Re: Re: Chemical weapons found in iraq.
Originally posted by Deano
ResumeGEORGE W. BUSH 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington , DC 20520
EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE
LAW ENFORCEMENT
I was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine , in 1976 for driving under the influence of alcohol. I pled guilty, paid a fine, and had my driver's license suspended for 30 days. My Texas driving record has been "lost" and is not available.
MILITARY
I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL. I refused to take a drug test or answer any questions about my drug use. By joining the Texas Air National Guard, I was able to avoid combat duty in Vietnam
COLLEGE
I graduated from Yale University with a low C average. I was a cheerleader.
PAST WORK EXPERIENCE
I ran for U.S. Congress and lost. I began my career in the oil business in Midland , Texas , in 1975. I bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas . The company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.
I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using taxpayer money. With the help of my father and our friends in the oil industry, including Enron CEO Ken Lay, I was elected governor of Texas .
ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS
I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil companies, making Texas the most polluted state in the Union .
During my tenure, Houston replaced Los Angeles as the most smog-ridden city in America
I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas treasury to the tune of billions in borrowed money.
I set the record for the most executions by any governor in American history.
With the help of my brother, the governor of Florida , and my father's appointments to the Supreme Court, I became President after losing by over 500,000 votes.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT
I am the first President in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record.
I invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of over one billion dollars per week.
I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury.
I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history.
I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.
I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.
I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the U.S. stock market.
In my first year in office, over 2 million Americans lost their jobs and that trend continues every month.
I'm proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in U.S. history. My "poorest millionaire," Condoleeza Rice, had a Chevron oil tanker named after her.
I set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips by a U.S. President. I am the all-time U.S. and world record-holder for receiving the most corporate campaign donations.
My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best friends, Kenneth Lay, presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S. History, Enron.
My political party used Enron private jets and corporate attorneys to assure my success with the U.S. Supreme Court during my election decision.
I have protected my friends at Enron and Halliburton against investigation or prosecution.
More time and money was spent investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair than has been spent investigating one of the biggest corporate rip- offs in history.
I presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and refused to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed.
I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history.
I changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.
I appointed more convicted criminals to administration than any President in U.S. history.
I created the Ministry of Homeland Security, the largest bureaucracy in the history of the United States government.
I've broken more international treaties than any President in U.S. history.
I am the first President in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission.
I withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law. I refused to allow inspectors access to U.S . "prisoners of war" detainees and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention.
I am the first President in history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. election).
I set the record for fewest numbers of press conferences of any President since the advent of television.
I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one-year period. After taking off the entire month of August, I presided over the worst security failure in U.S. history.
I garnered the most sympathy for the U.S. after the World Trade Center attacks and less than a year later made the U.S. the most hated country in the world, the largest failure of diplomacy in world history.
I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest me in public venues (15 million people), shattering the record for protests against any person in the history of mankind.
I am the first President in U.S. history to order an unprovoked, pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation. I did so against the will of the United Nations, the majority of U.S. citizens, and the world community.
I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty benefits for active duty troops and their families-in-wartime.
In my State of the Union Address, I lied about our reasons for attacking Iraq and then blamed the lies on our British friends.
I am the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security.
I am supporting development of a nuclear "Tactical Bunker Buster," a WMD. I have so far failed to fulfill my pledge to bring Osama Bin Laden [sic] to justice.
RECORDS AND REFERENCES
All records of my tenure as governor of Texas are now in my father's library, sealed and unavailable for public view.
All records of SEC investigations into my insider trading and my bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my Vice-President, attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for publi c review. I am a member of the Republican Party.
PLEASE CONSIDER MY EXPERIENCE WHEN VOTING IN THE 2006 MIDTERM ELECTIONS. PLEASE SEND THIS TO EVERY VOTER YOU KNOW.
looking at all this, bush isnt that bad of a guy, i sorta got respect for him now.
Originally posted by jaden101
ok weapons of mass destruction....have some been found in Iraq?
Still no real proof of this, and the things that might really qualify as WMD are few, and decades old. The whole fear of Saddams' mighty WMD goes down a notch when they turn out to be few dozen 30 year old canisters in a degraded state buried in the dessert. And I look into a lot of poltics - the war was not just based on Saddam having weapons, but actually being in the process of developing more, and being an actual chemical/biological threat to the US.
have some been used against US troops in Iraq?
Who used them against US troops in Gulf War mark II? If my historical understanding is correct (and it usually is) the culprits are believed to have been insurgents and foreign fighters, and the cases your are referring to there is reasonable doubt that the weapons are Iraqi in origin, and even if they Iraqi in origin they serve only to reinforced how nonthreatening Iraq's WMD stockpile truly was. I mean, a couple of attacks with really old chemical weapons that didn't really do much? Yep, I can see the threat Iraq posed to the free world with its WMD.
did we go to war because we said Saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
Does anyone actually know why we went to war at all? The definition has changed so much it's not funny - WMD (Based on faulty intelligence), terrorist links (a lie, since Iraq was not on good terms with Bin Laden), promoting democracy (not originally the reason, but popular these days), removing Saddam (apparently not the original reason, but promoted these days)
did the UN threaten Iraq with serious consequences for having weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
Yes, but not a unilateral invasion that goes against the tenants of international law.
did the UN actually get its finger out and do anything about it?it sent in inspectors
Heaven forbid that an international organisation err on the side of caution and desire actual evidence before it promotes a war that will be devastating on the nation in question and its people.
had these inspectors been given the run around by Iraq for 10 years prior to this
A surprise? Not really. And admission of guilt? Not really. Similar to other nations such as India, Pakistan, Iran, Korea, China and so forth? Yes.
Did Iraq finally change its mind about letting inspectors back in after the US threatened to blow the shit out of them?
To a degree - but funnily enough it didn't actually stop the Coalition attacking when the inspectors continued to find nothing.
is the Death toll in Iraq actually far less now than it was under the Saddam regime...its just we here about it more now than we did before?
No. I would urge to to research the statistical evidence collected by UN bodies, NGOs etc. They reveal that the death toll during the war and the following insurgent activities keep the average in a similar range to the death toll during Saddams' more aggressive years - the death of civilians, government workers, police, army personnel etc isn't much lower now then when Saddam was in power.
isnt the war in iraq actually part of the war on terror and its documented that Iraq funded suicide and bombings in Israel and rewarded the families of those suicide bombers?...thus being supporters of terror?
So. The US is fighting every bodies terrorists now? If this is the case why didn't they, oh I don't know, FINISH THE JOB in Afghanistan? Why not go into Palestine and actually go after the terrorists instead of a very shaky link to funding and Iraq? Why aren't the US going after all the other terrorist groups out there? And the nations that funded them? Why aren't they charging those Americans who funded anti-Communist groups in South America that cost so many Innocent lives?
And am I the only one who thinks its less then impressive? I hardly call it a fearsome stock pile when a couple of dozen really old, poor quality munitions are dug up, that could easily have been legitimately missed during the destruction of an actual stock pile. How exactly where they going to be used on US soil when they are almost useless? Its like the police arrested a guy with a single cannibals plant and the DA claiming they have crushed a major drug racket.
Still no real proof of this, and the things that might really qualify as WMD are few, and decades old. The whole fear of Saddams' mighty WMD goes down a notch when they turn out to be few dozen 30 year old canisters in a degraded state buried in the dessert. And I look into a lot of poltics - the war was not just based on Saddam having weapons, but actually being in the process of developing more, and being an actual chemical/biological threat to the US.
atually it was US interests...given that everyone knew Saddam never had the missle technology to hit the US it was widely accepted that it meant US bases in the middle east and Europe
and of you dont consider Sarin gas as a weapon of mass destruction thats a different matter....and once again dont forget that he claimed these weapons had been destroyed which was yet another defiance of the UN
Does anyone actually know why we went to war at all? The definition has changed so much it's not funny - WMD (Based on faulty intelligence), terrorist links (a lie, since Iraq was not on good terms with Bin Laden), promoting democracy (not originally the reason, but popular these days), removing Saddam (apparently not the original reason, but promoted these days)
and it changes even more when evidence points to proof of the reasons and the critics change the reason
"we went to war for WMD's and there were none"
WMD's show up and it changes to
"we went to war for NEWER WMD's"
correct?
Heaven forbid that an international organisation err on the side of caution and desire actual evidence before it promotes a war that will be devastating on the nation in question and its people.
yeah applying 13 different resolutions and standing by while all of them are flaunted over the course of 10 years and actively participating fraud in the oil for food programme which cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's while Saddam built 42 presidential palaces. not to mention allowing the deaths of the aforementioned Shia and Kurds who were killed and put into mass graves
To a degree - but funnily enough it didn't actually stop the Coalition attacking when the inspectors continued to find nothing.
that would be because even after that...even in the last inspections...and Hans Blix said it himself...they were still, while being co-operative in some areas, were deliberately misleading and lying and preventing the inspectors from doing their job...which was Iraq flaunting yet another UN resolution
No. I would urge to to research the statistical evidence collected by UN bodies, NGOs etc. They reveal that the death toll during the war and the following insurgent activities keep the average in a similar range to the death toll during Saddams' more aggressive years - the death of civilians, government workers, police, army personnel etc isn't much lower now then when Saddam was in power.
please post it, i'd like to read that
So. The US is fighting every bodies terrorists now? If this is the case why didn't they, oh I don't know, FINISH THE JOB in Afghanistan? Why not go into Palestine and actually go after the terrorists instead of a very shaky link to funding and Iraq? Why aren't the US going after all the other terrorist groups out there? And the nations that funded them? Why aren't they charging those Americans who funded anti-Communist groups in South America that cost so many Innocent lives?
is that another person against invading one country but for invading another?
[translation: bury head in hand]
no...that would be the aformentioned Rwanda...Congo...Uganda...Sierra Leone...Darfur...
Originally posted by jaden101
atually it was US interests...given that everyone knew Saddam never had the missle technology to hit the US it was widely accepted that it meant US bases in the middle east and Europeand of you dont consider Sarin gas as a weapon of mass destruction thats a different matter....and once again dont forget that he claimed these weapons had been destroyed which was yet another defiance of the UN
There seems to be a practical and logical problem with the whole thing. Does a man's hunting rifle equal an arsenal? No. All evidence still shows that the Iraqi regime was not in the process of manufacturing WMD, and hadn't been for anywhere from 5 years+. We know Saddam had stockpiles once. No denigning. However the war was based on him still having them and adding to them. What has happened in the years since "mission accomplished" with experts scouring the nation looking for them? They find a mere hand full of outdated, degraded weapons and materials.
Which, in my view, look like things that quite easily have fallen through the gaps, been lost, gone astray from corruption etc. All this seems to be proven is that he had stock piles at one point, the majority of which are gone, and what little remains were no longer a part of the Iraqi military structure.
As my example above, like the DA saying "we have uncovered a major drug ring" because of some guy with a single plant. This kind of argument seems so desperate - "See, he did have them. It doesn't matter they are really old and looked like they had been dumped years ago, it is vindication Iraq was a real threat to the world with it's WMDs. What few, really old degraded ones they had."
and it changes even more when evidence points to proof of the reasons and the critics change the reason"we went to war for WMD's and there were none"
WMD's show up and it changes to
"we went to war for NEWER WMD's"
correct?
If you say so. The fact remains that the changes were made by the Administration that did this. They went to the US showing pics of Saddams' chemical labs, reports of him trying to obtain nuclear material etc. That all proved false and they changed the reason. Terrorist links. Democracy, regime change. And suddenly because some old munitions are found pro war advocates change it back to weapons, even though these munitions fail to prove any of the pro-war claims like Iraq was maintaining and expanding its arsenal of WMD's. once again all it proves is what we already new - he had them once, though they also show that far from maintaining them and making more most were destroyed except for a handful which are basically useless.
So yes, that was one of the Coalitions selling point - not just that Iraq had WMDs - but it was making new ones. More potent ones. Ones that could threaten the US, end up in the hands of terrorists.
yeah applying 13 different resolutions and standing by while all of them are flaunted over the course of 10 years and actively participating fraud in the oil for food programme which cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's while Saddam built 42 presidential palaces. not to mention allowing the deaths of the aforementioned Shia and Kurds who were killed and put into mass graves
Drifting off topic there. No body denies he did bad things. What does stand is that the UN never once found sufficient proof that Saddam was maintaining or expanding WMD stockpiles which is what this is all about.
that would be because even after that...even in the last inspections...and Hans Blix said it himself...they were still, while being co-operative in some areas, were deliberately misleading and lying and preventing the inspectors from doing their job...which was Iraq flaunting yet another UN resolution
Yet none of this was proof. And even if they hadn't played foolish games and let the inspectors have free reign, tell me, what would have been found? Nothing. Remember that it has taken the US a couple of years of painstaking searching to find a hand full of severely degraded and effectively useless materials dumped - materials which once again prove that not only had the Iraqis not been maintaining stockpiles, they also hadn't been expanding. As the resolutions demanded. So even if Hans and co had found them, it seem highly unlikely it would have led to UN backing or war. In fact I expect it would have but a major, major hole in the US case for war.
is that another person against invading one country but for invading another?
Actually I believe it is people with your views that are being hypocritical. You say the invasion was a part of the war on terror - which is dodgy at best. If it were true there are at least 100 more targets that would have a greater effect, starting with finishing the job in Afghanistan.
Indeed the claim is odd. Very odd. Iraq was invaded as part of the war on terror - we now no it's not because of WMD. Not because of links to Bin Laden. Not because it could harm the US. The most absurd claim - funding terrorists bombings in Israel. No actual proof of this. Yet there is actual proof as to where many of Bin Ladens funds come from, a place with a bad human rights track record. But no invasion of Saudi Arabia.
There are many nations that shelter and are breeding grounds for terrorists (Jordan, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc) but no invasions there. North Korea is quite proud of it WMD program.
Am I saying any of them should be invaded? No. What I am saying is that it's the hight of folly to claim Iraq somehow was a king pin or terrorist nations. In fact, when compared to many others it barely even registers. Giving money to HAMAS suicide bombers. A vile thing, but has it actually affected HAMAS? No, bombing continue. But apparently you say it was a wise move in the War on Terror. Why exactly? How did taking out Iraq affect terror?
However the war was based on him still having them and adding to them.
no it wasnt simply based on that...i remember watching all the reasons being given live on television in the UK parliment by Tony Blair
just because you choose to focus on one and ignore the others as not legitimate reasons seems to be simply a political angle rather than basing it on fact
and yes i do remember Colin Powells speech to the UN...lets not forget that most other nations agreed that the intelligence was accurate at that time
Like the US hasn't done the same on numerous occasions.
there is a vast difference between going against the general consenus of the UN and defying UN resolutions...and before you bring up Israels defiance of the resolutions imposed against them...dont forget that they are done so under duress from attacks by palestinian terrorist groups whereas Iraq defied their resolutions simply because they thought they could get away with it
If you say so. The fact remains that the changes were made by the Administration that did this.
no they weren't...see above
Yet none of this was proof. And even if they hadn't played foolish games and let the inspectors have free reign, tell me, what would have been found? Nothing. Remember that it has taken the US a couple of years of painstaking searching to find a hand full of severely degraded and effectively useless materials dumped
3 years of searching in a country where the civilians who deal with searching for the weapons are under constant threat of attack and are looking for the equivalent of 2 road fuel tankers of chemicals in a country the size of France
What I am saying is that it's the hight of folly to claim Iraq somehow was a king pin or terrorist nations. In fact, when compared to many others it barely even registers. Giving money to HAMAS suicide bombers. A vile thing, but has it actually affected HAMAS? No, bombing continue. But apparently you say it was a wise move in the War on Terror. Why exactly? How did taking out Iraq affect terror?
well there hasn't been any other attacks in the US...you could say that Iraq may have been responsible for keeping the terrorists off US soil
No body denies he did bad things.
yet no-one seemed to want to do anything about it...particularly the US when it is a far more powerful moral argument than any issue of WMD's, old or new, could ever be
Calling those old decrepid canisters of sarin "weapons of mass destruction" is like calling a hand grenade an atomic bomb. Can it do damage? yea. is it a weapon of mass destruction? no. not in the least.
no its like calling an old atomic bomb an atomic bomb...and its like calling 500 old atomic bombs 500 atomic bombs
not to mention that IRAQ SAID THEY DIDN'T HAVE THEM...
please post it, i'd like to read that
The best place for such information is you local university/collage. Read the journals - medical, political. But anyway -
The Lancet medical journal detailed a survey carried out by researchers at Johns Hopkins University, Columbia University and the Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad towards the end of 2004. It examined mortality rates from non-natural causes before the invasion and after the invasion – the result being that risk of death from non-natural cause was 2.5 fold higher after the invasion when compared with the preinvasion period – likewise that there was a substantial increase in violence related deaths as opposed to other non-natural causes such as disease and poor nutrition. This information has been expanded upon by other journals since then. To read the full article you need to subscribe (free)
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673604174412/fulltext
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673604174515/fulltext
Research done by way of the Graduate Institute of International Studies, which has expanded on the survey support these findings, and further stratified them down to particular categories of non-natural causes - primarily death by small arms fire.
The Iraqi humanitarian organization “Iraqiyun humanitarian organization” once again supports the claim, and has backed it up with Iraqi hospital and morgue records.
The Iraqi Body Count database deals solely with non-natural violent causes of death. It draws it's findings, once again in line with with the above and others, from correlating media reports of loss of life. It is on slightly shakier ground however as it is a private initiative. However it has been recognised as a valid, permissible source by various political journals as it has a supportable methodological procedure and is supported by official Iraqi press releases and media packages.
UNICEF has recently released a report that indicates malnutrition levels in Iraqi children are at the highest now since the war finished.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=18468&Cr=iraq&Cr1=
Now they go on. The trouble many have is that Coalition forces have thus far refused to do an actual casualty count. However NGOs, scientific institutes and the Iraqi government have worked on this matter for political/statistical/humanitarian/etc reasons and released their findings. And all of them have produced reports the line up with one another when variables are taken into count. Naturally they recognise these variables could raise or lower the figures they have delivered, but not, they believe, substantially. In total they support the claim that the death toll and illness rate did not drop a huge degree following the war and the removal of the old Iraqi regime. Rather it has, at times, gone up or down very slightly.
Likewise it is also recognised that such reports don't cover the following
-Iraqi soldier killed during the war ???
-Coalition forces - 2500+
-Foreign workers and media - 200+
-Iraqi security and military forces killed by insurgents ???
-Secular violence and death gangs (the discovery of mass graves created within the last 5 months by insurgents as well as Shi'ite and Sunni militias)
Originally posted by jaden101
no it wasnt simply based on that...i remember watching all the reasons being given live on television in the UK parliment by Tony Blairjust because you choose to focus on one and ignore the others as not legitimate reasons seems to be simply a political angle rather than basing it on fact
and yes i do remember Colin Powells speech to the UN...lets not forget that most other nations agreed that the intelligence was accurate at that time
And just because many nations believed them doesn't make it real. Nor did it make the majority of them support military action.
And I remember all those reasons, and I also recognise that each nation approached it in a different manner, and tailored it to be palatable to the voters - the fact remained however that one of the primary selling points, the fear factor was the claims regarding the WMDs, and the Iraqi WMD programs - which as you keep saying in regards to the UN and the "flouting" of resolutions.
there is a vast difference between going against the general consenus of the UN and defying UN resolutions...and before you bring up Israels defiance of the resolutions imposed against them...dont forget that they are done so under duress from attacks by palestinian terrorist groups whereas Iraq defied their resolutions simply because they thought they could get away with it
Ultimately law reveals that the devil is in the detail. Iraq, despite the actions in regards to propaganda and inspectors, never actually crossed the line and broke any of them. Yes they defied them, but that is not in itself a crime. And Ultimately the law, international or otherwise, is still the law (the main difference being with international law one obeys because one feels they should, since there aren't any actual police.)
no they weren't...see above
Depends what nation you live in I guess. The media shows a massive shift in the the way the war has been portrayed. Even if other reasons where mentioned in passing when the began (and just before) it was mostly being portrayed by the Governments concerned as defensive as Saddam had WMD's, and was a threat to the free world. These did not turn up in Iraq and speeches and press releases stopped referring to them (Bush joking as he looks under a table "No WMDs there"😉 and it went to democracy. Terrorism. Now that these things haven't gone well speeches talk about bringing Saddam to justice. The justifications HAVE changed. Those discarded early on replace those that are no longer working.
3 years of searching in a country where the civilians who deal with searching for the weapons are under constant threat of attack and are looking for the equivalent of 2 road fuel tankers of chemicals in a country the size of France
One wonders how the inspectors would have fared then. Seems likely they could have been let inspect their hearts out and they wouldn't have found these "stockpiles."
well there hasn't been any other attacks in the US...you could say that Iraq may have been responsible for keeping the terrorists off US soil
Homer: "There's not a single bear in sight; the 'Bear Patrol' is working like a charm"
Lisa: "That's specious reasoning"
Homer: "Thanks, honey"
Lisa: "According to your logic," she says, picking up a stone from their lawn, "this rock keeps tigers away"
Homer: "Hmmm. How does it work?"
Lisa: "It doesn't."
Homer: "How so?"
Lisa: "It's just a rock. But I don't see a tiger, anywhere."
Sorry, couldn't help myself. Statistics suggests, in terms of past attacks and so forth, that the US is in no more danger, nor is it any safer, from terrorist attacks now then it was before the Iraq invasion.
Though I guess it is terribly noble of the Iraqi civilians. You say Saddam deserves to pay for his crimes (which he does) but then say Iraq may be responsible for keeping terrorists away - at the costs and many, many thousands of people killed by the terrorists who exist where before there was none. Maybe they will build a statue to them (the civilians) sometime in the future.
[/b]no its like calling an old atomic bomb an atomic bomb...and its like calling 500 old atomic bombs 500 atomic bombsnot to mention that IRAQ SAID THEY DIDN'T HAVE THEM... [/B]
After WWI Germany was required, by treaty to dismantle certain large parts of its military. They made a show of doing it, but had secretly kept and built up portions of it. Maintained them. And then unlashed them. Now, the old WWI German warships sitting at the bottom of the ocean didn't matter - because they were at the bottom of the ocean. All they showed was that German once had a navy. What did matter was the navy ships they kept hidden,. maintained and ready for war.
The devil, they say, is in the detail. If Russians go out for a picnic and find a Cold War era nuke in a poor state hidden in a barn where it was forgotten, lost when the USSR broke up it is not the same as the nukes in their actual arsenals. Degraded, old munitions have been found - this is not the same as finding a stockpile of shiny, ready to deploy WMD pointed at Coalition forces. The Iraqis said they didn't have them - and for all intents and purposes they didn't anymore. And I am not surprised a few turn up. I would be surprised if they didn't. Corrupt nations with poor infrastructure have a way of leaving bits and pieces around.
Ultimately law reveals that the devil is in the detail. Iraq, despite the actions in regards to propaganda and inspectors, never actually crossed the line and broke any of them. Yes they defied them, but that is not in itself a crime. And Ultimately the law, international or otherwise, is still the law (the main difference being with international law one obeys because one feels they should, since there aren't any actual police.)
so genocide isnt against international law
a: it was put forward as 1 of the reasons to oust the regime
b: there were several UN resolutions demanding that Iraq release both its own political prisoners and not forgetting the 10.000 kuwaiti's that to this day still have never been found
c: it is against international law
Depends what nation you live in I guess. The media shows a massive shift in the the way the war has been portrayed. Even if other reasons where mentioned in passing when the began (and just before) it was mostly being portrayed by the Governments concerned as defensive as Saddam had WMD's, and was a threat to the free world. These did not turn up in Iraq and speeches and press releases stopped referring to them (Bush joking as he looks under a table "No WMDs there"😉 and it went to democracy. Terrorism. Now that these things haven't gone well speeches talk about bringing Saddam to justice. The justifications HAVE changed. Those discarded early on replace those that are no longer working.
the people who disregarded them in the first place we political opposition...making them seem morally bankrupt if they were against stopping a genocidal dictator on the basis that killing hundreds of thousands of his own people wasn't a good enough idea to stop him
After WWI Germany was required, by treaty to dismantle certain large parts of its military. They made a show of doing it, but had secretly kept and built up portions of it. Maintained them. And then unlashed them. Now, the old WWI German warships sitting at the bottom of the ocean didn't matter - because they were at the bottom of the ocean. All they showed was that German once had a navy. What did matter was the navy ships they kept hidden,. maintained and ready for war.
the people who inspected the weapons found deduced them to be "lower hazard" so your analogy is completely irrelevant
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...174412/fulltext
thanks for this and the other links...i'll get around to reading them soon 👆
And again, this news comes from a senator so twisted and retarded that he has a sexual term named after him and actually brought a dead fetus home and named it, and took pictures of it with his kids and family. I mean, what can be more ****ed up than introducing little kids to their stillborn brother?
Santorum-v.
The mixture of semen, lubrication, and feces that is often the result of unprotected, dirty anal sex.