Bush Should Follow Saddam Into The Dock

and GWB is also responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives destroyed. (The Allies don't even count the Iraqi casualties, sickening as this is.)

Not to speak of all the material damage, much of it caused because of negligence (criminal I think). Also the loss of priceless relics of humanity's common past beccause of the looting of the Iraqi National Museum that so amused Rumsfeld and that disgusting crowd of "journalists" all laughed at.

But my friend it has always been victor's justice after a war of conquest.

Which is another accusation to which GWB should answer. (I'll find and post here a piece Jimmy Carter wrote before the invasion of Iraq. He concluded it would be illegal.

That is against international law.

My friend GWB has got more guns than the rest of the world combined (and they are adding 500 + billion worth a year)and the only way we will defeat him is by finding better ways of doing things than his. (And more importantly, convince many others of it)

Maybe November will bring a slight improvement in style but Kerry wouldn't change much in terms of the substance. And Martin will suck up to whoever will be in power.

Here's the piece by Jimmy Carter I promised and I think is relevant for this thread because it implies that GWB is guilty of waging illegal war.

I'm sure Jimmy doesn't mind that I reproduce the whole thing here but should the editors prefer to make some deletions I understand.



FAIR USE ONLY

Just War or a Just War?


By Jimmy Carter, 39th president of the United States and 2002 Nobel Peace Prize winner.

Profound changes have been taking place in American foreign policy, reversing consistent bipartisan commitments that for more than two centuries have earned our nation greatness. These commitments have been predicated on basic religious principles, respect for international law, and alliances that resulted in wise decisions and mutual restraint. Our apparent determination to launch a war against Iraq, without international support, is a violation of these premises.

As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked by international crises, I became thoroughly familiar with the principles of a just war, and it is clear that a substantially unilateral attack on Iraq does not meet these standards. This is an almost universal conviction of religious leaders, with the most notable exception of a few spokesmen of the Southern Baptist Convention who are greatly influenced by their commitment to Israel based on eschatological, or final days, theology.

For a war to be just, it must meet several clearly defined criteria. The war can be waged only as a last resort, with all nonviolent options exhausted. In the case of Iraq, it is obvious that clear alternatives to war exist. These options previously proposed by our own leaders and approved by the United Nations were outlined again by the Security Council on Friday. But now, with our own national security not directly threatened and despite the overwhelming opposition of most people and governments in the world, the United States seems determined to carry out military and diplomatic action that is almost unprecedented in the history of civilized nations. The first stage of our widely publicized war plan is to launch 3,000 bombs and missiles on a relatively defenseless Iraqi population within the first few hours of an invasion, with the purpose of so damaging and demoralizing the people that they will change their obnoxious leader, who will most likely be hidden and safe during the bombardment.

The war's weapons must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Extensive aerial bombardment, even with precise accuracy, inevitably results in "collateral damage." Gen. Tommy R. Franks, commander of American forces in the Persian Gulf, has expressed concern about many of the military targets being near hospitals, schools, mosques and private homes.

Its violence must be proportional to the injury we have suffered. Despite Saddam Hussein's other serious crimes, American efforts to tie Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks have been unconvincing.

The attackers must have legitimate authority sanctioned by the society they profess to represent. The unanimous vote of approval in the Security Council to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction can still be honored, but our announced goals are now to achieve regime change and to establish a Pax Americana in the region, perhaps occupying the ethnically divided country for as long as a decade. For these objectives, we do not have international authority. Other members of the Security Council have so far resisted the enormous economic and political influence that is being exerted from Washington, and we are faced with the possibility of either a failure to get the necessary votes or else a veto from Russia, France and China. Although Turkey may still be enticed into helping us by enormous financial rewards and partial future control of the Kurds and oil in northern Iraq, its democratic Parliament has at least added its voice to the worldwide expressions of concern.

The peace it establishes must be a clear improvement over what exists. Although there are visions of peace and democracy in Iraq, it is quite possible that the aftermath of a military invasion will destabilize the region and prompt terrorists to further jeopardize our security at home. Also, by defying overwhelming world opposition, the United States will undermine the United Nations as a viable institution for world peace.

What about America's world standing if we don't go to war after such a great deployment of military forces in the region? The heartfelt sympathy and friendship offered to America after the 9/11 attacks, even from formerly antagonistic regimes, has been largely dissipated; increasingly unilateral and domineering policies have brought international trust in our country to its lowest level in memory. American stature will surely decline further if we launch a war in clear defiance of the United Nations. But to use the presence and threat of our military power to force Iraq's compliance with all United Nations resolutions with war as a final option will enhance our status as a champion of peace and justice.

Thank goodness Jimmy got tossed out of office after one term, the American electorate realized his policies would lead them further into the decline he presided over. The Iranians spit in Jimmy's eye and he did nothing, they held hostages for over a year and hardly did anything until a real leader, Ronald Reagan, was voted in - the Iranians moved pretty quickly after that.
George Bush was duly elected, get over it. Texas has the death penalty and the criminals know that but take their chances and lose sometimes, their choice. Asymmetrical warfare of the kind practised by terrorists and regimes that are externally weak, such as Saddam's was, changes the definition of a 'just war', of course Saddam wouldn't have tried to strike the U.S. directly using conventional weapons, so he supported terrorists who would do it for him indirectly. President Carter knows this, he's just being disingenuous because it's popular and supports the Democrats position.

>Thank goodness Jimmy got tossed out of office after one term, the American electorate realized his policies would lead them further into the decline he presided over. <p>Well, Shrubby's presided over the worst decline since Hoover, so let's hope your theory trumps the "voting"-machine executives who've declared personal commitments to re"electing" Jarge. <p>>Iranians...held hostages...until a real leader, Ronald Reagan, was voted in - the Iranians moved pretty quickly after that. <p>Actually, they waited until 20 minutes after his inauguration. No sane person could think any administration could solve that in 20 minutes, or that Carter's work would "just happen" to resolve it 20 minutes too late. Reagan's team had obviously cut a deal (treasonously) with the Iranians that not only would there be no "October Surprise" but there would be no release under Carter at all. (Poppy's alibi for the Paris meeting is full of holes.) The deal probably involved the arms supply that became known as Iran-contra. <p>>Saddam wouldn't have tried to strike the US directly using conventional weapons, so he supported terrorists who would do it for him. <p>Who? Just before 9/11 the CIA announced it had found no Iraq connection to any attacks on the US in ten years. (Saddam is many things, but not stupid; in 30 years he did nothing he could reasonably think would bring the US' wrath on Iraq, including his move on Kuwait;* since '91 the US's been itching and poking—bombing—for an excuse to attack, and he'd know it.) Before the invasion the CIA and even <a href='http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77248,00.html'>the Israelis</a> doubted any connection to al-Qaida, <a href='http://www.iht.com/cgi-bin/generic.cgi?template=articleprint.tmplh&ArticleId=85354'>the FBI</a> as much as denied it. Osama wanted rid of Saddam and his "<a href='http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/02/1572672.php'>secular, socialist, infidel</a>" government as much as did W; as the British DIS put it, <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2727471.stm'>any fledgling relationship had foundered on ideological incompatibilities</a>. Al Qaida has deeper ties to the US and <a href='http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,649744,00.html'>to Britian</a> than to Iraq. (Did you know that when Osama had a satellite phone, <a href='http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2002/sundaytimes032402.html'>he called the UK more than anywhere else, and never called Iraq</a>?) So to just WTF are you referring? <p>* Saddam felt the US out pretty carefully beforehand. All the signals from the US were that they may not like a move on Kuwait but they had no commitment or desire to defend Kuwait. Coupled with a history of strong US support - eg the US' punishment for gassing Halajba (see other recent thread) had been a tonguelashing followed by increased trade and a continued supply of weapons in contravention to the law the US passed because of Halajba - and acknowledgement Kuwait was slantdrilling into Iraq, as well as the "ancient" desire to reunify with Kuwait (the British had excised Kuwait specifically to deny Persia/Iraq its coastline) being "common knowledge", Saddam quite reasonably assumed that the time was right to take Kuwait back; minimize the bloodshed and things should be fine. Obviously he'd been duped; Poppy, for some reason - Saudi loyalties, investments in defence industries, fears Iraq had grown too cocky in the Iran-Iraq war, casting about for a boogeyman with the Soviets gone, chafing under the wimp factor, wanting to put the latest toys to a test, who knows - wanted a shooting war.

Thanks for the synopsis kwantize. There was Iran-Contra, Nicaragua death squads, etc., the fascist presidents of the US are always good for a plethora of mass murders. I think anonymouse must have all that drivel pre-written on his/her hard drive because it would be too debilitating too cook up everytime someone mentions the criminal acts of his/her heros.

George W Bush was appointed president of the USA by the Supreme Court of the United States, he was not elected president. You don't get to rewrite history just yet anonymouse.

you guys are typical canadians:

spoon fed ingrateful cynical bastards

you like Iraq so much, why don't you move there? you know your country only exists because the worst harm you could render on anyone is a pile of misinformad consipracy theory insults. if your bite was equal to your bark we would have destroyed your joke nation by now.

it must be prety easy for you to sit on the outside and throw rocks. have any of you ever considered going out there and doing something? how about getting off your lazy duffs and getting over to Iraq to rebuild and help the Iraqi people, if your convictions are so strong.

it's easy top pick on the big guy cause he has a huge shadow and a bigger footprint. lets ignore the good the US does for you, for americans, and for europe. forget about global stability, your dang low gas prices, etc.

talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

you guys make me sick.

Wow, I am impressed with your own dedication! Not only are you yourself over in Iraq helping to rebuild the infrastructure, but you are taking time out of your busy humanitarian schedule to come and tell us we should be doing! Not only that, but you did it without throwing stock insults or using the word 'Canadian' as if it were something to be ashamed of! Thanks so much for anonymously voicing your educated opinions on this "foreign" forum!

Oh, you should probably go; I think I just heard some US bombs destroy another hospital, that'll need someone as patriotic as yourself to rebuild it! Go get em, tiger!

---
Jesse

Here Here Jesse; it almost makes me laugh, if you like Iraq so much how come you aren't over there helping them clean up the mess we made???/ ha ha ha

if it weren't so sad and pathetic, we as in our military, has been cleaning up your, U.S. messes for longer than you might want to consider.

If you could just reign in your mighty saviors for awhile the rest of us might be able to live a civilized life. Since you believe the U.S. is doing so much good and we the rest of the world are, or should be beholden to you; how about a little experiment, just stop being so gosh darn helpful to the rest of us and we'll suffer in peace. Take all your military out of other people's countries, stop funding them, stop selling guns and military supplies all over the world, stop propping up dictators and revising democracy for other people and we'll all stop complaining.

Use your great saving might to free your own people, give them some jobs, food and healthcare, stop the gang violence, drugs and unemployment. Show us how great thou art and we'll keep being your peaceful neighbor.

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

http://www.buzzflash.com/buzzscripts/buzz.dll/sub2

July 5, 2004

BUZZFLASH NOTE: A BuzzFlash Reader translated this article from the respected German publication, "Der Spiegel."

Original Article in German Here

(Translated by SAB, NY)

MORE THAN 100 CHILDREN IMPRISONED; REPORT OF ABUSE BY U.S. SOLDIERS.

According to information from the International Red Cross, more than a 100 children are imprisoned in Iraq, including in the infamous prison Abu Ghraib.

The German TV magazine "Report" revealed that there has been abuse of children and youth by the coalition forces.

Mainz - "Between January and May of this year we've registered 107 children, during 19 visits in 6 different detention locations" the representative of the International Red Cross, Florian Westphal, told the TV station SWR's Magazine "Report Mainz". He noted that these were places of detention controlled by coalition troops. According to Westphal the number of children held captive could be even higher.

The TV Magazine also reported of evidence and eye witness reports according to which U.S. soldiers also abused children and youthful detainees. Samuel Provance, a staff sergeant stationed in the now infamous Abu Ghraib prison said that interrogating officers had pressured a 15 or 16 year old girl. Military police had only intervened when the girl was already half undressed. On another occasion, a 16 year old was soaked with water, driven through the cold, and then smeared with mud.

UNICEF, the United Nations Children's Fund, confirmed the detention of Iraqi children by foreign military according to "Report" which cited an interim memorandum by the organization, The as yet unreleased report, which is dated June 2004, is quoted as follows: "Children who were detained in the cities of Kerbala and Basra because of alleged activities against the occupying forces were reportedly routinely sent to a detention camp at Umm Kasr. The classification of these children as detainees is worrisome because it includes unspecified length of detention without contact to their families pending further proceedings or legal actions".

The German section of the human rights organization Amnesty International is demanding a clarification of the allegations and a response from the US government.

http://www.oneworld.net/article/view/89270/1/

Saddam Could Call CIA in His Defence
Sanjay Suri
Inter Press Service (IPS)
02 July 2004

LONDON, Jul 2 (IPS) – Evidence offered by a top CIA man could confirm the testimony given by Saddam Hussein at the opening of his trial in Baghdad Thursday that he knew of the Halabja massacre only from the newspapers.

Thousands were reported killed in the gassing of Iraqi Kurds in Halabja in the north of Iraq in March 1988 towards the end of Iraq's eight-year war with Iran. The gassing of the Kurds has long been held to be the work of Ali Hassan al-Majid, named in the West because of that association as 'Chemical Ali'. Saddam Hussein is widely alleged to have ordered Ali to carry out the chemical attack.

The Halabja massacre is now prominent among the charges read out against Saddam in the Baghdad court. When that charge was read out, Saddam replied that he had read about the massacre in a newspaper. Saddam has denied these allegations ever since they were made. But now with a trial on, he could summon a witness in his defence with the potential to blow apart the charge and create one of the greatest diplomatic disasters the United States has ever known.

A report prepared by the top CIA official handling the matter says Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the massacre, and indicates that it was the work of Iranians. Further, the Scott inquiry on the role of the British government has gathered evidence that following the massacre the United States in fact armed Saddam Hussein to counter the Iranians chemicals for chemicals.

Few believe that a CIA man would attend a court hearing in Baghdad in defence of Saddam. But in this case the CIA boss has gone public with his evidence, and this evidence has been in the public domain for more than a year.

The CIA officer Stephen C. Pelletiere was the agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. As professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, he says he was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf.

In addition, he says he headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States, and the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.

Pelletiere went public with his information on no less a platform than The New York Times in an article on January 31 last year titled 'A War Crime or an Act of War?' The article which challenged the case for war quoted U.S. President George W. Bush as saying: "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."

Pelletiere says the United States Defence Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report following the Halabja gassing, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. "That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas," he wrote in The New York Times.

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja, he said. "The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent -- that is, a cyanide-based gas -- which Iran was known to use. "The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time."

Pelletiere write that these facts have "long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned."

Pelletiere wrote that Saddam Hussein has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. "But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them."

Pelletiere has maintained his position. All Saddam would have to do in court now is to cite The New York Times article even if the court would not summon Pelletiere. The issues raised in the article would themselves be sufficient to raise serious questions about the charges filed against Saddam – and in turn the justifications offered last year for invading Iraq.

The Halabja killings were cited not just by Bush but by British Prime Minister Tony Blair to justify his case for going along with a U.S. invasion of Iraq. A British government dossier released to justify the war on Iraq says that "Saddam has used chemical weapons, not only against an enemy state, but against his own people."

An inquiry report in 1996 by Lord Justice Scott in what came to be known as the arms-to-Iraq affair gave dramatic pointers to what followed after Halabja. After the use of poison gas in 1988 both the United States and Britain began to supply Saddam Hussein with even more chemical weapons.

The Scott inquiry had been set up in 1992 following the collapse of the trial in the case of Matrix Churchill, a British firm exporting equipment to Iraq that could be put to military use.

Three senior executives of Matrix Churchill said the government knew what Matrix Churchill was doing, and that its managing director Paul Henderson had been supplying information about Iraq to the British intelligence agencies on a regular basis.

The inquiry revealed details of the British government's secret decision to supply Saddam with even more weapons-related equipment after the Halabja killings.

Former British foreign secretary Geoffrey Howe was found to have written that the end of the Iraq-Iran war could mean "major opportunities for British industry" in military exports, but he wanted to keep that proposal quiet.

"It could look very cynical if so soon after expressing outrage about the treatment of the Kurds, we adopt a more flexible approach to arms sales," one of his officials told the Scott inquiry. Lord Scott condemned the government's decision to change its policy, while keeping MPs and the public in the dark.

Soon after the attack, the United States approved the export to Iraq of virus cultures and a billion-dollar contract to design and build a petrochemical plant the Iraqis planned to use to produce mustard gas.

Saddam Hussein has appeared so far without a lawyer to defend him. A Jordanian firm is reported to be speaking up for him. But the real defence for him could be waiting for him in Washington and London.

Anonymous wrote: <i>George Bush was duly elected, get over it.</i> <p>Correction: George Bush was duly installed.</p>

Once our fellas are finished cleaning up Afghanistan and rebuilding the hospitals and schools that got bombed there, I'm sure they'll help your guys out in Iraq.<p> By the way, you're welcome to try to "destroy joke nation" if you can find it on a map. You've tried before, and we'd love to kick your ass again. You're having difficulty mantaining law and order in the 43rd largest country [by land area] in the world. How well do you think you'd do invading the 2nd largest? (for historical context, see WWII, the German Invasion of Leningrad and seige at Stalingrad).<p> (well said Jesse!)<p><p>---<br>"History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme" Mark Twain <br />
"The greatest price of not participating in politics is being governed by your inferiors." Plato

<i>Correction: George Bush was duly installed.</i><p> Further correction: GW was <i>sentenced</i> to a 4 years, less a day, term.<p><p>---<br>"History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme" Mark Twain <br />
"The greatest price of not participating in politics is being governed by your inferiors." Plato

You know I wondered why they would let him live, knowing the connection to the U.S., after all they set Saddam up in the first place, these secrets could lead to a very interesting development.

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?