T Nation

Bush Regime Kills 400k

From the official point of view it is very logical and clear to me that Saddam was sentenced do death and executed. Crime-punishment. Nothing more simple. He was accused of murdering 148 shyites.

His regime probably killed more, much more people. Probably killed, he probably possessed weapons of mass destruction, probably, perhaps, terrorism, perhaps, probably, terrorism… but he surely possesses some oil fields, contracted by some giant drilling companies a couple of days ago.

Bush said Saddam is bad. He entered his sovereign country- Iraq, killed over 400 000 people and brought happiness to all of the Iraqi people! They are freaking happy now! look how they’re smiling! Death, fear, poverty, chaos, army all over your hood, almost happiness, right? Let me emphasize this: It was the first example ever when someone not being in war with other country invaded it and made public execution of its legal leader. Freaking crazy! Iraq is a UN member ffs! I’m not mentioning human rights issue because it’s so obvious. Life maybe is a game but Jesus, not QUAKE III ARENA. There is only 1 frag left for everybody and no cheats available on this serv. No noob/pro divisions here, everybody’s equal.

Bullshit, isn’t it?

You are probably sick of that story because you’ve heard it over and over again… that all 9/11 inside job thing and all of that crap.

I want you to answer the following: Why the hell the killer of 400 000 Iraqi people will not be punished (not even accused of)? What does allow him to invade others and kill hundreds of thousands of local citizens? Why are his hands touching everything all over the world? Why do we allow him to do it? Are we cowards? Or our democracy is no democracy for some time and we just don’t see it? Are we searching for our enemies in wrong place?

[quote]SoapDrop wrote:
From the official point of view it is very logical and clear to me that Saddam was sentenced do death and executed. Crime-punishment. Nothing more simple. He was accused of murdering 148 shyites.

His regime probably killed more, much more people. Probably killed, he probably possessed weapons of mass destruction, probably, perhaps, terrorism, perhaps, probably, terrorism… but he surely possesses some oil fields, contracted by some giant drilling companies a couple of days ago.

Bush said Saddam is bad. He entered his sovereign country- Iraq, killed over 400 000 people and brought happiness to all of the Iraqi people! They are freaking happy now! look how they’re smiling! Death, fear, poverty, chaos, army all over your hood, almost happiness, right? Let me emphasize this: It was the first example ever when someone not being in war with other country invaded it and made public execution of its legal leader. Freaking crazy! Iraq is a UN member ffs! I’m not mentioning human rights issue because it’s so obvious. Life maybe is a game but Jesus, not QUAKE III ARENA. There is only 1 frag left for everybody and no cheats available on this serv. No noob/pro divisions here, everybody’s equal.

Bullshit, isn’t it?

You are probably sick of that story because you’ve heard it over and over again… that all 9/11 inside job thing and all of that crap.

The question is: Why the hell the killer of 400 000 Iraqi people will not be punished (not even accused of)? What does allow him to invade others and kill hundreds of thousands of local citizens? Why are his hands touching everything all over the world? Why do we allow him to do it? Are we cowards? Or our democracy is no democracy for some time and we just don’t see it? Are we searching for our enemies in wrong place?[/quote]

Good questions, If you take a look at American History you will find that every war has been fought in some way for economic interests, or “Freedom” if you will ;). For the U.S to step forward as a defender of helpless countries matched its image in American high school history textbooks, but not its record in world affairs.

It had opposed the Haitian revolution for independence from France at the start of the nineteenth century. It had instigated a war with Mexico and taken half of that country It had pretended to help Cuba win freedom from Spain, and then planted itself in Cuba with a military base, investments, and rights of intervention.

It had seized Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and fought a brutal war to subjugate the Filipinos. It had “opened” Japan to its trade with gunboats and threats. It had declared an Open Door Policy in China as a means of assuring that the U.S would have opportunities equal to other imperial powers in exploiting China. It had sent troops to Peking with other nations, to assert Western supremacy in China, and kept them there for over thirty years.

While demanding Open Door in China, it had insisted with Monroe Doctrine and many other military interventions on a Closed Door in Latin America, that is closed to everyone but the U.S. Engineering a revolution against Columbia and created the “independent” state of Panama in order to build and control the Canal.

Looking at the present, I see more probable future: A new despotism creeping slowly across America. Faceless oligarchs sit at command posts of a corporate-government complex that has slowly evolving over many decades.

In efforts to enlarge their own powers and privileges, they are willing to have others suffer the intended or unintended consequences include chronic inflation, recurring recession, open and hidden unemployment, the poisoning of air, water, soil and bodies, and more important, the subversion of our constitution.

More broadly, consequences include widespread intervention in international politics through economic manipulation, covert action, or military invasion. On a world scale, all of this is already producing a heating up of cold war and enlarged stockpiles of nuclear and non-nuclear death machines.

*In this present, many highly intelligent people look wit but one eye and see only one part of the emerging Leviathan. From the right, we are warned against the danger of state capitalism or state socialism, in which Big Government dominates Big Business.

From the left we hear that the future danger (or present reality) is monopoly capitalism, with finance capitalists dominated the state.

*I am worried by those who fail to remember ? or have never learned- that Big Business-Big Government partnerships, backed up by other elements, were the central facts behind the power structures of old fascism in the days of Mussolini, Hitler, and the Japanese empire builders.

*The Japanese or German versions would be quite different from the Italian variety ? and still more different from the British, French, Belgian, Dutch, Australian, Canadian, or Israeli versions. In America, it would be super modern and multi-ethnic- as American as Madison Avenue, executive luncheons, credits cards, and apple pie.

It would be Fascism with a smile. As a warning against its cosmetic fa?ade, subtle manipulation, and velvet gloves, I call it friendly Fascism. What scares me is its subtle appeal.

http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1289328&pageNo=0#1289328

America’s New World Empire learned a valuable thing from Germany’s Regime.

In the end though, Who knows if all this was for a good cause. If its our objective to create the future of a one World Government, Than it just is. Once prosperity is complete we may come together as a race and colonize the universe.

Okay a lot more of those 400000 Iraqis were killed by their own sectarian violence than U.S. troops.

[quote]40yarddash wrote:
Okay a lot more of those 400000 Iraqis were killed by their own sectarian violence than U.S. troops. [/quote]

If USA wouldn’t mention human rights issues when other countries for example Russia break them, I would agree. But USA is the first one to promote them and the very first one to break them hard as hell. Even possibility of civil deaths should stop them from attacking. It doesn’t and it won’t.

[quote]SoapDrop wrote:
Life maybe is a game but Jesus, not QUAKE III ARENA. [/quote]

I just gotta say, that’s a great line, I loved it!

All the rest of your post was basically telling me how much worse the U.S. Prez is compared to Saddam, so it was basically partisan trash. Thanks for the contribution though!

You need to check both your facts and your logic. The possibility of collateral damage is not the same as targeting civilians, and is not a violation of human rights.

As for your numbers, sounds like you’re relying on that Lancet study - though the older one.

Check these links regarding the new and improved version:

http://medpundit.blogspot.com/2006/10/lancet-strikes-again-i-admit-this.html

http://www.janegalt.net/archives/009511.html

http://www.rantsandrayguns.motime.com/post/611902/“If+They+Liked+It+Once,+They’ll+Love+It+Twice,”+or+“A+Logical+Lapse”

http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2006_10_08_archive.html#116069912405842066

This topic has been done to death, you’re not adding anything new or correct, and I’m done with this thread. Enjoy.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
You need to check both your facts and your logic. The possibility of collateral damage is not the same as targeting civilians, and is not a violation of human rights.

As for your numbers, sounds like you’re relying on that Lancet study - though the older one.

Check these links regarding the new and improved version:

http://medpundit.blogspot.com/2006/10/lancet-strikes-again-i-admit-this.html

http://www.janegalt.net/archives/009511.html

http://www.rantsandrayguns.motime.com/post/611902/“If+They+Liked+It+Once,+They’ll+Love+It+Twice,”+or+“A+Logical+Lapse”

http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2006_10_08_archive.html#116069912405842066

This topic has been done to death, you’re not adding anything new or correct, and I’m done with this thread. Enjoy.[/quote]

I wrote that it’s not original at all, read carefully. My point was my questions. 650k? That does not make any difference. I was asking you about our democracy today.

[quote]Cunnivore wrote:
SoapDrop wrote:
Life maybe is a game but Jesus, not QUAKE III ARENA.

I just gotta say, that’s a great line, I loved it!

All the rest of your post was basically telling me how much worse the U.S. Prez is compared to Saddam, so it was basically partisan trash. Thanks for the contribution though!

[/quote]

No, you got me wrong. I’m saying that US acted as an agressor. That was illegal. Against the UN and not supported by any evidence or such. It’s not that I love Iraq so much, it could be any other country.

This does not make us murderers, Good people can be manipulated to do evil things.

[quote]ssn0 wrote:
This does not make us murderers, Good people can be manipulated to do evil things. [/quote]

I agree with you ssn0.
I’m blaming the authorities, not the soldiers. Soldiers gotta do their thing. Our democratic authorities are the ones who manipulate and fool others in this situation. They are speaking on our behalf as they represent us. They create public opinion, they use public opinion. Made-up public opinion legalizes their actions. That’s so unfair and bitchy.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
You need to check both your facts and your logic. The possibility of collateral damage is not the same as targeting civilians, and is not a violation of human rights.

[/quote]

Boston,

The law doesn’t mean anything here. Just because “human rights” may be defined under certain ambiguous terms by international relations lawyers does not mean it is in line with the philosophy of the rest of the world. To me, Bush, nay, every president who ever comminted US troops to foreign soil which resulted in the deaths of ordinary citizens has blood on their hands. Calling them legal killings is nonsense.

Nearly every president is guilty of this but the fact that Bush is guilty of this under false pretense (he lied) is quite a different story. In fact, I can do one better; at least Saddam killed Iraqis as an Iraqi–what right (under international human rights law) does an American president have to kill Iraqi civilians.

[quote]SoapDrop wrote:

No, you got me wrong. I’m saying that US acted as an agressor. That was illegal. Against the UN and not supported by any evidence or such. It’s not that I love Iraq so much, it could be any other country.[/quote]

The US acted as an aggressor because they said they would. Everyone in the UN signed that resolution (and the 16 or so that preceded it), and Congress was on board when they were informed of Bush’s plan. So at what point did the war become “illegal”? Did it happen to coincide with the time at which it became “unpopular”?

The fact that most of the UN refused to follow up on their “resolution” suggests to me that it either never had any intention, or was powerless to resolve anything in the first place.

I may disagree with how the war has been handled, but I respect Bush’s resolve to do what he said he would do even if if proved unpopular with the “powers” that be.

I don’t care what red tape keeps Bush technically in the clear. He is responsible for the deaths of many many people no matter how you look at it.

[quote]Fullback33 wrote:
I don’t care what red tape keeps Bush technically in the clear. He is responsible for the deaths of many many people no matter how you look at it. [/quote]

As is every war time leader, in every country, at the head of every movement/tribe/nation, ever. If you want to look at it like a complete dimwit.

And I’m sure you don’t care about laws when they don’t agree with you. Fortunately it is the law itself, and not your opinion of them, that matters.

[quote]ChuckyT wrote:
Fullback33 wrote:
I don’t care what red tape keeps Bush technically in the clear. He is responsible for the deaths of many many people no matter how you look at it.

As is every war time leader, in every country, at the head of every movement/tribe/nation, ever. If you want to look at it like a complete dimwit.

And I’m sure you don’t care about laws when they don’t agree with you. Fortunately it is the law itself, and not your opinion of them, that matters.[/quote]

What law? Is there such thing as legally killing innocent civilians? Since we are calling this war on terror legal now, doesn’t that give a right to terrorists to legally kill innocent US citizens? After all, you can’t give preference to two sides in a war. That’s the definition of war. The winners are always right.

[quote]SoapDrop wrote:

No, you got me wrong. I’m saying that US acted as an agressor. That was illegal. Against the UN and not supported by any evidence or such. It’s not that I love Iraq so much, it could be any other country.[/quote]

OMFG! It could be anywhere! NATO forces could show up in say…Kosovo without the UN’s “blessing” and perform some humanitarian bombings.

Next thing you know, Coalition Forces will be showing up in places like Sudan and Zimbabwe without UN approval!

I just hope to God that the Janjaweed soldiers are treating native Sudanese farmers with the same compassion that Saddam showed the Kurds. At the very least, everyone should follow the UN’s example and just do nothing about it. Just so long as the Americans don’t get involved everything will be okay.

I’m sick of this moral relativism crap. As if one or 10 or 100 lives lost due to collateral damage is the superlative of the tens or even hundreds of thousands saved, or that the UN, by sitting on it’s hands, is somehow morally superior to any single nation that has harmed one civilian through acts of war. Between Russia, China, the Germans, the French, the British…, any part of the UN claiming morality over another is like claiming one section of flooring in an adult arcade is cleaner than another.

Note to self: Never go in without un approval. The u.n. makes things legal.

Got it.

Oh, I’ll bet these bleeding heart liberals weren’t so high minded when their hero bill clinton was conducting military operations without u.n. approval.

JeffR

P.S. The u.n. has plenty of Iraqi blood on their hands. See Oil for Food and, oh, hell, 1992-2003 in general.

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Note to self: Never go in without un approval. The u.n. makes things legal.

Got it.

Oh, I’ll bet these bleeding heart liberals weren’t so high minded when their hero bill clinton was conducting military operations without u.n. approval.

JeffR

P.S. The u.n. has plenty of Iraqi blood on their hands. See Oil for Food and, oh, hell, 1992-2003 in general.

[/quote]

But this Kosovo thing “worked”, because you had what liberals call “a plan”…

Since having “a plan” seems to be important, I consider it to be “criminally negligent”, “beyond incompetent” and generally “unbearable” to rip a country apart without one…

[quote]JeffR wrote:

P.S. The u.n. has plenty of Iraqi blood on their hands. See Oil for Food and, oh, hell, 1992-2003 in general.

[/quote]

Good point.

What the hell is an “illegal” war? The US doesn’t need approval to go to war.