Otis
Needs a job
Captain Kickstand
Posts: 3028
|
posted March 18, 2003 04:23 AM
Here is a good example of why we're going in.
See men shredded, then say you don't back war
By Ann Clwyd
"There was a machine designed for shredding plastic. Men were dropped into it and we were again made to watch. Sometimes they went in head first and died quickly. Sometimes they went in feet first and died screaming. It was horrible. I saw 30 people die like this. Their remains would be placed in plastic bags and we were told they would be used as fish food . . . on one occasion, I saw Qusay [President Saddam Hussein's youngest son] personally supervise these murders."
This is one of the many witness statements that were taken by researchers from Indict the organisation I chair to provide evidence for legal cases against specific Iraqi individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. This account was taken in the past two weeks.
Another witness told us about practices of the security services towards women: "Women were suspended by their hair as their families watched; men were forced to watch as their wives were raped . . . women were suspended by their legs while they were menstruating until their periods were over, a procedure designed to cause humiliation."
The accounts Indict has heard over the past six years are disgusting and horrifying. Our task is not merely passively to record what we are told but to challenge it as well, so that the evidence we produce is of the highest quality. All witnesses swear that their statements are true and sign them.
For these humanitarian reasons alone, it is essential to liberate the people of Iraq from the regime of Saddam. The 17 UN resolutions passed since 1991 on Iraq include Resolution 688, which calls for an end to repression of Iraqi civilians. It has been ignored. Torture, execution and ethnic-cleansing are everyday life in Saddam's Iraq.
Were it not for the no-fly zones in the south and north of Iraq which some people still claim are illegal the Kurds and the Shia would no doubt still be attacked by Iraqi helicopter gunships.
For more than 20 years, senior Iraqi officials have committed genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. This list includes far more than the gassing of 5,000 in Halabja and other villages in 1988. It includes serial war crimes during the Iran-Iraq war; the genocidal Anfal campaign against the Iraqi Kurds in 1987-88; the invasion of Kuwait and the killing of more than 1,000 Kuwaiti civilians; the violent suppression, which I witnessed, of the 1991 Kurdish uprising that led to 30,000 or more civilian deaths; the draining of the Southern Marshes during the 1990s, which ethnically cleansed thousands of Shias; and the summary executions of thousands of political opponents.
Many Iraqis wonder why the world applauded the military intervention that eventually rescued the Cambodians from Pol Pot and the Ugandans from Idi Amin when these took place without UN help. They ask why the world has ignored the crimes against them?
All these crimes have been recorded in detail by the UN, the US, Kuwaiti, British, Iranian and other Governments and groups such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty and Indict. Yet the Security Council has failed to set up a war crimes tribunal on Iraq because of opposition from France, China and Russia. As a result, no Iraqi official has ever been indicted for some of the worst crimes of the 20th century. I have said incessantly that I would have preferred such a tribunal to war. But the time for offering Saddam incentives and more time is over.
I do not have a monopoly on wisdom or morality. But I know one thing. This evil, fascist regime must come to an end. With or without the help of the Security Council, and with or without the backing of the Labour Party in the House of Commons tonight.
____________
It's a free country brother
  
|
12RPilot
Pro
Posts: 1094
|
posted March 18, 2003 04:41 AM
As a father of a soldier in Kuwait, I say let's go kick ass and get out of there. I think 12 years was enough warning.
 
|
Otis
Needs a job
Captain Kickstand
Posts: 3028
|
posted March 18, 2003 04:59 AM
My prayers are with your son 12rpilot.
____________
It's a free country brother
|
MadMike
Moderator
FEAR THE BLACK FLAG!!!!!!!!
Posts: 6579
|
posted March 18, 2003 08:03 AM
God Bless! and Kick Ass!!
|
jonwright
Needs a job
Posts: 2416
|
posted March 18, 2003 11:15 AM
That particular accusation could be exagerated. When supposedly a Kuwaiti citizen testified before congress on the atrocities the Iraqi's commited over there turns out he was an employee of the Kuwaiti embassy.
Yep - normal, everyday citizen. My ass.
And his story couldn't be confirmed.
I know it's true - I saw it on TV (Frontline, as a matter of fact).
|
DaveInDaytona
Pro
Posts: 1696
|
posted March 18, 2003 04:02 PM
And here's a reason France and Russia don't want to go, they have a lot of meny to lose. This is a 6 month old article about a program that's still in place today.
Enron-style accounting at the U.N. Oil-for-Food Program.
BY CLAUDIA ROSETT
Wednesday, September 25, 2002 12:01 a.m. EDT
Who is Saddam Hussein's biggest business partner?
The United Nations. The same U.N. whose secretary-general, Kofi Annan, stands as one of the chief ditherers over removing Saddam. Here are the ingredients of a conflict of interest.
Under the U.N.'s Office of the Iraq Program, which supervises the six-year-old Oil-for-Food Program, the U.N. has had a hand in the sale of more than $55 billion worth of Iraqi oil. Iraq ships oil out to U.N.-approved buyers under the terms of the sanctions agreement. The U.N. vets the inflow of "humanitarian" imports into Iraq.
The process is simple. Iraq contracts to import goods, and the U.N. gives the outside vendors cash collected from the oil sales. The U.N. has approved about $34 billion in such deals so far. The money it hasn't yet doled out--at least $21 billion-- sits in U.N.-administered bank accounts. U.N. officials refuse to divulge much information about these accounts--not even the countries in which they're held.
Measured in dollars, this is by far the U.N.'s largest program. The sums involved are large enough--and their handling has been perverse enough--for this program to deserve more attention than it has so far received.
Conceived in 1995 as a way to deliver humanitarian aid despite sanctions against Iraq, Oil-for-Food has matured into an unholy union between Saddam Hussein, with his command economy, and the U.N., with its big, buck-passing bureaucracy. By now, the two are effectively partners in what might just as well be called the Oil-for-U.N.-Jobs program. Even with its weapons inspectors barred from the country, the U.N. by now has 10 agencies employing 900 international staffers and 3,000 Iraqi nationals inside Iraq to administer the program, plus another 120 or so in New York.
Combining Iraq's oil exports and aid imports, they oversee a flow of funds averaging about $15 billion a year, more than five times the U.N.'s core annual budget. Even assuming the utmost integrity by the U.N. staff, it is worth asking whether Mr. Annan and his entourage might by now have a stake in the status quo. In which case, listening to Mr. Annan's views on Iraq makes about as much sense as once upon a time heeding Arthur Andersen's pronouncements on Enron.
Making this picture all the more Enron-like is the extent to which Mr. Annan and his crew have winked at Iraq's gross violations of U.N. agreements, and not only on weapons inspections. The U.N. sanctions on Iraqi oil sales were meant to stop Saddam from diverting oil revenues to his own uses. Instead, they provide a facde of control that is dangerously misleading. Saddam has been getting around the sanctions via surcharge-kickback deals and flat-out smuggling, to the tune of $3 billion a year, according to the dossier released yesterday by Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Back in May, The Wall Street Journal's Alix Freedman and Steve Stecklow gave a thoroughly documented account of how Iraq "has imposed illegal surcharges on every barrel of oil it has sold, using a maze of intermediaries to cover its tracks." Last week, the Washington-based Coalition for International Justice released an exhaustively researched 70-page report, detailing Saddam's dodges and how this year alone, despite "smarter" U.N. sanctions, he will rake in billions for his "personal treasury." When President Bush on Sept. 12 addressed the U.N., he charged that Saddam has "subverted" Oil-for-Food, "working around the sanctions to buy missile technology and military materials."
So the remaining virtue of the U.N.'s Iraq program would have to be the humanitarian relief. Not quite. Under the Oil-for-Food deal, it is not the U.N. but Saddam who decides what is needed, who in Iraq gets what, and which countries he should contract with. He must submit his proposals to the U.N. Security Council, which can turn them down. But the bulk of his requests are approved. The U.N. then disburses the cash from the "Iraq accounts" and monitors the delivery, trying to ensure it follows Saddam's plan.
The result is that U.N.-approved aid goes to reinforce Saddam's control over what is already a Soviet-league state-run economy. Part of what helped Saddam rise to power in the first place was Iraq's embrace in the 1960s of Soviet-style central planning, which by rationing goods and controlling people's livelihoods serves as a powerful tool for political control.
Today, with private business largely smothered, except in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq, the only significant source of foreign exchange is oil. All oil in Iraq belongs to the state. Saddam decides who will benefit from its sale, and who will be deprived. "The government of Iraq has the sole responsibility for allocating the money," says an official of the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food Program. "We cannot tell them, we only advise them." An author of the Coalition for International Justice report, Susan Blaustein, notes that Saddam has stolen Iraq's oil from his fellow countrymen. She points out that in accommodating this arrangement, "the U.N. is colluding in that theft."
The U.N. designates that Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq is to receive a share of the Oil-for-Food revenues, with some of that administered on the ground directly by the U.N. It is Saddam, however, who controls the buying of food and medicine. Though the U.N. has allocated $6.8 billion for northern Iraq since the start of the program, only $4.6 billion has been contracted for. Even less has been delivered. Under the category of medical supplies, for example, only 28% of the total allocated funds have been translated into goods received. While billions sit in U.N.-run accounts, sources in the north report shortages of such staples as surgical gloves.
Delving into these matters gets tough, because the U.N. shuns transparency. Given that more than $20 billion from the Iraq program is now sitting in U.N. escrow accounts awaiting some combination of Saddam's planning and U.N. processing, one wonders which banks, and which of those countries now taking part in the Iraq debate, might be getting thick slices of Saddam's business. A few years ago, all Oil-for-Food funds were kept at a French bank, Banque Nationale de Paris. More recently, the funds have been diversified among five or six banks, according to U.N. treasurer Suzanne Bishopric. But the U.N. does not permit her to disclose the names or locations of the banks, or details such as interest accrued.
"We don't like to make public where our money is," says Ms. Bishopric. Who audits the program? It's a strictly insider job: The U.N. secretariat, supplemented by a rotating set of member nations, with the task currently delegated to the government of the Philippines.
Neither does the U.N. disclose which countries get what amount of Saddam's trade. Oil industry experts say France and Russia--both of which have resisted removing Saddam--have led the pack, with billions in deals. Russia being a big oil producer itself, these purchases are not for home consumption, but for resale at a profit. An official in the U.N. controller's office says he is forbidden to disclose figures on Iraqi trade with individual countries. "If I did, I would get an earful from the countries' missions."
In another craven move, the U.N.'s Iraq program even allowed Saddam to dictate in October 2000 that he no longer wanted the Oil-for-Food accounts to be held in the currency of the enemy, meaning U.S. dollars. Obediently, the U.N. switched all Iraq funds from that stage forward to euros, in effect helping Saddam impose his own version of sanctions on the U.S.
What helped breed this monstrosity of a program was a system that at its inception sounded worthy enough. To fund most of its operations, the U.N. has to assess its members, rattling the cup for funds. Not so with Iraq. Oil-for-Food aims to make Saddam's government pay for all the evaluating and inspecting and directing meant to ensure that Saddam's oil gains go for humanitarian uses. So the U.N. plan allocates various percentages of the revenues for different parts of the program.
Today, that means 59% for Baghdad-controlled central and southern Iraq, 13% to the autonomous Kurdish north, 25% for Gulf War reparations and 0.8% for weapons inspections (what weapons inspections?). And-- oh yes--2.2% for U.N. administration of the program, $1.2 billion so far. That's enough that the U.N. secretariat, awash in Iraqi cash, has turned over a surplus $211 million for aid to Iraq. That still leaves a cumulative $1 billion bankrolling U.N. administration of a program that by now, in effect, has the U.N. working, on commission, for Saddam. As a man of integrity, Mr. Annan might want to footnote that in the debate over what to do about Iraq.
Ms. Rosett is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board. Her column appears Wednesdays here and in The Wall Street Journal Europe.
____________
DaytonaSportbikes Forum
|
TedG
Moderator
Posts: 8222
|
posted March 18, 2003 05:03 PM
What the idiot son needed to do is wave this shit over their heads and use a bit of pressure. They would have come around. If not release the facts to sway world opinion at least about the UN.
____________
Ted
2000 Green ZX12 sold
The fast color!!
Green 2005 ZX10R
2009 Concours Black ABS
|
Sikorsky
Expert Class
Posts: 482
|
posted March 18, 2003 06:39 PM
So why didn't the great US of A rush into Rwanda, or Bosnia, or help the Kurds when Saddam gassed them, or prevent the Israeli's from their atrocities in Palestine, etc etc. etc.
Sorry all the crap that Dubya is putting out is just that, crap. He has a bunch of shiney toys he wants to use so his backers can replace them with newer military toys, that oil he could get really cheap, and he could set up his own puppet regime in the mideast.
All this about bullshit he is pumping out is only going to be swallowed by the red, white and blue patriots in the homeland. The rest of the world don't want a war.
WE DON'T BACK YOU FOLKS, need me to speak slower ?
|
deathpulse
Pro
Posts: 1688
|
posted March 18, 2003 07:02 PM
I think that we (the US) learned a great deal from 9/11. We will go to war. We will win. All else is background noise.
Our thoughts and prayers are with the men and women of our armed forces - go get those bastards and come back soon, safe and sound.
|
deathpulse
Pro
Posts: 1688
|
posted March 18, 2003 07:09 PM
BTW - you can speak as slowly as you want Sikorsky... it doesn't matter, the US didn't ask for, nor does the US need "your backing". (BTW - I'm not very clear on who "we" is in your statement).
|
REDRIDER
Expert Class
Posts: 120
|
posted March 18, 2003 07:35 PM
Sikorsky,Who gave you the right to speak for the rest of us Canadians?Can't have our cake and eat it to.Our prime minister sat on the fence fell off and hurt himself.He is an embarrassment.Sometimes "WORLD LEADERS" make calls that are not popular but I believe history will show that in the case with Iraq this is the right call.
|
Dino
Pro
Posts: 1422
|
posted March 18, 2003 08:09 PM
 Edited By: Dino on 18 Mar 2003 22:22
Ok, how 'bout this for you brain-dead wimps....
No country on this whole friggin' planet wanted to back us after all the pinheads started throwing their tantrums. I think the only reason most of these people protested to begin with is because Gore lost, and they're NEVER going to get over that.
It is WAY beyond me how these people can actually believe that doing NOTHING about a serious problem will solve the problem.
I get SO fucking sick of hearing about how it's for oil, it's daddy's revenge,and so on. These people apparently have no idea what common sense is, so they rant about shit that has nothing to do with anything.
It will all come out(most of it) in due time. The naysayers will have to eat crow. On second thought, they won't. They'd rather starve to death than admit they might be wrong.
oops, gettin' off on a rant.......
Bottom line is....with the exception of a few countries,the whole fuckin' world pussed out big time and didn't want to lend a hand. ....pretty much said"fuck you, America"
Well, Geedub finally steps up to the plate and says "enough appeasement, we're comin' in"........and now they all want to join in!!!!
I say fuck these countries...let'em rot. And I feel the same way about the people that support Saddam, (and that IS what they're doing)...........
with that in mind......
SHUT THE FUCK UP AND GET OUTTA' THE WAY........CUNTS.
____________
uh oh
|
bagster
Zone Head
Posts: 630
|
posted March 18, 2003 09:21 PM
If an act of terrorism on the scale of 9/11 was committed against "your" country" and its innocent citizens Sikorski, what would you want to do about it if you were in charge? Say "oh well"?
You must be a very important person to be able to speak for "the rest of the world" that "don't want a war."
I'd be willing to bet that there are quite a few people around the world (even in the countries whose governments oppose this action) who can see that in the long-run, taking out that punk ass dictator is a strong step in making the world a much safer place for future generations.
Granted, it is going to take some time to sort all the problems that are going to arise.
Let us all just hope saddam doesn't use those weapons that he "doesn't have" on anyone or anything.
|
Sikorsky
Expert Class
Posts: 482
|
posted March 18, 2003 10:10 PM
Let's see, Germany told you to fuck off, so did France, so did Canada, so did the UN. I guess that means a lot of the world think you are a bunch of swaggering bullies.
It is not a war if the US goes in against those guys, that's a slaughter. Against China, Russia, some country that has some kind of military, that is a war.
All of the big military and media build up is a joke. The US is the most powerful country on the planet, no arguement there. But Iraq as an enemy? Give me a break you frigging idiots! That isn't much less than Canada being a threat to the US.
|
bagster
Zone Head
Posts: 630
|
posted March 18, 2003 10:25 PM
my god you are truly an ignorant asshole arent you.
how many times did your dad beat you with that stick to make you so much of an asshole?
|
12RPilot
Pro
Posts: 1094
|
posted March 19, 2003 04:53 AM
I am truly growing weary of all the criticism of my country's motivation. It's good enough for the rest of the world to do what's best for them. It's about time to quit asking for every other irrelevant country's blessing. If there is one thing I have gleaned from my world travels it is this: most countries and peoples would loot and pillage the USA and slice our collective throats if given the chance. It happens all over the world, throughout history. If I was weak, the wolves would pounce. So fuck off world!!! Who needs your approval? This altruistic posturing is so transparent it would be laughable if not so caustic.
|
Sikorsky
Expert Class
Posts: 482
|
posted March 19, 2003 06:03 AM
Edited By: Sikorsky on 19 Mar 2003 06:44
quote:
It's good enough for the rest of the world to do what's best for them. It's about time to quit asking for every other irrelevant country's blessing. If there is one thing I have gleaned from my world travels it is this: most countries and peoples would loot and pillage the USA and slice our collective throats if given the chance. It happens all over the world, throughout history. If I was weak, the wolves would pounce. So fuck off world!!! Who needs your approval? This altruistic posturing is so transparent it would be laughable if not so caustic.
At last the truth is heard. In no way do I agree with what America is wanting to do, but at least have the balls to admit it.
Stop the constant begging for support and the threats when you don't have it. Quit hiding behind the flag. Don't say you are doing to make the world a safer place.
|
Otis
Needs a job
Captain Kickstand
Posts: 3028
|
posted March 19, 2003 08:29 AM
quote]
At last the truth is heard. In no way do I agree with what America is wanting to do, but at least have the balls to admit it.
Stop the constant begging for support and the threats when you don't have it. Quit hiding behind the flag. Don't say you are doing to make the world a safer place.
< flipping over cushions, looking under the couch >
Where is that damn clicker?
____________
It's a free country brother
|
your car is slow
Needs a job
Fuck Nitrous...Got Boost?
Posts: 4089
|
posted March 19, 2003 08:55 AM
Who gives a flying fuck what canada thinks...they are about as high on the "like we give a shit" meter as france is.
____________
Do not taunt happy fun ball!
|
TedG
Moderator
Posts: 8222
|
posted March 19, 2003 09:16 AM
Aren't they like ah.... French up there??? Last time I was there all the signs had French all over them.
____________
Ted
2000 Green ZX12 sold
The fast color!!
Green 2005 ZX10R
2009 Concours Black ABS
|
deathpulse
Pro
Posts: 1688
|
posted March 19, 2003 01:54 PM
AAAH...you are CANADIAN! That sort of explains the views you post Sikorsky! It is my understanding that due to a few Canadian acts that have set up your Gov't Quebec and Monteal (the area of large FRENCH influence in Canada) have an almost disproportionate vote is setting up the Canadian leader (hence, they are usually FRENCH Canadian). Well, I love Canada. Beautiful country, nice people and so on. Too bad about the FRENCH influence though. Interesting to note how FRANCE seems to be close to "back peddling" on their "lack of support" for the war. In recent statements, the FRENCH Prime Maniac (OOOPS I mean Minister!!) stated that (I am paraphrasing here, please forgive me) if Iraq used chemical/biological/WMD against the US or US lead forces in this war (THAT THEY "SUPPOSEDLY" DONT HAVE) then that would change the entire "landscape" of the war in general, and FRANCE would committ "some level of support" to the war. When we invade Iraq and discover the CHEM/BIO/NUKE weapons shells and instructions, I wonder how mad we will be when we discover they are written in French and German.....
|
deathpulse
Pro
Posts: 1688
|
posted March 19, 2003 01:56 PM
OH! I almost forgot, it seems that a large portion of the world IS behind this effort (with the exception of those A-HOLE countries that have economic/politcal interests in 1. Iraq or 2. increasing power in the EU community).
|
Megabyte
Pro
Posts: 1047
|
posted March 19, 2003 02:45 PM
quote:
Sikorsky,Who gave you the right to speak for the rest of us Canadians?Can't have our cake and eat it to.Our prime minister sat on the fence fell off and hurt himself.He is an embarrassment.Sometimes "WORLD LEADERS" make calls that are not popular but I believe history will show that in the case with Iraq this is the right call.
Thanks Redrider. You know we'd fight and die to protect our Canadian brothers too, even if some of them don't support our effort to prevent another 9/11.
____________
We First make our habits and then our habits make us.
|
REDRIDER
Expert Class
Posts: 120
|
posted March 19, 2003 03:26 PM
Thanks Megabyte we're not all a bunch of assholes.Many of us who live in the west feel totally alienated by our eastern dominated french Goverment.I wish the fuck they they would seperate and get the fuck out!!!!Oh and I'm not speaking for 'ALL" western Canadians but I'm sure I can speak for quite a few of us.
|
deathpulse
Pro
Posts: 1688
|
posted March 19, 2003 04:35 PM
BTW - my favorite province will always be Calgary!!! (LOVE going to the stampeed!!)
|
|
|
|
|
HOME
NEW TOPIC