thrilled that they can take their misguided anger, and their xenophobia, and their aggressiveness, and their belligerence, and hide behind the flag and Jesus, that is fantastic. You have a lot of right-wingers out there, and just a lot of nuts out there anyway, regardless of party affiliation or right or left affiliation, who are always eager to swing their fists and wave the flag at the same time. So that's always going to be there. That's not going to shift.

Unfortunately, freaks come out on both sides, on the left and the right. But unfortunately the "bullies" from the right sometimes are actually dangerous individuals. They are so filled with a combination of hate and lack of information that it makes them dangerous. And then, unfortunately, you have certain media outlets who sort of tacitly encourage that kind of nonsense -- things like the New York Post, which is a great paper if you love erroneous gossip and sports. Okay, it's fantastic if you like both those things. They tend to do things like the "Axis of Weasels" front cover, which is embarrassing. But the type of person who likes to swing their fist, run their mouth, and hide behind the flag loves it.

These are troubling times ahead my fellow Canadians but stand proud of our position. This is NOT the first time we have rebuffed american aggression where it was not warrented or justified. Vietnam was a disaster and wholly immoral and unneccessary. We stood our ground and we look better today for it. Tommorrow and each day after that will be the same.

We took a stand on the side of the rule of law and justice through the only international body we have - the UN. Like it or hate it, the UN is the only thing we have between us and the rule of lawlessness and anarchy.
 

czardogs

Electoral Member
Jul 25, 2002
234
0
16
103
BC
www.canadiandemocraticmovement.ca
American Jackass said:
Yuo fuking stuied Candians!

Urinaiem isn't dagerous! Fukiung igluers.

How right Garofalo is!! There are wingnuts of all types from every part of the spectrum. Even those that dont know english.

When your president is in the Hague facing war crimes charges remember your slant against Canada when we sit with the moral highground and world opinion on OUR side.
 

Anonymous

Electoral Member
Mar 24, 2002
783
0
16
I'm probably one of the few Americans that can honestly say that I hate this country. I have no patriotic pride, nor have I ever. I care about every country as a whole and the people within it. Americans, Canadians, Iraqis, it doesn't matter to me where you reside, we're all one and the same.

Having said that, I don't know what to think about the war. The above article, though I didn't fully read it since i'm at work, sounds a bit harsh, but the fucking morons that respond without any bit of apathy whatsoever make it sound all the more truthful. I think Saddam needs to go, but fuck this country even more than it already is if they slaughter innocent Iraqi citizens and feel justified for doing so.

At the same time, reguardless of articles that further demean the United States, Saddam does need to go. I think he does have weapons of mass destruction, and i'd hate to see any of those go off on American, Canadian, hell, anyone's soil. I guess we'll see what happens.

Cyric
 

LuShes

Electoral Member
Mar 25, 2002
868
1
18
44
Kamloops, B.C.
www.canadiancontent.net
First off that article czardogs posted was heartbreaking. To imagine within days and hours so many people will die including helpless children to aid the cause of destruction of any harmful weaponry Saddam may or may not have.

Those poor children must be petrified not knowing if they are going to see tommorow.
Its TERRIBLE! Yes I am sure Bush is going for a noble worthy cause incase Saddam decides to wreck havock on the rest of the world. But this is the 20th century now. War was what we did hundreds of years ago with a Monachary. Monarachy is pretty useless now, so is war. There are more peaceful solutions to this all. Without killing poor innocent families.

I only fear that Bush is pissing off the wrong people, and everyone will face the consequences of his actions. I know I surely dont want to wake up one morning with tanks, blood and destruction in my streets.

And for that American Jackass... "Urinaiem isn't dagerous!" I think that is the most jackass comment I ever heard !!!! Hairspray is dangerous, and your telling me Unraniumn isnt? I would like to see you play with some and tell me how you feel afterwards or even from 10 years now.

Anyways thats my rant, Andem keep the forums going strong ;)

Peace everyone...STOP THE WAR !!!!!!!!
 

Andem

dev
Mar 24, 2002
5,643
128
63
Larnaka
Cyric said:
I'm probably one of the few Americans that can honestly say that I hate this country. I have no patriotic pride, nor have I ever. I care about every country as a whole and the people within it. Americans, Canadians, Iraqis, it doesn't matter to me where you reside, we're all one and the same.

Having said that, I don't know what to think about the war. The above article, though I didn't fully read it since i'm at work, sounds a bit harsh, but the fucking morons that respond without any bit of apathy whatsoever make it sound all the more truthful. I think Saddam needs to go, but fuck this country even more than it already is if they slaughter innocent Iraqi citizens and feel justified for doing so.

At the same time, reguardless of articles that further demean the United States, Saddam does need to go. I think he does have weapons of mass destruction, and i'd hate to see any of those go off on American, Canadian, hell, anyone's soil. I guess we'll see what happens.

Cyric

That was very well said Cyric. I commend you for being intelligent about this war and opposing it.
 

Anonymous

Electoral Member
Mar 24, 2002
783
0
16
I don't necessarily oppose it, nor am I for it... i'm not sure what to think. If they can denounce Saddam in a way in which innocent civillians wouldn't be harmed, I would have no problems with that... but lets get realistic, that's close to an impossibility, and though Bush's speech was eloquent and well-thought out, they're nothing but words. Is he going to be there to make sure that innocent lives are not unjustly taken? No.

As I said, Saddam needs to go, but there has to be another way to do this.

Cyric
 

Andem

dev
Mar 24, 2002
5,643
128
63
Larnaka
You're right Cyric.

There is no real way to spare lives in any war. But bombing them to hell is not the solution to anything. It will only add to the flames of hate.
 

Shmad

Electoral Member
Mar 24, 2002
550
0
16
Cache Creek, BC
www.justrant.com
Just a question here, since Bush is making himself a war criminal, if he was visiting a country that had signed onto the international court (headed by a Canadian might I add), would it not be possible to arrest him at that point and make him stand trial for his pre-meditated mass murderings? czardogs, shed any light on this?
 

LuShes

Electoral Member
Mar 25, 2002
868
1
18
44
Kamloops, B.C.
www.canadiancontent.net
Obviously the states is in the wrong. But they hold the upper hand on the entire planet. No other country would be able to accuse of him being a war criminal. Its sad, but the only country allowed to pick fights is the states, anyone else who does, is just wrong according to them.

They have there patriotism shoved to far up there ying yang, they arent seeing straight...