Our crimes in Iraq must not be forgotten

JBeee

Time Out
Jun 1, 2007
1,826
52
48
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown:

Tuesday, 12 February 2008


Don't bring up the catastrophe in Iraq, not in polite circles or at dinner parties, or anywhere in public really. Better to burp or fart loudly. That is the message for 2008. What war? We have moved on, you bore, say the frightfully busy great and good, their eyes glazing over.


The people responsible for the war have, of course, moved on, and we must follow their fine example. Still they rise, praise be to them. Such self-belief, such resilience, no sign of weakness, no dribble of an apology. Awesome. Instead of being marched off to face war crimes tribunals they are forgiven their trespasses and rewarded generously.

The Catholic Church blesses and receives the deceiver (Mr Blair); fat banks and oil companies welcome them on boards (Jonathan Powell, Mr. Blair et al); they are called to make peace in the Middle East and lecture us on ethics ( Mr Blair and Mr Campbell) and invited in to the Cabinet (Jack Straw).

For some (still) enthusiastic warmongers – boys who never forgot the excitement of running around shooting their toy guns at strangers – the invasion and colonisation is the best thing ever. The "surge" has worked, they declare – our boys and American soldiers are not dying in the numbers they were, and look!, Iraqis are coming out to play, buy and sell, smoke their pipes in tranquillity, and thousands are returning from exile in Syria. Hip hip hooray. For we're the jolly good fellows.

In the US with the primaries going full blast, John McCain is anointed as the noble saviour, the man who promises to crush all those aliens out there who are plotting to kill the US of A. I attended the BBC Radio 4 Alistair Cooke Lecture delivered by McCain, and what I heard was a man who uses his terrible experiences in Vietnam to justify all future wars he wants his country to wage.

Bill and Hillary both actively and tacitly supported the invasion of Iraq and never once defended the UN route. These candidates are "liberals", we are told. Only in America. None of the above are exactly in the habit of mentioning the caged of Guantanamo or the anguish of Iraqis. Obama did fleetingly touch on these ugly American transgressions, but not for long, and not with intense moral purpose. At least the guy tried, and had the guts to vote against the invasion. The others still seem to believe fervently that the attacks on 9/11 outweigh all other acts of political violence.

If the alliance, its leaders and brass bands were imperiously arrogant when they went into Iraq, they are even more so today. Failure has given them no humility at all and completes the cycle of villainy. They lied and broke international law and appear to have no duty of care towards the innocent inhabitants of that blighted land.

Iraqi deaths are now calculated at around one million. According to international organisations monitoring migrations, Iraq is going through one of the largest and most serious humanitarian crises in the world, with population displacement within and from Iraq. Last November, cholera figures were the worst for 40 years, says an Iraqi health minister. Childhood diseases are rampant. There are relentless bombardments across the country, for reasons not given, on people unseen and labelled al-Qa'ida.

The current hand-wringing about British journalistic standards concentrates entirely on small, domestic matters. The real shame and scandal is that air attacks on Iraq go on and on and get hardly any serious coverage. In 2006, there were 229 such raids; in 2007 there were 1,447 raids (dead uncounted and unidentified). The ghastly, ruthless General David Petraeus says they have now reached a "sustainable level of violence". That is, at least, a truthful assessment and one that explains why we went into Iraq. If the allies allow Iraqi Sunnis, Shias and Kurds to carry on murdering each other day after day, not so many that it turns into a full-blown civil war, we can steal their oil and control the place.

Meanwhile, here Lord Guthrie, once Chief of Staff, and others of his ilk are furious with Gordon Brown for promising that the consent of Parliament will be sought before any future war is launched by the Government. These generals have become extraordinarily bullish after the lamentable collapse of all their strategies in Iraq – thereby fending off any accountability and reasonable interrogation as to why even Basra became disillusioned with our presence.

There are, thank God, people who keep alive truth and awaken our collective conscience. On Tuesday there is a public meeting in London (courtesy of the Stop the War Coalition) organised by Phil Shiner, public interest lawyer and an indefatigable campaigner for justice. For years he has tried to expose the brutality of some of our soldiers in Iraq who have committed heinous crimes against the populations and got away with it. At the meeting, which all good people should attend, Shiner will be talking about the British state and how it tolerates the torture, mutilations and killings of Iraqi civilians.

This Thursday the Jordanian Jamil el-Banna and Libyan Omar Deghayes go to court to argue against extradition to Spain to face charges of terrorism. These are the two men who were last year released from Guantanamo Bay, where they were caged and tortured for five years. Imagine the state of their minds and bodies, their fears of incarceration.
Here they were interrogated by our spooks and police officers, and released without charge. Yet Spain clamours for them and we will deliver them into yet another jurisdiction unless the lawyers can win the case. Helena Kennedy and Geoffrey Bindman have spoken up to defend these poor men; journalist Victoria Britten has investigated charges against them for four years and tells me she is absolutely sure they are innocent. Great Britain, Mr Brown? Tell me about it.

Just released too is the film Battle for Haditha by the exceptionally diligent director Nick Broomfield (I must remember him in my prayers). He has bravely brought to the screen an untold story of the war – the massacres of innocents by the allies in Hathida, a middle-class Sunni city where he says "couples would honeymoon on the Euphrates". Fallujah was similarly "punished". Both places at first supported the invasion and learnt to their cost that their saviours had dark intent and too many had lost their own humanity.

If Blair is elected President of the EU and either Clinton or McCain get the US presidency, the final insults will be added to the endless injury suffered by the Iraqis. They will know conclusively that there ain't no justice in the world. And some of them will turn to terrorism. And the peace we hope for will never come.
 

JBeee

Time Out
Jun 1, 2007
1,826
52
48
Correction: ''Bush's crimes'' must not be forgotten.

I think were all guilty....guilty of allowing it to go on for so long and guilty of not bringing Mr Bush and COmpany before the courts.
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
55
Oshawa
Correction: ''Bush's crimes'' must not be forgotten.

Anybody who voted for this war should be put in the same cell as Bush. Everyone was to busy running around trying to prove they were patriots in the wake of 9/11 instead of looking for the truth and this most certainly includes the dumbocrats.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
Correction: ''Bush's crimes'' must not be forgotten.

Isn't the point of the article the crimes of Blair? While it touched a bit on the US having moved on to other issues, namely the election, it was predominantly a British piece was it not?
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
"The Catholic Church blesses and receives the deceiver (Mr Blair); fat banks and oil companies welcome them on boards (Jonathan Powell, Mr. Blair et al); they are called to make peace in the Middle East and lecture us on ethics ( Mr Blair and Mr Campbell) and invited in to the Cabinet (Jack Straw)."

There is no criminal that the catholic church will not embrace and coddle if the measure of wealth and power is met. They welcomed and aided Hitler and every dictator and potentate for two thousand years. Any scum no matter how guilty can find an audiance and a room in that inn built on the bones of millions of innocent human beings. It will be no loss when it is razed to the ground.
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
55
Oshawa
"The Catholic Church blesses and receives the deceiver (Mr Blair); fat banks and oil companies welcome them on boards (Jonathan Powell, Mr. Blair et al); they are called to make peace in the Middle East and lecture us on ethics ( Mr Blair and Mr Campbell) and invited in to the Cabinet (Jack Straw)."

There is no criminal that the catholic church will not embrace and coddle if the measure of wealth and power is met. They welcomed and aided Hitler and every dictator and potentate for two thousand years. Any scum no matter how guilty can find an audiance and a room in that inn built on the bones of millions of innocent human beings. It will be no loss when it is razed to the ground.

I work with a few church groups during the Christmas season to give needy families cloths toys and food.....what bastards they are eh?:roll:
 

JBeee

Time Out
Jun 1, 2007
1,826
52
48
Isn't the point of the article the crimes of Blair? While it touched a bit on the US having moved on to other issues, namely the election, it was predominantly a British piece was it not?

"Our" crimes, Karrie...the West`s crimes should not be forgotten.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
I work with a few church groups during the Christmas season to give needy families cloths toys and food.....what bastards they are eh?:roll:

Wonderful, what about the other 364 days of the year? Do they renounce wealth and material goods and devote thier lives to the poor and the blind, no , I didn;t think so, once a year is a handup anymore would be a handout right, and we don't want to spoil them do we, afterall we'll need them again next year when our egos need a nice rub on the backs of the poor and we can brag about our charitable works.
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
55
Oshawa
Wonderful, what about the other 364 days of the year? Do they renounce wealth and material goods and devote thier lives to the poor and the blind, no , I didn;t think so, once a year is a handup anymore would be a handout right, and we don't want to spoil them do we, afterall we'll need them again next year when our egos need a nice rub on the backs of the poor and we can brag about our charitable works.


In fact they are more charitable than most socialists I know who talk the talk but never walk the walk.

As for myself, it is not a one time deal but Christmas is always the easiest time to get people to open their wallets.

What you just said above is typical of someone who does nothing......I've heard it many times before from people like you.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
Wonderful, what about the other 364 days of the year? Do they renounce wealth and material goods and devote thier lives to the poor and the blind, no , I didn;t think so, once a year is a handup anymore would be a handout right, and we don't want to spoil them do we, afterall we'll need them again next year when our egos need a nice rub on the backs of the poor and we can brag about our charitable works.


More Christian bashing from the brain dead.
 

JBeee

Time Out
Jun 1, 2007
1,826
52
48
Will you guys shut-up bickering and get back to the point?
Thankyou.:smile:
 

talloola

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 14, 2006
19,576
113
63
Vancouver Island
It makes my stomach turn when I hear the republicans, along with McCain brag, and
spout how the added military has slowed down the insurgency , and how safe the
american people are because of the actions of the u.s. in iraq.
What they have done there is 'criminal', and I wonder if anyone will ever really know how
many iraqis are dead and permanately maimed, and how many of their families are stunned
for the rest of their days, their lives will never return to normal, they have poor living
conditions, they live in fear, and republicans walk around so arrogant and proud of what
they have done. It's shameful, not to mention almost 4000 of their own military are dead,
and many many thousands injured.
The next president should definitely be someone who would 'never' do what they did,
unless he knew for sure it was the only possible answer, and after much deplomacy.

IRAQ NEVER THREATENED THE U.S. IN ANY WAY, AND EVEN IF THEY AT ONE TIME, DID
HAVE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, THEY DIDN'T THREATEN THE U.S. WITH THEM.
THE U.S. IS FULL OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

There were NO terrorists in Iraq till after the u.s. occupied that country.

NO, WE WILL NEVER FORGET, AND WE NEVER SHOULD.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
I suggest people read this report by UNMOVIC Chief Weapon Inspector delivered March 10, 2003 which concludes:

....How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months...

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm

Ten days later President Bush made this speech essentially declaring war on Iraq:

[
March 17, 2003
President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours
Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation

...For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war...

...Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised...

...The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East...it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda....using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other...

...The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat...

...Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq. America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully...

... This is not a question of authority, it is a question of will...

...Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power...

...Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace,...

...Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms...

...And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning. In any conflict, your fate will depend on your action. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people. War crimes will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it will be no defense to say, "I was just following orders."..

...the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war,..

...The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed...

...The cause of peace requires all free nations to recognize new and undeniable realities. In the 20th century, some chose to appease murderous dictators, whose threats were allowed to grow into genocide and global war...

...Free nations have a duty to defend our people by uniting against the violent...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html

Evidence did not support much of the above. Yet Bush got away with starting an unprovoked war based on outright fabrications:

Ten Appalling Lies We Were Told About Iraq
By Christopher Scheer, AlterNet. Posted June 27, 2003.



Today, more than three months after Bush's stirring declaration of war and nearly two months since he declared victory, no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons have been found, nor any documentation of their existence, nor any sign they were deployed in the field.

The mainstream press, after an astonishing two years of cowardice, is belatedly drawing attention to the unconscionable level of administrative deception. They seem surprised to find that when it comes to Iraq, the Bush administration isn't prone to the occasional lie of expediency but, in fact, almost never told the truth.

What follows are just the most outrageous and significant of the dozens of outright lies uttered by Bush and his top officials over the past year in what amounts to a systematic campaign to scare the bejeezus out of everybody:

LIE #1: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." -- President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.

FACT: This story, leaked to and breathlessly reported by Judith Miller in the New York Times, has turned out to be complete baloney. Department of Energy officials, who monitor nuclear plants, say the tubes could not be used for enriching uranium. One intelligence analyst, who was part of the tubes investigation, angrily told The New Republic: "You had senior American officials like Condoleezza Rice saying the only use of this aluminum really is uranium centrifuges. She said that on television. And that's just a lie."

LIE #2: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.

FACT: This whopper was based on a document that the White House already knew to be a forgery thanks to the CIA. Sold to Italian intelligence by some hustler, the document carried the signature of an official who had been out of office for 10 years and referenced a constitution that was no longer in effect. The ex-ambassador who the CIA sent to check out the story is pissed: "They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie," he told the New Republic, anonymously. "They [the White House] were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this to make their case more strongly."

LIE #3: "We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." -- Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003 on "Meet the Press."

FACT: There was and is absolutely zero basis for this statement. CIA reports up through 2002 showed no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program.

LIE #4: "[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." -- CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening's speech by President Bush.

FACT: Intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda in the early '90s, but found no proof of a continuing relationship. In other words, by tweaking language, Tenet and Bush spun the intelligence180 degrees to say exactly the opposite of what it suggested.

LIE #5: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.

FACT: No evidence of this has ever been leaked or produced. Colin Powell told the U.N. this alleged training took place in a camp in northern Iraq. To his great embarrassment, the area he indicated was later revealed to be outside Iraq's control and patrolled by Allied war planes.

LIE #6: "We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.

FACT: Said drones can't fly more than 300 miles, and Iraq is 6,000 miles from the U.S. coastline. Furthermore, Iraq's drone-building program wasn't much more advanced than your average model plane enthusiast. And isn't a "manned aerial vehicle" just a scary way to say "plane"?

LIE #7: "We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established." -- President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003, in a national radio address.

FACT: Despite a massive nationwide search by U.S. and British forces, there are no signs, traces or examples of chemical weapons being deployed in the field, or anywhere else during the war.

LIE #8: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." -- Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5 2003, in remarks to the UN Security Council.
FACT: Putting aside the glaring fact that not one drop of this massive stockpile has been found, as previously reported on AlterNet the United States' own intelligence reports show that these stocks -- if they existed -- were well past their use-by date and therefore useless as weapon fodder.

LIE #9: "We know where [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003, in statements to the press.

FACT: Needless to say, no such weapons were found, not to the east, west, south or north, somewhat or otherwise.

LIE #10: "Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited." -- President Bush in remarks in Poland, published internationally June 1, 2003.

FACT: This was reference to the discovery of two modified truck trailers that the CIA claimed were potential mobile biological weapons lab. But British and American experts -- including the State Department's intelligence wing in a report released this week -- have since declared this to be untrue. According to the British, and much to Prime Minister Tony Blair's embarrassment, the trailers are actually exactly what Iraq said they were; facilities to fill weather balloons, sold to them by the British themselves.
So, months after the war, we are once again where we started -- with plenty of rhetoric and absolutely no proof of this "grave danger" for which O.J. Smith died. The Bush administration is now scrambling to place the blame for its lies on faulty intelligence, when in fact the intelligence was fine; it was their abuse of it that was "faulty."
Rather than apologize for leading us to a preemptive war based on impossibly faulty or shamelessly distorted "intelligence" or offering his resignation, our sly madman in the White House is starting to sound more like that other O.J. Like the man who cheerfully played golf while promising to pursue "the real killers," Bush is now vowing to search for "the true extent of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs, no matter how long it takes."
On the terrible day of the 9/11 attacks, five hours after a hijacked plane slammed into the Pentagon, retired Gen. Wesley Clark received a strange call from someone (he didn't name names) representing the White House position: "I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein,'" Clark told Meet the Press anchor Tim Russert. "I said, 'But -- I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence.'"
And neither did we.

http://www.alternet.org/story/16274/

For me this issue is a test. It isn't just clear now that we were lied to then. Any person capable of critical thought would have known "at the time" we were lied to and the media was printing those lies like they were facts.

People who believed the lies back then, probably still can't tell when they are being lied to now.

The fact is, our leaders and the media have always decieved the public. Today most of the lies concern Iran, Israel and Palestine. But again anyone capable of critical thought can see through those lies too.

Yes everyone who supported the Iraq war was in fact supporting war crimes. Like Bush said, its not enough to say I was just following orders or to say I just believed what I was told....