|
Author
|
|
Topic: Gulf War II | Topic page views:
|
|
theseeker
One moon circles
Damnit...I'm a doctor jim
3297 posts, Jul 2000
|
posted 05-31-2003 08:48 PM
   
neil cavuto suffers from multiple scelrosis (sp)...and knows more about fight, and everything else, than you do...you POS... 
|
shatoga
Agent Provocateur
588 posts, Nov 2002
|
posted 06-03-2003 05:40 AM
US Faces Growing Charges
of War Crimes http://www.ipsnews.net/ by Thalif Deen
Inter Press Service
Saturday, May 31, 2003 UNITED NATIONS - When General Tommy Franks, who coordinated the recent
U.S.-led military attack on Iraq, was asked about civilian casualties, he
shot back: ''We don't do body counts.''
Less than two months after the invasion of Iraq, there are no definitive
figures of the civilian casualties -- unarmed men, women and children who
died in the 44-day military assault. But there are a growing number of
attempts to determine that number and to hold Washington and its allies
responsible.
Several human rights groups are calling for the creation of either a war
crimes tribunal or an international commission of justice. Additionally,
several non-governmental organizations (NGOs) say they will pressure
Washington to pay compensation for the killings of innocent civilians -- a
common practice in U.S. law courts.
The Commission on Human Security (CHS), which is overseeing the 'Iraq Body
Count Project' estimates between 5,000 and 7,000 civilians died in the
attack, or more.
Marla Ruzicka of the Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict (CIVIC) says
her door-to-door survey teams in Iraq have concluded that ''somewhere
between 5,000 to 10,000 people died in this conflict''.
''Yes, a number is important,'' she says, ''but it's not as important as
making sure that we recognize that each number is a life. Our goal, beyond
getting assistance to the innocent families that are harmed, is to get a
proper accounting of war.''
Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights says Washington
should be hauled up before an international war crimes commission and held
accountable for civilian deaths in Iraq.
''In any war, the number of civilians killed is critical,'' Ratner told
IPS.. ''It is that number that can help determine whether or not the
military complied with the Geneva conventions (governing the conduct of
wars).''
²And in each military engagement, the number of civilians killed cannot be
out of proportion with the value of the military target. Franks' statement
is practically saying that the laws of war do not apply to the United
States,'' he added.
Last week, a Belgian lawyer filed a lawsuit in Brussels charging Franks with
war crimes. The action was submitted on behalf of 19 Iraqis, allegedly
victims of cluster bombs and U.S. bombings of civilians, under a law that
permits Belgian courts to try foreigners for war crimes.
This week, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) challenged a U.S.
military accounting of the bombing last April of a hotel in Baghdad in which
two journalists were killed.
After an investigation the CPJ concluded there is no evidence that U.S.
forces were fired on from the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad, where nearly 100
journalists were holed up before the building was shelled by U.S. forces.
The family of a Spanish journalist killed in that attack has already filed a
lawsuit against three U.S. soldiers for war crimes and murder. The suit,
based on a provision of the Rome Statute (of the International Criminal
Court or ICC), could be expanded to include other people, ²independent of
their rank or nationality², said Pilar Hermoso, the attorney for Jose
Couso's family.
But the high court's chief prosecutor, Eduardo Fungairiño, said this week he
opposes the complaint, meaning a delay of 15 days before it is decided if
the case will proceed.
''It is very clear that war crimes were committed in Iraq,'' says James
Jennings, president of Conscience International.
First, U.S.-led forces targeted and killed many civilians during massive
bombing of facilities unrelated to military objectives, such as government
ministries serving civilian needs, as well as hospitals, schools and homes.
Secondly, he told IPS, the military used disproportionate force with its
so-called ''covering fire'' technique, which means indiscriminate shooting
at shops, homes and mosques, killing many civilian non-combatants, including
women and children.
Jennings said that at least one Marine battalion commander admitted as much
to 'Time' magazine when he said -- after the killing by his unit of nearly
100 Iraqis without an injury to his men -- ''Let's quit pussyfooting, and
call it what it is. It's murder, it's slaughter.''
''Now that the United States has accepted the status of an occupying power
under international law, officials in Washington cannot claim exemption from
prosecution of war crimes during the period of conflict,'' Jennings added..
The Lawyers Committee for Human Rights and Amnesty International have both
called for the establishment of a commission of experts to examine past and
recent international war crimes and genocide committed in Iraq.
But since the United States and Britain hold veto powers in the United
Nations Security Council, most human rights groups doubt that the world body
will create a war crimes tribunal for Iraq. That does not mean it is not
essential, says one expert.
''Whether or not the question of accountability in Iraq is addressed
successfully could make or break the prospects for peace and stability in
that country,'' said Michael Posner, executive director of the Lawyers
Committee for Human Rights.
Meanwhile, a coalition of over 150 peace and human rights groups has
expressed disappointment that a recent Security Council resolution lifting
sanctions on Iraq never addressed the issue of war crimes.
''We have just sent letters both to the Security Council and members of the
General Assembly about the issue of war crimes and the killing of both
civilians and journalists by the U.S. military,'' said Rob Wheeler of the
Uniting for Peace Coalition.
''These issues, along with many others, were irresponsibly ignored when the
Security Council approved the recent U.S. resolution on Iraq à These matters
must be investigated as part of a wider discussion by the General Assembly
on the invasion of Iraq,'' he added in an interview.
''The United States says it cares about the 3,000 people killed during the
attack on Sep. 11 (2001), but it doesn't seem to care about the tens of
thousands or even millions of civilians that have been killed by U.S.
attacks on other countries over the years.''
Wheeler said that his coalition believes that the invading powers must be
forced to pay reparations for the death and destruction they have caused in
Iraq. ''Yes, compensation is due for all of the damages, and civilian loss
of life, caused by this illegal and unprovoked war,'' he added.
Jennings pointed out that besides civilian killings, ''the use of tons of
depleted uranium munitions, which cause genetic defects into the next
generation, and of 1,500 cluster bombs that have killed and maimed numerous
children, may also be classified as war crimes.''
''In short,'' he said, U.S. technological progress has far outstripped its
moral development.''
"The charge of deception is inescapable," said Germany's largest newspaper,
the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.
Copyright 2003 IPS
|
shatoga
Agent Provocateur
588 posts, Nov 2002
|
posted 06-03-2003 06:02 AM
quote:
Originally posted by theseeker:
neil cavuto suffers from multiple scelrosis (sp)...and knows more about fight, and everything else, than you do...you POS...
Often I wish my problems were as benign as MS. MS sufferers have both good days and bad days. some days they can walk about like normal. Other days they join the rest of us using canes, crutches and wheelchairs to get around. BTW;
Your tax money pays for my operations & provides my forearm crutches and wheelchairs through the VA. Just got home from another VAMC procedure this afternoon. Try DAV for ISP.
(under $14.00 for us disabled vets)
I'm a life member, MS post #38.
What were your in-service injuries PV?
What DAV post do you belong to?
http:www.dav.org Or are listed at: http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Camp/7287/prove_me_wrong.htm On the Gulf Coast, I'm the guy they give the name to' or introduce to' the braggart. I check it out for the Legion, VFW, DAV.. And get the phony SEAL. Ranger, SF, POW, etc. listed on a 'wall of shame'
or;
The real veteran acknowledged and provided with assistance. Just carrying on my work from the 1970's
V V A W counseling.
(in service to America) How do you serve veterans?
How do you serve America?
[Edited 3 times, lastly by shatoga on 06-03-2003]
|
theseeker
One moon circles
Damnit...I'm a doctor jim
3297 posts, Jul 2000
|
posted 06-04-2003 02:50 AM
Often I wish my problems were as benign as MS.that is NO-SHIT...you got a cranium full...haunting you....following you at every turn....manifesting themselves into spectres...ahemmm... Iraq's Weapons & The Road to War by Daniel Pipes New York Post June 3, 2003 Two oddly similar searches are underway in Iraq these days, one for Saddam Hussein and another for his weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Neither has yet been found. No one argues that because Saddam has not been located, he never existed. But that is what some are saying about the coalition forces not finding actual WMD. Probably those weapons were well hidden; maybe some were latterly destroyed. What if they are never found - does that undercut the rationale for going to war? Hardly; WMD was never the basic reason for the war. Nor was it the horrid repression in Iraq. Or the danger Saddam posed to his neighbors. Rather, the basic reason was Saddam's having signed a contract with the United States, then breaking his promise. Let's replay this video: Iraqi and coalition military leaders met in Safwan, in southern Iraq, on March 3, 1991, to sign a cease-fire agreement. This was right after the U.S.-led coalition forces ejected Iraqi troops from Kuwait. The agreement they drew up had many provisions – specifying the cease-fire line, prohibiting certain activities by Iraqi troops, ending support for terrorism. Foremost among them was the demand that Baghdad dismantle all its WMD. To give this teeth, Baghdad had to accept outside inspectors who would locate and destroy the offending weapons. Saddam Hussein's regime had been routed. So his generals accepted these terms, immediately and without argument. They had no choice. Exactly a month later, on April 3, the United Nations Security Council endorsed these terms in Resolution 687. The resolution required that Iraq "unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of: "(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities; "(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers and related major parts, and repair and production facilities." The U.N. resolution also included provisions for a "Special Commission, which shall carry out immediate on-site inspection of Iraq's biological, chemical and missile capabilities." This work of locating and destroying was supposed to be completed in 120 days. No way. Instead, for 7½ years Saddam Hussein and his minions played a cat-and-mouse game. They hid weapons and documents, threatened the Special Commission personnel - and on the sly developed new WMD. Overall, were more WMD destroyed or built in that period? It's hard to say. Feeling ever more confident with what he could get away with, Saddam finally closed down the inspections in August 1998. His government blithely announced it had completely fulfilled the terms of Resolution 687 and ejected the Special Commission from Iraq. Saddam Hussein now had a free hand to build WMD without those bothersome inspectors. With this step, however, he broke the Safwan contract. The correct U.S. response to this outrage should have been: "Let the inspectors back in and cough up your WMD-related activities . . . or else." But 1998 was the era of "end of history" dot-com fog, and President Bill Clinton was diverted by the Lewinsky scandal. As a result, Saddam got away with his defiance. Four long years followed, without anyone keeping tabs on what WMD he might be developing. Then came 9/11, and a new American sense that the world is a dangerous place. The old casualness toward broken promises was no longer acceptable. Beginning in early 2002, President Bush began exerting pressure on Iraq to fulfill its agreement, or pay the consequences. The result? The same old cat-and-mouse game, with Baghdad and the United Nations both hoping this would satisfy the U.S. government. It did not. The Bush administration rejected the pretense of U.N. inspections and insisted on real disarmament or a change in regime. When the former did not occur, the latter did. The moral of this story: Uncle Sam enforces his contracts - even if a few years late. Keep your promises or you are gone. It's a powerful precedent that U.S. leaders should make the most of. The campaign in Iraq is ultimately not about weapons. It's not about the United Nations. And it's not about Iraqi freedom. It is about keeping promises to the United States - or paying the consequences. http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1116
[Edited 1 times, lastly by theseeker on 06-04-2003]
|
Fastwalker
Senior Member
832 posts, Mar 2003
|
posted 06-04-2003 05:39 AM
That's a brilliant article Seeker, precisely because it is so true. Another important reason for our show of force in Iraq was to create a powerful deterrent for the world to see. The world has to know and understand that the US enforces it's contracts, and does so with incredible power and efficiency. I think the world got the message loud and clear. As Bush keeps pointing out, Iraq was only a battle in a much larger war, the war against the terrorist threat. Iran and N. Korea know that they very well might be next. It's just a matter of Bush winning the election so he can continue with business. Think these terrorist nations want Bush to win? You bet they don’t. Notice how quiet N. Korea and Iran have been lately. Notice how eager Saudi Arabia and Syria seem to be to work with us now. This is what a show of force like Iraq and Afghanistan accomplish. It let's the world know that this president's word is not to go unheeded....The same thing is felt by Palestine and Israel. They certainly seem anxious to make Bush's roadmap work, don't they? That's no accident. So what's next? Well China and Russia. How subtle of a message do you think the quick victories in Iraq and Afghanistan were to Russia. It sure got their attention. And when we took one of China's terrorist puppets away (Iraq, believe it or not) we limited one more country that could be used as a staging platform for a terrorist attack on the US. If we neutralize North Korea and Iran, we will remove more surrogate third party attackers. And so on and so on. It's not a pretty process taking terrorist groups out one by one...and nothing is perfect. But we live in an ugly imperfect world.
|
shatoga
Agent Provocateur
588 posts, Nov 2002
|
posted 06-04-2003 06:31 PM
You posit that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
Weapons capable of killing the US military as they invaded his country.
Yet for some reason he choose to destroy those weapons
or hide them away
rather than protect his nation from foriegn invaders.
And to instead give up everything, to let the US destroy Iraq with only token opposition. Either don your tinfoil hats or: Get real idiots! If Saddam actually had had those WMD's
bush and his minions
Powell and Blair lied about.
There would be American bodies rotting all over iraq, right now.
The proof is that no WMD were used to repel an illegal foriegn invasion. After months of searching,
the US mil can only allude to two 'possible' tractor trailers which 'could have been used' as mobile weapons labs.
Yet for some reason (during a foriegn invasion- with massive loss of noncombatent civilians' lives) were not.
Bottom line:
Bush lied (again) Powel lied! (again)
Blar lied! (again)
Your RW dittoheads are posting lies and innuendo instead of facts (AGAIN!) Human rights leftists were campaigning to take out Saddam as a modern day Stalin. They failed to count on a modern day Hitler (Bush II) doing so. One dictator down!
One to go! Impeach Bush (both of them for their lies and warmongering in violation of international law.
Impeach Bush II (the lesser) for illegally suspending the US Constitution,
and for illegally invading sovereign nations. Zieg...
RW dittoheads will continue to do the 'heiling'
[Edited 1 times, lastly by shatoga on 06-04-2003]
| |
Chemtrail Central Forum
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
This topic is 45 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
