BushCo crimes - lets do the world a favour

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
November 10, 2005 -- Saddam was correct. In 2003, the editor wrote the following article about Saddam Hussein's prediction that the Americans would loot and destroy Baghdad as had the Mongol hordes of the 13th century. Saddam was correct in his prognostication. The use of white phosphorous weapons on women and children, the sodomizing by US and contractor troops of imprisoned Iraqi boys and girls, the systematic looting of museums and historical sites by international gangsters as US troops look on. Of course, the neo-cons are no different than the Mongol hordes or the German Nazis for that matter.
The article with an update;
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/looting.htm


April 14, 2003

Was Saddam Right?
Are Americans the New Mongols of the Mideast?

by WAYNE MADSEN

Earlier this year, Saddam Hussein appealed to his countrymen to defeat the "new Mongols," his euphemism for the American military poised to attack Iraq. Hussein appears to have been correct in his prognostication concerning the after effects of an American invasion of Iraq. In 1258, the forces of the Mongol chieftain Hulagu Khan invaded Baghdad and laid waste to the city. Sumerian, Babylonian, Mesopotamian, Assyrian, Ninevehan, Islamic Arab, and other historical relics of Iraq's storied past were destroyed by the invading Mongols. Baghdad's irrigation system was also destroyed and the effect of that action on the population of the country lasted for more than a century.

Compare the invasion of Hulagu Khan in 1258 and America's invasion of 2003 and stark similarities quickly emerge. Like the Mongols, the United States has severely disrupted the water supply system of Baghdad. This has drastically affected public health, medical care, and sanitation in a city of over 5 million people. If such a calamity were to occur in a city of similar size from a natural disaster, international aid would quickly arrive. Yet, the United States is barring international relief efforts for Iraq unless it can control humanitarian workers and administer the distribution of assistance.

And like the Mongols, U.S. troops stood by while Iraqi mobs looted and destroyed artifacts at the National Museum of Iraq in Baghdad. They also reportedly joined looters who pillaged other lucrative targets like office buildings, stores, and private homes. The Bush regime ignored calls from Koichiro Matsura, the head of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), who appealed to the United States to provide protection for Iraqi museums. His calls, like those from the governments of Jordan, Russia, and Greece, went unheeded by Bush regime war officials.

The looting and wanton destruction of the Baghdad museum not only deserves international condemnation but falls well within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court for a full investigation and the issuance of indictments against perpetrators, both Iraqi and American.

One could feel the pain experienced by the museum's deputy director when she tearfully told Western journalists that 170,000 priceless artifacts dating back thousands of years to the very cradle of human civilization in the Tigris-Euphrates Valley, the fabled home of the biblical Garden of Eden, were looted or destroyed. She said one tank and one or two American soldiers would have been sufficient to protect the museum from the vandals. But instead, American troops stood idly by while 7000 years of Iraqi history was cleansed. Even irreplaceable archaeological files and computer disks were destroyed. Museum employees blamed U.S. troops for the carnage. The Bush regime seems intent on remaking Iraq in the same sense that it is turning American democracy into a corporate fascist entity.

The fact that looters were permitted to destroy and burn rare Islamic texts at a time when fundamentalist Christian aid workers are poised to arrive in Iraq with water and revisionist Bibles raises the possibility of a future bloody clash of religions. Giving a free rein to fundamentalist Christians missionaries working for the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell with the full support of a future neo-conservative U.S. civil administration led by retired U.S. Army General Jay Garner, gives many the awful feeling that George W. Bush's past references to "crusades" may, in part, be influencing America's current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and potential future wars in Syria, Iran, Palestine, and Lebanon.

Among the artifacts that may have been carried off by looters are the tablets containing Hammurabi's Code and the 4600-hundred year old Ram in the Thicket from Ur. The 4300-year old bust of an Akkadian king was destroyed by vandals. What was not destroyed by the Mongols in 1258 was allowed to be destroyed by the Americans in 2003. Gone are the artifacts of ancient Sumeria, Assyria, Babylon, Mesopotamia, Ninevah, and Ur.

Update: A November 8, 2005 Washington Post article by Guy Gugliotta reported that thousands of stolen artifacts in Iraq are still missing. Only 5,500 of 14,000 relics have been recovered according to a clearly frustrated Marine Corps Colonel Matthew Bogdanos. The most famous artifacts remain missing and there are fears that they have ended up in the international black market for stolen artwork and antiquities -- a black market controlled by the Russian-Ukrainian-Israeli Mafia (RUIM), a criminal syndicate with ties deep into the White House and Pentagon. Only fifteen of 40 notable relics from the National Museum have been recovered. The recovered items include Sumerian, Akkadian, and Assyrian relics. The missing items include the Sumerian black statue of Eannatum, the prince of Lagash; a gold and ivory plaque of a lion attacking a Nubian; and the copper bust of the Goddess of Victory. Bogdanos said that 8000 small artifacts were stolen from the locked basement of the National Museum in what the colonel described as an "inside job." No wonder Donald Rumsfeld said during the looting, "freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things." Yes, free to commit crimes especially if they have a wink and a nod from a cabal in the Pentagon and Vice President's office that has close links with the RUIM.

It is suspicious that the neo-cons, shortly after reports of museum looting in Iraq were aired around the world, claimed that most of the artifacts had been recovered. That was a lie and a very suspicious cover-up of the facts. Although the Post article claims that the stolen artifacts may eventually wind up in London, Tokyo, or New York through dealers in the Persian Gulf, no mention is made of Tel Aviv, Amsterdam, Antwerp, and Bangkok -- the same cities involved with blood diamond smuggling out of Africa and the same network of cities that would be involved in relic smuggling out of Iraq. Bogdanos told the Post that of the most valued artifacts, "you're never going to see these in a gallery . . . no art dealer would ever touch them, because they're just too well known. We're talking about a black market. These pieces will never see the light of day."

The Post also reports that archeological sites outside of Baghdad are being systematically looted to this day. "Before and after" satellite photos of the sites point out holes denser than Swiss cheese. Bogdanos lamented that at least Saddam had looters of Iraqi archeological sites shot. Bogdanos, a Manhattan prosecutor, is writing a book, The Thieves of Baghdad, about the looting. Bogdanos may or may not be aware that he will soon join the ranks of other whistleblowers and be on the receiving end of the wrath of the neo-cons that run the White House, State Department, and Pentagon.

Just consider how far the United States has sunk since the end of World War II. America launched the Safehaven Program to recover European art looted by the Nazis. Today, the United States aids and abets the looting of art and treasures thousands of years older than the European art it helped salvage some 60 years ago. In days past, U.S. military and intelligence, including the Office of Strategic Services, the forerunner of the CIA, helped recover and restitute historical treasures looted by the likes of Hermann Goering and Alfred Rosenberg. American generals like Dwight Eisenhower, Omar Bradley, and George Patton, Jr., personally oversaw the recovery and return of artwork seized by the Nazis.

Compare those truly professional military leaders to Generals Tommy Franks and Vincent Brooks, who blandly shrugged off the looting of Iraqi museums and one starts to understand what Saddam Hussein was getting at when he compared the current U.S. armed forces to the Mongol hordes. To make matters worse, Brooks lied at a Central Command briefing when he stated to the world's media that, "We remain committed to preserving the rich culture and heritage and the resources of the Iraqi people." If Brooks were telling the truth, which he was not, contingency plans would have been put into effect to protect Iraqi centers of art and antiquities the minute U.S. troops entered Baghdad.

It is clear that by aiding and abetting the looting of Iraqi art and antiquities the United States military violated Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Article 2 (g) of Optional Protocol I of 1977 to the 1949 Geneva Conventions. The International Criminal Court in The Hague should begin proceedings to investigate whether or not to charge U.S. military and government officials with criminally violating international law prohibiting the willful destruction of cultural heritage. The United States and Britain have always shown a disdain for the protection of cultural heritage. They are among the few nations of the world to have refused signing The Hague Convention on the protection of cultural heritage during hostilities. Ironically, that convention was ratified by France, Germany, Canada, Russia, Belgium, Greece, Turkey, Norway, Finland, Belarus, Austria, China, India, Iran, Indonesia, Cuba, Brazil, Mexico, Syria, and other countries that refused to be a party to Bush's "coalition of the willing." And to make matters worse, The Hague Convention was also ratified by Saddam Hussein's government, making the so-called "Baghdad Butcher" legally more committed to the protection of cultural heritage than either the Americans or British.

INTERPOL, which already has an arrest warrant out for Ahmed Chalabi, the Pentagon's favorite to become the future leader of Iraq, should immediately issue White Notices on all stolen Iraqi cultural objects. UNESCO, INTERPOL, and the European Union should jointly combine their activities to identify stolen items that might wind up in American, British, Israeli, or other hands. Arrest warrants should be issued appropriately.

America's turning the siege of Baghdad into the pillaging of Baghdad should be condemned by every nation and person. The study of human history, indeed, humanity's very birthright, has suffered a terrible blow from the Bush regime. No amount of monetary compensation from oil revenues will ever compensate the Iraqi people, the Arab nation, and the world for the loss of a crucial record of world civilization. The Bush regime and its modern-day Mongol vandals must be made to account for their crimes against humanity.
 

no1important

Time Out
Jan 9, 2003
4,125
0
36
57
Vancouver
members.shaw.ca
RE: BushCo crimes - lets

Are Americans the New Mongols of the Mideast?

Short answer yes.

Unlike past conflicts America will not be able to, in this day and age, write the history books in their favour. The world knows their true colours now. Many generations will remember George "W" Bush and his lackey's as evil evil people along the side as fellow nutcases like Stalin, Hitler, Amin, Nero, Napoleon, to name a few.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
Re: RE: BushCo crimes - lets

no1important said:
Are Americans the New Mongols of the Mideast?

Short answer yes.

Unlike past conflicts America will not be able to in this day and age write the history books in their favour. The world knows their true colours now.

abslutely.........and people are a lot more savvy these days. Plus the information flow /availability is such that people as a rule are a lot more informed/sophisticated now.......

(what is so weird ........it seems like the collective we are watching the u.s..(mongols?) go backwards. .......regress in society, culture, law and every other aspect. and trying not to get caught in the tail wind )
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
Re: RE: BushCo crimes - lets

no1important said:
I did not see you posted this story. I posted it in another thread but never the less, the american government is scum for doing this.

They bitch about how Saddam did it but they are no better. A country like America in theory should set an example, not follow the lead of what dictatorship country would do. But I guess America is heading towards dictatorship by the looks of it anyways.

ya know........one has to wonder how much of what the U.S. claims about other leaders is actually FACT. Seems the rule of thumb should be "verify' verify and verify ........from objective sources. ........as the US is a gang of lying warmongers with their own agenda to fullfill. Calling the kettle black?? (US style)
 

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
Re: RE: BushCo crimes - lets

Ocean Breeze said:
no1important said:
I did not see you posted this story. I posted it in another thread but never the less, the american government is scum for doing this.

They bitch about how Saddam did it but they are no better. A country like America in theory should set an example, not follow the lead of what dictatorship country would do. But I guess America is heading towards dictatorship by the looks of it anyways.

ya know........one has to wonder how much of what the U.S. claims about other leaders is actually FACT. Seems the rule of thumb should be "verify' verify and verify ........from objective sources. ........as the US is a gang of lying warmongers with their own agenda to fullfill. Calling the kettle black?? (US style)

I bet you SH was not doing as much as any other leader. Bush wanted the Iraqi oil from the onset. They make SH to be a monster. If they are sure about his criminal record, send him to the Hague and let everyone hear what he has to say. I think the US will be in a lot of Poo. More than it is in now.
 

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
RE: BushCo crimes - lets

Man. You are giving each other Christmas avatars and I am here being jealous.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
Re: RE: BushCo crimes - lets

moghrabi said:
Ocean Breeze said:
no1important said:
I did not see you posted this story. I posted it in another thread but never the less, the american government is scum for doing this.

They bitch about how Saddam did it but they are no better. A country like America in theory should set an example, not follow the lead of what dictatorship country would do. But I guess America is heading towards dictatorship by the looks of it anyways.

ya know........one has to wonder how much of what the U.S. claims about other leaders is actually FACT. Seems the rule of thumb should be "verify' verify and verify ........from objective sources. ........as the US is a gang of lying warmongers with their own agenda to fullfill. Calling the kettle black?? (US style)

I bet you SH was not doing as much as any other leader. Bush wanted the Iraqi oil from the onset. They make SH to be a monster. If they are sure about his criminal record, send him to the Hague and let everyone hear what he has to say. I think the US will be in a lot of Poo. More than it is in now.


I think you have that one pegged accurately. They cannot afford to send him to Hague........as the REAL truth would have to come out and they would be in more trouble than they are now. Many nations think this too. This is why the US wants to control everything Iraqi........but the controls are slipping away. I also think the americans would have preferred to have killed him(SH) as they slaughtered his sons. Dead men tell no tales and all that... Given the US propensity for major LIES>.........would be inclined to believe SH ......or at least consider what he has to say seriously. does not change the crimes he might have committed....... but the US is too gung ho about him and fabricate far too much to have any credibility. SH told the TRUTH about the WMD...........while the US lied. So what does that make the bush cabal and those that support it.???
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
Re: RE: BushCo crimes - lets

no1important said:
like the avatar Ocean :)

just for you..;-)

plan to change it once a week until after the new year... Variety is the spice of life.. :wink:
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
Monday 14 November 2005

The old chestnut has been hauled out in public again: if you do not support the war, if you do not support Bush, you are betraying our troops and giving aid and comfort to the enemy. It's an oldie but a goodie. It is worthwhile, in the face of this resurgent nonsense, to take a long, hard look at what "aid and comfort" really is.

George W. Bush's decision to invade and occupy Iraq - and it was his decision, as he made clear when he said it was "perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war" in his ham-fisted Veterans Day speech last week - has done more to increase the fortunes of al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden than any war critic ever could.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq has created a rallying point for extremists all across the Muslim world, and has given them a marvelous opportunity to refine their murderous craft by constructing bombs that kill American soldiers and Iraqi civilians every single day. There were no al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq before this occupation. Now, there are lots of them, and they are getting plenty of practice.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq allowed Osama "bin Dead and Alive" Laden to slip the noose set for him in Afghanistan. We had him cornered up there in the mountains near the Pakistani border, but our best troops and equipment were pulled out and sent to Iraq instead. Maybe Osama is already dead - like his friend Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who has been reported killed approximately four hundred and thirteen times, only to constantly resurface as the mastermind of a dozen bombings and attacks - and maybe not. The fact that he was never captured, tried and convicted for his crimes, the fact that he may still be out there, is a boon to those who have flocked to his banner. Aid and comfort indeed.

The decision to allow the torture of detainees in Iraq - a decision that came directly from both Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, according to former administration outsider Lawrence Wilkerson - gave the world the horrific images of Abu Ghraib. When those photographs hit the Arab street, they provided inspiration for thousands of people in Iraq and elsewhere to give their lives to the idea that killing American soldiers is a nifty and necessary thing to do. It was the best recruitment drive for al Qaeda that could have ever been conceived.

And there are more photographs to come.

The decision to invade Iraq has made the world less safe. Look at the wreckage left behind by the bombing of those hotels in Jordan last week. The perpetrators were not hardened al Qaeda veterans who learned to fight in the Hindu Kush by killing Russians on behalf of the Reagan administration. The perpetrators were all Iraqis. Mr. Bush's misbegotten adventure in Iraq has left the nest, and is spreading out into the wider world.

The decision by Bush and his administration to use wildly questionable sources in order to scare the American people into supporting the war has been a great aid and comfort to those who now kill American soldiers so far from home. Take, for example, the use by Bush and his people of the information provided by Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi (whose name, loosely translated, means "I've been a shaky alibi"). Al-Libi told his interrogators that al Qaeda was all over the place in Iraq before the war. A multitude of intelligence officials, including the folks at the Defense Intelligence Agency, warned that al-Libi was lying through his teeth. It turns out, in the end, that he was; he recanted all of his testimony in 2004. Yet even with these warnings, Bush & Co. used his words to justify their war.

Now here's a good question: why would al-Libi lie about an al Qaeda presence in Iraq? Could it be that he did so in order to provide Bush with justification for an attack? Could it be that al-Libi and his masters wanted Bush to invade Iraq, so bin Laden could get his international rallying cry while simultaneously disposing of Saddam Hussein, whom bin Laden hated and despised?

In other words, did Bush do exactly, precisely what Osama bin Laden wanted him to?

The decision by Bush to chuck up this invasion and occupation has made the United States wildly vulnerable. The US military is in horrible shape; recruitment is down to historic lows, veterans whose wisdom and expertise are necessary for the care and maintenance of the line are refusing to re-enlist, and the Treasury has been utterly looted. There are enemies of this country out there, and there are threats of dire consequence. The damage done to our fighting men and women, to the military institutions that protect us, has left us dangerously unable to respond should one of those enemies choose to make a move.

Finally, Bush's close and cuddly friendship with the House of Saud has been an incredible aid and comfort to terrorists throughout the world. Saudi Arabia, with its vast revenues and its Wahabbist extremism, is the birthing bed of international terrorism. Yet nary a word is whispered about this, because the House of Saud and the House of Bush have been umbilically connected for decades. Our worst enemies, our deadliest foes, the enablers of those who would kill and maim among our soldiers and civilians, have an open invitation to dinner at the White House every time they decide to go to Washington.

But that's just business, right?

George Washington once said, "The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional as to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were Treated and Appreciated by their nation." Defenders of the Bush administration can argue that war critics are harming our troops until their faces turn blue. The real harm being done to our troops, the real aid and comfort being provided to the enemy, is not coming from the Democratic party or from the activist street. It is coming from the very men and women who hide behind the troops, who use such rhetoric to deflect the consequences of their folly.

Don't let it stand.

the fact that bush did OBL and his ilk a favor is a no brainer. Amazing that it is FINALLY being addressed. bush played right into OBL's hand. But that is only part of the equation. Bush needs OBL and the "terrorist" factor to keep threatening and warring on nations. How convenient an excuse as he goes about with his own imperialistic agenda. All he needed was an "enemy"......one that he could play as he wished to invade/kill/torture and maim.

( and some really believe that the Iraq invasion was about "liberation". :roll: :roll: The only real liberation that has taken place is the Iraqis from their lives ......in multiples. The other, of course is from their freedom as they are rounded up , imprisoned.....(oh yes, and tortured too. Added bonus from Eagle Nation) Then we have the liberation of Iraqis from their limbs, leaving them handicapped for life. Liberation from their cultural buildings, artifacts..... is "liberation" too.

How sadistic that they would even consider Iraqis greeting the Eagle WARRIORS with hearts and flowers. Such pompous arrogance has not been seen since the Roman hay day.
 

no1important

Time Out
Jan 9, 2003
4,125
0
36
57
Vancouver
members.shaw.ca
RE: BushCo crimes - lets

Dick Cheney lambasts Iraq critics

US Vice-President Dick Cheney has launched a vitriolic attack on politicians who accuse the White House of misusing intelligence over Iraq.

Mr Cheney resorted to language far stronger than any used before by the Bush administration.

He said the opposition Democrats were cynical opportunists whose behaviour was dishonest and reprehensible.

As a principal architect of the war, the vice-president has come in for a good deal of personal criticism.

Cheney is as crazy as "W".
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
Re: RE: BushCo crimes - lets

no1important said:
Dick Cheney lambasts Iraq critics

US Vice-President Dick Cheney has launched a vitriolic attack on politicians who accuse the White House of misusing intelligence over Iraq.

Mr Cheney resorted to language far stronger than any used before by the Bush administration.

He said the opposition Democrats were cynical opportunists whose behaviour was dishonest and reprehensible.

As a principal architect of the war, the vice-president has come in for a good deal of personal criticism.

Cheney is as crazy as "W".

indeed........... and it is so OBVIOUS that all he is doing is protecting his own butt.......by deflecting the issues onto the critics...... (or trying to). Have never trusted him.........too sleazy....(and yes.....sleazier than bush.........if that is possible)
 

Karlin

Council Member
Jun 27, 2004
1,275
2
38
http://tinyurl.com/85nf6[url] [quot...have been arrested for a lot less in America.
 

Karlin

Council Member
Jun 27, 2004
1,275
2
38
Re: BushCo crimes -Tokyo Court link found

http://tinyurl.com/4t5sw[url] I ...rab Bush when he was in Japan this week past?
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
After U.S. troops failed to find weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq, which had been the Bush administration’s primary reason for invading Iraq, one of the president’s alternative rationales for his war has been the so-called magnet rationale. It goes like this: Even though we failed to find WMDs in Iraq, we’ll make Iraq the central front in the “war on terrorism” by making U.S. troops a “magnet” that will attract “the terrorists” to attack U.S. soldiers in Iraq rather than people in the United States.

But the magnet rationale raises an important question: Why is it moral to use an innocent country for such a purpose, especially when the targeted country is going to be thrown into chaos and destruction and tens of thousands of citizens of that country are going to be killed and maimed in the process?

We must never forget the most important facts about the Iraq War: Iraq never attacked the United States or even threatened to do so. Moreover, neither the Iraqi people nor their government participated in the 9/11 attacks. In this war, the United States was the aggressor nation.

President Bush’s primary rationale for waging his war of aggression, a type of war punished by the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, against Iraq was that Iraq’s ruler, Saddam Hussein, not only possessed WMDs but also was about to attack the United States with them. Bush and other U.S. officials marketed the war by terrifying the American people into believing that Saddam was about to unleash nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons on American cities. Bush, Vice-President Cheney, and other U.S. officials continually ridiculed UN inspections as incompetent and inadequate and constantly emphasized that Saddam Hussein was a liar when he denied possessing WMDs.

Soon after the invasion, when U.S. officials discovered that Saddam’s denials regarding WMDs had been true, they had two options. One option was to apologize for their mistake and immediately exit the country. That was not the option they chose. Instead, they continued waging war, killing and maiming countless Iraqi soldiers who were continuing to resist an invasion that had been based on a false premise and thousands of Iraqi civilians as “collateral damage.”

Permit me to digress once again to address the other alternative rationale that U.S. officials relied upon when the WMDs failed to materialize – that the invasion was mounted out of love and concern for the Iraqi people in order to liberate them from a dictator. All the circumstantial evidence leads to but one conclusion – that this alternative rationale is a lie. Recall the evidence: There was the Persian Gulf intervention, in which thousands of Iraqis were killed without any remorse on the part of U.S. officials. There was the Pentagon’s intentional destruction of Iraq’s water and sewage facilities, knowing that infection and disease would spread among the Iraqi people. There were the brutal sanctions that contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. There was the U.S. government position that the deaths of those children were “worth it.” There were the illegal no-fly zones in which more Iraqis were killed. And there were the torture, sex abuse, rape, and murder of Iraqis detained in U.S. prisons in Iraq, even after the fall of Saddam Hussein. I repeat: All the circumstantial evidence leads to an attitude of callous ruthlessness toward the Iraqi people on the part of U.S. officials, not love and concern for their freedom and welfare.

Let us return to the magnet rationale – that it’s better that U.S. troops fight “the terrorists” in Iraq rather than here in the United States.

But where is the morality and legality in using an innocent country to serve as a “war-on-terrorism” magnet, especially when the use of a country for that purpose generates even more terrorism? If there is a war between “the terrorists” and the U.S. government, why should the Iraqi people be made to pay the price for such a war? Why should their homeland be devastated, their people killed, their museums ransacked, their economy destroyed, and their entire nation thrown into chaos and conflict? What did they have to do with the war between the U.S. government and the “terrorists”? Why was it right to use their nation as a terrorism magnet – attracting violent insurgents and suicide bombers – and even taunt the terrorists to “bring it on”? Where is the morality in the deaths and maiming of tens of thousands of Iraqi people, both military and civilian, as part of a “war on terrorism” that was no business of the Iraqi people? Where is the legality, under U.S. law or international law, of using Iraq for such a purpose?

Since neither the Iraqi people nor their government ever attacked the United States or even threatened to do so – and since their ruler had complied with the UN’s resolutions that required him to destroy his WMDs, they had a right to be left alone by the U.S. government. They had a right not to have their nation turned into a “magnet” for “the terrorists.” They had a right to be left out of the U.S. government’s “war on terrorism.”

No matter how brutal Saddam was, that was the business of the Iraqi people, not the business of the U.S. government, just as brutal dictators in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Iran, Syria, North Korea, China, Vietnam, Cuba, and Venezuela are the business of citizens of those countries, not the business of the U.S. government.

Some argue that the solution to all this is simply for U.S. troops to exit Iraq. That’s not enough. The only genuine foreign policy solution is to dismantle the U.S. Empire, end the U.S. government’s role as international policeman, interloper, and aggressor, and restore a constitutional republic to our land along with the peace, stability, prosperity, and harmony that would come with it.


Now this article brought something important "home"......and it is the fecking arrogance that the bush con savages have operated on. How dare they decide that some far off nation should be the terrorist magnet , so the US can fight these so called terrorists over there instead of at home where the fight should be fought. (IF there is a fight at all) What fecking right does the US have to take a nation and destroy it the way it has Iraq for its own selfish purposes??? It has NO FECKING RIGHT AT ALL. How would the US like it if some other nation did that to them??? Myopic america just can't see beyond its own selfish self , now can it??The MAGNET RATIONALE???? Destroying a far off nation for selfish purposes ??? Is there NO ethical/moral standard in the USREGIME anymore??
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
Lest we forget the lies that were expressed so emphatically in order to invade another nation that posed NO threat to the US...

the debate about the intelligence used to go into Iraq is a vital national debate.

Specifically, upon what intelligence did the Adminstration base the following statements?

"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03

"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03


"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
• President Bush, 11/3/02

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
• President Bush, 11/1/02

"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
• President Bush, 10/28/02

"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
• President Bush, 10/7/02

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
• President Bush, 9/26/02

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02



Where was the evidence?!?!?

easy to forget the words used at the time..... They sound even more rediculous now.