Anti-War, Anti-Soldier.

[monty of ll]

Tokah, you said: "Did anyone see the news a couple of nights ago?

Iraqi police force members were going door to door through certain neighborhoods, asking questions about known insurgents and terrorists in the area. They asked for the cooperation of the Iraaqi citizens and got it.

Only the Iraqi police force members WEREN'T that at all, they were insurgents. Everyone who talked, who mentioned any names, or who even appeared to eager to cooperate was taken out and SHOT DEAD. Iraqis are doing this to Iraqis."

If you're asking whether or not I support the murder of Iraqis by the Iraqi insurgents, terrorists (freedom fighters) then I have no difficulty at all answering that question. They are using extreme means to deal with an extreme situation in which their country is occupied by the U.S. and they are dealing with collaborators. While it would certainly be my preference that it wasn't happening and indeed the war wasn't going on that has caused it to happen, I understand that they find it necessary. You see, I am against this war and you are for it so what you feel for your soldiers is close to what I feel for those who are fighting against those soldiers and for their freedom from occupation. Therefore what you consider as necessary killing is what I consider as murder and vice versa. That's assuming that you are condoning what your military is doing in Iraq. So it becomes a simple matter of, my murderers are your soldiers and your murderers are my freedom fighters.

So you see Tokah, I can take a solid position on the murder of the Iraqi people and call those who are committing the murder, the murderers. And you can take a solid position on what your soldiers are doing and justify it in the name of freeing the Iraqi people, eliminating the WMD, ridding Iraq of Saddam, or whatever your current reason is for your justification of the war. While others have to waffle. Now please don't try to tell me that you are against this war!

ericsp- Whatever gave you the idea that I was condemning all the U.S. military for the atrocities of the few? I condemn the U.S. military for aiding and abetting the atrocities of the few, would be a better way to explain my position. It's a phoney, illegal, immoral war and it needs to be condemned. How about Pearl Harbour, do you have any problem condemning those who attacked the U.S. by surprise?

It's just a matter of choosing sides, as simple as that. Your soldiers in Iraq are my murderers and my freedom fighters are your murderers. At least I can claim that my side is fighting for a legitimate cause. Can you? Or are you one of the wafflers who doesn't support the war but supports those who you are convinced are engaged in a phoney war? Someone just recently mentioned the Nuremburg defence and it's just exactly that. There is no defence for obeying illegal orders or fighting an illegal war.

You needn't worry because victor's justice will bury your crimes for your country, just as it did for your crimes in Vietnam. If you didn't have victors justice to rely on then your leaders and many of your soldiers would surely be executed for their crimes in Iraq.

[Gorgo]

Quote by: Sonart I find your condemnation of the young people in our military as criminals quite offensive and your "if the war is illegal then what else are they but criminals?" logic facile and mean spirited.

Actually, if you care to read what I've written, I've condemned no one. What I've said is that people do what they know how to do. However, if you commit a crime, you are a criminal. You seem to disagree, but you provide no basis for your disagreement.

[monty of ll]

Tokah, you said: "And keep in mind that those soldiers didn't just "invade" Iraq. Hussein had ample chances to come clean about his weapons capablities and premit inspections and he refused to do so ni full compliance. He asked for it."

Are you serious? Do you seriously believe that Saddam had any WMD that he didn't come clean on? If you went back and read up on the leadup to war you would find that Saddam furnished thousands of pages of documents, including unnecessary documents because he knew full well that the U.S. was going to claim that he was withholding information. Good heavens Tokah, the troops were in place for the inevitable war months before the formal beginning of the war. Why Tokah, Iraq was being bombed by the U.S. and Britain months, if not a full year before the war in bombing raids that destroyed Iraqi infrastructure and defensive installations.

[Gorgo]

Quote by: YourTokah And keep in mind that those soldiers didn't just "invade" Iraq. Hussein had ample chances to come clean about his weapons capablities and premit inspections and he refused to do so ni full compliance. He asked for it.

#1, if "he" asked for "it," then that had nothing to do with the people of Iraq. If he was a brutal dictator, there was no reason to further punish his captive subjects for a dozen years.

#2, the government of Iraq cooperated with the inspectors, and the inspectors found nothing. For years, the sanctions were not tied to the inspections, so there was no incentive to cooperate with the inspectors, but the inspectors got rid of all the illegal weapons, and for the most part, until the government of Iraq was proven right when they said that the U.S. was illegally planting spies among the inspectors, the government of Iraq cooperated with the inspectors.

[monty of ll]

Gorgo, you said: "Actually, if you care to read what I've written, I've condemned no one. What I've said is that people do what they know how to do. However, if you commit a crime, you are a criminal. You seem to disagree, but you provide no basis for your disagreement."

You're much too generous IMO Gorgo. Although I appreciate that you have to attempt to gloss this issue over, the fact still remains that those who commit a crime are criminals and therefore need to be condemned as criminals. If the crime they committed is murder then they must be condemned as murderers. If one is convinced that the U.S. presence in Iraq is wrong and unjustified, then the resultant killing of Iraqis is murder. If the U.S. somehow lost the war and the world had the means to bring the guilty parties to justice then surely your president, your leaders, and some of your soldiers would be executed for their crimes.

Sorry if this pisses some people off but we might just as well drag it up the flagpole now and see if anyone wants to salute it!

[Mark A Shrider]

Quote by: monty of ll Tokah, you said: "And keep in mind that those soldiers didn't just "invade" Iraq. Hussein had ample chances to come clean about his weapons capablities and premit inspections and he refused to do so ni full compliance. He asked for it." Are you serious? Do you seriously believe that Saddam had any WMD that he didn't come clean on? If you went back and read up on the leadup to war you would find that Saddam furnished thousands of pages of documents, including unnecessary documents because he knew full well that the U.S. was going to claim that he was withholding information. Good heavens Tokah, the troops were in place for the inevitable war months before the formal beginning of the war. Why Tokah, Iraq was being bombed by the U.S. and Britain months, if not a full year before the war in bombing raids that destroyed Iraqi infrastructure and defensive installations.

Here are some excerpts from articles concerning WMDs after the start of the war:

David Kay said the trace residue of mustard gas found in an artillery shell earlier this month was likely a relic overlooked when Saddam said he had destroyed such weapons in the mid-90s.

Hans Blix said his team found 16 warheads that were tagged a “used for containing Sarin,” but were empty.

Saddam’s government had disclosed binary Sarin testing & production after the defection of Iraqi weapons chief Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel al-Majid, Saddam’s son-in-law. But Saddam’s government never declared that any Sarin or Sarin-filled shells still remained.

A dozen chemical shells were also found by U. N. inspectors before the war; they had been tagged for destruction in the 90s but somehow were not destroyed.

Iraq acknowledged making 3,859 tons of Sarin, Tabun, mustard gas & other chemical weapons. Iraq began producing Sarin in 1984 & admitted to possessing 790 tons of it in 1995.

The mustard gas shell may be one of 550 projectiles Saddam failed to account for when he made his weapons declaration shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began last year. Iraq also failed to account for 450 aerial bombs with mustard gas.

Kimmitt said the shell belonged to a class of ordnance that Saddam’s government said was destroyed before the 1991 Gulf War.


Here are some interesting quotes:

President Bill Clinton, Speech to the Pentagon, February 17, 1998:
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.”



Madeline Albright, Secretary of State under Bill Clinton, in Town Hall Meeting at Ohio State University, February 18, 1998:
“The evidence is strong that Iraq continues to hide prohibited weapons and materials. There remains a critical gap between the number of weapons we know Iraq produced and the amount we can confirm were destroyed.”

“Saddam continues to deny UNSCOM access to dozens of suspect sites. He's also trying to discredit UNSCOM, and to change its character so that it will no longer be independent, and its inspections no longer credible. As President Clinton made clear in his strong speech yesterday at the Pentagon, the United States will not allow this to happen. Iraq must permit UN inspectors to do their jobs, as the Security Council has directed. If this does not occur, we must be, and we are, prepared to use military force.”




Bill Cohen, Secretary of Defense under Bill Clinton, in Town Hall Meeting at Ohio State University, February 18, 1998:
“Despite Iraq's deception program, let me say, the UN inspectors have done a remarkable job. They have destroyed the following: 38,000 chemical weapons; more than 100,000 gallons of deadly chemical agents; 48 operational missiles and 6 missile launchers; along with a biological warfare factory. But the UN inspectors believe that Saddam Hussein still has his weapons of mass destruction capability – enough ingredients to make 200 tons of VX nerve gas; 31,000 artillery shells and rockets filled with nerve and mustard gas; 17 tons of media to grow biological agents; large quantities of anthrax and other biological agents.”



Sandy Berger, National Security Advisor under Bill Clinton, in Town Hall Meeting at Ohio State University, February 18, 1998:
“Imagine the consequences if Saddam fails to comply and we fail to act. Saddam will be emboldened, believing the international community has lost its will. He will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. And some day, some way, I am certain, he will use that arsenal again, as he has ten times since 1983.”



Democratic Senator Carl Levin (MI), September 19, 2002:
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."



Former Vice President Al Gore, in Speech to San Francisco Commonwealth Club, September 23, 2002:
“Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”



From the Office of Senator Edward M. Kennedy (MA), Remarks to Senate, September 27, 2002:
“No one disputes that America has lasting and important interests in the Persian Gulf, or that Iraq poses a significant challenge to U.S. interests. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed. “

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”

“There is again no persuasive evidence that air strikes alone over the course of several days will incapacitate Saddam and destroy his weapons of mass destruction.”



Democratic Senator Robert Byrd (WV), October 3, 2002 (just 6 months before the US invasion of Iraq):
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."



Democratic Senator, and Presidential Candidate, John Kerry, October 9, 2002:
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."



Democratic Senator Jay Rockerfeller (WV), Remarks on Senate Floor, October 10, 2002:
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."



Democratic Senator Henry Waxman (CA), Remarks on Senate Floor, October 10, 2002:
“Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts.”

“Although I disagree deeply with much of President Bush’s domestic policies and some aspects of his foreign policy, I agree with his conclusion that we cannot leave Saddam to continue on his present course. No one doubts that he is trying to build a nuclear device, and when he does, his potential for blackmail to dominate the Persian Gulf and Middle East will be enormous, and our efforts to deal with him be even more difficult and perilous.”



Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, in a Speech to Congress on SJ Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, October 10, 2002 (just 6 months before the US invasion of Iraq):
“In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change...In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001."

"It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.”



Democratic Senator Bob Graham (FL), December 8, 2002:
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

[Gorgo]

Quote by: monty of ll therefore need to be condemned as criminals.

I think what has been shown that people need is education, health care, shelter and proper food. Crime is reduced when those things are in ample supply. I don't know that anyone "needs" to be condemned. Dangerous people, some of whom seem to be posting on this forum, have to be warehoused at least until they prove to be not dangerous, but other than that, I have no need to "condemn" anyone.

[Mr.Vicchio]

South Africa is a model for peaceful disarmament. Saddam did not do everything required. That's why there was an invasion. Anything less then 100% compliance... and there would be war. Saddam banked on the anti-war/anti-Bush hate to keep a war from happening and to keep him from complying 100%.

Half his planned worked, the antiwar types took his bait hook line and sinker. It just didn't stop the war.

[monty of ll]

Mark Shrider- Thanks for posting all that great evidence. But you should understand that it's not necessary to prove to me that all the justifications and excuses for the war were phoney and there never were any WMD. I would have thought that at this time everyone else would be knowledgable enough on the truth of the matter too but unfortunately that seems to be not the case.

It's absolutely Orwellian logic to continue to believe that this war was justified for any reason. But hey, such is life. And perhaps such is the need of some Americans to continue to further the facade in order to at least maintain their own consciences. With all dure respects, how can Americans continue to love their soldiers who they are personally attached to in many cases, and condemn them for their crimes at the same time?

[monty of ll]

Mr. Vicchio- Saddam was in compliancde 100% but inevitably the U.S. would have found a reason for the war no matter what Saddam did to prevent it from happening. However, if you would like to be a little more specific about what you claim then I would be willing to discuss it with you further. And please keep in mind that I will not tolerate any personal insults, just in case you had any intentions of heading in that direction.

In fact, Mr. V., I would be willing to go so far as to say that there was no justification for either war with Iraq, meaning this war and the previous Gulf War. Every false justification for even that war is easily proven to be U.S. lies and deceptions. Starting with April Glaspie's greenlight to Saddam for his invasion of Kuwait.

And I will add, I am fully aware that my own country Canada, took part in the Gulf War and that makes us every bit as wrong and guilty as is the U.S.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Well Monty, fortuanantly for the people of Kuwait,a nd the people of Iraq, those in power do not share your views.

[amana1man]

From the Bible. Armageddon is the scene of a final battle between the forces of good and evil, prophesied to occur at the end of the world. Has Bush started the fire which will ravage the earth? More important if Bush knew he had started this fire and could put it out would he do so if all he had to do was admit he made a mistake. I think Bush is so big headed he would destroy the world before admiting a mistake. Perhaps if he had foresight to see the flesh being burned from the bodies of his children by the Atomic blast perhaps he would. I pray to god he will see this in his dreams tonight. We "the USA" have been involved in some way in most conflicts in the last 50 years. Why and the hell can't we stay home and protect our borders from intruders and let the Arabs and Jews fight there own wars. The greed of some people has a great deal to do with this. Well who knows what Bush is but he acts like one of those greedy people considering his actions. He likes the $3.00 a gallon gas cause he has stock in the oil trade. Moble oil said they can not control the price at the pump. Bull Shit!!! When Moble profits are up 134% over a couple years back and up 35% in the last couple months they can drop the price they charge the middle man. Companys expect more and more profits for there products while cutting pay, retirement and health benifites for employees. What does government do? They side with the factories which screw employees. Bush wants more Mexicans in the USA cause it lowers the dollar paid for work done. A preacher, Pat Robertson said Bush needs to exterminate a fellow in South America. A PREACHER, he is calling for the murder of someone. What happened to THO SHALL NOT KILL. The 10 commandants. In Iowa Grassley is calling for stopping of inhertant tax. More for the rich and to hell with the poor. Grassley said this tax hurt small farmer who wants to leave his farm to his son. Reality, The family farm is gone mostly already. It was replaced by the factory farm which gets on the average over $100,000.00 a year in government money. It was reported that one farm in Iowa county Iowa recieved almost $750,000.00 in government payments 3 or 4 years ago. Yet our government wants to screw up social security rather than add a tariff tax which would go to social security. Such a tariff tax would help our patrotic factories complete with such compaines who have moved the bulk of there manifacturing to places like Mexico and China. The world is in bad shape. We need to pray to our god regardless what we call him. Help us cause we have lost our way.

[Sonart]

Quote by: Mark A Shrider Here are some excerpts from articles.....

Your point being what, Mark? Your 'excerpts from articles concerning WMDs' makes clear that we found none. Your quotes from Clinton, Albright and Cohen all took place within 2 days of each other, 11 months before they bombed the snot out of Iraq in Desert Fox. Obviously, whatever they thought about Iraq and Saddam, it was not enough to convince them to pursue the folly of invading and occupying Iraq, thus pinning our military down in a hostile nation surrounded, infiltrated and supplied from three sides by even more hostile Muslim populations, in a part of the world where terrorist guerilla warfare is a well practiced artform.

I suspect that in early '98 Ronald Reagan himself was still lucid enough to explain the dangers of pinning ones armed forces down in Muslim territory surrounded on three sides by terrorists, having himself been chased out of Beirut... to say nothing of Clinton's having to pull George H.W. Bush's altruistic endeavor out of the streets of Mogadishu.

No, only LBDubya and Rumsnamara were that monumentally stupid.

The rest of your qoutes comes from Senate members who got their imformation from Bush's executive branch... information that would be shown to be tainted by the administration, obtained largely from an Iranian spy and his network, and ultimately false.

Quote by: Mr.V. Saddam did not do everything required. That's why there was an invasion.

So we invaded and occupied a sovereign nation -- by mistake -- and buried our military neckdeep in a hopeless quagmire because Saddam was sticking his tongue out at us. Yeah, that's an action worthy of a glorious super-power.

.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: YourTokah And keep in mind that those soldiers didn't just "invade" Iraq. Hussein had ample chances to come clean about his weapons capablities and premit inspections and he refused to do so ni full compliance. He asked for it.

This is just nonsense. The inspectors were in Iraq almost up until the invasion began. If anything, America tried to stop the inspectors from going back.

" The American Secretary of State, Colin Powell, has said the United States will find ways to stop weapons inspectors going back to Iraq unless there is a new United Nations Security Council resolution on the issue." (US threat to stop Iraq inspections - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/americas/2269462.stm)

And it seems that saddam did come clean about his weapons programs.

"Saddam Hussein insisted that Baghdad does not possess chemical, biological or nuclear weapons." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/americas/2269462.stm)

Bush sent Colin Powell to the UN with claims of "proof" of Iraqi WMD's. Judge for yourself who the liar was. Check out this info about Powell's speech: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/19/powell.un/

And if you believe that saddam refused to comply with the inspections, then you ought to be able to document an instance where the inspectors were denied acess to a location they wanted to search.

[monty of ll]

Sonart- Absolutely mind boggling isn't it. I truly thought that Shrider was coming from the other side on this debate. First because he quoted instances of WMD in Iraq that turned out to be of no substance and clearly evidence that Saddam was indeed telling the truth. And then secondly because he quoted instances where many Americans on both political sides parroted the propaganda to justify war which claims were inevitably all proven to be wrong in the final analysis.

Can all of the war defenders be so stupid Sonart, as to believe that they are making a case in support of the war when in fact anyone who is in tune with reality would recognize their evidence (Shrider's in this instance) as being no more than strengthening the case for Saddam and against the justification for war? How disappointing that that seems to be an example of the best case being made prowar on this forum. It would be laughable if it wasn't so sad, that these people are so completely propagandized that they don't even know the difference!

[northtexan]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio www.drudgereport.com Yes, remember, the anti-war crowd is enlightenned, principled, and above all, cares only for the soldiers well being. Crock of shit the whole lot fo them.

You're really skimming the bottom, Mr. Vicious. Thousands of wounded soldiers have returned from Iraq and have been ignored by the media and the Administration, which has closed many away at Walter Reed. The anti-war movement has tried to call attention to this neglect, and Code Pink did so by mounting vigils in front of the hospital. In response, the chickenhawks of the scummy right characterized this as a protest against the soldiers -- typical Freeper lies. So, of course, Drudge dredged the lies up, and now you repeat them here.

Well, Mr. Vicious, your nonsense doesn't sell. At Crawford, I've seen the chickenhawks who claim that being anti-war, anti-this-war, is anti-soldier. I see them, and you, as little better than accomlices in murder -- murder of U.S. soldiers sent by a lying in President to an illegal war. Instead, I've stood with the veterans, some Iraq-war veterans, who've protested this illegal war and demanded that the troops be brought back home. No, Mr. Vicious, I don't blame the troops -- I blame the chickenhawks who want a war but are unwilling themselves to serve, just as the chickenhawk Bushistas tend to be former boosters of the Vietnam War, in which they refused to serve.

It is the patriotic duty of Americans to protest when they see their country taking the wrong road. In this case, the country was sent down that road by a war-criminal President and his cronies who warped the intelligence to fit the policy -- in other words, lied to Congress and to the American people -- in order to go to war. They then proceeded to bungle the job, and have continued to do so for over two years, in effect murdering nearly 2000 U.S. troops (actually more, because the 'count' only includes those who died in Iraq as a result of direct combat) and upwards of 100,000 Iraqis. Now, we have an Iraq much worse-off than it was under our former-buddy, the tyrant Saddam Hussein -- an Iraq that may, if the Shia get their version of constitution, not only become an Islamic republic, another Mideast theocracy, but an ally of Iran, to boot. I pray for the day that sense will return to U.S. politics and the Bushistas rounded up and sent to stand trial for war crimes in the International Court.

Meanwhile, we WILL continue to oppose this war; and we WILL prevail.

[northtexan]

Quote by: Isherwood You raise a valid point, Mr. V. Too many times people with reasonable beliefs refuse to disagree with the extremists sharing their basic POV, as if distancing themselves from the lunatic fringe will somehow damage their own position. What nonsense. For example, I love animals, always have. But I cannot abide what some of the extremists in the "animal rights" movement have done is "support" of their position. Kill or harm humans to protest killing and harming other animals? How irrational can you get. Yeah, I'm anti-war. I think wars are a horrible way to acheive peace, and are poor substitutes for communication between nations. Would I go and fight again if called? Yes.

But don't believe Mr. Vicious' characterization of what was being done. The issue for Code Pink was to gain attention for the soldiers who have come home from this war wounded. The Administration's policy has been all along to hide both the dead and the wounded coming back from Iraq. The common story is the wounded soldier who's patched up and sent back to Iraq before the rehab is finished. Yes, true, many soldiers DO want to get back to their units, their buddies, and are willing to do so before fully healed -- but that is far different from being ordered back to war before fully healed, before rehabbed, while suffering from PTSD, and so on.

[Nono]

Quote by: Isherwood Yeah, I'm anti-war. I think wars are a horrible way to acheive peace, and are poor substitutes for communication between nations.

Almost anybody, including Boy George no doubt, could subscribe to such a vague, truistic and tepid definition of "anti-war".

[northtexan]

Quote by: monty of ll Gorgo, you said: "Actually, if you care to read what I've written, I've condemned no one. What I've said is that people do what they know how to do. However, if you commit a crime, you are a criminal. You seem to disagree, but you provide no basis for your disagreement." You're much too generous IMO Gorgo. Although I appreciate that you have to attempt to gloss this issue over, the fact still remains that those who commit a crime are criminals and therefore need to be condemned as criminals. If the crime they committed is murder then they must be condemned as murderers. If one is convinced that the U.S. presence in Iraq is wrong and unjustified, then the resultant killing of Iraqis is murder. If the U.S. somehow lost the war and the world had the means to bring the guilty parties to justice then surely your president, your leaders, and some of your soldiers would be executed for their crimes. Sorry if this pisses some people off but we might just as well drag it up the flagpole now and see if anyone wants to salute it!

The Iraq invasion and its aftermath has been a crime, a war crime; is murder; and should be punished. But those who should be punished are those who perpetrated it, who lied the U.S. into it: Dubya and his Bushista cronies, not to mention Blair and his British co-conspirators. These criminals SHOULD be indicted and stand trial before the World Court.

[northtexan]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio South Africa is a model for peaceful disarmament. Saddam did not do everything required. That's why there was an invasion. Anything less then 100% compliance... and there would be war. Saddam banked on the anti-war/anti-Bush hate to keep a war from happening and to keep him from complying 100%. Half his planned worked, the antiwar types took his bait hook line and sinker. It just didn't stop the war.

What utter nonsense! Iraq DID destroy its chemical weapons (many of them originally supplied by the U.S.) in the early 1990s. The U.N. inspectors knew this; but because many of the destroyed weapons could not be individually-identified, the inspectors could not declare full compliance. Nevertheless, the inspectors were in Iraq and were tracking down the final leads about WMDs when, first, the U.S. prevented them from continuing some of their work, and when, second, the U.S. started using information from the inspections to try to assassinate Saddam. At that point, the inspectors were ordered out by Iraq -- but they would have had to be pulled out anyway, because U.S. actions had put them in danger of reprisals for attempts on Saddam's life. Then, in 2003, under British pressure to have a better excuse for attacking Iraq, Saddam was asked to allow UN inspectors back in. The U.S. and Britain expected Saddam to refuse, thus giving them the pretext for invasion; but Saddam confounded them by accepting. UN inspectors returned to Iraq, found a few items (as noted), but basically gave Iraq a clean bill of health. They were still in their inspection regime when they were hastily recalled because the U.S. was about to invade. In fact, Iraq had fully complied with disarmament, but could not comply with paper requirements.

I note further that the principal charges brought against Saddam regarding use of WMDs involved their use during the Iraq-Iran War, at a time when he was considered an ally of the U.S., when the U.S. was supplying him with weapons, and when the U.S. was silent on the alledged use of WMDs. If Saddam deserves to be charged with war crimes, and he does, it is largely for his invasion of Iraq and for his use of WMDs in the resulting war -- and standing in the dock as co-conspirator with Saddam should be Donald Rumsfeld.