all of them. Show us the WMD, the gas chambers, the mass graves, the relationship with Bin laden, the illegal invasion of Kuwait. All of these must come out. None had been shown to us. The only thing I ma sure about is the previous relationship between Saddam and the US.
U.S.: Did President Bush Order Torture?
- Thread starter moghrabi
- Start date
But why was the invasion of Kuwait illegal? I've heard reports about the US ambassador giving indirect permittion to invade Kuwait, but I've always heard reports that people have done some serious misinterpreting, and that the US did not give this permittion, not even indirectly. And what about the mass graves? I've heard reports of numerous mass graves found so far.
The invasion of Kuwait was permitted by the US ambassador to Iraq. I posted here here conversation with Saddam and what they talked about.
Mass graves etc. They may exist. I want to see them. Then I believe. My problem Rick is with the way the US behaves. I don't trust their word. and sometimes I don't trust what I see. They are manipulators.
Mass graves etc. They may exist. I want to see them. Then I believe. My problem Rick is with the way the US behaves. I don't trust their word. and sometimes I don't trust what I see. They are manipulators.
New Iraqi Mass Grave May Contain 500 Bodies
Reuters, December 14th 2004
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=7089114
Horrors Of Iraq's Mass Graves
Shianews.com, June 24th 2003
http://www.shianews.com/hi/articles/politics/0000374.php
Mass Graves Hide Horror Of Iraqi Past
Human Rights Watch, April 27th 2003
http://www.hrw.org/editorials/2003/iraqmassgraves.htm
Iraq: Witnesses Link Mass Graves To 1991 Repression
Human Rights Watch, May 29th 2003
http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/05/iraq052903.htm
Iraqis Uncover Thousands In Mass Graves
CNN, May 14th 2003
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/05/14/sprj.irq.main/
Reuters, December 14th 2004
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=7089114
Horrors Of Iraq's Mass Graves
Shianews.com, June 24th 2003
http://www.shianews.com/hi/articles/politics/0000374.php
Mass Graves Hide Horror Of Iraqi Past
Human Rights Watch, April 27th 2003
http://www.hrw.org/editorials/2003/iraqmassgraves.htm
Iraq: Witnesses Link Mass Graves To 1991 Repression
Human Rights Watch, May 29th 2003
http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/05/iraq052903.htm
Iraqis Uncover Thousands In Mass Graves
CNN, May 14th 2003
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/05/14/sprj.irq.main/
Yes and yes. But when did these mass graves start to appear. in 1990's. The US was well aware of them.
Recently, the US wanted to charge Saddam with gassing of the turks. Now, they changed their mind. Why? Uncle Ronnie allowed it to happen and Bushie doesn't want to St. Ronnie to be in trouble. So they drop it.
Recently, the US wanted to charge Saddam with gassing of the turks. Now, they changed their mind. Why? Uncle Ronnie allowed it to happen and Bushie doesn't want to St. Ronnie to be in trouble. So they drop it.
I'm not saying that the US allegedly knew about them (I don't know whether that is true or not). I posted this links after your reaction "Mass graves etc. They may exist. I want to see them. Then I believe." Do you believe it now?
But how can you be so sceptical about mass graves in Iraq on the one hand, but not as sceptical when it comes to stories about a possible green light by the US government for Saddam to invade Kuwait? Just wondering. And about who we are sending to The Hague for these atrocities ... do you really think Saddam will make it to The Hague? 
One step at a time. Saddam Will not make it to the Hague because he is going to implicate a lot of people.
second: I was in Kuwait after the Gulf war. I was told by the British Ambassador at that time (Canadian affairs was taken care of by the British) that Saddam had the full permission to enter Kuwait. There are reports that I posted here (word for word) between Saddam and the US Ambassador and her permission to him telling him that "this is an Arab affair and the US sees no problems with it."
Mass grave may exist and after reading your links they do exist. My question is: Is Saddam the only person responsible for them? It is only a question.
second: I was in Kuwait after the Gulf war. I was told by the British Ambassador at that time (Canadian affairs was taken care of by the British) that Saddam had the full permission to enter Kuwait. There are reports that I posted here (word for word) between Saddam and the US Ambassador and her permission to him telling him that "this is an Arab affair and the US sees no problems with it."
Mass grave may exist and after reading your links they do exist. My question is: Is Saddam the only person responsible for them? It is only a question.
I don't know whether Saddam is or is not the only one responsible for these mass graves - I don't know enough about the background of these mass graves. What I do "know" is that a lot of mass graves are filled with Shiite Iraqis who were killed in 1991 by Saddam Hussein after they had revolted against the regime under the knowledge that the US and the other coalition troops would back them (or the US alone, I don't know that precisely) - which didn't happen.
Re: RE: U.S.: Did President Bush Order Torture?
Shiites in mass graves because of the war with Iran. The US was worried that the shiites of Iraq will revolt angainst Saddam who was fighting the Iranians and take control of Iraq. This is why you see only shiites in those graves.
Rick van Opbergen said:
Shiites in mass graves because of the war with Iran. The US was worried that the shiites of Iraq will revolt angainst Saddam who was fighting the Iranians and take control of Iraq. This is why you see only shiites in those graves.
RE: U.S.: Did President B
I don't think we are uncritical of Iraq in general, Rick. Nobody here has ever said that Saddam was nice guy, or that he was a good ruler, or anything else. Most seem to believe that it was Saddam and not Iraq who gassed the Kurds.
The thing, when you look at that last sentence and follow all of its implications all the way through, the US looms largely no matter who gassed the Kurds.
I write a thing every two weeks about imperialism and how it affects Canada. That's the gig...not pro-Canadian, not anti-American, just imperialism. It might be a story about Africa and the AIDS pandemic, it might be about child soldiers, it might be about oil....whatever.
I get criticised for being anti-American a lot as a result. Because of that criticism I have tried to write stories about imperialism that do not concern the United States. I have been unable to do so because as soon as the research starts the US pops up...CIA, military bases, undermining the UN, corporate involvement, mercenaries, privatization of water, backing military coups. The list is long and ugly.
Now I can't just ignore US involvement, it's a fact. The massive amount of US involvement in virtually everything, usually under circumstances that are questionable at best, sure as hell don't make prone to giving them the benefit of the doubt though...when somebody says something I'll check the facts, but I sure won't discount it out of hand.
The off-shoot of that is that nobody ever accuses me of being anti-French or anti-British or anti-whoever, but I've written about the involvement of several other countries, including Canada. The scream is always that I'm just being anti-American. My answer is that if they don't want to be criticised for it, then they shouldn't bloody well do it.
I don't think we are uncritical of Iraq in general, Rick. Nobody here has ever said that Saddam was nice guy, or that he was a good ruler, or anything else. Most seem to believe that it was Saddam and not Iraq who gassed the Kurds.
The thing, when you look at that last sentence and follow all of its implications all the way through, the US looms largely no matter who gassed the Kurds.
I write a thing every two weeks about imperialism and how it affects Canada. That's the gig...not pro-Canadian, not anti-American, just imperialism. It might be a story about Africa and the AIDS pandemic, it might be about child soldiers, it might be about oil....whatever.
I get criticised for being anti-American a lot as a result. Because of that criticism I have tried to write stories about imperialism that do not concern the United States. I have been unable to do so because as soon as the research starts the US pops up...CIA, military bases, undermining the UN, corporate involvement, mercenaries, privatization of water, backing military coups. The list is long and ugly.
Now I can't just ignore US involvement, it's a fact. The massive amount of US involvement in virtually everything, usually under circumstances that are questionable at best, sure as hell don't make prone to giving them the benefit of the doubt though...when somebody says something I'll check the facts, but I sure won't discount it out of hand.
The off-shoot of that is that nobody ever accuses me of being anti-French or anti-British or anti-whoever, but I've written about the involvement of several other countries, including Canada. The scream is always that I'm just being anti-American. My answer is that if they don't want to be criticised for it, then they shouldn't bloody well do it.
Criticizing: good. My rule is: not a single country in this world has nothing to be criticized about What I am especially pointing at that I have the feeling that some people, not specifically here, have acquired themselves double standards, by being far more critical on the US than on other countries, groups whatsoever in this world. I know it's hard not to, because well, the US is one of the most powerful countries in the world, if not THE, and the foreign policy of Liechtenstein will have less effect on the world compared to the foreign policy of the US (just to take an example). However, I think that certain people have crossed the line that they believe every bad news that comes around about the US, whether it is in Iraq or Afghanistan, or anywhere else, is immediately true, and that they forget to, for example, check the sources or what counter-critics have to say about it (there are always people criticizing the critics). That's my definition of "fair and balanced". That shouldn't mean that people have to do hours of research just to prove their point. Not necessary. But it should not be the case, in my opinion, that we just assume that everybody who criticizes the US is correct, and on the other hand, any source or report criticizing - lets say - the insurgents should be looked at from a critical point of view. I mean, to avoid confusion, I agree about the last part, about the critical point of view, but I think we should also apply that to matters evolving the US, because I believe - and that was also what Cosmo said somewhere - that we might have become too ... no, lets say it this way: we tend to judge rather quick when it comes to the US.
What I am especially pointing at that I have the feeling that some people, not specifically here, have acquired themselves double standards, by being far more critical on the US than on other countries, groups whatsoever in this world. I know it's hard not to, because well, the US is one of the most powerful countries in the world, if not THE, and the foreign policy of Liechtenstein will have less effect on the world compared to the foreign policy of the US (just to take an example). However, I think that certain people have crossed the line that they believe every bad news that comes around about the US, whether it is in Iraq or Afghanistan, or anywhere else, is immediately true, and that they forget to, for example, check the sources or what counter-critics have to say about it (there are always people criticizing the critics). That's my definition of "fair and balanced". That shouldn't mean that people have to do hours of research just to prove their point. Not necessary. But it should not be the case, in my opinion, that we just assume that everybody who criticizes the US is correct, and on the other hand, any source or report criticizing - lets say - the insurgents should be looked at from a critical point of view. I mean, to avoid confusion, I agree about the last part, about the critical point of view, but I think we should also apply that to matters evolving the US, because I believe - and that was also what Cosmo said somewhere - that we might have become too ... no, lets say it this way: we tend to judge rather quick when it comes to the US.RE: U.S.: Did President B
Perhaps, but we all work from experience. Like I said, it's impossible to do research and not find US involvement at some level. That involvement tends, in a major way, towards drawing a negative picture of US policies.
France used to be pretty much the same, but on a smaller scale, but France has been mitigating that by investigating themselves. Those investigations keep turning up American names too. Recently some British investigations have turned up similar things.
After you look at for a while, it's very difficult to look at US foreign policy (and a lot of their domestic policies) without being, at best, jaded and cynical. I do check sources etc., but I know I'll have to answer for what I say on one level or another. Without that impetus, I can't say that I'd be that fair.
I also can't say that my initial instincts have ever been proven wrong. When you take away all of the spin and politics and crap the facts still sit there like a sore thumb waiting for the next hammer blow.
Perhaps, but we all work from experience. Like I said, it's impossible to do research and not find US involvement at some level. That involvement tends, in a major way, towards drawing a negative picture of US policies.
France used to be pretty much the same, but on a smaller scale, but France has been mitigating that by investigating themselves. Those investigations keep turning up American names too. Recently some British investigations have turned up similar things.
After you look at for a while, it's very difficult to look at US foreign policy (and a lot of their domestic policies) without being, at best, jaded and cynical. I do check sources etc., but I know I'll have to answer for what I say on one level or another. Without that impetus, I can't say that I'd be that fair.
I also can't say that my initial instincts have ever been proven wrong. When you take away all of the spin and politics and crap the facts still sit there like a sore thumb waiting for the next hammer blow.
Rick, We need someone like you to keep an old anti-american wacko like me in line. Most vietnam vets are conservative nationalists, but I went in the opposite direction. Vietnam started me reading history and I began seeing the country in a different way than a majority of americans. I need to start picturing the u.s flag over Gettysburg and Normandy rather than My Lai and Falluja.
My goodness.
Is there some doubt about the kinds of things Hussein did? Are we now quibbling about the details? He was a monster in the same mold as Stalin and Hitler from whom he gained lessons.
Also should the US have left him in place because they supported him previously? And of course other countries supported him. Not everything is perfect in this world and the US is far from perfect but we can still see Hussein for the monster and the danger he was.
But I can imagine there will be some response to this showing once again that the US is at fault in some way.
Is there some doubt about the kinds of things Hussein did? Are we now quibbling about the details? He was a monster in the same mold as Stalin and Hitler from whom he gained lessons.
Also should the US have left him in place because they supported him previously? And of course other countries supported him. Not everything is perfect in this world and the US is far from perfect but we can still see Hussein for the monster and the danger he was.
But I can imagine there will be some response to this showing once again that the US is at fault in some way.
I agree Saddam was an evil monster BUT he did not pose any threat to America and never has.
It would of been better if America or their CIA did one of their "over throws" or just shot him and his senior cabinet, or got the people to rise up like with what happened with Milosovitch.
Iraq is going to be a wild unsafe lawless society because of America. What America is doing in Iraq is basically "mental torture" to the Iraqi peoples as America can not show Iraqi people any reasons to trust them, especially with all the "torture" and "prisoner abuse" stories, tales, revolutions (or whatever you want to call it ) coming out.
It would of been better if America or their CIA did one of their "over throws" or just shot him and his senior cabinet, or got the people to rise up like with what happened with Milosovitch.
Iraq is going to be a wild unsafe lawless society because of America. What America is doing in Iraq is basically "mental torture" to the Iraqi peoples as America can not show Iraqi people any reasons to trust them, especially with all the "torture" and "prisoner abuse" stories, tales, revolutions (or whatever you want to call it ) coming out.
US rewrites definition of torture
The definition was criticised after revelations of abuses in Iraq
The US government has widened its definition of torture, the justice department announced on its website.
It has retracted its previous assertion that the practice has to involve excruciating and agonising pain.
The new memorandum outlines a definition of torture that could include lasting mental anguish as well as physical suffering.
It also no longer says that the president has the power to supersede anti-torture laws in wartime.
It omits another previous assertion that US personnel have several legal defences against criminal liability in some torture cases.
"Torture is abhorrent both to American law and values, and international norms," the new document says.
The government's previous definition was attacked by some US politicians and human rights groups following allegations of US abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
They said the definition did not set an adequate barrier to human rights violations.
The US government has opened a number of investigations into allegations of prisoner abuse and detainee deaths in Iraq.
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4138049.stm
Not sure what I think of this yet, just found it interesting and thought it fit into the discussion.
The definition was criticised after revelations of abuses in Iraq
The US government has widened its definition of torture, the justice department announced on its website.
It has retracted its previous assertion that the practice has to involve excruciating and agonising pain.
The new memorandum outlines a definition of torture that could include lasting mental anguish as well as physical suffering.
It also no longer says that the president has the power to supersede anti-torture laws in wartime.
It omits another previous assertion that US personnel have several legal defences against criminal liability in some torture cases.
"Torture is abhorrent both to American law and values, and international norms," the new document says.
The government's previous definition was attacked by some US politicians and human rights groups following allegations of US abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
They said the definition did not set an adequate barrier to human rights violations.
The US government has opened a number of investigations into allegations of prisoner abuse and detainee deaths in Iraq.
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4138049.stm
Not sure what I think of this yet, just found it interesting and thought it fit into the discussion.
RE: U.S.: Did President B
The Bushites might be backing off on this one.
They lost their blanket immunity at the UN so US citizens can be hauled into international courts by third countries for war crimes if the US doesn't prosecute them. More than that every member of the UN, including Britain, the USA's last real ally, just chose the UN and Kofi Annan over the US and the Bush administration.
Increasingly countries dependent on the US have been refusing to sign, or have been expressing reluctance at being forced to sign, bilateral agreements with the US agreeing not prosecute US citizens for international crimes.
They've been getting pounded by every civil rights group on the planet on torture, prisoner treatment, and other violations of international law.
The FBI just kicked the living crap out of the Bush administration over prisoner treatment and released documents that made it clear that the orders came from the top.
There have been a couple of court cases in Britain allowing people who haver been tortured or wrongfully imprisoned without charge to sue their captors and/or torturers. While those aren't directly relevant to US law, they will certainly be considered in any suit launched in the US.
The suits against the US government are starting to roll in. As people get released from illegal custody, where they were often tortured, they are calling their lawyers. Given the recent FBI revelations and the cases in Britain, that puts the personal bank accounts of the Bush administration, not just the US Treasury, at risk.
There is also no statute of limitations for war crimes. I doubt Bush and his gang have quite caught on to this yet, but that has implications for what happens to them 20 years from now. All that's keeping them from being prosecuted at this point is the might of the USA. What if that might were to disappear?
The Bushites might be backing off on this one.
They lost their blanket immunity at the UN so US citizens can be hauled into international courts by third countries for war crimes if the US doesn't prosecute them. More than that every member of the UN, including Britain, the USA's last real ally, just chose the UN and Kofi Annan over the US and the Bush administration.
Increasingly countries dependent on the US have been refusing to sign, or have been expressing reluctance at being forced to sign, bilateral agreements with the US agreeing not prosecute US citizens for international crimes.
They've been getting pounded by every civil rights group on the planet on torture, prisoner treatment, and other violations of international law.
The FBI just kicked the living crap out of the Bush administration over prisoner treatment and released documents that made it clear that the orders came from the top.
There have been a couple of court cases in Britain allowing people who haver been tortured or wrongfully imprisoned without charge to sue their captors and/or torturers. While those aren't directly relevant to US law, they will certainly be considered in any suit launched in the US.
The suits against the US government are starting to roll in. As people get released from illegal custody, where they were often tortured, they are calling their lawyers. Given the recent FBI revelations and the cases in Britain, that puts the personal bank accounts of the Bush administration, not just the US Treasury, at risk.
There is also no statute of limitations for war crimes. I doubt Bush and his gang have quite caught on to this yet, but that has implications for what happens to them 20 years from now. All that's keeping them from being prosecuted at this point is the might of the USA. What if that might were to disappear?
Re: RE: U.S.: Did President Bush Order Torture?
There should be some doubt. Sadaam learned a great deal of his monstering from President Reagon's henchmen; guys like Donald Rumsfeld. The Americans were more than willing to abet Sadaam as long as he kept America's foes at bay. When Sadaam started to go his own way, America demonized him.
This is not to suggest that Sadaam was a saint. He was a Fascist bully boy. However, America's media machine could demonize you to the point where all of your friends would want to see you strung up. Was Sadaam as bad as he has been painted? I doubt it. Did he do all the horrors that have been attributed to him? I doubt that too. Was he a thug? You bet. Where lies the truth? I don't know.
ddobney said:
There should be some doubt. Sadaam learned a great deal of his monstering from President Reagon's henchmen; guys like Donald Rumsfeld. The Americans were more than willing to abet Sadaam as long as he kept America's foes at bay. When Sadaam started to go his own way, America demonized him.
This is not to suggest that Sadaam was a saint. He was a Fascist bully boy. However, America's media machine could demonize you to the point where all of your friends would want to see you strung up. Was Sadaam as bad as he has been painted? I doubt it. Did he do all the horrors that have been attributed to him? I doubt that too. Was he a thug? You bet. Where lies the truth? I don't know.