amerika and uk: war crimes?

it seems pretty clear now when judging the facts, and not clinging to silly
government propaganda that has long been discredited, firstly that both bush
and bliar told lies in order to justify attacking the people of Iraq, and
secondly that as Iraq posed no discernable threat to either the us or the
uk, that the war was illegal in any sense of recognition of long established
international law.
seems to me that looking at the complete fuck up that has been made by the
us in trying to get a grip on the security situation in Iraq, that firstly
there is little or no chance of it ever being viable for us interests, to
gain control of the areas of Iraq economy that the war was for (oil), and
secondly that no lessons appear to have been learnt over the thousands of
amerikan deaths than occurred in se.asia (both less the millions of asians
that also died).
the meek acceptence of sending thousands of us servicemen to their deaths
and spending billions of tax dollars to achieve this, does suggest to me
that the common view in the world of the average amerikan as pretty
ignorant, ill conformed, and out of touch, is not really that far from the
mark!............
Reply to
brain dead
Loading thread data ...
The invasion may have been ill-advised, but it wasn't illegal. The state of war the UN declared after Iraq invaded Kuwait is still in effect. No peace treaty was ever signed. The cessation of hostilities in 1991 was a unilateral and conditional action on the part of the Coalition. Any or all parties had the legal right to resume hostilities at any time.
The mere fact that politicians lied doesn't change the legal situation. Lying is what politicians do for a living. Propaganda is a long established tool of politics, diplomacy, and warfare.
Gary
Reply to
Gary Coffman
established
I think you will find many highly respected people from the world of international law would disagree with you.
Thing is though the us (and to a lesser degree the uk) have never respected international law to any great extent, and seem to feel they are beyond any rule of law, when it comes to perpetrating acts of aggression for purely political or economic ends.
Sadly people are dieing as a result of all this, and the complacency and lack of concern of the majority of people, is something that allows the slaughter to continue............
Reply to
brain dead
Do you actually know anything about international law, braindead, or are you just blowing smoke?
It's a pretty arcane field. Aside from specialists, most people who talk about it are full of crap.
Can you tell us about the specific violations you have in mind, and their history of ratification? Or are you just full of it?
Ed Huntress
Reply to
Ed Huntress
I know that you will find highly respected people on both sides of the issue about the legality of the war, proves nothing, until binding court decision.
I do not believe that any country in history has respected international law, except when it was to their advantage. What war has been fought that was not for political or economic ends?
People were dying before the war started, thanks to the complacency of those with an economic interest in keeping the then current power structure going and the white elitist who saw no need to send white soldiers to die for brown people.
Balls in your court whitebread.
Reply to
Bob Yates
---Define " highly respected"
---I think that the US and UK don't respect "International Law" to any great extent is due to "International Law" might seem skewed against the US and UK. The UN is a corrupt joke (well documented and indisputable) and we should get out and boot them out of the US. The WTO is worse.
---Sadly, people ARE dying. Mostly from cowardly bomb attacks against US forces and the people on the other side by choice. "Hey, Abdul...let's go shoot at those US Marines, after all our cleric says that's a GOOD thing and that's why we came to Iraq in the first place." Duh... Was going into Iraq this way a great idea? I personally don't think so.
((((Hey Brain-dead, What's with the use of CAPS and no female body parts? Are you trying to be ... respectable?))))
Reply to
Tom Gardner
i certainly dont have more than a basic understanding of international law, but it seems pretty clear to me that Iraq posed no threat to either the us or the uk (major aggressors against the people of Iraq), and that under the said international law any act of aggression instigated for purely political purposes (regime change for instance!) is in fact unlawful.
Reply to
brain dead
the situation in Iraq before the last attack was largely the making of the us, in that there was no attempt to get rid of saddam at the cessation of hostilitys in 1991.
indeed without the complicity of us forces toward saddam in 1991, he would have been removed by a popular revolt that was instigated by his own people. the fact that this revolt had no support whatsoever from the us, does seem to suggest that at that time saddam still remained in favour with the us government.
Reply to
brain dead
i wonder if you feel that targetting civilian areas, with such things as cluster bombs, are acts which require any degree of courage?
in recent weeks the number of mercenaries (many of them ex us servicemen) killed has far exceeded teh number of regular troops that have died.
strangely though other the number of non service personnel killed is not something that receives a great deal of attention!
finally lets say if a foriegn power had invaded the us, with a view towards getting its hands on us economic resources, i wonder if the us people would think this was a good thing, and co-operate fully in handing over the us to foriegn business interests? ..........perhaps not!
Reply to
brain dead
If what you say is true, please reveal your credible sources, and tell me how you have access to things I haven't heard.
Reply to
Tom Gardner
if you have access to the net which i assume you do, its pretty easy to find quite a few credible sources to verify everything in my posts.
personally i find most sources that are not blighted by government propaganda, are worth looking at rather more carefully than the nonsene you commonly see propounded in the corpaorate media.
servicemen)
Reply to
brain dead
In fact, it seems unlikely you have even that. Aside from the law of treaties, there are seven categories of "serious" crimes under international law. Two of them -- war crimes and "crimes against peace" -- have been misunderstood and promiscuously applied by various angry but ignorant people around the world to anything they don't like about any armed conflict.
That's what you're doing here. In fact, there is so much cover for Bush in the UN Security Council Resolutions relating to the matter that there is no possibility that a charge, or claims of universal jurisdiction, would be recognized in this case by any country whose judicial system is recognized as legitimate under the principles of international law. Most Arab states' courts and prosecutorial bodies are not legitimate because they fail the tests of judicial independence, due process, rules of evidence, and recognition of human rights.
Which leaves you with the body of law relating to the World Court, and that is a creature of the UN. Because of the Security Council Resolutions, Iraq has no claim. And there is no prima facie evidence against Bush, which is required.
What you have is a lot of anger on your part, and a lot of mistakes and biased judgments on the part of the US, and, lacking any knowledge of how this plays out in international law, you have some vague idea that it *ought to be* something that's illegal. But it's not. Saddam Hussein, on the other hand, violated international laws every day. So did his Baathist henchmen. They are (or were) all liable and vulnerable to international trials for serious crimes.
So stick to what you know if you want to make a real argument. You've overreached, you're grasping at straws, and you're digging yourself into a hole of silliness.
Ed Huntress
Reply to
Ed Huntress
Catalog these sources. I can find "credible sources" on the web to verify alien posession of people, flying saucers vaporizing day-care centers, magic lottery number talismans, etc... I think anyone can find anything to support their core beliefs or what they want to believe. "My expert can beat-up your expert." The only thing I know with absolute certainty is that you, me or anyone else does not have access to real "Truth", only versions flavored by what someone wants to be believed.
Reply to
Tom Gardner
If you are so intent on making everyone see the light, list some of the "most sources" that you claim exist. If you cannot, or will not, you are more useless than the "corporate media" you despise. At least they offer up sources of the information they are disseminating. So, brain dead jerkwad, put up or shut up.
Paladin
Reply to
michael
international
perhaps it would be an idea to look back upon what judges at nuremburg war crimes trials, felt was the most serious of crimes?
to all intents and purposes doesnt seem that different to what bush has done in Iraq does it?
and finally maybe we should all ask ourselves just what all these deaths, untold suffering, and of course spending billions of tax dollars is ever going to achieve?
Reply to
brain dead
i feel the posting above suggests that you have already chosen to believe a version of events, that is just about as far from any idea of truth that you can get!
if you cant think for yourself and need to be led around like a stray dog, then i feel sorry for you. but i guess the huge number of people just like you around, means that governments are just about always going tobe able to do just as they please!
Reply to
brain dead
Your posts are all invective and devoid of any useful content. Either your are as inane as you seem, or you lack the ability to articulate these issues.
How about showing us some of these useful sites. You continually tell people to open their eyes, yet you seem unwilling to help.
Troll or idiot, which are you?
Reply to
Aaron Kushner
I believe that my post stated:
"The only thing I know with absolute certainty is that you, me or anyone else does not have access to real "Truth", only versions flavored by what someone wants to be believed."
And you stated:
***"i feel the posting above suggests that you have already chosen to believe a version of events, that is just about as far from any idea of truth that you can get!" ***
Now, explain how you got to that line of thinking from what I wrote! I'm still waiting for links to any credible or even questionable source of "Truth" that you possess, I think I have a more open mind that you do and all you have to do to have any credibility is to produce sources. I feel that your last post was a complete dodge and you seem to be making the point that YOU are not thinking for yourself. It's very difficult to maintain your views by using generalities: "I saw a pick-up truck yesterday, it was green, it was a Ford...Therefore all green pick-up trucks are green Fords."
***"if you cant think for yourself and need to be led around like a stray dog, then i feel sorry for you. but i guess the huge number of people just like you around, means that governments are just about always going to be able to do just as they please!"***
I most certainly can think for myself, convince me of your views with specific logic and corroborated sources. Remember it is YOU that are trying to express your views to me, I haven't stated my views nor have I tried to convince you of them. If you don't address this post point-by-point with specific answers and just restate the same generalities you won't have any credibility and you will show laziness at not doing the work to back-up your statements. Understand that this NG is mostly a group of engineering people and artisans that deal with logic very well...come up with some! ...or be ignored for raving and lacking substance, your choice!
(I thought you were cured of the CAPS thing and spelling, it would add to your credibility. I mean no disrespect but, you kind of come across as a 14 year old. Maybe that's ok in the UK but you need to adapt if you want the ear of other cultures.)
Reply to
Tom Gardner
perhaps the fact that you obviously have access to the net, which allows you to see much information that does not come directly from government propaganda departments, yet still choose to meekly accept this nonsense as the truth, is possibly reflective of your own stupidity!
Reply to
brain dead
i suggest that you need to gain some sort of objective perspective, on how the corporate media operate hand in hand with government propaganda departments, as it is very helpful to understand how in a so called democratic system public opinion is manipulated by such mechanisms.
as to rather more objective areas of information then perhaps you should have a look at znet, which does have a wide range of material from many different areas of the world.
Reply to
brain dead

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.