If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
iraq now...
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
why does the news channels and people ask where the WMD are?
noone can honestly say thars why we and america went to war with them,if you called call it a war or walkover is another question :P but thats why i supported the war but with reserved judgement of our sides government!
seriously though i just hpe that rebuilidn of iraq gets developed properly as not to produce another middle east western friendly/aggressor double act dictatorship,cough cough saudi arabia
anyway back to the point, from my point of view, saddam was the WMD,such a shame they iant found him either or the weapons he was apparantly making!hes the real WMD from all the amount of people he got killed through his regieme,and lets hope the iraqis get what the deserve after all this time, a stable government institution which represents the people!
noone can honestly say thars why we and america went to war with them,if you called call it a war or walkover is another question :P but thats why i supported the war but with reserved judgement of our sides government!
seriously though i just hpe that rebuilidn of iraq gets developed properly as not to produce another middle east western friendly/aggressor double act dictatorship,cough cough saudi arabia
anyway back to the point, from my point of view, saddam was the WMD,such a shame they iant found him either or the weapons he was apparantly making!hes the real WMD from all the amount of people he got killed through his regieme,and lets hope the iraqis get what the deserve after all this time, a stable government institution which represents the people!
0
Comments
Like monocrat said the reasons we keep asking about the WMDs is because that was the pivotal and only argument used by Dubya and Blair to go to war. To justify sticking two fingers to the UN and to almost every nation in the world, ignoring international law and waging and illegal war of aggression and occupation on a sovereign nation.
And all because, according to Dubya and Blair, we couldn't wait for the UN inspectors to carry out their work. We HAD to invade without FURTHER DELAY, because Saddam HAD A FULL ARSENAL of WMDs READY FOR FIRING AT 45 MINUTES' NOTICE, which made the Iraqi regime AN IMMEDIATE THREAT to other nations that had to be tackled immediately.
All of the above of course has been proven to be the biggest load of bollocks in the history of mankind and a lame excuse to justify an illegal occupation in order to control Iraq's massive oil reserves and to install a puppet regime sympathetic to the American Empire.
Saddam's was a brutal regime, just like dozens upon dozens of brutal regimes scattered around the world. But whether we like it or not, no country has the right to wage war on another on humanitarian or any other grounds without consent of the UN. Not that Bush and Blair actually give a shit about the human rights of the Iraqis anyway. And not that they are worrying much about abuses in Saudi Arabia, Burma, China, North Korea or any other nation where they either have an interest to keep the regime in place, or that has no financial or geographical value to Washington and London.
Like Blair said, the Iraq war will be seen as one of the defining moments of the 21st century. But for reasons very different to those foreseen by the Great Leader.
Part and parcel of manipulating public opinion, which is well known and admitted by independent journalists, is the presentation of "facts" divorced from any context in which to better judge their relevance and import. Moreover, reports are often presented with an emphasis on emotion rather than analysis/critique so that the actualities are easily forgotten whilst leaving the viewer with a lingering "impression" (rather than knowledge) of what is actually going on.
The ease with which Bush/Fleischer or any other spokesman for the warmongers blurred the facts into a perceived relation with 9/11 only further bolsters the argument that this was an intentional exercise in deception by leaders who have (and continue to) placed themselves above accountability.
Some very interesting links which ive recently come across are below for those who take political accountability seriously...
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles4/VIPS_Fiasco.htm
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Media/040703Binion/040703binion.html
and one that was particularly interesting (Al youll love this)
http://www.legitgov.org/13_myths_about_war_in_iraq_030803.pdf
U.N. grants U.S. war crimes exemption
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By EDITH M. LEDERER
June 12, 2003 | UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- The U.N. Security Council on Thursday approved another one-year exemption for American peacekeepers from prosecution by the new international war crimes tribunal, but it faced opposition from France, Germany and Syria.
France, Germany and Syria abstained, despite a U.S. appeal not to further strain the bitter trans-Atlantic division over the war against Iraq. The three argued that a special U.S. exemption was not necessary and only weakens the International Criminal Court.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan spoke out strongly against any attempt to try to make the exemption permanent -- which the United States initially sought. He warned that this would not only undermine the court but the authority of the U.N. Security Council "and the legitimacy of United Nations peacekeeping."
The resolution adopted by a vote of 12-0 with the three abstentions, authorizes a yearlong exemption from arrest or trial for peacekeepers from the United States and other countries that have not ratified the Rome treaty establishing the court.
France and Germany, both members of the European Union, were in the forefront of opposition to the U.S.-led war against Iraq. Last week, the United States warned the EU that its criticism over the exemption request was putting more strains on trans-Atlantic relations.
France's deputy U.N. ambassador Michel Duclos said agreeing to the renewal "risks in effect giving credence to the perception of permanent exceptions which can only weaken the court and impair its authority."
During an open Security Council debate before the vote, Greece's U.N. ambassador Adamantios Vassilakis, speaking on behalf of the 15-nation bloc, put the United States on notice that "automatic renewal would be undermining to the letter and the spirit of the Rome Treaty and its fundamental purpose."
All 15 EU nations are among the 90 countries that are party to the court, which will prosecute cases of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity committed after July 1, 2002. The court will step in only when countries are unwilling or unable to dispense justice themselves.
The court got a boost Wednesday when China's U.N. Ambassador Wang Yingfan said his country was "positively considering" ratifying the Rome Treaty. Beijing was one of seven countries that voted against the Rome statute but in the last four years has taken a more positive attitude.
"China's change reflects a growing support worldwide for the ICC and international justice," said William Pace, who heads the Coalition for the International Criminal Court, which represents more than 1,000 organizations supporting the tribunal.
Then President Bill Clinton's administration signed the 1988 Rome treaty setting up the court, but the Bush administration has rescinded the U.S. signature.
President Bush contends that Americans could be subject to the court's jurisdiction even if it is not a party to the pact. Washington argues that the court could be used for frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions of American troops. In addition to the exemption, it also has signed bilateral agreements with 37 countries not to prosecute American officials -- and is seeking more.
During Thursday's debate, Canada's U.N. Ambassador Paul Heinbecker appealed to the council to keep the exemption from becoming permanent and emphasized that "the ICC is not a court for frivolous prosecutions." He noted safeguards put in the treaty at U.S. request to ensure that such prosecutions will be screened out.
Last July, the council unanimously approved a one-year exemption after a diplomatic battle in which the United States threatened to end far-flung peacekeeping operations from Afghanistan to Sierra Leone.
Washington had asked for a quick vote on its resolution. But non-council nations asked for -- and got -- an open council meeting before the vote.
The final deal dented the court's underlying principle that no one should be exempt from punishment for war crimes, and it angered court supporters and human rights groups. U.S. deputy ambassador James Cunningham called the Rome Treaty "fatally flawed" and said the resolution represented a compromise that should be respected by all nations. He denied that it violated the treaty.
-- Associated Press
its amazing we never hear of these attrocities caused by america,well i heard on channel 4 news last year the 1year exemtion,for about erm the space of 10 minutes!
personally and seriously i swear bin laden is an american agent,because he only produces tapes,well they come into hands of al jazeera,when its a good time for america to use them!
I have very strong suspicions that many acts attributed to him could just as easily be perpetrated by the CIA or any number of covert Pentagon depts. The plausible deniability inherent in my govt's elaborate web of agencies and sub agencies (all shrouded in lies and secrecy) makes ever knowing the complete truth a virtual impossibility.
Plus most people just dismiss anything that isnt expressly said on mainstream news as conspiracy nonsense, so what chance is there to ever think any truth could ever be exposed?