| "How many people do you have to kill..."
Posted: 11/8/2007 6:14:56 AM | The following is excerpted from "Art, Truth and Politics," which appeared in Not One More death, (Verso, London, New York, 2006).
'How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and a war criminal? One hundred thousand? More than enough I would have thought. Therefore, it is just that Bush and Blair be arraigned before the International Criminal Court of Justice. But Bush has been clever. he has not ratified the international Criminal Court of Justice. Therefore, if any American soldier or for that matter politician finds himself in the dock, Bush has warned that he will send the marines. But Tony Balir has ratified the Court and is therefore available for prosecution. We can let the Court have his address if they're interested. It is Number 10, Downing Street, London.
'Death in this context is irrelevent. Both Bush and Blair place death well away on the back burner. At least 100,000 Iraqis were killed by American bombs and missiles before the iraq insurgency began. These people are of no moment. Their deaths don't exist. They are blank. They are not even recorded as being dead. "We don't do body counts," said the American general Tommy Franks.'
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
As verified by the website Just Foreign Policy, over one milliion Iraqi civilians have been killed at the hands of U.S. forces since the March 2003 invasion: http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/
Any concerened citizen may contact the International Criminal Court, established by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, located at The Hague, The Netherlands, by following the instructions found here: http://www.icc-cpi.int/home.html
Any concerened citizen may contact the International Court of Justice at the Hague, Netherlands, which is part of the United Nations (U.N.) by entering a direct complaint here: http://www.icj-cij.org/homepage/index.php?p1=7&p2=3&m=contact | |
|
| How many people do you have to kill...
Posted: 11/8/2007 6:22:53 AM | | Fo r that matter how many innocents (casualty of war)have to be killed in order for their to be an investigation . I read somewhere that the magic number was 30.I think that is for the military of course Black water follows its own rules(Kinda makes them up as they go along) | |
|
| How many people do you have to kill...
Posted: 11/8/2007 6:45:48 AM | Eddie Izzard nails it in his stand up Dressed to Kill: (starts out about Hitler)
And he was a mass-murdering f---head, as many important historians have said. But there were other mass murderers that got away with it! Stalin killed many millions, died in his bed, well done there; Pol Pot killed 1.7 million Cambodians, died under house arrest at age 72, well done indeed! And the reason we let them get away with it is because they killed their own people, and we're sort of fine with that. “Ah, help yourself,” you know? “We've been trying to kill you for ages!” So kill your own people, right on there. Seems to be… Hitler killed people next door... “Oh… stupid man!” After a couple of years, we won't stand for that, will we?
Pol Pot killed 1.7 million people. We can't even deal with that! You know, we think if somebody kills someone, that's murder, you go to prison. You kill 10 people, you go to Texas, they hit you with a brick, that's what they do. 20 people, you go to a hospital, they look through a small window at you forever. And over that, we can't deal with it, you know? Someone's killed 100,000 people. We're almost going, "Well done! You killed 100,000 people? You must get up very early in the morning. I can't even get down the gym! Your diary must look odd: “Get up in the morning, death, death, death, death, death, death, death – lunch- death, death, death - afternoon tea - death, death, death - quick shower…"
So I suppose we're glad that Pol Pot's under house arrest… you know, 1.7 million people. At least he - we know where he is - under house arrest! Just don't go in that f----ing house, you know? I know a lot of people who'd love to be under house arrest! They bring you your food… "Just stay here? Oh, all right. (singing laconically ) Have you got any videos?" You know, you just sit there all day... And Pol Pot was a history teacher. And Hitler was a vegetarian painter. So... mass-murderers come from the areas you least expect it. I don't know how the flip comes over, but it happens. | |
|
| How many people do you have to kill...
Posted: 11/30/2007 12:13:04 AM | How many people do you have to kill...
I think I heard about 2 billion would go a long way in solving the problem. But there has to be better ways of dealing with overpopulation. | |
|
| How many people do you have to kill...
Posted: 11/30/2007 8:57:34 AM | "At least 100,000 Iraqis were killed by American bombs and missiles before the iraq insurgency began. These people are of no moment."
Pure , made up bullshi*.
The reality is that though there have been a lot of civilians killed, as there always are
in war, the majority of civilians killed in Iraq were killed by other Arabs and Muslims.
I think Bush is a liar and a fool, and I was against invading Iraq, but truth is truth. Check your facts before you pontificate. | |
|
| |
| How many people do you have to kill...
Posted: 11/30/2007 11:14:59 AM | thank you douglasinmotown i was just going to point that out war criminals are the ones of you left after you lose
the first rule of war = winners are right.... losers are wrong | |
|
| How many people do you have to kill...
Posted: 11/30/2007 5:10:01 PM |
the first rule of war= winners are right ..losers are wrong
that's great it just helped me realize why we are winning is so important to conservatives because they cannot admit to their mistakes that would be losing and ,that is weakness.Death before defeat as long as they have proxy warriors fighting for them. | |
|
| How many people do you have to kill...
Posted: 11/30/2007 6:03:26 PM | Do I note hysteria over the war that those not fighting in are complaining about?
I support the troops.
As far as war criminals -- you might as well place 'all' countries in this category. You might also want to ask those freed in Iraq about their thankfulness and the deaths that occured under the the previous regime.
You might also want to pay extra at the pump next time you fill up (not that this war is about oil, but those in the U.S. should realize the discounted price on fuel in the U.S.).
The U.S. has 'serious' economic problems currently. We are not just talking about mortgage companies, stocks and real estate. As you probably already know a 'depression' is very close to a 'recession.' (for those who are not aware, look this up and attempt to define the difference). You will only note a few variables as far as any difference. Then you might want to ask what got the U.S. (a relatively new form of republic) out of the Great Depression of the 40's? Was it Keyes that sent forth the ideas that are a center point of American ideologies and governance today?
If the war ceased today -- our economy couldn't take it and we would leave ourselves more vulnerable for those who hate the U.S. Do you find me insensitive (for an angel  ) about the loss of life?
War has strategically been taking place for many years by every recognizable country. The U.S. has stepped in and stopped more corrupt dictatorships than any other country. What of the innocent life loss in WW2 -- should we have pulled a Switzerland and remained out of it?
We stepped in and stopped a situation where families were being tortured and dying daily at the hands of a corrupt regime. Weapons of mass destruction can be smaller than one thinks at times.
War is an unusually cruel act of mankind that is deemed a necessity and at best -- is the misfortune of failed societies and governments throughout the world. You might want to ask about the lives of our soilders lost and consider that they deserve honor versus suggesting these courageous men and women died in vain.
Or not...continue to complain and think you are wiser than those who have power while sitting in front of the TV. Saturday night football announcers are a dime a dozen. Appealing to righteousness -- takes a 'righteous' person. Have you donned your uniform and laid down your life for your fellowmen lately? Have you organized or participated in the running of a government lately?
The truth about Iraq is there are millions of thankful people and some of the most ungrateful people are in the U.S. (not Iraq) and those of the Muslim community who recognize this as a holy war.
Just my two cents. Continue to discredit our nation and its troops if you desire. I personally detest violence of all types, but see that it is a reality with a cause and affect relationship and not so 'narrowly' defined as projected by those...
...professing love and peace, but whose actions serve little more than complaint and division in a country. Liberals seeking power by way of complaint and division is not a very solid foundation of leadership. There is a greater truth and offering to the American public than this. | |
|
| How many people do you have to kill...
Posted: 12/1/2007 4:58:01 AM | | just a point about Iraq i have read 3 different rants from 3 different people this week so i know they have to be reading someones talking points or someones web site but they go on to say that Bush and the military knew there were no weapons of mass destruction when we invaded Iraq ..... then farther in their rant they go to say that we moved so fast looking for weapons of mass destruction that we failed to secure arms stashes we passed by so they fell into the wrong hands ... you cant have it both ways either they knew they were not there or they didnt .... i am not a Bush supporter but all this Bush hating double talk is making me like him more every day.... im essentially a liberal but other liberals need to start thinking for them selves and quit reading someones script ... the people with an open mind and more than half a brain can see through this double talk and even clear thinking fellow democrats are getting tired of it | |
|
| How many people do you have to kill...
Posted: 12/1/2007 3:51:47 PM |
then farther in their rant ....etc... we failed to secure ARMS STASHES(emph mine) we passed by they fell into the wrong hands
well yes a lot of people read a lot of diff sites and repeat other stuff BUT,isn't that being well informed? and from many sources I have found some were definiteley cited that arms were left unguarded and did indeed end up with the terrorists or the wrong side Of course you have to define the diff between WMD and arms. arms to me is like small munitions and they were reconfigured to make IED's (confirmed by military sites) | |
|
| How many people do you have to kill...
Posted: 12/1/2007 4:04:23 PM | How many times are we going to have to hear these preposterous exaggerations of casualties in this war? The anti-war movement is a joke.
Hold a rally, protest the Pentagon, stop blathering. | |
|
| How many people do you have to kill...
Posted: 12/1/2007 8:10:01 PM | Perhaps some idealistic views can help draw a conclusion to this.
Or not...continue to complain and think you are wiser than those who have power while sitting in front of the TV.
Can you define power? Most people would call someone with alot of money/influence powerful, but all that separates them from you or I is the amount of money they have.
Someone with a lot of fish would seem powerful to circus seals. Much like someone with a lot of money (and friends/family with lots of money) appears to have power. But they are often completely dependant on OTHER PEOPLE for food, water, electricity and other services.
Human beings have been donning uniforms and killing their fellow man due to trickery by these so-called powerful ones for thousands of years. If people truly wanted peace, they would stop behaving like animals for money.
It's the same thing with people and their votes, only with campaign promises being the fish. The only thing is voters behave WORSE then trained seals because instead of not voting when they don't get their fish, they still go out and perform the tricks year after year and never learn, they just complain that they didn't get their fish.
Lastly if you still think the wars are holy, you need to look at what the Muslim intellectuals have to say, not the idiot box. http://www.IranCartoon.ir
essentially:
Only when the thirst for peace is greater then that of monetary gains, will we know true peace. With capitalism, 'democracy', 'equality', racial strife, communism,mis-information disception and other tools of war being used day in and day out, there isn't much hope for peace on earth. | |
|
| How many people do you have to kill...
Posted: 12/2/2007 6:01:48 AM | Liberals crying about the war and war crimes? My my my...just how short is your memory?
Lets go back some...Kennedy...bay of pigs..responsible for the death of hundreds of cuban refugees...Johnson...Vietnam...hmmmm...Nixon...Vietnam...Carter( the libbie god)..Iran hostage situatuion...coward...failed rescue attempt...Reagan...Panama..Grenada..Honduras....Pappa Bush...Kuwait. Ol slickster*{the other libbie demigod} Iraq.....Bosnia..killing thousands..and lets not forget his massive screw up that got 3 of my buddies killed in action..SOMALIA. How about the uss cole...africa embassy...WTC attack the first time? Clinton DID NOTHING. Bush Jr.{ the idiot from hell} Iraq and Afghanistan...no way out..
When are you libbies going to learn? All presidents have sent troops in to harms way in one form or the other. By your false reasoning they should be war criminals too. | |
|
| How many people do you have to kill...
Posted: 12/4/2007 3:57:11 AM | .
When are you libbies going to learn? All presidents have sent troops in to harms way in one form or the other. By your false reasoning they should be war criminals too.
Yep ya know you would think that would wake the people of this country up and come to the realization we have been and continue to live off of a war economy.
Whats a few troops here and there as long as we can continue to drive our SUV's?
. | |
|
| How many people do you have to kill...
Posted: 12/4/2007 5:12:52 AM |
Do I note hysteria over the war that those not fighting in are complaining about?
Hysteria? Dont you think thats a bit of hyperbole leaning to the dramatic? We are after all talking about war crimes on many levels here.
I support the troops.
imo people who support our troops are doing everything in their power to bring them home.
As far as war criminals -- you might as well place 'all' countries in this category. You might also want to ask those freed in Iraq about their thankfulness and the deaths that occured under the the previous regime.
So we are going to put ourselves on a pedestal while calling foul on others and invade sovereign nations on a "pre-emtive" basis
Who is responsible?
Who is responsible for the atrocities at Haditha and elsewhere, as well as the killing of Intisar Jabouri? It is clear that Jeffrey Waruch at al-Abbassi, and the soldiers who were complicit in the crimes that occurred in Haditha and elsewhere in Iraq, are responsible for their specific actions. However, those who are responsible for creating the context, the general climate in which such atrocities flourish – "atrocity-producing situations" – also bear major responsibility.
As I noted in an earlier openDemocracy article, "Iraq, Vietnam, and the dilemmas of United States soldiers", the political and military leaderships do everything they can to maintain that wars like those in Vietnam and Iraq are not organised murder, because they themselves are fundamentally complicit. As Philip Caputo argued in Rumor of War, civilian deaths cannot be admitted to be the inevitable product of the war itself; for that would have raised the question of "the morality of the American intervention in Vietnam" (and, currently, in Iraq as well).
Remember that Joshua Keys, a US soldier who served in Iraq and is now seeking asylum in Canada, said that he and his comrades in arms were told that international law governing armed combat was just a "guideline". Keys also said: "It's shoot first, ask questions later. Everything's justified."
Ben Griffin, the British former SAS soldier said that the American soldiers he served with in Iraq had "a well-deserved reputation for being trigger-happy." His compatriot, Brigadier-General Nigel Aylwin-Foster, noted that US troops suffered from "the erroneous assumption that given the justness of the cause, actions that occurred in its name would be understood and accepted by the population, even if mistakes and civilian fatalities occurred in the implementation."
Moreover, a 2003 Human Rights Watch report said that civilian deaths in Iraq "reveal a pattern by U.S. forces of over-aggressive tactics, indiscriminate shooting in residential areas and a quick reliance on lethal forces." Such assessments are echoed in the comment of the new Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki after the exposure of Haditha that violence against civilians had become a "daily phenomenon" by many troops in the American-led coalition who "do not respect the Iraqi people" and "crush them with their vehicles and kill them just on suspicion."
The Nuremberg precedent
According to the legal principles deriving from the Nuremberg war-crimes tribunal following the second world war, those who are complicit in war crimes – including those who have placed the soldiers involved in the "atrocity-producing situations" in Haditha and elsewhere – share the guilt of those who pull the trigger.
In September 2003, I co-authored with Guy Grossman an open letter to soldiers involved in the occupation of Iraq. In it, we cited the analysis by Telford Taylor, chief US counsel at the Nuremberg tribunals, that – according to the standards developed there – members of the US joint chiefs of staff might be guilty of war crimes for atrocities that occurred in Vietnam.
We also noted that other junior officers and I had requested that the secretary of defence during part of the Vietnam war (1969-73), Melvin Laird, convene a military court of inquiry to determine if the joint chiefs qualified as war criminals under Article 135 of the uniform code of military justice. Article 135 provides a legal mechanism that allows those subject to military law who believe that other military personnel have violated the uniform code to be formally investigated and ultimately brought to justice by convening an initial court of inquiry. It would be perfectly legal for soldiers today to publicly request that the current defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, convene a court of inquiry to determine whether the members of the joint chiefs of staff are complicit with the war crimes that have occurred in Haditha and elsewhere in Iraq.
Such an action might be considered even more appropriate in light of the fact that Rumsfeld, and his longtime friend and political ally****Cheney, have a history of suppressing war-crimes investigations. Cheney was White House chief of staff, and Rumsfeld secretary of defence, in November 1975 when the army investigation into the horrific atrocities committed by Tiger Force in Vietnam was stopped by the White House and the Pentagon; this ensured that no one was charged with well-documented war crimes.
The request to convene a court of inquiry into the possible complicity of senior military figures in war crimes committed in Iraq may not succeed. But it would put those in charge of military operations in Iraq on notice that they are the ones who may ultimately be judged as war criminals. It would also check the tendency of those in command to place all the blame for war crimes on a few so-called "bad apples" who often bear the brunt of military "justice". It is the lower-ranking soldiers – in Iraq, as in Vietnam – who know all too well that "military justice is to justice, as military music is to music."
http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-americanpower/iraq_warcrimes_3627.jsp
I dont think we have to much to talk about. In fact if anything we as usual are showing the world what hypocrites we are.
You might also want to pay extra at the pump next time you fill up (not that this war is about oil, but those in the U.S. should realize the discounted price on fuel in the U.S.).
Thosse problems are best resolved with responsible government that does not play footsie and create a willfully wasteful corporatocracy out of this nation.
The U.S. has 'serious' economic problems currently. We are not just talking about mortgage companies, stocks and real estate. As you probably already know a 'depression' is very close to a 'recession.' (for those who are not aware, look this up and attempt to define the difference). You will only note a few variables as far as any difference. Then you might want to ask what got the U.S. (a relatively new form of republic) out of the Great Depression of the 40's? Was it Keyes that sent forth the ideas that are a center point of American ideologies and governance today?
Yup ever ask yourself why? I am sure you know the great depression was "created", not something that "just happened".
Are you talking about friedman and keyes? All they did is put a bandaid on previous failure that is doomed to total failure by caving in on itself. They created a wonderful way to covertly funnel money from the middle class straight upwards. Hence robbing the wealth of unwitting americans.
War has strategically been taking place for many years by every recognizable country. The U.S. has stepped in and stopped more corrupt dictatorships than any other country. What of the innocent life loss in WW2 -- should we have pulled a Switzerland and remained out of it?
Yes but none like the US where in our second 200 years built a country funded by profits of the "war" dollar. remember what eisenhower said he felt was the greatest threat to america?
If the war ceased today -- our economy couldn't take it and we would leave ourselves more vulnerable for those who hate the U.S. Do you find me insensitive (for an angel ) about the loss of life?
The part about the economy I agree with. We are a war based economy ever since ww1.
If you take a moment to ponder history much of the world has a darn good reason to "hate" us.
No I find you cherry picking to be positive about something there is only negative to be had.
We dont have a halo, we slaughtered and roasted alive how many women and children in waco? 136 was it? Over an unpaid 200 dollar gun tax? What gives us the right to demonize and invade sovereign nations and force "freedom" on them?
War is an unusually cruel act of mankind that is deemed a necessity and at best -- is the misfortune of failed societies and governments throughout the world. You might want to ask about the lives of our soilders lost and consider that they deserve honor versus suggesting these courageous men and women died in vain.
By whom? Who did the deeming?
Yes and in the case of the american imperialism it is purely the failed morality of this country.
Some of us feel they died in vain because we do not see the inability to drive an suv and create more waste than the rest of the world put together as moral reason for sending our kids off to die in a corporate war for profit.
Or not...continue to complain and think you are wiser than those who have power while sitting in front of the TV. Saturday night football announcers are a dime a dozen. Appealing to righteousness -- takes a 'righteous' person. Have you donned your uniform and laid down your life for your fellowmen lately? Have you organized or participated in the running of a government lately?
yeh...
The truth about Iraq is there are millions of thankful people and some of the most ungrateful people are in the U.S. (not Iraq) and those of the Muslim community who recognize this as a holy war.
Here is a story about a bar conversation:
Yesterday a man came into the bar where i worked with his father to have lunch. His father proudly announced to everyone that his son just returned from Iraq.
I was waiting on the two of them and asked the Captain if i could ask him some personal questions.
Here were his answers.
ME: Do troops have enough armor?
CAPTAIN: It's getting alot better, theve done alot better with providing us with armor.
ME: Do you feel a sense of purpose their and do you feel it from the other troops? Or is it a jumbled mess?
CAPTAIN: YES, we feel like we took out an evil dictator. and now were supposed to "liberate" ( he made the quote gesture), but if a muslim country invaded us to take out an evil dictator, and then applied their own style of governing, I think we would hate them too.
ME: the iraqis hate us?
CAPTAIN: HATE us
ME: I do not support this war. However I know you as a troop follow orders without passion or predjudice. That takes courage and conviction, and I admire your bravery and thankyou for it. In your mind is it possible to absolutly oppose the war, and hate the president and support the troops at the same time.
HIS DAD: I love the president.
CAPTAIN: speaking for myself yes. as long as people show respect for the troops, they can oppose the war all they want. opposing the war is a political stance. as long as you dont oppose the troops like it vietnam era, than its your political belief system and you have a right to it.
For the most part, most Iraqi's hate Americans. Opinion polls suggest that 80% of the population feels that attacks on Americans are justified. The latest 'democratically elected' puppet government still can't leave the green zone. Every single quality of life indicator is in rapid decline. America is losing this war with a vengeance.
http://letters.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2006/06/15/zarqawi/view/index3.html?show=all
Americans are so loving:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6usZIR7cl0A
Listen to the difference between immoral woo dee and RP
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2Vmyzaesac
Just my two cents. Continue to discredit our nation and its troops if you desire. I personally detest violence of all types, but see that it is a reality with a cause and affect relationship and not so 'narrowly' defined as projected by those...
When a child is willfully bad they are discredited. The troops, unless we have become so powerful that we are above the geneva convention, the troops have to worry about committing war crimes along with our government.
You are right and the wrongs of the people of this nation need to be discredited right along with the wrongs of the government as this is a government "of the people" is it not?
...professing love and peace, but whose actions serve little more than complaint and division in a country. Liberals seeking power by way of complaint and division is not a very solid foundation of leadership. There is a greater truth and offering to the American public than this.
The division in this country is set by government actions or inaction. After all if we are fighting each other then we are not fighting them. Its the oldest trick in the military book. Look at COINTELPRO, and how well that worked to disperse the protests of the 60's. That combined with chopping off the head of a few peace leaders. MLK.
We may have built a corporate empire and in the meantime sold our souls to the devil and have become morally bankrupt while demonizing those who do not join our ranks | |
|
| How many people do you have to kill...
Posted: 12/4/2007 8:10:22 AM | moderategoodguy
... All presidents have sent troops in to harm's way in one form or the other. By your false reasoning they should be war criminals too.
I don't think anybody's referring to the deaths and other casualties among American armed forces when suggesting that the Bush League face international war-crimes charges.
And nobody ever suggested that Clinton, Poppy Bush, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, et al shouldn't also face the same charges.
| |
|
| How many people do you have to kill...
Posted: 12/5/2007 2:41:14 PM |
Can you define power? Most people would call someone with alot of money/influence powerful, but all that separates them from you or I is the amount of money they have.
Jay2tee...sure. I am speaking about those actually in 'governance' [political positions]. While indeed PACs or those financing political campaigns do hold a sense of power...those who are actually 'in charge' truly have a more complete understanding of all the variables existing in the war and other areas of government.
(versus those sitting in front of a tv viewing the political propaganda and believing they can do better [most of which have trouble just managing their own lifes  ]!). I'd add that most propaganda floats either left or right and since there are more in Hollywood/radio productions, etc. floating left...one can reasonably assess that you see more left than right propaganda. All the wealthy like Oprah with their campaigns for peace and the poor collecting their tax breaks and preaching humanity while collecting of thier billet.**wink**
NwMke...
I think the title of this thread instigates the drama you sense...versus those responding in any irony or sarcasm. **wink**
As far as supporting the troops -- calling them murderers isn't what I'd call support (did you read the title of this thread and the OP)?
The troops are well apprecirated by most of the people in Iraq. It's only the insurgents that don't like their presence. Shall the U.S. public support the insurgents? Think about it. | |
|
| |
|
Home
login 
