Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 2:46 am Post subject: bush & blair - war crimes
another question, why is it bush or blair are not in court facing charges of war crimes,
after all how many inoccent people did they carpet bomb?
how many of u.k soldiers have they sent to thier deaths?
as far as i see it was f*** all to do with us or america what iraq does,
I'm the first to admit that the reasons given for invading Iraq were completely false. But I have no doubt that history will show it was the right thing to do.
Do you have any idea what was happening to the people in Iraq before we got involved? Do you realise that Hussein was testing his biological weapons on his own people? Do you realise that anyone who spoke out against him was tortured in the most horrible ways? I think it's the concern of the whole world when something like that is happening. It takes courage to make the decision to deal with it.
If you apply the notion that it's none of our business what other countries do, then we shouldn't have got involved when Germany invaded Poland. Should we have waited till Hitler was knocking on our door before we reacted?? Should we ignore the people who are starving in Africa? Surely it's not our concern that another country has no food.
i do see your point, but other countries live by thier own laws & it's not up to us to interfere, if caught stealing in some countries you lose your finger or hand & because that is the law of that country it works for them,
does oil make it our buisness? as for the starving in africa, that problem is not ours, there is that much wealth in africa but kept to just a few, to many bent goverments etc, plus the fact they keep banging out these kids so it's thier own fault, as for germany we might have been better off if they won, atleast we would'nt have a bent t*** like blair selling us out,
If you apply the notion that it's none of our business what other countries do, then we shouldn't have got involved when Germany invaded Poland. Should we have waited till Hitler was knocking on our door before we reacted?? Should we ignore the people who are starving in Africa? Surely it's not our concern that another country has no food.
Yeah, because we do loads to help the poor starving people of Africa
This is what makes the invasion of Iraq such a hypocrisy.
Joined: 17 Jul 2006 Posts: 160 Location: The Wild, Wild West
Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 8:47 pm Post subject:
SM wrote:
Jelly-Belly wrote:
If you apply the notion that it's none of our business what other countries do, then we shouldn't have got involved when Germany invaded Poland. Should we have waited till Hitler was knocking on our door before we reacted?? Should we ignore the people who are starving in Africa? Surely it's not our concern that another country has no food.
Yeah, because we do loads to help the poor starving people of Africa
This is what makes the invasion of Iraq such a hypocrisy.
Not trying to pick on you, but I'd research that post a little better if I were you.
Well, I don't know about the UK, true. But the US gives billions. Of course, most of it ends up in the pockets of corrupt politicos IMO. Many international charity aid organizations have brought up this frustrating point. Still, it's not accurate to say we do nothing.
Re: Iraq, well, I don't really believe Bush and Co. invaded for the right reasons at all. The fact that Bush himself comes from a big oil family is probably quite relevant. However, no matter how much one hates Bush I don't think one can say that Hussein was a great guy, wow, what a sweetie. The international record of his hideous crimes against his own citizenry is quite clear, and available from sources which definitely are not friends of Bush, e.g. Amnesty International.
I say there is a silver lining in this case. I have several expat Iraqi friends who are so feckin' happy Hussein is dead. I don't think they're in the minority, frankly.
And, one simple truth many left-wingers ignore is just this: compare, say, my life as a woman in this country (US) with the life I'd have led as a woman in Hussein's Iraq. I cannot possibly say that the latter would've been superior. I cannot possibly say that I would ever wish to live like that. I cannot possibly say that Democracy is a bad idea, even if it's being implemented for what I feel are the "wrong reasons". I cannot possibly say that I'd rather have someone like Hussein determining my destiny over Blair or Bush. There are some absolutes at work here.
Living in the USA, I DO have free speech. Nobody is going to come into my home in the night and murder my family, well... nobody from the government anyway. Or, if you will...that's not a COMMON occurrence. Shades of gray, people. There is no perfect world, only the lesser evils.
At least in the USA we have the right to openly criticize our government, to vote as we wish, to get up off our asses and TRY to make things better. If we have an asshole in power, well, guess what....if a few more people would've gotten off said asses and voted for his competitor he wouldn't be there.
Joined: 26 May 2006 Posts: 4551 Location: Nottingham Uk
Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 9:21 am Post subject: However
However much you think the Invasion was justified by the ending of Sadam Hussien's tyranny (and I do agree that he was a murderous tyrant), I don't see that this justifies actions like bombing civilians, as is frequently reported.
Clearly the UK and the USA (I put it that way as a UK citizen) have amde a total mess of the post invasion process, which is culpable but not a war crime as such.
But the reason why Bush and Blair will not be indited as war criminals is simple, that only ever happens to the loosers.
It is because they are above the law of their respective countries. Tony Blair can lie about the reasons we invaded Iraq, he can change them over and over again even whilst soldiers and civilians alike are dying each day supposedly in the name of 'democracy'. Well, Tony Blair will retire soon, probably spend his days reading newspapers and walking the dogs...he won't be prosecuted for crimes against humanity. Take a look at this:
Public authorities: general
(1) It is unlawful for a public authority exercising a function to do any act which constitutes discrimination.
(2) In subsection (1)-
(a) "public authority" includes any person who has functions of a public nature (subject to subsections (3) and (4)), and
(b) "function" means function of a public nature.
(3) The prohibition in subsection (1) shall not apply to-
(a) the House of Commons,
(b) the House of Lords,
(c) the authorities of either House of Parliament,
(d) the Security Service,
(e) the Secret Intelligence Service,
(f) the Government Communications Headquarters, or
(g) a part of the armed forces of the Crown which is, in accordance with a requirement of the Secretary of State, assisting the Government Communications Headquarters.
Some totally unbalanced opinions here!!!! Comparing the situation with Germany/Poland and Iraq is completely different - Germany invaded Poland!! That was the justification used for the 1st Gulf War when Iraq invaded Kuwait.
Under the United Nations agreements (too many to note) - it is ILLEGAL for 1 country (or its leader) to invade another country. The act of invasion and the effective leading of 1 or more countries to war is therefore illegal if not sanctioned by the UN (which it wasn't - only post invasion with regards to ways forward once Saddam was gone).
The reasons given (development of biological weapons) was not backed by the UN's own weapons inspectors, so there was NO justification for war, no matter what your views on Saddam and what he did to his people were.
Should Bush and Blair face the War Crimes - absolutely. Will they ever - highly unlikely, because like the UK, the UN is America's lap dog.
I agree that the conditions in Iraq were, and still are appaling. However, I know this isn't a popualr opinion, but I don't believe it's our place to interfere. Who the F*** do we think we are dictating to there 'Third World' countries what they should and should not do? It was only a couple hundred years ago we were still burning witches. How unfortunate for us then that there wasn't a more enlightened country that could stick it's nose in and tell us the error of our ways. The way a nation evolve is part of it's history, and whether you agree with it or not, another nation does not have the right to say they are wrong just because they are 'better'.
Under the United Nations agreements (too many to note) - it is ILLEGAL for 1 country (or its leader) to invade another country. The act of invasion and the effective leading of 1 or more countries to war is therefore illegal if not sanctioned by the UN (which it wasn't - only post invasion with regards to ways forward once Saddam was gone).
Actually, not here to dispute the above, but the UN is rubbish. There's nothing more obselete and irrelevent than the UN. And they were filled to their own necks with corruption and scandal. It's sad. What you say is true, but its also fair to mention that under International Law, a state is deemed to lose sovereignty under 4 conditions:
1. A state violates the Genocide convention. The International Community is therefore obligated to take action to prevent or even punish the perps.
2. A state gives aid and comfort to and harbors international gangsters (ie terrorists)
3. Repeated agressions with neighboring states
4. Violates nonproliferation treaty or messing around with WMDs
Iraq has violated all 4 precepts numerous times under Saddam's 20+ year reign. Under Interanational law, the international community has an obligation to intervene. And who can forget the other UN screwups - Rwanda, Bosnia, and currently Darfur. Or even allowing North Korea and Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. The UN is impotent and has no credibility. I'm not here to defend the US's actions, or their handling of the war (it's been atrocious) and the Bush Administration is one of the most incompetent in US history. But can you really defend the UN or international law given its history? Can you really expect action when countries like Russia and China (and France and Germany) sit on the security council.
As for WMDs, there wasnt a single country out there that did not believe Iraq had stockpiles. All worldwide intelligence agencies supported this claim as did the previous Clinton Administration. No weapons were found, but keep in mind, no one can account where they were destroyed either.
Quote:
the UN is America's lap dog.
Can you really say that? You can't have it both ways.
Joined: 20 Apr 2006 Posts: 298 Location: North Yorkshire
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 1:03 am Post subject:
Jelly-Belly wrote:
This attitude really bothers me.
Why would that be?
Jelly-Belly wrote:
I'm the first to admit that the reasons given for invading Iraq were completely false. But I have no doubt that history will show it was the right thing to do.
So Hitlers invasion of Poland was the right thing to do was it?
Jelly-Belly wrote:
Do you have any idea what was happening to the people in Iraq before we got involved?
Do you have any first hand knowledge or are you just going on what you were told by the government and media?
Jelly-Belly wrote:
Do you realise that Hussein was testing his biological weapons on his own people?
Lots of countries around the world send 50,000 volts through people, give them the lethal injection, gas them with cyanide, drop them through floors with ropes around their necks and even behead people because the laws of that country have been broken.
The law at that time was if you spoke against Saddam Hussein then you would be punished for your opinions. Whether or not that was a right and fair law is beside the point, the point is the law in Iraq was just that.
Jelly-Belly wrote:
Do you realise that anyone who spoke out against him was tortured in the most horrible ways?
Exactly what had this to do with the US or the UK? Both are thousands of miles away and way out of harms way.
There's a tribe in the Amazon forest who chip the teeth of 11+ year-old-boys into points by holding them down and hitting the teeth with flint and a hammer to break them into points.
Would you suggest we go in there and stop that practice because it's unacceptable to us or would you say it's their tribal right to practice such barbarism on children?
Jelly-Belly wrote:
I think it's the concern of the whole world when something like that is happening. It takes courage to make the decision to deal with it.
No it isn't!
All over the planet we have different cultures, different religions, different beliefs, different laws, different ways of life. That's how the world works. Blair & Bush want to turn us all into little clones all doing the same thing at the same time without deviation or any form of self-reliance.
At the end of the day what my neighbor does behind closed doors has nothing at all to do with me. If he wants to set up a dungeon in his cellar and piss all over the furniture it's none of my business.
If he moves 200 miles away from me and turns into a serial killer he's no longer a threat to me as I'm not around him. However if he turns into a serial killer while living next door to me then it is my business as I'm at risk.
Iraq posed no risk at all to the UK or the US, but he was a risk to the oil producing Arab states which is the only reason the "WMD" theory was pushed forwards to invade Iraq.
Jelly-Belly wrote:
If you apply the notion that it's none of our business what other countries do, then we shouldn't have got involved when Germany invaded Poland. Should we have waited till Hitler was knocking on our door before we reacted?? Should we ignore the people who are starving in Africa? Surely it's not our concern that another country has no food.
People starve in Africa because Africa has borrowed so much money it owes more in interest payments than it can afford to pay.
Many countries and banks have got rich on Africa's money and they've already collected more than enough money to cover the original debt 3 or 4 times over. But that original debt is still there because the interest rates are so high.
If the likes of Blair and Bush wanted to help people, canceling Africa's debt would be a great start. But then with the diamond mines over there, Africa could become a very wealthy and powerful country so it's not a good idea to wipe out the debts.
You can't escape the fact that the UK & US invaded Iraq because of oil and under a guise of weapons of mass destruction which could reach us. As it turns out that accusation wasn't true, but by the time this had been discovered it was too late to pull out as so much damage had been caused.
Site Map
FAQ
Usergroups
Search
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Register
My Profile Space
nobody from the government anyway. Or, if you will...that's not a COMMON occurrence. 
Shades of gray, people. There is no perfect world, only the lesser evils.
