Crimes against humanity.

[Lou Girardin]

Two men have waged wars of aggression against sovereign states.
Both have cited international support for these wars.
Both wars were for control of oil supplies.
Both have caused the death of thousands of civilians through indiscriminate use of weapons of mass destruction.
Both have used chemical weapons.
Both have authorised the torture of prisoners.
Both have restricted civil liberties to combat terrorism.
Both have intelligience services delving into the private lives of thousands of their citizens.
Why is only one on trial?

[Colapop]

It is the same as trying to put two mangnets together with the same polarity facing each other - they cannot both occupy the same place. The same is true in this case?

[chris]

Two men have waged wars of aggression against sovereign states.
Both have cited international support for these wars.
Both wars were for control of oil supplies.
Both have caused the death of thousands of civilians through indiscriminate use of weapons of mass destruction.
Both have used chemical weapons.
Both have authorised the torture of prisoners.
Both have restricted civil liberties to combat terrorism.
Both have intelligience services delving into the private lives of thousands of their citizens.
Why is only one on trial?

Both have gained power through bent elections.....?

[Goblin]

Kind of says it all really!

[ManDownUnder]

Let's face it - might is right.

If Iraq had Nukes and the States didn't... if Iraq had used nukes on the states and obliterated the place... if if if if if...

The Iraqi viewpoint would be "right"

Might is right - there is no way around that. The police have their power because the state has sanctioned their use of force and backed it with the full power of the judicial system.

The American's are right because they can bomb the crap out of anyone they want to.

NZ is right because we said no to nuclear powereed vessels.

All of the above are clearly contestable, with some pretty powerful arguments available on both sides... but in the end it's hard to reason with someone bigger, stonger, better equipped and/or more predisposed to violence than you.

[Storm]

So lets all hope the Chinese with thier standing army of approx 12 million dont get niggly eh?

[chris]

This has been up in the office for a while...

[kerryg]

Two men have waged wars of aggression against sovereign states.
Both have cited international support for these wars.
Both wars were for control of oil supplies.
Both have caused the death of thousands of civilians through indiscriminate use of weapons of mass destruction.
Both have used chemical weapons.
Both have authorised the torture of prisoners.
Both have restricted civil liberties to combat terrorism.
Both have intelligience services delving into the private lives of thousands of their citizens.
Why is only one on trial?

You're stimulating debate Lou which is a good thing, and let me say straight out that I'm no fan of the current American foreign policy but aren't at least a couple of those "facts" a bit shaky?

[Lou Girardin]

You're stimulating debate Lou which is a good thing, and let me say straight out that I'm no fan of the current American foreign policy but aren't at least a couple of those "facts" a bit shaky?

No. Saddam acted against Kuwait when the US said it would not interfere.

The US have used petroleum vapour bombs, cluster muntions, WP munitions and , arguably, depleted uranium munitions.
The unrestricted attacks on Fallujah, for one, was very indiscriminate.

[Grahameeboy]

You're stimulating debate Lou which is a good thing, and let me say straight out that I'm no fan of the current American foreign policy but aren't at least a couple of those "facts" a bit shaky?

Bush has incited war....he said "if you not with us you are with the terriorist".....rich coming from a Country that refused to send known IRA guys back to UK and supported the IRA (well some factions).

Isn't America a weapon of mass destruction........

Food for Thought

[kerryg]

No. Saddam acted against Kuwait when the US said it would not interfere.

The US have used petroleum vapour bombs, cluster muntions, WP munitions and , arguably, depleted uranium munitions.
The unrestricted attacks on Fallujah, for one, was very indiscriminate.


But but but...ah...feck it

I agree with you in principle anyway

[pete376403]

This is one of my favourite pics regarding the war..

[Colapop]

Haha funny. Seeing that photo of Saddam then vs what he like now, he'd be happy with Americans wouldn't he? Better than Jenny Craig!

[Jantar]

Two men have waged wars of aggression against sovereign states.
Both have cited international support for these wars.
Both wars were for control of oil supplies.
Both have caused the death of thousands of civilians through indiscriminate use of weapons of mass destruction.
Both have used chemical weapons.
Both have authorised the torture of prisoners.
Both have restricted civil liberties to combat terrorism.
Both have intelligience services delving into the private lives of thousands of their citizens.
Why is only one on trial?

I also believe that some of these "facts" are out of context.

"Both wars were for control of oils supplies?" Certainly the Iraq/Kuwait invasion was, but the the second gulf war wasn't. Certainly the oil fields were secured, but Iraq already owed so much reparation that the oil still does not yet compensate.

"Both have cited international support?" Really? What international support did Saddam have for the Kuwait invasion? What international support did Saddam have for gassing the Kurds?

"Both have caused the death of thousands of civilians through indiscriminate use of weapons of mass destruction?" Saddam used weapons of mass destruction on the Kurds, The USA did not use weapons of mass destruction, and whats more, there weapons were highly targeted. Sure, there were some civillian casulties, as in any war. But what else can you expect when Saddam places bunkers under civilian complexes.

"Both have used chemical weapons?" I suppose that you could argue that all non nuclear explosives are chemical weapons, however the USA have not used chemical wepons were it is the chemical itself that is the weapon.

"Both have restricted civil liberties to combat terrorism?" In this case only the USA is guilty. Saddam restricted civil liberties to protect his own standing, not to combat terrorism.

Why is only one on trial? Because only one targeted civilians rather than millitary targets. Only one specifically ordered the deaths of innocent people. Only one attacked civillians in countries not directly involved in the conflict.

[Marmoot]

You're stimulating debate Lou which is a good thing, and let me say straight out that I'm no fan of the current American foreign policy but aren't at least a couple of those "facts" a bit shaky?

begs logical explanation on how these facts are shaky, really.

[kerryg]

This is one of my favourite pics regarding the war..


Priceless!

Introducing Osama Bin Laden as The Phantom Menace

[Biff]

Some of those facts are just definitely erroneous Lou. For example, according to the UN, depleted Uranium tipped weapons are not classed as chemical weapons. And cluster bombs certainly aren't chemical weapons, although I'll agree that they could be considered as weapons of mass destruction. Nasty, evil, indiscriminate things that they are. As are/were daisy cutters, they should also be banned IMO. Petroleum vapour bombs? Again these are neither 'officially' classified as either chemical weapons nor weapons of mass destructions. But these are also evil things. Similar to the horrific napalm weapons used predominantly in Vietnam.

The US is famous for its double standards on their use of weapons. Let's not forget that they still advocate the use of landmines. Evil devices that main and kill thousands of innocent people every year.

However Lou, on the whole - I'm with you. The US administration only recognises international law and courts when they're used to pursue alleged injustices against other nations/individuals. Other than that the US has refused to recognise international law and the judicial processes attached to it. Just ever so slightly hypocritical.

The bottom line is that the US administration (and naturally the US as a whole) will continue to be seen in a bad light by the majority of the world until such a time as it falls in line with the views, actions, laws and morals of the majority of the world’s developed countries. Until then, it will continue to be seen as a lying, hypocritical, nation. Sure they’ll continue to gain the support of some nations for pretty much any military action they choose to undertake anywhere (Iran next?), but in all honest, how much of this is really due to having the free will to ‘collaborate’ with the US and how much is due to under the table pressure, with threats surrounding trade ties (which the US refuses to sign with NZ) and such like.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

[Indiana_Jones]

<img src="http://bogusgold.com/files/chamberlain38.jpg" align="centre" vspace="10" hspace="10">

"Hitler says he's got no weapons of mass destruction, and if he did he wouldn't use them in agression..........Well I'm convinced" :2thumbsup

-Indy

[Matt Bleck]

America FUCK YEAH!!

And for any who don't know what I'm on about, you have to watch team america, I think it's a doco with puppets!!!!

[Lou Girardin]

White phosphorous is classified by some agencies as a chemical weapon owing to the effect it's gasses have on humans. (Aside from burning holes through people)

[ManDownUnder]

Small point... I agree with Lou on the issue of some less than desirable US policy - but that's not to be confused with an "Anti Amercian" slant on things.

Some of my best friends are... aaa you get the idea

[Marmoot]

American democracy is like tax.

Everyone hates it, but you know you can't live without it.

[kerryg]

Small point... I agree with Lou on the issue of some less than desirable US policy - but that's not to be confused with an "Anti Amercian" slant on things.

Some of my best friends are... aaa you get the idea


It's hard to avoid supporting the view that the current military American presence in Iraq is about oil, about securing supplies. It's almost certainly not ONLY about that but I suspect it is mainly about it. On the surface it seems a poor excuse for a war, and I do not condone it AT ALL (let me be absolutely clear about that) but, just to be the devil's advocate for a moment, I wonder what our lives would be like if our oil supplies were cut off. Oil is the absolute foundation of the world industrial economy. Without it our lives would be extraordinarily different. There is scarcely an aspect of Western 21st century life that is not oil-dependent. To permit the world's oil supplies to be controlled by powers opposed to the West has the potential to be apocalyptic, to send us back centuries in terms of living standards. Don't think of oil per se. Think of food, of medicine, of heating, of shelter. Without oil all those things would be profoundly threatened.
The USA is not by any means the first and only Western state to recognise the importance of oil. The rmodern history of the middle east shows that. The Poms, the Dutch etc have been influencing middle Eastern politics for generations for their own self-interest. We in NZ depend largely on imported oil.
If we were forced to make such a choice (feeding our families vs. waging a war of questionable morality)...what would we do?

[oldrider]

Simplistic analysis.

Reduced to common denominator there is only "Them and us" where "them" is the enemy and "us" is the USA.

If George Bush is the USA then I'm with bloody George like it or lump it.

Take the USA out of the equation and "them" is going to get ya sooner or later. IMHO.

The enemy is not Islam it's self but a section of Islam and the rest of the Islamic world are really part of "us" the sooner they realise it the better.

New Zealand is not safe from "them" it's just not strategically important at present.

The current NZ government stance is completely irrelevant in this matter.

As for weapons, for me dead is dead how it occurs is irrelevant after that event. Sharing my thoughts, John.

[Swoop]

I can categorically state that America does NOT have weapons of mass destruction AND that New Zealand HAS weapons of mass destruction!!!

He works at Colemans...:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[spudchucka]

10 charachters:niceone:

[outlawtorn]

Bush is a prick, end of story, anyone who waves at Stevie Wonder should be fucked and burned IMO........

[Swoop]

Food for thought...

[Brian d marge]

Was watching internet TV the other nite, some great viewing, They had a documentry on about the wafen? SS the history where and how it came to be , They were a bunch of tree hugging lets go nakid , and commune with nature hippys ...and from there became what we read about.
The programe followed the style of thinking that ordinary fella was into ...and at that time Eugenics was real popular , in England , America , and Germany ...
So one thing led to another small changes ,,,not big changes ,,,and before you knew it ,,,whamm bamm thank you mama ...

Not a whole lot different than whats happening now ...cept its had a name change , from Eugenics to terrorism ....

Stephen
Who watches far to much TV ,,,,,

[Motu]

Oil is the absolute foundation of the world industrial economy. Without it our lives would be extraordinarily different.

I think we are far more dependant on electicity,and that is not oil dependant.If someone found a way to selectively disable electricity our civilisation would crumble with far more devistating effect than the removal of oil.

[kerryg]

I think we are far more dependant on electicity,and that is not oil dependant.If someone found a way to selectively disable electricity our civilisation would crumble with far more devistating effect than the removal of oil.


I guess it's a bit hard to know which would be more devastating, no electricity ...or no air...or no beer....or no oil. Maybe it's not especially important though. Maybe with time there could be measures adopted that would lessen the effect (e.g. coal-based) but I have no doubt at all that a radical long-term disruption to oil supplies would tip the western world on its head for a generation or more.

Here's a scary thought: maybe Bush is the guardian of our collective wellbeing???? If so probably by accident though....

[Lou Girardin]

OK look at the war another way. Bush and Blair wanted to get rid of saddam and have a secular democracy in Iraq.
After last week's elections the have an Islamic Republic ala Iran, with three separate divisions Shiites, Sunni's and Kurds all controlling their respective provinces. The Shiites are in the majority and under Iranian influence.
So they've removed one Islamic dictatorship and replaced it with something very similar. But one that is inherently unstable and may still result in civil war.
A radical Isalmic cleric al Sadr is now the leader of parliament. This is the man that the Americans swore to kill.
So once again you have to ask, has it all been worth it?

[kerryg]

So once again you have to ask, has it all been worth it?


On the surface of it, no. Seems like a complete cock-up.

So there's me, a non-entity in a non-entity country, with no training in geo-politics and not that much of an education....and I can see the folly of it...but Bush and his numerous skilled advisers apparently can't.

What's wrong with that picture? What am I not seeing.......?

[oldrider]

For all the tree hugging anti-American peace nicks on here who are disgusted that America's interest in Iraq is only about oil, here's a protest you personally could make.
Stop using oil products. Don't ride your bikes. Be staunch stand up for what you believe.
Me, I'm thankful for the Americans. They die while we piss about in the shelter of their shadow.
I'm still riding my bike but I know who to thank for it, American/British/Australian servicemen. Grateful John.

[Skyryder]

No. Saddam acted against Kuwait when the US said it would not interfere.


YES YES YES. At last someone other than myself knows this. Saddam consulted Madalane Albright when she was Secretary of State and according to Time Magazine The United states 'had no interest' in the invasion of Kuwait. And why did Saddam invade Kuwait? A Greenie for the right answser.

Amearican policy changed when the Saudi's became alarmed.

THE WAR IN IRAQ IS A COMPLETE FUCKUP BECAUSE OF AMERICAN FOREIGHN POLICY HAD NO CLEAR GOALS OR INDEED HAD ANY IDEA OF WHAT THEY WANTED TO ACHEIVE IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

And as for the Nuke thing the Americans knew that Saddam had destroyed his componentry for nuke. Khamal Hussein who was married to one of Saddams daughters was in charge of the Nuclear programme. When he and other members of Saddams family fled Iraq for Jordon he was debriefed by the CIA. Khamal was later shot by Uday.............I think it was him or the other son.

However having said all this some how I'd prefer the Americans to have Nuclear weapons than Saddam. And to me that is the fundamental question or in this case the fundamental answer.


Skyryder

[Hoon]

If we were forced to make such a choice (feeding our families vs. waging a war of questionable morality)...what would we do?
You don't go to war with another country just to take what is theirs...unless your last name is "Bush" that is.
Iraq was only producing 2% of the worlds oil however has the potential to produce much much more. This is what Bush and his oil baron pals are after. There are reports that Bush planned to invade Iraq even before 9/11 which he then conveniently used as a handy excuse.

However dubious Bush's reasons were for going to war it looks like it was all for nothing. The US is losing the War and under growing pressure to pull out, the Iran backed Shiites have won the election and Iraq oil production is at 1/3rd of what it was under Saddam. That means the world is now 2 million barrels a day worse off and this is why petrol prices are so high.

Bush took a gamble and lost and personally I believe he needs to be held accountable for it. As a soldier I have no problems risking my life to protect my friends/family and country but if I were sent off to die based on someones business decision it would be a different story.

[kro]

I once farted in a Toyota Cressida, on the way back from KihiKihi, after a hard night on the Red's and Waikato, and I was driving, and pushed the button that stops all the electric windows working, I should have been put on trial that day for genocide, as there were 3 others in the vehicle, and I asked them all if they could smell petrol.....