Preemptive War Criminals

[LuShes]

Anyone is welcome here... we need someone with intellegence and intellect to have some good discussions on here. Yes the guys do get off on there rants, but I think every means well in there heart.

We all just want a happy and safe future for generations to come. I just hope to god that we can do something right and something gets done.

 

[Shmad]

Seriously, now I'm going to sleep...
As for registering, while I live close to the border and played alot of hockey, I'm not a Canadien. Would I be welcome here? Seems as if after some of the comments I've read, I might not be.

Yeah yer welcome here, tis nice to be able to have an argumentative discussion, sure we get right into it sometimes, even though sometimes it may seem directed at you, rest assured its not, differing opinions cause little conflicts and discussions like this one.

As for Iraq/Al Quada they did try and overthrow them, even your own government can confirm this!

 

[czardogs]

This is nonsense, anyone can research something until they've received their own desired outcome. What makes this person an expert? The fact that they've read up on something? The fact that it's easy to criticize something they're not involved in??

All this bleeding heart, whoa is me, I'm a victim, cry-babying is getting old. Have any of you lived with the Kurdish people? Maybe you should head over there and ask some of them what part they played in this, "rapidly developing country". Oh wait, that might be dangerous, I could get hurt. You know why? Because Saddam made it that way. If a single one of you had enough courage to do such a thing the Kurds would tell you their roll was to be moving targets, plain and simple.

The United States didn't ruin that country, Saddam Hussien did. Nobody put a gun to his head and said invade Kuwait, (although he most likely had someone do that to countless officers in his military) he did that of his own accord. Nobody tolf him to develope and test the type of weapons he still has in his posession. Other democratic countries would have never allowed any of his actions to come to pass. This is why not only his regime, but all dictatorships are dangerous and should be dealt with in the same manner if they pose a threat.


I served in the United States Army, I'm proud of everything I did while I was enlisted there. Something funny happens to a person when in the military. Things like honor, respect, dedication and responsibility become priorities. Your friends become family and your allies become friends. Clearly none of you have any experience with this type of life. I'm embarrased to think that people we consider allies and friendly neighbors have the audacity to sit in here on their high horses and question something they'd never be capable of understanding much less doing. Shame on anyone here that's decided to question the United State's intentions, you have no right and no leg to stand on. You're not even involved, you didn't have enough courage to do what's right.

Hannibal remember your recent history now. WHO put Saddam in Power? America did.

Who gave him his WMD? America did.

Who gave him instrucions to use them fully? America did.

Who vetoed a UN resolution against Iraqs use of chemical weapons on Iran? America did.

Who was giving money to Saddam just two months before the invasion of Quwait? America did.

So, with that knowledge under your belt how does america have ANY moral authority to attack Iraq?

Take a look around americas oldest allies and friends are leaving your side. There is good reasoning for it. Our government understands the ramifications of an illegal and immoral attack. Not least of which is the standards outlayed by the Nuremburg trials.

By your reasoning we should act like Nazis to stop a Nazi. Sorry but that reasoning was left behind in the 1800s.

 

[Andem]

nicely said czar.
wow, this place went mad the other night ;p

 

[Anonymous]

Wtf is up with Bush and this "Shock and Awe" attack I have been hearing about. It doesn't sound good whatever it is!

Thank god there has been only a few casulties so far. I pray this is over soon.

NO WAR, IS A GOOD WAR!!!

 

[Shmad]

NO WAR, IS A GOOD WAR!!!

In any war there is no winner, there are only losers.

 

[Anonymous]

WOAH!

 

[Andem]

*** BUMP ***

This article was great and I think even more people should read it. Still very valid points now there is a war going on.

 

[Stretch]

grasping at straws?


Another American request coming - Sunday 30, March-2003
by Tony Best

Within the next few days, the United States plans to ask Barbados and its Caricom neighbours to help block any attempt to haul Washington before the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Tribunal to answer charges of abuses in Iraq.

With civilian casualties mounting in Iraq and having succeeded in derailing international efforts to switch the Iraqi crisis from the UN Security Council to the UN General Assembly, diplomatic sources in Washington and New York say the Bush Administration plans to press the Caribbean to join in a lobbying effort to oppose any move by Islamic nations and other members of the Non-Aligned Movement, to complain to the UN Human Rights Commission about the way the United States is conducting the war.

“It’s our understanding that the United States is going to ask the ministries of foreign affairs in various Caricom capitals to block any effort to take the Iraqi question to a UN human rights panel,” said a diplomatic source at the UN.

“Jamaica, Barbados, St Vincent, Guyana and so on should expect to receive a diplomatic note in the next few days asking for support in this regard. The United States would consider it a supreme international embarrassment if the matter goes before a human rights panel,” added the senior diplomat.

A few days ago, a United States bomb dropped on Baghdad reportedly killed as many as 50 civilians. More than 200 civilians are believed to have died either from bombs, or when they were caught between American and British forces and Iraqi soldiers.

http://www.nationnews.com/StoryView.cfm?Record=36030&Section=LO&Current=2003-03-30 00:00:00

 

[czardogs]

Excellent find!

How low will they go?

These are the actions of true criminals!

May they hang for their crimes like the Nazis before them.

Harsh language? yes. but i just watched unedited raw footage from Abu Dabi and Al Jeezera tv and they are showing so much more then the american media. So many children are dying. Bush will need a million wet wipes to cleanse the blood from his hands when this is done.

 

[Cyberm4n]

what can you do?!? you cant believe anything you see on tv or read in the news papers. seriously, we live in the western "FREE" world, and still you cant get the truth from anything. its like the soviet union.

 

[Anonymous]

Oofda!

*cracks nuckles*

Alrighty...Before I start I'm going to state one thing. I'm dumb. I'm an idiot. Everything in here is the opinion of an uniformed source one person with the "cool" ability to post his ideas on an internet board. That is the extent of my qualifications in the large picture. I mean, hell, I can't even spell...but don't think for one second you are any different.

Now...sovern nations.

Is America invading Iraq? Yes.
Is this unjust? Not really...Bush is an idiot. Most Americans can tell you this. But look to Tony Blair, he can make some sense of this. Sadam had alot of time to cooperate with the UN, but it wasn't until there was an iminate threat of invasion that he BEGAN to cooperate. And even on the opening days of the war there were few in the UN who could state honestly that Iraq was in -complete- cooperation with weapons inspectors. The timing was bad. The UN should have set 1 deadline and then acted imediately. But it floundered.

Is America being selfish in this war? No.
Are thier leaders? In my opinion yes...Bush's administration is totally selfserving. They are doing this for a few reasons...masking a flagging economy and hoping to gain control of more oil interests are just 2.
Does that make this entire effort evil/wrong? Hell no. If you for one minute think there was ever a nation who opposed another nation for whole altruistic reasons you are naive. In WW2 the USA would not enter until we were attacked. The french only entered the revolutionary war when they could see an American victory and then it was because they wanted a foot hold in our country.
Keep in mind up until the end of WW2 the major nations of this world moved in "land grabs"...France has it's veto power solely because it had the 2nd largest empire at the onset of WW2. And let's remember who -started- Vietnam...it wasn't America. That was a French colony we were aiding...much to my lament.

Does anyone gain from no war with Iraq? Yes.
Who? The world...because peace is good for most economies. But more specificly...France, Russia, and China.
Why? Well, because Iraq promised these three nations prominent access to the Iraqi oilfields once the UN sanctions of Iraq were lifted. So a US/British controled Iraq cuts into these nation's profit margins. And any economics student will tell you you succeed in buiseness by risking little and gaining much. And that is what these nations are doing.

Isn't America topling a dictator? Yes.
Isn't that good? Yes.
So why's everyone all huffy? Because there are MANY dictators. And many more much more worthy of action than Iraq. But apperantly "blue blockers" protects your nation from invasion, as shown with Korea...although I am sure fear of direct Chineese involvement shapes that choice as well.

War, huh, what is it good for? Well, that's a good question. Some say the world is over populated. This trend began after WW2 in an accelerated manner. Why? No one wanted to commit to a major war effort (lose alot of people) anymore.
Is that all? No. Sometimes people will not see eye to eye and can not agree to disagree. If you and I have conflicting ideals and are forced to confront over the matter repeatedly the only "final" solution is the destruction of one of us or the other. And if you are willing to try to kill me (or I think you might be) I have to consider how much that comandment (not killing) is important to me.

Is W. Bush the next Adolf Hitler? I don't think so.
Why? Well, 2 things...1 Adolf was politically savy. He could invade a nation and talk the world out of action until his intent was fully known and by then he had more than one country invade. 2 Adolf acted out of ambitious ideas. W. just wants more (in my view) money and power. He's got no "master race".
But, I mean, invading is invading right? No.
How so? Well, we are invading...but what is the casualty count of innocent Iraqis?
I don't know, let's say 3,000. Okay. 3,000 civilianz killed. Now let's assume the US killed all 3,000 of those casualties and that the Iraq psy-ops reports are unfounded.
3,000 civilians in how much time, out of how many millions of people. Someone above said the greatest mass murder ever...well, the USA is still a far cry from 8 million. And this isn't genocide. This is war. If war ever comes to the US, you bet your ass I am moving out of the city. Why? That is where bombs land.
Let's estimate if the US took out thier "moral barriers" and fought this war with full military might. How many civilian deaths now? Millions. Do you think Hitler used resraint? I don't.

If I am against the war, am I against the troops? Hell no.
Why? War is a political objective. The soldiers and military are a tool of politicians. For me, I think you need to question your politicians...but anyone who says calling Bush an idiot is not supporting our troops is either emotional, or not seeing the arguement clearly.
Personally, I don't like Bush. I don't support him at all. But I think if we are commiting troops the US should not tie it's own hands. I say give Bagdad 5 days notice and say "leave or die". The people will respond or...thier lives are forfit. In world politics all are held accountable by war. After 5 days drop 3 M.O.A.B.s and level the place.
Isn't that extreme? Yes.
Are you joking? Sorta. I mean, if no one left that would be a horrible travisty. But I mean, if Iraqi military will not allow people to leave doesn't that make those people hostages? If so, the US has a long history (like many countries) of not negotiating with terrorists, even if they take hostages.
Using civilians as humans shields is a dispicable tactic, but it must be over come and it should not be rewarded (ie: through giving the partie who takes hostages more political sway to contol events).

Human life is sacred. But there is a line where you have to weigh which lives are more valuable. Generally, that line is with your own country. But hey, to each thier own. Life isn't a game, and there are no winners. Yet...we are all self interested at heart so look to see why you say or do things that others argue against, see if it is for selfish reasons or the "greater good". Oh! And if it is for the greater good...chime me on to what exactly that is...I still got no clue.

W-K

 

[Andem]

WulF, I agree with some of your points. However, why does everyone forget how many stalin murdered? or how many the US killed in south east asia? The United States is comitting mass murder in Iraq and they are most certainly commiting illegal acts even being there.

The United States was not threatened by Iraq in any way, how could they be?

War is a political objective, yes, and the troops are the tool of one man. Bush. That is why he should be brought before a tribunal

 

[Anonymous]

Simplification

It is easy to simplify things. I do it. You do it. It is how the human brain is designed to work.

Now...A couple things.
1: Is Bush doing this alone? Nope. Congress gave him the power to do this. According to US law this is a legal war. According to international law, well, that's a different matter.

2: The US killed many innocents in South East Asia (I assume you mean Vietnam) because of the tactics used by the Vietcong. Ironicly these are the same tactics the Iraqis seem to be using. That is to mask your forces as civilians. This means US troops not only have to focus on fighting the "regulars" but also sort out which civilian might be trying to kill them as well. This makes for "twitchy" soldiers...and personally, if I didn't know if someone was gonna kill me or not and I was stessed and in a foriegn land...I'd likely kill an innocent to ensure my own survival.
--If you mean Japan, the dropping of atomic weapons was terrible. But keep in mind how many lives would have been lost if the US had fought tooth and nail to take over Japan. It is always better if your enemy surrenders than if they choose to fight you. And showing an enemy the battle is clearly lost leads to surrender. Japan needed to be defeated and the president at that time made a choice "100,000 japaneese lives for 1,000,000 US and Japaneese soldiers' lives".

3: Alot of people say civilians are innocent. I generally agree, but philisophically it is a peoples' duty to overthrow a government they do not agree with. If they do not/can not then when other people need to over throw it those civilians either made a choice to remain or will die in what is ultimately what they wanted (topling of the governement).
Example: Sadam, people fear and despise him. Machavelli said it is "safer to be feared than to be loved". Sadam did alot for the Iraqi people. -Some- of the Iraqi people. The rest he killed or persecuted.

4: Will Bush ever stand trial for war crimes? Not very likely. Why? He's the president of the US. A war tribunal has one of two things backing it (like the UN) to be effective. 1: very powerful members who could "force" nations to cooperate. 2: nations willing to cooperate.
The US can not be forced by anyone (at present) to subjugate to the will of an international body.
The US will not cooperate in trying its president for war crimes.

5: Some people do believe Iraq is a threat. I don't think they are an immediate one. But there are some who think they are. If nothing else, they are a threat to our economic (oil) securities.

Basically, this entire war is like a fight at a party.
Iraq is being a drunken prick. North Korea and others are drunken pricks too. The US is a little buzzed and has a gripe against Iraq.
A bottle gets thrown at the US (9/11). The US is now angry. Afganastan (kinda) threw the bottle, the US hammers on Afganastan...but the US is now rarin' for a brawl. Iraq lips off to the whole room. US talks to the other people at the party and asks who wants to help him beat down Iraq. Britian, Spain, and Australia agree. France opposes it because France is friends with Iraq. But at the end of the day the US will do what it wants because no one in the room (except maybe China who doesn't want any trouble) can stop them. France can bad mouth the US. Canada can shake its head. But the US is the biggest nation and is willing to swing its fists. Should the US step up to fight Iraq? Probably not. Should Iraq have had a little more sense before lipping off? Probably.

I know the analogy is flawed, but I've been "Iraq" in that scenario enough times to know that until someone "has your back" and is ready to fight along side you, you are alone and need to only pick fights you think you can win.
Mess with the bull you get the horns I guess.

W-K

P.S. Would you poke Mike Tyson in the chest? Regardless of how nice he is it isn't wise to taunt rapist flesh eaters...and any nation willing to taunt the US should consider it is the -only- nation to ever use nuclear weapons in a war.
America is a 4 year old with an assult rifle. Stay on its good side or duck and cover. But it's young and immature, you can tell what you think it should do but as it grows it will find its own path.

 

[Stretch]

Re The Party.....
1) Iraq didn't poke the US in the chest.......
North Korea did, and got away with it.....Iraq was sitting in the corner minding its own business, chatting to the host of the party, the UN, and watching the US beating its chest and flexing its muscles and telling all within earshot how good it was.

2) A pommie sheila and an Aussie chick fell for it, and, along with a couple of other "tarts", sidle upto the big, arrogant, loud mouth.

3) The US, wanting to impress its "admirers", pretends to catch Iraq looking at it with distain...and, in an umprovoked attack, tries to "king hit" it.... much to the disgust of the host and most of the party goers, who are now milling about on the fringe, muttering amongst themselves about the lying US bully.

4) Iraq climbs to its feet, and, despite being 18 inches shorter than it's aggressor, catches the US a glancing blow in the groin.....the pommie sheila and the Aussie chick, see their ummmm potential one night stand threatened, wade in with yellowing teeth bared and dirty nails drawn.

5) The US, its eyes watering, puts on a brave face and looks around at the rest of the onlookers and says "that didnt hurt" (like hell it didnt)

6) The party goers sense possible long term damage from the injury and wonder what will happen next and who will be the american wankers' next victim...................

 

[Anonymous]

True enough...Although let us not pretend that Iraq is innocent. No nation is innocent. It's a matter of opinion and scrutiny. Even Ghandi made one or two asshole moves in his life. No ones perfect and a BUNCH of people working together (government) most assuradly are not.

But you must understand in the annalogy the UN -is- the party. The UN is NOT a nation and has no inherent power. It (like a democracy) only has powers based on the resources and contributions of its member nations. Will the UN ever act against the US? I doubt it. Why? Because the US is a major force in the UN...and it can veto any action against the US...like China and France and any other security council member can.

As nice as philosophy is the world ultimately boils down to power (in a very "Lord of the flys" manner).
The US is, at present, top dog. No one can rival it (maybe China, though they have 1000 year history of non-invasion, save for Tibet which they claim was thiers long before). The US will get to do what it wants until such time as enough nations (or US public opinion changes) stand against it. And while many nations murmer, few stand defiantly against us. Mainly because they likely NOT sure who will be next. Though it seems obvious. My hope is that Bush is replaced in the next election and the key to that is ending this war before then.

And to all those people who hate America...if you want to change it, know how? Join it! America doesn't turn people away (though it is not as easy to join us as it used to be). That is the strength of democracy join it and you can change it.

The US is being a prick. The US is being a bully. But what is your nation doing about it?
As said before this war is about timing. The US had several chance to attack that would have been 'less questionable' but it didn't...and I think that hurts its case. But it's acting...talk about it all you like. But talk doesn't stop it. Action does...and the only action that will work and not cost lives is a vote...yours.

W-K

P.S. All this is assuming you live in a democracy, if you don't then we will be there soon to make it one...(assuming you have resources we can exploit).

 

[Twila]

Gen. Ashcroft is certainly working hard these days to turn the American Democracy into something resembling a cross between communism and dictatorship.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15541

 

[Cyberm4n]

this patriot act just proves the americans arent living in a democracy as they like to put it across. big deal, we all know they are not a real democracy.

 

[Twila]

big deal, we all know they are not a real democracy.

Well maybe if a US citizen stumbles in they'll also learn about the lie of their democracy, no?

 

[Andem]

big deal, we all know they are not a real democracy.

Well maybe if a US citizen stumbles in they'll also learn about the lie of their democracy, no?

Good point, but Americans, for the most part, don't want to hear about it. I've heard a lot of opinions and most to all of them believe it's for their protection. (however, i've heard little from people who truly understand what the bill means)