Genocide???

[I think not]

Be patient it isn't over yet.

Obviously not.

But when people start taking it out on Americans and some get a feeling of animosity for America on opinionated message boards, understand that it's because of the people you elect to government and the blase attitude you have when you know they commit war crimes among other things.

War crimes being committed is your personal opinion. War crimes are thrown around just as easily as genocide. Why not utilize the ICC?

Sooner or later a President will come along with the nads to change the laws changed by these thugs you respect and admire so much. Then perhaps an investigation will go ahead and justice will be done.

Which laws need to be changed? Please elaborate. I admire no one in government, from our pathetic President down to our janitor in the White House. I distrust government. Period.

 

[EagleSmack]

Dang... even the janitor! You're tough.

 

[#juan]

Lifting the Iraq Embargo After Almost 2 Million Deaths
What Have We Learned From the Embargo's Lessons?
May 28, 2003
On May 22, 2003, the United Nations Security Council passed resolution 1483 finally lifting the 12-year embargo on Iraq. The United Nations had imposed a comprehensive ban on trade with Iraq on August 6, 1990, under resolution 661, amounting to a complete siege on the country. The embargo was then enforced by a military land, air, and sea blockade. This blockade continued until the end of the recent 2003 war, with land border checkpoints in Jordan, naval interdiction of ships, and no-fly zones imposed in the north and south of the country.
After the imposition of the embargo, a devastating bombing campaign against Iraq in 1991 destroyed the country's civilian infrastructure (water, sewage, and electrical power infrastructure, among other sectors). Much of the diseases rampant in Iraq are due to the destruction of the civilian infrastructure and lack of spare parts in the 1991 war. Some of which was modestly repaired between 1991 and 2003, was destroyed again in the 2003 war. Contaminated drinking water and lack of electricity for hospitals are a major cause of the suffering for Iraq’s twenty five million people today.
In addition, the depleted uranium (DU) shells used in both the 1991 and 2003 wars have caused a significant increase in radiation-related cancers and birth defects. Iraq still does not have the necessary tools (primarily due to the embargo) to clean up the DU contamination.
What Was Destroyed in War
The 2003 war can only be a continuation of what happened in 1991, since the 12-year embargo did not allow the rebuilding of what was destroyed then. The 1991 war destroyed or severely damaged the following sectors of the civilian infrastructure, and the 12-year embargo prevented its the proper reconstruction:
1) Drinking water infrastructure
2) Sewage system
3) Electrical power grid
4) National healthcare infrastructure (more than 100 hospitals and healthcare centers destroyed)
5) National education system (over 4,000 schools, institutes, colleges, universities destroyed)
6) Transportation sector (air traffic banned, sea vessels damaged, railroad cars & trucks crumbling)
7) Telecommunications (telephone exchanges and transmitters destroyed)
8) Textile and other light industries (factories destroyed)
9) Pharmaceutical sector (factories destroyed and components and ingredients banned by embargo)
10) Social fabric and modernity (modern society reduced to sufficing with obtaining food and medicine only)
Summary of the Effects
According to the humanitarian reports, the ongoing embargo imposed in 1990, coupled with the destruction caused by the 1991 Gulf war, has in turn directly caused the following:
1) As of March 2003 (just prior to the war), between 1.7 and 2 million Iraqi civilians have died due to malnutrition and disease, about 700,000 of them are children. Health Ministry documents under-5 and over-50 deaths due to disease and/or malnutrition at 1.7 million. If over-5 and under-50 age sectors are added, which is well over 500,000 deaths, that makes the total number of deaths over 2 million. Estimates of deaths due to the 2003 war range from 10,000 to 100,000.
2) Prior to the 2003 war, 1.5 million children were made orphans.
3) Prior to the 2003 war, 10,000 Iraqi civilians were dying every month (half of which were children). That amounted to 333 deaths a day, or 14 deaths an hour. An Iraqi civilian died from malnutrition and disease every 4 minutes. Since the 2003 war caused even more destruction of the civilian infrastructure (water, electricity, etc), coupled with the extensive of anti-personnel cluster bombs dropped on Iraq, and the mass lootings of hospitals and pharmacies, this average will be greatly skewed for the initial months after the 2003 war, until such a time when the civilian infrastructure is properly rebuilt.
4) The combination of the destruction of the water pipes and the water pumping stations in the 1991 war and the looting after the 2003 war, coupled with the lack of chlorine and electricity to re-activate the pumps for over 12 years due largely to the embargo, all make clean drinking water widely unavailable today in Iraq, and thereby creating a dangerous recipe for a rapid spread of infectious diseases and possible epidemics. Prior to 1990, over 90% of Iraqis has access to clean drinking water, whereas it was between 33-50% just prior to the 2003 war (1999 UN Report).
5) The destruction of the national medical healthcare system has been one of the largest single contributors to the death and disease in Iraq. Over 100 hospitals and healthcare centers were destroyed in the 1991 war. Prior to 1990, over 90% of Iraqis had access to high quality medical care, free of charge, whereas as the majority of Iraqis lack it now (1999 UN Report).
6) The destruction of the national school system in the 1991 war has caused a sharp decline in the overall literacy rate. Half of Iraq's schools (4,000 out of 8,000) were bombed. The remaining schools (4,000) sharply decayed and became dilapidated due to the 12-year embargo. This lack of enough schools coupled with Iraq's growing population, made the problem even worse. When Iraq had over 8,000 functioning schools in 1990, the country's population was about 18 million. Now that Iraq's population is well over 25 million, the number of functioning schools is less than a quarter of what it was in 1990. This severe shortage of schools has caused a sharp increase in the illiteracy rate and led to children wandering in the streets. Prior to 1990, over 80% of Iraqis could read and write, whereas now the school attendance is almost 50% (1999 UN report).
7) Prior to the 2003 war, the local Iraqi currency (dinar) had been decimated as a result of U.S. counterfeiting efforts, the 1991 destruction of the civilian infrastructure, and the 12-year embargo which banned foreign (hard) currency from legally entering the country. The combination of the counterfeiting, bombing, and embargo has caused the value of the dinar to drop from its original value of just over three dollars to being worth 1/20th of a cent (20 dinars makes a cent), just prior to the 2003 war.
8) Prior to the fall of the former government, Iraq was essentially a massive welfare state. The state employed over a million people and provided food coupons for over 80% of Iraq's 25 million people. The fall of the government meant the effective end of this welfare state. In addition, the U.S. administration's firing of hundreds of thousands of paid state employees has made the situation even worse. The government employees, who were barely living above the starvation level, are now unemployed and income-less.
9) Clearly the most short-sighted decision taken yet by the U.S. administration in Baghdad was to totally dissolve Iraq's military, leaving its employees with no compensation at all. That decision meant that over half a million ex-military men were left to starve, along with their families. Since the typical Iraqi family is made of at least five members, that meant at least 2.5 million Iraqis were left to starve. What would prevent these starving men from armed revolt to avoid starvation? Anyone with some common sense would have devised a plan to either retire these men with some type of retirement income to prevent them from starving and revolting, or offering them new jobs as policemen or the like, similar to what the U.S. military did with the former Japanese soldiers after World War 2. This decision is indeed a recipe for disaster.
Unfortunately Iraq is to remain a military occupied zone for the forseeable future. The new UN Security Council resolution 1483, in essence handed the administration of Iraq to the U.S. and Britain "as occupying powers under unified command [now called] (the 'Authority')." It also states that other countries "now or in the future may work under the Authority…by contributing personnel, equipment, and other resources under the Authority."
Although, the resolution calls for "a process leading to an internationally recognized, representative government of Iraq," it does not place any time limits or bench marks for this to happen. In other words, the U.S. and British military occupation can take as long as they want to before forming a new Iraqi government. And although paragraph 25 calls for a "review [of] the implementation of this resolution within twelve months of adoption," it does not specifically place any deadlines whatsoever to establish an Iraqi government. In other words, Iraq is now the property of the U.S. and British militaries, with no deadline or specified timeframe of when Iraq can be free and independent.
The text referring to the lifting of the 12-year embargo is in paragraphs 10 and 16 of resolution 1483, which specifically voided the original embargo resolution 661 of 1990 and the so-called "oil-for-food" resolution 986 of 1995, which allowed the UN to control Iraq's oil exports. The resolution honored the current 6-month UN oil plan, but specifically dissolved the UN oil program and handed over all responsibility and monies over to the newly formed Development Bank administered by the US and British military authority.
A very strange paragraph in this resolution obliges Iraq to continuing paying 5% of its oil revenues to the 1991 war compensation fund. According to the UN's official website as of 5-20-2003, Iraq has already paid almost 20 billion dollars to this compensation fund established under resolution 687 in 1991.
Resolution 986 of 1995 originally ordered Iraq to pay one-third of its UN oil plan to this compensation fund. This 33% percent of Iraq's oil revenue was paid from December 1996 until December 2000. After December 2000, the percentage was changed to 25%. The latest resolution, 1483, now sets this compensation to 5%.
Since Iraq already has paid almost 20 billion dollars to a host of nations and multinational corporations, why is Iraq still ordered to pay this compensation, especially when Iraq badly needs the money to repair its civilian infrastructure still suffering from the 1991 war? Further, since the UN did NOT authorize the 2003 war, thereby making it an illegal war, why should Iraq be forced to continue pay compensation, when it itself deserves compensation for being attacked in the 2003 war?
The ironic part in all this is the original embargo resolution 661 of 1990 stated that it would be lifted after Iraq left Kuwait. After the 1991 war, the conditions for lifting the embargo were the so-called "weapons of mass destruction." The 12-year embargo was maintained and justified by this unsubstantiated excuse. It is quite clear now after the 2003 war that those weapons were destroyed immediately after the 1991 war. The reason why the U.S. and British military failed to prove or find any prohibited weapons in Iraq, after the 2003 invasion, was because there weren't any. The 2003 war clearly proved what earlier UN reports and weapons inspectors like Scott Ritter had said all along, that Iraq destroyed its weapons in the early years after the 1991 war, and that Iraq was effectively disarmed by the mid-1990's.
In other words, the excuse of "weapons of mass destruction" used to maintain this crippling embargo for 12-years and then to invade Iraq, was just that, an excuse, not backed up by any facts. Twelve years of starvation and deprivation was justified by non-existent weapons. Almost 2 million Iraqis died needlessly due to the embargo for an imaginary excuse, called "weapons of mass destruction."
The 2003 war proved that the 12-year embargo itself was the only real weapon of mass destruction in Iraq, a weapon that the Iraqi people are still paying a high price for and still suffering from this failed policy built on misinformation and/or disinformation.
This embargo has killed so many and devasted the lives of almost all Iraqis. Almost everyone is in agreement that lifting the embargo is a good thing. It is long overdue, but still a good thing. Nevertheless the sufferings and injustices of the embargo has left a permanent mark on Iraqi society. This should help explain the phenomenon of why not many Iraqis are celebrating this long overdue action.
Many Iraqis are asking "Who will compensate the families of almost 2 million Iraqis who needlessly died for this terrible policy of maintaining the embargo for 12 years?" That injustice remains as a legacy for a failed policy that we as a nation should learn from, in order to avoid similar mistakes in the future.
The most important lesson that we should learn from this catastrophe is that embargos (sanctions) do NOT work to force behavioral changes from governments, rather they only hurt and kill innocent civilians. Let us hope we never again use embargos (sanctions) as a tool of foreign policy.
© 2003 All Rights Reserved by FAAIR.
www.faair.org
Extracted 06/09/03 from Focus on American and Arab Interests and Relations

 

[gopher]

Comments?


Perhaps most significantly, Lew Rockwell is a conservative so that none of the pro war crowd can accuse him of any form of anti-American bias.

 

[Unforgiven]

Obviously not.



War crimes being committed is your personal opinion. War crimes are thrown around just as easily as genocide. Why not utilize the ICC?



Which laws need to be changed? Please elaborate. I admire no one in government, from our pathetic President down to our janitor in the White House. I distrust government. Period.

Well for starters the US is not a member of the ICC. the Bush administration has fought tooth and nail against the creation of the ICC and having failed at that, bullied nations to keep the administration from the purview of the Court.

For the past four years, the Bush Administration has systematically set out to exempt the United States from the purview of the International Criminal Court. Using bullying tactics, it has often gotten its way. But at a cost.

President Bush's disdain for the International Criminal Court has been clear all along. His Administration did everything in its power to sabotage its creation.
Having failed in that effort, it set out to twist the arms of governments the world over to sign bilateral agreements ensuring that they would not send U.S. personnel up to the court for prosecution.

"Our ultimate goal is to conclude [these] agreements with every country in the world, regardless of whether they have signed or ratified the ICC, regardless of whether they intend to in the future," John Bolton, then-undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, remarked in 2002.

Today, about 100 countries have abided by the Bush Administration's wishes, but more than fifty countries have publicly refused, including two dozen that have lost aid in the process.

These agreements that the Bush Administration has been pressuring countries to sign exempt all U.S. citizens-including servicemembers and government officials-from being brought before the International Criminal Court, without a promise that the United States would itself prosecute its citizens for any crimes committed. To maintain a façade of give-and-take, these agreements are often reciprocal.

"Under these agreements, all U.S. nationals and non-nationals employed by the U.S. government must be granted blanket immunity;" says Golzar Kheiltash, legal analyst with Citizens for Global Solutions. "So a Kenyan mercenary in Kenya hired by the U.S. government could not be handed over to the ICC."
This diplomatic effort has been run by the State Department at the behest of the White House.

"Bolton has orchestrated the campaign with the support of Cheney," says John Washburn, director of ICC Programs at the United Nations Association of the United States of America.

The old Republican Congress passed legislation to punish countries that did not sign on the dotted line, even when doing so undermined other foreign policy goals.

Two major pieces of legislation ensured this. The American Servicemembers' Protection Act halts particular kinds of military aid to countries that refused to toe the Bush Administration line. And the Nethercutt Amendment cuts off certain types of economic aid for countries unwilling to sign such agreements, including assistance related to disability issues, the promotion of democracy, and the curbing of human trafficking.

"The U.S. administration has pressured states worldwide, including its closest allies, to enter into bilateral agreements, to compel them not to surrender U.S. nationals and persons working for the U.S. government to the ICC," Human Rights Watch stated in December 2005. "Indeed, the United States has threatened to suspend both military and economic assistance for states ... that refuse to enter into such agreements."

The heavy-handed tactics of the Bush Administration have increased antagonisms and sowed resentment, especially in Latin America.

"In my own fifty years' experience of watching U.S.-Latin American relations, I have never known an Administration as disliked as this one," says Larry Birns, director of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs.

"The U.S. has had to deploy muscle to achieve its objectives," adds Birns. "It has had to go mano a mano and tell these countries that it is a high priority for the Bush Administration that they waive the right to bring U.S. personnel before the International Criminal Court for prosecution."

Take Costa Rica.
"We may be poor, but we have our dignity;" then-Costa Rican Foreign Minister Roberto Tovar said in 2005. He stated that this agreement was "offensive" and that his country would "not undermine the ICC." For its audacity; the country lost more than $400,000 in training aid for its security forces.

Peru was no different.
"Peru will not sign any agreement that impedes it from submitting any country's citizens to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court," then-Foreign Minister Manuel Rodriguez remarked in 2004. "Peru rejects pressure from any country on its foreign policy." Peruvian lawmaker Javier Diez Canseco opined that "signing the agreement would represent sacrificing Peru's principles and sovereignty." As a result, Peru has lost $4 million in military funds and is slated to lose as much as $8 million in economic support funds for fiscal year 2006, including money for reforming democracy, combating narco-terrorism, and supporting the country's Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Ecuador also held off Washington.
"Absolutely no one is going to make me cower," then-Ecuadorian President Alfredo Palacio told a television station in June 2005. "Neither the government, nor Alfredo Palacio, nor the Ecuadorian people need to be afraid."
"The U.S. has the democratic right to deny help to nations with which we do not have protection for our military," then-U.S. Ambassador to Ecuador Kristie Kenney said. But U.S. browbeating of successive Ecuadorian governments had the opposite of the intended effect, uniting the country's politicians against the United States. Ecuador has lost more than $17 million in military training and is scheduled to lose $7 million in economic assistance in the current fiscal year, including money for democracy-building and fighting corruption.

The Bahamas partially buckled.
Then-U.S. Ambassador to the Bahamas Richard Blankenship told the country's government in 2003 that if the Bahamas did not sign an agreement, a considerable amount of American aid would be withheld, including assistance for building an airport runway, important to a country heavily dependent on tourism. "You try not ever to be in the position to compromise by coercion on your sovereignty," said Prime Minister Perry Christie. Due to U.S. pressure, the Bahamas has still not ratified the International Criminal Court treaty.

Nearby, Barbados has stood its ground.
"We will not change our principles for any amount of money," Barbados's then-Ambassador to the OAS Michael King said in 2005. "We're not going to [go] belly up for $300,000 in training funds." Barbados lost $1.7 million in military aid for fiscal year 2005 as a result of its defiance.

Countries outside of Latin America have also disobeyed Washington.
Public figures and politicians across the board in Kenya condemned U.S. pressure. Kenyan member of parliament Paul Muite said that "America is being utterly immoral" in refusing to join the International Criminal Court and in trying to "blackmail" economically weak countries like Kenya. It "is really very, very insulting to our sovereignty, to our sense of self-respect," Muite added. Kenya has lost $7.8 million in aid, and stands to lose another $15 million in the current fiscal year.

Even before the November elections, there had been noises made both by Democrats and Republicans-including from within the Bush Administration itself-that punishing countries for not signing bilateral agreements is hurting the United States. They want to make sure the U.S. military maintains its traditional close ties with countries around the world (ties that have not always served the people of those countries well). The main concern: China is filling the strategic void left by the United States.

"Decreasing engagement opens the door for competing nations and outside political actors who may not share our democratic principles," General Bantz J. Craddock, head of U.S. Southern Command, testified before Congress in March 2006 in a clear allusion to China.

"We need, perhaps in this committee, to not only sound the alarm, but try to demand or suggest a much more comprehensive approach," affirmed Senator Hillary Clinton. "Because I think that's sending exactly the wrong signal, and it's provided a big opening."

"We have paid a very heavy price in countries where we have cut off these programs for various reasons," Senator John McCain joined in, referring to countries turning toward China for assistance. "And these relationships, obviously, are very vital if we're going to effectively conduct a war on terror."

Even Condoleezza Rice separately expressed reservations. On a trip to Puerto Rico, she said that the Administration's position was "in a sense, sort of the same as shooting ourselves in the foot." She added, "I think we just have to look at it. And we're certainly reviewing it, and we'll consult with Congress about it."

In early October, Congress passed an amendment to the American Servicemembers' Protection Act and Bush issued an executive order waiving the prohibition on military training aid for twenty-one nations, eleven of them in Latin America and the Caribbean.

This "signified recognition on the part of the Administration that it was harming itself by the prohibition on training aid," says Kheiltash.

Representative Eliot Engel, Democrat of New York, has introduced a bill to repeal the legislation that coerces countries into signing these bilateral agreements.

"The change in Congress brings high hopes," says Kheiltash. "The new members are less ideological, and we're hoping that the 110th Congress will bring about a total recall of the bilateral agreements campaign."
​

 

[EagleSmack]

Even though Sadaam purposely starved his people so he could bring foreign journalist in with their cameras to film hospitals to blame it on sanctions. All this while building massive mansions for himself and keeping every bit of cash for himself and his cohorts. Remember oil for food?

 

[Unforgiven]

Even though Sadaam purposely starved his people so he could bring foreign journalist in with their cameras to film hospitals to blame it on sanctions. All this while building massive mansions for himself and keeping every bit of cash for himself and his cohorts. Remember oil for food?

Well that's their problem isn't it?
Nothing happens to France, Russia or the US for supplying weapons and supporting this dictator when he was kicking on Iran. Maybe if he wasn't supported internationaly as he was, then he wouldn't be able to position himself so that he could go ahead and do that.

 

[I think not]

Well for starters the US is not a member of the ICC.

I realize that, but weighing in that logic, neither is Iraq. So no what?

the Bush administration has fought tooth and nail against the creation of the ICC and having failed at that, bullied nations to keep the administration from the purview of the Court.

Bullied nations? In other words, damned if you do damned if you don't. I'm not buying it. Bullying nations because the Third World Traveler says so, isn't good enough. It's a left wing magazine, and a lying one at that, as much as the extreme right wing is, so I wouldn't use that as a credible source.

Besides, let's assume what they say is true, where is everybody else? Why doesn't a group of countries get together and present arguments at the ICC anyway? The political fallout would be enormous.

But you didn't answer my question, which laws need to changed? I'd really like to know what your opinion is.

 

[Zzarchov]

I put the question out there again. Since 1.2 million Iraqis have died as a result of the bloody sanctions and the violence of, and because of the invasion, and the overthrow of Saddam, why has no one called that genocide?

Because they aren't retarded. Seriously your stretching it.

You know why they don't charge YOU (Juan) with premeditated murder when someone dies of not having a kidney donor of your type and you didn't donate?

Because its not.

1.) The Sanctions are Saddams fault and the people of Iraq's fault for enforcing them. The Kurds rebelled and were not party. The Sunni kept him in power and helped him supress violently the majority of the populace and wage war on foreign nations.

And even still, the Sanctions didn't kill anyone. They kept people from being saved, but that isn't the same thing is it?

By not anonymously donating a piece of your Kidney Juan, you are keeping someone from being saved. IF you consider the Sanctions murder, then you Juan, should be charged with Murder.

2.) Because of the Invasion? Hardly. The bloodshed and sectarian violence had gone on under Saddam too. Even when the Invasion stopped, who is killing the most Iraqi's? Other Iraqis.

Just because the place is ****e doesn't mean you kill your neighbour. If things go bad here, does that mean its anyones fault but my own If I personally choose to kill my neighbour because I don't like his race?

Personal responsibility Juan. Lack of police presence is not excuse to commit a capital crime.



So, are you just trying to purposely lie to people into agreeing with you?

Or are you saying that as long as you wont get caught its ok to murder people..and that you consider yourself a murderer, since you sanction people your kidney parts?


Im betting the former.

 

[Unforgiven]

I realize that, but weighing in that logic, neither is Iraq. So no what?



Bullied nations? In other words, damned if you do damned if you don't. I'm not buying it. Bullying nations because the Third World Traveler says so, isn't good enough. It's a left wing magazine, and a lying one at that, as much as the extreme right wing is, so I wouldn't use that as a credible source.

Besides, let's assume what they say is true, where is everybody else? Why doesn't a group of countries get together and present arguments at the ICC anyway? The political fallout would be enormous.

But you didn't answer my question, which laws need to changed? I'd really like to know what your opinion is.

Weigh in a little deeper.
The US isn't a member of the ICC for a reason. Plenty of other countries are members like the UK, Canada, Australia, France, Germany and some 100 other nations. But to be a member you must acknowledge some specific rights covered in the Rome Statute. Which puts the US in violation with the Court through actions in Iraq.

Actually a more accurate statement would be damned if you commit war crimes. That, very few nations have the wherewithal to stand up and accuse the US of war crimes regardless of the consequences the US imposses upon them is far more intune with the values expressed by the founding fathers of the USA and signators of the Declaration Of Independance and the Constitution.

Regardless of the desires of the majority of American people wanting membership in the ICC and binding to the rules of the Rome Statute.
Article 98 agreements keep countries from turning over government officials, military, nationals and non nationals employed by the US. Not to do so has resulted in getting aid from the US cut.

You know, the old tell on me and no food game. Any one know who else played that game?

You could start by getting rid of the Hague Invasion Act would be a good start.
Get that together, come back and see me.

 

[#juan]

Because they aren't retarded. Seriously your stretching it.
Nonsense....at least try to get the grammar right.

You know why they don't charge YOU (Juan) with premeditated murder when someone dies of not having a kidney donor of your type and you didn't donate? Because its not.
I don't know what that has to do with the topic


1.) The Sanctions are Saddams fault and the people of Iraq's fault for enforcing them. The Kurds rebelled and were not party. The Sunni kept him in power and helped him supress violently the majority of the populace and wage war on foreign nations.
The sanctions were set up by the UN at the behest of the U.S.....I don't think anyone asked Saddam.

And even still, the Sanctions didn't kill anyone. They kept people from being saved, but that isn't the same thing is it? Baloney! The sanctions prevented people, particularly children from getting the medicines and other things they needed since the water and sanitary services had been bombed to hell.

By not anonymously donating a piece of your Kidney Juan, you are keeping someone from being saved. IF you consider the Sanctions murder, then you Juan, should be charged with Murder.
More nonsense that relates to nothing.

2.) Because of the Invasion? Hardly. The bloodshed and sectarian violence had gone on under Saddam too. Even when the Invasion stopped, who is killing the most Iraqi's? Other Iraqis.
The situation in Iraq was well known before the invasion. "Shock and awe" bombing did a lot of the killing.

Just because the place is ****e doesn't mean you kill your neighbour. If things go bad here, does that mean its anyones fault but my own If I personally choose to kill my neighbour because I don't like his race? Again, you are talking nonsense.

Personal responsibility Juan. Lack of police presence is not excuse to commit a capital crime.



So, are you just trying to purposely lie to people into agreeing with you?

I could care less if you agree with me.

Or are you saying that as long as you wont get caught its ok to murder people..and that you consider yourself a murderer, since you sanction people your kidney parts? I have no idea what my kidneys have to do with Iraq.


Im betting the former.

 

[Zzarchov]

Juan, feigning dumb isn't really appropriate on a debate forum is it?

Your logic is no one asked Saddam about Sanctions? Since when did he have the right to decide what goes on in Iraq?

When he took over with murder? Maybe when he murdered everyone who opposed him? Maybe when he asked Kuwait if he could invade? Maybe when he asked the Kurds if they wanted to be gassed? Maybe when he asked the Shia if they wanted to be butchered and hung from lamp posts?

You know what would have ended the Sanctions in 5 minutes? Saddam stepping down, his people removing him rather than locking in step to maintain an aparathied system where 20% of the population violently oppressed 80%?

No one asked Aparathied South Africa if we should sanction them either. Though I suppose you see the deaths that happened from those sanctions as wrong. Those white afrikaaners obviously aren't responsible for CAUSING the sanctions, no, its the fault of people for taking a moral stand.

Hey! Great Idea! Lets give free Aid to the Sudan so they can free up more money to kill non-Arabs who dare to live in Africa.

"The situation in Iraq was well known before the invasion. "Shock and awe" bombing did a lot of the killing."

two things wrong here. It was known, so what? Deaths happen either way.

And the second thing, before you said it was the sanctions fault? Got your misdirections crossed there?

You know why this bothers me? Because you know flat out your lying, your just trying to lie people to "your side" because you see people on the "other side" coming out with their own lies and emotional blackmail.

And I fully agree there is just as much emotional blackmail and lies on the "other side"

What bothers me, is it makes it impossible for anyone to have a reasonable conversation about the matter without one side calling your terrorists and the other side calling you Nazi's.



If you seriously think there is anything comparable to this military occupation and the Nazi Death Camps or Rwandan Death squads you sicken me.

You are spitting the face of everyone who did suffer through that, throwing the word around and devaluing it.

You know why this isn't genocide? Laymans 2 second test? Because the most powerful nuclear armed nation in the world is involved as the "perpetrator" and everyone in the area isn't dead.

Is this a war crime?

Ya, sure, you could argue that , you could have a reasonable debate on the difference between "war of aggression" and "Pre-emptive Strike" and "Fulfilling UN resolutions". You could even make the defining case.


But when you throw around Genocide like its the same thing as a traffic violation, when you equate military occupation (though unpleasant) with the suffering that people who actually survived a genocide went through, your belittling them for your own gains.

And you know this is what your doing, as you like to point out.

You're old enough to know better.

 

[Zzarchov]

Weigh in a little deeper.
Actually a more accurate statement would be damned if you commit war crimes. That, very few nations have the wherewithal to stand up and accuse the US of war crimes regardless of the consequences the US imposses upon them is far more intune with the values expressed by the founding fathers of the USA and signators of the Declaration Of Independance and the Constitution.

Unrelated, but thats blatantly false statement , trying to elicit emotional response.

In reality, the founding fathers favoured genocide of "lesser" people who stood in the way of expansion, slavery and wars of aggression.

So technically, the worst accusations thrown at the USA, if true, would mean they are in tune with the vision of the founding fathers.

 

[I think not]

Weigh in a little deeper.
The US isn't a member of the ICC for a reason. Plenty of other countries are members like the UK, Canada, Australia, France, Germany and some 100 other nations. But to be a member you must acknowledge some specific rights covered in the Rome Statute. Which puts the US in violation with the Court through actions in Iraq.

Of course there is a reason. Have you read what constitutes a war crime by the ICC? A prisoner of war is entitled to a fair trial, just as an example. A fair trial for what? The prisoner didn't commit a crime, so why should he have his day in court? He picked up a gun to defend his country. What is he on trial for? Being a good shot? So imagine the thousands of Iraqi prisoners during the invasion. WE going to hold thousands of trials?

Another reason would be the US is asked to go, where no one else goes. Yes our "Global Reach" carries consequences and responsibilities. Should this absolve American soldiers from committing crimes? Absolutely not. But why the ICC? Any particular reason? And besides everything is a matter of perception. By the ICC's logic, everybody involved in the Serbian War should have been locked and the key thrown away.

Actually a more accurate statement would be damned if you commit war crimes. That, very few nations have the wherewithal to stand up and accuse the US of war crimes regardless of the consequences the US imposses upon them is far more intune with the values expressed by the founding fathers of the USA and signators of the Declaration Of Independance and the Constitution.

Consequences like not giving them aid? Sounds good to me.

Regardless of the desires of the majority of American people wanting membership in the ICC and binding to the rules of the Rome Statute.

Majority mob rule....not interested. The same people elected Bush. There's your answer.

Article 98 agreements keep countries from turning over government officials, military, nationals and non nationals employed by the US. Not to do so has resulted in getting aid from the US cut.

Sounds good to me.

You know, the old tell on me and no food game. Any one know who else played that game?

You could start by getting rid of the Hague Invasion Act would be a good start.
Get that together, come back and see me.

Do I need to make an appointment?

Any law ratified to protect or defend American citizens is fine by me, whether or not it's called an invasion or the American Servicemembers Protection Act.

 

[#juan]

Written by Zzarchov
But when you throw around Genocide like its the same thing as a traffic violation, when you equate military occupation (though unpleasant) with the suffering that people who actually survived a genocide went through, your belittling them for your own gains.

In case you missed it, In spite of the mutterings about weapons of mass destruction, and some blathering about Saddam's involvement with el queda, the invasion of Iraq was unprovoked. We have no trouble labeling the tribal warfare that killed 800,00 people in Rwanda genocide. In Iraq at least 1.5 million were killed, the country's civilian infrastructure was destroyed, and that country is going to be permenantly occupied by the U.S.. The Iraqis call it genocide......For want of a better term, I agree with them.

 

[Unforgiven]

Of course there is a reason. Have you read what constitutes a war crime by the ICC? A prisoner of war is entitled to a fair trial, just as an example. A fair trial for what? The prisoner didn't commit a crime, so why should he have his day in court? He picked up a gun to defend his country. What is he on trial for? Being a good shot? So imagine the thousands of Iraqi prisoners during the invasion. WE going to hold thousands of trials?

A trial? A trial???? How about stopping the torture?

The reason America isn't a member of the ICC is because there would be a rather large number of Americans awaiting trial in the Hague for crimes against humanity. How ironic, trials for the victors of war charged with not being a straight shooter.

Another reason would be the US is asked to go, where no one else goes. Yes our "Global Reach" carries consequences and responsibilities. Should this absolve American soldiers from committing crimes? Absolutely not. But why the ICC? Any particular reason? And besides everything is a matter of perception. By the ICC's logic, everybody involved in the Serbian War should have been locked and the key thrown away.

Oh yes the long list of countries receiving American aid forming a coalition to enter Iraq and get those nukes, WMD, stop the killing of Iraqis under the brutal regime and turn Iraq into a peaceful allie in the Mideast.

Sorry no parade for you.

No one asked the US to enter Iraq. That was unilateral. As a matter of fact, everyone said it was way to early to even consider that sort of thing and even more said they were not going along for that particular ride. No the only reason the USA went to Iraq was because that's what the administration wanted to do.

The ICC is an independent body, that's why. Sure it would be nice to hold your own trials and be your own judge and jury and hell act as your own prison warden if the need arises. Yet there are so many prisons in the US that you get the idea that the justice system doesn't go along with the whole "let those charged with the crimes be the judge and jury".

Consequences like not giving them aid? Sounds good to me.

Foreign aid is a gift and based on humanitarian ideals. It shouldn't be used as a weapon to discourage whistle blowers and those who bring charges or act as witness to those crimes. That sounds a lot more like the things the bad guys do.

Majority mob rule....not interested. The same people elected Bush. There's your answer.

That's democracy for you. But there is a difference between those who see they have made a mistake and want to take steps to correct it and those who make the mistake, realize what they have done and actively work to hide it, attack those who want it fixed and avoid any and all consequences for those actions.

Sounds good to me.

Spoken like a thug. Sorry you wanted into Iraq to do what now? smirk

Do I need to make an appointment?

Any law ratified to protect or defend American citizens is fine by me, whether or not it's called an invasion or the American Servicemembers Protection Act.

And that is exactly why no one asked America to go storming into Iraq. Contrary to what you seem to believe, no one wants to replace a brutal regime with another brutal regime that will take revenge on their old masters, rape the economic gains from the spoils of war and claim they have immunity to all charges regardless of how many rights they trample.

The poor performance of America as of late along with the plummeting opinion people have of the USA and Americans in general makes for a difficult time returning to the former glory the country enjoyed in the past. So rather than making things better for Americans, you are making things worse for them.

That should be clear going from the history of a few short years ago when everyone looked up to the US, Clinton in particular that was an economic power house without rival, to now with a baboon for a President, the butt of jokes around the world headed for a recession and mired in a war that it can't get itself out of nor win.

Go ahead and tell everyone that it's just the way you like it. It only serves to show more and more people that the only solution is to return to a democratic President, this time Hilary I suppose, and muzzle the halfwits who rant and rave about the minutia of hummers under the desk while seeing rampant abuse of power as a symbol of stature.

 

[Unforgiven]

Unrelated, but thats blatantly false statement , trying to elicit emotional response.

In reality, the founding fathers favoured genocide of "lesser" people who stood in the way of expansion, slavery and wars of aggression.

So technically, the worst accusations thrown at the USA, if true, would mean they are in tune with the vision of the founding fathers.

Horsefeathers.

 

[I think not]

A trial? A trial???? How about stopping the torture?

Those responsible were tried and convicted.

The reason America isn't a member of the ICC is because there would be a rather large number of Americans awaiting trial in the Hague for crimes against humanity. How ironic, trials for the victors of war charged with not being a straight shooter.

Exaggerations with no evidence.

Oh yes the long list of countries receiving American aid forming a coalition to enter Iraq and get those nukes, WMD, stop the killing of Iraqis under the brutal regime and turn Iraq into a peaceful allie in the Mideast.

Sorry no parade for you.

Not yet. Patience is a virtue.

No one asked the US to enter Iraq. That was unilateral. As a matter of fact, everyone said it was way to early to even consider that sort of thing and even more said they were not going along for that particular ride. No the only reason the USA went to Iraq was because that's what the administration wanted to do.

Twelve years of evasive maneuvers on behalf of Saddam Hussein doesn’t sound like like too early to me. But you’re right, perhaps we should of let it go on another decade.

The ICC is an independent body, that's why. Sure it would be nice to hold your own trials and be your own judge and jury and hell act as your own prison warden if the need arises. Yet there are so many prisons in the US that you get the idea that the justice system doesn't go along with the whole "let those charged with the crimes be the judge and jury".

Well then next time a soldier of yours commits a crime send him over to the ICC, I’m sure that will make you proud. In the meantime, we’ll do things our way.

Foreign aid is a gift and based on humanitarian ideals.

Foreign aid is a political move, nothing more. Less than 25% of all aid gets to where it is supposed to go.

It shouldn't be used as a weapon to discourage whistle blowers and those who bring charges or act as witness to those crimes. That sounds a lot more like the things the bad guys do.

Welcome to the real world.

That's democracy for you. But there is a difference between those who see they have made a mistake and want to take steps to correct it and those who make the mistake, realize what they have done and actively work to hide it, attack those who want it fixed and avoid any and all consequences for those actions.

Which is why we opted for a representative republic.

Spoken like a thug. Sorry you wanted into Iraq to do what now? Smirk

OK I’ll put my arrogant American hat on now, just to fit your preconceived notions.

And that is exactly why no one asked America to go storming into Iraq. Contrary to what you seem to believe, no one wants to replace a brutal regime with another brutal regime that will take revenge on their old masters, rape the economic gains from the spoils of war and claim they have immunity to all charges regardless of how many rights they trample.

Nobody has to ask us to do anything, we do what we want when we want it.

The poor performance of America as of late along with the plummeting opinion people have of the USA and Americans in general makes for a difficult time returning to the former glory the country enjoyed in the past. So rather than making things better for Americans, you are making things worse for them.

America has been hated by the elitists before America was even born. Not surprising.

That should be clear going from the history of a few short years ago when everyone looked up to the US, Clinton in particular that was an economic power house without rival, to now with a baboon for a President, the butt of jokes around the world headed for a recession and mired in a war that it can't get itself out of nor win.

Whoever looked up to the US before Iraq, continues to do so today. Leftists never looked up to America, don’t flatter yourself.

Go ahead and tell everyone that it's just the way you like it. It only serves to show more and more people that the only solution is to return to a democratic President, this time Hilary I suppose, and muzzle the halfwits who rant and rave about the minutia of hummers under the desk while seeing rampant abuse of power as a symbol of stature.

Yep, I just love them term limits.

 

[Zzarchov]

1 No one asked the US to enter Iraq.
*SNIP*
2 And that is exactly why no one asked America to go storming into Iraq. Contrary to what you seem to believe, no one wants to replace a brutal regime with another brutal regime that will take revenge on their old masters, rape the economic gains from the spoils of war and claim they have immunity to all charges regardless of how many rights they trample.
*SNIP*
3 That should be clear going from the history of a few short years ago when everyone looked up to the US, Clinton in particular that was an economic power house without rival, to now with a baboon for a President, the butt of jokes around the world headed for a recession and mired in a war that it can't get itself out of nor win.
*SNIP*

Couple of points here:


1.) Kurdistan asked them to go in Iraq. I fail to see why Saddam has more sway to represent the country than they do.

He committed attempted Genocide, only represented 20% of the population (Kurdistan was 20% too) and unlike Kurdistan was hated by a full 80% of the population. He also didn't run the entire country.

Sounds to me like he wasn't a legitimate leader and didn't get to dictate terms of what Iraq should do.


2.) Both the Kurdish Governed Area's and the Shia regions (who compromise 80% of the population) wanted the USA to go into Iraq.

If you held a vote in Iraq if America should have invade Iraq in the first place you'd get an overwhelming yes vote.

What you'd get, is an overwhelming vote asking them to leave now.


The Shia are happy the American's came, just unhappy the American's are preventing them from committing full on ethnic cleansing to their old overlords.


But to me that sounds like the kind of majority vote you should ignore "Thanks for coming, but please leave we want to murder untold thousands of innocent families"


3.) Actually people still hated the US under Clinton, terrorists still wanted to bomb the crap out of the USA and send martyrs to kill us. No matter how peaceful, liberal or warlike and conservative the American government, people always hate them to the point of wanting to commit terrorist acts.

Clinton had the first WTC bombing, even Carter had the hostage crisis.

 

[darkbeaver]

Genocide? I believe the evidence is rather overwhelming. The eradication of Iraqis and thier culture is a fact. It,s going to get a lot worse in Iraq and the rest of the region as the revolution to expell the American occupation grows. The face of global politics is changing rapidly. Curious isn't it? The war on terrorism is a stunning success. The terror of capitalism has been exposed. When that declaration of War on Terrorism left the great scumbags mouth the end of American exceptionalism had begun..