Iraq war illegal, Kofi Annan - The UN
POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Saturday, March 28, 2026 18:32
VIEWED: 15590
PAGE 10 of 15
Hey, Gino, I'm sorry if I've pissed you off. I'm having a hard time making sense of your post 'cause mostly what I hear is your anger.
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
How is it that the terrorist/criminal connection is so hard for people to grasp these days? They are criminals because they are outlaws in their own lands. Because they enthusiastically endanger civilians from their own lands. Soldiers are not and do not.
Right then, using those definitions Washington and his followers in the American revolutionary war were criminals.
I got no problem with that. If they had been treated as criminals it prolly would have saved a lot of lives that were lost in the war, right? But, you know, their notion of war and ours are pretty different. Not a lot of civilians died at all back then. Nowadays the great majority of casualties are civilian.
Quote:Quote:
Real terrorists are pretty mentally unstable. Mentally unstable people are not the most observant, clear-headed folk. Also, in organizations that behead people and kill children at the drop of a hat
Something like the US state department ?
U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright was asked whether the over half a million children at that point in 1996 killed by the sanctions were worth it. Her response was: "It’s a hard choice, but I think, we, think, it’s worth it."
As for beheadings, that is the traditional form of execution in the area. Would it make you more comfortable if they found some trees to hang them from ?
Gino, please, I'm not arguing with you. The American government has been guilty of horrible crimes. In a sane world Bush would be impeached for war crimes tomorrow. At the same time, I don't really see how ten masked men in a room filming a beheading of some american tourist is an honorable traditional form of anything.
Quote:Quote:
There are bound to be a few who might be a teensy bit ambivalent about the whole enterprise and might just inform on the organization.
Such as the UN administors who witnessed the effects of the sanctions firsthand and resigned rather than participate in what they called " a morally wrong " action. Or perhaps those who made the torture going on in US ran prisons public..
See, this is where I seriously lose your point. I don't know what you thought I meant to say, but again, I ain't trying to justify the evil that our government has perpetrated. I'm grateful that the torture was made public. I believe that all corrupt organizations have people in the ranks who know the organization is corrupt and who are waiting for an opportunity to do something about it.
Quote:Quote:
Seems to me it would not be so hard, as such things go, to infiltrate their organizations and bring them down. Aw, what am I saying? Nuke the lot of 'em!
This is exactly why we all need nukes, there is equal justification to " nuke " the US, the downside is countries trying to stay the hell out of your insanity will feel the effects of the radiation... mind you it may just be a small price to pay to finally have an end to this crap..
Oh, Lordy, Gino, have you read any other post I have ever written on this board? Jeez, man, I've read a lot of what you've posted and I find all of it courageous and sensible. Please, forgive my facile sarcasm about nukes. I absolutely do not endorse the use of nuclear weapons by anyone, ever. Living in the country that thinks we should have absolute supremacy over every other nation on Earth is extemely upsetting and I try to deal with it with a pretty disagreeable sense of humor sometimes.
I was really just trying to make a point that if we treated the folks responsible for 9/11 as criminals it would save a lot of lives because we wouldn't be destroying whole populations of real people who deserve to live. A wretchedly obvious point, but one which I feel
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I am sorry I missed your sarcasm about nukes, I have had the same conversation with people who made the same arguement quite seriously, and I strongly feel that is one line that cannot be crossed.
As for the executions, what tourist would sanely go to Iraq ? Dispite the term " illegal combatant " brought into play by the Bush regime, the proper definiton of mercenary is an indivdual who is not a member of the military but fills a military function. If you drive a truck moving military supplies your a mercenary, if you repair miltary equipment your a mercenary, if you build bases your a mercenary, if you are a member of the biased part of the media your a mercenary.
The execution of mercenarys is allowed by international law
Quote:
their notion of war and ours are pretty different.
but is it, I would submit the are following the Western example only by different means
I have argued that Bin Laden made a reasonable declaration of war at the beginning of the conflict, clearly stating intention of action and objective
If we accept that this is a war, was 911 really that different from the Firebombing of Tokyo, or Dresden, or Hiroshima, or Nagasaki. If our actions were not criminal, why are theres?
Quote:
The American government has been guilty of horrible crimes. In a sane world Bush would be impeached for war crimes tomorrow.
I was pointing at actions during the Clinton regime, how far back could we go indicting Presidents.... Regan.... Eisenhower.... even farther ?
Once again I sorry I missed your nuke sarcasm, I suspect we feel the same way on the subject.
" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's cool.
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
As for the executions, what tourist would sanely go to Iraq ? Dispite the term " illegal combatant " brought into play by the Bush regime, the proper definiton of mercenary is an indivdual who is not a member of the military but fills a military function. If you drive a truck moving military supplies your a mercenary, if you repair miltary equipment your a mercenary, if you build bases your a mercenary, if you are a member of the biased part of the media your a mercenary.
The execution of mercenarys is allowed by international law
Good point.
Quote:Quote:
their notion of war and ours are pretty different.
but is it, I would submit the are following the Western example only by different means
I have argued that Bin Laden made a reasonable declaration of war at the beginning of the conflict, clearly stating intention of action and objective
If we accept that this is a war, was 911 really that different from the Firebombing of Tokyo, or Dresden, or Hiroshima, or Nagasaki. If our actions were not criminal, why are theres?"
I was talking about the founding fathers. That war back then, as I understand it, did not involve civilians on anything like the scale war does now. War as it is faught by the United States today is indistinguishable from terrorism except the price tag.
Quote:Quote:
The American government has been guilty of horrible crimes. In a sane world Bush would be impeached for war crimes tomorrow.
I was pointing at actions during the Clinton regime, how far back could we go indicting Presidents.... Regan.... Eisenhower.... even farther ?
I'll go as far back as you like. But I gotta go now. Thanks for replying.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
I disagree. Canada is a traditional US ally and valuable trading partner. Invading them would cause us to lose our other allies and trading partners around the world and hamper our efforts to find new allies and trading partners, such as those in Eastern Europe who know a thing or two about being invaded by the local superpower.
Doesn't illegally invading a country that pretty much all UN member nations have stated that they are against do the same thing? Oh wait, it does and it did.
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
US interest is better served by fostering a relationship
The US has a history of only fostering relationships that suits it best. Basically, if the US doesn't get exactly what it wants it behaves like a child having a temper tantrum because mom won't buy him/her the toy they want.
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Calculating US interests is a tricky thing, you might want to leave it to the professionals, especially since violence is your solution to all US interests.
Only if the professionals know what they are doing. Since every single civilized nation could see through the trickery that was the US's "evidence" to go to war, I'd say that they don't know what they are doing and as such, clearly aren't to be trusted nor would I call the professionals
And I NEVER said that violence is the the solution to all the US's interest (though I don't know what you mean by "your" as I've stated multiple times that I'm Canadian). I've stated that the US's history states that it thinks that violence is the only solution as a rule, which exceptions are rare.
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Bush's policy, like that of his father and President Reagan, has been one of recognizing and balancing competing interests.
One who has an unbalanced mind cannot be trusted to have a balanced opinion. History has proven this to be true.
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Dealing with terror is much different then dealing with a dispute over Canadian fishing rights. Diplomacy is not always the right answer.
Trivial. EVERY situation regardless of how similar to another must be treated on its own. But, to ignore diplomacy is to shoot yourself in the foot. Which is exactly what the US has done here.
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
We take out Saddam, in itself a worthy thing.
I don't think that you are aware of an old saying, "There is more that one way to skin a cat." There has been mentioned above a number of ways that the US could have been a catalyst to get Saddam out of power. Perhaps you should go back and read them as you don't seem to realize that you don't always need to drop a bomb.
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Then we have all these soldiers in Iraq and what does the enemy do? They swarm from Iran, Syria, Jordan, etc, like ants or bees, falling over themselves to get at us.
Actually, with all the violence that's in Iraq right now against the US, I'd say that the majority has stayed put. That is unless you can provide me with proof to the contary.
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Call me a gamer,
The mere fact that you are liken this to gaming tells of your mentality.
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Maybe its not high level strategy, but the bad guys are there and now we get to shoot at them. Thats kinda the whole point of the war.
No, that's the point of an aggressor invading a country. The point of war is to defend. The US never was threatened by Iraq because Iraq never had the capability to harm the US. You are the aggressor here.
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
So maybe Iraq is not so disconnected from the War on Terror as some people (44% of likely US voters) seem to think.
You cannot provide some twisted logic and claim it to be true. Iraq never had any link to Osama, nor have
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Is there a full moon, or what? A lot of cogent people, who basically agree, seem to have found misunderstandings.
Anyway, since there seem to be a fair number of Canadians and other non-USers, I just want to point out that I suspect most people in the US have a VERY different view of reality. I don't know if you all realize the degree of propaganda, disinformation and censoring that goes on the the US. If Bush gets up and says 'no one is doing any thing about Iraq's WMDs', 'Iraq is on the path to freedom', 'things are better and better every day in every way', or 'I have an invisible 6 foot white rabbit named Harvey' it gets bleated in headlines in every medium and in the right-wing echo chambers, over and over. The 'reason' is that if Bush says something, it's news, and so, they would be remiss if they didn't report it, in headlines. There is no media fact-checking, no retrieval of their OWN archives for background, no dissent, no perspective, no context in a larger picture. There is no other picture. That whole article about the reportage of the black White House got it, unfortunately, straight up. And I'm not saying a chunk of the general US population is just a victim of circumstance. Many, not all, really don't care to know. It is easier and more enjoyable to go along with it all, even if it's 180 from yesterday. So, the UN never did anything in Iraq. Iraq's problems are now Iraq's problems, and have nothing to do with Bush and the US. Afghanistan was won and that's that. Bin Laden is a mere footnote. Things are better and better every day in every way.
PS What this means for me and perhaps HK, SignyM and a few others is that 'our' issues may be different from yours. I can't speak for them, but I know I, at least, am still trying to re-establish some of the reality that gets erased every day. And that is where I am coming from.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
... such as those in Eastern Europe who know a thing or two about being invaded by the local superpower.
Ealier it was suggested that US interest would be served by dropping a plague on China.
Calculating US interests is a tricky thing, you might want to leave it to the professionals, especially since violence is your solution to all US interests.
Dealing with terror is much different then dealing with a dispute over Canadian fishing rights. Diplomacy is not always the right answer.
I think the people who see Iraq as a quagmire have missed the real nature of the ongoing conflict there. We take out Saddam, in itself a worthy thing. Then we have all these soldiers in Iraq and what does the enemy do? They swarm from Iran, Syria, Jordan, etc, like ants or bees, falling over themselves to get at us. Call me a gamer, but looks to me like we are forcing the enemy into a fight at a time and in a place of our choosing. Maybe its not high level strategy, but the bad guys are there and now we get to shoot at them. Thats kinda the whole point of the war. So maybe Iraq is not so disconnected from the War on Terror as some people (44% of likely US voters) seem to think.
Hero, dude, I don't know what you've been smoking, but seriously, you should quit. It's not doing your brain any good.
Anyway, after claiming that invading Iraq was in our national interest, you won't speculate, on the record, what specifically about it was in our national interest? Surely you have some idea. I'd like to hear it.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey Rue,
Quote:
PS What this means for me and perhaps HK, SignyM and a few others is that 'our' issues may be different from yours. I can't speak for them, but I know I, at least, am still trying to re-establish some of the reality that gets erased every day. And that is where I am coming from.
Thats is the whole reason I post here and on some other boards. If someone says I'm wrong, I'll post links, but the base of it is the only people who get the full story have to go out of their way to find it. Open discussion as this is the only way to bring the truth out into the open. Sad it only reaches a limited viewership compared to the mainstream propaganda machine but compared to thirty years ago... the internet has brought hope.
Hell for that part even popular culture slides in now and then, we could speculate why Mal and Zoe chose to become Browncoats ( likely considered by the Alliance to be terrorists ) Why people like Inara, and young Simon chose to support Unification, etc
Perspective is everything, someone working their forty a week, with a nice house and nice life is more prone to believe what is handed to them because they are content. Take the same person and throw them an entirely different life, and they start to act completely different.
I don't know if you watched the Babylon 5 series, but there is one point where they are about to reach a big climatic battle, and everything slows down... the lead characters confront their adversarys directly, allies are about to step in and help and this alien who is in the know about what is going on stops them and says " No... this battle cannot be one by force, you must understand you way out of it "
Simply put, I think if the American people really understood the nature of what their government has been doing... with the exception of guys like Hero... fundamental change would be forced upon your government and may of these conflicts would simply disappear.
Mind you I think we ( as in the entire world )are due to suffer greatly before this understanding is achieved.
As you say, USers may not have knowledge of most of these events and believe their government will look out for their best interests, but what they don't know... can easily be their undoing. After all ignorance of the law, is not an excuse.
If you ever want me to elaborate or provide a source of info in a post... Please ask
Trying to find that good reality is a struggle of mine too.
" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Anyway, after claiming that invading Iraq was in our national interest, you won't speculate, on the record, what specifically about it was in our national interest? Surely you have some idea. I'd like to hear it.
My guess, and one can only guess here...
The US want to establish some amount of control over the worlds oil supply, the Iraqi oil fields in addition to the basing of US troops in Iraq gives the US the ability to strike out into Syria, and or Iran and also grab those fields. In addition the close proximity to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States plus the whole " war on terror excuse" ensures that they stay loyal to the USG.
Afganistan, particularly if the planned pipelines get build will control oil out of Southern Russia, and the former southern soviet republics in much the say fashion.
Maybe it is also why the US was providing arms to the rebels in Sudan for the last ten years. Could be why they want to step in now that their pawns are being wiped out.
This is not simply to secure access to the oil ( if my read is right ) but also to have the ability to deny the same oil to others ( the EU, China, Japan ) or who ever becomes an economic competitor to the US.
Look at how quick Bush jumped to give his blessing to a coup in Venezuela. The overthrow of a democraticly elected leader should be no obstacle to establishing control over another oil producing country.
Just my guess
" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Anyway, since there seem to be a fair number of Canadians and other non-USers, I just want to point out that I suspect most people in the US have a VERY different view of reality. I don't know if you all realize the degree of propaganda, disinformation and censoring that goes on the the US.
[snip]
Actually, I know full well the degree that this is going on as I did live in the US for a good chunk of time. During that time I surveyed the "news" stations there to see what's what comparing them to the non-US ones. *shutter*
I applaud you and people like you for seeking what's actually going on instead of choosing to believe what's forced down your throat by the US "news" stations.
So, here's to bringing some reality to the situation. If we all try, maybe some success will be found.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thank you both for your kind and supportive words.
Quote:
Simply put, I think if the American people really understood the nature of what their government has been doing... with the exception of guys like Hero... fundamental change would be forced upon your government and may of these conflicts would simply disappear.
I am NOT religious, but I pray for one thing: that the Bush administration's entire agenda be out in the open and publicly acknowledged. The agenda for the environment, Social Security, education and health care, his agenda for civil rights and censorship, and among other, things, for Iraq and Afghanistan. Not that I imagine this kind of hard-data will come out in the age of propaganda, censorship, spin, slogans and sound-bites. But at this point, I have not a lot of faith in the majority of Americans. Everyone 'knows' in a covert subterranean way what Bush stands for. I can't imagine people changing their minds. All I want at this point is that when USers vote for Bush, they know in their hearts, without excuse, dissembling or rationalization, the package they are choosing. That they acknowledge - I CHOOSE this.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME