Posted by
CmdrTaco
on from the submitted-two-hundred-times dept.
MoonChild was the first of hundreds to submit that MSNBC, ABCNews and others are reporting that Saddam Hussein was arrested. This isn't normal Slashdot subject matter, but I figured it was worth mentioning.
Great - let's go and invade China then. They've been imprisoning, torturing, killing and generally oppressing their population for decades. Do you remember the troops turning on protestors in Tiananmen Square?
Or is it that Iraq is strategically useful and that even pressing China about human rights seems to cause problems with selling them goods and services?
Re:Good News
by
bigjnsa500
·
· Score: 3, Informative
You are complete wrong. You should really research stuff before post falsely. But alas, you Dems are just hate mongerers.
First, Halliburton was awarded the no-bid contract by your favorite pal in 1999. Previously their WAS a bid process and Haliburton lost in 1997. Then Slick Willie did away with the bids and just gave it to Haliburton. Yes, that's right CLINTON!
Secondly, Halliburton didn't overcharge the taxpayers, their subcontractor for fuel supply charged THEM that amount.
Thirdly, I will never understand why people think the economy is in the power of the president. Does he hold your hand when you buy stuff? Does he tell you what to buy? Uh.. NO! Get real.
Fourthly, health insurance. It costs a lot because of the malpractice suits and drug costs. You want health insurance? Go back to school and get a real education, then a good job. But I refuse to pay for healthcare of low-lifes happy in their burger flipping career.
-- This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.
Re:bin laden..
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Informative
a quotation from Saddam's Profile by BBC World: "The United States had quietly supported his war against Iran. They turned a blind eye to Iraq's human rights record and to atrocities like the gassing of the Kurdish villagers of Halabja" - looks like you woke up a bit late to save them. and please, don't be such an idiot and try to understand: US-forced UN sanctions during the last decade caused terrific damages to the Iraqi infrastructure, hospitals etc. - those millions I'm talking about!
Re:bin laden..
by
thelaw
·
· Score: 3, Informative
2) the presence in guantanamo bay of lots of known al qaeda operatives who have detailed their planning procedures for the september 11 attacks is a pretty good clue.
3) bin laden had already established a pattern of conduct with the USS cole and khobar towers bombings that made him particularly interesting to international terrorism experts. keep in mind that the burden of proof in a legal context is "beyond reasonable doubt." if you have any contrary evidence that can cast doubt on these allegations (and i mean more than just contradicting them - "no he didn't...."), then let's bring it on.
jon
-- --
http://www.cerastes.org
Re:who cares?
by
Tony+Hoyle
·
· Score: 4, Informative
There were leaked photographs from a different angle that clearly showed:
(1) That there can't have been more than 50 people there. (2) There were clearly more press than Iraquis. (3) The troops had blocked off the surrounding streets which were deserted - presumably to stop anyone not part of the 'demonstration' from taking part.
Ever hear of Salman Pak?
by
bill_mcgonigle
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Keep in mind folks that this has absolutely nothing to do with September 11
I guess you've never heard of Salman Pak. No surprise, it's received almost no coverage in the mainstream media, presumably the basis for your philosophy.
Basically, terrorists from around the world came to train on a Boeing 707 fuselage on how to take over an airplane using only knives, and infiltrate the cabin to take control of the aircraft.
Remember, don't get too many beliefs based on somebody else's view of events. Ideas are fine, beliefs are dangerous.
Try a google search, there's lots of documentation out there.
-- My God, it's Full of Source! OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:Ever hear of Salman Pak?
by
I+Be+Hatin'
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I guess you've never heard of Salman Pak.
WTF? From the linked article:
Zeinab's story has since been corroborated by Charles Duelfer, the former vice chairman of UNSCOM, the U.N. weapons inspection team, which actually visited the Salman Pak camp several times.
"He saw the 707, in exactly the place described by the defectors," the Observer reported. "The Iraqis, he said, told UNSCOM it was used by police for counterterrorist training."
"Of course we automatically took out the word 'counter'," Duelfer explained. "I'm surprised that people seem to be shocked that there should be terror camps in Iraq. Like, derrrrrr! I mean, what, actually, do you expect?"
I wouldn't expect the vice chairman of UNSCOM to use phrases such as "Like derrrrrr...", for one...
Oh well, maybe he picked it up from his teenage daughter.
-- I know god exists. I read it on the internet, so it must be true.
Re:Iraqi, U.S., or international trial appropriate
by
Keebler71
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Flat-out wrong. The incidents you mention occurred on Feb 26 and Feb 27 of 1991. Cease-fire negotiations did not begin unitl March 1st and were not accepted until the 3rd of March. In doing this research, I did find some scant references to Iraq agreeing with a Russian plan to withdraw from Kuwait. This is irrelevant since it did not meet all of the US or UN demands, nevermind the fact that Iraq was at war with coalition forces, of which Russia was not a part. This would be somewhat like Nazi Germany agreeing with Italy to end WW2.
I can find no reference that details any proof what-so-ever that there were civilians in the convoy, again just scant claims that that was the case (no pictures of references of course).
As for the Geneva convention, being a military officer, I dare say that I am more educated than you in this matter but again, a simple web search clears things up.
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
The Geneva convention outlaws attacking civilians not engaged in hostilites and outlaws attacking surrendering combatants. Unfortunately, the Geneva Convention is poorly written on this point, as it refers to civilians and surrendering combatants in the same sentance. This leads to the misinterpretation that combatants not currently engaged in combat are somehow protected. There is a tremendous difference between retreat and surrender.
-- "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
Saddam-9/11 Link
by
edibleplastic
·
· Score: 3, Informative
You're Wrong. The Telegraph published a report this week that the Iraqi Coalition government has found documents showing that Mohammed Atta was trained by the Palestinian Terrorist Abu Nidal in Baghdad shortly before the attacks on New York and Washington.
Details of Atta's visit to the Iraqi capital in the summer of 2001, just weeks before he launched the most devastating terrorist attack in US history, are contained in a top secret memo written to Saddam Hussein, the then Iraqi president, by Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, the former head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service.
The handwritten memo, a copy of which has been obtained exclusively by the Telegraph, is dated July 1, 2001 and provides a short resume of a three-day "work programme" Atta had undertaken at Abu Nidal's base in Baghdad.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ ne ws/2003/12/14/wterr14.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/12/1 4/ixportaltop.html
These documents are proof that Iraq and Saddam was tied to 9/11. Capturing Saddam is a wonderful victory on its own merits, but since you need proof connecting him with 9/11, here it is.
But, that man (saddam) ordered the gasing that killed 5,000 civilians of his own people.
In this comment of yours, you linked to a BBC
story about the gassing of the Kurds in
Halabja. You may be interested to know that
despite the public statements of our President and other major figures of his administration, the U.S. intelligence community suspects that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds in Halabja.
See the piece written in the New York Times on January 31, 2003 by Stephen Pelletiere, who wrote:
The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its own citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.
But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.
I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.
This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.
And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle, the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.
The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent -- that is, a cyanide-based gas -- which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.
These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its war against Iran.
I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them.
The piece goes on from there. I encourage you to read it.
Re:bin laden..
by
gaijin99
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Bullshit. I'm not and I don't know anybody else that is. You're trolling, right?
Naah, he isn't. He's being innaccurate, but not trolling. What he doubtless meant was that roughly 70% of Americans believe that Saddam Hussain was responsible for the attacks on September 11. The frightening thing is that this figure does seem to be accurate.
The Bush government never actually *said* that Hussain was behind 9/11, but various officials, press announcements, State of the Union Addresses, etc, implied it rather strongly. Since our "liberal" media wouldn't dream of correcting the Bush government's insinuations the image of Saddam as the 9/11 mastermind stuck in the public's mind.
-- "Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
Only utter lack of diligence of study, or gross bias can explain your omission. I suspect the latter.
-- HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Re:bin laden..
by
canajin56
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Wrong. Please stop repeating that. The Kurds were killed in a fight between Iranian and Iraqi forces in their city. They were not the intentional targets of either sides chemical weapons. And the US Army sent in specialists after the battle, that concluded in a nice big official report that they were killed by Iranian chemical weapons, since Iraq was using Mustard Gas, but they were killed by a blood agent, which chlorine gas is not. So, IRAN accidentially killed Kurds with chemical weapons. Both sides were irresponsible for using their US weapons in a populated city, however. (That's right, both bought their chemical weapons from the US government)
While we are talking about that sort of thing, mass graves: In accordance with their religion, Muslims bury their dead as soon as possible. That is why there was such an outrage over displaying the corpses of Hussein's sons. Because it was desecrating their dead! Especially dressing them up and cleaning their wounds, which you are also not supposed to do! (To put it in a Sci-Fi context, the series Space: Above and Beyond. The aliens mutulated fallen human troops. Humans were outraged and disgusted. But it turns out that the aliens were honouring their fallen foes as they honoured their own dead. And they were outraged in turn, by humans daring to cover their fallen with dirt, or else burn them to nothing.)
But anyways, the result is that if thousands of people are killed, mass graves are really the only option. So what killed all of these people. Well, after Gulf War I, the US told the Shi'ite and the Kurds that they had completely destroyed the Iraqi army. Both peoples revolted, slaughtering entire cities. Now, the Republican Guard was not so decimated as the US told them, and they regrouped after the war, and put down the rebellions with deadly force. That is where the mass graves came from. Because it would dishonor the dead to fix them up, and put them in their best clothes, and ship them off to their family, and THEN bury them. They needed to be burried as soon as possible.
Now, perhaps they used too much force...let's imagine this: Say some group in the US somewhere, it doesn't really matter who, realizes that most of the National Guard and army Reserves are already off in Iraq. So they rise up in a few cities, and kill all of the police, and the mayor, and basically anybody who works for any sort of government. City sanitation, DMV, everybody. Now, that done, they move on to the next city. People who fight back at them are killed, too. Now, what would the National Guard be justified in doing to them? Should they bust out the tear gas and rubber bullets? Or the mortars and the gunships?
Now, on to Kuwait. In 1990, Hussein in person flew to the White House, and asked G. H. W. Bush's permission to invade. And George said to go for it, it was none of his business what Iraq did to protect itself from oil thieves. And I think everybody knows what follows after that. Either way, Kuwait is run by a dictatorship with death squards, too. But the dictator is pro-US, so it is a good brutal regeim. But that sort of thing completely negates any "We had to get rid of a brutah dictator!" argument, since they are propping up another right next door!
Don't get me wrong, it's not that I like Saddam, or think he was a particularly good leader. But many of the justifications given are pure lies, plain and simple. They said he had WMD, and he didn't. People have been saying "Well he shouldn't have made us think he did!" but he spend a year professing his innocence, saying he had none. He gave the inspectors free reign (He didn't want them in his palaces, but eventually gave in. Understandable, they ARE his houses, after all) People say his commits genocide. But many of the supporting evidence for that statement is false. (Unless there are others I have missed, of course. But the US reports clearly state that it wasn't Iraq that did it. So the only way to prove the US right is by first proving the US
The War is illegal because it was never declared. In a legal sence, the United States of America has only been at war with Iraq one time. 1991. Since then we've bombed a soverign state for shits and giggles, but haven't really declared war. War has fairly cristiline properties in international law.
You're wrong. Yes, the war was illegal but not because of the reason you give. International law is complicated but as far as war is concerned it's very simple:
1. War is illegal except in two cases:
2. It's legal as defense against an immediate attack.
3. It's legal if it has a UN mandate.
Thus the war was illegal but declaring or not declaring it has nothing to do with that.
-- Karma. Moderation. Is my.sig good now?
Your facts are wrong
by
Sinbit
·
· Score: 4, Informative
You're facts are wrong. Firstly, it's was not the UN food program, but the Oil for Food program which was paid with Iraqi oil.
Secondly, a large part of the money from the "food" program was used to compensate foreign firms which had lost out through the war and sanctions.
Thirdly, a lot of essential medicines and other essential medical supplies such as oxygen could not be imported because of "dual use" considerations.
Fourthly, the UN money was kept in an escrow account in New York City. All purchases were done by UN officials.
See Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility interview with Hans Von Sponeck, and Stephen Kinzer, NY Times, Jan 3rd 1999
You know better than you president?
by
Zan+Zu+from+Eridu
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Now go and convince your own president you're right.
Re:bin laden..
by
ElGuapoGolf
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Open a history book that goes back more than three years?
How about I go back to the 80s? When we funded Saddam in his fight against Iran? When those pictures were taken of Rumsfeld giving ol Saddam a big hug?
Face facts. We f'ed up by not finishing the job with Osama. Period.
Fresh Perspectives
by
knautilus316
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I have no military service, and I'm too involved in school to sign up now, but I feel I wouldn't be doing my part if I didn't add my two cents in here.
I don't like President Bush. I think he is a short-sighted, uneducated, intolerant redneck, and it frightens me that he has the ability to launch nuclear missiles. But saying that this war is wrong or that it is illegal simply does not make sense. If there is an intelligent argument against this, I have yet to read it.
Your argument does not make sense.
To accuse President Bush of war crimes and not accuse Saddam Hussein at the same time is as massive MASSIVE hypocrisy. Look at the mass graves. Look at the soldiers dressed in civilian clothing, firing on coalition troops. Look at the countless incidents of Iraqi soldiers feigning surrender only to fire on coalition troops who were willing to show them mercy. Look at the thousands of Shiite Muslims who were killed by nerve gas on Saddam's orders after the first Gulf War. Look at the torture chambers that have been found. Look at the incidents of Iraqi troops firing on unarmed civilians, fleeing the horror of the war. Look at the stockpiles of humanitarian aid that were gathered up and never distributed to the people of Iraq. Look at the squads of professional rapists Saddam used to torture women and children. The list goes on and on. There are too many to name.
Your argument does not make sense.
It saddens me that people can be so blind to how simple this is. You disgust me. UN Resolution 1441 states very clearly that the point was never to "find" biological or chemical weapons in Iraq; the point was to prove whether or not they are there. And it states in no uncertain terms that absolute and unquestioned cooperation was demanded of Saddam's regime. Resolution 1441 can be found here.
Resolution 1441 also notes many previous Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, of which I've counted four that explicitly declare Iraq in violation of the cease-fire of the first Gulf War. There are others that deal with humanitarian problems caused by Saddam's regime, and property stolen from Kuwait (which I might add was never returned or repaid).
Look further at the reports from UN weapons inspection teams, complaining of Iraq's failure to cooperate in the terms set out by Resolution 1441. Unconditional, unrestricted, unquestioned cooperation was demanded, and it was not received. I should probably mention that Iraq *eventually* cooperated with most of the things demanded in Resolution 1441, but the very fact that they cooperated "eventually" constitutes a material breach of the resolution.
Your argument does not make sense.
For every point you try to make to prove your case against the war, twelve can be brought up to prove otherwise.
Today is a great day for the world. Saddam Hussein is not worth the bullet it would take to shoot him. He is an evil, violent man who would eagerly put every man, woman, and child in the world under the control of his equally evil and violent regime, if only he could get his hands on weapons powerful enough to allow it. But you accuse President Bush of war crimes?
It doesn't make sense. It is untrue, and unfair. It is a lie, and it is hypocritical.
Read the facts people. I've tried very hard to understand the opposing viewpoint, but the only explanation I can come up with is either the silent support of terrorism and atrocity, or gross GROSS ignorance to the facts of the matter.
I'm sorry for making this post so long, but I have a lot to say on this matter. Don't believe protest groups, don't believe presidents or politicians, and don't believe France. Read the UN resolutions and reports from expert committees appointed by the UN. After you've read those, see if you can come up with a reasonable argument using facts, not slander.
God bless America! God bless Iraq! May freedom ring so much farther than from sea to shining sea. May it reach so far and ring so loud that even the most ravaged and brutalized nations of the world hear it as clearly as we do in America.
~Knautilus
Re:bin laden..
by
DNS-and-BIND
·
· Score: 3, Informative
-- Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
TIME Magazine Exclusive
by
$exyNerdie
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Time magazine has an exclusive article on initial interrogation of Saddam
I am copying and pasting a portion of it below: Saddam Hussein was captured on Sunday without a fight. But since then, according to a U.S. intelligence official in Iraq, the fallen dictator has been defiant. "He's not been very cooperative," said the official, who read the transcript of the initial interrogation report taken during the first questioning session.
After his capture, Saddam was taken to a holding cell at the Baghdad Airport. He didn't answer any of the initial questions directly, the official said, and at times seemed less than fully coherent. The transcript was full of "Saddam rhetoric type stuff," said the official who paraphrased Saddam's answers to some of the questions. When asked "How are you?" said the official, Saddam responded, "I am sad because my people are in bondage." When offered a glass of water by his interrogators, Saddam replied, "If I drink water I will have to go to the bathroom and how can I use the bathroom when my people are in bondage?"
The interrogators also asked Saddam if he knew about the location of Captain Scott Speicher, a U.S. pilot who went missing during the first Gulf War. "No," replied the former Iraqi president, "we have never kept any prisoners. I have never known what happened."
Saddam was also asked whether Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. "No, of course not," he replied, according to the official, "the U.S. dreamed them up itself to have a reason to go to war with us." The interrogator continued along this line, said the official, asking: "if you had no weapons of mass destruction then why not let the U.N. inspectors into your facilities?" Saddam's reply: "We didn't want them to go into the presidential areas and intrude on our privacy."
The official is doubtful that the U.S. will get a significant amount of intelligence from Saddam's interrogations. "I would be surprised if he gave any info," he said. Other high-ranking regime members, he said, have by and large remained mum. "Tariq Aziz [former deputy prime minister] hasn't really spoken," he said, "and Abid Mahmoud [Saddam's former personal secretary] hasn't really given any information." ............... Along with the $750,000 in cash, two AK 47 machine guns and pistol found with Saddam, the U.S. intelligence official confirmed that operatives found a briefcase with Saddam that contained a letter from a Baghdad resistance leader. Contained in the message, the official said, were the minutes from a meeting of a number of resistance leaders who came together in the capital. The official said the names found on this piece of paper will be valuable and could lead to the capture of insurgency leaders around the Sunni Triangle. ..........
Slashdot Mirror
Great - let's go and invade China then. They've been imprisoning, torturing, killing and generally oppressing their population for decades.
Do you remember the troops turning on protestors in Tiananmen Square?
Or is it that Iraq is strategically useful and that even pressing China about human rights seems to cause problems with selling them goods and services?
First, Halliburton was awarded the no-bid contract by your favorite pal in 1999. Previously their WAS a bid process and Haliburton lost in 1997. Then Slick Willie did away with the bids and just gave it to Haliburton. Yes, that's right CLINTON!
Secondly, Halliburton didn't overcharge the taxpayers, their subcontractor for fuel supply charged THEM that amount.
Thirdly, I will never understand why people think the economy is in the power of the president. Does he hold your hand when you buy stuff? Does he tell you what to buy? Uh.. NO! Get real.
Fourthly, health insurance. It costs a lot because of the malpractice suits and drug costs. You want health insurance? Go back to school and get a real education, then a good job. But I refuse to pay for healthcare of low-lifes happy in their burger flipping career.
This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.
a quotation from Saddam's Profile by BBC World: "The United States had quietly supported his war against Iran. They turned a blind eye to Iraq's human rights record and to atrocities like the gassing of the Kurdish villagers of Halabja" - looks like you woke up a bit late to save them. and please, don't be such an idiot and try to understand: US-forced UN sanctions during the last decade caused terrific damages to the Iraqi infrastructure, hospitals etc. - those millions I'm talking about!
two things.
1) the proof is in the putting - al qaeda was cranking out incriminating audio propaganda non-stop. in fact, in one tape, bin laden claimed that attacks on the world trade center were actually self-defense, and therefore supported by islamic law.
2) the presence in guantanamo bay of lots of known al qaeda operatives who have detailed their planning procedures for the september 11 attacks is a pretty good clue.
3) bin laden had already established a pattern of conduct with the USS cole and khobar towers bombings that made him particularly interesting to international terrorism experts. keep in mind that the burden of proof in a legal context is "beyond reasonable doubt." if you have any contrary evidence that can cast doubt on these allegations (and i mean more than just contradicting them - "no he didn't...."), then let's bring it on.
jon
-- http://www.cerastes.org
There were leaked photographs from a different angle that clearly showed:
(1) That there can't have been more than 50 people there.
(2) There were clearly more press than Iraquis.
(3) The troops had blocked off the surrounding streets which were deserted - presumably to stop anyone not part of the 'demonstration' from taking part.
There were six deaths and 1400 injuries in the original WTC bombing in 1993...
But don't take my word for it... here's the Wikipedia entry for the incident
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
Photo from a different angle.
Keep in mind folks that this has absolutely nothing to do with September 11
I guess you've never heard of Salman Pak. No surprise, it's received almost no coverage in the mainstream media, presumably the basis for your philosophy.
Basically, terrorists from around the world came to train on a Boeing 707 fuselage on how to take over an airplane using only knives, and infiltrate the cabin to take control of the aircraft.
Remember, don't get too many beliefs based on somebody else's view of events. Ideas are fine, beliefs are dangerous.
Try a google search, there's lots of documentation out there.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I can find no reference that details any proof what-so-ever that there were civilians in the convoy, again just scant claims that that was the case (no pictures of references of course).
As for the Geneva convention, being a military officer, I dare say that I am more educated than you in this matter but again, a simple web search clears things up.
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
The Geneva convention outlaws attacking civilians not engaged in hostilites and outlaws attacking surrendering combatants. Unfortunately, the Geneva Convention is poorly written on this point, as it refers to civilians and surrendering combatants in the same sentance. This leads to the misinterpretation that combatants not currently engaged in combat are somehow protected. There is a tremendous difference between retreat and surrender."It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
You're Wrong. The Telegraph published a report this week that the Iraqi Coalition government has found documents showing that Mohammed Atta was trained by the Palestinian Terrorist Abu Nidal in Baghdad shortly before the attacks on New York and Washington.
/ ne ws/2003/12/14/wterr14.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/12/1 4/ixportaltop.html
Details of Atta's visit to the Iraqi capital in the summer of 2001, just weeks before he launched the most devastating terrorist attack in US history, are contained in a top secret memo written to Saddam Hussein, the then Iraqi president, by Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, the former head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service.
The handwritten memo, a copy of which has been obtained exclusively by the Telegraph, is dated July 1, 2001 and provides a short resume of a three-day "work programme" Atta had undertaken at Abu Nidal's base in Baghdad.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=
These documents are proof that Iraq and Saddam was tied to 9/11. Capturing Saddam is a wonderful victory on its own merits, but since you need proof connecting him with 9/11, here it is.
But, that man (saddam) ordered the gasing that killed 5,000 civilians of his own people.
In this comment of yours, you linked to a BBC story about the gassing of the Kurds in Halabja. You may be interested to know that despite the public statements of our President and other major figures of his administration, the U.S. intelligence community suspects that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds in Halabja. See the piece written in the New York Times on January 31, 2003 by Stephen Pelletiere, who wrote:
The piece goes on from there. I encourage you to read it.
The Bush government never actually *said* that Hussain was behind 9/11, but various officials, press announcements, State of the Union Addresses, etc, implied it rather strongly. Since our "liberal" media wouldn't dream of correcting the Bush government's insinuations the image of Saddam as the 9/11 mastermind stuck in the public's mind.
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
No US citizens have died from foreign terrorism on U.S. soil EVER... until GWB.
You are wrong.
Only utter lack of diligence of study, or gross bias can explain your omission. I suspect the latter.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Wrong. Please stop repeating that. The Kurds were killed in a fight between Iranian and Iraqi forces in their city. They were not the intentional targets of either sides chemical weapons. And the US Army sent in specialists after the battle, that concluded in a nice big official report that they were killed by Iranian chemical weapons, since Iraq was using Mustard Gas, but they were killed by a blood agent, which chlorine gas is not. So, IRAN accidentially killed Kurds with chemical weapons. Both sides were irresponsible for using their US weapons in a populated city, however. (That's right, both bought their chemical weapons from the US government)
While we are talking about that sort of thing, mass graves: In accordance with their religion, Muslims bury their dead as soon as possible. That is why there was such an outrage over displaying the corpses of Hussein's sons. Because it was desecrating their dead! Especially dressing them up and cleaning their wounds, which you are also not supposed to do! (To put it in a Sci-Fi context, the series Space: Above and Beyond. The aliens mutulated fallen human troops. Humans were outraged and disgusted. But it turns out that the aliens were honouring their fallen foes as they honoured their own dead. And they were outraged in turn, by humans daring to cover their fallen with dirt, or else burn them to nothing.)
But anyways, the result is that if thousands of people are killed, mass graves are really the only option. So what killed all of these people. Well, after Gulf War I, the US told the Shi'ite and the Kurds that they had completely destroyed the Iraqi army. Both peoples revolted, slaughtering entire cities. Now, the Republican Guard was not so decimated as the US told them, and they regrouped after the war, and put down the rebellions with deadly force. That is where the mass graves came from. Because it would dishonor the dead to fix them up, and put them in their best clothes, and ship them off to their family, and THEN bury them. They needed to be burried as soon as possible.
Now, perhaps they used too much force...let's imagine this: Say some group in the US somewhere, it doesn't really matter who, realizes that most of the National Guard and army Reserves are already off in Iraq. So they rise up in a few cities, and kill all of the police, and the mayor, and basically anybody who works for any sort of government. City sanitation, DMV, everybody. Now, that done, they move on to the next city. People who fight back at them are killed, too. Now, what would the National Guard be justified in doing to them? Should they bust out the tear gas and rubber bullets? Or the mortars and the gunships?
Now, on to Kuwait. In 1990, Hussein in person flew to the White House, and asked G. H. W. Bush's permission to invade. And George said to go for it, it was none of his business what Iraq did to protect itself from oil thieves. And I think everybody knows what follows after that. Either way, Kuwait is run by a dictatorship with death squards, too. But the dictator is pro-US, so it is a good brutal regeim. But that sort of thing completely negates any "We had to get rid of a brutah dictator!" argument, since they are propping up another right next door!
Don't get me wrong, it's not that I like Saddam, or think he was a particularly good leader. But many of the justifications given are pure lies, plain and simple. They said he had WMD, and he didn't. People have been saying "Well he shouldn't have made us think he did!" but he spend a year professing his innocence, saying he had none. He gave the inspectors free reign (He didn't want them in his palaces, but eventually gave in. Understandable, they ARE his houses, after all) People say his commits genocide. But many of the supporting evidence for that statement is false. (Unless there are others I have missed, of course. But the US reports clearly state that it wasn't Iraq that did it. So the only way to prove the US right is by first proving the US
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
The War is illegal because it was never declared. In a legal sence, the United States of America has only been at war with Iraq one time. 1991. Since then we've bombed a soverign state for shits and giggles, but haven't really declared war. War has fairly cristiline properties in international law.
You're wrong. Yes, the war was illegal but not because of the reason you give. International law is complicated but as far as war is concerned it's very simple:
1. War is illegal except in two cases:
2. It's legal as defense against an immediate attack.
3. It's legal if it has a UN mandate.
Thus the war was illegal but declaring or not declaring it has nothing to do with that.
Karma. Moderation. Is my
You're facts are wrong. Firstly, it's was not the UN food program, but the Oil for Food program which was paid with Iraqi oil.
Secondly, a large part of the money from the "food" program was used to compensate foreign firms which had lost out through the war and sanctions.
Thirdly, a lot of essential medicines and other essential medical supplies such as oxygen could not be imported because of "dual use" considerations.
Fourthly, the UN money was kept in an escrow account in New York City. All purchases were done by UN officials.
See Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility interview with Hans Von Sponeck, and Stephen Kinzer, NY Times, Jan 3rd 1999
Now go and convince your own president you're right.
Open a history book that goes back more than three years?
How about I go back to the 80s? When we funded Saddam in his fight against Iran? When those pictures were taken of Rumsfeld giving ol Saddam a big hug?
Face facts. We f'ed up by not finishing the job with Osama. Period.
I have no military service, and I'm too involved in school to sign up now, but I feel I wouldn't be doing my part if I didn't add my two cents in here.
I don't like President Bush. I think he is a short-sighted, uneducated, intolerant redneck, and it frightens me that he has the ability to launch nuclear missiles. But saying that this war is wrong or that it is illegal simply does not make sense. If there is an intelligent argument against this, I have yet to read it.
Your argument does not make sense.
To accuse President Bush of war crimes and not accuse Saddam Hussein at the same time is as massive MASSIVE hypocrisy. Look at the mass graves. Look at the soldiers dressed in civilian clothing, firing on coalition troops. Look at the countless incidents of Iraqi soldiers feigning surrender only to fire on coalition troops who were willing to show them mercy. Look at the thousands of Shiite Muslims who were killed by nerve gas on Saddam's orders after the first Gulf War. Look at the torture chambers that have been found. Look at the incidents of Iraqi troops firing on unarmed civilians, fleeing the horror of the war. Look at the stockpiles of humanitarian aid that were gathered up and never distributed to the people of Iraq. Look at the squads of professional rapists Saddam used to torture women and children. The list goes on and on. There are too many to name.
Your argument does not make sense.
It saddens me that people can be so blind to how simple this is. You disgust me. UN Resolution 1441 states very clearly that the point was never to "find" biological or chemical weapons in Iraq; the point was to prove whether or not they are there. And it states in no uncertain terms that absolute and unquestioned cooperation was demanded of Saddam's regime. Resolution 1441 can be found here.
Resolution 1441 also notes many previous Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, of which I've counted four that explicitly declare Iraq in violation of the cease-fire of the first Gulf War. There are others that deal with humanitarian problems caused by Saddam's regime, and property stolen from Kuwait (which I might add was never returned or repaid).
Look further at the reports from UN weapons inspection teams, complaining of Iraq's failure to cooperate in the terms set out by Resolution 1441. Unconditional, unrestricted, unquestioned cooperation was demanded, and it was not received. I should probably mention that Iraq *eventually* cooperated with most of the things demanded in Resolution 1441, but the very fact that they cooperated "eventually" constitutes a material breach of the resolution.
Your argument does not make sense.
For every point you try to make to prove your case against the war, twelve can be brought up to prove otherwise.
Today is a great day for the world. Saddam Hussein is not worth the bullet it would take to shoot him. He is an evil, violent man who would eagerly put every man, woman, and child in the world under the control of his equally evil and violent regime, if only he could get his hands on weapons powerful enough to allow it. But you accuse President Bush of war crimes?
It doesn't make sense. It is untrue, and unfair. It is a lie, and it is hypocritical.
Read the facts people. I've tried very hard to understand the opposing viewpoint, but the only explanation I can come up with is either the silent support of terrorism and atrocity, or gross GROSS ignorance to the facts of the matter.
I'm sorry for making this post so long, but I have a lot to say on this matter. Don't believe protest groups, don't believe presidents or politicians, and don't believe France. Read the UN resolutions and reports from expert committees appointed by the UN. After you've read those, see if you can come up with a reasonable argument using facts, not slander.
God bless America! God bless Iraq! May freedom ring so much farther than from sea to shining sea. May it reach so far and ring so loud that even the most ravaged and brutalized nations of the world hear it as clearly as we do in America.
~Knautilus
here's the link
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Time magazine has an exclusive article on initial interrogation of Saddam
..... ..... .....
..... .....
I am copying and pasting a portion of it below:
Saddam Hussein was captured on Sunday without a fight. But since then, according to a U.S. intelligence official in Iraq, the fallen dictator has been defiant. "He's not been very cooperative," said the official, who read the transcript of the initial interrogation report taken during the first questioning session.
After his capture, Saddam was taken to a holding cell at the Baghdad Airport. He didn't answer any of the initial questions directly, the official said, and at times seemed less than fully coherent. The transcript was full of "Saddam rhetoric type stuff," said the official who paraphrased Saddam's answers to some of the questions. When asked "How are you?" said the official, Saddam responded, "I am sad because my people are in bondage." When offered a glass of water by his interrogators, Saddam replied, "If I drink water I will have to go to the bathroom and how can I use the bathroom when my people are in bondage?"
The interrogators also asked Saddam if he knew about the location of Captain Scott Speicher, a U.S. pilot who went missing during the first Gulf War. "No," replied the former Iraqi president, "we have never kept any prisoners. I have never known what happened."
Saddam was also asked whether Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. "No, of course not," he replied, according to the official, "the U.S. dreamed them up itself to have a reason to go to war with us." The interrogator continued along this line, said the official, asking: "if you had no weapons of mass destruction then why not let the U.N. inspectors into your facilities?" Saddam's reply: "We didn't want them to go into the presidential areas and intrude on our privacy."
The official is doubtful that the U.S. will get a significant amount of intelligence from Saddam's interrogations. "I would be surprised if he gave any info," he said. Other high-ranking regime members, he said, have by and large remained mum. "Tariq Aziz [former deputy prime minister] hasn't really spoken," he said, "and Abid Mahmoud [Saddam's former personal secretary] hasn't really given any information."
Along with the $750,000 in cash, two AK 47 machine guns and pistol found with Saddam, the U.S. intelligence official confirmed that operatives found a briefcase with Saddam that contained a letter from a Baghdad resistance leader. Contained in the message, the official said, were the minutes from a meeting of a number of resistance leaders who came together in the capital. The official said the names found on this piece of paper will be valuable and could lead to the capture of insurgency leaders around the Sunni Triangle.