Bush and Blair found guilty of genocide in war crimes tribunal..

sbsquarepants

Cú Giobach wrote: »

WTF

Their two party system both of which are ultimately controlled by the same corporations makes a mockery of the word democracy. This "greatest democracy" mantra is usually only spouted by quite naive Americans who don't have a clue about the systems of government in other countries, many of which have real (or as good as you can realistically get) democracies.

Exactly, they showed their high regard for democracy in the way they treated the democratic election of Hamas. Democracy is fine so long as it is pro american democracy. Basically you can elect however you want, so long as uncle Sam likes them.

Yahew

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Why not? Because they keep the cheap oil flowing and everyone with an ounce of common sense, knows that this whole fiasco - the countless deaths, probably over a million at this stage, were all for OIL. Oil makes the world go around, not democracy!

The reasons for the invasion, which were not un-conspiratorial, had nothing to do with oil. Oil is more expensive now. Iraq was selling oil. Oil producing countries sell oil, they don't need to be convinced by an invasion. I believe Saddam offered the US some deal on even cheaper oil.

twinytwo

snafuk35 wrote: »

I love Lady Gaga.

(1)Only in a free democratic society with freedom of expression, freedom of religion or freedom from religion, individual liberties, secular values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness could a person as wonderful as Lady Gaga exist.

In Saddam's Iraq, the equivalent of Lady Gaga would have been tortured and killed.

(2)Freedom should be projected throughout all the world. If it means war then so be it.

(3)The rich will fight for power but if we can manipulate into see their interests overlapping with oppressed people - they can see something in it for them - then we are onto a winner.

(4)The Iraqis now have democratic future thank to the oil greed of America. win/win

(1) Again you are deluded. As has clearly been seen many many times. We can only do what goverments want us to do, know what they want us to know.

(2) No, their is never any justification for war.

(3) Seriously where do you come up with this crap

(4) No they wont. An anti-american would never be allowed take power in iraq.

the purple tin

Realistically you can only be charged with war crimes when you're on the losing side.

twinytwo

the purple tin wrote: »

Realistically you can only be charged with war crimes when you're on the losing side.

Plus the winners get to write the history books.

the purple tin

twinytwo wrote: »

Plus the winners get to write the history books.

With the exception of Albert Folens .

Yahew

twinytwo wrote: »

(1) Again you are deluded. As has clearly been seen many many times. We can only do what goverments want us to do, know what they want us to know.

Really? So we all live in a totalitarian society. How weird. So everybody on here parrots the government line and we have no access to other information, like, say, the internet?

(2) No, their is never any justification for war.

Of course there is. Being invaded. The Nazis etc. Not that the US had those justifications but they exist.

(4) No they wont. An anti-american would never be allowed take power in iraq.

They will when the US leaves.

twinytwo

Yahew wrote: »

(1)Really? So we all live in a totalitarian society. How weird. So everybody on here parrots the government line and we have no access to other information, like, say, the internet?



(2)Of course there is. Being invaded. The Nazis etc. Not that the US had those justifications but they exist.



(3)They will when the US leaves.

(1) I mean real information.

(2) The rise of the nazi party was a direct result of fines imposed on germany by the allies after ww1. WW1 started because of alliances between countries and Princip.

(3) America installed a friendly in iraq for a reason.

Yahew

twinytwo wrote: »

(1) I mean real information.

What information are you missing, and how do you even know that you are missing this information?

(2) The rise of the nazi party was a direct result of fines imposed on germany by the allies after ww1. WW1 started because of alliances between countries and Princip.

The rise of the Nazi party had many reasons, the war against them was justified.

(3) America installed a friendly in iraq for a reason.

Didn't people vote. However, when America leaves, they aint going back.

sensibleken

And all because a a man called Hans couldnt find any arms :pac:

Chuck Stone

Yahew wrote: »

The reasons for the invasion, which were not un-conspiratorial, had nothing to do with oil. Oil is more expensive now. Iraq was selling oil. Oil producing countries sell oil, they don't need to be convinced by an invasion. I believe Saddam offered the US some deal on even cheaper oil.

Why don't you write to CIA analyst, Ray McGovern, and tell him he's wrong there Yahew because I don't think you're convincing many people in this thread.

Btw I don't think oil was the only motive but ignoring it, or at least the contol of it, is naive.

Surprise, Surprise! Iraq War Was About Oil

by Ray McGovern

Afghanistan may be the graveyard of empires, but Iraq is home to a graveyard sense of humor. Iraqis wonder aloud whether the U.S. and Britain would have invaded Iraq if its main export had been cabbages instead of oil.

However obvious the answer, a remarkable array of American pundits and pseudo-savants have resisted giving the oil factor any pride of place among the motives behind the U.S./U.K. decision to invade Iraq in 2003. To this day, the Fawning Corporate Media (FCM) continue to play the accustomed role as government accomplice suppressing unwelcome news.

So, if you don’t tune in to Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now or read the British press, you will have missed the latest documentary evidence showing that Great Britain’s Lords and Ladies lied about how big oil companies, like BP, lusted after Iraqi oil in the months leading up to the attack on Iraq.

Oil researcher Greg Muttitt’s new book Fuel on Fire: Oil and Politics in Occupied Iraq presents that evidence, since Muttitt had better luck than American counterparts in getting responses to his Freedom of Information requests.

After a five-year struggle, he obtained more than 1,000 official documents which — how to say this — do not reflect well on the peerage, the captains of the oil industry, and the government of Tony Blair.

Continued here...

Yahew

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Why don't you write to CIA analyst, Ray McGovern, and tell him he's wrong there Yahew because I don't think you're convincing many people in this thread.

Btw I don't think oil was the only motive but ignoring it, or at least the contol of it, is naive.

Ray McGovern is a maverick to say the least - he went from conservative to "truther". That kind of "truther" mind is not really worth discussing with. In any case the question is:

1) If it is "about oil" why would the benefits of the war to BP and Shell outweigh the costs to the American State.
2) Why would the benefits to BP and Shell benefit the US anyway? As Obama was keen to inform us during the spill - BP used to mean British petroleum.

If any of his claims were true. There is no evidence, and there never will be, that any oil or tax benefits was discussed in Bush's cabinet. This kind of logic is a form of connecting the dots based on prior bias - it must be about oil, BP and Shell (Dutch) made some representations yada yada. ( Of course they did)

I expect you to remain unconvinced. But there is no evidence about America in McGovern's links. Such as they are they show representations from BP to the Brits - did the Brits then push the Americans to war. Thats not likely.

Chuck Stone

Yahew wrote: »

Ray McGovern is a maverick to say the least - he went from conservative to "truther". That kind of "truther" mind is not really worth discussing with. In any case the question is:

You haven't even attempted to disguise your Ad-hom there Yahew - the guy is an intelligence veteran with a wealth of experience and literature yet you believe calling him a 'maverick' discredits him? Borderline arrogance on your part.

1) If it is "about oil" why would the benefits of the war to BP and Shell outweigh the costs to the American State.

BP has operations in over 80 countries, produces around 3.8 million barrels of oil equivalent per day and has 22,400 service stations worldwide.[7][8] Its largest division is BP America, which is the biggest producer of oil and gas in the United States and is headquartered in Houston,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP

BP employs a hell of a lot of people in the US. Global corporations don't really have nationalities, just owners, investors and CEOS. They also don't have armies - they use state armies for leverage.

For example

In 1951, Iran's oil industry was nationalized with near-unanimous support of Iran's parliament in a bill introduced by Mossadegh who led the nationalist parliamentarian faction. Iran's oil had been controlled by the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC).[6] Popular discontent with the AIOC began in the late 1940s, a large segment of Iran's public and a number of politicians saw the company as exploitative and a vestige of British imperialism.[7] Despite Mosaddegh's popular support, Britain was unwilling to negotiate its single most valuable foreign asset, and instigated a worldwide boycott of Iranian oil to pressure Iran economically

Wiki.

2) Why would the benefits to BP and Shell benefit the US anyway? As Obama was keen to inform us during the spill - BP used to mean British petroleum.

What do you mean by the US? I think you mean those who hold power in the US. See above.

This kind of logic is a form of connecting the dots based on prior bias

In the absence of transparency connecting the dots and weighing up evidence is what one might call good journalism.

I expect you to remain unconvinced.

Likewise.

But there is no evidence about America in McGovern's links.

As of yet.

Such as they are they show representations from BP to the Brits - did the Brits then push the Americans to war. Thats not likely.

As I've said earlier there were many benefits to many powerful interests, oil companies, military companies including weapons manufacturers and logistical supply services such as Halliburton, Iraq was an enemy of Israel - the Neocons were unashamed about their support for making the M.E. safe for Israel.

The invasion of Iraq was gleefully welcomed by many interests. That's why it happened, not because some Iraqi dissidents said Saddam called them names and had some dangerous tubes that could be used as missiles.

Yahew

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You haven't even attempted to disguise your Ad-hom there Yahew - the guy is an intelligence veteran with a wealth of experience and literature yet you believe calling him a 'maverick' discredits him? Borderline arrogance on your part.

He's a truther and had been on the far left for two generations. I was merely counteracting your argument to authority.

BP employs a hell of a lot of people in the US. Global corporations don't really have nationalities, just owners, investors and CEOS. They also don't have armies - they use state armies for leverage.

The evidence you presented was representation to the UK government, you need evidence of BP controlling the US government. If BP are in so many countries, and essential to those countries, then more countries would be involved, were that the reason.

For example

I know all about the old school imperialism of the Brits. Now do you have the same evidence for the US - were concessions granted to a newly formed US corporation, partly controlled by the US government in Iraq? If so, where is the evidence?

What do you mean by the US? I think you mean those who hold power in the US. See above.

Which you claim to be BP, or the OIL firms? Thats for you to prove.

In the absence of transparency connecting the dots and weighing up evidence is what one might call good journalism.

What one might call a conspiracy theory.

As of yet.

if McGovern had any [evidence of BP-US links] he would have produced it.

Iraq was an enemy of Israel - the Neocons were unashamed about their support for making the M.E. safe for Israel.

See, at the start of my attack on the "it's about the oil" conspiracy I said I had one of my own. Thats not far off. I think oil had nothing to do with it.

Chuck Stone

Yahew wrote: »

He's a truther and had been on the far left for two generations. I was merely counteracting your argument to authority.

I did a quick search for his 'trutherness' and found little to nothing on it. Are you saying he believes that 9/11 was an inside job? That's what 'truther' means to me at least.

The evidence you presented was representation to the UK government, you need evidence of BP controlling the US government

BP and the USA are fictional entities. It's men who are at the head of these fictional entities and we'll probably never know what dirty deals were done. It's not as if these guys were going to record their conversations for posterity.

If BP are in so many countries, and essential to those countries

You're presuming that having an oil company is essential to a country when it is often thought that sitting on resources such as oil is considered a curse.

then more countries would be involved, were that the reason.

Take Poland.

In July 2003, Polish Foreign Minister, Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz, said "We have never hidden our desire for Polish oil companies to finally have access to sources of commodities." This remark came after a group of Polish firms had just signed a deal with Kellogg, Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton. Cimoszewicz stated that access to Iraq's oilfields "is our ultimate objective".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3043330.stm

Now do you have the same evidence for the US - were concessions granted to a newly formed US corporation, partly controlled by the US government in Iraq? If so, where is the evidence?

I think you're confusing proof with evidence. Proof of words spoken at informal meetings is near impossible to attain. Evidence is another matter.

Consider this 'Hand-in-Glove' account of Big Oil with 'State' interests.

Special Government Favors and "National Security"

Those who deny oil company complicity in the Iraq War always insist that the companies have little political influence, that they are "out of the loop" in Washington, that they are just one industry group among many others. These arguments are utterly false. The oil companies have always enjoyed "insider" privileges with the US and UK governments, resulting in many unique favors in the name of "national security."

The United States government offers the companies extremely favorable tax treatment, including the "oil depletion allowance" and "intangible drilling costs" – far more than the ordinary capital depreciation available to other companies. In 1960, at the behest of the National Security Council, the international companies obtained the lucrative "foreign tax credit," enabling deductions for taxes or royalties paid to foreign governments. In 1974, while the US corporate tax rate was 48%, the nineteen largest oil companies paid a tax rate of only 7.6%.16

The companies have also enjoyed unofficial immunity from anti-trust or anti-monopoly laws. Though the US government knew for decades about the international oil cartel, federal authorities took no enforcement action until 1952, when President Harry Truman ordered a criminal anti-trust suit. The companies mobilized all their legal and political muscle to quash the case. General Omar Bradley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reportedly approached the President and successfully urged that the "national security" required a softening of the government's legal stance. Shortly afterwards, the National Security Council decided on various limitations to the suit that further weakened the government's case. Though the judicial process lumbered on for fifteen years, the oil companies had nothing to fear and remained safely protected by the national security umbrella. Today, after a decade of mega-mergers, the companies still escape anti-trust scrutiny.17

US military/security policy has served the oil companies as comprehensively as have the tax and legal rulings. Virtually every US presidential security doctrine since World War II has aimed at protecting company interests in the oil-rich Persian Gulf. The Truman Doctrine, the Eisenhower Doctrine, and the Nixon, Carter, and Reagan Doctrines all asserted Washington's special concerns in the Gulf and arrogated to the United States special rights to "protect" or "defend" the area. Recently-released secret papers show that during the oil crisis and Arab oil embargo of 1973, Washington seriously considered sending a military strike force to seize some of the region's richest fields – in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Abu Dhabi.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/185/40586.html

See, at the start of my attack on the "it's about the oil" conspiracy I said I had one of my own. Thats not far off. I think oil had nothing to do with it.

Personally, I feel the Israeli influence in the matter, although probably a factor, is not nearly as much a factor as some would have us believe. The Israeli situation serves US interests (weapons testing, proxy wars, control of hydrocarbons, and hegemony of the M.E.) as much as people like to think the tail wags the dog.

Zombrex

While I didn't support the Iraq war and have no trouble with the idea that it was illegal under international law, I'm not sure where this tribunal is getting "genocide" from.

Genocide means a specific thing, and it was not what the US Army did in Iraq. You can argue that a lot of people died as a result of the war (a significant number killed due to Iraqi on Iraqi violence), that isn't what genocide means.

This trail seems a bit of a stunt.

Fratton Fred

Isn't the oil in Iraq conveniently divided amongst Russian and French companies, the two biggest opponents to the war.

Yahew

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Isn't the oil in Iraq conveniently divided amongst Russian and French companies, the two biggest opponents to the war.

Yes.

US military/security policy has served the oil companies as comprehensively as have the tax and legal rulings. Virtually every US presidential security doctrine since World War II has aimed at protecting company interests in the oil-rich Persian Gulf. The Truman Doctrine, the Eisenhower Doctrine, and the Nixon, Carter, and Reagan Doctrines all asserted Washington's special concerns in the Gulf and arrogated to the United States special rights to "protect" or "defend" the area. Recently-released secret papers show that during the oil crisis and Arab oil embargo of 1973, Washington seriously considered sending a military strike force to seize some of the region's richest fields – in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Abu Dhabi.

Except most of the oil in the middle east is owned by the governments of the Middle East - hence the cartel and OPEC and the fact they can control oil prices. OPEC is a cartel which excludes the US. Were that screed true, the US - not OPEC - would control oil prices.

As FF says, American companies didn't get the oil concessions in Iraq.

Yahew

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Personally, I feel the Israeli influence in the matter, although probably a factor, is not nearly as much a factor as some would have us believe. The Israeli situation serves US interests (weapons testing, proxy wars, control of hydrocarbons, and hegemony of the M.E.) as much as people like to think the tail wags the dog.

Ludicrous. Israel has no oil, it is not "hegemonic" in the region ( just one of many powers there controlling a tiny area) and it has no control of hydrocarbons . In fact turing against Israel would actually prove the US was controlled by oil interests. Arabs have oil. Israel doesn't. And while there is no record of Bush, or Congress meeting with BP (etc.) with regards to this war in Iraq - there are plenty examples of pro-Israeli, and pro-zionist groups pressurising the administration, and funnelling information.

The main reason why the US went to war was however, less sinister. They believed their own rhetoric.

Sisko

Haven't seen such a cartoon view of the world in a while, you wouldn't happen to be American by any chance snafuk35?

So easily manipulated into supporting America's war. Did you never ask yourself how Germans so easily were convinced that invading the world was the right thing to do?

I find it ironic that its Saddam/Iraq you keep comparing to the nazi's for that conflict. Because we all know Hitler was just minding his own business when the world randomly decided to attack Germany to "free" its people.