The Iraq thread 3

[bn880 5]

SNIP

Just my rant for the night. Carry on.

I agree with you. And yes I was not believing that "100 were slaughered, with bayonets". It ws either 20 with some portion using bayonets or 100 with indiscriminate shelling (artillery or tanks). I guess the Brits are not doing that anymore then.

[Longinius 1]

According to Swedish daily Expressen, four people have recently been arrasted for the decapitation of Nick Berg.

[MLF 0]

Never disputed the fact that civlians are killed, i still believe we were right to go to iraq, but not for the reasons that Blair gave me.

For what reasons, then, do you feel it was right to invade Iraq?

And if your answer has nothing to do with oil and everything to do with saving people from despotic regimes then what's keeping you out of Burma and Sudan and North Korea and Zimbabwe and... and... and... ?

Slightly to do with human rights and alot to do with what we should have done in the early 90's and carried on into baghdad after driving them out of Kuwait.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Slightly to do with human rights and alot to do with what we should have done in the early 90's and carried on into baghdad after driving them out of Kuwait.

So this is it ?

This justifies to put the ME into a mass killing of civillians ?

Really ?

[MLF 0]

SNIP

Just my rant for the night. Carry on.

I agree with you.  And yes I was not believing that "100 were slaughered, with bayonets".  It ws either 20 with some portion using bayonets or 100 with indiscriminate shelling (artillery or tanks).  I guess the Brits are not doing that anymore then.  

did the sun say 100 dead, i dont think they did, the UK have never to my knowledge used indescimate shelling in the south.

[Balschoiw 0]

Good morning MLF:

Quote[/b] ]A British Army spokesman has said that there is, as he puts it, some sort of uprising in Basra. If true, this is what the coalition forces had hoped for.

The British Army has been shelling positions inside and around the city, held by Iraqi soldiers and militiamen, but up until now there have been no indication of any support inside the city for the American and British-led assault.

Shelling Basra

[Pathy 0]

Whats this, i didn't think you trusted the BBC.....arent the British media biased? I want outside confirmation of this story!!

Not really, but you see the point.......

[bn880 5]

SNIP

Just my rant for the night. Carry on.

I agree with you. And yes I was not believing that "100 were slaughered, with bayonets". It ws either 20 with some portion using bayonets or 100 with indiscriminate shelling (artillery or tanks). I guess the Brits are not doing that anymore then.

did the sun say 100 dead, i dont think they did, the UK have never to my knowledge used indescimate shelling in the south.

No it didn,t they said they charged 100 rebels killing 35. My mistake, I glanced over that thing and thought they said 100, anyway, 35 vs 20, still a difference.

Anywho, even if they were spot on, you should not jsut go to a coalition based media source and take it as an absolute truth, _especially_ when it is in favor of the coalition.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Whats this, i didn't think you trusted the BBC.....arent the British media biased? I want outside confirmation of this story!!

Me ? I never doubted BBC. Must have been another one here.

and no, I don´t see your point

[Pathy 0]

The point is some people are happy to point out how biased the BBC is when they dont like what its telling them, yet when its something they want to hear they are fine with it.....

....but the points irrelevant if you werent one of those people. Sorry i thought you were one of the "the bayonette story isnt true" people.  

Now i feel more stupid, i cant find a single post by you on that subject

[MLF 0]

Quote[/b] ]Slightly to do with human rights and alot to do with what we should have done in the early 90's and carried on into baghdad after driving them out of Kuwait.

So this is it ?

This justifies to put the ME into a mass killing of civillians ?

Really ?

no its my opinion and mine alone, i felt we should have finished off Iraq after Kuwait, the U.N should have allowed us to take Iraq and impose a new leader/democracy as clearly the people were willing, but as usual the U.N does t by 1/2 measures so instead we are in the position we are now.

"indescimate shelling" tell me more on the story, where they shelling a field in the middle of the desert, or was it built up, they where shelling specific targets, not indesciminate shelling.

[denoir 0]

Slightly to do with human rights and alot to do with what we should have done in the early 90's and carried on into baghdad after driving them out of Kuwait.

For the first reason, there were other countries far more in need of help and also so far the coalition has not been doing a very good job in Iraq either.

As for the second point, you're refering to oil? GW1 was about stopping Saddam from gaining too much control over the ME oil. It was about stopping him going further to Saudi Arabia etc. In 2003 he did in no way have capabilities to wage a regional war. He did not even have complete territorial control over Iraq itself.

So no, I don't understand your second reason. Could you elaborate further? Why should they have carried on to Baghdad after liberating Kuwait?

[Pathy 0]

Quote[/b] ]For the first reason, there were other countries far more in need of help and also so far the coalition has not been doing a very good job in Iraq either.

And that makes his opinion less legitimate?

What he says is still valid, war on the grounds of human rights.....well Iraq may not have been the most needy of countries, but....it still had serious abuses.

Quote[/b] ]And if your answer has nothing to do with oil and everything to do with saving people from despotic regimes then what's keeping you out of Burma and Sudan and North Korea and Zimbabwe and... and... and...

Excuse me, but i dont think MLF sets US foreign policy.......

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]"indescimate shelling" tell me more on the story, where they shelling a field in the middle of the desert, or was it built up, they where shelling specific targets, not indesciminate shelling.

If you read the source I posted you´ll see that they shelled Basra city.

Quote[/b] ]no its my opinion and mine alone, i felt we should have finished off Iraq after Kuwait

That was no UN decision. It was the decision of Bush sr. to stop, not the UN´s decision.

Quote[/b] ]but as usual the U.N does t by 1/2 measures so instead we are in the position we are now.

Sorry ? Pls explain and post sources.

Quote[/b] ]Now i feel more stupid, i cant find a single post by you on that subject

Get down on your knees and beg for mercy. I know when and on what I post. I didn´t comment the story at all because it´s irrelevant imo.

[bn880 5]

Yes it makes that claim invalid, logically. Since they could have adressed more serious issues of this type with less cost and maybe more support...

[Pathy 0]

Ok, so your saying that MLF believing that we should be in Iraq on humanitarian grounds alone is invalid? How can his personal opinion be invalid? Because there are more needy countries? Yes there may be, but that doesnt make the issue less important. Thats like saying.....there are 2 murderers on the loose, ones killed 1 person, the other has killed 2.....but lets forget about the 1st murderer, he's blatantly not as dangerous......

NOW, if the UK or US government said "we are going into Iraq on humanitarian grounds only"....THEN what your saying makes more sense.

However, as far as i know MLF does not make government policy, nor is an official representative of either country....therefore, his opinion cannot be attacked in the same way as a governemt policy......

@Balschoiw

*gets down on knees and begs* (although i dont know what you would possibly do to me if i didnt     )

[bn880 5]

Ok, so your saying that MLF believing that we should be in Iraq on humanitarian grounds alone is invalid? How can his personal opinion be invalid? Because there are more needy countries? Yes there may be, but that doesnt make the issue less important. Thats like saying.....there are 2 murderers on the loose, ones killed 1 person, the other has killed 2.....but lets forget about the 1st murderer, he's blatantly not as dangerous......

More like: let's forget about the other that has killed 2, because the first one has a house full of drug money we can use.

[raedor 8]

Ok, so your saying that MLF believing that we should be in Iraq on humanitarian grounds alone is invalid? How can his personal opinion be invalid? Because there are more needy countries? Yes there may be, but that doesnt make the issue less important. Thats like saying.....there are 2 murderers on the loose, ones killed 1 person, the other has killed 2.....but lets forget about the 1st murderer, he's blatantly not as dangerous......

More like: let's forget about the other that has killed 2, because the first one has a house full of drug money we can use.

haha, yes, you pointed it out!

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]For the first reason, there were other countries far more in need of help and also so far the coalition has not been doing a very good job in Iraq either.

And that makes his opinion less legitimate?

What he says is still valid, war on the grounds of human rights.....well Iraq may not have been the most needy of countries, but....it still had serious abuses.

Yeah, it does. It's in the best case naive and most likely just sheepish. War involvs killing a lot of people and that many Iraqis would die was given, without the guarantees of the project succeeding.

But, don't take my words for it. This is from the Human Rights Watch, the world's most prominent watchgroup in the field:

Quote[/b] ]

Humanitarian intervention was supposed to have gone the way of the 1990s. The use of military force across borders to stop mass killing was seen as a luxury of an era in which national security concerns among the major powers were less pressing and problems of human security could come to the fore. Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor, Sierra Leone—these interventions, to varying degrees justified in humanitarian terms, were dismissed as products of an unusual interlude between the tensions of the Cold War and the growing threat of terrorism. September 11, 2001 was said to have changed all that, signaling a return to more immediate security challenges. Yet surprisingly, with the campaign against terrorism in full swing, the past year or so has seen four military interventions that are described by their instigators, in whole or in part, as humanitarian.

In principle, one can only welcome this renewed concern with the fate of faraway victims. What could be more virtuous than to risk life and limb to save distant people from slaughter? But the common use of the humanitarian label masks significant differences among these interventions. The French intervention in the Democratic Republic of Congo, later backed by a reinforced U.N. peacekeeping presence, was most clearly motivated by a desire to stop ongoing slaughter. In Liberia and Côte d’Ivoire, West African and French forces intervened to enforce a peace plan but also played important humanitarian roles. (The United States briefly participated in the Liberian intervention, but the handful of troops it deployed had little effect.) All of these African interventions were initially or ultimately approved by the U.N. Security Council. Indeed, in each case the recognized local government consented to the intervention, though under varying degrees of pressure.

By contrast, the United States-led coalition forces justified the invasion of Iraq on a variety of grounds, only one of which—a comparatively minor one—was humanitarian. The Security Council did not approve the invasion, and the Iraqi government, its existence on the line, violently opposed it. Moreover, while the African interventions were modest affairs, the Iraq war was massive, involving an extensive bombing campaign and some 150,000 ground troops.

The sheer size of the invasion of Iraq, the central involvement of the world’s superpower, and the enormous controversy surrounding the war meant that the Iraqi conflict overshadowed the other military actions. For better or for worse, that prominence gave it greater power to shape public perceptions of armed interventions said by their proponents to be justified on humanitarian grounds. The result is that at a time of renewed interest in humanitarian intervention, the Iraq war and the effort to justify it even in part in humanitarian terms risk giving humanitarian intervention a bad name. If that breeds cynicism about the use of military force for humanitarian purposes, it could be devastating for people in need of future rescue.

Human Rights Watch ordinarily takes no position on whether a state should go to war. The issues involved usually extend beyond our mandate, and a position of neutrality maximizes our ability to press all parties to a conflict to avoid harming noncombatants. The sole exception we make is in extreme situations requiring humanitarian intervention.

Because the Iraq war was not mainly about saving the Iraqi people from mass slaughter, and because no such slaughter was then ongoing or imminent, Human Rights Watch at the time took no position for or against the war. A humanitarian rationale was occasionally offered for the war, but it was so plainly subsidiary to other reasons that we felt no need to address it. Indeed, if Saddam Hussein had been overthrown and the issue of weapons of mass destruction reliably dealt with, there clearly would have been no war, even if the successor government were just as repressive. Some argued that Human Rights Watch should support a war launched on other grounds if it would arguably lead to significant human rights improvements. But the substantial risk that wars guided by non-humanitarian goals will endanger human rights keeps us from adopting that position.

Over time, the principal justifications originally given for the Iraq war lost much of their force. More than seven months after the declared end of major hostilities, weapons of mass destruction have not been found. No significant prewar link between Saddam Hussein and international terrorism has been discovered. The difficulty of establishing stable institutions in Iraq is making the country an increasingly unlikely staging ground for promoting democracy in the Middle East. As time elapses, the Bush administration’s dominant remaining justification for the war is that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant who deserved to be overthrown—an argument of humanitarian intervention. The administration is now citing this rationale not simply as a side benefit of the war but also as a prime justification for it. Other reasons are still regularly mentioned, but the humanitarian one has gained prominence.

Does that claim hold up to scrutiny? The question is not simply whether Saddam Hussein was a ruthless leader; he most certainly was. Rather, the question is whether the conditions were present that would justify humanitarian intervention—conditions that look at more than the level of repression. If so, honesty would require conceding as much, despite the war’s global unpopularity. If not, it is important to say so as well, since allowing the arguments of humanitarian intervention to serve as a pretext for war fought mainly on other grounds risks tainting a principle whose viability might be essential to save countless lives.

In examining whether the invasion of Iraq could properly be understood as a humanitarian intervention, our purpose is not to say whether the U.S.-led coalition should have gone to war for other reasons. That, as noted, involves judgments beyond our mandate. Rather, now that the war’s proponents are relying so significantly on a humanitarian rationale for the war, the need to assess this claim has grown in importance. We conclude that, despite the horrors of Saddam Hussein’s rule, the invasion of Iraq cannot be justified as a humanitarian intervention.

......

In sum, the invasion of Iraq failed to meet the test for a humanitarian intervention. Most important, the killing in Iraq at the time was not of the exceptional nature that would justify such intervention. In addition, intervention was not the last reasonable option to stop Iraqi atrocities. Intervention was not motivated primarily by humanitarian concerns. It was not conducted in a way that maximized compliance with international humanitarian law. It was not approved by the Security Council. And while at the time it was launched it was reasonable to believe that the Iraqi people would be better off, it was not designed or carried out with the needs of Iraqis foremost in mind.

In opening this essay, we noted that the controversial invasion of Iraq stood in contrast to the three African interventions. In making that point, we do not suggest that the African interventions were without problems. All suffered to one degree or another from a mixture of motives, inadequate staffing, insufficient efforts to disarm and demobilize abusive forces, and little attention to securing justice and the rule of law. All of the African interventions, however, ultimately confronted ongoing slaughter, were motivated in significant part by humanitarian concerns, were conducted with apparent respect for international humanitarian law, arguably left the country somewhat better off, and received the approval of the U.N. Security Council. Significantly, all were welcomed by the relevant government, meaning that the standards for assessing them are more permissive than for a nonconsensual intervention.

However, even in light of the problems of the African interventions, the extraordinarily high profile of the Iraq war gives it far more potential to affect the public view of future interventions. If its defenders continue to try to justify it as humanitarian when it was not, they risk undermining an institution that, despite all odds, has managed to maintain its viability in this new century as a tool for rescuing people from slaughter.

The Iraq war highlights the need for a better understanding of when military intervention can be justified in humanitarian terms. The above-noted International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty was one important effort to define these parameters. Human Rights Watch has periodically contributed to this debate as well, including with this essay, and various academic writers have offered their own views. But no intergovernmental body has put forth criteria for humanitarian intervention.

This official reticence is not surprising, since governments do not like to contemplate uninvited intrusions in their country. But humanitarian intervention appears to be here to stay—an important and appropriate response to people facing mass slaughter. In the absence of international consensus on the conditions for such intervention, governments inevitably are going to abuse the concept, as the United States has done in its after-the-fact efforts to justify the Iraq war. Human Rights Watch calls on intergovernmental organizations, particularly the political bodies of the United Nations, to end the taboo on discussing the conditions for humanitarian intervention. Some consensus on these conditions, in addition to promoting appropriate use of humanitarian intervention, would help deter abuse of the concept and thus assist in preserving a tool that some of the world’s most vulnerable victims need.

And this is very important. Human rights abuses must not be used as a carte blanche for starting wars. There are quite a few countries on the Amnesty list of "persistant human rights violators", including the US. So would this according to you be a valid opinion?

Quote[/b] ]

I did not support the WTC attacks for the reasons that AQ gave but I supported them on the basis of fighting a human rights violator.

The above statement is basically equivalent of MLF's:

1. It completely ignores the people killed in the attacks/bombings

2. It assumes that waging a war is enough to make any substantial change in the system.

As the HRW article above pointed out the instability of the region and the situation in Iraq made it very likely that there was going to be a shitload of trouble after the war. The UK & US were told this over and over again, by the UN, by most of Europe and most of the world. And they did not do this behind closed doors. Anybody following the prelude to the war should have been aware of it. Otherwise their opinions on the subject are invalid based on ignorance. Attacking Iraq would in no way automatically solve the humanitarian situation. And as we can see it didn't.

--

Domestic attacks occur every six seconds in the UK. Beatings, rapes and stabbings. Serious human rights abuses wouldn't you say? I think that the women and children of the UK need to be liberated. Let's start by nuking London as a first step and then we'll figure out the rest as we go... Does that sound like a 'valid' opinion?

[Pathy 0]

Yes but without these interventions, what the hell are we going to make for our next OFP mod?

[Balschoiw 0]

There are still 252 wars , minor and bigger ones that took place last year or still carry on. We don´t need especially the GW 2 for mods

[Pathy 0]

Great!

New US policy should be centered around OFP though.....example....."1)NO URBAN FIGHTING.....Any conflicts we undertake must be taylored to suit OFP....therefore, from now on, wide open warfare is the only option.... "

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]Slightly to do with human rights and alot to do with what we should have done in the early 90's and carried on into baghdad after driving them out of Kuwait.

You`ve outdone yourself MLF.So you think that starting a war against a country that posed no threat to other countries, had no weapons of mas destruction,no ties with Al-Queda and where there was no immidiate threat of a humanitarian disaster(as there was in other countries at the current time), killing tens of thousands of civillians,ruining it`s infrastructure,making zero progress in one whole year in terms of security was in a sick way justified because you didn`t eject Saddam in the `90?!

As (un)fascinating as your point of view is,Ali is still going to have a hard time understanding that his parents and sister were thorn to little pieces and his home destroyed because of that.

How about thinking a second from the Iraqi point of view as this war is about them,they are the ones suffering and agressed,we(atleast I) just try to understand what they are feeling right now and what they want,safe in our comfortable chairs thousands of miles away.Tell me honestly if you would accept your life to be taken because the same country that betrayed your people and left you geting sloughtered in a hopless rebellion decides to invade your country 10 years later manipulating the support of the public with blunt lies.

[Tydium 0]

Reuters Staff Abused by U.S. Troops in Iraq

Quote[/b] ]

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. forces beat three Iraqis working for Reuters and subjected them to sexual and religious taunts and humiliation during their detention last January in a military camp near Falluja, the three said Tuesday.

The three first told Reuters of the ordeal after their release but only decided to make it public when the U.S. military said there was no evidence they had been abused, and following the exposure of similar mistreatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad.

Two of the three said they had been forced to insert a finger into their anus and then lick it, and were forced to put shoes in their mouths, particularly humiliating in Arab culture.

All three said they were forced to make demeaning gestures as soldiers laughed, taunted them and took photographs. They said they did not want to give details publicly earlier because of the degrading nature of the abuse.

The soldiers told them they would be taken to the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, deprived them of sleep, placed bags over their heads, kicked and hit them and forced them to remain in stress positions for long periods.

The U.S. military, in a report issued before the Abu Ghraib abuse became public, said there was no evidence the Reuters staff had been tortured or abused.

Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of ground forces in Iraq, said in a letter received by Reuters Monday but dated March 5 that he was confident the investigation had been "thorough and objective" and its findings were sound.

The Pentagon has yet to respond to a request by Reuters Global Managing Editor David Schlesinger to review the military's findings about the incident in light of the scandal over the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

Asked for comment Tuesday, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said only: "There are a number of lines of inquiry under way with respect to prison operations in Iraq. If during the course of any inquiry, the commander believes it is appropriate to review a specific aspect of detention, he has the authority to do so."

The abuse happened at Forward Operating Base Volturno, near Falluja, the Reuters staff said. They were detained on January 2 while covering the aftermath of the shooting down of a U.S. helicopter near Falluja and held for three days, first at Volturno and then at Forward Operating Base St Mere.

The three -- Baghdad-based cameraman Salem Ureibi, Falluja-based freelance television journalist Ahmad Mohammad Hussein al-Badrani and driver Sattar Jabar al-Badrani -- were released without charge on January 5.

"INADEQUATE" INVESTIGATION

"When I saw the Abu Ghraib photographs, I wept," Ureibi said Tuesday. "I saw they had suffered like we had."

Ureibi, who understands English better than the other two detainees, said soldiers told him they wanted to have sex with him, and he was afraid he would be raped.

Schlesinger sent a letter to Sanchez on January 9 demanding an investigation into the treatment of the three Iraqis.

The U.S. army said it was investigating and requested further information. Reuters provided transcripts of initial interviews with the three following their release, and offered to make them available for interview by investigators.

A summary of the investigation by the 82nd Airborne Division, dated January 28 and provided to Reuters, said "no specific incidents of abuse were found." It said soldiers responsible for the detainees were interviewed under oath and "none admit or report knowledge of physical abuse or torture."

"The detainees were purposefully and carefully put under stress, to include sleep deprivation, in order to facilitate interrogation; they were not tortured," it said. The version received Monday used the phrase "sleep management" instead.

The U.S. military never interviewed the three for its investigation.

On February 3 Schlesinger wrote to Lawrence Di Rita, special assistant to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, saying the investigation was "woefully inadequate" and should be reopened.

"The military's conclusion of its investigation without even interviewing the alleged victims, along with other inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the report, speaks volumes about the seriousness with which the U.S. government is taking this issue," he wrote.

ABUSE SCANDAL

The U.S. military faced international outrage this month after photographs surfaced showing U.S. soldiers humiliating and abusing Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison west of Baghdad.

An investigation by Major General Antonio Taguba found that "numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted on several detainees" in Abu Ghraib.

Seven U.S. soldiers have been charged over the Abu Ghraib abuse and the first court martial is set for Wednesday.

U.S. officials say the abuse was carried out by a small number of soldiers and that all allegations of abuse are promptly and thoroughly investigated.

[quicksand 0]

Tsk,tsk,isn`t it obvious,the soldiers acting independently in Abu Gharib travalled to Fallujah and tortured this Iraqis too.Far fetched?Well if Zarqawi can travell from the Pakistani border with Afghanistan to Fallujah with his bands for foreign fighters in less then one week in one leg I might add this should be a piece of cake(note:the leg grew back just in time to murder Berg,so don`t question CIA they can`t be wrong).

Sorry if my sarcasm isn`t working very well but I am running out of ideas in expressing my opinion about this stories,the lies are making them to darn simillar.