War crimes by US troops

[PunkMaister]

This just as vague as it can get. Anyone is a threat to anyone. For example, Saudi Arabia's leaders have used their wealth at great lengths to promote Islam currents under any form over the whole region. Yet the Saudi are not exactly enemies of the US, on the contrary (safe when ties are just too obvious, then princes mysteriously drop like flies).

Yes that is where it all gets dicey and turns to shit! You see Saudi Arabia and the Oil barons of the world to whom Bush first and foremost answered too had/have a a mutually beneficial relationship. The Saudis sold them Oil as cheaply as possible and in return the US government would look the other way and find scapegoats instead. But off course even that went sour latter on when the Saudis decided to spike the prices of oil to the unimaginable heights bringing the whole planet's economy literally to a screeching halt. But even then the Oil barons did not complain since they too got rich and enormously so in the process. By the time all the smokle clears the Sauid and Oil baron thugs got away with their loot and left not just the US but the whole world economy mangled beyond repair.

That's a nice little story you can tell to kids before going to bed, but Saddam could not have serious intentions to threaten neighbours, even less the USA. He didn't have the resources and it's been abundantly clear now that the whole WMD menace was absolute total bull.

Not directly but he could have made deals with terrorists and so on and equip them. And in regards to the WMDs they did exist that is undeniable as is the fact that we will never know where the damn things ended up althougb given Bush's stumbling around they probably ended where nobody wanted them in the first place. In the hands of terrorists themselves or countries that openly support them such as Siria for example.

Besides, the people Hussein was said to kill in the north, although we could surely complain about the methods, were also largely trouble makers financed and armed by foreign powers. It's been the case in the 70s with Kurds armed by Iran.
And when you think that Hussein's regime was laic.

Surely we could complain? He used gas to kill women/children the works and deliberately so! Could complain geesh!

[Feldercarb]

Not directly but he could have made deals with terrorists and so on and equip them. And in regards to the WMDs they did exist that is undeniable as is the fact that we will never know where the damn things ended up although given Bush's stumbling around they probably ended where nobody wanted them in the first place. In the hands of terrorists themselves or countries that openly support them such as Syria for example.

So if you can't find them then how do you know they exist?

[PunkMaister]

Not directly but he could have made deals with terrorists and so on and equip them. And in regards to the WMDs they did exist that is undeniable as is the fact that we will never know where the damn things ended up although given Bush's stumbling around they probably ended where nobody wanted them in the first place. In the hands of terrorists themselves or countries that openly support them such as Syria for example.

So if you can't find them then how do you know they exist?

Because he did not gas the Kurds with Butter cream genius! They could not find them because they had already been moved/sold to to 3rd parties. But Saddam would never confide that he did not had them either and much less that he had sold then away.

[Feldercarb]

Because he did not gas the Kurds with Butter cream genius! They could not find them because they had already been moved/sold to to 3rd parties. But Saddam would never confide that he did not had them either and much less that he had sold then away.

You don't say? Except that you apparently missed the bit where his arsenal was dismantled after the war. And that the inspectors couldn't find anything...

[Jedi Master Spock]

After 9/11 the US began to pursue a policy of preemptive strikes against whoever might be a threat or a potential threat with that kind of a policy in place war with Iraq became all but inevitable.

The war against the Taliban was viewed as a direct reaction to the WTC/Pentagon attacks, not a pre-emptive strike. The doctrine was that since the Taliban sheltered Al-Qaeda and did not prosecute them, that it was the responsibility of the US to do so itself to bring the criminals to justice.

The invasion of Iraq marked the start of a new doctrine, that of pre-emptive strikes. While some past actions by the US military could be considered pre-emptive, this was the first time a war was billed as such to the public in advance.

[PunkMaister]

Because he did not gas the Kurds with Butter cream genius! They could not find them because they had already been moved/sold to to 3rd parties. But Saddam would never confide that he did not had them either and much less that he had sold then away.

You don't say? Except that you apparently missed the bit where his arsenal was dismantled after the war. And that the inspectors couldn't find anything...

Correction the inspectors were kicked out and after the war ended when inspectors came back then they found nothing. Up to the time the inspectors were kicked out by Saddam he played a game of hide and seek with his arsenal then kicked them out then sold the damn stuff to terrorists most likely but never admited to any of it. The US goes to war against him and off course since the material is already on someone else's hand is al gone by then, end of story.

[Feldercarb]

Correction the inspectors were kicked out and after the war ended when inspectors came back then they found nothing. Up to the time the inspectors were kicked out by Saddam he played a game of hide and seek with his arsenal then kicked them out then sold the damn stuff to terrorists most likely but never admited to any of it. The US goes to war against him and off course since the material is already on someone else's hand is al gone by then, end of story.

Lets see you prove this then, those are extraordinary claims and I for one would like to see some evidence.

[Mr. Oragahn]

From a global point of view, however, both look quite similar. American troops are sent in to a small country (25 million people or so), defense contractors and other corporate interests get rich, and lots of the natives of that country die as the US attempts to impose a political structure and control the smaller country against the will of its own populace. To Mr. Oragahn, all the talk about this or that ideology is just that - talk, with little relation to the real meanings or motives.

What do you mean?
The patterns, a few details aside, are terribly similar. And when we get to the start, they even both share doctored evidence as a reason to wage war.
There are differences on how the US achieved parts of their political implantation programme, which seems to have gone farther in Iraq.

What I tried with Punk is shaking him. There's a point when if with all tools at hand's reach, one is not doing what's necessary to get a better view of the affair, then an electro-shock is needed.
I don't even have any particular pleasure doing so. But if in the long term, it can turn useful, then it's good for me.

[Mr. Oragahn]

If you think a country has WMD you don't announce to the world you'll attack it and then hold a public countdown to the attack.
You make preparations in secret and when you strike you do so without warning. The WMD excuse was always a flimsy one at best.

How would you accomplish such a thing? It would be virtually impossible for the US to mass troops on the border of Iraq without people noticing. Just the increased volume in flights out of the major airbases would tip people off as would the sudden absence of the troops from local bases.

The adventure in Iraq was asinine beyond belief but it wouldn't be feasible to hide the invasion force. Now the countdown and posturing that occurred before the invasion, that was indeed stupid.

But you can bring troops and units in a nearby zone for other reasons, which could be equally made up, although there were not many "opportunities" due to Iraq's location.
Still, the public would have possibly seen very little to a slight increase of the embargo, with more resources brought into Saudi Arabia.
But globally, I agree, the influx of military forces would have been just too big. Even the UN molasses would have raised an eyebrow.

[Who is like God arbour]

Originally, I didn't want to participate in that debate.

But I have to interject, that, if the USA would indeed have believed, that Iraq has WMD's, they wouldn't have attacked with conventional means.

Their first strike would have to be surprising and so hard, that Iraq wouldn't be able to use the assumed WMDs.

That'd only be possible with long-range bombers and accordingly big bombs or rockets.

But you would not send your troops, if you think, that the enemy has WMDs.

[PunkMaister]

Correction the inspectors were kicked out and after the war ended when inspectors came back then they found nothing. Up to the time the inspectors were kicked out by Saddam he played a game of hide and seek with his arsenal then kicked them out then sold the damn stuff to terrorists most likely but never admited to any of it. The US goes to war against him and off course since the material is already on someone else's hand is al gone by then, end of story.

Lets see you prove this then, those are extraordinary claims and I for one would like to see some evidence.

Oh so they were not kicked out bty Saddam in the 1990's talk about a twisted an untrue view of history you have

Here's the real deal:
Why U.N. inspectors left Iraq--then and now

But off course given your track record actual history does not matter to you anything that you do know to be true you choose to ignore because is inconvenient and that which you don't know you invent. So frankly is waste of time to even bother with the likes of you...

[Feldercarb]

Oh so they were not kicked out bty Saddam in the 1990's talk about a twisted an untrue view of history you have

Here's the real deal:
Why U.N. inspectors left Iraq--then and now

I think that you can do a little better then an article with a bunch of quotes in it. At least be bothered to find an article from a reputable news source.

But off course given your track record actual history does not matter to you anything that you do know to be true you choose to ignore because is inconvenient and that which you don't know you invent. So frankly is waste of time to even bother with the likes of you...

I'd love to respond but your post makes about as much sense as a monkey at a typewriter.

[PunkMaister]

I think that you can do a little better then an article with a bunch of quotes in it. At least be bothered to find an article from a reputable news source.

This is taken from Wiki itself:

In August 1991 Iraq had declared to the UNSCOM biological inspection team that it did indeed have a biological weapons program but that it was for defensive purposes.[39] Iraq then provided its first biological weapons declaration shortly after. After UNSCOM determined such declarations to be incomplete, more pressure was placed on Iraq to declare fully and completely.[39] A second disclosure of the biological weapons came in March 1995 however after UNSCOM's investigations and the discovery of inreffutable evidence, Iraq was now forced to admit for the fist time the existence of an offensive biological weapons program.[39] But Iraq still denied weaponization. Further UNSCOM pressure resulted in a third prohibited biological weapons disclosure from Iraq in August 1995. Only after General Hussein Kamel, Minister of Industry and Minerals and former Director of Iraq's Military Industrialization Corporation, with responsibility for all of Iraq's weapons programs, fled Iraq for Jordan, Iraq was forced to reveal that its biological warfare program was much more extensive than was previously admitted and that the program included weaponization.[39] At this time Iraq admitted that it had achieved the ability to produce longer-range missiles than had previously been admitted to.[39] At this point Iraq provides UNSCOM and IAEA with more documentation that turns out Hussein Kamel had hidden on chicken farm. These documents gave futher revelation to Iraq’s development of VX gas and its attempts to develop and nuclear weapon.[39] More declarations would follow in June 1996 and September 1997. However, in April and July 1998, the biological weapons team and UNSCOM Executive Chairman assessed that Iraq’s declarations were as of yet “unverifiable” and “incomplete and inadequate”, seven years after the first declarations were given in 1991.[39]

In August 1998, Ritter resigned his position as UN weapons inspector and sharply criticized the Clinton administration and the U.N. Security Council for not being vigorous enough about insisting that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction be destroyed. Ritter also accused U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan of assisting Iraqi efforts at impeding UNSCOM's work. "Iraq is not disarming", Ritter said on August 27, 1998, and in a second statement, "Iraq retains the capability to launch a chemical strike." In 1998 the UNSCOM weapons inspectors were withdrawn from Iraq. They were not expelled from the country by Iraq as has often been reported (and as George W. Bush alleged in his "axis of evil" speech). Rather, according to Butler himself in his book Saddam Defiant, it was U.S. Ambassador Peter Burleigh, acting on instructions from Washington, who suggested Butler pull his team from Iraq in order to protect them from the forthcoming U.S. and British airstrikes which eventually took place from December December 16-19 1998.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_w ... estruction

I'd love to respond but your post makes about as much sense as a monkey at a typewriter.

Only to you MORON as it is actually a quote from the Show Babylon 5 in which Delenn confronts a group of leftards bashing the Alliance and the memory of her beloved husband John Sheridan. In a nutshell it perfectly describes your Ilk...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PA-omGPUwBE

[Praeothmin]

Correction the inspectors were kicked out and after the war ended when inspectors came back then they found nothing.

Correction, they never were:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1123
I find it funny that you accuse others of "anything that you do know to be true you choose to ignore because is inconvenient and that which you don't know you invent", and yet you appear to do the very same thing.

It even says in the very Wiki article you linked to that the inspectors weren't kicked out by Hussein, yet it seems you didn't even make the effort of reading the article itself.

Please, before you make further accusations, take the time to read what you or other people link, it will save you further embarrassment...

[PunkMaister]

Correction the inspectors were kicked out and after the war ended when inspectors came back then they found nothing.

Correction, they never were:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1123
I find it funny that you accuse others of "anything that you do know to be true you choose to ignore because is inconvenient and that which you don't know you invent", and yet you appear to do the very same thing.

It even says in the very Wiki article you linked to that the inspectors weren't kicked out by Hussein, yet it seems you didn't even make the effort of reading the article itself.

Please, before you make further accusations, take the time to read what you or other people link, it will save you further embarrassment...

Oh I am not embarrased at all because if anything is a small oversight take a look at the article again and I quote

They were not expelled from the country by Iraq as has often been reported (and as George W. Bush alleged in his "axis of evil" speech). Rather, according to Butler himself in his book Saddam Defiant, it was U.S. Ambassador Peter Burleigh, acting on instructions from Washington, who suggested Butler pull his team from Iraq in order to protect them from the forthcoming U.S. and British airstrikes which eventually took place from December December 16-19 1998.

So sorry this small oversight changes nothing you have claimed that the inspectors never found any weapons ever and that they were all confirmed as destroyed long before the war and so on and all of it lies as the evidence in the article clearly shows. I made an oversight and can accept I did you on the other hand cannot accept any facts because you find them inconvenient so you choose to ignore them instead and on top of that you invent actually invent history right out of your arse...