PRESIDENT BUSH should be tried for war crimes!

[Gatekeeper]

Iraq should have been occupied at the end of the 1990-91 Persian Gulf War and a Marshall Plan II program instituted. Yeah, easier said than done, but I bet we wouldn't have to piss around with Saddam Hussein in 2002 had we done that in 1991.

Gatekeeper

[Kingof the Apes]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Pacifica bills itself as the "Voice of Progressive reason in a world dominated by Republican greed!"

I listen to it once in a while but I can only take so much of "Bush is an illegitamate President who stole the elections!" and "white culture's smoothering of minority cultures is only the latest phase in a racist Anglo-Saxon plot to dominate the world!" before I begin to laugh uncontrolably. I'm a Democrat and I can't even listen to it with a straight face!

[sprucemoose3311]

both Bushes arent the only ones we can arrest for war crimes, Clinton and many other foreign leaders can easily be arrest. arafat, sharon, yettenyahu, Putin, Gorbochov, Reagan etc.

It is my opinion war crimes are a joke and do nothing to curb "war crimes"

[Kepler]

I despise Bush and his disgustingly cynical, power-grabbing cronies, but he's not a war criminal.

Saddam is, and Rumsfeld will burn in hell for shaking his hand while he was gassing up the joint, but that doesn't make Dandy Don a war criminal either.

WC's are a special breed. This isn't an Oscar that goes to just anybody who indiscriminately murders or allows people to be murdered (for which almost any world power leader in history qualifies). These are the guys who make it a personal hobby.

Bush is a charlatan, liar, and hindrance to the better things America can be. But he's just a garden variety white collar criminal, not a WC.

Oh, and here's another liberal vote for "Pacifica Radio must be a Republican parody, because no actual human I know is that paranoid or gullible -- not even the conservatives."

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Arrian
While searching for a link re: 9/11 motivations, I came across the 1998 Fatwah vs. Americans by the World Islamic Front. Accordingly to the website, OBL helped author it.

The first and primary transgression listed is "occupation" of Saudi Arabia by US troops. The second is our actions vis-a-vis Iraq, and the third is our support for Israel.

Link: http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm

The accusations:



Straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

-Arrian

Nice.. this is what I was looking for... well it makes sense to some extent, it is just that they are terrorists, and kill anyone to put the point trough.

It is a fact that Oil is of vital importance to the west and that stable Saudi Arabia is a must, so Osama knows he must destabilise US in the region first in order to get the Saudi monarchy overthrown... I am just suprised to see that the monarchs are not so keen on US as they truly depend on them.

Well it makes sense, it is just that this does not get a lot of popular support because it will be muslims vs the world match... and that would be close to wwiii.

[MRT144]

id like to see a muslim army get on boats and come to america en masse with fruitbats and all

[aaglo]

Bush is a certified gutless arsehole. He should be removed. Immediately.

[Guest]

This represented 60-70% of Iraq's OPEC quota. Then all he could smuggle above and beyond that was gravy.

Through the "new" oil-for-food program, he can sell as much as he wants, just as long as it's for food and medicine. And he's outputting about 2 million barrels of oil a day--100% of his OPEC quota.

Oil-for-food doesnt' even begin to address the rampant and severe health problems inflicted upon the Iraqi people by the sanctions. The wholesale destruction of vital infrastructure and the severe poverty inflicted far outstrip the abilities of oil-for-food running at full capacity. You can read about it here.

Exactly how moral is it that the Iraqi people have suffered the worst set of sanctions in modern history due solely to Saddam's defiance? Your line of reasoning seems to suggest that the Iraqi people can, and should, suffer as much as possible due to Hussein's defiance.

Let me guess. You also believe that Gulf War I wasn't Saddam's fault. Or the Iran-Iraq War.

Nice try.....

This guy is bad news.

...and his people should suffer hardships that border on atrocity because of it. But's it all his fault, right??

[DanS]

OK, I guess you now admit that your numbers bear no relation to reality.

The arguments made on the site you referenced are basically economic. Because of the war, the Iraqi economy collapsed, which led to a widespread reduction in the standard of living. Of course, this is true. But you must realize that even the proceeds from 2 million barrels a day of oil (Iraq's OPEC quota) would not have maintained Iraq's standard of living, even if it would provide for the basic necessities of life. Iraq pissed away all of the investments in basic infrastructure it had made over the previous decades.

Do I like the fact that Iraq had to climb out of a hole? No. But the cause of all of this had little to do with what the outside world did. Rather, it was caused by the Iraqi attack on Kuwait and Saddam's steadfast refusal to give up the territory.

To shift the blame to everybody else is just swallowing Saddam's propaganda whole.

[chequita guevara]

The Pacifica network has no set viewpoint, but allows all sorts of differing leftists have a place to vent.

The actual news, plus Democracy Now, is quite good, but my understanding is a lot of the rest of it has been taken up by wackos.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DanS
All Saddam's fault. If he wanted his people fed, he could have done so easily.

Food's not the real problem. It's the bad water and poor hospitals.

As Scott Ritter points out, in the last few years, they weren't finding anything new, but the new the Iraqis were hiding something. When they uncovered it, it was invariably the hiding place of Saddam, which the Iraqis were naturally cagy about. Since Hussein didn't want to be assassinated, they would hide the information about his where abouts. Because they were hiding something, the inspecters would try and find out what it was. Since the CIA was using the inspecters to collect information, and since the whereabouts of Saddam weren't part of the inspecters mission, the Iraqis had a right to try and withhold that info.

[The Mad Viking]

I find it highly ironic that people ignorant about Tom Morello & RATM are suggesting that they are making statements because of capitalistic motivations.

Dubya is going to war over selling a few barrels of oil.

Morello is absolutely correct that the war never ended; what we have now is essentially an aerial occupation of 2/3 of Iraq; there have been bombings on a monthly basis for years.

The critical infrastructure for water, power and sanitation was destroyed in much of Iraq. People like DanS must know that large infrastructure projects required financing, not a monthly allowance for food and medicine. But people like that live their lives by blaming the victim to absolve themselves of the inconvenience of having any responsibility for others in society, be it locally, nationally or globally.

The US/UK are already war criminals in my book. They have inflicted more suffering on innocent Iraqis than Saddam ever did.

And no, Saddam didn't start either war without US support or consent. The Kuwaiti war was orchestrated to get the US military entrenched in the ME, just as this latest charade is being orchestrated to secure Iraqi oil reserves.

I am disgusted by those who support the attack on Iraq.


By the way, how long did brave Dubya serve for dereliction of duty when he was AWOL for a year during the war on the cowardly Vietnamese?

[DanS]

"The critical infrastructure for water, power and sanitation was destroyed in much of Iraq. People like DanS must know that large infrastructure projects required financing, not a monthly allowance for food and medicine."

Yes. This just goes to show that the sanctions have little to do with the fate of the Iraqi people.

What would you propose to alleviate this situation?

"And no, Saddam didn't start either war without US support or consent. The Kuwaiti war was orchestrated to get the US military entrenched in the ME, just as this latest charade is being orchestrated to secure Iraqi oil reserves."

Here we go again...

[Jac de Molay]

OK, I guess you now admit that your numbers bear no relation to reality.

I took the numbers off of an old state department website and misread them.

To shift the blame to everybody else is just swallowing Saddam's propaganda whole.

I am making a basic moral argument. The only question I have is what degree of suffering among Iraq's people can be tolerated due to Hussein's defiance. If anything, the more they suffer, the more dependent they become on his regime for their basic needs.

[DanS]

DetroitDave = Jac de Molay?