by Elsewhere 62 Replies latest social current
According to Gen. Clark the pentigon had plans early on:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXS3vW47mOE
Just couldn't help posting this one too, even though not directly related, I let you be the judge:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrZktvxIq0c&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pa3J-L29iT8&mode=related&search=
Funny you should bring that up, didn't Cheney want to bomb Iraq before Afghanistan? I remember the former head of US Security Richard Clarke mentioning something about that in an interview. On the 12th of September he was told by Cheney to "find out what Iraq has to do with this". Also, what was the point of Afghanistan? What did they accomplish there? They let Osama get away, he's an old man on dialysis and they couldn't find him? They gave up on that idea too quickly as well...
Personally, I was for going into Afghanistan assuming that they would finish the job and against going into Iraq (felt it was in violation of our Constitution by invading a sovereign nation).
Bush have given the US a real black eye with reguards to all the violations of US policy and international law before the whole world comunity. I still don't understand why they don't impeach him, when you consider they impeached Clinton for just getting a blow job.
According to Gen. Clark the pentigon had plans early on:
Frankie I'm glad to see you finally referring to someone with such superlative credentials. This points out the vast difference of opinion and thought process between civilian leaders within the administration and experienced military leaders. Clark served as Supreme Commander in Europe over NATO troops from 1997-2000.
The reason why the puppet government of Iraq under pressure from the US had Sadaam's trial, and execution, instead of an international tribunal(Nuremberg)(which would have been much better), was so that the US involvement and support of Sadaam in the past would not be brought to light internationally.
The reason why the puppet government of Iraq under pressure from the US had Sadaam's trial, and execution, instead of an international tribunal(Nuremberg)(which would have been much better), was so that the US involvement and support of Sadaam in the past would not be brought to light internationally.
I'd like to add, that the 'trial' of sadaam was similiar to a j-dub judicial committee. Guilty until proven innocent. There was no doubt he would be executed,, the trial was just a 'show'. Just so everyone here is clear,, I do recognize that Hussein was an evil man and should not have been in power(ever)
The reasons why the US puppet government in Iraq didn't want a international trial:
http://www.commondreams.org/scriptfiles/views03/1223-11.htm
| Partners in Crime: US Complicity in the War Crimes of Saddam Hussein | |
| by Paul Rockwell | |
Notwithstanding the upcoming show-trial of Saddam Hussein in Occupied Iraq, U.S. complicity in the war crimes of its former military ally may well become the most eye-opening issue facing the international community in the coming months. There is a revealing photograph of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with a known war criminal in 1983-Saddam Hussein. If Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld were forced to testify at an impartial, international war crimes tribunal, no doubt he would be asked: "What did you know, and when did you know it? Of all the conventions in humanitarian law, none is more relevant to contemporary affairs than the Nuremberg principle: "Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, is a crime under international law."
There is no better interpreter of war crimes, of man's inhumanity to man, than Hannah Arendt, who published a definitive book on the trial of Adolf Eichmann in 1963. Eichmann was not a top official in the Nazi Party. He was a mere accomplice, a bureaucrat who facilitated the deportation of millions of Jews into the concentration camps. He never pulled a switch, and he kept a healthy distance from the consequences of his handiwork. As an administrator who "did his job," made no big decisions, he was still a key part of the machinery of mass murder. It was not any demonic trait of Eichmann's personality, but the "banality of evil" that appalled Arendt most of all. Arendt warned against sensationalistic accounts of the Holocaust, the demonization of individual personalities. She called attention to "the unspeakable horror of the deeds and the ordinariness of the men who committed them." Impartial, dignified war crime tribunals are not an occasion for gloating or propaganda. At their best they give voice to all the victims, produce a complete record for future generations, and help to prevent more war crimes from taking place. They produce a sense of humility among all the participants. Triumphalism degrades mankind's memory of itself. International accomplices of Saddam Hussein have yet to be arrested, named, interrogated, much less held accountable for their crimes against peace and humanity. The victims of Saddam and his accomplices, Iranians as well as Iraqis, have a right to know: Who armed Iraq? Who built Saddam's arsenal of terror in the '80s? They also have a right to interrogate Rumsfeld, other U.S. officials, CIA agents, and U.S. arms merchants as suspects or witnesses. The executives of Alcoliac International of Maryland, that transported mustard gas precursors to Saddam; the Tennessee manufacturers that provided sarin-based chemicals; the heads of Dow chemical who sold toxins that cause death by asphyxiation; the heads of Bechtel that produced chemicals for Saddam in their Iraqi plant; the CIA agents that made covert arms deals and transported heinous cluster bombs to a known war criminal-all the participants in Iraq's machine of death should come before an international court and answer a single question: What did you know, and when did you know it? It is not just the buyers, it is suppliers of death who are accountable under the Nuremberg Conventions. Justice will be served only after the official records of U.S. and European complicity are made public |
I think you have fallen victim of government propaganda. The US didn't invade Iraq to give its people a better government, they did it for ecconomic gain, and to further US imperialism, Bush don't give a dam about the Iraqis, its big business, american capitalism, that motivated the invasion. As far as the words "freedom" "justice" and "equality", they are just clichés used for government propaganda to instill obediance and to preach men into the battle field. Really Frank, the war as I stated, has cost half a trillion dollars. How is that economic gain? Imperialism? I would say that was true if they were ruling in Iraq. They are not, they are assisting Nouri al maliki's government, and have no intentions of staying to rule under American law. They want Iraq to rule itself humanely under Iraqi law. Will there be economic gain in the end? Of course! Everbody benefits in the international community when lawless countries abide by the rule of law. Including themselves. I have read all the atricles you provided and they are great! There's just one problem, your'e interpretation of them. It seems you have a real soft spot for the rights of murderers. Frank, these are terrorists. They don't care about human rights, or life. Depending on the degree to which one disregards the rights of others is usually directly proportional to there loss of rights and in a situation of international security even moreso. That is why we have prisons that have people who are locked in them for life. A terrorist, given rights will only use them to try and kill you. They do not give anyone rights, that is why they are treated differntly and rightly so, for the greater good of society. You are not being realistic. If those children in Guantanamo are locked up it's probably for a good reason. They were obviously assisting on the batllefeild and have been duely brainwashed in their childhood as I mentioned earlier how theses kids are raised. That is a danger to society. It's not like they were plucked out of there homes while in bed. I find it appalling that amnesty international bust the states balls when the human rights abuses in China where there is still slavery, traffiking of human oragns et. or Kim Jong il who lets his country starve while buying nukes to threaten everyone. Or in Darfur where raping mutilation starvation and killing are like having a tea, or in Zimbabwe, where Robert Mugabe directly dfies international law kicks out the white farmers, starves his country Rigs elections, and kills anyone he fancies. Or what about suicide bombers in Afghanistan or even palestine. What an outrage to harp on the States. Why not pick on those doing behheadings or violating womens rights beyond beleif. I'll tell you why Frank, because it's easier to pick on a country that has values and tries to be more decent than the others. It's easier to hold us to account. It's like saying to a killer"oh shit you just cutthat guys head off , oh well I understand, Hey look at that guy over there he just spit on the sidewalk lets gang up on him. I found that article on not supplying Israel with anymore weapons outrageous! How long do you think Israel would last if they did that? Is that what you want? Israel has tried so hard to make deals and create peace and the Paestinians continue to break deals. Hassan Nasrallah had no business starting a war with Israel. It is not Isreal doing the attacking but rather defending themselves. Can't you see that. These people are not reasonalble. They were requesting the release of 1500 soldeirs for 1 man. That's the most outrageous unbelevable request I've ever heard. These are hardened criminals that will be firing rockets right back as soon as they get out. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has openly stated that he wishes to wipe Israel off the map. It doesn't get plainer or more bold than that. Do we need a slap in the face! My opinion of Saddam Hussein. Yes we had a hand in their government and were supportive of the Baath party. Don't forget however, that it was Sadaam that killed all those in that party that opposed him. Did we support him. Yes but I see the situation as the lesser of evils which is how I look at the whole picture of the world scene anyways. He kept his country under control for a while but started going to far by attacking Kuwait and starting a war with Iran. I think George Bush Senior should have finished the job in regime change with the first invasion.. Mistakes have always been made. You ask why wer'e in afghanistan. The country needs stability or else terrorism thrives. Why did we not get Bin Ladin. We wen't lucky enough. He has entered a mountainous region on the afghan pakistan border that is remote lawless and unknown. Pakistan,I beleive too is doing all they can to cooperate under Pervez Musharaff. If they can't get him how do expect us to?I have a lot of respect for Musharaff, he could lose his life at any time for the stance he has taken. But it is brave people like this and nouri al maliki, and saniora in Lebanon, and Hamid Karzai that will change the world. It is them ruling there countries not us. Wesley Clrk commentary. Well what else is new? Those countries like syria under Bashar Assad, need regime change. They know for a fact it was him that ordered the assasination of Raffik Harriri. They meddle in sending weapons to Iraq and fighters. They are responsible for the trerrorist group know as Hesbollah and Hassan Nasrallah is there puppet. The same can be said for the meddling of Iran. It needs change. The fanatical Mullahs must go. Even the students and intellect of there own countries protest at times but are silenced. You speak of the banality of evil under Eichman,but by you presenting all this info which I doubt I have covered in any great deal and spinning it in favour of the enemy while not making any real time suggestions to dealing with the problem. Thats about as banal as you can get!
We understand that a world in which [values such as human dignity and the rule of law] are embraced as standards, not exceptions, will be the best antidote to the spread of terrorism. This is the world we must build today."US Government, National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, 2003
I beleive this statement to be incorrect because it doesn't deal with reality. Yes it would be true in a world where all people have these values but that is not the world we are living in. Radicals hate and mocl what we stand for. When Ghandi's passive agression worked in forcing the Brittish out, it worked because he was dealing with people that had values and were able to recognize the humanity behind it. In the case of Nazi Germany when asked how effective this approach would have been on Hitler, he replied, not without violence and a great loss of life.
I again go back to what I have said earlier. Evil in some cases must be fought fire with fire. We maintain the values we have but being nice guys with animals just doesn't cut the mustard. You have to know your enemy. In a State of war rules will change lies will abound innocent will get hurt. Thats the reality in all it's ugliness. During the second world war, there was a great fear of the enemy from within, and this country, we interned many of the Japanese Canadians who were totally innocent. We have learned since then that it is not your race that is the evil. It is the ideogies that one has. Yes there were innocent victims as there always is in war but our government has made steps to fully compensate those that were interned. Do you think any other countries in the world would try to make the same amends 60 years after the fact that didn't have the same values?
Terrorism is the antithesis of values. This statement is not grounded in any form of reality. It is wishful thinking against and enemy who looks at it and see's it as weakness. We maintain the values we have for decent law abiding citizens. For those that see death as a value then these must be treated as criminals. There rights based on their values stop where the freedom and lives of others begin. In other words. Radical murdering terrorists in a situation of war don't have rights. It is for the greater good of mankind that they are stopped in any way possible.
You mention that the States was the only country that has used the atomic bomb. Thank God almighty, it wasn't some other country. This was done to end a war wherein the Japanes had the same philoshpy of death in their Kamikaze missions as the radical islamists. They were also warned on numerous occasions to cease there fighting. Are you forgetting about Pearl Harbour which was completly unprovoked. Yes Yes, Many died and suffered all war is horrible but it ended the war and our values of compassion with the Marshall Plan turned Japanes into a country that is the envy of the world. Now the States has many missliles but doesn'tNuke anyone. They have taken on the role of being defensive and stopping others from aquiring that don't have civilized values.
Iran has stated it's intentions and defires International atominc energy commison and the world at large. They have oil and money and an theocratic fanatacism to go with it. Why do you harp on the States. When Iran is ready to threaten you. Kim Jong Il tested 9 missiles and even detonated a nuclear device. Isn't that even more relevent and worthy of mention. I think it is you who have fallen victim to propaganda in the way you veiw your information. In all fairness however, I think Bush knows whats going on in the big picture, but he cannot communicate or inspire people to make a stand and these strange veiws are the result.
