....I know, I know this General is a Liberal, hates the troops and America. He's probably from Seattle or France and is Muslim.
"I don't know what the facts are but somebody's certainly going to sit down with him and find out what he knows that they may not know, and make sure he knows what they know that he may not know, and that's a good thing."~Rumsfeld
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Synonymous Bengal (Login 500finish) Approved MikeBrownSucks.com Members
one better:
No score for this post
June 19 2008, 9:27 AM
Bush confesses to war crimes
By Nicolas J S Davies
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Sep 11, 2006, 00:31
George W. Bush's speech on September 6 amounted to a public confession to criminal violations of the 1996 War Crimes Act. He implicitly admitted authorizing disappearances, extrajudicial imprisonment, torture, transporting prisoners between countries and denying the International Committee of the Red Cross access to prisoners.
These are all serious violations of the Geneva Conventions. The War Crimes Act makes grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and all violations of Common Article 3 punishable by fines, imprisonment or, if death results to the victim, the death penalty.
At the same time, Bush asked Congress to amend the War Crimes Act in order to retroactively protect him and other U.S. officials from prosecution for these crimes, and from civil lawsuits arising from them. He justified this on the basis that "our military and intelligence personnel involved in capturing and questioning terrorists could now be at risk of prosecution under the War Crimes Act . . . ," and insisted that “passing this legislation ought to be the top priority” for Congress between now and the election in November.
His profession of concern for military and intelligence personnel was utterly misleading. Military personnel charged with war crimes have always been, and continue to be, prosecuted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice rather than the War Crimes Act; and the likelihood of CIA interrogators being identified and prosecuted under the act is remote -- they are protected by the secrecy that surrounds all CIA operations.
The only real beneficiaries of such amendments to the War Crimes Act would be Bush himself and other civilian officials who have assisted him in these crimes -- Rumsfeld, Cheney, Gonzales, Rice, Cambone, Tenet, Goss, Negroponte and an unfortunately long list of their deputies and advisors.
Bush asked Congress to do three things in these amendments. “First, I am asking Congress to list the specific recognizable offenses that would be considered crimes under the War Crimes Act so our personnel can know clearly what is prohibited in the handling of terrorist enemies.”
One prong of the U.S. government’s attack on the Geneva Conventions has been the assertion that they do not provide a laundry list of what techniques of treatment and interrogation are permitted or prohibited. This is, of course, because the Geneva Conventions instead contain blanket prohibitions on torture, cruelty and humiliation. It has only been the efforts of U.S. officials to encroach on these prohibitions that may have raised doubt among U.S. personnel as to what is and is not permitted.
Captain Ian Fishback, the military interrogator who blew the whistle on Camp Nama (Nasty Assed Military Area) in Iraq, has contrasted his orders in Iraq with the rules he had been taught, "My feelings were that it clearly violated what I had learned as the appropriate way to treat detainees at West Point. . . . You don't force them to give you any information other than name, rank, and serial number. That's the gist of the Geneva Conventions." Captain Fishback’s account of the war crimes he was involved in at Camp Nama is in the latest edition of Esquire magazine.
Bush continued, “Second, I’m asking that Congress make explicit that by following the standards of the Detainee Treatment Act, our personnel are fulfilling America’s obligations under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.”
This is the crucial change that Bush wants in the law. The War Crimes Act currently criminalizes murder, mutilation, cruel treatment, torture, humiliating and degrading treatment, and arbitrary punishment of prisoners, based on the prohibitions in Common Article 3 of the Geneva conventions. Bush is asking Congress to replace the straightforward prohibitions in Common Article 3 with the provisions of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, which includes extraordinary protections for U.S. officials.
These protections are clearly designed to undermine the Geneva Conventions, the War Crimes Act and even the Nuremberg Principles. Section 1004(a) of the Detainee Treatment Act states that, in the case of “operational practices . . . that were officially authorized and determined to be lawful at the time they were conducted, it shall be a defense that such officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces or other agent did not know that the practices were unlawful and a person of ordinary good sense and understanding would not know the practices were unlawful.”
This would shift the legal standard from the clear one defined by the Geneva Conventions and the War Crimes Act as it is presently written to one of who knew what when, requiring courts to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the perpetrator knew his actions were unlawful. Even if opinions written by Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo, Jack Goldsmith and David Addington were found to have no legal basis at all, they could suffice to cast doubt on Bush and his colleagues’ knowledge of their crimes, which would be crucial under the amended law.
“Third," Bush said, "I’m asking that Congress make it clear that captured terrorists cannot use the Geneva Conventions as a basis to sue our personnel in courts, in U.S. courts. The men and the women who protect us should not have to fear lawsuits filed by terrorists because they’re doing their jobs.”
This would protect U.S. officials from civil liability for human rights violations. Prisoners released from Guantanamo have already filed such lawsuits against the U.S. government, Bush, Rumsfeld and other officials, which might help to explain why these amendments are Bush’s “top priority.”
The central myth of the War on Terror is that the world faces an unprecedented threat from terrorism that renders obsolete the existing laws of war and international behavior.
Bush framed his justification of torture in a classic use of this mistaken logic: “And in this new war, the most important source of information on where the terrorists are hiding and what they are planning is the terrorists themselves. Captured terrorists have unique knowledge about how terrorist networks operate. They have knowledge of where their operatives are deployed and knowledge about what plots are under way. This is intelligence that cannot be found any other place. And our security depends on getting this kind of information. To win the war on terror, we must be able to detain, question and, when appropriate, prosecute terrorists captured here in America and on the battlefields around the world.”
The context Bush did not provide is that this applies equally to all prisoners of war. Captured soldiers usually do possess information that would be valuable to their captors, and the Geneva Conventions do constrain the ability to extract this information from them, but this is by design. Based on bitter experience, the people and governments of the world have decided that torture is so abhorrent that it must be completely outlawed, even though this results in the loss of information that might save lives or even alert captors to an existential threat to their country.
The purpose of the Hague and Geneva Conventions is to provide all people with certain protections in times of war, to place some limits on the otherwise limitless human suffering that war inflicts. Arguably, governments have agreed to rules of war precisely so that they can continue to wage limited war without plunging their societies into the total chaos that would result from unrestricted use of increasingly destructive modern weapons against entire populations. The Geneva Conventions afford different status to different classes of people, giving rise to different protections for combatants, prisoners of war and civilians. However the notion that certain classes of people fall entirely beyond the protection of these Conventions is not a serious interpretation, unless one is talking of something other than human beings.
For five years, U.S. government officials have justified unlawful actions with political arguments that have no legal merit. Now that the political tide is turning, Bush and his associates are behaving like other war criminals throughout history, marshalling what power they have left to shield themselves from the legitimate consequences of their actions.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Franklinite (Login Franklinite) Approved MikeBrownSucks.com Members
Re: or if ya like links
No score for this post
June 19 2008, 12:39 PM
Ok…. I think we get how much you hate Bush……Talk about propaganda, I actually read all of those articles, I think I’ll go take a shower now …..What are you going to spend your time on when he’s out of office?
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
murf (Login murf129) Approved MikeBrownSucks.com Members
Re: Hmm
No score for this post
June 21 2008, 3:20 AM
Dude, put the bong away!
“…man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.”
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Synonymous Bengal (Login 500finish) Approved MikeBrownSucks.com Members
Re: Hmm
No score for this post
June 21 2008, 8:49 AM
///Based on the above, every US President who was involved in a military conflict is a War Criminal.
One soldier makes a mistake a bombs the wrong or a mistaken target and the President is a war criminal. Laughable.
This country is done.///
bull----.
here it is in legalese so you can stop being an apologist liar.
Wars of Aggression Indictment
Count 1: The Bush administration authorized a war of aggression against Iraq.
Count 2: The Bush administrations authorized conduct of the war that involved the commission of “war crimes.”
Count 3: The Bush administration authorized the occupation of Iraq involving, and continuing to involve, the commission of “war crimes”, “crimes against humanity” and other illegal acts.
The invasion, occupation and torture of prisoners are clear violations of existing International Law, including the following:
3) Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217A(iii), (U.N. Doc A/810 (1948);
4) The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A. Res. 2220A(xxi) 21 U.N. Doc., GAOR Supp. (No 16) at 52, U.N. Doc A/6316 (1966);
5) Geneva Conventions of 1949, Conventions I-IV, August 12, 1949, Additional Protocols I and II to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, opened for signature, December 12, 1977;
6) Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment, G.A. Res. 39/46, 39 U.N. Doc, GAOR Supp. (No. 51) at 197, U.N. Doc. A/39/51 (1984);
7) International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights and of the International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights (1966);
8) Declaration on the Protection of All Persons From Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, G.A. Res. 3452, 30 U.N. Doc., GAOR Supp. (No 34) at 91, U.N. Doc. A/10034 (1976);
9) United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, U.N. Doc. A/CONF/611, ANNEX I., ESC Res. 663(c), 24 U.N. ESCOR Supp. (No 1), at 11, U.N. Doc. E/3048 (1957), amended E.S.C. Res. 2076, 62 U.N. ESCOR Supp. (No. 1), at 35, U.N. Doc. E/5988 (1977);
10) European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, November 4, 1950, 213 UNTS. 221;
11) The Nuremberg Principles [1];
12) Common Law of the United States of America, and;
13) Statutes and common law of the State of New York, including, but not limited to assault and battery, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Count 1
As part of an illegal doctrine of “preemptive war,” based on deliberate and conscious lies, and with no legitimate claim of self defense, the Bush administration planned, prepared and waged the supreme crime of a war of aggression in contravention of the United Nations Charter, the 1949 Geneva Convention [2] and the Nuremberg Principles.
Count 2
The Bush administrations authorized conduct of the war that involved the commission of “war crimes,” including by not limited to:
The targeting of Iraqi leaders in “decapitation” strikes, including prior to the official outbreak of the war included the following:
Targeting the civilian population of Iraq and civilian infrastructure by intentionally directing attacks upon civilians and hospitals, medical centers, residential neighborhoods, electricity stations, and water purification facilities, as well as intense and indiscriminate military operations against many cities and towns causing massive civilian casualties.
Using disproportionate force and weapon systems with indiscriminate effects, such as cluster munitions, incendiary bombs, depleted uranium (DU), and chemical weapons.
Using DU munitions with devastating long-term effects on human beings and the environment.
Extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly. (Geneva Convention)
Seizure of, destruction of willful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion (Mosques), charity and education, the arts and sciences, historic documents and works of art and science.
Willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health. (Geneva Convention)
Attack, or bombardment, by whatever means, of undefended towns, villages, dwellings, and buildings.
Wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, and devastation not justified by military necessity, for example, the wanton destruction of ancient Babylon, where U.S. troops are based with large numbers of troops and material, and the destruction and looting of ancient texts, artifacts, art, and the cultural history of one of the most ancient civilizations in the world.
Count 3
The Bush administration authorized the occupation of Iraq involving, and continuing to involve, the commission of “war crimes”, “crimes against humanity” and other illegal acts, including but not limited to:
The invasion, occupation and imposition of a U.S.-controlled provisional authority has violated the right of self-determination of the Iraqi people by its decrees, practices, imposition of an interim government, managed elections, and administered constitution-making process, violating Article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights and of the International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights (1966) which states: “(1) All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”
Unlawful attacks, including assassinations, summary executions, murders, disappearances, kidnappings and torture, including using deadly violence against peaceful protestors.
Imposing punishments without charge or trial, including collective punishment.
Unlawful detention and torture, including by U.S. military personnel and by paramilitary civilian forces operating anonymously, including widespread, repeated and systematic use of torture and degrading treatment of Iraqi civilian and military personnel detained in prison facilities or covertly transferred to foreign countries known for torture and severe prison conditions, practices which are unconditionally prohibited by international law.
Failure to provide public order and safety, ensure vital services, or to protect Iraqi health and life, including by authorizing, ordering and condoning the systematic destruction of economic, social, cultural, medical, educational, governmental and diplomatic resources, properties and facilities throughout Iraq.
Actively creating conditions under which the status of Iraqi women has seriously been degraded and where many of their civil rights have been lost.
Re-writing the laws of a country that has been illegally invaded and occupied, including fundamental changes in Iraq’s economic structure, including the right of private foreign investors to retain 100% of any profits made in Iraq.
Extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly. (Geneva Convention)
Attack, or bombardment, of undefended towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings.
Willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health. (Geneva Convention)
Willfully depriving a prisoner of war or a civilian of the rights of fair and regular trial. (Geneva Convention)
Willfully devastating the environment, including through the use of DU munitions.
Failing to protect humanity’s rich archaeological and cultural heritage in Iraq
Systematically utilizing, controlling, directing, manipulating, misinforming and restricting press and media coverage and deliberately presenting false and misleading reports to obtain support for U.S. military and political and actions; and to deprive the American people of knowledge essential to develop an informed opinion which is essential to democratic processes and elections.
Ordering young people, American soldiers in particular, to commit terrible acts that will haunt them, their families and their communities. Their acts of torture of Iraqi detainees, and the killing of women, children, injured people, doctors, nurses, and the bombing of places of worship and hospitals will not only brutalize these soldiers individually, but will further the violence and militarization of American culture.
----------------
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
murf (Login murf129) Approved MikeBrownSucks.com Members
Re: Hmm
No score for this post
June 22 2008, 7:47 AM
Wars of Aggression Indictment
Count 1: The Bush administration authorized a war of aggression against Iraq.
So there is a war without aggression?
Count 2: The Bush administrations authorized conduct of the war that involved the commission of “war crimes.”
War crimes?
So the enemy cutting heads with swords on video is playing nice and that evil blue eyed devil Bush is ordering the torture of men, by taking thier pictures.
The horror of it all....lol!
Count 3: The Bush administration authorized the occupation of Iraq involving, and continuing to involve, the commission of “war crimes”, “crimes against humanity” and other illegal acts.
Crimes against humanity...I have got to hear this.
lol!
The invasion, occupation and torture of prisoners are clear violations of existing International Law, including the following:
LMFAO!
Dude, you are seriously killing me.....
I can't stop laughing at your stupidity.
Sorry, but this blue eyed devil has to go for now....
please list the tortures and crimes against hummanity.
“…man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.”
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Synonymous Bengal (Login 500finish) Approved MikeBrownSucks.com Members
Re: Hmm
No score for this post
June 22 2008, 8:10 AM
theyre listed above murf, why type twice, reading is fine.
unless you dont believe in the rule of law (or dont know what the rule of law is), a war of agression violates the us constitution and international law. Guantanamo and other detention facilities admit to violating (attempting to circumvent) these laws by inventing fake classifications for prisoners that dont exist in the law.
its a sad day when fellow countrymen who claim to be patriots are ignorant of the rule of law.
This message has been edited by 500finish on Jun 22, 2008 8:12 AM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
I am not a Bush supporter...but how can you be charged with war crimes against terrorist? They are not soldiers of any one army. They do not represent or defend a country or state.
T
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
dacow (Login dacow) Approved MikeBrownSucks.com Members
This just in TIITR
No score for this post
June 22 2008, 9:20 AM
Iraq is a country. We didn't invade them because they were harboring terrorists. In order to invade we were obligated to follow international law. The actual "legal" reason was the US believed they were under imminent threat of attack by Iraq. If you believe that and beleive that the admin really believed that, then email me I have a couple of bridges I need to sell. Whether you agree we should be "constrained" by international law or not, we agreed to it and violated it. Really its that simple. Its easy to follow the, "they are terroists, we were attacked, they are cutting off our heads, etc, etc. etc but the real question is who is "they." Murf says its anyone we attack. Its more complicated than that.
This message has been edited by dacow on Jun 22, 2008 9:21 AM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
dacow (Login dacow) Approved MikeBrownSucks.com Members
Murf is a genius...
No score for this post
June 22 2008, 9:24 AM
...Wars of Aggression Indictment
Count 1: The Bush administration authorized a war of aggression against Iraq.
So there is a war without aggression?
Yep, its called self-defense. In other words, we were not the aggressor. Its the actual reason we gave for invading Iraq. Got that? We were under threat of imminent attack by Iraq, thats why we went to war. Thats our defense!!! Man, if we hadn't invaded, I am sure Saddam and his navy were on its way to NY!
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Draw (Login Drawon3rdand30) Approved MikeBrownSucks.com Members
Re: Murf is a genius...
No score for this post
June 22 2008, 9:52 AM
Iraq shot at our planes that were flying in the Iraqi no-fly zone (that meant Iraq could not fly there, but the U.S. was authorized to patrol by flight by the U.N. treaty consditions of the surrender of Iraq in the Iraq-Kuwait war).
That was an act of war by I raq against the U.S.
That alone would have justified the war.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who undertsand binary, and those who do not.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
bronco (Login broncobux) MikeBrownSucks.com Forum Moderator
Re: Murf is a genius...
No score for this post
June 22 2008, 10:47 AM
"Iraq shot at our planes that were flying in the Iraqi no-fly zone (that meant Iraq could not fly there, but the U.S. was authorized to patrol by flight by the U.N. treaty consditions of the surrender of Iraq in the Iraq-Kuwait war).
That was an act of war by I raq against the U.S.
That alone would have justified the war."
Dont worry about Bin Laden.
Let's start a war and forget about him...sounds good.
"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Draw (Login Drawon3rdand30) Approved MikeBrownSucks.com Members
Re: Murf is a genius...
No score for this post
June 22 2008, 11:12 AM
We were enforcing the no-fly zone as per the terms of surrender. We had the right as per the terms of sureender to bomb any radar installation running radar in teh no-fly zone. Radar lock is the first thing before a portable surface to air missle fires.
Our planes had a right to be there and Iraq shot missles at them. It was an act of war by Iraq. It really is that simple.
And Bronco, you always seem to try to get me to expalin something further than my postualte. I am only claiming that the U.S. had proper predicate to engage Iraq, nothing more. I made no statement on whether it was done correctly or whether it was right political move.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who undertsand binary, and those who do not.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
dacow (Login dacow) Approved MikeBrownSucks.com Members
Welll...
No score for this post
June 22 2008, 11:51 AM
...That was an act of war by I raq against the U.S.
That alone would have justified the war.
I thought whether violations of UN sanctions justified war was up to the UN. I didn't know that the US unilaterally got to decide when and how to enforce UN sanctions.
I don't recall the Administration stating the reason why we invaded Iraq was because they shot at our planes. Revisionist History 101. Thanks Rush.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Draw (Login Drawon3rdand30) Approved MikeBrownSucks.com Members
Re: Welll...
No score for this post
June 22 2008, 12:44 PM
When someone shoots at you, you do not have to wait until the UN passes a resolution to see if you can kick their ass. This is not a world government.
Furthermore, I did not say that was the administration's reason for going to war, they chose to pin their hopes on other justifications. I just said that shooting as the U.S. aircraft in the no-fly zone was reason enough to start a war. So do not put words in my mouth.
Again, whether that was a good idea or not was not what I addressed.
This message has been edited by Drawon3rdand30 on Jun 22, 2008 12:47 PM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Synonymous Bengal (Login 500finish) Approved MikeBrownSucks.com Members
Re: Murf is a genius...
No score for this post
June 22 2008, 2:14 PM
the laws are listed above.
the if you are stating never happened/was never given as the reason for going to war. we really did bomb infrastructure before declaring war, and we really did embark on a war of agressions. thats what pre-emptive war means.
an international treaty signed by the united states is united states law, not international law.
quit dissimulating. its disgusting.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
We the people of the United States shale elect nothing but war criminals.
Bill Clinton --- war criminal “Clinton's crimes range from ad hoc bombings to boycotts and sanctions designed to starve into submission, to support of ethnic cleansing in brutal counterinsurgency warfare, and to aggression and devastation by bombing designed to return rogues to the stone age and keep them there.”
George Bush 1 --- WAR Criminal “war crimes were committed in his invasion of Panama in 1989, arguably a war of aggression in clear violation of the OAS agreement and the UN Charter. It was done to capture a leader who was involved in the drug trade, although the U.S. had backed him for many years with full knowledge of and no objection to his drug connections-until he ceased to be cooperative in support of the U.S. war on Nicaragua. Several thousand Panamanian civilians were killed and scores of thousands injured in the U.S. invasion, many in bombing raids on civilian areas in Panama City.”
Harry Truman --- war criminal “for example, not only dropped atom bombs on two Japanese cities, in clear violation of the rules against the use of inhumane weapons and targeting civilians, he was also the engineer of the vicious U.S. counterinsurgency war in Greece in 1947-1949 that reestablished the rule of fascists who had sided with the Nazis. In Korea also, although others too were guilty of serious crimes, Truman's ferocious use of air power in which "we burned down every town in North Korea and South Korea, too" (General Curtis LeMay), made him principally responsible for the devastation of Korea, the killing of perhaps four million Koreans, and the firming up of the power of the murderous dictator Syngman Rhee. In its heavy use of napalm in all these victim countries, the sponsorship of torture and concentration camps in Greece during that war, the ruthless use of air-power against civilian targets and a food deprivation strategy in Korea, the Truman administration gave advance notice of the kind of merciless anti-people war the U.S. would bring to its culmination in Indochina.”
My guess is whoever is elected next will be a war criminal.
Synonymous Bengal (Login 500finish) Approved MikeBrownSucks.com Members
Re: Murf is a genius...
No score for this post
June 22 2008, 4:58 PM
fulcher, some of those are war criminals, (esp. clinton, bush sr., and reagan) but some of them helped write the laws and standards that make it so. the difference is that Dubya, his staff and the congresses of his terms are flagrant and intentional war criminals in a scope well beyond any mocking reductio ad aburdam list.
defense by "what about him" finger pointing is not a defense.
This message has been edited by 500finish on Jun 22, 2008 5:00 PM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
By your own omission you have now included the last four Presidents as war criminals. I bet if we were to look also at other leaders in the last 20 years we could have a very extensive list. No it’s not a defense to point fingers at other s crimes as a defense of your own. However leaders tend to make decisions on the good of the whole these actions will always infuriate some and please others. To label every Presidential act in a war as a war crime is outlandish.
Example: One could argue that the dropping of the two atomic weapons was a war crime against civilians of Japan.
One could also argue that the dropping of the bomb’s saved more lives than invading main land Japan and killing countless U.S. soldiers and Japanese.
Another Example:
One could argue that the sanctions by the UN were war crime even acts of genocide by blockading Iraq and starving millions of people.
II.I Genocide through Economic Warfare
Rick McDowell of the Chicago-based organisation Voices in the Wilderness (VW), visited Iraq in late May 1997, as part of a delegation in support of a campaign to end the U.S.-supported UN economic sanctions against Iraq. For the sixth time since January 1991 the delegation had travelled to Iraq, this time nearly six months after the UN ‘Oil for Food’ Resolution 986. The delegation visited hospitals in Baghdad and the southern port city of Basra. Members met with UN and relief officials, doctors, government workers, religious leaders, and Iraqis from all walks of life. Instead of improvements in the availability of food and medicine the delegation “found, instead, a deterioration of all conditions necessary for the sustenance of life. Travelling to Iraq for the third time in nine months, I encountered a resigned hopelessness amongst the people, a population historically known for its resilience.” A decade of “the most comprehensive sanctions in modern history have reduced Iraq and its people to utter destitution”, observed McDowell. “The United Nations Security Council’s economic sanctions, invoked only ten times since the inception of the United Nations, and applied eight times since the end of the Cold War, constitute an extension of the devastating Allied bombing campaign of 1991.”[17]
UN figures show that more than 1.7 million Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the sanctions. British and American government officials publicly deny that sanctions have contributed to the suffering in Iraq. Yet as time has passed, the state of Iraq has steadily degraded, as documented in successive UN reports. In 1995 UNICEF reported:
One then could argue that an invasion on Iraq brought an end to sanctions and saved millions of Iraqi lives.
U.N. Security Council lifts Iraq sanctions
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- The U.N. Security Council voted Thursday to lift sanctions against Iraq after almost 13 years and to give the United States and Great Britain authority to control the country until an elected government is in place.
Resolution 1483 passed by a 14-0 vote, with no abstentions. Syria's ambassador to the United Nations was not present and did not participate in the vote.
John Negroponte, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said that "it is time for the Iraqi people to benefit from their natural resources" after being frozen out of the world's economy under Saddam Hussein's rule.
The resolution requires a one-year review, a step sought by Germany and France so that the U.S.-led power of authority would not be open-ended.
The ambassadors of Russia, France and Germany -- whose countries were three of the strongest opponents of war in Iraq -- expressed satisfaction with the vote.
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, who is in Paris for the G-8 economic summit, told reporters Thursday that France's vote was "a step in the right direction" for the relationship between the United States and France.
"Does it mean the disagreements of the past are simply totally forgotten?" Powell asked. "No, that was not a very pleasant time for any of us. And we have to work our way through that."
The resolution dismantles the oil-for-food program in six months and lifts all sanctions except those on weapons.
The resolution also calls for the Security Council to revisit the issue of whether U.N. arms inspectors will return to Iraq to search for weapons of mass destruction. (Full story)
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Synonymous Bengal (Login 500finish) Approved MikeBrownSucks.com Members
Re: Murf is a genius...
No score for this post
June 23 2008, 8:05 AM
fulcher, this is all well and good, but it still isnt a defense of a criminal war of agression, something that is completely unprecedented in modern U.S. history.
the arguing should be before a council like nuremberg, even though i know it never will be.
This message has been edited by 500finish on Jun 23, 2008 8:06 AM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
SF2 (Login SaintsFanToo) Approved MikeBrownSucks.com Members
So
No score for this post
June 23 2008, 5:46 PM
Example: One could argue that the dropping of the two atomic weapons was a war crime against civilians of Japan.
One could also argue that the dropping of the bomb’s saved more lives than invading main land Japan and killing countless U.S. soldiers and Japanese.
If the same group of citizens that inhabit our country today were alive when those 2 bombs were dropped, Truman would have been likened to Joseph Stalin and Attila the Hun by the vast majority of journalists we have today.
_____________________________________________
January 6,1991: The last post season victory for the Bengals.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
theydey (Login theydey) Approved MikeBrownSucks.com Members
Re: So
No score for this post
June 23 2008, 9:22 PM
One thing I don't get is that the first time Bush Senior went into Iraq all was honkey dorey. In fact, Bush Senior was critisized for not taking out Saddam. Then years later his son goes in and finishes the job yet he becomes the bad guy. Now lets compare the two most excellent adventures shall we?
Both were done to protect, (you guessed it), OIL!! However, one was done with all of the oil loving nations of the UN and the other was not. In large part during the second invasion, you had countries like France who had secret oil dealings with Iraq and did not care to see the US come in and mess it all up so guess what, they vetoed to UN resolution to go into Iraq!!
What makes it even juicer is the fact that Demoncrats like Hillary voted to go into Iraq in the first place. So you say they were mislead? What about the fact that now we have a Democratic congress who has the power to force the president out of Iraq yet nothing is being done!!
The hyporcisy here is astounding. All of these guys are in bed together. Don't get me wrong, I find going to war over oil deplorable, yet, what was the alternative? You see, the US has known since the 1970's that it had a problem with its addiction to foriegn oil and NOTHING has been done. This is the fault of both political parties. All of our eggs were put in one basket and the game from then on out was to protect the basket. Bush Jr. was simply an extension of this game and, in fact, the ground work for the current conflict had been laid long ago.
I guess what astounds me even further is the inability of the US government to move towards other viable energy alternatives while being in the midst of an energy crisis. All the Demoncrats want to do is tax oil companies and use the money to try and come up with alternative fuels that are not currently viable when what should be done is to use currently viable alternatives. Viable energy alternatives include drilling off shore the US and exploring for more abundant natural gas in the US as well as nuclear power. I view the Demoncrat plan of taxing the oil companies as tantamount to trickle down taxation. The oil companies will simply pass the expenses down to the average Joe. In fact, the government takes in more money per gallon of gas than the oil companies make, yet, we should focus on the oil companies as the source of all of our troubles? With the realization that the government is getting rich off of oil as it is now it then makes one wonder what incentives they have for alternate fuels. That would help explain the current Republican/Demoncrat complacency on the issue. They simply refer to "environmental concers" as to why they do not proceed as they should with other vialbe alternative energies.
If you ask me, becoming energy dependent is the key to the majority of our ills. For example, if you take the profit out of Middle Eastern oil, terrorism will begin to fade. Case in point, terrorists like Bin Laden became rich off of Middle Eastern oil and used his fortune to fight the US. Also, our economy will no longer be held hostage to outrageous fuel costs. This is needed to have a stable economy. So when people say, "Its the economy stupid", just look at them and say, "No, its the energy stupid". Also, why are we in Iraq currently while slowly going bankrupt as the value of the dollar tumbles? Is it not foriegn oil? We then have two choices. We can keep things the way they are and continue to defend the Middle Eastern oil fields to the death, or we can provide for ourselves.
Oh yea, I forgot an alternate plan. We can neither protect the oil fields in the Middle East nor provide for viable energy alternatives and destroy what is left of our country!!!!
This message has been edited by theydey on Jun 23, 2008 9:41 PM This message has been edited by theydey on Jun 23, 2008 9:41 PM This message has been edited by theydey on Jun 23, 2008 9:37 PM This message has been edited by theydey on Jun 23, 2008 9:36 PM This message has been edited by theydey on Jun 23, 2008 9:34 PM This message has been edited by theydey on Jun 23, 2008 9:31 PM This message has been edited by theydey on Jun 23, 2008 9:25 PM This message has been edited by theydey on Jun 23, 2008 9:24 PM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
OldSchoolerFan (Login oldschoolerfan) Approved MikeBrownSucks.com Members
Actually
No score for this post
June 24 2008, 9:39 AM
"i stopped reading there. bush senior NEVER went into Iraq. the war was fought in KUWAIT. "
Yes, he did. The ground forces stopped approximately 100 miles from Baghdad during Persian Gulf ONE. I heard from several ground force soldiers that Bush ordered our forces to stop due to the "carnage". Whatever. You would have thought that Saddam would have learned his lesson the 1st time.
Saddam reminded me of that kid you got into a fight with that you kept on hitting over and over again and won't stay down. People that are surrounding the fight stop cheering and start yelling "stay down". You have to keep on hitting the kid over and over but they still won't stay down. Finally, you have to walk away from the fight before you kill the "poor" guy. Then he gets up and yells something dumb like "I knew you would walk away, puzzy!!!!!" Years later you hear about this same guy getting stabbed to death at a stoplight roadraging. I wonder why.
"So he got fired? Big deal. It's happened to the best of us. So he got kicked out of his house by his 400 lb'ed wife?!?!? That's probably better for him anyways."-OldSchooler on ChrisMBHater's absence
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Synonymous Bengal (Login 500finish) Approved MikeBrownSucks.com Members
Re: So
No score for this post
June 24 2008, 10:56 AM
youre actually sort of right jeffery, talked to a 5sfg buddy about it. the official stance is we didnt enter iraq, as it was beyond the scope of the goal of that conflict (liberating kuwait). the truth is we bombed the hell out of the major highway to baghdad and sent a small incursion force to disrupt supply and conduct recon.
we also chased retreating forces to within about 150 miles of baghdad in a tank oriented sweep move, and it was that move which was called back as being unauthorised before the war ended 2 days later..
mea-culpa. i actually called a buddy to clarify.
anyhow, we've wandered off topic.
This message has been edited by 500finish on Jun 24, 2008 11:07 AM This message has been edited by 500finish on Jun 24, 2008 10:59 AM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
(Login broncobux) MikeBrownSucks.com Forum Moderator
Re: So
No score for this post
June 24 2008, 11:07 AM
As it pertains to Iraq Part 1, Were we involved in another skirmish in Afghanistan at that time trying to find people who masterminded the murder of a few thousand Americans?
Its apples and oranges people.
Only a short-sided dumbfukker invades another country for no fly violations when the masterminds of the greatest American tragedy needs to be hunted down in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
I quit reading after the first sentence.
"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."
This message has been edited by broncobux on Jun 24, 2008 11:33 AM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
murf (Login murf129) Approved MikeBrownSucks.com Members
Re: So
No score for this post
June 24 2008, 11:32 AM
We did not go into Iraq?
You are an idiot!
My brother would tell you another story, and so would about 150 Rangers, that saved a few hundred Iraqi civilians running for thier life from Saddam's army.
Just ou
