who is the biggest war criminal?



davidmc said:
If 80% comprises Germany & France then...well...yes. I have a difficult time holding France to acct. because of thier bankrolling our revolution & the invaluable service of thier Navy to help us throw off the chain's of England. Thier actions in this century & the last inre: conflict, century are debatable &, therefore they are not the same entity.
As a neighbour of the French, iI have some issues with them, but not inre with this. I don't know if 80% of countries opposed the war, but there was a whole lot more the France and Germany (certainly if you consider the people's opinion). France just happens to have a veto right.

But why keep bringing up this OFF thing? I haven't seen any proof that the goverments of say France germany or Russia were doing any illegal profiteering of this. Sure, they were doing business with iraq, more than others, but was it illegal? I know some companies and officials were involved in the scandal (including US companies)

If the Russians or French wanted to make money, they would have backed the invasion, right? They knew the US was going in anyway and could get one of those sweet no-bid contracts....

catch you later :cool:
 
limerickman said:
Dave - I cannot defend SH nor would I ever attempt to.
But that doesn't give the USA carte-blanche to go around invading countries
without motive.

Look at Zimbadwe : I know your country hasn't been covering what's going on there, so let me give you a quick summary.
Robert Mugabe - the top man in Zim - is currently involved in ethnic cleaning of whites and those blacks who oppose him.
People are starving in the Zimbadwe - the breadbasket of Africa.
Mugabe is a dictator.
Moghaidishu is still fresh on our minds ("Black Hawk Down")
The same type as SH : he puts his political opponents in prison and starves them.
A white MP Alan Bennett has just been released after 8 months prison and hard labour : he's lost 75% of his body weight.
Mugabe bulldozed his home and took all his possessions.
When will we expect the US troops in Zimbadwe ?

SH financed terrorism in Israel ? I don't know if he did or not to be honest.
There have been so many lies put about, what you say about Israel could be another myth.
(I'm not saying it is - there is a possibility though).
Bush didn't say that Israel was a factor in the invasion of Iraq.
He didn't use Israel as an excuse because the rest of the world would tell Bush where to get off.
I am not going to tell you to get off - but I am going to ask you to get real.

The invasion of Iraq was based on a tissue of lies.
SH was no threat to the USA - no more than Mugabe is.
The only country that SH fired missles at during the 1st Gulf War-Israel.
Violation of Security Council Resolutions is reason enough to invade. Sanctions were only hurting the poor. SH was getting fat what w/ all the OFF profits. He wasn't going hungry. Believe you me. 14 resolutions-14. "Paper" (resolutions) didn't scare him into compliance. Why throw more "paper" at him :confused:
 
davidmc said:
...Violation of Security Council Resolutions is reason enough to invade...
If that is the case, when are you moving in to Israel? Truly the master when it comes to violation of United Nations Security Council Resolutions. Try Resolution #425 [1978] for size (now replaced with the broader Resolution #1559 [2004]). Allied forces in now...?
 
this "just in"
"memos reveal war crime warnings"
http://msnbc.com/id/4999734

the lawful adherence to the geneva convention was publicly waived, as in intentionaly disregarded and violated in the ongoing bush invasion of afganistan.

this was not the case in the recent and ongoing bush invasion of iraq.

you can google:
war crimes act section 2441
for perinent background.

we may now appoint investigative subcommitee, then special prosecutor.

all those long winded repubs who prattled on regarding clinton's impeachment may now apply their oratory skills for the current administration, and their crew who jumped ship as well. if only because legality takes precedence over bogus morality when one is out to save their own donkey.

and all of those who find a way to support us agressions in the name of fighting terrorism, you know 9/11 and all, no wait, wmd, er, supporting democracy i guess, will find this a far less fashionable view to espouse as it means complicity in supporting lying murdering criminals.

this includes those who have had their heads in the sand as well as certain anatomical positioning.

the only wmd presently in iraq is being brought down on the innocent civilians of an invaded and now occupied nation for the interests of bush and his billionaire cronies. or should we say handlers.

"lawyers guns and money, the sh*t has hit the fan" -Zevon
 
davidmc said:
You refer to your country as Britain(?) yet you state that you voted for Bush. Do you have "dual-citizenship" :confused:

I thought that too, then Jupiler rightly pointed out that he probably meant that he voted for Bush in the War Criminal vote. :)
 
Hypnospin said:
this "just in"
"memos reveal war crime warnings"...
The problem is that the US has "unsigned" the Treaty that they entered into (but did not ratify) in 2001 in support of the International Criminal Court.

crimesofwar.org - "In its public statements, the United States has spoken in particular of its concern that US military personnel or government officials serving overseas should not be liable to prosecution by the court. During his press conference on May 6, Ambassador Prosper said, "Our primary concern is toward our US service members and officials acting in their official capacity." In a statement released on the same day, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stated, "Fortunately there may be mechanisms within the treaty by which we can work bilaterally with friends and allies, to the extent they are willing, to prevent the jurisdiction of the treaty and thus avoid complications in our military cooperation.""

crimesofwar.org - "The United States announced on February 28 that it wants to end the United Nations' system of international war crimes tribunals by the year 2007-8 because they foster "a dependency on international institutions." "

Basically the US government wants to dissemble any war crime tribunal that has international powers as it leaves US citizens open to being brought before such a tribunal. They have said that they are willing to assist individual Nations to carry out their own inhouse prosecutions and, no doubt, will take care of any war crimes they perceive themselves to have carried out...
 
davidmc said:
Moghaidishu is still fresh on our minds ("Black Hawk Down")

The only country that SH fired missles at during the 1st Gulf War-Israel.
Violation of Security Council Resolutions is reason enough to invade. Sanctions were only hurting the poor. SH was getting fat what w/ all the OFF profits. He wasn't going hungry. Believe you me. 14 resolutions-14. "Paper" (resolutions) didn't scare him into compliance. Why throw more "paper" at him :confused:

Dave - non one here is saying that SH was a virtuous guy man.
No one.
The fact is he was a brutal dictator.

But given that SH was a brutal dictator, that doesn't in any way legitimise the invasion of Iraq.
Iraq posed no threat to the USA.
Iraq wasn;t even a Middle Eastern regional threat.

The tissue of lies told by your country to gain support for the invasion of Iraq
compounds the warcrime of that invasion.
Your country lied to the world.

As regards Israel and attacks by SH : I don't know if that was the case.
I don't recall the Israeli's ever making an issue of it as it happens.
Even your President didn't suggest attacks on Isreal to justify the 2003 Iraq
invasion.
Your President continues to lie when he says that 9/11 and Iraq are connected.
9/11 and Iraq were NEVER CONNECTED.

Are you happy with your President digging up the bodies of 9/11 to justify the
Iraq invasion and your country's economically woeful performance since
9/11 ?
 
Jupiler said:
As a neighbour of the French, iI have some issues with them, but not inre with this. I don't know if 80% of countries opposed the war, but there was a whole lot more the France and Germany (certainly if you consider the people's opinion). France just happens to have a veto right.

But why keep bringing up this OFF thing? I haven't seen any proof that the goverments of say France germany or Russia were doing any illegal profiteering of this. Sure, they were doing business with iraq, more than others, but was it illegal? I know some companies and officials were involved in the scandal (including US companies)

If the Russians or French wanted to make money, they would have backed the invasion, right? They knew the US was going in anyway and could get one of those sweet no-bid contracts....

catch you later :cool:

Judging by the inept performance of Mr Norm Coleman and his US Senate committee at the George Galloway hearings in to the OFF, I suspect that the Yanks have a lot more dirty linen of their own to uncover for the OFF.

I will await to see the "100,000+ lraqi lives for Hailliburton program Senate Enquiry" after 2008, with interest.
 
this may be open to further interpretaion by those with legal familiarity or the willingness to investigate, among us.

at least the info has been made available, but not by the commercial network approved and sanitzed news sources the majority in the us tend to base their beliefs upon.

one thing for sure, amnesty international has placed, in recent report, the us the top of the list in human rights violations.

amnesty international goes on to recommend investigations be conducted by the us into accoutability for these violations. further, they state the international community conduct their own investigations into us violations, that the us cooperate with these measures, and hold those responsible accountable.

if this fails, they then go on to advocate that those who are deemed uncooperative and or responsible be detained and or arrested by the international community as they are travelling outside the us...

also, it was reported on by amy goodman on free speech radio network news that after recent military attacks by the us within iraq, iraqi doctors reported medical examinations confirming immolated corpses that were a result of napalm and white phosphorous from these us led attacks.

also the use of nerve gas, and mustard gas was cited during these us led attacks.

looks like wmd may have been found in iraq after all...

the order to use these wmds can only have come from the top, and were intended for targeting civilians as a way to terrorize the populace of these areas into being docile. this for the cause of bringing fallujah "to heel" as the us termed it.
this subject was reported as being broached at the un and met with us dismissal, but is making the rounds in the press outside the us.






EoinC said:
The problem is that the US has "unsigned" the Treaty that they entered into (but did not ratify) in 2001 in support of the International Criminal Court.

crimesofwar.org - "In its public statements, the United States has spoken in particular of its concern that US military personnel or government officials serving overseas should not be liable to prosecution by the court.
 
lim, the threat posed to the us had to do with a nation (or ruler of a nation) that wanted market price for their resources and to establish their own currency and banking.

a dangerous example to be had, as it may lead to true freedom from us domination of other nations.

remember when ussr was in afganistan those fighting were "freedom fighters".

now those who oppose invasion are called "insurgents" by the us corporate media.

this challenge iraq dealt to the us domination of currency, resources and banking is a threat to the interests of the us, but in a way that establishes any pretext for invasion?

yes or no, once the true icons of the voting populus of the bush supporters were invoked, namely, the flag, vengence, budweiser, television, good ol' stock car racin', pro wrestling and christianity,
(no, not necessarily in that order) it was time for the "united we stand"
order to roll.
and all the consequences of being a nation of followers of the current administration and their henchmen, oops, and henchwoman, are starting to hit home in the heartland of middle america, as the mentally and physicaly mutilated boys and girls come home.


when bush speaks in terms of "stability in the area" as justification for protecting his cash cow of the legacy of his daddy and his current handlers, this will offer explaination of what he is talking about.



limerickman said:
Dave - non one here is saying that SH was a virtuous guy man.
No one.
The fact is he was a brutal dictator.

But given that SH was a brutal dictator, that doesn't in any way legitimise the invasion of Iraq.
Iraq posed no threat to the USA.
Iraq wasn;t even a Middle Eastern regional threat.
 
Hypnospin said:
yes or no, once the true icons of the voting populus of the bush supporters were invoked, namely, the flag, vengence, budweiser, television, good ol' stock car racin', pro wrestling and christianity,

I would like to add Professional Bull Riding to that.
 
EoinC said:
If that is the case, when are you moving in to Israel? Truly the master when it comes to violation of United Nations Security Council Resolutions. Try Resolution #425 [1978] for size (now replaced with the broader Resolution #1559 [2004]). Allied forces in now...?
Remember the old saying-"The enemy of my enemy is my friend".
 
limerickman said:
Judging by the inept performance of Mr Norm Coleman and his US Senate committee at the George Galloway hearings in to the OFF, I suspect that the Yanks have a lot more dirty linen of their own to uncover for the OFF.

I will await to see the "100,000+ lraqi lives for Hailliburton program Senate Enquiry" after 2008, with interest.
Anyone care to weigh in on PM Tony Blair's & his countries involvement...Hmmm... :confused:
 
davidmc said:
Anyone care to weigh in on PM Tony Blair's & his countries involvement...Hmmm... :confused:
From Memos, Insights Into Ally's Doubts On Iraq War
British Advisers Foresaw Variety of Risks, Problems

By Glenn Frankel
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, June 28, 2005; A01



LONDON -- In the spring of 2002, two weeks before British Prime Minister Tony Blair journeyed to Crawford, Tex., to meet with President Bush at his ranch about the escalating confrontation with Iraq, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw sounded a prescient warning.

"The rewards from your visit to Crawford will be few," Straw wrote in a March 25 memo to Blair stamped "Secret and Personal." "The risks are high, both for you and for the Government."

In public, British officials were declaring their solidarity with the Bush administration's calls for elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. But Straw's memo and seven other secret documents disclosed in recent months by British journalist Michael Smith together reveal a much different picture. Behind the scenes, British officials believed the U.S. administration was already committed to a war that they feared was ill-conceived and illegal and could lead to disaster.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/27/AR2005062701584_pf.html
 
correction: this was reported on radio station KVMR, of nevada city, ca.
and not by amy goodman's "democracy now" program as i stated.
sorry for the mixup.



Hypnospin said:
also, it was reported on by amy goodman on free speech radio network news that after recent military attacks by the us within iraq, iraqi doctors reported medical examinations confirming immolated corpses that were a result of napalm and white phosphorous from these us led attacks.

also the use of nerve gas, and mustard gas was cited during these us led attacks.

looks like wmd may have been found in iraq after all...

the order to use these wmds can only have come from the top, and were intended for targeting civilians as a way to terrorize the populace of these areas into being docile. this for the cause of bringing fallujah "to heel" as the us termed it.
this subject was reported as being broached at the un and met with us dismissal, but is making the rounds in the press outside the us.






EoinC said:
The problem is that the US has "unsigned" the Treaty that they entered into (but did not ratify) in 2001 in support of the International Criminal Court.

crimesofwar.org - "In its public statements, the United States has spoken in particular of its concern that US military personnel or government officials serving overseas should not be liable to prosecution by the court.
 
davidmc said:
Anyone care to weigh in on PM Tony Blair's & his countries involvement...Hmmm... :confused:

For the record, I do condemn Tony Blair : his actions are despicable and equally culpable.
John Howard of Australia too and Silvio Berlusconi as well.


However, on this forum, it appears that only American members of the Cyclingforum are attempting to justify their country's actions in Iraq.

 
perhaps this can be attributed to the desire to believe that the usa is somehow authorized, in the name of some concept of "freedom, liberty, and democracy" to act in the best interest of whatever nation that bush decides to invade.

and that the us is the ultimate authoritative force in deciding and shaping the future of any nation that bush decides to invade.

only there are at least couple problems with holding these beliefs that are coming to the fore as the war atrocity goes on and the people get weary of waving the flag in the name of misguided aims.

one, this is the way of following a president who makes continued military decisions based on proven illegitimate and deceitful reasoning.

two, invasion is an act against, not for, any nation which is invaded.

for true liberty, freedom, and democracy to be an option in the affairs of any nation that nation must have freedom of control over it's own processes.
otherwise, who is really being fought for?


to offer an answer, i would venture to opine no one.
only us control, dominance, and arrogant superiority are being fought for in this case.

these are the aspects of us that i see as being readily realized outside the us, and now starting to be realized to a greater extent inside the us.



limerickman said:
However, on this forum, it appears that only American members of the Cyclingforum are attempting to justify their country's actions in Iraq.
 
EoinC said:
Equally despicable.

I marched this year, and took great delight in singing "We all live in a Terrorist Regime, a Terrorist Regime ..." to the tune of Yellow Submarine. :)

Blair and his cronies need a beating for what they have done IMO.
 

Similar threads