The Iraq thread 4

[EiZei 0]

Like anybody really thought those coalition partners (sans UK) were actually doing anything really dangerous. It was more important to keep that already miniscule coalition of the willing list from shrinking even further for political reasons.

[Warden 0]

Quote[/b] ]The Iraqi election results have raised the prospects for a "significant" withdrawal of UK troops later this year.

This news comes from Britain's ambassador to Baghdad.

Earlier the main Shi'ite bloc failed to secure an overall majority in the new parliament, according to preliminary results announced by the Iraqi electoral commission.

It will now have to seek coalition partners in order to form a government.

William Patey, the British ambassador, said the establishment of an "inclusive government of national unity" would help create conditions in which the withdrawal of UK forces could begin.

"That is still in prospect," he said.

"One of the first priorities for us with the new government ought to be to agree the conditions under which ... security responsibility would be increasingly transferred to the Iraqis with a diminishing role for the coalition.

"If we were to have a conclusive government, representing all the communities and determined to move Iraq forward there is no reason why the conditions should not be such that significant drawdown can be achieved."

While the Government will hope that they can look forward to reducing the 8,000 strong British presence, commanders on the ground have warned against any significant withdrawal before provincial elections expected this spring.

There are fears that British troops could be forced to intervene if alliances formed for the national elections start to break down, leading to violent local power struggles.

Source

Oh Joys.

[ralphwiggum 6]

A few days ago, one of army NCO who went to Iraq came back. So the guys asked how it was like there, and he said, "it sucked".

It's becoming more common to see such comments from those who return. The reality must be up close and now the ones who are in the situation everyday is not that much afraid to say such things.

But then again, a dry place(no beer) would make anyone say that.

[Jinef 2]

hahahahahahaha, nice one.

At the start of the war all the British soldiers were chatting amongst themselves like this:

"Ahhh crap not the desert again ... I was only deployed to the jungle/NI/Bosnia a month ago .... Now I won't see my girlfriend/wife for another 8 months. Oh and even if the public support is stacked against the war, it's still our bloody job so let's do it. Btw, my gun jams after 4 rounds, my boots are melting, I don't have any desert gear and there is a severeshortage of translators ... I need to update my will and write my final letter again."

While the US soldiers were chatting like this:

"Well I just gave up my degree at college to come out here and help these poor people. We are going to show the Iraqis what the American Military can do, I love my country and I am going to serve it! I'm the first kid on the block to be in Iraq, it's great! Hoooah!"

Shock Horror! News Flash! Oh my God!

You mean to say that going to war is actually totally not cool and we ain't feelin' the luv no m0r?

Revelations ....

On a side note, considering how much the Americans talk about beer you would think they might actually drink something more than cold fizzy water.

However does the lack of alcohol really suck? Allowing alcohol to be drank by coalition forces .... in a muslim country, with a military made up of 19 year olds carrying automatic rifles ... would not be the wisest of decisions in my opinion.

Anyywaayy:

War is not cool ... maybe in the future more people might use their brains and vote .... no.

[sputnik monroe 102]

Quote[/b] ]hahahahahahaha, nice one.

At the start of the war all the British soldiers were chatting amongst themselves like this:

"Ahhh crap not the desert again ... I was only deployed to the jungle/NI/Bosnia a month ago .... Now I won't see my girlfriend/wife for another 8 months. Oh and even if the public support is stacked against the war, it's still our bloody job so let's do it. Btw, my gun jams after 4 rounds, my boots are melting, I don't have any desert gear and there is a severeshortage of translators ... I need to update my will and write my final letter again."

While the US soldiers were chatting like this:

"Well I just gave up my degree at college to come out here and help these poor people. We are going to show the Iraqis what the American Military can do, I love my country and I am going to serve it! I'm the first kid on the block to be in Iraq, it's great! Hoooah!"

Shock Horror! News Flash! Oh my God!

You mean to say that going to war is actually totally not cool and we ain't feelin' the luv no m0r?

Revelations ....

On a side note, considering how much the Americans talk about beer you would think they might actually drink something more than cold fizzy water.  

However does the lack of alcohol really suck? Allowing alcohol to be drank by coalition forces .... in a muslim country, with a military made up of 19 year olds carrying automatic rifles ... would not be the wisest of decisions in my opinion.

Anyywaayy:

War is not cool ... maybe in the future more people might use their brains and vote .... no.

 Yeah, those damn Americans. Before the United States existed the world was an utopian society of peace and understanding. No wars ever happened in the past.

 You do realize that the whole world sucks right? Germans, Americans, Brits, Welsh, Angolians, Japanese,  Russians, Samoans, etc etc etc... they all suck. Americans hardly have a monopoly.

 If you were to kill every American man, woman and child and effectively remove their presence from the planet forever, the world would be no better than it is now. Do you know anything about the problems in the world outside of Iraq? I get the feeling from every ones post that they believe the number one hot spot for acts of brutality and murder is in Iraq. How about the Dafur region in the Sudan? How about most of Africa for that matter, South America the whole damn world. No one cares unless the yanks are involved.

 Iraq is a pathetic little skirmish that history will forget, much like the Franco Prussian war, the Crimean war or the Spanish American war. The 21st century is young, trust me things will only get worse. If you make it to the age of 83 your grandchildren will have no interest in hearing your senile ramblings about the little skirmish in Iraq back in "oh five". They'll probably ask you questions like "Grandpa, what did you and grandma do during the big war in *X*?" (complete the sentence by replacing *X* with Europe, Asia, Africa, either Americas or even just world)

 As for this remark

Quote[/b] ]War is not cool ... maybe in the future more people might use their brains and vote .... no.

War isn't cool. It is part of life just like taking a shit or catching a cold, neither of which are cool either but inevitable. You say "maybe in the future", your obviously an optimist for no such peace will ever happen. The world will end in war, of this I am sure.

 Then again I'm practically a nihilist and am an admitted pessimist. Then again no ones proven me wrong.

 Oh well, I don't know why I'm even posting this. I guess I'm just saying this... Jinef stop focusing so much on Iraq and the Yanks. If you take the time to look around you, you'll find there is a bigger world ripe and teaming with more problems and injustice than the middle east could ever hope to live up to.

 Mankind is a disappointment.

[GoOB 0]

Yeah, those damn Americans. Before the United States existed the world was an utopian society of peace and understanding. No wars ever happened in the past.

Well, the majority of the democratic, non-US world has fortunatley realized that war is a no-no, and should be avoided at all costs. That means reaching out to former enemies, and trying to deal with eventual future ones, as peacefully as possible. A world that has grown tired of war, although it took a few thousand years.

I agree with you though. Mankind is a disappointment.

[Jinef 2]

Well done Munroe, you get a gold star for that post.

I only contend one point.

War is not natural .... it is a manifestation of greed which is rarely present in the animal kingdom. Yet we are not driven by instincts and survival mechanisms, we have developed to the point of seeing it as beneficial to destroy.

Only occasionally do groups of animals like coyotes kill prey in larger numbers than they would ever need to feed ...

Same thing with a mob gathering to hang an ethnic minority, group action.

People seem to think it is just part of everyday life ...

"Yeah war is just something that happens you know dude"

What we need is a world balance where profit can only be attained by a motivated workforce and a clever government, not via war. I really want to see Iran get nuclear capability, as then it would become very unprofitable anyone to attack Iran. It would also take Israel down a few pegs because they are really pissing off everyone around them.

I'll tell you why we don't chat about Africa; because there is not a lot of profit in African conflicts. The only thing we can do is supply them weapons and the Russians beat us to it.

It was not financially sensible to put a stop to the genocide in Rwanda a year ago, or the genocide in the Congo.

The only way to remove war is to remove profit from war, I want to see weapon companies severely restricted to selling acceptable weapons to their host countries or host countries organisations. I want to see Iran with Nuclear Weapons, North Korea with Nuclear Weapons etc. North Korea hardly needs nuclear weapons in reality as it has so much artillery ....

I also want to see a EU Minimum Wage.

I want to see a restriction on internation corporations so they pay their workers in any country the same as in their country of origin.

If you make it so it's very difficult to make profit from simply crossing borders ... you make war less attractive.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

lol    as always the discussion is going nowhere.

My latest opinion is, that unfortunately the war in iraq will make the americans learn the wrong lesson. In a couple of months from now the support for the war in iraq, and consequently for any war with american participation, will shrink to 0%. That is unfortunate because in my opinion we will still face some "real" threats in this decade. The US public is somewhat exhausted and tired of war related issues and America is famous for quickly loosing interest in an issue.

BUT, the conflict with Iran will not cool down, the opposite is the case. But under current conditions the US administration will not dare to take a quick decision where such is required. Bush will not stress his voters with another preemptive strike. I dare to say that this will be the biggest mistake. The only superpower we have is tired of war but Iran needs to be dealt with quickly. I mean would try to convince me that diplomacy has a chance here?

[xawery 0]

I also want to see a EU Minimum Wage.

I want to see a restriction on internation corporations so they pay their workers in any country the same as in their country of origin.

If you make it so it's very difficult to make profit from simply crossing borders ... you make war less attractive.

I'm sorry Jinef, but what you write strikes me as very odd. To my knowledge, no country has yet been invaded with the purpose of giving the industry access to cheap labour. Unless you see free market policies as an invasion Sorry for going off-topic, but I would like to elaborate upon this topic as it is rather universal.

If corporations were forced to pay their employees the same wages regardless of geographical location, then many (relatively) poor countries would remain poor. Cheap labour is one of the main reasons for Foreign Direct Investments, which spur economic growth (although this is challanged by some academics) and create jobs. An example: after the fall of communism, Poland was a very poor country. The influx of foreign companies (supermarkets, banks etc.) created new jobs, introduced new products at lower prices and introduced efficiency and expertise (especially the payment system and farming). French style hypermarkets may be ugly as hell, but they certainly offer new jobs and a wide range of products at prices people can afford. If such foreign companies faced wages of Western magnitude, few would be inclined to invest in an emerging economy. Poland does face high unemployment rates currently, but that is more due to ineptitude and short-sight of the political class than anything else.

Having said that, I agree with you that war = bad. What worries me most is how people are willing to accept war and the horrors it brings as an inevitability. As if it were some kind of natural disaster we cannot control, a hurricane or tsunami. "war is hell, there will always be civilian casualties!" This argument has been used in this thread many times. I find this kind of reasoning baffling. Wars don't 'just' happen people! Wars aren't inevitable. Accepting this is the first step towards a more peaceful world.

[EiZei 0]

Having said that, I agree with you that war = bad. What worries me most is how people are willing to accept war and the horrors it brings as an inevitability. As if it were some kind of natural disaster we cannot control, a hurricane or tsunami. "war is hell, there will always be civilian casualties!" This argument has been used in this thread many times. I find this kind of reasoning baffling. Wars don't 'just' happen people! Wars aren't inevitable. Accepting this is the first step towards a more peaceful world.

West being as dependent on export oil as we are these kinds of wars are an inevitability.

[Jinef 2]

"If corporations were forced to pay their employees the same wages regardless of geographical location, then many (relatively) poor countries would remain poor."

Ok ... as that has never happened it is hard to prove. However here is a pattern for you:

Look at general consumer items like toys, socks etc. You will find a few years ago the large majority were made in Taiwan, China, Vietnam and Japan etc. As those economies grew because of the foreign investment by large companies, the country created higher standards of living and the minimum wage subsequently increases ....

The companies don't want to invest their any more as it would make the prices of their products rise. Where next?

Russia has just fallen apart and many satellite states are developing. Now you find that a lot of basic consumer products may come from estonia, lithuania, latvia etc.

As their minimum wage increases because of their growing economies the companies will look for another labour source with very low demands.

In 10-20 years you will be wearing socks made in Somalia, Nigeria, Congo, Sudan, Kenya etc.

Now, this is a very shitty way to develop the world, with hyper growth in the western world and measly feeding of money into the third world.

By completely eradicating the international profit margins through restrictions/taxes and allowing developing nations access to technology without criminal conditions .... that is when you find little need for war.

As the population of the middle east increases you will see many demands on the fresh water supply, with desalination technology being witheld from most of the third world simply to prevent growth ....

The people who run the world are the most sick and twisted mother fuckers you can imagine ...

The entire planet is destroying itself slowly all because of some clever little monkeys ....

I need to stop writing in one sentence/paragraph clusters.

[xawery 0]

Quote[/b] ]Look at general consumer items like toys, socks etc. You will find a few years ago the large majority were made in Taiwan, China, Vietnam and Japan etc. As those economies grew because of the foreign investment by large companies, the country created higher standards of living and the minimum wage subsequently increases ....

The companies don't want to invest their any more as it would make the prices of their products rise. Where next?

Correct, but there is another factor - as wages and standards of living increase, the population's willingness to accept 'shitty' jobs (factory work etc.) decreases. This process can be witnessed everywhere around the world. I will use Poland as an example again: many Dutch companies in the steel sector moved to Poland, because they couldn't find employees willing to perform hard manual labour back home. Now, as Poland has grown richer, young people are unwilling to do such work. Time for the company to move on. It's a logical sequence, not some evil corporation's plot to exploit unwitting poor people to the last drop of blood.

Quote[/b] ]Now, this is a very shitty way to develop the world, with hyper growth in the western world and measly feeding of money into the third world.

By completely eradicating the international profit margins through restrictions/taxes and allowing developing nations access to technology without criminal conditions .... that is when you find little need for war.

A 'shitty way to develop the world'? I don't follow. It's not the companies' goal or even responsibility to 'develop the world'. Their goal is to make profit and ensure the continued existence of the company, in the interest of the shareholders, the employees and the clients, while adhering to the law.

What the third world really needs is a truly free market: no trade-distorting farming subsidies, no excessive tariffs, free movement of goods etc. That is the one thing that would be truly beneficial to third-world residents (and everyone else for that matter). It is nationalistic protectionism (akhem France, US akhem) that hampers the development of the world, not some abstract phantom of 'big corporations'. May I add that the above is not an idea endorsed exclusively by neo-liberals, but institutions like Oxfam?

To get back on topic, I still do not see a link between capitalism and war (because that is what you are implying...).

[chops 111]

There's an excellent documentary from BBC4 (I think) called Why We fight. It has a look at Eisenhower's warning of the unfetted growth of the "industrial military complex" (he was the first to use the phrase) in his outgoing speach. This film includes interviews with various insiders regarding the falsehoods proported in order to let slip the dogs of war in Iraq.

Eisenhower was indeed a wise man;

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

"If the United Nations once admits that international disputes can be settled by using force, then we will have destroyed the foundation of the organization and our best hope of establishing a world order."

Have a look

@Sputnik Munroe. I have to say that I despise the US government as they are an evil pack of rapists who represent the very worst of humanity. I have also been moved to tears by many great US musicians, authors and actors. It seems a few folk in the US need to realise that the rest of the world can have the deepest contempt for the brutality of your government, but love for the greater people. A few of us need to be a bit more careful to indicate that our criticisms of TBA are not a condemnation of everything between Canada and Mexico.

Edit: Spellin'

[harley 3 1185 0]

Why We Fight was indeed a good documentary; much better than all this Poliakoff fluff the BBC makes with tax-payers' money. One thing everyone forgets is that the Eisenhower as President presided over the growth of the Military Industrial complex in the Post-War boom - he was the one who authorised the defence budgets, he who signed off on the new research programs, he who encouraged American industry to come up with ever more efficient and numerous machines of war. He was the ultimate lobbyist of all time.

And then he goes and makes that comment about the "growth of the military indutrial complex" - what he really should have said was; "Sorry guys, I made this monster, but I'm telling you about the problem whilst not admitting it was my fault".

And let us not forget that Eisenhower lied his face off to Kruschev about the U-2 spy flights after the USSR captured F. Gary Powers, thus assuring bridled tension between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. for another decade and contributing to the Cuban Missile Debacle. How his reputation manages to hold up I do not know...

I second the clarification by Chops; just because people criticise the Bush Administration doesn't mean that they're criticising the American people - the TBA might want to identify itself as one with the people, but that certainly isn't the case.

[Balschoiw 0]

Is it only me or is this "punishment" a slap into the face of everyone who believes in justice ?

Observers: Light Sentence May Tarnish U.S.

Quote[/b] ] DENVER — An unexpectedly light sentence for an Army interrogator who once faced life in prison for the death of an Iraqi general could tarnish the government and hurt human-rights efforts around the globe, observers said.

Prosecutors said during Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer Jr.'s court-martial that his interrogation of Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush "could fairly be described as torture" and had stained the military's reputation. During the trial, testimony showed he stuffed Mowhoush in a sleeping bag and straddled his chest.

Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, said if the tables were turned and an American general had fallen into enemy hands and suffered the same fate from interrogators, there would have been an uproar in the U.S.

"How is this going to look overseas?" he said.

Mowhoush, the former commander of Saddam Hussein's air defenses, surrendered to the Army on Nov. 10, 2003, in hopes of seeing or securing the release of his four sons.

Sixteen days later, Mowhoush died after Welshofer covered him in a sleeping bag, straddled his chest and put his hand over the general's mouth, already covered by the bag.

Initially charged with murder, assault and willful dereliction of duty at his court-martial at Fort Carson, Welshofer was found guilty of negligent homicide and negligent dereliction of duty.

Late Monday, a military jury ordered a reprimand and forfeiture of $6,000 in pay, and restricted him to his home, office and church for two months.

Mowhoush's youngest son, Mohammed Mowhoush, 18, told the Denver Post for a story in Wednesday's editions that Welshofer should suffer a harsher sentence.

"This man, Lewis Welshofer, has killed someone and he must be punished ... harder than that," he told the newspaper in a telephone interview from Iraq arranged by Human Rights First, an advocacy group. "We want justice done."

Observers said Welshofer's case and others like it could endanger Americans whose captors might use them to justify inhumane treatment.

In May 2005, Lt. Andrew Ledford, a Navy SEAL who had faced up to 11 years in prison for allegedly beating an Iraqi prisoner who later died, was acquitted of assault, dereliction of duty, conduct unbecoming an officer and making false statements.

In September, Army Pfc. Lynndie England, who posed for some of the most infamous photos depicting detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, was sentenced to three years in prison in the last of nine courts-martial of low-level soldiers charged in the scandal. Pvt. Charles Graner Jr., was sentenced to 10 years in the same case, while six soldiers struck plea bargains.

Last month, five Army Rangers pleaded guilty in cases concerning detainee abuse in Iraq and received sentences ranging from 30-day to six-month confinements and reduction in rank. Those soldiers were not identified.

Jumana Musa, advocacy director of Amnesty International, said such cases erode U.S. credibility at a time when it is urging other countries to increase human-rights protections. She said such cases could set human rights progress back by giving countries such as Libya an excuse to justify abuses.

"These countries certainly are not (mistreating detainees) for the first time, but they're justifying it in a way they weren't able to previously," Musa said. "To be able to say `See, now we're doing it the way the U.S. is doing it' takes the leverage away from the U.S. to say `You have to reform.'"

I´ve read another article on it today but can´t find the source right now. Basically it was some Army general saying that it would send the wrong signal to soldiers abroad if someone is punished harsh for actions committed during service.

What kind of approach is that ?

Let murderers get away with house arrest and 6000 dollar fine for homicide because the homicide was committed under the US flag ? I´m sorry but this is way beyond my horizon. If you are a guy with murder tendencies join the army and you´ll find the perfect ambience to commit your crimes and leave the courtroom almost unpunished. I´m sorry, but where is the US jurisdiction system ? The guy in question should be put to jail for life. Nothing else, nothing less.

[xawery 0]

The above is... unbelievable. It looks as if the military is hell-bent on kicking America's reputation in the groin, then stamping on it's head when it's down. As if Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay weren't bad enough. What are they thinking? It's obvious that such a sentece cannot be kept secret. Are these people masochistic? Boy, them insurgents sure could use some extra motivation to blow us up! "Bring 'em on" indeed...

As Groucho Marx said: military justice is to justice what military music is to music.

[Supah 0]

As Groucho Marx said: military justice is to justice what military music is to music.

This guy I know is in the dutch airforce band thingy, he'd get really upset at that, pbb break his flute in anger!

[xawery 0]

Haha, the last time I used this quote was on TS with my (ex)squad... One of the people present was in a military band also, as you can imagine, he was quite upset

[xawery 0]

US Military at 'breaking point'

Quote[/b] ]The US military has become dangerously overstretched because of the scale of its operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, two reports have warned.

One, by former officials in the Clinton administration, said the pressure of repeated deployments was very corrosive and could have long-term effects.

The second, ordered by the Pentagon and yet to be released, reportedly calls the army "stretched to breaking point".

The US defence secretary dismissed the claims as out of date or misdirected.

About 138,000 US troops remain in Iraq, on top of deployments to Afghanistan and Kosovo.

'Enormous strain'

The first study, commissioned by Democratic members of Congress, listed former Defence Secretary William Perry and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright among its authors.

It said the US military had performed admirably in recent operations but was under "enormous strain".

"This strain, if not soon relieved, will have highly corrosive and potentially long-term effects on the force," it stated.

The report predicted problems recruiting new troops and retaining current ones in the face of repeated overseas tours and shortfalls in vital equipment.

It accused the Bush administration of having failed adequately to assess the size of force and equipment needed in post-invasion Iraq, creating "a real risk of 'breaking the force'."

The report also warned that the lack of a credible strategic reserve "increases the risk that potential adversaries will be tempted to challenge the United States".

Recruitment

The second study, conducted for the Pentagon by military expert Andrew Krepinevich, suggested that the military at its current rate of deployment might not be able to outlast the insurgency in Iraq.

He cited the problems experienced by the army in meeting its recruitment targets last year.

Speaking in Washington, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld rejected the warnings given in both reports, saying: "The force is not broken."

He said the US military was enormously capable and battle-hardened and any report suggesting it was close to breaking point was "just not consistent with the facts".

Difficulties

The BBC's Adam Brookes in Washington says the reports echo the view held by some in Congress and even by some within the armed forces.

They fear that if the Iraq commitment lasts a great deal longer, or if the US is drawn into new conflict, the US armed forces could find it difficult to meet their commitments.

The report came as the British government announced the deployment of thousands of extra troops to Afghanistan as part of a Nato expansion plan in the region.

The troops are likely to be deployed to the south of the country. BBC correspondent Rob Watson says it is unclear whether their role will be to provide support to the Afghan government in the region or to participate in counter-insurgency operations.

In response, Rummy has also argued that the experience of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan has made the Army stronger, not weaker.

"The Army is probably as strong and capable as it ever has been in the history of this country," he said in an appearance at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies in Washington on Dec. 5. "They are more experienced, more capable, better equipped than ever before."

Doesn't this sound a bit like US soldiers commiting suicide on the walls of Baghdad? Now who said that..?

[EiZei 0]

Quote[/b] ]

In response, Rummy has also argued that the experience of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan has made the Army stronger, not weaker.

"The Army is probably as strong and capable as it ever has been in the history of this country," he said in an appearance at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies in Washington on Dec. 5. "They are more experienced, more capable, better equipped than ever before."

The fact that they have recently fought two wars and the US military budget being nearly 50% of the world total they better be.

Well, suppose they still got national guard reserves.. time to polish up those hueys and M16A1s..

[Balschoiw 0]

Does he have a point ?

Saddam plans to sue Bush, Blair

Quote[/b] ]Saddam Hussein wants George Bush, the US president, and Tony Blair, the British prime minister, to be tried for committing war crimes, says the deposed Iraqi president's chief lawyer.

Khalil al-Dulaimi said on Thursday that Saddam wants to sue both leaders, along with Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, for allegedly authorising the use of weapons such as depleted uranium artillery shells, white phosphorous, napalm and cluster bombs in Iraq.

"We will sue Bush, Blair and Rumsfeld in The Hague for using such weapons of mass destruction," al-Dulaimi, in Jordan, told The Associated Press in Baghdad during a telephone interview.

No complaint has been filed to the International Criminal Court in The Netherlands, but al-Dulaimi said Saddam's foreign defence team will present it "very soon".

Iraq excesses

"President Saddam intends to bring those criminals to justice for their mass killings of Iraqis in Baghdad, Ramadi, Falluja and Qaim and abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib," the lawyer added.

Saddam also wants all Iraqis who have had relatives killed or had property damaged should receive at least $500,000 each.

There have been several allegations that the United States used outlawed weapons, such as napalm, in the November, 2004 Falluja offensive, but the Pentagon denied using it.

In November, the Pentagon acknowledged that US troops used white phosphorous shells as a weapon against insurgent strongholds in the same Falluja battle, adding that they are a standard weapon and not banned by any international weapons convention to which the US is a signatory.

Prohibited weapon

Use of white phosphorous is covered by Protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons, which prohibits use of the substance as an incendiary weapon against civilian populations and in air attacks against military forces in civilian areas. The United States is not a signatory to the convention.

US soldiers have also claimed they have fallen ill to exposure to depleted uranium artillery shells in Iraq, but the Pentagon has said metal does not cause ailments.

Depleted uranium is the hard, heavy metal created as a byproduct of enriching uranium for nuclear reactor fuel or weapons material.

Saddam, his half brother Barzan Ibrahim and six other defendants are on trial in the 1982 killing of more than 140 Shia Muslims after an attempt on Saddam's life in the northern town of Dujail. They could face death by hanging if convicted.

Judged by the numbers of innocents killed, Bush and Blair could share a rope with Saddam

[nindall 0]

Channel 4 News (UK) just reported they've seen the minutes of a meeting between Bush & Blair on the 31st January 2003 at the White House.

The White House Memo

Quote[/b] ]

President Bush said that:

"The US would put its full weight behind efforts to get another resolution and would 'twist arms' and 'even threaten'. But he had to say that if ultimately we failed, military action would follow anyway.''

Prime Minister Blair responded that he was: "solidly with the President and ready to do whatever it took to disarm Saddam."

But Mr Blair said that: "a second Security Council resolution would provide an insurance policy against the unexpected, and international cover, including with the Arabs."

I find it very depressing that neither has been impeached.

EDIT-I think it's notable that C4 News decided not to contact the government for a response before reporting this. (Remember the 'Al-Jazeera Memo'!)

[walker 0]

Hi all

I find it more confusing that George Bush Jnr. wanted to Provoke Saddam with a Fake UN flight in the hope Saddam would shoot it down. So then George Bush Jnr. and TBA would have a reason to go to war. Aparently Tony Blair talked George Bush Jnr. out of this Mad idea.

Quote[/b] ]Memo extracts

Published: 2 Feb 2006

By: Channel 4 News

Taken from the White House Meeting Memo, 31 January 2003, seen by Channel 4 News - and detailed in 'Lawless World' by Philippe Sands.

President Bush to Tony Blair: "The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach"

Bush: "It was also possible that a defector could be brought out who would give a public presentation about Saddam's WMD, and there was also a small possibility that Saddam would be assassinated."

Blair: "A second Security Council Resolution resolution would provide an insurance policy against the unexpected and international cover, including with the Arabs. "

Bush: "The US would put its full weight behind efforts to get another resolution and would 'twist arms' and 'even threaten'. But he had to say that if ultimately we failed, military action would follow anyway.''

Blair responds that he is: "solidly with the President and ready to do whatever it took to disarm Saddam."

Bush told Blair he: "thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups."

http://www.channel4.com/news....id=1656

This leads me to some conclusions about George Bush Jnr. and TBA:

1) TBA were willing to fake a UN flight but by making it apear electronicly and on Radar to be a US Fighter squadron flying beyond the agreed no fly limits thus actualy invading Iraq's airspace and starting the war and in the process breaching the UN's Neutral status and the Articles of War.

2) TBA clearly did not think there was enough evidense of WMD to start the war on 31 January 2003 less than two months before the war began and so felt it needed to manufacture an excuse.

3) TBA was clearly willing to sacrifice a US pilot to begin the war.

4) TBA had not given any serious thought to the aftermath of the Iraq war. They did not have a plan or indeed a clue.

5) I do not want such mad, ethicly and moraly devoid, unthinking and clueless people in charge of a big red button that says: "Nuke the world" on it.

I do not think impeachment cuts it. Clearly the men with white coats and the backwards shirts are needed at the White House pronto. What do they call the Asylum in Washington?

Totaly Flaberghasted and not a little worried Walker

[Cibit 0]

Off topic sorry...................Walker u old fruit long time no speak, U too busy to pop by and see all yor zeus friends

Some real nice big platoon and company size co-ops now using WGL 5.0 come over and see us

BTW our Ip changed 80.190.227.54

[j w 0]

As placebo required;

Link (CNN)

Link (News of the World)

The UK governement is to investigate the autenticy of the video (will look for video-link)