BS: Iraq War Lies

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jul 03 - 04:00 AM

Fionn,

You are wandering way off topic here, you mentioned how laughable the "Hearts and Minds" philosophy was, and how ironic it was that the "Brits" were instructing US forces in it's practice - I, in response, gave you examples where this has been effectively employed by British troops acting in a role where they operate in aid of the civil power. I did not state, or mean to imply, that that was the overall case, I neither would, or could, ever make that contention.

Borneo (Sarawak, Brunei and Sabah) was an amazing success, primarily because we had won the "Hearts and Minds" of the civilian population both in the towns and in the country. Our greatest asset in thwarting Indonesian incursions from the Kalimantan were the villagers, the occupants of the long-houses, the Ibans and Dyaks. They decided from the outset to side with us, their knowledge of the ground, hunting and tracking skills, enabled ambush after ambush to be laid, so effectively that not one single successful infiltration was ever made.

The butchers bill for Northern Ireland is over 3000 people killed, and goodness knows how many scarred and injured, physically and mentally. Generations of children growing up in an atmosphere of fear and hate. Of those killed and injured the paramilitaries are responsible for about 90% of those casualties - I note that you make no reference to their activities in your wanderings.

I also note that you have not answered the question I asked you with regard to those who have saved lives in Northern Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Gareth
Date: 29 Jul 03 - 06:58 PM

It would be interesting to learn where this self proclaimed expert Fionn has aquired his knowledge from and in what context.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 29 Jul 03 - 05:41 PM

Don't know about Borneo, Teribus, but I've met several people who served in Malaya. Three were psychiatric patients, two of them in-patients detained under the (UK) mental health act, and all of them traumatised by British atrocities they'd witnessed or been forced to participate in.

I notice you didn't mention Kenya, where British soldiers were offered financial inducements/incentives to kill blacks - quite often blacks who had opposed the Mau Mau. But then as British officers blandly explained: mistakes were understandable, as all blacks looked the same. Several thousand people were killed by the Brits in Kenya - a measured response, I suppose you'd say, to the 30 or so Mau Mau murders.

In Northern Ireland the behaviour of the British Army on the ground has been counter-productive beyond belief. I have witnessed behavour by the Greenjackets and the paras that led me to conclude that any group of men, given some modicum of power, is capable of almost any depravity. (Squaddies, almost by definition, are not usually the sharpest knives in the box to start with.)

How much the behaviour is down to individuals and their officers, and how much it is institutional can be argued. But the damage it causes is a fact. Which points to another fact: an army - any army - is a hopelessly blunt instrument to use in any kind of peace-keeping role.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Jul 03 - 08:48 AM

Grave error Bobert, anyone could have predicted that "the Bathe Party" would not have folded it's tents - they could well have pulled the plug though.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jul 03 - 08:33 AM

According to a Washington Post story last week the Bush adminsitration is pondering yet another change of plans in post-invaded and now occupied Iraq. That would make the third plan, T. Hmmmmmm? Even Paul Wolfowitz has admitted that the administration erred badly in their pre-ivasion assessment that the Bathe Party would just fold up its tents and cooperate.

And on the government controlled media (NBC) nightly news it was reported that US troops are being attacked on an average of 2 dozen times a day. Doesn't say much for Bush's proclaimation last week after Saddam's sons were killed that *now the war is indeed over* or something very close to that. Looks to me that its just moving into a different phase and the unstability that many folks here warned of before the invasion is starting to rear its head.

And, meanwhile, back at the ranch, we have millions of folks working their butts off to pay for Bush's little joy ride and an unprecidented deficit and now end in sight for either...

Pretty ill thought out foriegn policy as far as I can see...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Jul 03 - 03:46 AM

Fionn - 28 Jul 03 - 04:40 PM

"Even the White House seems to have abandoned that hilarious objective of "winning hearts and minds."

If they have, and I don't believe for a minute that that is indeed the case - Then they definitely are on a hiding to nothing - they will be repeating the disasterous mistakes that led to them totally losing the plot in Vietnam.

As for

"I don't suppose the irony will have been lost on you, Ard, of US troops getting training from the Brits in how to be an occupying force!"

Irony? - don't think so - the track record of UK forces in precisely this role has been fairly effective. Malaya, Borneo and Northern Ireland. And before you jump in with any comments regarding the latter - I have a question for you - How many members of whatever paramilitary group have actually saved lives in Northern Ireland? (Note I do not count bombers who have managed to blow themselves up, either in making their bombs, or, in transporting those bombs to their designated targets.

Both Malaya and Borneo, were both conflicts that ran at the same time as the US were involved in Vietnam. It was in Malaya that the phrase "Hearts and Minds" was coined. Malaya and Borneo are the only two examples where communisted backed and inspired insurrections were defeated, mainly due to the adoption of the "Hearts and Minds" philosophy - major military power involved - The Brits.

Does it work? - Number of British casualties in Iraq since May? Number of incidents of attacks on UK forces?

Taking the whole picture into account the number of incidents are minute, and it must be remembered that the US forces are operating in the harder areas, they are largely peaceful - as I have previously said, the success stories are not reported.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jul 03 - 08:36 PM

Well done, Gareth. Just what I expected from someone so closed minded. You'd follow Teribus off a cliff in a heart beat.

What, all of a sudden no one wants to talk about the number of Iraqis killed? Oh, this guy doesn't friggin' count because he was in the Army. What isn't known is that he never raped a woman, nor hurt anyone but had three kids and wife to support. But he doesn't friggin' count, does he, Gareth????

Like I've said all along, give me a "realistic" number and I'll use it!!!! That's more than fair and more than you guys who parrot the company line ahve to offer. You just hide behind Bush spin folks!

Real brave!

Real couragous!

I'm sure you go to bed at night thinking that you did something to carry mankind a little further down the road...

And, I'm the bigot here????

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Gareth
Date: 28 Jul 03 - 07:07 PM

No Bobert, you are the person who posts post after post in a gut reaction, that whatever the Bush does is wrong. And when you can not find facts to support your prejudice, you invent them.

Actually I'll make up a fact myself ! Bobert is a paid agent of the Republican Party to used to discredit genuine fears about the conduct of the US of Government.

Now disprove that !!!

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jul 03 - 05:14 PM

Man, things must not be all warm and fuzzy in yer tent these days, Teribus. Accusin' ol' Bobert of "bigotry" is a new low for you, my friend. Let me see if I have this right. You are the one who has shown blind loyalty to some pretty messed up foriegn policy decisons, and I am the bigit? You are the one who posts one post after another defending authoritative and military solutiojs to world rpoblems and I am the bigot? Like I said, times must be purdy tough in your tent to go callin' a pro-hman, pro-world, pro-environment and pro-peace hillbilly a bigot.

And just for the record: *Shame on you*!

And just for the record, Part B: No, make that *double shame on you*!

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 28 Jul 03 - 04:40 PM

Ard, certainly tragic about those latest civilian deaths. I believe one of the victims was disabled. I wouldn't call it murder, but the US troops in particular seem to be hopelessly prepared for what they're doing. And it isn't as though there was any shortage of voices warning in advance about the difficulties of managing the post-war situation. Maybe, on reflection, I would call it murder on Bush's part.

Even the White House seems to have abandoned that hilarious objective of "winning hearts and minds." I don't suppose the irony will have been lost on you, Ard, of US troops getting training from the Brits in how to be an occupying force!

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: ard mhacha
Date: 28 Jul 03 - 06:30 AM

Another five innocents murdered by US forces in Iraq, while these trigger-happy US forces remain there will never be peace. Ard Mhacha

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: GUEST,guest
Date: 28 Jul 03 - 06:02 AM

Teribus Who is paying you and how much?
I suppose that the future computer voting in the states will be all above board as well. Are you standing?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Jul 03 - 02:35 AM

Bobert,

So I have not shifted from "my number" (Not really - that number was sourced from reports by others - a fact that you seem to have some trouble grasping)

"GUEST 22 Jul 03 - 01:43 PM provided a link to "Iraqbodycount.net counts the true human cost of war, not just "Our Side"

Thanking above Guest for the link I noted - ......This sites worst case puts total civilian deaths at 7,782."

According to my maths Bobert, that is a shift of some 537%. But whatever, you persist in your statements Bobert, as they only serve to demonstrate your bigotry, lack of objectivity and total absence of rational.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Jul 03 - 09:07 PM

Well, danged Dougie, yer getting more and more like T everyday. You read only what you want to read and ignore the rest for fear of some of the *truth* gettin' on ya'. Now we wouldn't want none of that to get on ya'.

Truth be told, there may have been 100,000 Iraqi deaths. T wants to keep the number down by strictly defining the word "deaths" to non-combatants. I never said in mym orginal post anything about qualifiers. I said "Iraqia", Doug. But, I'm sure you missed that just as yer hero the T-Bird missed it.

Then, tryin' to keep some harmony here in the Catbox, I offered (and reoffered)... (and re-reoffered) to use any number of "Iraqi" deaths that T wanted to use. But did T take me up on this? Well kinda, then no. The kinda part was T telling folks that after 30,000 bombs, a few million rounds of rifle, tank and artillery rounds, that about 1400 Iraqi's died!!! Well, I was shocked at the low number, especially since 80% of the bombs were 'sposed to be a lot smarter than that!

Heck, Doug, I ain't no rocket scientist but I figured that the "smart bombs" ougtta kill one 'er two folks and the millions of other ounds could accidently kill a few more and so I didn't figure that 100,000 was that unreasonable????

But now T won't budge off the 1400...

So, Dougie, yer a learned man. If you were the Commander in Chief and Tommie Franks came ot and said, "Ahhh, we dropped 30,000 bombs, several million rounds of artillery, tank and small arms fire at the enemy and we think we got 1400 of 'em..", like, what would you think?

I'll be waitin' on this answer, fir sure....

Meanwhile, glad to have ya back, Dougie. Fir real...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: DougR
Date: 27 Jul 03 - 07:24 PM

Hey Bobert,
I read the message Teribus wrote that you called him to task for. It seems clear to me, and I would think anyone who can read would not have a problem understanding it either. Teribus just wants folks to toss out figures that can be supported, not those just "made up" to support a point of view.

Seems reasonable to me. It sort of defines the difference between "reporting" and "pontificating."

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Jul 03 - 08:07 PM

Shoot, Frank, don't much amtter since T's post are all the same. Like muzac in the elevator or dentist's office.... I'm sure no one actually reread the danged thing. I've gotten to skimming the things first and then trying to read them at one sitting but that ain't easy. Usually takes two or three sittings to get through one of T's posts. Sure does write alot to say, ahhhh, very little. But that's how these academic folks are..... verbose...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: GUEST,Frankham
Date: 26 Jul 03 - 09:39 AM

I apologize to all of you for reposting Teribus' long post. I forgot to delete the part that was already posted. Forgive my indiscretion.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Jul 03 - 08:46 AM

Yep, that's the way I heard it, too. Seems Ted Turner had to threaten to pay the US's dues in order to get the government to pay up. The US has a way of going about being the arrogant *do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do* world power. Doesn't particularly matter what the issue is, i.e. the World Court, non-proliferation, global warming, etc...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: GUEST,pfv
Date: 26 Jul 03 - 02:44 AM

I think the US has always treated the UN with a certain amount of arrogance. Please correct me if I'm wrong -- but wasn't the US the only country (or major country, at least) that didn't pay its UN dues for years and years, even when the UN needed the money?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 07:58 PM

Danged, this is gettin more' and more complicated by the minute....

Jus' funnin'...

But in all seriousness, Gareth, if the US tells the UN to "stick it where the sun don't shine" how many other countries can be reasonably expected to follow resolutions? Bush has driven a stake thru the heart of the United Nations! It has been reduced to joke status...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Gareth
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 07:43 PM

Me ? Drink water ? No my spectacles were dirty. Delate Bush and insert country of your choice.

Still it nice to see that you clutch at any straw to defend your prejudices.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 07:31 PM

Gareth:

I would gladly try your little exercise but you've asked me to replace "US" with the name of any other country, yet the word "US" doesn't appear in the quote you want me to replace it in???? Is this a trick question 'er you been drinkin' from the same water fountain as Teribus?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Gareth
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 07:19 PM

The issue of the violation of UN treaties is a red herring. The Bush Administration has no intention in honoring any UN resolution unless it serves their political agenda. This is true of the current administration and past right-wing ones.

Today, the world countries can be interpreted as being our neighbors and unless we pay attention to their needs and eliminate the need for any conquest by one country over another, we can expect an escalation of the arms race again and the propensity for the use of WMD's.

Good, acurate, just one comment - delate US and insert the Country of your choice.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 05:51 PM

Dear Mr. Hamilton: Someone defined an intellectual as "one who is knowledgeable in one field but speaks only in another". Congratulations on your ascention to the status of intellectual.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 05:45 PM

Hey, Boy! Capturin' sand niggers ain't no fun! Ya gots to KILL 'em off! Ain't like they're human or nothin' like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 05:29 PM

Alba:

Right you are. And there would have been yet another reason to make every effort to capture them. It would have been a small step in restoring the US's image as a people of laws. We have cated so law*less* that the world no longer trusts us and we're gonna have to tackle that one one small step at a time. But I guess that Bush ain't the guy. It just goes against the way he's been brought up...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 05:18 PM

Hi Teribus,

Thanks again.

Picking up from where we left off,

3. Iraq's Nuclear Programme

Saddam Hussein is a ruthless and brutal dicator but not a homicidal maniac. He is a politician. The world opinion against him was growing steadilly until Bush intervened and made it "his" issue. I guess it's a matter of interpretation as to who would be classified as a homicial maniac these days. The dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima would have to be classifed as the epitomy of such an abberation. No, Iraq only had the potential of effective WMD's when the former Bush administration provided this possibility in it's paranoia about Iran.


The worst/best case scenario concluded by the UK intelligence group is a highly politicized determination. It's analogous to the "clear and present danger" scenario that the States lived through in the
Cold War. It has to be repeated that the men who masterminded and executed 911 did not come from Iraq but from Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
As Pogo (Walt Kelley) said somewhat succinctly which is applicable to the present Iraq policy, "We have met the enemy and it is us!."

I think the report given in 1999 might have been exaggerated and as the inspection team later found out in the 2000's, new information made that evaluation questionable.

I, for one, am glad the Dr. Blix was circumspect in not wanting to rush to hasty conclusions. It's to his credit.

At this point, I want to go on record as saying that I in no way am condemning Bush for his incorrect assessment of the Iraqi situation. I prefer to give Bush and Blair the benefit of the doubt in their belief that they were doing good by their blundering mistake. I believe though that the present Adminstration has a political agenda and is operating under that umbrella and the business of "security" has reached a disproportionate level of fear-mongering that at present is crippling rather than aiding the country. The Ashcroft "paranoia" is equivalent to the internment of the American Japanese citizens in World War II.


I believe that experts can make blunders.

What you interpret as a luxury, I see as a calumny. Any excessive military solution to an existing world problem today is putting a band-aid on a cancer.

More later.

Frank Hamilton

With regard to the current stance of the UK Intelligence services on attempts by Iraq to acquire material for their nuclear programme. All that is clear at the moment is that one piece of evidence has been discredited, they have stated that they still believe attempts were made and have evidence to support that contention. Call that a red-herring if you will, it does not alter the fact that it cannot be totally dismissed or ignored.

4. Iraq's Oil

Your refernce to US involvement in the Banana Republics of Central and Soiuth America, and to Afghanistan - now they are red-herrings and have nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq, its oil and what will happen to the income derived from the sale of that oil.

The contention put forward was that America saw Iraq as a ripe plum just waiting to be plucked - of course it isn't and never was viewed as such. I merely pointed out the amount of effort that has to be put in, in terms of time and money, to restore Iraq to it's pre-1990 levels of production. Your contention that oil revenue will not be used for the benefit of the Iraqi people at present is totally unfounded opinion, please do not present that as a fact or basis for any arguement.

Germany, under the terms of a full scale military occupation, with all the freedom of action that implies, took five years hard and concerted effort to rebuild. Why do you, and others, expect that the problems facing the rebuilding of Afghanistan and Iraq are any less and should be capable of being accomplished overnight - such a view-point is as ridiculous as it is unrealistic.

Axis of Oil stated that Iraq was the worlds second biggest source of oil - that is not true, it never has been, at full production pre-1990 levels it accounted for less that one seventeenth of the worlds oil needs. So the point Axis of Oil was wishing to make was and still remains a load of bollocks. Your reply regarding what Halliburton may or may not do - they will not make Iraq the worlds second biggest source of oil.

And if, or maybe, about it Iraq today is currently exporting oil. FACT.


5. Who Crippled Iraq?

Saddam Hussein - plain and simple, muddy the waters as much as you like, nothing will alter that truth.

Iran was demonised in the minds of the American people long before the advent of the Iran-Iraq war. Saddam's war on Iraq had no dimension that related to US-Iran, or US-Iraq relations. It was a purely opportunist, offensive action on the part of the Ba'athist regime in Iraq to gain control of the Shat-al-arab waterway and the south-western oilfields of Iran at a time when Saddam Hussein believed Iran was weak enough for such plans to succeed.

6. Oil Related Contracts

Please refer me to any industry publication or company press release that shows any company or corporation pushed for war.

The two contracts awarded so far relate purely to repair of oilfield infrastructure, pipelines and facilities damaged during hostilities. Such damage has fortunately been very slight, mainly due to actions by Iraqi civilian oil workers subverting the plans of the Ba'athists to destroy those facilities. So far, subsequent to the ending of hostilities Saddam's sympathisers have attacked two pipelines, the damage caused was slight and the lines returned to operational staus very quickly. If as you, and Axis of Oil, contend, that the revenue resulting from exploitation of Iraqi oil is only going to go into the pockets of US corporations, those attacks would not have taken place - to attack them would have been counter-productive to their arguement that the oil was being stolen. Saddam's sympathisers know that Iraq's oil will benefit the entire population of Iraq - that is why those pipelines were attacked - no other reason.

That work is based on cost plus 2% as defined in letters between Waxman and the Army and Waxman and the GAO.

7. Iraqi Infrastructure

No water treatment plant in Iraq has been bombed since the cessation of hostilities of "Desert Storm". FACT.

Also fact Iraq's schools and hospitals are now open and operating. What is not being taught in Iraq's schools today is the slavish adoration of Saddam Hussein and the bountiful benefits to be enjoyed living under the wonderful Ba'ath regime. Your contention that the coalition forces in Iraq today influence and control what is taught throughout the country is ludicrous.

The required up-front inward investment of 7 billion US$ and potentially 5 years work has nothing to do with the contracts that have been let. As previously stated they relate to a fairly specific area. The investment relates to up-grading and modernising existing infrastructure to increase current production to pre-1990 level - it has nothing to do with existing Halliburton contracts.

8. Iraq - Israel and relations with neighbouring states

As long as Saddam Hussein remained in power in Iraq hopes for any peaceful settlement in the middle east would be slight. That comes from a desire to successfully eliminate the state of Israel that dates back to 1948. Saddam Hussein fled Iraq to Egypt, he was an ardent supporter of Gamal Abdul Nasser and Pan-Arabism, he continued down that path on his return to Iraq and his successful coup within the Ba'ath organisation which brought him to power.

You will not hear one word of complaint from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria or Iran that this man and his regime have gone. They may express concern over who or what will replace him and that is both natural and understandable - but none regret his passing.

9. Afghan Pipeline

Axis of oil said this pipeline project was underway - bollocks it is not and it is highly unlikely that it will proceed. If there is no pipeline then it can hardly be regarded as expansionism on the part of anyone.

10. US Intentions

"Iran, Syria and other oilcountries may soon be attacked and robbed of their oil - using more lies and more terror if they are required." This is the "all-too-obvious truth"? If so there is little or no evidence of it."

I'll stand by that, I have seen nothing that would indicate that the US has any intention whatsoever of attacking Iran, Syria or any other oil producing country.

Your response - "There is some evidence that some US Administrations have been associated with "Banana Republics". This might act as some kind of evidence." A total red-herring and completely irrelevant - you seem all too prepared to accept very dubious and far fetched assumptions on certain things and yet decry and condemn others for doing likewise on far better grounded intelligence and evaluation of that intelligence.

11. CEO's

Chief Executive Officers, of companies, corporations, etc. Responsible and accountable to their respective Boards of Directors for the running of their companies and business health of those companies. The Boards of Directors in turn are responsible and accountable to the shareholders of those comapnies - Who are the shareholders - Banks (Who have their own boards and shareholders), Insurance companies (Who have their own boards and shareholders) private investors (people like you and me). By law at least once a year they have to present themselves and account for their actions to all shareholders. FACT

They are not all powerful and can, and have, been brought down by their shareholders for whom they work.

12. Osama bin Laden

Has been stripped of his Saudi citizenship. FACT

Was exiled by the Government (Saudi Royal family). FACT




"Bush has close oil-business ties to the Saudi royal family," - That "all-too-obvious truth" can equally be applied to anyone with a pension plan or shares in any oil company!!!"

I believe the Saudi government might be taking the Bush Administration for a ride. The point being made here is that the rank-and-file employee of an oil company has little to do with the workings of the hierarchy. It's not the employees that will benefit as much as the corporate CEO's. This is the current pattern of American economics under this Administration.


Even in the light of your excellent post - My opinion has not changed one iota. What was written by Axis of Oil is nonsensical rubbish.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 04:56 PM

Hi Teribus.

The issue of the violation of UN treaties is a red herring. The Bush Administration has no intention in honoring any UN resolution unless it serves their political agenda. This is true of the current administration and past right-wing ones.

Today, the world countries can be interpreted as being our neighbors and unless we pay attention to their needs and eliminate the need for any conquest by one country over another, we can expect an escalation of the arms race again and the propensity for the use of WMD's.

In the meantime, the US has it's right-wing madrasas that are inculcating a warlike attitude in our young people. A young lady in an elementary classroom was heard to say, "Well, Hitler was just doing what he thought was right!"

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 12:04 PM

Alba, the reason why no effort was made to keep the suspects alive, is because they are of no propaganda value for the Anglo American "coalition" alive. Their propaganda value is directly related to their being dead, so that the so-called 'coalition' doesn't have to be bothered with following international law and the Geneva Convention regarding prisoners of war, trials, etc. The Bush/Blair Anglo American Imperial Coalition is ESPECIALLY vehement towards the backers and supporters of the International Criminal Court:

Website of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

As to whether there are ways to incapacitate suspects in a stand-off sort of situation, the answer is yes. Police often use those measures, unless there is a hostage situation, or there is extreme danger to people in the immediate vicinity. The latter didn't seem to make much difference to the US military, who waged this "fierce gun battle" without, apparently, evacuating the residential neighborhood where the gun battle took place. In the video footage I saw on the news last night, it specifically showed the large holes in the front and back walls of the villa made by US troops, for the express purpose of seeing what was going on inside. Tear gas and smoke bombs could easily have been fired in through those holes, but that also creates difficulties for those going in after the suspects. However, there may been a way to force the suspects out of the building, or to have laid siege to the place until the ammo ran out. The suspects may or may not have cooperated with being taken alive--that is something the US troops wouldn't have had any control over, regardless of their advantages over the suspects.

I seem to recall reading one report on the day, that one of Hussein's sons was said to have a wound consistent with a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head. That isn't an uncommon outcome in cases where a suspect has holed themselves up, and is surrounded by police.

But really, like I said, there was no propaganda value to the Bush/Blair administrations to taking these suspects alive, if they truly believed they had both sons in the villa, and that is why we are now seeing the grisly photos, etc. Those grisly photos have tremendous propaganda value in Iraq and in Britain and the US, where the governments are currently besieged themselves over the Iraq war.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Alba
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 11:30 AM

This is a question...I am not too savvy on these matters but I have to ask, as something that Bobert has brought up also, has been bothering me these last two days
"Im curious as to why more effort wasn't made to capture these guys"
Like I say I am ignorant on these matters so here goes, Does the Army have gases of some kind that could have rendered these people helpless...ie Tear gas or Calmative agents. If they do then maybe that way these Men could have been taken into custody and made to stand trial, which for the Iraqi people may have been a better way to see Jusitce done and also to gain useful information about Saddam Insane himself.
So are there non lethal gases of this nature that can be used legally in War or was it not an available option?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 11:12 AM

Well, T, just what I expected from you. Now lets say that the roles were reversed and the Iragi Army was the one with the hihg tech weapons and invaded the US and lets say they dropped 30,000 bombs on our army, many of them on forts and barracks and lets say they killed a lot (since numbers are a distraction for you) of our soldiers, amny who were fast asleep. Would you not consider the deaths of these men to be "innocents"? I would. Maybe that's where we have a different way of looking at things.

Now, especially as the facts surrounding the fabrrications used in justifying the invasion in the first palce are slowly coming to light, I don't think it is farfetched to include many, if not a majority, of those "combatants" wyho were trying to "defend" their country, as "innocents". Do you really believe that a majority of those in the Iraqi army had personally killed, tortured or maimed a fellow countryman, T.? I don't. And I would doubt that you could argue the other side effectively. But then again, we don't know.

Now, as fir the *shrunken heads* remark, if you took that *literal* than this in itself speak volumes about your little world in the middle of your magnifying glass. Puffery, when blatently obvious, is not lieing, my friend. We both know it. Now if I had said that Bush was going to bring the bodies here for viewing, well, that, given Bush's personality is fiesable and there fore would certainly be out of bounds fir this ol' hillbilly. But I didn't say that.

BTW, if you can come up wigth that *actual* Iraqi death total (civilian and "combatants"), I'll be more than glad to use it in future posts...

BTW, T, what's your take on why the kids were shot up so bad? What, do you think they continued to defend themselves after taking the first half a dozen rounds?

And lastly, T, I'm real curious why more effort was not made to capture these guys. You'd think they could provide a lot of information. Seems like your administration seems to be in some big hurry all the time. Hust like when they were selling the war. Big hurry. Like, what's the big danged hurry, T. Seems to me that a lot more effort could have gone into trying to get these guys alive. Oh, yeah, that would have lost the *distraction* effect that Bush so desperately is seeking.

There, T'zer, I given you lots of thinks to but into the T-Blender and ponder but I'm fully confident in yer ability to twist it all up to fit yer perspective, so have at it. You do have that knack for, in the words of Bob Dylan, "turning the daytime black...".

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 07:51 AM

From Fionn - we got:

"They refuse to help human-rights charities protect mass graves and gather forensic evidence, and coalition troops - the Americans more than the Brits it seems - treat the civilian population like scum. (See that US officer screaming - in English - at some bewildered villagers that either they provided information or he was coming back with heavy vehicles to trash the village?)"

Interesting article in the Telegraph today written by Jonathon Foreman of "The New York Post", the title of the article:

"American soldiers aren't spoilt, tigger-happy yokels"

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 04:24 AM

Bobert - Just to clarify things;

"Going back to my original post about Iraqi deaths, I *did not* qualify civialian verses military."

Your original post - "Why they had to kill off 100,000 innocent people and reduce the country to chaos is way beyond comprhension."

Now the adjective "innocent" when applied to people during a war, is normally applied to the civilian population. Those serving in the armed forces are normally referred to as combatants. Unless you believe that that distinction is a convenient categorisation - anyone in the Iraqi military who stood to and defended this regime can in no way be described as "innocent" in view of the extent of this regime's depredations revealled with the recent uncovering of the mass graves in Iraq. The bulk of Saddam's forces however threw off their uniforms and returned to civilian life, those who then continued the fight did so as non-innocent civilians, but thankfully most just returned home and stayed out of it.

I asked you to susbtantiate your figure of (Wait for it Bobert) 100,000 dead Iraqi's (Yes that was MY question) and you admitted that your estimate was based on 30,000 bombs dropped and applied a factor of 3 Iraqi's per bomb (incidently that works out at 90,000 Bobs - not 100,000)

In response I supplied figures for civilian casualties (innocents) and quoted the sources reporting those figures - Note Bobert, just in case you are a slow learner, or a poor reader, the figures 1250 - 1450 did not come from ME but from the BBC, various reporters for other networks including arabic stations, Ba'ath Party spokesmen and Coalition Central Command spokesmen. Just in case that has not sunk in, here are my exact words:

"Civilian casualties were put at around the 1,250 - 1,450 mark by most of the worlds press, Iraqi sources in Baghdad and by Coalition sources."

You then made the followind admission:
"Yeah, T-ster, I'll admit that I did pluck the 100,000 deaths out of "thin air" ..." - and invite me to "come up with a *realistic* number of total *total causualties* (military and civilian), heck, I'll be glad to use that figure."

I declined the invitation saying - "No Bobert, I will not pick a number, I prefer to quote from some source that can be verified and has some explanation of the composition of it's figures."

GUEST 22 Jul 03 - 01:43 PM provided a link to "Iraqbodycount.net counts the true human cost of war, not just "Our Side"

Thanking above Guest for the link I noted - "A read of how they compile their figures will also show that the human cost also includes Iraqi civilians killed by Iraqi civilians. It also lists all Iraqi deaths from the point in time the day the statue fell as civilian deaths, including the Iraqi soldiers who carried on fighting in civilian clothes. This sites worst case puts total civilian deaths at 7,782 - somewhat short of Boberts 100,000 figure. In that site links are provided - go through them there is one based in New Zealand that provides a breakdown." Had you bothered to go to the New Zealand based site you would have got a breakdown of:
- Iraqi military personnel killed and injured;
- Iraqi civilians killed and injured;
- US forces killed and injured;
- UK forces killed and injured;
- Other nationalities killed and injured.

You then ask; Bobert - 24 Jul 03 - 07:06 PM
Ohhhh, and I'm still waitin' fir yer number of Iraqi deaths. If you wanta stick with your "thin air" number of 1400, that's fine with me, I'll use that and I'll be sure to credit you for that info...

Don't put words into my mouth Bobert, anyone reading through this thread or this post will clearly see that any figure I have put forward, I have supplied information relating to where that figure came from - Dearly wish that you did the same, as opposed to bigoted, over emotional and hysterical claptrap.

Bobert's Lies:
1. By Admission
"Why they had to kill off 100,000 innocent people and reduce the country to chaos is way beyond comprhension."
2. Proven
"...but thankfully according to Teribus only 1400 were killed."

Seems to me Bobert that you feel perfectly entitled to fabricate things based on absolutely damn all, and to continually repeat things that you know to be totally false - and you've got the brass neck to criticise George W - all his decisions have at least been based on some form of information.

Latest Bobert Sensationalist Rubbish:
"I heard that Bush is gonna have the heads shrunken and put up on sticks outside to the White House."

You seem to be extremely selective on what you hear and want to believe. You obviously do want to believe it Bobert otherwise you would not have repeated what you heard "on the street". And if that is the sort of thing that people do say on the streets around you Bobert - I'd advise you to move, mind you it does explain your total irrationality.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: mg
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 11:30 PM

You know...I am starting to think people are really stupid and it is getting hard for me to be even reasonably polite. But how in the hell can they drop 30,000 bombs, millions of rounds of small arms fire, countless tank and artillery rounds, and have killed 1400 people, much of it in reasonably populated areas, and have someone think that these highly trained and competent marksmen and women were aiming at the Iraqi people? They were trying to miss the Iraqi people, in general. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 09:17 PM

I don't get. Some mass killings are bad and others are good. If the Martians were to land on Earth, how would they know the good guys from the bad?

Here, Bush and Blair order the droppin' of over 30,000 bombs, millions of rounds of small armed fire, countless tank and artillery rounds at Iraqi people, but thankfully according to Teribus only 1400 were killed. Well, Teribus acknowledges that the figure might be a tad low but, no matter. 1400 people are a lot of people and so I think that killing that many folks constitutes *mass killings*.

So back to the Martians who have just landed and unfortunately for them they have landed in the middle of Iraq. They're looking around and witness a vastly superior army having its way with a vastly inferior army and.... Get the picture, Gareth, and others?

There seems to be this loophole that allows very bad behavior to be looked upon as righteous and moral.

This ain't progress for mankind but a major step backwards. You Bush/Blair apologists, revisionists and rationalizationists may not see it that way. But, fortunately for the human race, lots of us do, thank you.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Gareth
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 07:30 PM

Sorry I did not bother reply to your inaccurate remarks over Tolpuddle, these have now been corrected.

I repeat "For possibly the first time since 1991 the US of A armed forces were acting as the armed wing of Amnesty International - and got a Good Result" - Where is the offence ?

Unless of course Fionn you believe that mass murder and torture by the regime was aceptable - as obvously you do.


Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Gareth
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 07:15 PM

Count the bodies Fionn.

And rejoice.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 07:13 PM

Just in case you're still around Gareth (I see you slipped away from the Tolpuddle thread), thre were some interesting reports from Iraq on UK TV channels today. Two were concerned particularly with the complete indifference of coalition forces towards the collecting of eveidence abour human-rights crimes under the Saddam regime.

The New York based Human Rights Watch has amassed extensive documentation, eye-witness testimony etc, but is refusing to had it over to the CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) until it commits to some kind of judicial process (other than the Resident saying "these are bad people"). They refuse to help human-rights charities protect mass graves and gather forensic evidence, and coalition troops - the Americans more than the Brits it seems - treat the civilian population like scum. (See that US officer screaming - in English - at some bewildered villagers that either they provided information or he was coming back with heavy vehicles to trash the village?)

I remain of the view that equating the coalition army with anything to do with human rights shows a special order of ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 07:06 PM

T-ster:

Guess yer a slow learner or maybe just a lousy reader or just be your usual self. Going back to my original post about Iraqi deaths, I *did not* qualify civialian verses military. But, apparently you have trouble thinking of military deaths as, well, *actual* deaths.

Now this is the second or third time that I've tried to get your attention off that little spot in your magnifying glass, but you seem way to distracted these days. And for obvious reasons, I might add. But can you get with the program? You used to at least read folks stuff before cranking up yet another epic post.

And, BTW, when you have your final story solidified about your guys lies, please let us know. We're all waiting for the final, final, final version.

BTW, Part B, what is your take on showing the pics of Saddams dead kids, if they are actually Saddam's kids. Reminds me of some kind of tribal thing. I heard that Bush is gonna have the heads shrunken and put up on sticks outside to the White House.

Ohhhh, and I'm still waitin' fir yer number of Iraqi deaths. If you wanta stick with your "thin air" number of 1400, that's fine with me, I'll use that and I'll be sure to credit you for that info...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 03:50 PM

Mr. Guest has only one possible point: prove that even airheads can stir up hatred!

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Gareth
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 03:33 PM

And Guest your point is ???

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 01:43 PM

During the '60s and '70s the U.S. military conducted numerous tests involving the use of chemical and biological weapons. They were a part of a major U.S. military review initiated by then-Defense Secretary Robert McNamara in 1961 soon after President John F. Kennedy's became president. The purpose of the experiments was to learn more about potential combat uses of, and methods of defense against, biological and chemical weapons. The study was comprised of 150 separate projects conducted in Hawaii, Alaska, Maryland, Florida, Utah, Georgia, Panama, Canada, Britain and aboard ships in the North Atlantic and Pacific oceans. In several cases civilians and U.S. servicemen were exposed to potentially lethal agents. [U.S. Department of Defense declassified fact sheets; KFOR, 4/25/03; New York Times 5/24/02; Associated Press 10/9/02; Reuters 10/10/02; Reuters 11/1/02; Associated Press, 7/1/03]

1964-1968. As part of the experiments, referred to as Project Shipboard Hazard and Defense (SHAD), "nerve or chemical agents were sprayed on a variety of ships and their crews to gauge how quickly the poisons could be detected and how rapidly they would disperse, as well as to test the effectiveness of protective gear and decontamination procedures in use at the time." In several instances, there was no evidence that the servicemen had given the military consent to be part of the experiment. [New York Times 5/24/02]

1965-1967. As part of Project 112, the U.S. military performed a series of tests at the Gerstle River test site near Fort Greeley, Alaska, involving artillery shells and bombs filled with Sarin and VX, both of which are lethal nerve agents. The program was coordinated by the Desert Test Center, part of a "biological and chemical weapons complex" in the Utah desert. [Associated Press 10/9/02] Civilians may have been exposed to the gasses. [Reuters 10/10/02]

1965. As part of Project 112, the U.S. military sprayed a biological agent "believed harmless but later shown to infect those with damaged immune systems" on barracks in Oahu, Hawaii. The program was coordinated by the Desert Test Center, part of a "biological and chemical weapons complex" in the Utah desert. [Associated Press 10/9/02] Civilians may have been exposed to the gasses. [Reuters 10/10/02]

In May of 1967, the U.S. military tested the "effectiveness of artillery shells using Sarin in the jungle." The tests, code-named "Red Oak, Phase 1," were conducted in the Upper Waiakae Forest Reserve on Hawaii and near Fort Sherman in the Panama Canal Zone. According to reports released in late Oct. 2002, there was "no indication of harm to troops or civilians." [Reuters 11/1/02]

Sometime between 1962 and 1973. 'Tests' were also performed in Vieques, Puerto Rico. Its civilian population may have been exposed to dangerous chemical and/or biological weapons. [Reuters 10/10/02]

Sometime between 1962 and 1973. 'Tests' were also performed in Florida. The civilian population may have been exposed to dangerous chemical and/or biological weapons. [Reuters 10/10/02]

In 1962, the U.S. Government sprayed florescent particles of zinc cadmium sulfide over Stillwater, Oklahoma, but reportedly did not monitor how the application affected the populations. Author Leonard Cole explained to an Oklahoma TV news program: "Cadmium itself is known to be one of the most highly toxic materials in small amounts that a human can be exposed to If there were concentrations of it enough to make one sick, you could have serious consequences a person over a period of time could have illnesses that could range from cancer to organ failures." [KFOR, 4/25/03]

Shall I go on?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 01:21 PM

DG re your posting 24 Jul 03 - 12:34 PM - Bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 12:34 PM

"Very true - now apart from Iraq, how many of those countries have invaded two of their neighbours and used chemical/biological weapons against one of those countries and their own populations?"

Besides the US you mean?

Teribus, you are conveniently forgetting how many countries the US has invaded.

You are conveniently forgetting that the US tested biological weapons on it's own population throughout the Cold War.

You are conveniently forgetting the health legacy of chemical weapons used against the enemy upon our own troops--for instance Agent Orange in Vietnam, the Gulf War Syndrome, etc.

You are conveniently forgetting that the US tested nuclear weapons on our own troops, on our own people, as well as on the innocent of other nations, like the Marshall Islanders.

And most despicably, you are conveniently forgetting that the US government is THE ONLY COUNTRY to have ever used nuclear weapons against anyone.

Selective amnesia is thankfully not a problem for all citizens. Just citizens with no functioning moral compass like you, Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 11:54 AM

Hi there Frankham,

On your response:

1. 1. UNSCOM/IAEA Inspections 1991 -1998

"Admittedly there was deception by Saddam in the inspections.
But this was uncovered admirably by the inspection teams and had a convincing effect on world opinion."

Uncovered admirably it might have been - but it was never countered. As to the convincing effect on world opinion - how many within this forum alone refuse to believe, or acknowledge, the contents of the UNSCOM Report of January 1999.

"There are very few countries in the world that have been in full compliance with UN Resolutions. US has violated them. Great Britain.
These are well-documented."

Very true - now apart from Iraq, how many of those countries have invaded two of their neighbours and used chemical/biological weapons against one of those countries and their own populations? I think that justifies marking out Iraq for closer consideration.

"The containment of Saddam is not shameful. It sends the message to the rest of the world that the other tyrants of the world will not be tolerated even though some have been and are still supported by the Bush Administration."

According to the requirements of existing UN Resolutions the containment of Iraq is nothing other than a shameful compromise. The message it sents to all like-minded tyrants is that it doesn't matter what the UN requires, if you can deceive and delay them, they will ultimately get tired of the exercise and you can carry-on as before. Saddam Hussein was clearly and deliberately challenging the authority of the UN. If what you contend is true then there would have been no need for statement from Dr. Mohamed Al-Baradei that IAEA regards the current nuclear programmes in Iran and North Korea a serious potential threat to world peace and non-proliferation. The fact that he has issued such a statement, however, supports my contention.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: GUEST,frankham
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 10:55 AM

Hi Teribus,

Thank you for your response. Although extensive I feel not conclusive.



1. 1. UNSCOM/IAEA Inspections 1991 -1998

Admittedly there was deception by Saddam in the inspections.
But this was uncovered admirably by the inspection teams and had a convincing effect on world opinion.

There are very few countries in the world that have been in full compliance with UN Resolutions. US has violated them. Great Britain.
These are well-documented.

The containment of Saddam is not shameful. It sends the message to the rest of the world that the other tyrants of the world will not be tolerated even though some have been and are still supported by the Bush Administration.

I'm going to respond to your statements piecemeal. There are too many here to do all at once.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 08:46 AM

Thanks for the links GUEST of 22 Jul 03 - 01:43 PM

The "Iraqbodycount.net counts the true human cost of war, not just "Our Side" - A read of how they compile their figures will also show that the human cost also includes Iraqi civilians killed by Iraqi civilians. It also lists all Iraqi deaths from the point in time the day the statue fell as civilian deaths, including the Iraqi soldiers who carried on fighting in civilian clothes. This sites worst case puts total civilian deaths at 7,782 - somewhat short of Boberts 100,000 figure. In that site links are provided - go through them there is one based in New Zealand that provides a breakdown.

Bobert brought his "thin air" figure up as those killed during the recent conflict. You wish to give it credence by opening the window so that Iraqi deaths attributable to the West spans from 1983 to present day. Bit of a fanciful stretch that isn't it? The "West" didn't urge Saddam Hussein into his war with Iran (In that conflict the West helped both sides at times when each particular side looked like losing - in the case of Iraq, Iraq also received help from neighbouring Arab nations).

The article from FAIR you direct my attention to, "Human costs of war and sanctions in Iraq", is dated and relies on "statistics" that are nothing of the kind. Re the "stock-piling" of medical supplies, that the Iraqi Health Authorities claimed were buffer supplies to be used in the event of any emergency. If as you seem to give credence to the evidence of the "statistics" and a half a million children under the age of 5 years old had died, somewhere along that path, at what point would you have declared that process an emergency and released those supplies.

As you seem all to eagre to apportion blame for deaths in Iraq on the "West" and "the policies of the West". Does that mean that the "West and it's policies" are to be given credit for the population increase in Iraq (Damn near 26% from 1990 to 2002 - 18.9 million in 1990 increased to 23.2 million in 2002).

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Jul 03 - 01:17 PM

But, Amos, if you don't kill them there's always a chance that they will kill you...

Geeze, are we gonn ahave to go over this pre-emptive stuff again with you? You just don't seem to get it....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jul 03 - 01:02 PM

There are a list of 16 coherent and pointed questions which the Bush administration needs to answer in a straightforward and candid manner, listed at the Dean site.

I would dearly love to hear the answers. Perhaps you lot in the UK have a similar set of unanswered questions for W. Blair?

Gareth, in my book the killing of human beings in other than self-defence is an offence, and doing it deliberately with planning even more so.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Lies
From: Gareth
Date: 23 Jul 03 - 11:30 AM

I repeat "For possibly the first time since 1991 the US of A armed forces were acting as the armed wing of Amnesty International - and got a Good Result" - Where is the offence ?

I also repeat the link Click 'Ere It points out that Gilligan has a crdebility problem, it gives Gilligan's point of view - where is the wishfull thinking ?

Gareth