Ahmadinejad and Ground Zero
It was reported earlier today that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has asked permission to visit Ground Zero on his upcoming trip to New York. Apparently he wants to lay a wreath at the site.
Right-wingers reacted to this news by, predictably, completely flipping out. It was as if Osama bin Laden himself was about to take a dump on the 9/11 memorial. Charles Johnson wrote:
At Hot Air, Allahpundit writes:
Moreover, don't we want Muslim leaders to acknowledge the tragedy of 9/11? Doesn't that help us? Whatever we think about Ahmadinejad, wouldn't it be constructive to have a prominent Middle Eastern head of state, particularly one that is hostile to America, publicly acknowledge the horribleness of what happened on 9/11? We are, after all, supposedly engaged in a battle of ideas.
But this is all too complicated for today's Republican party. Apparently all that matters is that Ahmadinejad is an "Islamofascist" and therefore it is imperative that he not be allowed anywhere near Ground Zero.
It didn't take long for Rudy Giuliani to chime in:
Not to be outdone, Mitt Romney had this to say:
Apparently the NYPD has turned down Ahmadinejad's request for "security reasons," but he may still be able to go under Secret Service escort. I wonder which of the Republican presidential candidates will try to physically confront him if he does. I can just picture Rudy or Romney standing in Ahmadinejad's path like Gandolph and shouting "You shall not pass!"
UPDATE: Here's Hillary:
Right-wingers reacted to this news by, predictably, completely flipping out. It was as if Osama bin Laden himself was about to take a dump on the 9/11 memorial. Charles Johnson wrote:
There could be no greater disrespect toward the people who lost their lives in the collapse of the World Trade Center than to let this thuggish Islamofascist defile their memory.Actually I can think of a lot of things that would show greater disrespect than allowing the head of state of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 to lay a wreath at the site.
At Hot Air, Allahpundit writes:
If it happens, if this Holocaust-denying terrorist filthbag is allowed to use the remains of the Trade Center for a photo op, the rage on the right will burn so white hot that even the anti-amnesty activism this summer will pale by comparison.Ooooh. He adds:
Not to go all nutrootsy here, but there are one or two influential people who allegedly read this site so let me issue a formal warning to them on behalf of myself and, I suspect, most of our readers: if Bush and Rice let him go down there, especially in the wake of Petraeus and Crocker reporting the threat Iran poses to American soldiers in Iraq, you have no idea how grave the political fallout will be.Good lord. Look, I realize Ahmadinejad is not a good guy and has said some scary things, but let's get a grip. It's not as if Ahmadinejad or Iran had anything to do with 9/11. He's a Shiite Persian. Bin Laden is a Sunni Arab. They're not allies. Never have been. They don't even have similar goals or aims.
Moreover, don't we want Muslim leaders to acknowledge the tragedy of 9/11? Doesn't that help us? Whatever we think about Ahmadinejad, wouldn't it be constructive to have a prominent Middle Eastern head of state, particularly one that is hostile to America, publicly acknowledge the horribleness of what happened on 9/11? We are, after all, supposedly engaged in a battle of ideas.
But this is all too complicated for today's Republican party. Apparently all that matters is that Ahmadinejad is an "Islamofascist" and therefore it is imperative that he not be allowed anywhere near Ground Zero.
It didn't take long for Rudy Giuliani to chime in:
Assisting Ahmadinejad in touring Ground Zero – hallowed ground for all Americans – is outrageous.Why? Is the ground so hallowed that foreigners are not allowed near it? Whether his sentiment is sincere or not, the man wants to lay a wreath, for crying out loud, not defile the place. Again, isn't that a propoganda victory for us?
Not to be outdone, Mitt Romney had this to say:
Ahmadinejad's shockingly audacious request should be met with a vehement no. It's inconceivable that any consideration would be given to the idea of entertaining the leader of a state sponsor of terror at Ground Zero. This would deeply offend the sensibilities of Americans from all corners of our nation. Instead of entertaining Ahmadinejad, we should be indicting him.Indict a foreign head of state on a trip to visit the U.N. General Assembly? That would go over well. I can't imagine there'd be any fallout. Is this the kind of insanely stupid foreign policy we can look forward to under a Romney administration?
Apparently the NYPD has turned down Ahmadinejad's request for "security reasons," but he may still be able to go under Secret Service escort. I wonder which of the Republican presidential candidates will try to physically confront him if he does. I can just picture Rudy or Romney standing in Ahmadinejad's path like Gandolph and shouting "You shall not pass!"
UPDATE: Here's Hillary:
It is unacceptable for Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who refuses to renounce and end his own country’s support of terrorism, to visit the site of the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil in our nation’s history.I still think it would be a propoganda victory for us, but whatever. At least she doesn't sound like her head is seconds away from exploding. That's an improvement over Romney and Rudy.
54 Comments:
Perhaps we should consider the possibility that the blessed "Wreath of Peace" would be to honor what he has referred to as the "Magnificent Nineteen". Isn't this the man and the country who chant Death to America for the past 25 years every Friday and every other chance they get. He should be arrested for the Iranian dissident(s) he killed in Italy while part of the secret police.
"Moreover, don't we want Muslim leaders to acknowledge the tragedy of 9/11?"
On page four of his letter to President Bush, your buddy Ahmadinejad did "acknowledge the tragedy of 9/11". And right after this "acknowledgement" he showed that he is a 9/11 Truther when he accused Bush and the U.S. of being responsible for it.
Maybe one day, when you recognize your an American, you'll understand that Islamofascist terrorism isn't about going after one guy. You don't destroy the Mafia by taking out only John Gotti; you go for all of them at once. Vermin like Ahmadinejad, regardless of how they have perverted Islam and call themselves (no, I am not insulting Islam; I am saying Ahmadinejad, bin Laden, and others, are perverting Islam for their own ends) have been a scourge on the world for 30 years. Wake up!
"It's not as if Ahmadinejad or Iran had anything to do with 9/11. He's a Shiite Persian. Bin Laden is a Sunni Arab. They're not allies. Never have been. They don't even have similar goals or aims."
Uh-huh. Hitler hated Communism and Stalin. Stalin hated facism and Hitler. They both had different goals and aims. It didn't stop them from being allies for nearly two years after signing that non-aggression pact in August, 1939, did it? How do you know Ahmadinejad (and many in the Iranian government) aren't allies with bin Laden? Where is your proof, lawyer?
whoa nellie. the wingnuts are returning to capistrano.
Of course it would be better to grant him leave to visit ground zero. and while I'm not surprised at the republican response, I am very surprised at Clinton's. She's working her way to the bottom of my list of candidates. Check that--she's already there.
You also have no real concept of history if you think Iran has had no role in supporting Al Qaeda. CLUELESS.
It's also a tired old story that Sunnis and Shias don't work together. The Syrian regime is Baathist and Sunni, and Iran works withthem.
The Left really needs to read up on some Middle Eastern history before they continue to talk about this stuff.
Agreed, casual observer. Can't prove a negative (how do you know Iran had nothing to do with 9/11 or OBL?), so might as well ban the site for all who hail from the 'lands of the darkies.'
This is not America anymore. At least not with these nincompoops and those who froth and rage reflexively just because the Administration that has continually, purposefully lied to them state that 'Iran is behind the attacks on our troops.' Worldviews are hard to puncture. But I point you to the Russell quote at the top of AL's page.
I don't like Ahmadinejad anymore than the frothing, reflexive Right; but I also have the ability to recognize a gesture that has the potential to help smooth relations, and to help assuage our view by others in this little world. But no, 'off with his head, America hater!' Geesh.
huh. Hitler hated Communism and Stalin. Stalin hated facism and Hitler. They both had different goals and aims. It didn't stop them from being allies for nearly two years after signing that non-aggression pact in August, 1939, did it?
Yeah, and then we allied with Stalin to defeat Hitler. Remember that part? That analogy only proves my point. It's better to expose and exploit divisions between your enemies than lump them all together and pretend they're a bunch of undifferentiated "Islamofascists."
Perhaps we should consider the possibility that the blessed "Wreath of Peace" would be to honor what he has referred to as the "Magnificent Nineteen".
First of all, I'd like to see a primary source on the "Magnificent Nineteen" quote.
Second, if you're right and he uses his trip to Ground Zero to honor the terrorists (and thereby horribly insult the true victims and their families), isn't that exactly the sort of defining moment the Right wants? Wouldn't that serve to clarify how Evil Iran is and rally the country to support a more aggressive policy?
You also have no real concept of history if you think Iran has had no role in supporting Al Qaeda. CLUELESS.
Please cite your evidence. And no quoting Michael Ledeen, who thinks Iran is responsible for all of the worlds ills.
And define "support". If you take a long view of history, we actually "supported" the precursors to al Qaeda in Afghanistan when they were fighting the Soviets.
Maybe one day, when you recognize your an American, you'll understand that Islamofascist terrorism isn't about going after one guy.
One day, when you decide to stop willing yourself into mental retardation, you'll recognize that men like Ahmadinejad are the product of US policy.
"Yeah, and then we allied with Stalin to defeat Hitler. Remember that part?"
Yes, I do. And then we went against Stalin after the war. Do you remember that part? You've proven nothing. You also haven't proven how Ahmadinejad and bin Laden couldn't be allies.
One day, when you decide to stop willing yourself into mental retardation, you'll recognize that men like Ahmadinejad are the product of US policy.
Typical leftist anti-American drivel; always doing the easiest and worst things. In this case, blame America first. Get original.
You also haven't proven how Ahmadinejad and bin Laden couldn't be allies.
Is that how things work? It's my burden to show that they aren't allies? How about putting forward some evidence that they ARE allies? It would be pretty counterintuitive for them to be allied, so I think the burden is actually on those who insist that they are.
Is that how things work? It's my burden to show that they aren't allies? How about putting forward some evidence that they ARE allies? It would be pretty counterintuitive for them to be allied, so I think the burden is actually on those who insist that they are.
If you look at all of my comments, I never indicated that they were allies. I didn't even imply it. What I did say is that fighting Islamist terrorism can in no way be restricted to getting bin Laden and Al Qaeda, and needs to be extended to those governments providing support. I don't care if Ahmadinejad or bin Laden are allied or not. In your original post, however, you said the following:
They're not allies. Never have been. They don't even have similar goals or aims.
You said they weren't allies and never were. You were the one who made the statement. In your latest comment you think it would be "counterintuitive for them to be allied". Prove it.
Steveil,
Here's what I should have said to be completely accurate: I have never seen any evidence that Iran and al Qaeda are or ever were allies. And it would be strange if they were.
If you know of any evidence of this alliegence, please correct me (and please don't cite Michael Ledeen).
And again, my point is not that Iran is not a threat or that Ahmadinejad isn't a bad guy. It's that whatever threat he and Iran pose, it has nothing to do with the events of 9/11. So why not let him pay his respects, even if insincere, to the victims of that tragedy? Would that be a P.R. victory for us?
well, the tenor of discussion here in and of itself demonstrates why it's probably, all in all, a bad idea for Ahmadinejad to visit the site. All the ugly hissyfitting such a visit generated would denigrate the memory of the dead.
By that same token, the fact that Ahmadinejad would himself suggest such a thing - knowing full well the outrage it would stoke - just goes to show what I've always felt about him, which is that he is, at heart, a savvy populist politician from Persia. He says the things he says, and does the things he does, not necessarily because he's a rabid West-hating lunatic, but because such gestures and statements work for him politically. He questions the holocaust and talks about wiping Israel off the map for the same basic reason conservative republicans harp on about gay marriage and flag burning - to provoke his enemies, rouse his base, and distract people from his other political failings. That is to say, he wants to destroy Israel about as much as Karl Rove wants to overturn Roe v Wade.
Ahmadinejad should be approached accordingly - as an juvenile but still instictive politician more than willing to appeal to the worst and most base impulses of his natural constituency.
hm.
I think you're right brux. Plus, if he actually tries to go to Ground Zero, someone's going to get hurt or die as a result of the hysterical Michelle Malkin-led lynch mob that will be waiting for him.
When Bush's hand picked President Allawi was in power he promised restoration of diplomatic ties with Iran.Iran tacitly approved of the US war to remove the secular Ba'athist in Iraq, and Iran expressed its explicit blessing of the postwar transitional and government Iyad Allawi.Then Bush and company put al-Maliki in power he talked about objecting to any foriegn country interfering with its affairs but he resumed diplomatic and economic ties with Iran. All of this done with the oversight of the Bush administration and paid for with American tax dollars.
- After the Sep. 11 attacks, U.S. officials responsible for preparing for war in Afghanistan needed Iran's help to unseat the Taliban and establish a stable government in Kabul. Iran had organised resistance by the "Northern Alliance" and had provided arms and funding, at a time when the United States had been unwilling to do so.
"He says the things he says, and does the things he does, not necessarily because he's a rabid West-hating lunatic, but because such gestures and statements work for him politically." Agreed. In many ways he is just an Iranian version of a neocon, he knows what buttons to push.
A.L.,
Fair enough. I won't beat you up on this anymore. I don't know if bin Laden and Ahmadinejad are allies, and have no evidence to cite that this is the case (not even from Ledeen).
As I mentioned in my first comment, his presence in this country is offensive as he has not only delved into the realm of extreme Holocaust-denying anti-Semitism (and threatening genocide), he seems to have embraced 9/11 Trutherism. It's bad enough there are too many of these people in this country, I don't have to listen to some verminous terrorist-supporting "president" making a phony-baloney gesture. He can keep his PR where...well, you know.
I'll take another crack at it. It is in our best interest to allow him to visit the site. By forbidding him, we look like radical nutbags (or our leadership does...). By rejecting him, he can now go back, face the world and say "see? I tried. these folks are irrational, angry, and probably dangerous". and he will be correct. He's playing bush like a fiddle.
I'll take another crack at it. It is in our best interest to allow him to visit the site. By forbidding him, we look like radical nutbags (or our leadership does...).
To whom would we look like radical nutbags? The Iranian government? The Syrian government? Hezbollah? Hamas? What you seem to be saying is that Ahmadinejad can go back and have his government, and those of the governments and terrorist groups I mentioned, continue to propagandize against the U.S. in the same way they're already doing. As far as I'm concerned, the opinions of terrorists doesn't really matter now, does it? Tell me whom else would think of us as "radical nutbags".
steveil,
to anybody in the world who's paying attention, and needs a good laugh. it's just a wreath, steve. it's just a bunch of greenery woven together. it won't hurt you.
to anybody in the world who's paying attention, and needs a good laugh.
That's a great non-answer.
it's just a wreath, steve. it's just a bunch of greenery woven together. it won't hurt you.
Tell you what. Recently, a federal judge ruled that the Iranian government is required to pay $2.65 billion to the families of the Marines murdered by Hezbollah in 1983 (and supported by the current Iranian government then and now) in Beirut. If the green Ahmadinejad brings is the cash; and he personally apologizes to the children of those murdered by the terrorist scum his government supports with arms and money (Hezbollah); and the Iranian government completely dissolves its association with the terrorist scum in Hezbollah, along with the terrorist scum in Hamas, along with the terrorist scum in Sadr's terrorist gangs in Iraq; and drops the fatwa and personally apologizes to author Salman Rushdie; and he kisses the ass of George W. Bush; and he begs, on his knees, for the forgiveness of the American people for his government calling the United States the "Great Satan" and having a "Death to America" day for the last 30 years, I'll consider his coming here as acceptable.
steve, why are you so afraid of this guy? he puts his pants on one leg at a time, just like you and me. I don't understand where all this fear is coming from.
steveil, have you been watching Braveheart,recently? That last post reads vrey much like the speech that the film had William Wallace say to the English just prior to the Battle at Sterling. Said language being explicitly chosen the the Wallace character to end all negotiations and make open war the only possible remaining option.
If I were the leader of a foreign country and had a U.S. diplomat say that to me, I would conclude that there was nothing left for me to do but go home and start preparing for a direct attack by the U.S., probably all-out invasion. If I were the Iranian leader, I'd be also be seriously trying to figure out how to get a working atom-bomb before those attacks started.
useful idiot.
casual observer said:
steve, why are you so afraid of this guy? he puts his pants on one leg at a time, just like you and me. I don't understand where all this fear is coming from.
This isn't fear, this is a call for justice. Are you afraid of justice, and where is all this fear coming from?
David Hunt said:
steveil, have you been watching Braveheart,recently? That last post reads vrey much like the speech that the film had William Wallace say to the English just prior to the Battle at Sterling. Said language being explicitly chosen the the Wallace character to end all negotiations and make open war the only possible remaining option.
No, haven't watched Braveheart recently, but I have to admit I did purposely put what I said in my comment based on that speech in the movie.
Open war isn't a remaining option. Ahmadinejad can do exactly what I say, and there's no war. None, nada. I don't care if he would feel humiliated; I want to embarrass him into doing so. Remember, this guy leads a country whose policies include executing homosexuals for being homosexuals, executing underage female rape victims on charges of adultery, of truly putting political enemies in prison on trumped up charges (which Bush has never done, and never will), and of fomenting an anti-Semitic genocide against the people of Israel (and don't give any crap about him being anti-Zionist and not anti-Semitic; the great Martin Luther King, Jr. equated anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism). And Ahmadinejad is a supporter, and in same cases a perpetrator, of all these policies! How can anyone who calls himself a liberal want a filthy tyrant like Ahmadinejad to defile the memories of those lost on 9/11, those who were murdered by the same type of Islamofascist terrorists he supports, even if he isn't an ally of Al Qaeda?
I would bet that Ahmadinejad is possibly already preparing for an invasion, except he is going to have to convince people who hate him, the population of Iran, to fight for him and the mad mullahs. Considering how badly Ahmadinejad has treated the people of that country with his phony "populism" (price controls, rationing), he should worry about remaining alive in his own country. The other option is that he is bluffing and using bluster to try to cow the wimps in Europe and the UN (and the U.S.). Thankfully, the new French President, Sarkozy, seems to be able to see through that, unlike the coward Chirac, and has added his voice with that of Bush.
I personally don't care what he's doing. I wouldn't recommend (or support) an invasion of Iran. There are other methods (including the violence of airstrikes) to put the screws to Ahmadinejad and the mad mullahs. We've got time; Ahmadinejad is the one with all the lose-lose options. Unless he does what I say.
Do you know anything at all about the structure of Iran's government? You toss around "Ahmadinejad" and "the mad mullahs" while showing no understanding of how political decisions are made in the country.
I suppose it's easier to bloviate as if everyone you don't like is a dictator. It makes for simple (and disastrous) policy.
TexMex said...
useful idiot.
claro que si.
Do you know anything at all about the structure of Iran's government? You toss around "Ahmadinejad" and "the mad mullahs" while showing no understanding of how political decisions are made in the country.
Yes, I have a reasonable understanding how political decisions are made in Iran. During the last Iranian Presidential "election", Ahmadinejad was foisted on the Iranian people as their President by the "mad mullahs" who didn't want any possibility of a reformer getting into office. They disqualified a slew of candidates from which the people would choose from, leaving Ahmadinejad and Hashemi Rafsanjani (who is not buds with longtime Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Khamenei; Khamenei was the major push behind Ahmadinejad's "election"). Guess who won?
I also know that the Guardian Council, led by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, has the power to override any law passed by the Iranian parliament whenever they get a bug up their collective tuchus. These theocratic BS artists make our Supreme Court look downright judicial and responsible.
I also know that the Assembly of Experts, mullahs who actually get elected, choose new members that will go into the Guardian Council. Ahmadinejad's guy lost, a good thing.
I also know that the Iranian parliament is directly elected by the people, and that many democratic institutions occur at local levels of the government.
I stand by my words that Iran is a theocratic tyranny. Going through the various governmental institutions shows that I am right. I do get how decisions are made; how do you think Ahmadinejad got "elected"?
And by the way, do you think a leader of a nation, like Ahmadinejad, one who supports the policies of a bunch of old theocratic gasbags, especially policies that encourage the Iranian government to hang homosexuals for being homosexuals, do you think that is the definition of a responsible leader we should respect and trust and treat with dignity? And one who would actually dignify a gathering by laying a wreath, with all he stands for?
SteveiL, you say:
Tell you what. Recently, a federal judge ruled that the Iranian government is required to pay $2.65 billion to the families of the Marines murdered by Hezbollah in 1983 (and supported by the current Iranian government then and now) in Beirut. If the green Ahmadinejad brings is the cash; and he personally apologizes to the children of those murdered by the terrorist scum his government supports with arms and money....
Tell you what, you compensate the 1 million dead and the 4 million homeless for a gratuitous US-led war against the Iraqi people and we'll give you a credibility voucher (you get an extra one if you can explain Nicaragua).
Tell you what, you compensate the 1 million dead and the 4 million homeless for a gratuitous US-led war against the Iraqi people and we'll give you a credibility voucher (you get an extra one if you can explain Nicaragua).
Who do you think waged this war against the Iraqi people, the U.S.? Saddam Hussein waged a bloodier war against his own people for over two decades; and when he was gone, the terrorists began waging a war against the Iraqi people, not the U.S. And before you start throwing out numbers like "1 million dead", prove it. And don't come back with any stupid poll from some anti-American leftist hacks.
Who do you think waged this war against the Iraqi people, the U.S.? -- it certainly looks like it. Under the Geneva Convention and international law -- to which the US is a signatory -- occupying forces have an obligation to provide security for a civilian population. Failure to do so constitutes a war crime. There are 4 basic categories of war crimes by the coalition of the willing:
(1) The invasion of Iraq was illegal in terms of the UN Charter and the Hague Convention.
(2) The coalition refused to supply sufficient troops to ensure public safety as required by the Geneva Convention.
(3) They refused to ensure the safety and proper treatment of prisoners as required by the Geneva Convention.
(4) They refused to exercise control over the actions of mercenary forces acting on their behalf, as required by the Geneva Covention.
The relevant sections of the Geneva and Hague Conventions and the UN Charter are detailed and specific. There are many articles available online.
There were multiple public announcements prior to the Iraq invasion from specialists in International Law stating firmly that the invasion was illegal. Here is a sample only:
In Feb 2003 -- 43 Australian experts in international law and human rights legislation objected.
In March 2003 -- 31 Canadian professors of international law at 15 law faculties objected.
In Jan 2003 -- the International Commission of International Law Jurists (a body with UN Consultative status), provided an open letter to all members of the Security Council that bore the signatures of hundreds of senior jurists in support of the proposition that the Iraq war was illegal as a matter of international law.
The UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.
And what about Richard Perle? He's a right wing neocon, the hardest of the hardliners in the US, a supporter of the Bush administration. He's a big fan of using force to overthrow the governments of Iraq, Iran and Syria in order to install democracies sympathetic to the US. He's also a key member of the Defence Policy Board which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. Here's what he had to say in Dec 2003: “international law … would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone.”
Principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal (1950) are worth noting here.
People should really take note of Principal 3: "The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law."
Professor Donald Rothwell is the Challis Professor of International Law at Sydney University. He gave a detailed analysis on the legal obligations of the Coaltion and the USA as occupying powers in Iraq under the Geneva Convention. Quite aside from any question of the legality of the act of invasion of Iraq, his unequivocal view was that the US had a legal obligation to ensure the safety of civilians and prisoners as part an occupying force. According to Prof.Rothwell, any failure to carry out those duties constituted prosecutable war crimes.
Put simply, if you invade a country you are legally required to ensure sufficient troops for the safety of the citizens.
Advice from senior US military leaders to President Bush prior to the invasion was that he would need at least 400,000 troops to stabilize Iraq. That advice was ignored and he went there with 160,000. (link) More: 1 2 3
You say "Saddam Hussein waged a bloodier war against his own people for over two decades; and when he was gone, the terrorists began waging a war against the Iraqi people, not the U.S."
The "terrorists" as you refer to them have been relatively few in number and mostly Saudis, our supposed allies in this "war on terror". The rest is either sectarian conflict or just plain criminals for which the US bears legal responsibility anyway. As Colin Powell advised before the invasion, "you break...you own it". That's what international law says.
You also say:"And before you start throwing out numbers like "1 million dead", prove it. And don't come back with any stupid poll from some anti-American leftist hacks."
In 2003 UNICEF recorded that, as a result of US and UK economic sanctions against Iraq that had run for nearly ten years, the number of Iraqi children dying had risen from 50 to 133 for every 1000 live births. Since the population grew by about 500,000 every year this means that 40,000 children died every year as a direct result of those sanctions.
UN humanitarian representatives always said that Iraq authorities had not been withholding food or medicine from the people. They resigned in protest, describing the sanctions as genocidal.
Early in 2000 Ms Jutta Burghardt (head of the UN World Food Programme in Baghdad) and Hans von Sponeck (UN assistant secretary general and humanitarian coordinator in Iraq) resigned in protest over the Iraq economic sanctions. They were joining scores of other officials who had resigned over ten years in public protest of the sanctions that had, according to them, reduced Iraq to "a concentration camp of 17 million people". The people were starving and the bans on chlorine imports had seen water borne diseases finish off infants and the elderly. When it was over 1.7 million people were dead, 500,000 of them children.
The Iraqi economic sanctions can properly be described as a Holocaust.
In 1993 Health expert Dr. Salman Rawaf described Iraq as "…18.8 million people in a refugee camp.."
Other observers went further: "A concentration camp with a population of 18 million, one third of which are children – of whom at least 100,000 are now dead, not from war but from hunger." - That was in 1993!
Then, the Iraq population was 18 million with a birth rate of 34.6 for every 1000 of the population. This meant that approximately 630,000 infants were born that year.
Using UN statistics we can see that the under 5 mortality rate went from 50 per 1000 live births in 1990 to 125 in 2004 - directly attributable to the economic sanctions.
Some care is needed here on the statistics, but making reasonable, quite conservative assumptions we find the death rate increased by 5.4 per thousand every year and this provides us with an average annual death rate through the same period as 87.5 deaths per 1,000 for infants under five years.
That means, on an averaged basis over the years 1990 - 2004, for every 1,000 infants born, 37.5 more of them died directly as a result of the economic sanctions and the Iraq invasions than would have died otherwise.
Crunch the numbers for 1993. 630,000 infants were born that year. That's 37.5* 630 = 23,625. That's in 1993 alone!
Over 14 years, and using reasonable assumptions, 330,700 infants died who would otherwise have lived. These (conservative) figures are supported by UN Humanitarian officials on the ground who resigned in protest. Nor does it include the hundreds of thousands of elderly and disabled who died.
Finally, Sec.State Madeliene Albright was excoriated for claiming that 500,000 dead Iraqi children was a “small price to pay” for containing Saddam. She never disputed that figure. They died. Over a million people died. Get over your delusions!
...and while we're at it, let's have some compensation from the US for Falluja and the 1 million Iraqis dead as a result of the Western economic sanctions. Or does your definition of terrorism not extend to bombing from 30,000 feet or depriving children of clean drinking water so that they die of disease?
The Israelis bombed Gaza's main power plant last year (twice) depriving 700,000 civilians of sewerage pumping, clean drinking water, refigeration etc. 1.5 million Palestinians live, effectively, in a concentration camp. Care to denounce this? I didn't think so. How about the cluster bombing of southern Lebanon last year? No?
I can see it's going to take some time to wean you off your addiction to state sponsored terrorism.
The city of New York needs to look at Columbia University for a model of maturity:
New York Childish towards Ahmadinejad
First, you don't provide any proof to my question, just a lot of mumbo jumbo from a bunch of lying moonbats.
it certainly looks like it. Under the Geneva Convention and international law -- to which the US is a signatory -- occupying forces have an obligation to provide security for a civilian population. Failure to do so constitutes a war crime. There are 4 basic categories of war crimes by the coalition of the willing:
You're killing me. Get this through your thick head; wars are not waged by LAWYERS!!! I read those 4 basic categories. If wars were run by lawyers, Saddam Hussein could have been easily tried for committing every one of those crimes (Iraq had also ratified the Conventions) after getting booted out of Kuwait. I don't remember the verminous anti-American leftist lawyers marching down into Baghdad to drag Saddam back to the Hague for trial of these war crimes. Where were you? WHERE WERE YOU?!? Care to answer? I also notice you hold no blame whatsoever to Saddam Hussein or his policies? CARE TO EXPLAIN THAT?!? DO YOU REMEMBER WHY SANCTIONS WERE PUT ON IRAQ IN THE FIRST PLACE, OR DO YOU HATE AMERICA SO MUCH THAT YOU FORGOT?!?
The Israelis bombed Gaza's main power plant last year (twice) depriving 700,000 civilians of sewerage pumping, clean drinking water, refigeration etc. 1.5 million Palestinians live, effectively, in a concentration camp. Care to denounce this? I didn't think so. How about the cluster bombing of southern Lebanon last year? No?
Sure I'll answer. Hamas and Hezbollah started those conflicts with Israel. Hamas and Hezbollah are entirely responsible for every death and hardship inflicted on their people. Just like Saddam Hussein was responsible for every death from the time he invaded Kuwait back in 1990. It isn't how stupid moonbat lying lawyers say it is, and there is no way it could be enforced, especially since these same hypocrites refused to get Saddam out of Iraq for trial before the 2003 invasion. As far as Lebanon and Hezbollah, Lebanese Prime Minister Sinoara should have immediately arrested every member of Hezbollah in his cabinet and in Parliament, and deported them to Syria. And then worked on getting every other Hezbollah leader rounded up and deported to Syria.
I can see it's going to take some time to wean you off your addiction to state sponsored terrorism.
I can see it's going to take some time to wean you off your addiction to leftist lies about America.
First, you don't provide any proof to my question, just a lot of mumbo jumbo from a bunch of lying moonbats.
What is this, a chapter meeting for fully paid up members of the Endlessly Self-Preoccupied and Congenitally-in-Denial Club? Since when are UN statistics gathered by scores of professionals over ten years in the midst of Iraqis dead from lack of medicine and water borne diseases some sort of "mumbo jumbo from a bunch of lying moonbats". Your remarks here completely contemptible. You deny people who have died as a result of Western actions the dignity of having their deaths acknowledged. The deaths are verifiable facts, Your statements are contemptible!
I don't remember the verminous anti-American leftist lawyers marching down into Baghdad to drag Saddam back to the Hague for trial of these war crimes. Where were you? WHERE WERE YOU?!? -- Saddam was a criminal, but since when does that excuse Bush administration crimes? A foreign leader commits murder. Until he comes to justice Bush is allowed to commit murder, too, is that it? Boy, you must have gone to some strange law school.
The US Constitution is not discretionary.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
—US Constitution, Article VI, Annotations
That includes the Geneva Convention.
US Codes, Title 18, § 2441. War crimes bind the US to the those international treaties which address the issue of war crimes, crimes against the peace and crimes against humanity. The case can be made that Bush has deliberately violated all of them. There is probable cause to bring severe criminal charges against Bush now. If the US government had not been hijacked by a handful of crooked corporations, Bush would already have been impeached, tried, and removed from office to stand trial in ordinary criminal courts. Only partisan politics has kept him in office.
(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death. —Cornell Law School, US Code Collection, US Codes; Title 18, § 2441.
The US War Crimes Act of 1996 makes it a felony to commit grave violations of the Geneva Conventions. And since you are prepared to trash international law and dismiss US war crimes perhaps you should ponder on the fact that the US abides by hundreds of international laws every day: commercial transactions, rules of the sea and the air, diplomacy, refugees, fishing laws etc. If the US can abide by those it can abide by the ones outlawing war crimes and state-sponsored murder. Oh, I forgot -- you believe that US political leaders can kill dark people in far away places if they feel like it.
Germany doesn't have your intellectual confusion over war crimes and crimes against humanity. Following WW2 they enacted legislation that would allow them to prosecute war criminals anywhere. A well-justified case is proceeding right now in Germany against Donald Rumsfeld on war crimes charges. Real court, real charges. The torturing toe rag can run forever as far as I am concerned. The moral stench will follow him to his grave.
"Sure I'll answer. Hamas and Hezbollah started those conflicts with Israel. Hamas and Hezbollah are entirely responsible for every death and hardship inflicted on their people." -- ideological, racist claptrap! Tell me, what do you think about the new Israeli laws that forbid Palestinians to travel on certain main roads provided only for Israelis? -- Sound like "Whites Only" seats in the deep South to you?
I can see it's going to take some time to wean you off your addiction to leftist lies about America. -- I quoted international law and UN experts and referred to multiple, verifiable sources. You cited your navel. That about sums up the quality of your arguments.
StevelL, I know you've got a hard on for hunting down terrorists and terrorist sympathisers, so I thought we could work together on this one.The US State Department considers the Iranian Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK) a terrorist organization. It is a crime to support them in any way. Yet Michael Ware has reported through CNN (04/06/07) that the US military regularly escorts MEK supply runs between Baghdad and its base camp. They're assisting in the war on Iran - sorry, war on terror.
"The U.S. State Department considers the MEK a terrorist organization -- meaning no American can deal with it; U.S. banks must freeze its assets; and any American giving support to its members is committing a crime. The U.S. military, though, regularly escorts MEK supply runs between Baghdad and its base, Camp Ashraf."
Iraq's national security minister, Shirwan al-Wa'eli, had given the MEK six months to leave Iraq (as at 04/06/07). But don't hold your breath. Congress has authorised millions of dollars of funding to support "Iranian popular resistance groups". Some of that funding almost certainly makes its way to the MEK and the Jundallah terrorist groups, both carrying out assassinations and bombings in Iran with the full knowledge of the Bush administration. (link) (link)
What say we follow the CNN story, find the US soldiers assisting the terrorists and ship them to Gitmo? --Ahmedinajad would be happy.
kenj, you've answered, and now you're going to get it.
Since when are UN statistics gathered by scores of professionals over ten years in the midst of Iraqis dead from lack of medicine and water borne diseases some sort of "mumbo jumbo from a bunch of lying moonbats".
Since the time these moonbats placed the blame for this on the U.S. and not on the person who truly is to blame, Saddam Hussein.
Saddam was a criminal, but since when does that excuse Bush administration crimes? A foreign leader commits murder. Until he comes to justice Bush is allowed to commit murder, too, is that it? Boy, you must have gone to some strange law school.
The US Constitution is not discretionary.
The U.S. Constitution is not discretionary, but those like you are. Again, where were you when it was time to drag Saddam Hussein from Iraq to face war crimes trials? Or is it that you need someone to do your dirty work for you so that you can blame everybody else for what you failed to do?
Germany doesn't have your intellectual confusion over war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Sure they did, they had plenty of confusion. That's why there was Dachau. That's why there was Oradour. That's why there was Auschwitz. Treblinka. Sobibor. Majdanek. After WWII they were wonderful. It's during WWII where they were willfully ignorant and despicable.
And here is your rebuttal regarding my answer to your question having to do with last year's wars Israel was engaged in, where I stated Hamas and Hezbollah were responsible because they started the war:
ideological, racist claptrap! Tell me, what do you think about the new Israeli laws that forbid Palestinians to travel on certain main roads provided only for Israelis? -- Sound like "Whites Only" seats in the deep South to you?
I gave you the correct answer, Hamas and Hezbollah started their wars and are responsible for every death, which you know to be the correct answer. Because you can't admit that this is the truth, you call me a racist. Typical.
See, I get you, kenj. You talk about the details of international law. You talk about how the Constitution doesn't make distinctions. But you do make distinctions, don't you? You are selective in applying the law, aren't you? You go after the easy target. You couldn't even think to blame Saddam Hussein for anything, other than the fact that you called him a criminal, and did so without indicating why (I agree with you, but I gave the reasons; you didn't). You attempt to tie in WWII into this discussion, except you mentioned the wrong parts (the occupation of foreign lands by the Nazis, and their flagrant disregard for anybody else's rights, unlike our troops and the Bush administration).
And because you knew I gave you the right answer regarding Hamas and Hezbollah, you couldn't even face the fact that I told you the truth. I'm not the racist.
You gave crap, and everything you think you provide as evidence is nothing more than drivel. Instead of trying to present an objective, judicial argument, all I hear is anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism. That is the easy road of the leftist, not anyone who represents the ideals of America, or of freedom.
By the way, kenj, why have you not called for the arrest of Bill Clinton for war crimes? Without congressional authorization, he bombed Serbia and Montenegro and killed civilians, including those of other countries who had diplomatic immunity. He should then be on trial for murder, shouldn't he? Instead, he travels around the world hawking for his "wife" to be his procurer if she becomes President. Yet, nobody hears anything from you about crimes committed by Clinton, do they?
Selective justice. It's not in the U.S. Constitution, but that is what you are doing.
kenj, in Israel, Arabs are allowed to own businesses, allowed to serve in the government, are allowed to worship freely (even as Muslims or Christians), as does every other Israeli citizen. Gaza is no longer occupied by Israelis. They can make Gaza into whatever they want. The majority of Palestinians have decided they want war against the Israelis. So, the Israelis not allowing these Palestinians access to whatever roads you are talking about is a matter of self-defense and protection against a people who only want to kill Israelis. That isn't racism.
"I gave you the correct answer, Hamas and Hezbollah started their wars and are responsible for every death.-- Historical garbage. One could search all day in your Right wing nonsense and never come up with a single legal entitlement of the Palestinian people. Apparently, they only exist by the grace and f-ing favor of the Israelis. That's the racism that you believe in and practice. I suppose all those motions that have been passed unanimously by the UN -- excepting for the US and Israel -- against Israeli abuses have been affirmed by a world of uninformed morons, people who just have a genetic hatred for Israel and the US, is that right? Nothing in it, move along folks....
See, I get you, kenj. You talk about the details of international law. You talk about how the Constitution doesn't make distinctions. But you do make distinctions, don't you? -- of course, I do. I deal with one criminal at at a time and the biggest criminals first. That's Georgie boy and his band of asset-stripping, electrode-strapping, murderous thugs.
kenj, in Israel, Arabs are allowed to own businesses, allowed to serve in the government, are allowed to worship freely (even as Muslims or Christians), as does every other Israeli citizen. Gaza is no longer occupied by Israelis. They can make Gaza into whatever they want. Complete nonsense. Your claim that "Gaza is no longer occupied by Israelis" is an assertion of Israeli sovereignty over all land they now occupy. The Palestinians disagree and they have compelling legal arguments for their case. Oh, I forgot -- murder and theft are ok if the US and Israeli Right says it is.
This quote isn't for you (it's wasted on you) but for any less informed readers who might be mislead into believing that the repetition of falsehoods with an accompanying unjustified bravura constitutes some kind of proof of those same idiotic falsehoods:
The prime ethnic cleansing tool is, forever, land grab of Palestinian property in conjunction with expansion of settlements. Various stages of annexation process are in evidence in the originally rural part of the West Bank, constituting 60 per cent of its area. By now, nine per cent of the West Bank land has been transferred to the direct control of the settlements. A recent Peace Now investigation (July 2007) revealed that only twelve per cent of this land is being used at all. "The state earmarks huge tracts for the settlements, out of all proportion to their size, in order to prevent Palestinian construction in those areas. Yet once an area is closed to Palestinians, the settlers begin seizing adjacent Palestinian lands, often privately owned, that lie outside their jurisdiction".
According to B'Tselem, the Israeli human rights organization, already in 2002, 41.9 per cent of the West Bank was assigned to the Israeli regional councils. And for years, the entire rural Area C has been under administrative control of the so called "Civil Administration", which, in close cooperation with other branches of the Israeli army and with the settlers, toils to make the life of its Palestinian residents as miserable as possible; the obvious objective being to make them leave. (link)
Look, I'm not going to waste my time on you. Your arguments are worthless nonsense run for the "Jaysas saves", "nuke a raghead" brigade. I am more than happy to let educated readers review the material placed here and decide the quality of the arguments. You've got bupkis going for you.
kenj, you've answered, and now you're going to get it. -- and what is it with the Right wing and their pathetic power plays. If they're not soliciting for sex in toilets, molesting children or spanking the wife while reading from the Bible they're threatening Left wing bloggers with "... now you're going to get it"...ooooh, spank me Daddy, I really needed that. The whole thing would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic.
...oh, and there's the million Iraqis dead since 2003. That's on top of the million killed by the economic sanctions. Don't bother telling us that twaddle about Iranian terrorism. State sponsored US terrorism is the big killer. Here are the links to the Lancet study (see 1 2 3 4 5 6)
Tony Blair was keen to dismiss the Lancet findings until this year when the UK Ministry of Defence’s chief scientific adviser cautioned him against it, saying that the research was robust, close to best practice, and balanced. Blair was reportedly horrified by this advice and has been silent ever since.
Now a new survey has been done by Opinion Research Business (ORB), a reputable UK polling agency that has been tracking public opinion in Iraq since 2005. According to their scientific polling - which confirms the findings of the earlier Lancet study - more than 1,000,000 Iraqi citizens have been murdered since the invasion took place in 2003. In this survey of 1,461 Iraqi households 78% of them had no deaths, 16% had one death, 5% had two deaths and 1% had three or more deaths. Using well tried polling techniques this means over a million Iraqis have died since the 2003 invasion. (see 1 2 3 4 )
The two scientific polling methods are different, the two agencies are different -- same result, over a million of Iraqis dead for which the US is legally and morally liable. War crimes, pure and simple.
Oh, I'll question anything I like. Like the two polls that said a million Iraqis died since 2003. Did they get the following information:
1) Did either study ask where the bodies were buried?
2) Did either study go to the cemeteries and verify those that died?
3) Did either study verify all of the hospital records of all hospitals?
4) How many of those Iraqis were civilians and not terrorists?
5) How many of those Iraqis died of natural causes, meaning they would have died regardless of the invasion?
6) Did the pollsters qualify who they called, that is as Iraqi civilians, insurgents, Al Qaeda terrorists, Baathist terrorists, or Sadrite terrorists?
That last question is important as many areas of Iraq are still under the authority of those who want to incorporate another tyranny, either like the one in Iran or the kind that Saddam Hussein had. Lying, whether to protect oneself from insurgents or terrorists, or because the person being contacted is an insurgent or terrorist, is still lying, and can skew the numbers in a way this so-called "scientific" study won't factor in.
So, yes, I question the validity of both studies unless they can provide real answers to the points I made. If those are sloughed off, then I will assume the numbers were generated by elitist leftist liars who are not interested in freedom for anybody.
As far as the million Iraqis who died during the sanctions, those deaths are entirely the fault of Saddam Hussein. He illegally invaded Kuwait, and was beat back during Operation Desert Storm. I ask again: why didn't you bring Saddam Hussein, a war criminal (in your words), to trial for these war crimes? Or is it that you aided and abetted his remaining in power?
By the way: are you an American?
I don't know the answers to all of your questions; several of them are irrelevant, some insulting to Iraqis. You should follow the links to find the source studies and their data. These are professional studies by researchers using well-established scientific techniques. Link:
A Reuters article reports on other researchers, epidemiologists, professors, and physicians who have defended the study. For example, this quote from the article:
"Over the last 25 years, this sort of methodology has been used more and more often, especially by relief agencies in times of emergency," said Dr. David Rush, a professor and epidemiologist at Tufts University in Boston.
Sir Richard Peto, Professor of Medical Statistics and Epidemiology in the University of Oxford, described the 2006 report as "statistically valid" in an interview on BBC television.
Dr. Ben Coghlan, an epidemiologist in Melbourne Australia, writes -- "The US Congress should agree: in June this year [2006] they unanimously passed a bill outlining financial and political measures to promote relief, security and democracy in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The bill was based in part on the veracity of a survey conducted by the Burnet Institute (Melbourne) and the International Rescue Committee (New York) that found 3.9 million Congolese had perished because of the conflict. This survey used the same methodology as Burnham and his associates. It also passed the scrutiny of a UK parliamentary delegation and the European Union." --Burnham is one of the authors of both of the Lancet studies.
October 19, 2006 Washington Post article reports:
"The numbers do add up," said Daniel Davies, a stockbroker and blogger for the Guardian. He argued that the sample of 1,849 households interviewed by Iraqi doctors working for the JHU research team was as large as that used by political pollsters.
An October 16, 2006 MediaLens article quotes many health experts, epidemiologists, biostatistics experts, polling experts, etc. who approve of the Lancet study and methodology. For example:
John Zogby, whose New York-based polling agency, Zogby International, has done several surveys in Iraq since the war began, said: "The sampling is solid. The methodology is as good as it gets. It is what people in the statistics business do." ...
Professor Sheila Bird of the Biostatistics Unit at the Medical Research Council said: "They have enhanced the precision this time around and it is the only scientifically based estimate that we have got where proper sampling has been done and where we get a proper measure of certainty about these results."
In an October 31, 2006 MediaLens article, Lancet study co-author Les Roberts responded to several questions on the report, concluding that -- "Of any high profile scientific report in recent history, ours might be the easiest to verify. If we are correct, in the morgues and graveyards of Iraq, most deaths during the occupation would have been due to violence. If Mr. Bush's '30,000 more or less' figure from last December is correct, less than 1 in 10 deaths has been from violence. Let us address the discomfort of Mr. Moore and millions of other Americans, not by uninformed speculation about epidemiological techniques, but by having the press travel the country and tell us how people are dying in Iraq."
--------------------
1) Bodies buried where? -- In the ground, like other dead Iraqis.
2) Did either study go to the cemeteries and verify those that died? -- not practical. It's an active war zone.
3) Did either study verify all of the hospital records of all hospitals? -- Iraq hospital records are notoriously incomplete.
4) How many of those Iraqis were civilians and not terrorists? -- terrorists being?...Shia families trying to defend themselves from Sunni attacks?...Sunni families trying to defend themselves from Shia attacks?...Sunni and Shia families trying to defend themselves from criminal attacks?... Kurds trying to defend themselves against everybody...ordinary Iraqis trying to defend themselves against 5,000 non-existent, notional al Qaeda in Iraq?... ordinary Iraqis trying to defend themselves against the at most 850 Iraqis who have adopted an al Qaeda tag?... ordinary Iraqis trying to defend themselves against US forces?
...or is it easier for you to just tag every Iraqi as a "terrorist" first and insist they prove otherwise?
5) How many of those Iraqis died of natural causes, meaning they would have died regardless of the invasion? -- both surveys distinguish between deaths by natural causes and by violent, war-related causes. The ORB study species the manner of death (roadside bomb, shooting, etc)
6) Did the pollsters qualify who they called, that is as Iraqi civilians, insurgents, Al Qaeda terrorists, Baathist terrorists, or Sadrite terrorists? -- "yes, my family are all al Qaeda terrorists and we used to run the vegetable store two streets away. My cousin Ali is a Baathist terrorist and he used to be a customs clerk. The people in the next street have been insurgents ever since the US troops came and threw bombs in the buildings killing some of their children. We all carry terrorist ID cards now, since even we sometimes forget who we are." -- what a cheap slur and ideologically driven cop out.
As the links make clear, a variety of scientific agencies have found the Lancet study to be valid. As I also noted, the UK Defense Dept's chief scientific adviser told Blair that the Lancet study was statistically sound. That means that whatever criticisms can be made at the edges of either study, there is no reason to disbelieve the general thrust of either of them. Whether it's 500,000 Iraqis dead from this war or a million, the actual number is a factor of ten away from the US accepted figures.
There are three points here:
*As I showed in detail earlier, the US bears legal and moral responsibility for these deaths, either by causing them or by criminal neglect of their well founded legal responsibility. War crimes.
*The US military refuses to gather statistics on Iraqi deaths, which is kind of interesting since they claim to have gone into Iraq to save them from Saddam's deaths squads. A US government that has no interest in recording the deaths caused by their own policies is not in any moral position to criticize the only scientific studies available of Iraqi deaths.
* Dead Iraqis don't cease to be dead just because you would prefer to believe otherwise. No-one has to convince you of anything.
Wingnuts long to identify non-Americans. It allows them to instantly dismiss any of their truthful, accurate, fair or intelligent comments from cluttering their brains. Even if you push that button you ideas will still be worthless.
kenj why in Gods name are you wasting your time debating steviel? this gentleman is quite obviously barking mad.I have read better argument from a seven yr old.Please give your self a break,you are wasting your time.
Check his web page, Phill. He's the real deal (apparently they breed 'em like that). In any case I'm in training. Cheers ;)
kenj,
I'll settle this once and for all. Using your current standards, would you call FDR and Truman war criminals, and responsible for the civilian deaths caused by American forces during WWII?
I'll settle this once and for all. -- How? By unilaterally declaring that some highly particularized arguments set by you constitute the whole of the debate? Pretty conceited, don't you think?
FDR and Truman were not war criminals (although some would argue that Truman's use of nuclear weapons was unnecessary and hence a war crime -- I'm not sure about that one). There's a big difference between a massively armed nation invading all of Europe and Iraq in their recent circumstances. Iraq posed no military threat to anyone except their own citizens. I guess you want to argue that "getting rid of the bad man" is always justifiable and overturns all other legal obligations. That's simply not true, morally or at law. Invading a country-- with all of the turmoil and potential for societal breakdown -- imposes vastly more serious obligations than getting rid of a tyrant.
I won't go into the detailed arguments about WMDs and al Qaeda in Iraq which have been comprehensively debunked as fabrications and convenient fictions (even by US Defense Dept and Senate Intelligence Committee Reports). Bush did not go into Iraq to get rid of Saddam. He went there for a combination of reasons to do with oil, Israeli security and geopolitical influence in the region.
I return to the 4 types of war crimes mentioned previously.
(1) an illegal invasion.
(2) failure to provide adequate forces to maintain civil order.
(3) mistreatment of prisoners and civilians (Abu Graib and Fallujah)
(4) failure to exercise control over US mercenary forces (the US insisted that no laws applied to Blackwater et al).
These are all specific obligations under treaties signed by the US that form well-established parts of US and international law. The details are "stock in trade" to military officers who include such considerations in their invasion plans as a matter of course. For the US leadership to unilaterally abrogate these obligations -- deeming them not to apply to them personally or to the US -- is a moral and legal failure of the highest order. They are serious criminal offenses. War crimes. At least a million Iraqis are needlessly dead as a result of US actions. The country is in civil war; malnutrition and disease are rife. We hanged people at Nuremberg for doing exactly what Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have done in Iraq. Bare-faced lies about their good intentions won't cut it. These guys belong behind bars or on the end of a rope.
Iraq posed no military threat to anyone except their own citizens.
Tell that to the people of Iran. Tell that to the people of Kuwait. Tell that to the people of Israel.
I won't go into the detailed arguments about WMDs and al Qaeda in Iraq which have been comprehensively debunked as fabrications and convenient fictions (even by US Defense Dept and Senate Intelligence Committee Reports).
Crap. I read those reports. Congress got all the same information about WMDs and whatnot as the administration, and still voted to authorize the use of military force. Why else did all those politicians of various Congresses and two administrations discuss the WMD threat Iraq posed for several years? Add that the intelligence services of several other countries, some who have not been involved in any aspect of the Iraq invasion, also agreed with the assessments regarding Saddam's WMDs. Do you think they were all Bush toadies?
Bush did not go into Iraq to get rid of Saddam. He went there for a combination of reasons to do with oil, Israeli security and geopolitical influence in the region.
That's nothing but your opinion and not based on any fact.
I return to the 4 types of war crimes mentioned previously.
(1) an illegal invasion.
(2) failure to provide adequate forces to maintain civil order.
(3) mistreatment of prisoners and civilians (Abu Graib and Fallujah)
(4) failure to exercise control over US mercenary forces (the US insisted that no laws applied to Blackwater et al).
(1) An illegal invasion? According to whom? Not according to the War Powers Resolution or the Constitution. (2) Are you George McClellan? How many were needed? (3) Prosecutions for those things have been handled. Case closed. (4) And Congress is looking into that too.
Do you believe that there ever was a "clean" war, by the definition of lawyers and diplomats?
You'd still hang Bush, but you wouldn't hang Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat, Kim Il Sung, Chou En Lai, Mullah Omar, or even Osama bin Laden. Of course, I'm just guessing.
And let me hit this one:
There's a big difference between a massively armed nation invading all of Europe and Iraq in their recent circumstances.
Back during WWII, it took whole campuses to develop atomic weapons, and needed a delivery system the size of a B-29 to deliver it. In case you hadn't heard, the technology for atomic weapons has improved and the types of structures used to build and deliver nukes don't need to be as robust as they had been. Saddam Hussein (and many others) have supported Islamist terrorists over the last few years of his rule, and his invasions of Iran and Kuwait show that he was a loose cannon.
And by the way, I guess you're against the death penalty, too, aren't you?
And speaking of those million dead Iraqis, why hasn't the New York Times confirmed the dead casualties? Why hasn't the Washington Post? How about any of the other American mainstream media sources, how come they don't confirm it? None of these has anything but animosity for the Bush regime. So did the French government under Chirac, but you didn't hear anything about these numbers. As has the anti-American UN, the group would have loved to pin a million deaths on Bush.
The number of Iraqi civilians killed during the war is tragic. But to keep insisting a million have been killed, it's nothing but a guess, and far-fetched at that.
Steveil, I'm not prepared to continue this discussion with you any further. Quite simply you're an intellectual fraud and a racist. You accept rationales for the Iraq war that have been debunked by senior CIA officials, weapons inspectors, political commentators - even various US Congressional and Defense Department inquiries. On my best estimate, your post here contains about 20 either largely unjustified or seriously wrong factual claims. I could give you a score of detailed rebuttals on every one of your falsehoods, but for the life of me I can't see why I should. You argue in bad faith with self-indulgent reasoning and ideological bias.
You have dismissed the Iraq deaths due to economic sanctions and two serious, independant scientific studies on the post invasion deaths of over a million Iraqis as "... nothing but a guess, and far-fetched at that." I've got a degree in mathematical statistics. I understand the essentials behind the Lancet study. This is serious science. I also understand what it means when professional statisticians at Harvard, Oxford and a score of top flight medical research centres around the world put their names behind the Lancet study and describe it as "robust", "best practice" and "reliable". When the same Lancet methodology was used previously in war conflicts in the Congo and Chechnya the post-conflict follow ups confirmed the validity of those findings. I'm not going to stand around with some idiot like you and accept phrases like "... nothing but a guess, and far-fetched at that" as being anything other than unreasoning gibberish. If you don't really know what you are talking about, I suggest you just shut the hell up.
As I said there are about 20 falsehoods in your ideological spiel [for none of which you produce any evidence], and all of which can be comprehensively rebutted. I'll take two only just to demonstrate your nonsense: (1) alleged Saddam - al Qaeda links and (2) troop estimates for the Iraq invasion.
(1) Saddam Hussein (and many others) have supported Islamist terrorists over the last few years of his rule. -- complete baloney (oh, and did I fail to mention that you're an uninformed dolt?) Saddam was a secular ruler who saw jihadism as a threat to his rule.
Here's what CIA agent Lindsay Moran had to say:
"During my short tenure in Iraqi Operations, I met one woman who had covered Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program for more than a decade. She admitted to me, unequivocally, that the CIA had no definitive evidence whatsoever that Saddam Hussein’s regime possessed WMD, or that Iraq presented anything close to an imminent threat to the United States. Another CIA analyst, whose opinion I’d solicited about the connection between Al-Qa’ida and Iraq, looked at me almost shamefacedly, shrugged, and said, "They both have the letter q?" And a colleague who worked in the office covering Iraqi counterproliferation reported to me that her mealy-mouthed pen pusher of a boss had gathered together his minions and announced, "Let’s face it. The president wants us to go to war, and our job is to give him a reason to do it.""
And this from the media:
FACT: According to documents, "Saddam Hussein warned his Iraqi supporters to be wary of joining forces with foreign Arab fighters entering Iraq to battle U.S. troops. The document provides another piece of evidence challenging the Bush administration contention of close cooperation between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda terrorists." [NY Times, 1/15/04]
FACT: "CIA interrogators have already elicited from the top Qaeda officials in custody that, before the American-led invasion, Osama bin Laden had rejected entreaties from some of his lieutenants to work jointly with Saddam." [NY Times, 1/15/04]
FACT: "Sec. of State Colin Powell conceded Thursday that despite his assertions to the United Nations last year, he had no 'smoking gun' proof of a link between the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and terrorists of al-Qaeda.'I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection,' Powell said." [NY Times, 1/9/04]
FACT: "Three former Bush Administration officials who worked on intelligence and national security issues said the prewar evidence tying Al Qaeda was tenuous, exaggerated and often at odds with the conclusions of key intelligence agencies." [National Journal, 8/9/03]
FACT: Declassified documents "undercut Bush administration claims before the war that Hussein had links to Al Qaeda." [LA Times, 7/19/03].
FACT: "The chairman of the monitoring group appointed by the United Nations Security Council to track Al Qaeda told reporters that his team had found no evidence linking Al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein." [NY Times, 6/27/03]
FACT: "U.S. allies have found no links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. 'We have found no evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda,' said Europe's top investigator. 'If there were such links, we would have found them. But we have found no serious connections whatsoever.'" [LA Times, 11/4/02]
This is from Think Progress quoting from the Sep 2006 Senate Intelligence Committee's Phase 2 Report:
[Bin] Ladin generally opposed collaboration [with Baghdad]. (p. 65)
According to debriefs of multiple detainees — including Saddam Hussein and former Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz — and capture documents, Saddam did not trust al-Qa'ida or any other radical Islamist group and did not want to cooperate with them. (p. 67)
Aziz underscored Saddam's distrust of Islamic extremists like bin Ladin, stating that when the Iraqi regime started to see evidence that Wahabists had come to Iraq, "the Iraqi regime issued a decree aggressively outlawing Wahabism in Iraq and threatening offenders with execution." (p. 67)
Another senior Iraqi official stated that Saddam did not like bin Ladin because he called Saddam an "unbeliever." (p.73)
Conclusion 1: … Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa'ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al Qa'ida to provide material or operational support. Debriefings of key leaders of the former Iraqi regime indicate that Saddam distrusted Islamic radicals in general, and al Qa'ida in particular… Debriefings also indicate that Saddam issued a general order that Iraq should not deal with al Qa'ida. No postwar information suggests that the Iraqi regime attempted to facilitate a relationship with bin Ladin. (p. 105)
Conclusion 5:… Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi. (p. 109)
Bush and Cheney LIED about alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. These claims have been soundly refuted from multiple credible sources including a US Senate Intelligence Committee Report and a declassified US Defense Department Report both of which discounted any significant links. These represent considered views by the best of US Intelligence from a broad range of sources in Iraq and the region, and from within Saddam's inner circle. Here are some relevant links: (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9)
(2) I made the claim that the US had committed war crimes by failing to provide sufficient troops in Iraq to maintain civil order. You disputed that anyone could reasonably guess the required number, saying Are you George McClellan? How many were needed?
If you invade a country you are legally required to ensure sufficient troops for the safety of the citizens. Advice from senior US military leaders (specifically, Gen. Anthony Zinni) to President Bush prior to the invasion was that he would need at least 400,000 troops to stabilize Iraq. That advice was ignored. 160,000 troops were sent in. Over a million Iraqis have died as a result. That's a war crime by the US.
In late April 1999, the United States Central Command (CENTCOM), led by Marine General Anthony Zinni (ret.), conducted a series of war games known as DESERT CROSSING in order to assess potential outcomes of an invasion of Iraq aimed at unseating Saddam Hussein. ... The Desert Crossing war games, which amounted to a feasibility study for part of the main war plan for Iraq -- OPLAN 1003-98 -- tested "worst case" and "most likely" scenarios of a post-war, post-Saddam, Iraq.( see here and here).
Desert Crossing showed that a minimum 400,000 - 500,000 troops would be needed to maintain civil order following any Iraq invasion. Gen. Zinni reminded Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld of the Desert Crossing study prior to the invasion and told them they would need these numbers of troops. His advice was heard - and ignored.
The problem was worse than that however. -- The Bush administration REFUSED to carry out post-invasion planning as required by military standard operating procedure (SOP). They ordered the military NOT to carry out this planning!
Think I'm joking? Here's Rumsfeld ordering the military leaders NOT to develop essential occupation plans:
"The secretary of defense continued to push on us ... that everything we write in our plan has to be the idea that we are going to go in, we're going to take out the regime, and then we're going to leave," Scheid said. "We won't stay."
Scheid said the planners continued to try "to write what was called Phase 4," or the piece of the plan that included post-invasion operations like occupation.
Even if the troops didn't stay, "at least we have to plan for it," Scheid said.
"I remember the secretary of defense saying that he would fire the next person that said that," Scheid said. "We would not do planning for Phase 4 operations, which would require all those additional troops that people talk about today.
"He said we will not do that because the American public will not back us if they think we are going over there for a long war."
I could give you a dozen more references. Of how the private company Bearing Point was contracted to develop occupation plans for the US Defense Dept and came up with no manual(!) just a series of Power Point slides(!) Of how Douglas Feith in the Defense Dept was the author of the orders to disband the entire Iraqi army and destroy the civilian government infrastructure. Of how Paul Bremer fired 120,000 key bureaucrats in every government ministry leaving Iraq with no functioning public service. These are all failed legal responsibilities on the part of the US that are well know to military planners, failures that lead to needless civilian deaths, failures that constituent war crimes by the US. You don't like that? -- get over it!
...do you get the drift here, Steveil?...you don't actually know anything, and what you do know is a bunch of cheap GOP and Benador lies from four years ago that you fling about like a monkey in a cell throwing faeces. You don't know anything, sport. Go back to SisterToldjah (or where ever the hell you hang out) and do your usual routine: brag about you whipped all those Leftist Liberals into shape. Then settle down to the questions you really are in a position to discuss. You know -- "How did they get the dinosaurs on the Ark?" and "Where the hell did they let them out?"
kenj, based on all your ridiculous assertions, all I can believe is that you were in love with Saddam Hussein, especially since you haven't blamed him for anything.
Steveil, I'm not prepared to continue this discussion with you any further.
Then why the hell did you bother continuing?
I haven't discounted the deaths of Iraqi civilians during the sanctions period. I blamed Saddam Hussein for them. You didn't. Every Iraqi death from the time he invaded Kuwait until he was out of power was entirely his fault.
Considering your lack of understanding of this, how am I to take you seriously about that Lancet study? Leftists love to hide their politics behind their "science". Like your use of the law, I question your use of the science.
Saddam Hussein did support Islamist terrorists. Unless you are saying something ignorant like the Al Qaeda group in Afghanistan and Pakistan is the only group of Islamist terrorists in the world. Ever hear of Hamas? Saddam didn't seem to have a problem funding Hamas, or did you forget that? This whole thing after 9/11 didn't start to just get bin Laden, but to end Islamist terrorism. Saddam may not have wanted too many Islamists floating around Iraq while he was in power, but he had no problem giving them money doing their terrorism in other countries.
Which pretty much ends any further discussion about Bush trying to tie Saddam to Al Qaeda and bin Laden. I would love, if you can actually find something legitimate that states definitively that Bush has tied Saddam to 9/11. Not BS CIA agents spouting off Democratic talking points. Not BS from a media is still in a hissy fit from Al Gore losing in 2000. I think you're the liar saying Bush lied about the alleged links between Saddam and Al Qaeda.
Quite simply you're an intellectual fraud and a racist.
Based on some of your previous comments, you sound like you are or were British, or live or lived in a Commonwealth country. You say you have a degree in statistics. So, does that mean you are part of one of those anti-American, anti-British, anti-Semitic neo-Nazi British universities boycotting Israel? And you call me a racist? Hypocrite. Go back, sit in your little stinkhole, and play with your numbers pining for your lost love, Saddam.
Yes. We are done.