who is the biggest war criminal?

[limerickman]

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.

Well I have demostrated here too : we have a civilian airport 15 miles up the road from us which allows American aircraft with soldiers to stop off here.
We're supposed to be a neutral country - yet we're refuelling US aircraft, part of the US war machine.
I have demonstrated at the Airport with other protesters objecting to our neutrality being abused.

 

[davidmc]

Well I have demostrated here too : we have a civilian airport 15 miles up the road from us which allows American aircraft with soldiers to stop off here.
We're supposed to be a neutral country - yet we're refuelling US aircraft, part of the US war machine.
I have demonstrated at the Airport with other protesters objecting to our neutrality being abused.

In the middle-east, this kind of behaviour would not be tolerated. See where I'm going w/ this

 

[darkboong]

In the middle-east, this kind of behaviour would not be tolerated.

Wrong, protesting is tolerated in the middle East. In fact the West has a lot in common with the Middle East in this regard. If you protest against something that the authorities don't want you to protest about then you get harrassed, beaten and incarcerated.

Recently a woman was arrested while protesting at Fylingdales. The judge dismissed the charges, yet the judge allowed the authorities to place her under curfew and house arrest. This wasn't Burma, Iran, or Syria, this was the UK. There is no doubt in my mind that another Bloody Sunday can and will happen again here in the UK.

See where I'm going w/ this

Yeah, I do, but the problem is that you are basing a moral judgement on the basis of false data.

It is worth pointing out (again) that the US has targetted the most progressive countries in the Middle East whilst maintaining support for the most oppressive regimes in the region.

 

[davidmc]

It is worth pointing out (again) that the US has targetted the most progressive countries in the Middle East whilst maintaining support for the most oppressive regimes in the region.

Not invading a country, does not constitute "support"

From Rousseau:

"It is said that the despot secures to his subjects civil peace. Be it so; but what do they gain by that, if the wars which his ambition brings upon them, together with his insatiable greed & the vexations of his admin., harass them more than thier own dissensions would? What do they gain by it if this tranquility is itself one of thier miseries? Men live tranquilly also in dungeons; is that enough to make them contented there? The Greeks confined in the cave of the Cyclops lived peacefully until thier turn came to be devoured
To say that a man gives himself for nothing is to say what is absurd and inconcievable; such an act is illegitamite and invalid, for the simple reason that he who performs it is not in his right mind. To say the same thing of a whole nation is to suppose a nation of folls; and madness does not confer rights."

There are those, here on this thread, who claim that Iraq was a "swimmingly" good place, for its citizens, before the invasion. Rubbish !!!

 

[limerickman]

In the middle-east, this kind of behaviour would not be tolerated. See where I'm going w/ this

Frankly, I don't see where you're going with anything recently, Dave.

 

[darkboong]

Not invading a country, does not constitute "support"

Indeed. However, donating a few $bn/year of cash and weaponry does constitute support.

There are those, here on this thread, who claim that Iraq was a "swimmingly" good place, for its citizens, before the invasion. Rubbish !!!

No one here is claiming it was a "swimmingly good place". Provide some quotes please.

I, and others, are saying that it is much worse as a result of the occupation. It isn't just one aspect either, everything from violence, healthcare to basics like food are measurably worse.

The anarchy that has resulted should not be a surprise to anyone, it was widely expected by people with much more experience of that kind of conflict than Bush and his fellow draft dodgers. Bush and his draft-dodger cronies know bugger all about the region in comparison to the Foreign Office Alumni that wrote an open letter to Tony Blair in opposition to the invasion and subsequent occupation. I am guessing that the US media hasn't bothered covering that cruicial letter either.

 

[EoinC]

Not invading a country, does not constitute "support" ...

Saudi Arabia? Kuwait?

...Men live tranquilly also in dungeons...

Such as Guantanemo Bay...

...There are those, here on this thread, who claim that Iraq was a "swimmingly" good place, for its citizens, before the invasion. Rubbish !!!

I think that you'll have to point out where those claims were made, David. I haven't seen them. Better than the current conditions? - Yes. "Swimmingly" good? - No.

 

[davidmc]

Better than the current conditions? - Yes. "Swimmingly" good? - No.

I think it is worth noting that revolutions, for the most part take more than 24 month's. As an aside, it is my country's birthday tomorrow. The precipitor of the American Revolution. It is worth noting that I hold modern Englishmen in very high esteem as as comrades in arms. This (Iraq) is a revolutionary gov't. People get to vote for more than one candidate. The rebel's are not helping matter's by sabotaging infrastructure & suicide bombing's. The coalition forces are doing the best they can to resupply the basic infrastructure that was present before the invasion. It is somewhat difficult to do when you are either being shot at or kidnapped I read an article month's ago that was an expose' on one of the biggest power generating plant's in Babylon. It was a relic from the seventies w/ all kinds of jury rig's. SH was using the country's money to build palaces. Do you honestly believe he gave a feck about the vast majority of his population

 

[davidmc]

Frankly, I don't see where you're going with anything recently, Dave.

I'm an Atheist w/ an attitude. I'm doing all I can to keep my head above water over here. What w/ Bush representing everything, domestically; mind you, that I completely disagree with. Foriegn policy is another question however. I was for an invasion of Iraq for violation of Security Council Resolution's ("Stone-Walling") & financing of Suicide Bomber's in Israel. I was not for the "sexed up" WMD pretext that I was pretty sure was only a guess anyway. SH orchestrated &/or condoned looting of his treasury for personal gain & turned a "blind eye" to the "free-time" activities of his son's (rape/sadism) He (SH) was/is, quite simply, a miscreant.

 

[EoinC]

I think it is worth noting that revolutions, for the most part take more than 24 month's...

I may be wrong, but I always thought that, in a revolution, you overthrow the government (or proxy) of your own Country, not somebody else's.

...The rebel's are not helping matter's by sabotaging infrastructure & suicide bombing's...

Please don't tell me that this was an unexpected outcome. It was well known since Ba'ath came to power that their suppression of the Shi'ite people would bring about a backlash as soon as the Shi'ite were in a position to do so. I'm sure that the various rebel groups are grateful to the Allies for providing the vacuum to allow this to happen.

...SH was using the country's money to build palaces...

After having spent the bulk of the money on fighting a proxy war against Iran on behalf of sectors of the West.

...Do you honestly believe he gave a feck about the vast majority of his population

No, and I haven't seen anyone here claim that this was the case. The same could be said for the leaders of a large number of Nations around the World who have not yet been blessed with an Allied invasion. I also haven't seen you explain why it is that, violation of United Nations Security Council Resolutions is cause alone for invasion of Iraq (remember, you are proffering that this was the only possible way of dealing with SH and the situation in Iraq), but that the same does not apply to other Nations which have violated such resolutions for decades.
Can you tell me, David, did the Allies invade Iraq in order to save its people from a dictator (now seems to be the flavour of the day, but I don't remember it as the originating premise), or did the Allies invade Iraq to save the World from WMD, or did the Allies invade Iraq to protect Israel, or did the Allies invade Iraq to enforce UNSC Resolutions, or did the Allies invade Iraq in order to maintain a stable stronghold on Middle East Oil geography, or did the Allies invade Iraq to avenge a link with 9/11, or did the Allies invade Iraq in order to provide a buffer against Iran, or did the Allies invade Iraq in order to...? The reasons keep shifting like sand grains in the desert.

 

[EoinC]

...SH orchestrated &/or condoned looting of his treasury for personal gain & turned a "blind eye" to the "free-time" activities of his son's (rape/sadism) He (SH) was/is, quite simply, a miscreant.

As has been pointed out, the Nations which make up the Alliance have been less ready to jump in in the name of righteousness with other great looting leaders - Ceausescu, Pinnochet, Mugabe, Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevi...

 

[limerickman]

I'm an Atheist w/ an attitude. I'm doing all I can to keep my head above water over here. What w/ Bush representing everything, domestically; mind you, that I completely disagree with. Foriegn policy is another question however. I was for an invasion of Iraq for violation of Security Council Resolution's ("Stone-Walling") & financing of Suicide Bomber's in Israel. I was not for the "sexed up" WMD pretext that I was pretty sure was only a guess anyway. SH orchestrated &/or condoned looting of his treasury for personal gain & turned a "blind eye" to the "free-time" activities of his son's (rape/sadism) He (SH) was/is, quite simply, a miscreant.

Yes, SH was a terrible dictator.
No one I think is trying to make the case that SH was anything other than a despot.

But let's be clear here : as despicable as SH was/is, the reasons given by the USA for the invasion of Iraq were lies.
And your country has no right to be in Iraq since March 2003

If the discussion has moved to "the removal of SH ought in itself to have been supported", then that is a more hypothetical topic.
My answer to that would be "George Bush senior ought to have completed the task back during the first gulf war ..." but given that George Bush I secured
the only real thing that interests him, the oil fields of Kuwait, he didn't want to have to deal with a trifling issue of a despot.

 

[Carrera]

The problem is, it's all well and good for politicians in your country and my country to lecture people on democracy and human rights or responsible government. But then to invade a sovereign country, overturn the government and then not take responsibility for the mess and chaos that follows, is nothing short of criminal.
The Iraqis had 2 choices: The first was life under Saddam Hussein, an ageing dictator who had few rusty skuds to his name (after the first Gulf War). The second option is an American imposed administration that views the Iraqi people as chattel, has been proven to abuse them physically and sexually in prison, scorns their customs and religion and arrests people without trial, dividing families. Add to that the destruction of Fallujah, the rise in birth deformities (now documented due to plutonium poisoning), the infiltration of foreign jihadis into the country and loss of womens' rights.
If I were an Iraqi I would be extremely angry to say the least. I suspect that many Iraqis are more furious than angry. Many have now joined Al Quaida or joined such movements abroad. Some people lost their entire businesses and family.
The U.S. believes it can invade foreign lands on a basis of "might is right" but such an irresponsible foreign policy will reap a bitter harvest. The fact is Al Quaida is far stronger than it was prior to 9/11 and all Bush has accomplished is to rally thousands more recruits for the cause of hatred. Iraq is already way out of control and considerably worse off than under Saddam. So, how is the average Iraqi going to reconcile all of that?
There is no justification for breaking international law and my view is that Bush should have been sanctioned internationally for doing so. My view all along is that he was guilty of crimes against humanity, no different than Miloshevich.

I'm an Atheist w/ an attitude. I'm doing all I can to keep my head above water over here. What w/ Bush representing everything, domestically; mind you, that I completely disagree with. Foriegn policy is another question however. I was for an invasion of Iraq for violation of Security Council Resolution's ("Stone-Walling") & financing of Suicide Bomber's in Israel. I was not for the "sexed up" WMD pretext that I was pretty sure was only a guess anyway. SH orchestrated &/or condoned looting of his treasury for personal gain & turned a "blind eye" to the "free-time" activities of his son's (rape/sadism) He (SH) was/is, quite simply, a miscreant.

 

[davidmc]

Indeed. However, donating a few $bn/year of cash and weaponry does constitute support.

1) To which country are you attributing this comment & 2) Do you disapprove of the financial help. I'll take a "wild guess" & say the country's name begins w/ an "I". Am I correct in this assumption Along the same vien, Egypt is our second largest recipient of financial aid. Is that wrong, in your eye's, too

I, and others, are saying that it is much worse as a result of the occupation. It isn't just one aspect either, everything from violence, healthcare to basics like food are measurably worse.

That is a given in any "conflict". When has it been otherwise

 

[davidmc]

There is no justification for breaking international law and my view is that Bush should have been sanctioned internationally for doing so. My view all along is that he was guilty of crimes against humanity, no different than Miloshevich.

Very well. That is your prerogative. What would you do w/ Prime Minister Blair

 

[davidmc]

Yes, SH was a terrible dictator.
No one I think is trying to make the case that SH was anything other than a despot.

But let's be clear here : as despicable as SH was/is, the reasons given by the USA for the invasion of Iraq were lies.
And your country has no right to be in Iraq since March 2003

Let's also be clear also that the U.S.A. was not the only participant in this action. These other countries are conveniently, at least on this thread, never mentioned

 

[EoinC]

Let's also be clear also that the U.S.A. was not the only participant in this action. These other countries are conveniently, at least on this thread, never mentioned

David, you are correct. In my view, the governments of UK, Australia and other Allies who have chosen to partake in this invasion and occupation of a sovereign Nation are also culpable.

 

[EoinC]

We have decided to invade your Country and are therefore creating a "conflict". You are suffering. That is OK because...

...That is a given in any "conflict". When has it been otherwise

 

[EoinC]

Is there ever going to come a time when the peoples of the 'Free West' will realise that, when their governments decide to play at World Policemen, there is always an economic / tactical basis for doing so? Although they purport to be morally driven, interference in other Nations' affairs is always to do with maintaining economic access or driving a tactical wedge to disrupt the economic access of others.
Australia's big stick role in the independence of East Timor only came about when it recognised that its agreements with Indonesia on the Zone of Co-operation hydrocarbon resources were under threat of being nullified. It comfortably forgot that, since 1975 it (along with the US) it had tacitly supported Indonesia's annexation of the (then recently independent) Nation. If I recall correctly, President Ford and Henry Kissinger were in Jakarta, meeting with President Suharto on the eve of the invasion and gave their approval for it to proceed, Kissinger just requesting that Suharto hold off until he and Ford had returned to the US as it would appear that they were complicit if they happened to be at the scene of the crime.
Whenever powerful governments ennunciate moral causes as the basis for their actions, there is a high probability of smoke and mirrors clouding the reality. If the governments of the Allied Nations are really so concerned with the lifestyles of others, there are plenty of peoples around the World living on the brink of disaster who could do with assistance. Unfortunately they are unlikely to receive the kind of expenditure we are seeing being thrown at Iraq because...their piece of dirt doesn't have oil sitting below it.
Perhaps you don't realise just how big this business is. As I have noted before, I work at sucking the old Black Gold out of the ground and I have noticed that Oil & Gas are very big players in the way the World is divided up. When I checked a couple of years ago, ExxonMobil, as a Company, had higher annual earnings than the GDP of 9 of the World's Nations. Isn't that kind of scary power? Your Nation could undergo a takeover by way of the NYSE. Gabon is French and the oilfields fall under Total's mantle. Next door is Equatorial Guinea whose oilfields fall under mantle of US Companies. These 2 Countries have a border dispute which is focussed on gaining territorial water ownership over offshore islands. The dispute has little to do with historical ties, and much to do with which Oil Company will end up gaining the rights to explore. Big business engaging in battle with each other by proxy.
The Allied Forces may feel that they are fighting to free the people of Iraq, but that is not why their respective governments put them in there. Liberation of people is not high on the agenda of our governments. They have always enjoyed associating with totalitarian Nations, as their governments tend to be stable and can be swayed with praise and baubles. Liberty only becomes an issue when it appears that change may be in the air and that a totalitarian government may be becoming weak or may be about to switch allegiances.

 

[limerickman]

Just reading a book called "The End of Oil" by Paul Roberts.
This detailed book examines energy requirements of this age, throughout the world, and then tries to plot how those requirements will be met.
Roberts gives some fascinating details about the oil industry, the reserves, alternative hydrocarbon sources of energy.

He explores the concept of "easy oil" (which are supplies which can be easily accessed and are relatively cheap to refine and distribute), "expensive oil" which is oil that is located but is not cheap to refine or produce and "unknown oil" which is oil that may well be out there but which has never been located, tested, and subject to cost/benefit analysis.

Roberts talks to oil optimists and oil pessimists : those who think we will be able to weather the shortage and those who think we're in the toilet.
80m barrels of oil a day, each day, everyday are required to fuel the worlds energy needs (of which the USA consumes 46% of total).
When China and India are online - that requirement will increase to 150m barrels of day, every day, 24 hours perday.

Given that known reserves totals 2 trillion barrels : it is now a matter of not if but when, the tipping point is reached.

Roberts also makes the case about geopolitical issues : oil and politics are entwinned and have been entwinned since Standard Oil (JD Rockerfeller) time.
Roberts articulates the case that whoever has oil, has the West by the groin and that because energy in the west is based on oil, then the oil countries
play the tune.

Roberts discussed alternative sources of energy - wind farming, hydrogen fuel cell energy, fusion, fisson.



It's a very very worthwhile read.