NationStates Jolt Archive

The Red Cross has told the US that it must either charge Saddam with a crime or release him. This is because of international regulations, Saddam is a POW and must be released at the end of occupation unless he is charged with crime. This is far more reaching than Saddam since he is not the only one being held.

Red Cross ultimatum to US on Saddam (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1238137,00.html)

Personally, I think this will be one of the few times I will agree with the current US administration. However, this does not include executing him (which will probably happen).

The US have no right to execute Saddam Hussein. If anyhting, the Iraqi people or alternatively the international court should judge over him, not the US, who should stand before an international court themselves for attacking a nation based on lies.

Here's the thing--Saddam is a bad guy, no question. But if the US is truly a nation of laws, then we need to stick to those laws, and if our international agreements say that once we are no longer an occupying force, we have to release all POWs, then that's what we need to do--that, or charge the guy.

And let's be realistic--how hard should it be to charge the guy with crimes against humanity? And would there be anything illegal with turning him over to the new Iraqi government? They're supposed to be the ones trying him, after all.

So there are a number of ways this can play out, but one thing needs to be certain to happen--we need to follow the rules on POWs. We've broken enough of them already in Abu Ghraib (and that story keeps getting worse), and US soldiers are at greater risk even if we do handle this Saddam thing in a legal fashion, but if we thumb our nose at this, we better be ready to pull every US soldier back into our territory real quickly, because international rules won't mean dick anymore as far as our people are concerned.

It is one thing for soldiers to brake laws (such as at Abu Ghraib), which is bad in its self. But it is a completely different story if the leaders of the country brake them. I doubt they will, I think this is just the red cross proving it still exists.

I wonder if Bush and Company saw this coming, and if not are they in panic mode?

Think they will charge him for vagrancy, for living in that hole?

I wonder if Bush and Company saw this coming, and if not are they in panic mode?

Think they will charge him for vagrancy, for living in that hole?

Pollution - of the hole.

They might try him for lieing about the illusionary WMD which were lies of the US administration.

Finding things to charge Saddam with should present little difficulty. Incertonia, international regulations already do nothing to help US military personel in Iraq. I don't know how much wieght the Red Cross would have in matters concerning Iraq, anyway.

http://www.bushin30seconds.org/150/view.html?ad_id=1889

The US have no right to execute Saddam Hussein. If anyhting, the Iraqi people or alternatively the international court should judge over him, not the US, who should stand before an international court themselves for attacking a nation based on lies.

And shiny monkeys might fly out of my arse. Let's be honest here, no one in the US is going up in front of an International Court. The very idea of an international court is absurd.

Why is the idea of an international court absurd? And why should the US be excempt from an international court?

Why is the idea of an international court absurd? And why should the US be excempt from an international court?

Nuremberg was an international court, where the US was more than happy to participate.

Of course, in those days, the US had little to fear from international courts.

True true.. as soon as they realized that the shit is boiling, they chicken out...

No big deal... So we release him, we go on the local television/radio in Iraq on Jun 29th, and say:

"The Red Cross says we can no longer hold Sadaam after the transfer of
power takes place. Therefore, he will be released tomorrow, at such & such town square in the center of Baghdad, at Noon."

I'm sure there will be a crowd there waiting for him with open arms.

No big deal... So we release him, we go on the local television/radio in Iraq on Jun 29th, and say:

"The Red Cross says we can no longer hold Sadaam after the transfer of
power takes place. Therefore, he will be released tomorrow, at such & such town square in the center of Baghdad, at Noon."

I'm sure there will be a crowd there waiting for him with open arms.

Obviously not.

But why the delay in bringing him to trial?

Why is the idea of an international court absurd? And why should the US be excempt from an international court?

Yes, we the International Court hereby charge the United States of America with the following crimes:

Removing a murderous tyrant from power

Liberating an opressed population from the regime of said tyrant

How do you plead to these charges?

Why is the idea of an international court absurd? And why should the US be excempt from an international court?

Yes, we the International Court hereby charge the United States of America with the following crimes:

Removing a murderous tyrant from power

Liberating an opressed population from the regime of said tyrant

How do you plead to these charges?

No, my friend.

Let's have Saddam Hussein speedily brought to trial to answer for his despotic regime.

You fail to mention the crimes that forego and follow such "honorable" deeds. While we are at it, are we allowed to charge the US for all past crimes against humanity and other nations aswell?

Why is the idea of an international court absurd? And why should the US be excempt from an international court?

Yes, we the International Court hereby charge the United States of America with the following crimes:

Removing a murderous tyrant from power

Liberating an opressed population from the regime of said tyrant

How do you plead to these charges?

No, my friend.

Let's have Saddam Hussein speedily brought to trial to answer for his despotic regime.

I am assuming he will be handed over to the new Iraqi government post June 30th for them to deal with under their own legal system.

You fail to mention the crimes that forego and follow such "honorable" deeds. While we are at it, are we allowed to charge the US for all past crimes against humanity and other nations aswell?

And you fail to acknowledge the crimes of tyrants such as Hussein as you are too busy trying to find "crimes" committed by the US and their allies.

The US etc pulls out, releases all POWs to the new Gov, they set them free or chrge them depanding on the law of the land. Pretty simple realy.

I agree with Redneck Geeks....I'd display it loud and clear on every Arab newspaper, radio, television...especially Shiite and Kurdish media the release of Saddam and his whereabouts at the time of his release. Let justice be finally served up by his own people.

The US etc pulls out, releases all POWs to the new Gov, they set them free or chrge them depanding on the law of the land. Pretty simple realy.

The Iraqi interim government does not want the US and its allies to leave immediately after June 30th. They do, however, want the control to ask them to leave when they feel the job has been done by these forces. Fair enough if you ask me.
As far as the POW's go, I do think that the Iraqi government will try them under their law as should be the case. This includes Saddam Hussein and his henchmen.

The US etc pulls out, releases all POWs to the new Gov, they set them free or chrge them depanding on the law of the land. Pretty simple realy.

The Iraqi interim government does not want the US and its allies to leave immediately after June 30th. They do, however, want the control to ask them to leave when they feel the job has been done by these forces. Fair enough if you ask me.
As far as the POW's go, I do think that the Iraqi government will try them under their law as should be the case. This includes Saddam Hussein and his henchmen.

Of course, Saddam Hussein has special status as a POW under international law, unlike those detained at Guantanamo Bay.

I don't doubt that the US or Iraqi officials would respect his rights under the Geneva Convention.

Of course, Saddam Hussein has special status as a POW under international law, unlike those detained at Guantanamo Bay.

I don't doubt that the US or Iraqi officials would respect his rights under the Geneva Convention.

I agree, Saddam will be treated in accordance with the Geneva convention. Which is more than can be said for the political and ideological prisoners he detained during his reign.

Of course, Saddam Hussein has special status as a POW under international law, unlike those detained at Guantanamo Bay.

I don't doubt that the US or Iraqi officials would respect his rights under the Geneva Convention.

I agree, Saddam will be treated in accordance with the Geneva convention. Which is more than can be said for the political and ideological prisoners he detained during his reign.

Of course, it does seem a little strange that he has greater rights than the detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

Still, I'm sure that the US knows best.

Of course, Saddam Hussein has special status as a POW under international law, unlike those detained at Guantanamo Bay.

I don't doubt that the US or Iraqi officials would respect his rights under the Geneva Convention.

I agree, Saddam will be treated in accordance with the Geneva convention. Which is more than can be said for the political and ideological prisoners he detained during his reign.

Of course, it does seem a little strange that he has greater rights than the detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

Still, I'm sure that the US knows best.
That's another thread, how do you justify the holding of people without charge or without giving them POW status? Can other countries do this do US citizens who are in 'combat areas' unofficially?

Of course, Saddam Hussein has special status as a POW under international law, unlike those detained at Guantanamo Bay.

I don't doubt that the US or Iraqi officials would respect his rights under the Geneva Convention.

I agree, Saddam will be treated in accordance with the Geneva convention. Which is more than can be said for the political and ideological prisoners he detained during his reign.

Of course, it does seem a little strange that he has greater rights than the detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

Still, I'm sure that the US knows best.

There are 2 Australians in Guantanamo Bay. Neither of them had any business being in Afghanistan and neither had any business training with Al Qaeda. One of them, Hicks, also fought as a mercenary in Bosnia. As far as I am concerned, they made a conscious decision to fight on the side of terrorists and as a result are now where they are. No sympathy from me.

Of course, Saddam Hussein has special status as a POW under international law, unlike those detained at Guantanamo Bay.

I don't doubt that the US or Iraqi officials would respect his rights under the Geneva Convention.

I agree, Saddam will be treated in accordance with the Geneva convention. Which is more than can be said for the political and ideological prisoners he detained during his reign.

Of course, it does seem a little strange that he has greater rights than the detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

Still, I'm sure that the US knows best.

There are 2 Australians in Guantanamo Bay. Neither of them had any business being in Afghanistan and neither had any business training with Al Qaeda. One of them, Hicks, also fought as a mercenary in Bosnia. As far as I am concerned, they made a conscious decision to fight on the side of terrorists and as a result are now where they are. No sympathy from me.

how do you even know they did that? its never been proven

Of course, Saddam Hussein has special status as a POW under international law, unlike those detained at Guantanamo Bay.

I don't doubt that the US or Iraqi officials would respect his rights under the Geneva Convention.

I agree, Saddam will be treated in accordance with the Geneva convention. Which is more than can be said for the political and ideological prisoners he detained during his reign.

Of course, it does seem a little strange that he has greater rights than the detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

Still, I'm sure that the US knows best.

Greater rights?..nawww...just more valuable..the intel community must be drooling over the prospect of getting intel out of Saddam..otherwise..I say had him over to the Kurds....I hear tell their justice system is looking forward to getting him.

Of course, Saddam Hussein has special status as a POW under international law, unlike those detained at Guantanamo Bay.

I don't doubt that the US or Iraqi officials would respect his rights under the Geneva Convention.

I agree, Saddam will be treated in accordance with the Geneva convention. Which is more than can be said for the political and ideological prisoners he detained during his reign.

Of course, it does seem a little strange that he has greater rights than the detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

Still, I'm sure that the US knows best.

There are 2 Australians in Guantanamo Bay. Neither of them had any business being in Afghanistan and neither had any business training with Al Qaeda. One of them, Hicks, also fought as a mercenary in Bosnia. As far as I am concerned, they made a conscious decision to fight on the side of terrorists and as a result are now where they are. No sympathy from me.

One couldn't really suggest any sympathy I'm sure.

And undoubtedly their rights are being protected by the Australian government. They will almost certainly recieve a fair trial, if even it is by a US military tribunal.

It just strikes me as peculiar that Saddam has greater rights under international law.

Why should the Geneva Convention apply to him, if not to those held at Guantanamo?

Hand me G.W. Bush and I'll make him a head shorter :evil:

Hand me G.W. Bush and I'll make him a head shorter :evil:

So..you're personally insinuating you'd murder the President of the United States?...Oh where is the Secret Service online division when I need them.

Of course, Saddam Hussein has special status as a POW under international law, unlike those detained at Guantanamo Bay.

I don't doubt that the US or Iraqi officials would respect his rights under the Geneva Convention.

I agree, Saddam will be treated in accordance with the Geneva convention. Which is more than can be said for the political and ideological prisoners he detained during his reign.

Of course, it does seem a little strange that he has greater rights than the detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

Still, I'm sure that the US knows best.

There are 2 Australians in Guantanamo Bay. Neither of them had any business being in Afghanistan and neither had any business training with Al Qaeda. One of them, Hicks, also fought as a mercenary in Bosnia. As far as I am concerned, they made a conscious decision to fight on the side of terrorists and as a result are now where they are. No sympathy from me.

how do you even know they did that? its never been proven

Umm..David Hick's father said so in an interview. He fought in Bosnia...even had pictures of his firing a grenade or rocket launcher of some sort in Bosnia. He has also admitted going to Afghanistan and training in the terrorist camps. He was captured fighting alongside Taliban troops in Afghanistan.

Hand me G.W. Bush and I'll make him a head shorter :evil:

These sort of posts do nothing for the credibility of your argument.

Of course, Saddam Hussein has special status as a POW under international law, unlike those detained at Guantanamo Bay.

I don't doubt that the US or Iraqi officials would respect his rights under the Geneva Convention.

I agree, Saddam will be treated in accordance with the Geneva convention. Which is more than can be said for the political and ideological prisoners he detained during his reign.

Of course, it does seem a little strange that he has greater rights than the detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

Still, I'm sure that the US knows best.

There are 2 Australians in Guantanamo Bay. Neither of them had any business being in Afghanistan and neither had any business training with Al Qaeda. One of them, Hicks, also fought as a mercenary in Bosnia. As far as I am concerned, they made a conscious decision to fight on the side of terrorists and as a result are now where they are. No sympathy from me.

how do you even know they did that? its never been proven

Umm..David Hick's father said so in an interview. He fought in Bosnia...even had pictures of his firing a grenade or rocket launcher of some sort in Bosnia. He has also admitted going to Afghanistan and training in the terrorist camps. He was captured fighting alongside Taliban troops in Afghanistan.

i never heard that.......

Of course, Saddam Hussein has special status as a POW under international law, unlike those detained at Guantanamo Bay.

I don't doubt that the US or Iraqi officials would respect his rights under the Geneva Convention.

I agree, Saddam will be treated in accordance with the Geneva convention. Which is more than can be said for the political and ideological prisoners he detained during his reign.

Of course, it does seem a little strange that he has greater rights than the detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

Still, I'm sure that the US knows best.

There are 2 Australians in Guantanamo Bay. Neither of them had any business being in Afghanistan and neither had any business training with Al Qaeda. One of them, Hicks, also fought as a mercenary in Bosnia. As far as I am concerned, they made a conscious decision to fight on the side of terrorists and as a result are now where they are. No sympathy from me.

how do you even know they did that? its never been proven

Umm..David Hick's father said so in an interview. He fought in Bosnia...even had pictures of his firing a grenade or rocket launcher of some sort in Bosnia. He has also admitted going to Afghanistan and training in the terrorist camps. He was captured fighting alongside Taliban troops in Afghanistan.

Well said.

Still, one can't help wondering if he is really worse than Saddam Hussein himself, no?

And yet, Saddam as a POW has the legal rights accorded under the Geneva Convention.

And those held at Guantanamo Bay do not.

Strange, isn't it?

how do you even know they did that? its never been proven

Besides it is not for you or I to prove anything..that is what the courts are for. We will find out soon enough.

how do you even know they did that? its never been proven

Besides it is not for you or I to prove anything..that is what the courts are for. We will find out soon enough.

Of course, Saddam Hussein has special status as a POW under international law, unlike those detained at Guantanamo Bay.

I don't doubt that the US or Iraqi officials would respect his rights under the Geneva Convention.

I agree, Saddam will be treated in accordance with the Geneva convention. Which is more than can be said for the political and ideological prisoners he detained during his reign.

Of course, it does seem a little strange that he has greater rights than the detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

Still, I'm sure that the US knows best.

There are 2 Australians in Guantanamo Bay. Neither of them had any business being in Afghanistan and neither had any business training with Al Qaeda. One of them, Hicks, also fought as a mercenary in Bosnia. As far as I am concerned, they made a conscious decision to fight on the side of terrorists and as a result are now where they are. No sympathy from me.

how do you even know they did that? its never been proven

Umm..David Hick's father said so in an interview. He fought in Bosnia...even had pictures of his firing a grenade or rocket launcher of some sort in Bosnia. He has also admitted going to Afghanistan and training in the terrorist camps. He was captured fighting alongside Taliban troops in Afghanistan.

i never heard that.......

Well said.

Still, one can't help wondering if he is really worse than Saddam Hussein himself, no?

And yet, Saddam as a POW has the legal rights accorded under the Geneva Convention.

And those held at Guantanamo Bay do not.

Strange, isn't it?

It is strange, but until the trials take place we will not know what these people have done or planned to do. I am assuming that the people in Guantanamo Bay are considered dangerous and hence their detention. Also the fact they are detained under anti-terrorism legislation rather than the typical POW legislation means they are treated differently.

i never heard that.......

It has been in the newspapers sporadically since his capture.

Well said.

Still, one can't help wondering if he is really worse than Saddam Hussein himself, no?

And yet, Saddam as a POW has the legal rights accorded under the Geneva Convention.

And those held at Guantanamo Bay do not.

Strange, isn't it?

It is strange, but until the trials take place we will not know what these people have done or planned to do. I am assuming that the people in Guantanamo Bay are considered dangerous and hence their detention. Also the fact they are detained under anti-terrorism legislation rather than the typical POW legislation means they are treated differently.

Surely their crimes couldn't have been worse than Saddam's, under any legislation?

Surely their crimes couldn't have been worse than Saddam's, under any legislation?

I am not saying they were or they weren't as I do not know what these people are alledged to have done although they would more than likely pale in significance compared to Saddam's handywork.

I am saying they were detained under different legislation hence the differences in their treatment. Not saying it is right, just trying to explain why.

Hand Saddam Hussein over to the Israeli's to 'silence' him and make him 'dissappear'.Either that or hand him over to the Singaporeans.They will probably do the same.Saddam Hussein in the hands of the Israeli Mossad or the Singaporean ISD(Internal Security Department) is much worse than any other fate the poor bastard could ever imagine,short of being lynched by the people of Iraq that he oppressed for so long.

Trust me,Israeli's are brutal and extremely effective killers.Singaporeans are detached and efficient killers.Both are very secretive.The Americans should give him to these allies of theirs(both of whom have done questionable covert operations involving plenty of human rights atrocities which they don't shy away from) and Amnesty International wouldn't be able to track Saddam ever again.

They are good at what they do.Look at what Israel does to the Palestinians,and imagine Saddam Hussein subjected to the security services of Singapore,the country with the highest per capita number of executions in the world.

Check out their records at the Amnesty International site.Trust me on this,a country that oppresses and regularly slaughters Palestinians,and a country where you get lashed with a cane dipped in ammonia for vandalism or being an illegal graffiti artist(think Michael Fay in 1994),both who hide many of their crimes,sure would be willing to help their friend America sort out its problems outside the laws of the Geneva Convention.

Surely their crimes couldn't have been worse than Saddam's, under any legislation?

I am not saying they were or they weren't as I do not know what these people are alledged to have done although they would more than likely pale in significance compared to Saddam's handywork.

I am saying they were detained under different legislation hence the differences in their treatment. Not saying it is right, just trying to explain why.

Yes, I expect so.

And, after all, both Saddam and the detainees at Guantanamo Bay are being held by the US military, and they have a proven track record when it comes to looking after their prisoners, don't they?

I expect they know best.

Just kill Saddam and we can be done with this mess and get on with our lives.

The POWs at Guantanamo Bay are covered in the Geneva Convention under the section of enemy troops not in uniform. AKA spies. Why we havn't killed them yet I don't know. I really think that hanging them is cruel and unusual though, and hope we don't follow the Geneva Convention that closely.

The POWs at Guantanamo Bay are covered in the Geneva Convention under the section of enemy troops not in uniform. AKA spies. Why we havn't killed them yet I don't know. I really think that hanging them is cruel and unusual though, and hope we don't follow the Geneva Convention that closely.

You're not suggesting that they are worse than Saddam Hussein are you?

And I am very confident that you won't be following the Geneva Convention too closely.

The POWs at Guantanamo Bay are covered in the Geneva Convention under the section of enemy troops not in uniform. AKA spies. Why we havn't killed them yet I don't know. I really think that hanging them is cruel and unusual though, and hope we don't follow the Geneva Convention that closely.

I'd have to read the pertinent sections on troops who are not in uniform, but he does have a point..spies can be shot on sight during a time of war without the benefit of trial. And these terrorists are without a doubt, soldiers out of uniform....indistinguishable from the general populace.

The POWs at Guantanamo Bay are covered in the Geneva Convention under the section of enemy troops not in uniform. AKA spies. Why we havn't killed them yet I don't know. I really think that hanging them is cruel and unusual though, and hope we don't follow the Geneva Convention that closely.




If that were the case, then they would have been labelled accordingly. However they weren't were they?

They are instead deemed "enemy combatants", and entirely new designation invented by this administration to deny them POW rights, and argued about by various legal experts as to the validity of this designation.


And even if they were deemed spies, the Geneva Conventions do not REQUIRE you to hang them.

Btw, read the conventions carefully and note that residents ARE allowed to spontaneously resist an invading force without uniforms and not be deeemed to be spies. That designation only comes into effect once the invading party has control of the region. So the detainees caught early as the forces swept in could not be automatically labelled spies.

-Z-

The POWs at Guantanamo Bay are covered in the Geneva Convention under the section of enemy troops not in uniform. AKA spies. Why we havn't killed them yet I don't know. I really think that hanging them is cruel and unusual though, and hope we don't follow the Geneva Convention that closely.




If that were the case, then they would have been labelled accordingly. However they weren't were they?

They are instead deemed "enemy combatants", and entirely new designation invented by this administration to deny them POW rights, and argued about by various legal experts as to the validity of this designation.


And even if they were deemed spies, the Geneva Conventions do not REQUIRE you to hang them.

Btw, read the conventions carefully and note that residents ARE allowed to spontaneously resist an invading force without uniforms and not be deeemed to be spies. That designation only comes into effect once the invading party has control of the region. So the detainees caught early as the forces swept in could not be automatically labelled spies.

-Z-

But these militias are hardly "spontaneous"..the Shiites have had informal militias before and especially the Kurds have outright military units.

Finally..both the Shiite and Kurdish militias are financed by outside backers, thereby constituting pre-planned, and organization..hardly..again..spontaneous.

To return breifly to the topic

I find it important that in the last mounth both aministy international and the red cross have become involved in political disscussions.

Aminisity tries to release prinsiors one assumes it could do this better with US help however they have come out against the US goverment, which surely damages thier chances. I assume they have chosen to do this because the have one principal and the us have broken it so they are staying true to thier ideals no mater who is corupting them.

With the red cross i'm not so sure this i a majour action, traditionall the red cross stays out of ALL polotics, its concern is the feeding and health care of prisionors. Thier usuall attituide is that they would rather not offend anyone and be allowed into everywhere than side with any one political body.

So the context here is important, are the red cross notifiying the US on a routine almost book keeping front, are have the decided that neutraility is no longer possible?

If the US violate the Geneva Conventions (yet again) we can agree that these rules are useless and we can aswell get rid of them. I wish the US luck in their future wars then. Without any laws protecting their soldiers, you'll be surprised how cruel humans can be if left unrestricted (see prison-running tradition of US military). Especially the US with their freedom and their all-mighty constitution, being the holy thing that it is, should recognize that the Geneva Convention laws apply to the US citizens and people that are being held by the US, on US soil (or outside of US soil). You cant just break such treaties as you chose. These are international agreements which are meant to regulate humanity from becoming cruel animals that all of us can be in times of war. Is it not enough that the US has already ridiculed the UN and made a joke of itself with torturing Iraqi civilians in Iraq's prisons? This "holier than thou" attitude wont do the US any good, but it seems like this country is run by bullies who "dont give a F***" what the rest of the world thinks about them.

The POWs at Guantanamo Bay are covered in the Geneva Convention under the section of enemy troops not in uniform. AKA spies. Why we havn't killed them yet I don't know. I really think that hanging them is cruel and unusual though, and hope we don't follow the Geneva Convention that closely.




If that were the case, then they would have been labelled accordingly. However they weren't were they?

They are instead deemed "enemy combatants", and entirely new designation invented by this administration to deny them POW rights, and argued about by various legal experts as to the validity of this designation.


And even if they were deemed spies, the Geneva Conventions do not REQUIRE you to hang them.

Btw, read the conventions carefully and note that residents ARE allowed to spontaneously resist an invading force without uniforms and not be deeemed to be spies. That designation only comes into effect once the invading party has control of the region. So the detainees caught early as the forces swept in could not be automatically labelled spies.

-Z-

But these militias are hardly "spontaneous"..the Shiites have had informal militias before and especially the Kurds have outright military units.

Finally..both the Shiite and Kurdish militias are financed by outside backers, thereby constituting pre-planned, and organization..hardly..again..spontaneous.

To quote the applicable regulation as to why they should be POWs:

From the Annex to the Convention REGULATIONS RESPECTING THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND
SECTION I
ON BELLIGERENTS

CHAPTER I
The Qualifications of Belligerents

Article 2.

The inhabitants of a territory which has not been occupied, who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having had time to organize themselves in accordance with Article 1, shall be regarded as belligerents if they carry arms openly and if they respect the laws and customs of war.


Note carefully that the term used is "inhabitabts", not "citizens" as well, so as long as you are living there you may resist an invasion and be treated as a POW. you just cannot enter the country specifically to resist and expect to be treated as such.

The " not having time to organize themselves in accordance to Article 1" covers their lack of need to wear a uniform as Article 1 is the part that states:


The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions:

To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;

To carry arms openly; and

To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army."


So these rules do not apply to residents of an area in the face of the invading force.

The US cannot get around it by stating that these people should ahve been part of a regular army of the country either. You can't force a country to have a formal military, or to impose structure on them. And al qaeda was not a formal entity defined as an integral part of the Taliban anyway.

To make a comparison, had the USSR invaded the US in the 70s and had various of those little unoffical militias that dot the country fought the invading forces as they approached, they would have been entitled to POW status without having to wear uniforms or have any official affiliation or leadership structure that tied to the US government.

As an informal group these militias may be practicing for self-defence, but thay have not "taken up arms" against anyone yet until such time as the enemy actually invades. You ARE allowed to be prepared you know. But until you are firing AT somebody you are not deemed to have taken up arms against them.

Your commenting on the Shi'ite and Kurdish militias with respect to any actions taken while Saddam was in power are irrelevant as these occurred within a sovereign country with the intent to depose it's leader. They therefore did not meet the criteria of "The inhabitants of a territory which has not been occupied, who, on the approach of the enemy..." . Their enemy was already there!

Similarly, any actions now that the US has occupied the territories would also not be covered. It is quite clear that this article only allows an exemption at the time the enemy approaches. Once you have been conquered, then you must organize your resistance properly in order to be deemed a legal beligerant.

Which is to say that it should apply to all al qaeda and Taliban captured during initial combat operations in Afghanistan, but not to ongoing resistance movements unless they meet the uniform regulations etc.


-Z-

If the US violate the Geneva Conventions (yet again) we can agree that these rules are useless and we can aswell get rid of them. I wish the US luck in their future wars then. Without any laws protecting their soldiers, you'll be surprised how cruel humans can be if left unrestricted (see prison-running tradition of US military). Especially the US with their freedom and their all-mighty constitution, being the holy thing that it is, should recognize that the Geneva Convention laws apply to the US citizens and people that are being held by the US, on US soil (or outside of US soil). You cant just break such treaties as you chose. These are international agreements which are meant to regulate humanity from becoming cruel animals that all of us can be in times of war. Is it not enough that the US has already ridiculed the UN and made a joke of itself with torturing Iraqi civilians in Iraq's prisons? This "holier than thou" attitude wont do the US any good, but it seems like this country is run by bullies who "dont give a F***" what the rest of the world thinks about them.

I have no clue as to your nationality..but I'd make a fair bet that your country is innocent of ever breaking a treaty if it was in their national interests to do so..The US is hardly the first nation to ever break a Geneva Convention ruling..nor do I suspect it will be the last..the Russians in Chechnya...the French in Algeria...the British in Northern Ireland..the Italians in Ethiopia..the Dutch in the Congo..the Canadians in Somalia...The North Vietnamese and VietCong...the Japanese and the Bataan Death March...etc..etc...there isn't a nation on this planet that follows the Geneva Conventions to the letter.."remove the plank in your own eye before you speak bout the one in your brothers"

I would also like to add that the "IHL" - International Humanitarian Law - applies to enemy combatants, POWs, civilians and seamen:


Q3: Are international humanitarian law (IHL) and human rights law different?
A3:


Yes, but they complement each other. Both seek to protect individuals from harm and maintain human dignity, but they address different circumstances and have different core documents. IHL applies in times of armed conflict to limit the suffering caused by war and protect those who have fallen into the hands of an adverse party. IHL's primary focus is to safeguard the fundamental rights of wounded, sick and shipwrecked combatants, POWs and civilians. Human rights law applies in times of peace or war, but is primarily concerned with protecting people against government violations of their internationally recognized civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights.

http://www.redcross.org/services/intl/0,1082,0_448_,00.html#protect

I have no clue as to your nationality..but I'd make a fair bet that your country is innocent of ever breaking a treaty if it was in their national interests to do so..The US is hardly the first nation to ever break a Geneva Convention ruling..nor do I suspect it will be the last..the Russians in Chechnya...the French in Algeria...the British in Northern Ireland..the Italians in Ethiopia..the Dutch in the Congo..the Canadians in Somalia...The North Vietnamese and VietCong...the Japanese and the Bataan Death March...etc..etc...there isn't a nation on this planet that follows the Geneva Conventions to the letter.."remove the plank in your own eye before you speak bout the one in your brothers"

I am German.. which is irelevant, since we are not the country at war with Iraq and havnt been at war with anyone since the end of WW2, "thank god"!!! That others do it still does not give the US the right to do it aswell.

Here's the report on violations of Human Rights by the United States of America, the supposedly most free nation of the world upholding the most reverred standards of law and liberty... (my ass):

http://web.amnesty.org/report2004/usa-summary-eng

I have no clue as to your nationality..but I'd make a fair bet that your country is innocent of ever breaking a treaty if it was in their national interests to do so..The US is hardly the first nation to ever break a Geneva Convention ruling..nor do I suspect it will be the last..the Russians in Chechnya...the French in Algeria...the British in Northern Ireland..the Italians in Ethiopia..the Dutch in the Congo..the Canadians in Somalia...The North Vietnamese and VietCong...the Japanese and the Bataan Death March...etc..etc...there isn't a nation on this planet that follows the Geneva Conventions to the letter.."remove the plank in your own eye before you speak bout the one in your brothers"

I am German.. which is irelevant, since we are not the country at war with Iraq and havnt been at war with anyone since the end of WW2, "thank god"!!! That others do it still does not give the US the right to do it aswell.

Oh..please..now I'm gonna laugh...irrevelent?.."Your nation is hardly innocent of it's own history with prisoner mistreatment..Didn't say it gave us the right..I just told you the facts...that while nice on paper..there isn't a country on the face of this planet where the Geneva Conventions have been observed with the letter of the law..always the spirit but hardly the letter of the law.

Aluran,

Nobody is painting the rest of the world as lily-white here.

But you can't go to the judge and get let off of a charge just because (s)he has a dozen other people on the docket with similar charges. That is a dumb argument.


-Z-

Aluran,

Nobody is painting the rest of the world as lily-white here.

But you can't go to the judge and get let off of a charge just because (s)he has a dozen other people on the docket with similar charges. That is a dumb argument.


-Z-

Oh really?...by reading some of the posts I've seen that sure as hell is the way I've been reading...it seems like it's America's turn to be the pidgeon of the week...let's see..I've read where our servicemembers are murderous thugs and rapists...our administrators corrupt oil-men..our Executive Branch hosting a wannabee King..the Judicial branch merely rubbing stamping Bush's agendas...etc.etc.etc..ad nauseum...frankly I wonder if the foreigners here are aware they aren't lily-white judging by the basis of the posts I've read?

Aluran,

Nobody is painting the rest of the world as lily-white here.

But you can't go to the judge and get let off of a charge just because (s)he has a dozen other people on the docket with similar charges. That is a dumb argument.


-Z-

Oh really?...by reading some of the posts I've seen that sure as hell is the way I've been reading...it seems like it's America's turn to be the pidgeon of the week...let's see..I've read where our servicemembers are murderous thugs and rapists...our administrators corrupt oil-men..our Executive Branch hosting a wannabee King..the Judicial branch merely rubbing stamping Bush's agendas...etc.etc.etc..ad nauseum...frankly I wonder if the foreigners here are aware they aren't lily-white judging by the basis of the posts I've read?

And of course if foreigners have been naughty, then anything that any American does is obviously just fine, right?

Aluran,

Nobody is painting the rest of the world as lily-white here.

But you can't go to the judge and get let off of a charge just because (s)he has a dozen other people on the docket with similar charges. That is a dumb argument.


-Z-

Oh really?...by reading some of the posts I've seen that sure as hell is the way I've been reading...it seems like it's America's turn to be the pidgeon of the week...let's see..I've read where our servicemembers are murderous thugs and rapists...our administrators corrupt oil-men..our Executive Branch hosting a wannabee King..the Judicial branch merely rubbing stamping Bush's agendas...etc.etc.etc..ad nauseum...frankly I wonder if the foreigners here are aware they aren't lily-white judging by the basis of the posts I've read?

And of course if foreigners have been naughty, then anything that any American does is obviously just fine, right?

No...but it sure as hell doesn't rate the type of vile trash I've seen on this forum from some of you.

Aluran,

Nobody is painting the rest of the world as lily-white here.

But you can't go to the judge and get let off of a charge just because (s)he has a dozen other people on the docket with similar charges. That is a dumb argument.


-Z-

Oh really?...by reading some of the posts I've seen that sure as hell is the way I've been reading...it seems like it's America's turn to be the pidgeon of the week...let's see..I've read where our servicemembers are murderous thugs and rapists...our administrators corrupt oil-men..our Executive Branch hosting a wannabee King..the Judicial branch merely rubbing stamping Bush's agendas...etc.etc.etc..ad nauseum...frankly I wonder if the foreigners here are aware they aren't lily-white judging by the basis of the posts I've read?

And of course if foreigners have been naughty, then anything that any American does is obviously just fine, right?

No...but it sure as hell doesn't rate the type of vile trash I've seen on this forum from some of you.

Yes, dreadful allegations.

Must be coming from people who hate freedom.

Aluran,

Nobody is painting the rest of the world as lily-white here.

But you can't go to the judge and get let off of a charge just because (s)he has a dozen other people on the docket with similar charges. That is a dumb argument.


-Z-

Oh really?...by reading some of the posts I've seen that sure as hell is the way I've been reading...it seems like it's America's turn to be the pidgeon of the week...let's see..I've read where our servicemembers are murderous thugs and rapists...our administrators corrupt oil-men..our Executive Branch hosting a wannabee King..the Judicial branch merely rubbing stamping Bush's agendas...etc.etc.etc..ad nauseum...frankly I wonder if the foreigners here are aware they aren't lily-white judging by the basis of the posts I've read?

Well, I would never paint a label on the average military person, however the other three labels unfortunately seem to be damn close to the truth.


Getting a legal finding issued to state that the President has the authority to personally (and secretly) order the detention and torture of individuals without the need for any evidenciary findings or of ther forms of due process seems totally antithetical to the basic precepts considered most important by the founders of your country while framing the Constitution.

I do not state that as an indictment of your country as a whole. Just of this administration.

-Z-

Well.. contrary to the US of A, we, the Germans, have learned from our past mistakes. We sure have a history that has periods that we cannot be proud of, however at least we *have* a history that we had the time to learn from. In my opinion, the US are like the spoiled child of a rich family.. that just now found out how nice torturing its plaything (the world) is.

Well.. contrary to the US of A, we, the Germans, have learned from our past mistakes. We sure have a history that has periods that we cannot be proud of, however at least we *have* a history that we had the time to learn from. In my opinion, the US are like the spoiled child of a rich family.. that just now found out how nice torturing its plaything (the world) is.

Oh really..you've learned eh?..up until the Reunification....the East German polizwei and the various secret police organizations were hardly "learning" how to get past the history of torturing prisoners. In fact they were streamlining methods created by the Stasi.

It should be very easy to charge Saddam. After all, there's plenty of evidence.
However, the question is who will have him charged. That will ultimately determine who will try him, a sticky issue. I suppose the US could charge him, and "extradite" him to whichever power will try him.
However, if I were a soldier guarding Hussein's cell, I'd spare him the legal mumbo-jumbo, and put a few slugs into his head. It'll be far more humane than how he probably would be executed.

Whoever tries him..whether its the Iraqis or the US...I would hope no one is naive enough to believe that this man is not going to be executed, the only things in question are the method of his execution and the date.

Some of this is dreicted aluran some of it not

Firslty on the international law breacking off issue, hum on saddam at least the US is not in volation of international law, they just have to start criminal proceedings sometime soon. On other issue they are. Actually how much they are depends on what you think of as international law. If you include what most contries behave as thier are for a whole range of things including things like the poessession of land mines (as are others). Even if you only include the laws they have sigend up to they are still in volation of them.

People have been acused (and no dou't i will be too) of dual standards on this issue. The position is quite simple behave as you would have other behave to you, so altough people might torture your prisionors you are not allowd to toruture thiers.

I can do it cause he's doing it, is a rather childish and not terribly usefull argument.

On the issue of other conntires not being lily-white either i would tend to agree were not. Though i object to most of your examples they are historial death marches in japan for example or the french in vitnam. They did happen, they have'nt happend since and they can't happen again. Actually the one recent example (that i can remeber) is the british in north ireland. Its yet to be proved i suspect, but even if it hasn't it came damm close.

But the point here is yes the US is allowed to critasise other countries for the CURRENT violations. But by the same token we are also able to do the same thing. Just because we may have broken the laws as well, does not make the crimes any less real.


On the concept of the death penalty for saddam huasan, i don't think it should be applied in his or any other case. To remove someone from power who kill people and then kill him seems inexplicable to me. Even if you want to be vindictive thier keep him in a cell until he dies, in 20 or so years time. With nothing to do but reflect on his mistake but be able to do nothing about them.

The US have no right to execute Saddam Hussein. If anyhting, the Iraqi people or alternatively the international court should judge over him, not the US, who should stand before an international court themselves for attacking a nation based on lies.

And shiny monkeys might fly out of my arse. Let's be honest here, no one in the US is going up in front of an International Court. The very idea of an international court is absurd.
Most of the countries on this planet disagree with you. Even the US has signed on, they just haven't ratified.

So far, 139 Countries have signed on and 90 have ratified.

http://www.mindfully.org/WTO/2003/Rome-Statute-ICC-Ratifications7jun03.htm

Absurd? No way.

Of course, Saddam Hussein has special status as a POW under international law, unlike those detained at Guantanamo Bay.

I don't doubt that the US or Iraqi officials would respect his rights under the Geneva Convention.

I agree, Saddam will be treated in accordance with the Geneva convention. Which is more than can be said for the political and ideological prisoners he detained during his reign.

Of course, it does seem a little strange that he has greater rights than the detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

Still, I'm sure that the US knows best.

Greater rights?..nawww...just more valuable..the intel community must be drooling over the prospect of getting intel out of Saddam..otherwise..I say had him over to the Kurds....I hear tell their justice system is looking forward to getting him.
I am not so sure I would agree to that statement. There could be plenty of wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth as Saddam recounts the days of his life, especially those days that involved US complicity, in WMD used against the Iranians, diplomatic recognition even throughout the Kurdish rebellion, supplied intel, and of course the Kuwait situation. Did Bush Sr. give Saddam a green light, then changed his mine after Saddam attacked?

Oh I am sure that the US would rather see Saddam die of natural causes then bring him forward in a court of law.

Saddam may even insist that he was wrongfully removed from power by a rogue coalition, that had no legal recourse to do so.

Saddam may even insist that he was wrongfully removed from power by a rogue coalition, that had no legal recourse to do so.

I doubt that would wash. Saddam's trial, if handled correctly, could help rebuild many broken fences. Because, if it is a fair and just trial (nearly) no one will have any problem with him being tried as guilty.

Where's the Red Arrow on this? Shouldn't he be posting something to the effect that the reason for the delay is because Bush hasn't finished brainwashing Saddam to say on trial that John Kerry was his secret lover and helped him gas the Kurds and that they had a threesome with Osama Bin Laden?

I'm still waiting for the US to be charged with various war crimes. I'd much rather see their leaders go on trial before Saddam Hussein.

Agreed Brindisi. Alone for the fact that the US of A trumpet themselves to be the epitome of freedom and justice etc. etc. The double standards the US of A show every day are so obvious that I know now that nobody in the US will have to answer for the war crimes they commited. It would surely be the world's most watched media spectacle if George Dubya Bush were to be put in front of the International Court.

Fuck the Red Cross. Let's keep Saddam as bloody long as we want, and use him as a pawn to give credibility to our puppet government.

I'm still waiting for the US to be charged with various war crimes. I'd much rather see their leaders go on trial before Saddam Hussein.

It is statements like this that lose any credibility in your arguments. :roll:

Why would it lose any credibility? It would be a change for once if the leaders of the US of A had to answer for the shit they cause in the world.

Why would it lose any credibility? It would be a change for once if the leaders of the US of A had to answer for the shit they cause in the world.

Yes, forget the psychotic dictators, lets concentrate on trying to dig up some dirt on a free and democratic nation instead.

I'm still waiting for the US to be charged with various war crimes. I'd much rather see their leaders go on trial before Saddam Hussein.

You can't be friggin serious??...300,000 dead have been found in mass graves under Saddam's regime...he gassed his own damn people for God's sake..you can't under any standard compare Bush and his Administration to Saddam..

When the First Marine Division liberated Kuwait City during the First Gulf War..they had to help out at the city's hospitals..inside they found Kuwaitis with hacked off ears, arms, legs..cut tongues, gouged out eyes. Several abortions of bastard children born tor raped Kuwaiti women.

And you have the utter gall to suggest that Bush should be put on trial before Saddam...boy..you need a dose of reality.

Then if not before.. how about after?

Then if not before.. how about after?

Not even close has he committed War Crimes..or ordered War Crimes like Serbia's President did...this crap bout trying Bush for War crimes is ludicrous..to compare us and our attempt at bringing freedom to a people who have been oppressed by a tin-pot dictator to a man responsible for mass murder...who enjoyed having his sons rape Iraqi women for playthings...who used tainted money from the Food for Oil plan to create massive palaces while his people starved...

It just boggles my mind to insinuate such garbage.

Then if not before.. how about after?

From all your posts in this thread and in others you obviously have some irrational hatred for the US. Thats your choice and good luck to you. But if you cannot see the difference between Saddam Hussein and George Bush then you have some serious problems.
All the advocates for the International Court are drooling over the chance to drag the leaders of free democracies through the courts for their "crimes" while turning a blind eye to dictators and mass murderers throughout the world.

I know whose rule I'd rather live under and it isn't Saddam Hussein's.

while turning a blind eye to dictators and mass murderers throughout the world.

Hmm.. maybe you should think about who brought many of these dictators to power in the first place? That the war against Iraq is illegal regardless of your motives, does not change and never will. Committing a crime, according to laws everywhere, requires a trial (well not everywhere perhaps). The US of A have *never* been before a court for the crimes they committed over the years and I am sure there are a *LOT* of crimes one could hold against the US of A. The murder on 9000 Iraqi civilians (a whole lot more than died due to the the terrorist activity 9/11) should warrant a death penalty I guess (I dont like this form of penalty, but since you got it in your country, I think I can overcome my revulsion in that case).

Lets add the civilian victims in Afghanistan, the torturing of Prisoners of War, the violation of human rights all over the world (*cough* Guantanamo Bay.. *cough*) and probably a ton more that I cant remember right now.

Saddam Hussein will be tried for his crimes and he will most likely be killed for his deeds. I find it only fair that George W. Bush shares his fate and answers for his own crimes.

Then if not before.. how about after?

Not even close has he committed War Crimes..or ordered War Crimes like Serbia's President did...this crap bout trying Bush for War crimes is ludicrous..to compare us and our attempt at bringing freedom to a people who have been oppressed by a tin-pot dictator to a man responsible for mass murder...who enjoyed having his sons rape Iraqi women for playthings...who used tainted money from the Food for Oil plan to create massive palaces while his people starved...

It just boggles my mind to insinuate such garbage.
You see only one side while two clearly exist. While Saddam may be quilty of crimes against his people, other countries are guilty of complicity. Your country is directly responsible for some of the outcomes. WMD, including deadly toxins were supplied to Saddam, intelligence was also supplied. While Saddam was using these elements in Iraqs war with Iran, the US not only re-established diplomatic relations with Saddam, but they also turned a blind eye to the usage of these deadly weapons. Face facts, the US wanted to get back at Iran and they were going to and did succeed in that endeavour.

The other twist in this whole scenario, is that when Iraq started to get the upper hand against Iran, the US then supplied weapons to Iran to neutralize Iraq. If Saddam is guilty then so is the US and the other countries that supplied him with the means?

Do you really think the Iraqis feel liberated? You call down Saddam for his saddistic practices and yet some of the "liberating" armies did exactly the same thing. The only difference is the numbers? Guilt is guilt and there is apparently lots of it to share? BTW, that is no insinuation, but stark fact.

Then if not before.. how about after?

Not even close has he committed War Crimes..or ordered War Crimes like Serbia's President did...this crap bout trying Bush for War crimes is ludicrous..to compare us and our attempt at bringing freedom to a people who have been oppressed by a tin-pot dictator to a man responsible for mass murder...who enjoyed having his sons rape Iraqi women for playthings...who used tainted money from the Food for Oil plan to create massive palaces while his people starved...

It just boggles my mind to insinuate such garbage.
You see only one side while two clearly exist. While Saddam may be quilty of crimes against his people, other countries are guilty of complicity. Your country is directly responsible for some of the outcomes. WMD, including deadly toxins were supplied to Saddam, intelligence was also supplied. While Saddam was using these elements in Iraqs war with Iran, the US not only re-established diplomatic relations with Saddam, but they also turned a blind eye to the usage of these deadly weapons. Face facts, the US wanted to get back at Iran and they were going to and did succeed in that endeavour.

The other twist in this whole scenario, is that when Iraq started to get the upper hand against Iran, the US then supplied weapons to Iran to neutralize Iraq. If Saddam is guilty then so is the US and the other countries that supplied him with the means?

Do you really think the Iraqis feel liberated? You call down Saddam for his saddistic practices and yet some of the "liberating" armies did exactly the same thing. The only difference is the numbers? Guilt is guilt and there is apparently lots of it to share? BTW, that is no insinuation, but stark fact.

Guilt is guilt?..Oh there is a huge friggin difference here..and only someone who is anti-Bush could somehow equate the two situations....The Kurds sure as hell feel liberated?..that's at least 15% of their population, the Shiites before Sadr wanted to thrust Islamic revolution on the country felt liberated..only after Sadr somehow suggested they weren't did they feel unliberated?.

And the US can not be found guilty of war crimes..that is a country..Saddam on the other hand is personally guilty of war crimes..The current US administration can not be held responsible for the actions of a past administration as they had no hand in those policies.

while turning a blind eye to dictators and mass murderers throughout the world.

Hmm.. maybe you should think about who brought many of these dictators to power in the first place? That the war against Iraq is illegal regardless of your motives, does not change and never will. Committing a crime, according to laws everywhere, requires a trial (well not everywhere perhaps). The US of A have *never* been before a court for the crimes they committed over the years and I am sure there are a *LOT* of crimes one could hold against the US of A. The murder on 9000 Iraqi civilians (a whole lot more than died due to the the terrorist activity 9/11) should warrant a death penalty I guess (I dont like this form of penalty, but since you got it in your country, I think I can overcome my revulsion in that case).

Lets add the civilian victims in Afghanistan, the torturing of Prisoners of War, the violation of human rights all over the world (*cough* Guantanamo Bay.. *cough*) and probably a ton more that I cant remember right now.

How many Iraqi civilians would have died inthe past year under Saddam's rule? The next 10 years if he was still in power..the next 50 once one of his son's took over the reigns?
There is no such thing as a legal war. War is war and to be honest the fact that a dictator has been deposed, another in Gaddafi has backed down and there is a chance for Iraqis to rebuild a free nation justifies the war.
I am not American so it is not my country. I do, however, think that the actions of the US and its allies in Iraq and Afghanistan have been the correct actions. One less dictator in the world and the dawn of a new era in Iraq. I suggest you read the logs of Iraqis written during the war at http://www.iraqthemodel.com to see the sentiments of people in Iraq who lived under Saddam Hussein and are now seeing the changes sweep therough their nation.
History will judge everyone and I am sure that George W Bush will be viewed in a far better light than Saddam Hussein and the Taliban.

Guilt is guilt?..Oh there is a huge friggin difference here

I do not consider the crimes of Hussein and Bush to be different. There is no difference whether you kill 300.000 or 9.000 civilians. It is still mass murder and nothing can change that. It does not make a difference if you are the US of A or not if you are violating human rights - even in your own country. It is a difference if you disobey the UN (because you are not a member of it) or if you ignore the UN because it is convenient, despite you being a member of it. It is not a difference if you attack Kuwait or if you attack Iraq. Both are illegal, both should be punished accordingly.

I will not consider the US of A and their president, George Walker Bush, to be any different than Saddam Hussein and Iraq.

Guilt is guilt?..Oh there is a huge friggin difference here..and only someone who is anti-Bush could somehow equate the two situations....The Kurds sure as hell feel liberated?..that's at least 15% of their population, the Shiites before Sadr wanted to thrust Islamic revolution on the country felt liberated..only after Sadr somehow suggested they weren't did they feel unliberated?.

And the US can not be found guilty of war crimes..that is a country..Saddam on the other hand is personally guilty of war crimes..The current US administration can not be held responsible for the actions of a past administration as they had no hand in those policies.



Wow! All the Shi'ite discontent is al Sadr's fault? He said "Hey! WE'RE not happy!" and the crowd all said "Gosh darn it! you're right! Thanks for pointing that out to us....."

You are, I think, oversimplifying things to ludicrous levels.

Here is a thought: NOBODY likes to be occupied. Nobody. If the Kurds are the happiest right now it is largely because the coalition has given them virtual autonomy to date. There are very few forces in their region.

I guarantee that if you put 30,000 more Marines up there running around setting up roadblocks and grabing random people for interrigation regarding some of the bombings of pipelines that the Kurds would become equally unhappy at the situation.

-Z-

mk
How many Iraqi civilians would have died inthe past year under Saddam's rule? The next 10 years if he was still in power..the next 50 once one of his son's took over the reigns?

You tell me.

There is no such thing as a legal war. War is war and to be honest the fact that a dictator has been deposed, another in Gaddafi has backed down and there is a chance for Iraqis to rebuild a free nation justifies the war.

There is a thing called "UN Mandate" which could have legalized this war. Alas the US decided to just go ahead and overrule all other nations of the world and attack Iraq, with the help of nations that were either the known lapdogs of the US or threatened to have their "development grants" or whatever you call that and military spending, cut. Many countries helped the US of A due to economic reasons. The war was originally started because of "WMD against the US of A", which -as the entire world knows by now, were complete lies.

I am not American so it is not my country. I do, however, think that the actions of the US and its allies in Iraq and Afghanistan have been the correct actions. One less dictator in the world

Of course.. correct.. I think the innocent, dead civilians will agree with you wholeheartedly. Correct actions are what the international community considers correct, not what the US of A consider correct to further economic and geopolitical plans. Bombing an already weak and dried out country with an overwhelming force and brutality, is of course the correct action to take. Lieing about the true reasons for a war is of course a correct action. I think the "christian god" of the Americans will not agree with this, but who am I.. just someone who does not bow his head in admiration of the great US of A, the country of the free and righteous.

While you will of course not agree with me, I consider George W Bush to be the most dangerous dictator of the world. He commands the most powerful military known to mankind, which is a freaking scary thought.

Then if not before.. how about after?

Not even close has he committed War Crimes..or ordered War Crimes like Serbia's President did...this crap bout trying Bush for War crimes is ludicrous..to compare us and our attempt at bringing freedom to a people who have been oppressed by a tin-pot dictator to a man responsible for mass murder...who enjoyed having his sons rape Iraqi women for playthings...who used tainted money from the Food for Oil plan to create massive palaces while his people starved...

It just boggles my mind to insinuate such garbage.
You see only one side while two clearly exist. While Saddam may be quilty of crimes against his people, other countries are guilty of complicity. Your country is directly responsible for some of the outcomes. WMD, including deadly toxins were supplied to Saddam, intelligence was also supplied. While Saddam was using these elements in Iraqs war with Iran, the US not only re-established diplomatic relations with Saddam, but they also turned a blind eye to the usage of these deadly weapons. Face facts, the US wanted to get back at Iran and they were going to and did succeed in that endeavour.

The other twist in this whole scenario, is that when Iraq started to get the upper hand against Iran, the US then supplied weapons to Iran to neutralize Iraq. If Saddam is guilty then so is the US and the other countries that supplied him with the means?

Do you really think the Iraqis feel liberated? You call down Saddam for his saddistic practices and yet some of the "liberating" armies did exactly the same thing. The only difference is the numbers? Guilt is guilt and there is apparently lots of it to share? BTW, that is no insinuation, but stark fact.

Guilt is guilt?..Oh there is a huge friggin difference here..and only someone who is anti-Bush could somehow equate the two situations....The Kurds sure as hell feel liberated?..that's at least 15% of their population, the Shiites before Sadr wanted to thrust Islamic revolution on the country felt liberated..only after Sadr somehow suggested they weren't did they feel unliberated?.

And the US can not be found guilty of war crimes..that is a country..Saddam on the other hand is personally guilty of war crimes..The current US administration can not be held responsible for the actions of a past administration as they had no hand in those policies.
In your country, if someone knowingly aids and abets a criminal, are they what you call "accomplises"? The obvious answer is yes. Can people be "accomplises" over international lines? Of course they can. Guilt is guilt. The result doesn't change. People are dead in Iraq and Iran by the decree of Saddam and the assistance of the US. You call Saddam a "tin pot" dictator, yet your country shook his hand and helped him earn his wings. You gave him the tin and the pot and he did your bidding for you. He was your friend, and you double crossed him three times. Amazing that you cannot see this.

Then if not before.. how about after?

Not even close has he committed War Crimes..or ordered War Crimes like Serbia's President did...this crap bout trying Bush for War crimes is ludicrous..to compare us and our attempt at bringing freedom to a people who have been oppressed by a tin-pot dictator to a man responsible for mass murder...who enjoyed having his sons rape Iraqi women for playthings...who used tainted money from the Food for Oil plan to create massive palaces while his people starved...

It just boggles my mind to insinuate such garbage.
You see only one side while two clearly exist. While Saddam may be quilty of crimes against his people, other countries are guilty of complicity. Your country is directly responsible for some of the outcomes. WMD, including deadly toxins were supplied to Saddam, intelligence was also supplied. While Saddam was using these elements in Iraqs war with Iran, the US not only re-established diplomatic relations with Saddam, but they also turned a blind eye to the usage of these deadly weapons. Face facts, the US wanted to get back at Iran and they were going to and did succeed in that endeavour.

The other twist in this whole scenario, is that when Iraq started to get the upper hand against Iran, the US then supplied weapons to Iran to neutralize Iraq. If Saddam is guilty then so is the US and the other countries that supplied him with the means?

Do you really think the Iraqis feel liberated? You call down Saddam for his saddistic practices and yet some of the "liberating" armies did exactly the same thing. The only difference is the numbers? Guilt is guilt and there is apparently lots of it to share? BTW, that is no insinuation, but stark fact.

Guilt is guilt?..Oh there is a huge friggin difference here..and only someone who is anti-Bush could somehow equate the two situations....The Kurds sure as hell feel liberated?..that's at least 15% of their population, the Shiites before Sadr wanted to thrust Islamic revolution on the country felt liberated..only after Sadr somehow suggested they weren't did they feel unliberated?.

And the US can not be found guilty of war crimes..that is a country..Saddam on the other hand is personally guilty of war crimes..The current US administration can not be held responsible for the actions of a past administration as they had no hand in those policies.
In your country, if someone knowingly aids and abets a criminal, are they what you call "accomplises"? The obvious answer is yes. Can people be "accomplises" over international lines? Of course they can. Guilt is guilt. The result doesn't change. People are dead in Iraq and Iran by the decree of Saddam and the assistance of the US. You call Saddam a "tin pot" dictator, yet your country shook his hand and helped him earn his wings. You gave him the tin and the pot and he did your bidding for you. He was your friend, and you double crossed him three times. Amazing that you cannot see this.

Wrong.."I" didn't give him leave to do anything..."I"...didn't give him leave to go to war with Iran...."I" did not do these things..therefore I am not an accomplish...hence..the current Administration..which was not in power at the time of the Iran-Iraq can be held responsible for actions taken by another Administration.....amazing that you can't see this simple logic..or do you hold the sins of the father against the sons?

I hold the crimes of George W. Bush against George W. Bush. I do not blame him for the actions other US of A presidents did before him, however I very much want to see him tried for his actions as current president of the US of A.

Wrong.."I" didn't give him leave to do anything..."I"...didn't give him leave to go to war with Iran...."I" did not do these things..therefore I am not an accomplish...hence..the current Administration..which was not in power at the time of the Iran-Iraq can be held responsible for actions taken by another Administration.....amazing that you can't see this simple logic..or do you hold the sins of the father against the sons?

Well then, let's see if the current administration can answer these crimes:

- Illegal war against Irak
- Torture of prisoners
- Illegally detaining prisoners

And I'd also like to see the Bush administration answer to a grand jury for their lies about the cause of the war. You wanted to evict Clinton for far less that Bush did.

All I hope, for the world's sake, is that American voters wake and elect someone else in the election.

DP

Then if not before.. how about after?

Not even close has he committed War Crimes..or ordered War Crimes like Serbia's President did...this crap bout trying Bush for War crimes is ludicrous..to compare us and our attempt at bringing freedom to a people who have been oppressed by a tin-pot dictator to a man responsible for mass murder...who enjoyed having his sons rape Iraqi women for playthings...who used tainted money from the Food for Oil plan to create massive palaces while his people starved...

It just boggles my mind to insinuate such garbage.
You see only one side while two clearly exist. While Saddam may be quilty of crimes against his people, other countries are guilty of complicity. Your country is directly responsible for some of the outcomes. WMD, including deadly toxins were supplied to Saddam, intelligence was also supplied. While Saddam was using these elements in Iraqs war with Iran, the US not only re-established diplomatic relations with Saddam, but they also turned a blind eye to the usage of these deadly weapons. Face facts, the US wanted to get back at Iran and they were going to and did succeed in that endeavour.

The other twist in this whole scenario, is that when Iraq started to get the upper hand against Iran, the US then supplied weapons to Iran to neutralize Iraq. If Saddam is guilty then so is the US and the other countries that supplied him with the means?


Do you really think the Iraqis feel liberated? You call down Saddam for his saddistic practices and yet some of the "liberating" armies did exactly the same thing. The only difference is the numbers? Guilt is guilt and there is apparently lots of it to share? BTW, that is no insinuation, but stark fact.

Guilt is guilt?..Oh there is a huge friggin difference here..and only someone who is anti-Bush could somehow equate the two situations....The Kurds sure as hell feel liberated?..that's at least 15% of their population, the Shiites before Sadr wanted to thrust Islamic revolution on the country felt liberated..only after Sadr somehow suggested they weren't did they feel unliberated?.

And the US can not be found guilty of war crimes..that is a country..Saddam on the other hand is personally guilty of war crimes..The current US administration can not be held responsible for the actions of a past administration as they had no hand in those policies.
In your country, if someone knowingly aids and abets a criminal, are they what you call "accomplises"? The obvious answer is yes. Can people be "accomplises" over international lines? Of course they can. Guilt is guilt. The result doesn't change. People are dead in Iraq and Iran by the decree of Saddam and the assistance of the US. You call Saddam a "tin pot" dictator, yet your country shook his hand and helped him earn his wings. You gave him the tin and the pot and he did your bidding for you. He was your friend, and you double crossed him three times. Amazing that you cannot see this.

Wrong.."I" didn't give him leave to do anything..."I"...didn't give him leave to go to war with Iran...."I" did not do these things..therefore I am not an accomplish...hence..the current Administration..which was not in power at the time of the Iran-Iraq can be held responsible for actions taken by another Administration.....amazing that you can't see this simple logic..or do you hold the sins of the father against the sons?
Now we are getting somewhere. Of course I was not blaming "you". You was in reference to the US. So there is some guilt there?

Now.... Rumsfeld, and Cheney are/were part of both adminstrations and they are advising the current administration. So are they guilty? How about Bush Sr.? Is Bush Jr. guilty for listening to Rumsfeld/Cheney? Or is Bush Jr. just in violation of the UN Charter?

I'd give up Aluran, it doesn't look like you're going to win this one, because you can't. You're wrong.

I'd give up Aluran, it doesn't look like you're going to win this one, because you can't. You're wrong.

On the contrary..it's precisely because I'm so stubborn that someone should say..."Gee..anyone with that much stubborness might just have a point".....and just what am I wrong in?

What apparently I'm hearing is that the sins of the father must be visited to the son..and I'm not talking literally Bush Sr and Bush Jr. Let me see if I get this...the current US Administration should be held liable for policies enacted during the Cold War by another US Administration..ahuh....and just how many Administrations are to be blamed for that Administrations policies?

Then there is this crap bout "illegal" war.....there is no such concept as a legal or illegal war...war is just war...now..onto the other things such as torture of prisoners...that issue is being addressed even as we speak. So just what am I wrong bout?....the part bout comparing Bush Jr to the monster Saddam perhaps?

I'd give up Aluran, it doesn't look like you're going to win this one, because you can't. You're wrong.

On the contrary..it's precisely because I'm so stubborn that someone should say..."Gee..anyone with that much stubborness might just have a point".....and just what am I wrong in?

Stubborn doesn't equal right or have a point.. it just means you're stubborn...lol

Let me put it another way that might be better for you.. I disagree with you and I agree with CanuckHeaven. Better? ;)

Lets face facts. IF the US didn't invade Iraq, none of this stuff would have seen the light of day.

The very fact that the US DID invade Iraq on trumped up charges of WMD, and anti-US terrorist activities, it has caused the toilet to back up. Now the US has to deal with all the previous chit, and all the new crap.

The current administration has thrown the US into a bad light, around the world. Perhaps you don't care about that and will defend them (current administration) until Hell freezes over. However, the bottom line is that the current administration of the US, has blocked the beacon of democracy in the "free" world, and they have tarnished America's image.

The healing process can start in November.

The healing process can start in November

Only if the US citizens vote someone else president.Otherwise over my cold and dead corpse.

Why would it lose any credibility? It would be a change for once if the leaders of the US of A had to answer for the shit they cause in the world.

Yes, forget the psychotic dictators, lets concentrate on trying to dig up some dirt on a free and democratic nation instead.

It's not just any old "free and democratic nation" it is the self-appointed beacon of the western world, of freedom, democracy and justice, it is the only real remaining superpower, economically and militarily unrivalled and certainly the only one which pursues a rigorous policy of interventionism. With such power and status comes responsibility and it is precisely because I do not wish to see the western ideals that it ought to stand for and defend dragged through the mud that I will criticise the hell out of it as much as I like whenever I deem it necessary.

I will criticise the hell out of it as much as I like whenever I deem it necessary.

A freedom the Iraqi people have been denied for 30 years and that many in Western nations take for granted.

First of all, I don't give a crap if someone who hates the US wants to heal or not, the obvious bias of some people is astonishing.
Second Iraq continually violated UN resolutions therefore the war was not illegal.
Third, I have been there, I was in that war. All this BS about how unhappy Iraqis are, well is BS. Most of them were more than happy to see the US and allies roll in, many clasping my hand thanking me for being there.
Fourthly the US DID NOT kill 9000 innocent civilians, jesus h christ. Even according to that overly biased bodycount site that people like to site as reference thousands upon thousands were killed by insurgents. And those counts are off since they have discovered alot of those "civilians" were actually Iraqi military hiding.

bring me before an international court, I have done nothing to be ashamed of nor that I will apologize for. All the opinions here mean jack shit to me. The opinions that matter are the ones of the people who thanked me for ridding them of Hussein, grasping my hand and all but crying when they thanked me.
You can spew all you want about how illegal it was, but actually the US acted completely within their rights given how many times Hussein violated the peace agreement from the first war and multiple UN resolutions. Oh and btw alot of what Hussein had in way of military was also given to him by France and Germany.
You can condemn me all you want, as I said the thanks I got from the people who are truly effected by this outweigh anything any of you spew.

Iraq continually violated UN resolutions

Not Iraq. Sadam Hussein.

First of all, I don't give a crap if someone who hates the US wants to heal or not, the obvious bias of some people is astonishing.

Personally I did not hate the US of A before George Walker Bush became president of it. My bias is in sympathy with the dead Iraqi people who had no choice in the matter and suffered the ultimate pain for it. That Hussein killed a lot of people in his country (years and years ago with the US supporting him of course), does not justify the killing of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians.

Third, I have been there, I was in that war. All this BS about how unhappy Iraqis are, well is BS. Most of them were more than happy to see the US and allies roll in, many clasping my hand thanking me for being there.

Contrary to popular US of A belief, the citizens of Iraq do not seem to be too happy with the situation, seeing how chaotic the situation is in Iraq right now and has been since the war "ended" according to George Walker Bush of the US of A. The joy of being free of oppression and having absolute sovereignty is omnipresent in the whole of Iraq... or is it?

bring me before an international court, I have done nothing to be ashamed of nor that I will apologize for. All the opinions here mean jack shit to me.

Top that with the compulsory "I did only follow orders" and the similarities to what Nazi soldiers and officials said after WW2 are quite astonishing.

You can spew all you want about how illegal it was, but actually the US acted completely within their rights given how many times Hussein violated the peace agreement from the first war and multiple UN resolutions.

The US have the right to decide what the UN have to do? Since when has that been the case? Since the US are the absolute governing body of the world? If that is the case, then I did miss that. My apologies, oh great and most reverred member of the world governing body, my lordship.
I hope that Human Rights do count asmuch as UN resolutions, because the US of A happen to be among the top offenders regarding violations of Human Rights in the entire world... think about it before you point at others. Especially the horrors commited in Abu Ghraib will not be forgotten that quickly! Read this: http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/06/09/iraq8785.htm
That the UN was unable to act appropriately, was due to the fact that the US of A made complete facts by declaring war on Iraq before the weapon inspections were completed. Many thanks for your vote of convidence. Apparently your president was scared of the outcome, which would have invalidated his main reason for demanding this war: Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Weapons of Mass Destruction and facilities to produce those in the arsenal of Saddam Hussein, aimed at the US of A, ready to kill millions and millions of lives. The reason was not "to free the Iraqi people of the dicator Saddam Hussein" or "to make a democracy in that country" because the US have as much right to that as any other nation has the right to change the type of government in the US - none. That you accepted the immense strain of very old alliances and the violation of international law, to rid 1 country in the world of 1 dictator with dozens still in power all over the world and no indication of the US of A to do anything about that, I take the liberty to question your motives.

Oh and btw alot of what Hussein had in way of military was also given to him by France and Germany.

Do you have official sources to back that up?

You can condemn me all you want, as I said the thanks I got from the people who are truly effected by this outweigh anything any of you spew.

I will condemn you and your president for what is happening in Iraq now, that you cast it into an endless spiral of chaos and destruction. May the blood spilt for the oil you get from Iraq in the future, remind you of the unneccessary victims your illegal crusade has caused. The most unfortunate thing however is, that with the unvalidation of the power of the UN in the world and the effective transplantation of the US of A in its place, you have opened many doors for other nations to follow your example. Good luck containing this pandora's box.

Top that with the compulsory "I did only follow orders" and the similarities to what Nazi soldiers and officials said after WW2 are quite astonishing.

Side comment: I dated a German Girl whose grandpa fought in the war on the Eastern Front. He once commented that people like to forget that if you disobeyed an order, you could very well be shot.

But the American situation is vastely different then the Nazis. The last soldier shot was I think Eddie Slovak in WWII.



Oh and btw alot of what Hussein had in way of military was also given to him by France and Germany.


Do you have official sources to back that up?


Most of his equipment was Chinese and or old Russian. There might have been some German and French but it was probably traded or purchased "legally" on the arms market.

Most of the equipment was destroyed in the first war.

I am aware of the consequences the refusal to follow orders has. In WW2 and before it was the death penalty - in just about all countries of the world. Today it is martial trial in front of a US military court... which is just about the same.

Iraq continually violated UN resolutions

Not Iraq. Sadam Hussein.


You make a separation of Saddam and Iraq but cannot do the same for the US and Bush?

Gigatron, from the many threads you have created and commented on I think we all get the idea that you blindly hate the US and George W Bush. You are entitled to your opinion and are free to express it because you live in a country that allows you to. The people of Iraq and Afghanistan were not allowed such rights and, if you had your way, never would.

Sometimes you need to look beyond the now and see the bigger picture. War is not something anyone wants but sometimes it is a necessary evil to achieve a greater good.

You are never going to change your views and neither will many others here.

Sometimes you need to look beyond the now and see the bigger picture. War is not something anyone wants but sometimes it is a necessary evil to achieve a greater good.

So why are there a buttload of dictators still in power all over the world, still supported by the US? Why do you support Saudi Arabia? Why do you support Israel? Why do you not attack China and free it of its oppressive communist leaders? You'd not dare this cause China would kick your fat arses back to the moon where you belong! I dont hate the US in its entirety, but many of its people and first and foremost George Walker Bush, who has ruined this once well-liked nation. I can remember when I looked to the US as a good example of western ideals. This has long since changed thanks to George Walker Bush. He and his cronies, have ruined my role model of the most democratic and free country in the world. You have no right any longer to call yourself that and you can thank your President alone for this.

The war on Iraq was never officially fought to free the people. It was fought to destroy the WMD that were supposedly aimed at the US from Iraq - none were ever found. That Saddam Hussein was kicked from his seat of power was a convenient side effect, not to mention the "reward" -free or very cheap oil from a puppet government which will do the US' biddings, lest be annexed entirely. Since your President has shown his true colors and you do NOTHING AT ALL to stop his madness, you have lost all credibility in my eyes and I will say so whenever I can.

Sometimes you need to look beyond the now and see the bigger picture. War is not something anyone wants but sometimes it is a necessary evil to achieve a greater good.

So why are there a buttload of dictators still in power all over the world, still supported by the US? Why do you support Saudi Arabia? Why do you support Israel? Why do you not attack China and free it of its oppressive communist leaders? You'd not dare this cause China would kick your fat arses back to the moon where you belong! I dont hate the US in its entirety, but many of its people and first and foremost George Walker Bush, who has ruined this once well-liked nation. I can remember when I looked to the US as a good example of western ideals. This has long since changed thanks to George Walker Bush. He and his cronies, have ruined my role model of the most democratic and free country in the world. You have no right any longer to call yourself that and you can thank your President alone for this.

The war on Iraq was never officially fought to free the people. It was fought to destroy the WMD that were supposedly aimed at the US from Iraq - none were ever found. That Saddam Hussein was kicked from his seat of power was a convenient side effect, not to mention the "reward" -free or very cheap oil from a puppet government which will do the US' biddings, lest be annexed entirely.

I repeat, I am not American. Are you familiar with one step at a time? Do you expect the coalition to simultaneously invade all these places? The removal of a tyrant has already had a cascade effect with Gaddafi backing down. Hopefully the liberation of Iraq will send a message to other dictators in the region...time will tell.

The war on Iraq was to remove a threat to the Western world. WMDs were given as A reason not THE reason. The removal of Saddam Hussein was one of the reasons for the invasion because with Saddam still in charge the threat was never removed. I am glad he is gone and look forward to Iraq rebuilding itself with the assistance of the US and its allies.

Now on the topic of "cheap" oil. France and Russia been identified as a couple of the nations profiting from rorting the Food for Oil program set up by the UN in Iraq. Are they to be held accountable for these crimes? Gorging themselves on cheap oil and kick backs while the Iraqi people starve and die of disease..the same people they are so worried about now that the US has invaded? The main reason these nations opposed the war is because they would lose these perks of dealing with the tyrant.

And before you ask...

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,9367752%255E2703,00.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/rosett200403101819.asp

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110005011

a simple seach under "Food for Oil" on Google should give you any further information you might require.

Sometimes you need to look beyond the now and see the bigger picture. War is not something anyone wants but sometimes it is a necessary evil to achieve a greater good.

So why are there a buttload of dictators still in power all over the world, still supported by the US? Why do you support Saudi Arabia? Why do you support Israel? Why do you not attack China and free it of its oppressive communist leaders? You'd not dare this cause China would kick your fat arses back to the moon where you belong! I dont hate the US in its entirety, but many of its people and first and foremost George Walker Bush, who has ruined this once well-liked nation. I can remember when I looked to the US as a good example of western ideals. This has long since changed thanks to George Walker Bush. He and his cronies, have ruined my role model of the most democratic and free country in the world. You have no right any longer to call yourself that and you can thank your President alone for this.

The war on Iraq was never officially fought to free the people. It was fought to destroy the WMD that were supposedly aimed at the US from Iraq - none were ever found. That Saddam Hussein was kicked from his seat of power was a convenient side effect, not to mention the "reward" -free or very cheap oil from a puppet government which will do the US' biddings, lest be annexed entirely.

I repeat, I am not American. Are you familiar with one step at a time? Do you expect the coalition to simultaneously invade all these places? The removal of a tyrant has already had a cascade effect with Gaddafi backing down. Hopefully the liberation of Iraq will send a message to other dictators in the region...time will tell.

The war on Iraq was to remove a threat to the Western world. WMDs were given as A reason not THE reason. The removal of Saddam Hussein was one of the reasons for the invasion because with Saddam still in charge the threat was never removed. I am glad he is gone and look forward to Iraq rebuilding itself with the assistance of the US and its allies.

Now on the topic of "cheap" oil. France and Russia been identified as a couple of the nations profiting from rorting the Food for Oil program set up by the UN in Iraq. Are they to be held accountable for these crimes? Gorging themselves on cheap oil and kick backs while the Iraqi people starve and die of disease..the same people they are so worried about now that the US has invaded? The main reason these nations opposed the war is because they would lose these perks of dealing with the tyrant.

It seems to me that Saddam was a thug, a burden, and an overall menace to his people and the world, but if the US doesnt hold up their own laws, are they better? They have more power than he did, and therefore can do more wrong. This brings up the farenheit 9/11 movie.

Sometimes you need to look beyond the now and see the bigger picture. War is not something anyone wants but sometimes it is a necessary evil to achieve a greater good.

So why are there a buttload of dictators still in power all over the world, still supported by the US? Why do you support Saudi Arabia? Why do you support Israel? Why do you not attack China and free it of its oppressive communist leaders? You'd not dare this cause China would kick your fat arses back to the moon where you belong! I dont hate the US in its entirety, but many of its people and first and foremost George Walker Bush, who has ruined this once well-liked nation. I can remember when I looked to the US as a good example of western ideals. This has long since changed thanks to George Walker Bush. He and his cronies, have ruined my role model of the most democratic and free country in the world. You have no right any longer to call yourself that and you can thank your President alone for this.

The war on Iraq was never officially fought to free the people. It was fought to destroy the WMD that were supposedly aimed at the US from Iraq - none were ever found. That Saddam Hussein was kicked from his seat of power was a convenient side effect, not to mention the "reward" -free or very cheap oil from a puppet government which will do the US' biddings, lest be annexed entirely.

I repeat, I am not American. Are you familiar with one step at a time? Do you expect the coalition to simultaneously invade all these places? The removal of a tyrant has already had a cascade effect with Gaddafi backing down. Hopefully the liberation of Iraq will send a message to other dictators in the region...time will tell.

The war on Iraq was to remove a threat to the Western world. WMDs were given as A reason not THE reason. The removal of Saddam Hussein was one of the reasons for the invasion because with Saddam still in charge the threat was never removed. I am glad he is gone and look forward to Iraq rebuilding itself with the assistance of the US and its allies.

Now on the topic of "cheap" oil. France and Russia been identified as a couple of the nations profiting from rorting the Food for Oil program set up by the UN in Iraq. Are they to be held accountable for these crimes? Gorging themselves on cheap oil and kick backs while the Iraqi people starve and die of disease..the same people they are so worried about now that the US has invaded? The main reason these nations opposed the war is because they would lose these perks of dealing with the tyrant.

It seems to me that Saddam was a thug, a burden, and an overall menace to his people and the world, but if the US doesnt hold up their own laws, are they better? They have more power than he did, and therefore can do more wrong. This brings up the farenheit 9/11 movie.

I think there are already enough Michael Moore worship threads without turning this into one.

At least I prefer Michael Moore over George Walker Bush. Moore speaks up and doesnt duck in silent obedience in front of George Walker Bush. I'll take someone who is not afraid of opposing what he does not agree with over someone who oppresses a lot of people in his own country often unlawfully and even against human rights.

First of all, I don't give a crap if someone who hates the US wants to heal or not, the obvious bias of some people is astonishing.

Since I was the one that mentioned the healing process, I am assuming that you are referring to me. Well I may be biased towards truth, honour, and justice, which is more than I can say for the current US administration. BTW I don’t hate America.


Second Iraq continually violated UN resolutions therefore the war was not illegal.

There have been many legal experts who have offered their opinion on this and yes there is a question of illegality.


Third, I have been there, I was in that war.

Glad to see that you made it back safe and sound. Hopefully you didn’t have to kill anyone.


All this BS about how unhappy Iraqis are, well is BS. Most of them were more than happy to see the US and allies roll in, many clasping my hand thanking me for being there.

MOST? From the articles I have read and polls that were taken, the Iraqis can’t wait for the occupying forces to leave.


Fourthly the US DID NOT kill 9000 innocent civilians, jesus h christ. Even according to that overly biased bodycount site that people like to site as reference thousands upon thousands were killed by insurgents. And those counts are off since they have discovered alot of those "civilians" were actually Iraqi military hiding.

It is a large number though huh?


bring me before an international court, I have done nothing to be ashamed of nor that I will apologize for.

Congratulations. However, some of your compatriots have none been so exemplary in the commission of their duties.


All the opinions here mean jack shit to me.

Opinions are the cornerstone of the “democracy” that you are paid to defend?


The opinions that matter are the ones of the people who thanked me for ridding them of Hussein, grasping my hand and all but crying when they thanked me.

I am sure that some Iraqis are grateful and that is a good thing.


You can spew all you want about how illegal it was, but actually the US acted completely within their rights given how many times Hussein violated the peace agreement from the first war and multiple UN resolutions.

Israel is also in violation of many UN Resolutions and they have not been invaded. The US did NOT get approval from the UN Security Council, hence the legal possibility that the US is in violation of the UN Charter of Rights, not to mention in violation of the Geneva Conventions.


Oh and btw alot of what Hussein had in way of military was also given to him by France and Germany.

And a lot of it came from the US as well, including intelligency reports. The US also supported Saddam, while he was gasing not only the Iranians but also the Kurds.


You can condemn me all you want, as I said the thanks I got from the people who are truly effected by this outweigh anything any of you spew.

Soldiers are given marching orders by their superiors and have no choice. The “spewing” in here is not against the soldiers per se, but against the corrupt administration that sent you to Iraq in the first place.

Welcome back, you are one of the lucky ones?

At least I prefer Michael Moore over George Walker Bush. Moore speaks up and doesnt duck in silent obedience in front of George Walker Bush. I'll take someone who is not afraid of opposing what he does not agree with over someone who oppresses a lot of people in his own country often unlawfully and even against human rights.

Quelle surprise..I think we have got an idea of your stance on these matters by now.

Thats good then. I cant stop stating it because I read the nonsensefrom Americans in almost every new thread which brings my blood back to the boiling point hehe

Just because they do not agree with you does not make what they are saying nonsense.

I will criticise the hell out of it as much as I like whenever I deem it necessary.

A freedom the Iraqi people have been denied for 30 years and that many in Western nations take for granted.

And also a freedom which many other Arab countries may now find harder to come by given the body blow that the Iraq war has dealt to the cause of Arab moderates everywhere.

I will criticise the hell out of it as much as I like whenever I deem it necessary.

A freedom the Iraqi people have been denied for 30 years and that many in Western nations take for granted.

And also a freedom which many other Arab countries may now find harder to come by given the body blow that the Iraq war has dealt to the cause of Arab moderates everywhere.

What?...there were moderates that were making headway before the war? Even in progressive Kuwait...shortly after the liberation, the men had passed legislation regarding women's issues that had gone decidely in the reverse...

Just because they do not agree with you does not make what they are saying nonsense.
Oh yes.. in my eyes many of it is nonsense. I have the benefit that I am not affected by US media or peer-pressure, thus why I have an outside view on it. I can use my free will and decide for myself what I consider nonsense, considering what I would like and not like the world I live in, to be. And I know with 100% certainty, that I do not want the world to be ruled by a US hegemony.

Just because they do not agree with you does not make what they are saying nonsense.
Oh yes.. in my eyes many of it is nonsense. I have the benefit that I am not affected by US media or peer-pressure, thus why I have an outside view on it. I can use my free will and decide for myself what I consider nonsense, considering what I would like and not like the world I live in, to be. And I know with 100% certainty, that I do not want the world to be ruled by a US hegemony.

As a member of the former East German People's Republic..did you like livng under a Soviet Hegomony?..or are you old enough to remember what it was like then for East Germans?...with the Stasi everywhere with files on everyone?

Just because they do not agree with you does not make what they are saying nonsense.
Oh yes.. in my eyes many of it is nonsense. I have the benefit that I am not affected by US media or peer-pressure, thus why I have an outside view on it. I can use my free will and decide for myself what I consider nonsense, considering what I would like and not like the world I live in, to be. And I know with 100% certainty, that I do not want the world to be ruled by a US hegemony.

I am not American, I will repeat this until you actually understand. Therefore I am not affected by US media or peer pressure. I make up my own mind. Dismissing everything that does not suit your mindset as nonsense means you are affected by peer pressure, just from the other side.
You are entitled to your views but so is everyone else even if they don't agree with your own.