Crimes against humanity.

**Lou Girardin** · 22nd December 2005, 07:32

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** · 22nd December 2005, 07:41

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** · 22nd December 2005, 08:19

Originally Posted by 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?

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

**Goblin** · 22nd December 2005, 08:19

Kind of says it all really!

**ManDownUnder** · 22nd December 2005, 08:24

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** · 22nd December 2005, 08:26

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

**chris** · 22nd December 2005, 08:28

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

**kerryg** · 22nd December 2005, 08:32

Originally Posted by 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?

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** · 22nd December 2005, 08:47

Originally Posted by kerryg

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** · 22nd December 2005, 08:48

Originally Posted by kerryg

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** · 22nd December 2005, 08:59

Originally Posted by Lou Girardin

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** · 22nd December 2005, 09:08

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

**Colapop** · 22nd December 2005, 09:12

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** · 22nd December 2005, 09:24

Originally Posted by 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?

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** · 22nd December 2005, 09:43

Originally Posted by kerryg

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.