Irritating Things From The 'War on Terror'

[evildave]

The UN never thought the present war was justifiable.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=421&sID=7
10 March, 2003 (A week before the war)

Q: Mr. Secretary-General, you said that an attack on Iraq without a second Council resolution would not be legitimate. Would you consider it as a breach of the UN Charter?

SG: I think that under today's world order, the Charter is very clear on circumstances under which force can be used. I think the discussion going on in the Council is to ensure that the Security Council, which is master of its own deliberations, is able to pronounce itself on what happens. If the US and others were to go outside the Council and take military action it would not be in conformity with the Charter.

Now he says it ouright: It was illegal.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661976.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3664234.stm

Dubya's response
http://news.inq7.net/world/index.php?index=1&story_id=11719

But the president pointedly noted the unanimous passage in November 2002 of UN Security Council resolution 1441, which warned Saddam he faced "serious consequences" if he were found to be seeking weapons of mass destruction.

Resolution 1441

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

The way I read that, it would be "serious consequences", as yet to be determined by the UN from various previous 'warnings'. Not to be decided unilaterally by the US when the president gets a chubby for dropping bombs and launching missiles. No "serious consequences" were decided, only recalled/reminded.

In other words, the US violated the charter. Only a fool (or the administration) would think otherwise.

Then the US went in and now at least 12,778 civilians are dead because of our actions, and Military casualties go from 4,895 to 124,000, because the DOD refuses to provide official assessments for a body count. If you think the lower counts of military dead are more accurate, then our forces have definitely killed more civilians than military. I'll go with Tommy Franks' estimate of 30,000 military, even though he says "We don't do body counts." Just to give them the benefit of the doubt, hoping we really didn't slaughter more civilians than military.

 

[materia3]

If you take a look at the will of the people, not the governments, you´ll see that, except in the US and maybe Kuwait and Israel, the majority of the people (I´m talking about 70-90 percent in most cases) were against the war in Iraq because the Bush administration had NOT shown it to be necessary.

Iran and the people of Kurdistan enjoyed it also, probably a lot more than any average American or Israeli on the street.

 

[evildave]

Come to think of it, a lot of other people must 'hate' Bush, too. The Red Cross, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch all have negative stories about American Conduct in our latest series of wars.

I don't know, but when such organizations take time to 'hate' you, or at least deplore your actions, the odds favor that you're doing wrong.

The International Red Cross

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng.../$File/George+Aldrich_3_final.pdf?OpenElement
The Taliban, al Qaeda, and the Determination of Illegal Combatants

I find it quite difficult to understand the reasons for President
Bush’s decision that all Taliban soldiers lack entitlement to
POW status. The White House Press Secretary gave the fol-lowing,
cryptic explanation of that decision:
“Under Article 4 of the Geneva Convention, however, Taliban
detainees are not entitled to POW status. To qualify as POWs
under Article 4, al Qaeda and Taliban detainees would have
to have satisfied four conditions: they would have to be part
of a military hierarchy; they would have to have worn uni-forms
or other distinctive signs visible at a distance; they
would have to have carried arms openly; and they would
have to have conducted their military operations in accord-ance
with the laws and customs of war. The Taliban have
not effectively distinguished themselves from the civilian
population of Afghanistan. Moreover, they have not con-ducted
their operations in accordance with the laws and
customs of war. Instead, they have knowingly adopted and
provided support to the unlawful terrorist objectives of the al
Qaeda.”6

Without a doubt the most difficult element to defend of the
decisions made by President Bush in February with respect
to the status of prisoners taken in Afghanistan is the blanket,
all-encompassing nature of the decision to deny POW sta-tus
to the Taliban prisoners. By one, sweeping determina-tion,
President Bush determined that not a single Taliban
soldier, presumably not even the army commander, could
qualify for POW status under the Geneva Convention.
While decisions by armed forces in the past doubtless
included some decisions about army units or other groups
as a whole, one cannot help but question the all-encom-passing
nature of this one. Can it possibly exclude any
doubt? Moreover, can it legitimately preclude any contest
by an individual prisoner?

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList124/42BCD4D3BEB459ABC1256E51003EAF49
"War" doesn't justify Guantanamo

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng...ocument&style=Custo_Final.3&View=defaultBody3
Prisoner Interviews


Amnesty International[/b[

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engmde140172004
Iraq: Torture not isolated -- independent investigations vital

"The latest evidence of torture and ill-treatment emerging from Abu Ghraib prison will exacerbate an already fragile situation. The prison was notorious under Saddam Hussein -- it should not be allowed to become so again. Iraq has lived under the shadow of torture for far too long. The Coalition leadership must send a clear signal that torture will not be tolerated under any circumstances and that the Iraqi people can now live free of such brutal and degrading practices," Amnesty International said.

"There must be a fully independent, impartial and public investigation into all allegations of torture. Nothing less will suffice. If Iraq is to have a sustainable and peaceful future, human rights must be a central component of the way forward. The message must be sent loud and clear that those who abuse human rights will be held accountable.

http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGMDE140472004
Iraq: Urgent inquiry needed into civilian killings by US troops

"There are worrying reports about the mounting casualties amongst civilians who find themselves caught in the battle between American troops and insurgents," said Abdel Salam Sidahmed, Director of the Middle East and North Africa Program in Amnesty International. "It is time to ask questions about whether these casualties could have been avoided, and whether needless deaths could be prevented in the future."

Human Rights Watch
A lovely detailed summary on the torture scandal. It seems HRW agrees with me. They must REALLY 'hate' Bush.
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2004/usa0604/

 

[merphie]

The UN never thought the present war was justifiable.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=421&sID=7
10 March, 2003 (A week before the war)

Now he says it ouright: It was illegal.

Of course he says it's illegal. Just in time for November.

They also said

War must always be a last resort - arrived at only if and when every reasonable avenue of achieving Iraq's disarmament by peaceful means has been exhausted. The United Nations - founded to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war - has a duty to search till the very end for the peaceful resolution of conflicts.

I think that 10 years of sanctions was a last resort.

Dubya's response

The way I read that, it would be "serious consequences", as yet to be determined by the UN from various previous 'warnings'. Not to be decided unilaterally by the US when the president gets a chubby for dropping bombs and launching missiles. No "serious consequences" were decided, only recalled/reminded.

In other words, the US violated the charter. Only a fool (or the administration) would think otherwise.

So what is serious consequences? More sanctions? More idle threats? There was no clear definition of what "serious Consequences" was. However I think the resolution passed by congress and approved by Lurch cleary shows the intent.

“...the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself"

Then the US went in and now at least 12,778 civilians are dead because of our actions, and Military casualties go from 4,895 to 124,000, because the DOD refuses to provide official assessments for a body count. If you think the lower counts of military dead are more accurate, then our forces have definitely killed more civilians than military. I'll go with Tommy Franks' estimate of 30,000 military, even though he says "We don't do body counts." Just to give them the benefit of the doubt, hoping we really didn't slaughter more civilians than military.

Give me one war were civilians were not killed. It is a tragic but it is an unavoidable consequence of war. How many of those civilians were actually combatants? They are conducting a guerilla war and the civilians may not be obvious.

What about the years of military sanctions? How many did that shove in the grave? What about Saddam? How many people did he bury? Lets clear this matter up.

"Any doubts on this score were cleared up by James Rubin, Kerry’s chief national security adviser and State Department press spokesman during the Clinton administration. For years, Rubin defended economic sanctions that have been blamed for the deaths of half a million Iraqi children, and justified repeated air strikes on the devastated county. Last Saturday, he told the Washington Post that had Kerry been president, “in all probability” he would have ordered an invasion of Iraq by now."
Source

What is this? Could this be a flip-flop by Lurch? What is also suprising is that the constitution is very clear that only congress can declare war. With the resolution that they passed, Lurch and every other senator who voted for it gave the president the authority to do what ever he wanted. That was clear. No, what ifs. That is fact. If they were concerned what he might do with such authority they should have never given it.

Don't kid yourself. Lurch has completely flip flopped on this and now complains on how the war is being done. He sayd he would actually send more troups in. You should keep up with your party's propaganda.

 

[merphie]

Come to think of it, a lot of other people must 'hate' Bush, too. The Red Cross, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch all have negative stories about American Conduct in our latest series of wars.

I don't know, but when such organizations take time to 'hate' you, or at least deplore your actions, the odds favor that you're doing wrong.

The International Red Cross

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng.../$File/George+Aldrich_3_final.pdf?OpenElement
The Taliban, al Qaeda, and the Determination of Illegal Combatants

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList124/42BCD4D3BEB459ABC1256E51003EAF49
"War" doesn't justify Guantanamo

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng...ocument&style=Custo_Final.3&View=defaultBody3
Prisoner Interviews

Amnesty International[/b[

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engmde140172004
Iraq: Torture not isolated -- independent investigations vital

http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGMDE140472004
Iraq: Urgent inquiry needed into civilian killings by US troops

Human Rights Watch
A lovely detailed summary on the torture scandal. It seems HRW agrees with me. They must REALLY 'hate' Bush.
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2004/usa0604/

What is your point?

Even Bush said that the people didn't qualify but they should be treated as if they were. Where do you see hate? It looked like "concerned". YOUR hatred has clouded the issue. Bush did not condone the torture and even condemned it. Furthermore, the people who did these crimes are being delt with.

I don't think their actions were needed in most of the cases, but I won't discount interrogation. That is an absolute need.

 

[fishbob]

Give me one war were civilians were not killed. It is a tragic but it is an unavoidable consequence of war. How many of those civilians were actually combatants? They are conducting a guerilla war and the civilians may not be obvious.

So, it is OK to kill civilians because there is a possibility that they might secretly not be civilians. BS.

BS. BS. BS.

Read what you wrote. Think about what the world would be like if what you are proposing were adopted by civilized nations.

 

[merphie]

So, it is OK to kill civilians because there is a possibility that they might secretly not be civilians. BS.

BS. BS. BS.

Read what you wrote. Think about what the world would be like if what you are proposing were adopted by civilized nations.

No you read what I wrote.

Give me one war were civilians were not killed. It is a tragic but it is an unavoidable consequence of war. How many of those civilians were actually combatants? They are conducting a guerilla war and the civilians may not be obvious.

Where did I say it was ok?

 

[fishbob]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
09-17-2004 05:49 AM
Bush didn't lie about anything.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
09-17-2004 09:24 AM
I never said Bush didn't lie about anything.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Give me one war were civilians were not killed. It is a tragic but it is an unavoidable consequence of war.

Right there, above the little gray line. You are OK with the war, war gets civilians killed. Therefore, one can conclude from your statements that you don't mind civilian casualties. And hey, maybe some of the dead ones were bad people, so that must be even better.

Although your previous statements make my brain hurt. Mabye I should not try to conclude anything about your position.

 

[Tesserat]

If I depended on the Media for everything I would have a drastically different view of the world.

Where do you find your information? How do you keep up with current affairs?

 

[merphie]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
09-17-2004 05:49 AM
Bush didn't lie about anything.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
09-17-2004 09:24 AM
I never said Bush didn't lie about anything.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Right there, above the little gray line. You are OK with the war, war gets civilians killed. Therefore, one can conclude from your statements that you don't mind civilian casualties. And hey, maybe some of the dead ones were bad people, so that must be even better.

Although your previous statements make my brain hurt. Mabye I should not try to conclude anything about your position.

I will overlook the fact that all of the comments are out of context. You assume all you want to. This is nothing more than a personal attack.

 

[merphie]

Where do you find your information? How do you keep up with current affairs?

I generally watch the local news, read CNN.COM, Read MSNBC.COM, and I have a subscription to Newsweek, Scientific American, Discovery, and Skeptical Inquirer. I also watch the History Channel and the Discovery channels. Sometimes I research things online to get more depth.

To explain more of my comment ealier: There was almost all negative stories on when I watched the local news this morning. Almost all of the positive stories were related to sports. There was one story talking about the destruction the hurricane caused recently (Negative) and then a short spot telling that Oklahoma is sending supplies and volunteers to help (positive).

Watching the news alone, I would get a very negative impression of events around me.

 

[evildave]

The press LOVES Targetting civilians and civilian installations in Iraq:
http://www.fair.org/activism/iraqi-tv.html

Bush Team Knew of Abuse
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1303106,00.html

Evidence of prisoner abuse and possible war crimes at Guantánamo Bay reached the highest levels of the Bush administration as early as autumn 2002, but Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, chose to do nothing about it, according to a new investigation published exclusively in the Guardian today.

Ms Rice saw the document by autumn of the same year, and called a high-level meeting at which she asked Mr Rumsfeld, to deal with the problem.

But after he vowed to act, "the Pentagon went into a full-court stall", a former White House official is quoted as saying. "Why didn't Condi do more? She made the same mistake I made. She got the secretary of defence to say he's going to take care of it."

The investigation further suggests that CIA and FBI staff had already witnessed incidents at Guantánamo just as extreme as those that would subsequently be alleged by freed inmates.

A senior intelligence official told Hersh: "I was told [by FBI agents] that the military guards were slapping prisoners, stripping them, pouring cold water over them and making them stand until they got hypothermia."

Prison scandal is outsourcing gone wrong
http://www.registerguard.com/news/2004/09/19/b1.ed.col.iraqcontracts.0919.html

Moreover, while two U.S. Army reports issued last month explored the question of military command responsibility, no one has demanded accountability from the corporate chain of command that played an incontrovertible part in the abuses at Abu Ghraib. Members of the 372nd Military Police Company are facing prosecution for dereliction of duty and the mistreatment of prisoners, but none of the contractors implicated in similar offenses have yet faced that sort of scrutiny.

Sixteen of the 44 incidents of abuse the Army's latest reports say happened at Abu Ghraib involved private contractors outside the domain of both the U.S. military and the U.S. government. Army investigators have reported that six employees of private contractors were involved in incidents of abuse, but potentially more may have been involved in other crimes in Iraq and elsewhere.

A fun one
http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/nav_includes/story.cfm?storyID=94530

In an angry rebuttal, Erwa said the U.S. Congress of believing "it is the only conscience of the world, and indeed that they have the divine right to decide on the destinies of peoples."

But, he added, millions of people see "the shortcomings and the faults" of the United States including the killings of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq and the infliction of "torture on prisoners and innocent people in prisons in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo."

 

[merphie]

The press LOVES Targetting civilians and civilian installations in Iraq:
http://www.fair.org/activism/iraqi-tv.html

Nothing new here. Your one sided opinion. It also says they can be attacked if they have military value. The US military has been doing this for a while. Including where they bombed the Serbia TV station during the glory Clinton Years.

Bush Team Knew of Abuse
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1303106,00.html

I couldn't access this link, but I found the store somewhere else. Your posted out of context sentences that support your view.

In a statement, the Pentagon said Hersh's investigation "apparently contains many of the numerous unsubstantiated allegations and inaccuracies which he has made in the past based upon unnamed sources ... Thus far ... investigations have determined that no responsible official of the Department of Defence approved any programme that could conceivably have authorised or condoned the abuses seen at Abu Ghraib. If any of Mr Hersh's anonymous sources wish to come forward and offer evidence to the contrary, the department welcomes them to do so."

Prison scandal is outsourcing gone wrong
http://www.registerguard.com/news/2004/09/19/b1.ed.col.iraqcontracts.0919.html

Couldn't access this one either. What is your point?

A fun one
http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/nav_includes/story.cfm?storyID=94530

This link actually worked. You quoted completely out of context. This story has to do with the security council trying to figure out what needs to be done about the killings in the Sudan. The quote was from a Sudan representative because he didn't like the resolution.

A resolution passed by 11 members of the security council. He only targeted the USA in his comments.

 

[evildave]

All the links work when I click on them. Perhaps they're blocked on your end?

 

[evildave]

Republicans Criticize Bush 'Mistakes' on Iraq
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6273279

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Leading members of President Bush's Republican Party on Sunday criticized mistakes and "incompetence" in his Iraq policy and called for an urgent ground offensive to retake insurgent sanctuaries.

In appearances on news talk shows, Republican senators also urged Bush to be more open with the American public after the disclosure of a classified CIA report that gave a gloomy outlook for Iraq and raised the possibility of civil war.

"The fact is, we're in deep trouble in Iraq ... and I think we're going to have to look at some recalibration of policy," Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

It ain't just "the left" who are criticizing.

 

[Mycroft]

Republicans Criticize Bush 'Mistakes' on Iraq
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6273279


It ain't just "the left" who are criticizing.

Do you support these criticisms?

 

[merphie]

All the links work when I click on them. Perhaps they're blocked on your end?

I don't think so. I've looked at stories in the past. Maybe it's something with Cox? It's not my computer.

 

[evildave]

Do you support these criticisms?

Sure, why not?

Once you start a war, you FINISH IT. You don't take a break for re-election and campaigning, and leave it simmering on the back-burner consuming lives to keep it out of sight of the voters.

When the Bush administration started the war, they accepted responsibility for the war, or at least SHOULD HAVE. They can't claim the "good things" without taking responsibility for the "bad things". You don't get to brush aside the little things like casualties (on both sides), disasters like the 'insurgency' (or to but a less delicate name on it, FLOOD OF TERRORISTS) it spawned. When your own side tortures people and violates human rights, you don't get a free pass for that, either.

Except from the sort of people who'd give him positive marks for stomping puppy heads. "Hey, look at the way the brains popped on that one! Good job Mr. President!"

 

[evildave]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak20.html
Quick exit from Iraq is likely

Inside the Bush administration policymaking apparatus, there is strong feeling that U.S. troops must leave Iraq next year. This determination is not predicated on success in implanting Iraqi democracy and internal stability. Rather, the officials are saying: Ready or not, here we go.

This prospective policy is based on Iraq's national elections in late January, but not predicated on ending the insurgency or reaching a national political settlement. Getting out of Iraq would end the neoconservative dream of building democracy in the Arab world. The United States would be content having saved the world from Saddam Hussein's quest for weapons of mass destruction.

Oh, look! Dubya might just pull out of Iraq, too.
"Hey, we bombed your cities, slaughtered your people and opened the flood gates for terrorism into your nation, and gutted your military and police forces, and left just about everything broken. Good bye! Don't worry, we'll come back and bomb you some more if we don't like the way things are going!"

 

[Mycroft]

Sure, why not?

Once you start a war, you FINISH IT. You don't take a break for re-election and campaigning, and leave it simmering on the back-burner consuming lives to keep it out of sight of the voters.

Hey, you and I agree on something.

Which candidate do you think is more likely to do that? I also wonder at Bush's commitment to Iraq, but would Kerry do better?