Bush immunity for war crimes?

[speed]

Ohhh I feel such pressure to be cool and popular by being anti authority and anti Bush....NOT. I'm SO SICK of this kind of baseless rhetoric.


1) There were MANY reasons why we went to war, and it wasnt JUST because EVERYONE thought they had newly produced weapons of mass destruction. We all got our info from the same intelligence sources. EVERYONE believed that, and thats why the united nations backed the decision, as did mostly everyone else. Also please learn the difference between a lie and an error in judgement.

It wasnt even totally an error in judgement, he DID have the unaccounted for weapons of mass destruction as were discovered like hundreds of munitions. Do you not remember that? So please stop lying about lying.


2) Wasnt a blatant lie for the same reasons as to the fact that it was practucally universally agreed that he had 911 ties..more specifically he had ties with Osama and Al Qaida. There was a memo that people forget exists that showed a link which didnt seem to get much media coverage..surprise surprise.. Osama had communiques with him, whether or not Sadaam thought he was a threat or not. We think North Korea is a threat in some ways but we still do buisness with them and can aparently still talk to them. Because actual evidence is brought up then forgotten or ignored shows its more so a reaction out of fear, a desire to scapegoat the president or anyone whos actually trying to help, because they value freedom as well as the freedom for you to criticize him..funny how you dont see people with a backbone who supports those who are helping visciously attack terrorists or extremist muslims...let alone do that while being in their georgraphical boundaries.

I dont see how a party (Democrats) or liberals who reject any objective basis for truth and morals can condemn anything or stand up for what is really right or true. What ends up happening in that case is a putting up of ones finger to the air to see which direction its going and a stance of rewarding evil and pnunishing and criticizing good. "The Iraqi people and the world is much better off with a genocidal maniac in power in Iraq"

3) He was a threat to the US and the world. He has weapons of mass destruction, disregarded UN ultimatums regarding them, kept inspectors out or distracted, he had the intetion and capabillities to do all of that..oil for food...Also remember that the 911 commission also believed he was a threat.

I say remember...like I believe that will happen. Applause to anyone else who doesnt follow in step with what the mainstream liberal media wants you to believe in light of how most frame, angle, and posture their "reporting".

Ahem not only a Senate (republican controlled mind you) study, but a study of all 16 intelligence organizations disproved every single thing you mentioned. Both came out in the last two weeks. These are objective and if anything, republican-spun reports.

The only facts you're partially correct on, were Saddam disregarding the ultimatums. But, we knew what he had; he hadnt received anything new since the last war.

Where is this tie with Osama? Thats has been disproven by Bush himself. If anything, the ties between Osama and Bush are closer. Stop spouting nonsense.

I find it amazing that after all of these non-partisan reports, and Bush's own statements, that you continue to believe in all of this nonsense.


And finally, do you know anything about Vietnam? Can you not see the parallels? These seperatist groups are fighting for their autonomy, Al Quaida is fighting to disrupt the american presence, and we're basing our exit strategy on a propped up powerless and corrupt government and their militia. MY god, the parrallels are amazing.

The only difference is, the media is no longer reporting with the troops, the troops are no longer drafted (they chose to go), and there is no conventional warfare--its all urban guerilla hit and run tactics.

This 16 organization (NSA, CIA, Army Intelligence etc) report stated not only is the insurgency getting stronger and attracting more terrorists, but its being fought the wrong way. It should be, 20% military, 80% infrastructure etc support. Even if our actions were terribly wrong going in, its our continued failure of addressing the problem in Iraq. What we are doing now is not working. Find out what Iraqis want, how they think, build them infrastructure, move all troops into a few well-protected bases.

 

[judas69]

Everyone knows Rush Limbaugh is correct.

 

[OldScratch]

Let's not make the mistake of bogging this debate down in Left vs. Right, Liberal vs. Conservative rhetoric, etc. My politics are generally(non-religious) right-wing, in the traditional sense of that designation - I desire no affiliation with this Neocon cabal of the modern pseudo-right and their poorly planned and needless and mind-bogglingly expensive($400Billion or so already?) bloodletting in Iraq. Pat Buchanan perfectly illustrated the absolute folly and clearly non-Conservative nature of this foolishness in Iraq in his book, "Where The Right Went Wrong." This is far more than a left/right squabble as portrayed in the Media.
From the outset, I never could figure out why we weren't allying ourselves with Hussein, never mind trying to topple him. His largely secular State could likely have been the best ally we would have had in the perpetually volatile Middle-east(but no, we must choose Israel every time). And his alleged crimes, gassing Kurds, what have you, positively PALE in comparison to the deeds of many America has made political bedfellows with in the past, such as the murderous Stalin for instance. No American today weeps for the 6-7million Ukranians Stalin starved to death prior to WW2, when warmly recalling how our Red allies helped us crush those nasty 'ol Nazis! War crimes indeed...

 

[Patrick R.]

Ohhh I feel such pressure to be cool and popular by being anti authority and anti Bush....NOT. I'm SO SICK of this kind of baseless rhetoric.

Anti authority? I’m against the American government destroying our country in endless wars in the Middle East, wars that can’t be won…I’m not anti government, I’m against a government that continues to make piss poor decisions which can and will cost Americans dearly. Face it, the politicians over on Capital Hill are terrible, we need real American patriots in office, ones that look out for our interest.

1) There were MANY reasons why we went to war, and it wasnt JUST because EVERYONE thought they had newly produced weapons of mass destruction. We all got our info from the same intelligence sources. EVERYONE believed that, and thats why the united nations backed the decision, as did mostly everyone else.

I have some news for you, the neo conservatives, who were the real driving force for the invasion of Iraq have been planning this war for years, their policy paper ‘ A Clean Break: a New Strategy For Securing The Realm’ makes that very clear. And what was their rational for the removal of Saddam? For American? No. For weapons of mass destruction? No. For an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right? Yep Yep.

http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm

Also please learn the difference between a lie and an error in judgement.

Oh I forgot, politicians are notorious for their truth telling.

It wasnt even totally an error in judgement, he DID have the unaccounted for weapons of mass destruction as were discovered like hundreds of munitions. Do you not remember that? So please stop lying about lying.

Where is your source for that information? Are you talking about that ‘mobile weapons lab’, that wasn’t even used to make weapons of mass destruction, something that was exposed back in May of 2003? That was funny, while there was fresh information detailing the fact that it wasn’t even used to make biological weapons George Bush went on TV and told the world ‘we have found the weapons of mass destruction’…now you tell me, he is either a total moron or a total liar, in either case we don’t need him in office.

2) Wasnt a blatant lie for the same reasons as to the fact that it was practucally universally agreed that he had 911 ties..more specifically he had ties with Osama and Al Qaida. There was a memo that people forget exists that showed a link which didnt seem to get much media coverage..surprise surprise..

Again, the neo conservatives have been planning this war against Saddam and Iraq for years, it was only after 9/11 where they could make their case…this memo that you are referring to, is that the one that was leaked to the Weekly Standard? The funny thing about that was Douglas Feith and DIA analyst Chris Carney discuss Iraq's alleged ties to al-Qaeda to the CIA, but yet the CIA analysts immediately recognize that the Douglas Feith's allegations comes from discredited sources but it still appeared George Bush and George J Tenets Congressional testimony!

Osama had communiques with him, whether or not Sadaam thought he was a threat or not. We think North Korea is a threat in some ways but we still do buisness with them and can aparently still talk to them. Because actual evidence is brought up then forgotten or ignored shows its more so a reaction out of fear, a desire to scapegoat the president or anyone whos actually trying to help, because they value freedom as well as the freedom for you to criticize him..funny how you dont see people with a backbone who supports those who are helping visciously attack terrorists or extremist muslims...let alone do that while being in their georgraphical boundaries.

Osama and Saddam hated one another, Saddam had no ties to 9/11 ok? Take a look at Michael Chertoff, he defended a dangerous anti American, Magdy Elamir who was a named suspect in Operation Diamondback, and FBI/ATF undercover unit of Pakistani who sought to arm Osama Bin Laden with nuclear weapons! Chertoff blocked his indictment! So lets not kid ourselves, lets clean up our own backyard before we go over to the Middle East and smash down their governments and practically start a civil war. By the way, why are you sticking up for that cheerleader George Bush?

http://star.txstate.edu/main/article.php?aid=1236

I dont see how a party (Democrats) or liberals who reject any objective basis for truth and morals can condemn anything or stand up for what is really right or true. What ends up happening in that case is a putting up of ones finger to the air to see which direction its going and a stance of rewarding evil and pnunishing and criticizing good. "The Iraqi people and the world is much better off with a genocidal maniac in power in Iraq"

What a minute son, these neo conservatives were a bunch of left wing Trotskyites who were vehemently opposed to the Vietnam war, but radical hawks for the Iraq war, funny right? Left wingers (now called ‘neocons&#8217 are real quick to send young soldiers out to die in a war that only harms America and increases terrorist numbers and hatred against the United States, so how they call it a ‘war on terror’ when it increases terrorist numbers is beyond me.

But the Democrats should be called out as well, not just the Republicans, for example, when John Kerry debated George Bush back he said that he would of gone to war with Iraq (even with the information that we had at that time in 2004, we new that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction or any ties with 9/11)! Is that not pathetic or what? At least George Bush can say ‘oh I didn’t know Saddam didn’t have weapons’ but Kerry on the other hand can’t use that excuse.

3) He was a threat to the US and the world. He has weapons of mass destruction, disregarded UN ultimatums regarding them, kept inspectors out or distracted, he had the intetion and capabillities to do all of that..oil for food...Also remember that the 911 commission also believed he was a threat.

He didn’t have weapons of mass destruction and he wasn’t a threat to the United States and please don’t forget that he was at one time a friend of the United States…he never attacked us once, but yet, Israel on the other hand has attacked us, in the Lavon Affair, they tried to blow up American installations in Egypt, yes (the Israeli government sent these terrorist) and they also tried to sink one of our ships in international waters, the USS Liberty.



According to the Greenbook, Israel received about 3.7 billion in direct aid from the United States in 2003 and they have received billions of dollars in US aid all together along with much needed diplomatic and military support! Funny right? That nation that received all of that US support even though they attacked us but yet no other Muslim or Arab government has sent terrorist to blow up our installations.

I say remember...like I believe that will happen. Applause to anyone else who doesnt follow in step with what the mainstream liberal media wants you to believe in light of how most frame, angle, and posture their "reporting".

Well this ‘liberal media’ was all for the Iraq war, in fact, that was one of the main reasons why are soldiers are over their dying and guess what? This same ‘liberal media’ is beating the drums for war with Iran (even though we can’t win in Iraq)! Face it, that propaganda machine, or the ‘liberal media’ as you like to call it is feeding the public with lies and misinformation.

 

[Patrick R.]

Not a blatant lie. Sarin gas was found in Iraq. Mass graves filled with the victims of chemical weapons were found. It also has been reported that before we invaded Iraq, most of the weapons were shipped to Syria. A completely plausable possibility considering we practically scheduled the invasion while jumping through hoops for the crooked U.N.

Where is your source for that information? I hope you are not referring to the Kurds that were supposedly killed by Saddam with gas but in reality it was the Iranians that were responsible for their death back in March 1988.

Furthermore, where is your source for that Iraq’s “weapons of mass destruction” were “shipped” to Syria? That sounds just as ridiculous to the biological weapons and 9/11 lies.

Bush has owned up to that error. Also, don't forget that ALL of congress voted for the war based on the same intelligence. It is convenient how Bush is the only one hung out to dry.

That is absolutely correct, Bush did fess up to that error and I don’t think Bush should be the only one held accountable for the Iraq war, the neocons are the real driving force behind the Iraq war, in fact, Paul Wolfowitz laid the basis for the ‘Bush doctrine’ which lead up to the invasion of Iraq (even though Iraq never attacked us). The Democrats should be called out as well, they aren’t as anti war as people think they are.

I guess this is why we are the ugly Americans. We don't pander to popular opinion. Going to war was the only international law that was allegedly broken. How many of these laws did Saddam break? How many more Iraqi's had to die at his hand before it was suitable to you that we go in?

Yes the war is against international law, the same international law that was used to prosecute the Nazis ( a law which the US was instrumental in creating). How many more Iraqis are going to die you ask? Iraq is more dangerous with US presence then it was during Saddam, so how is it that ok? The funny things is people try to condemn Saddam’s violence against his people but Currently, Iraqis are dying at the rate of 43,800 per year from violence. Have you not read the most recent pentagon report? It says that since the previous report, Iraqi daily casualties have jumped by 50 per cent from 80 per day to 120 per day!

Source:

(Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq August 2006 Report to Congress In accordance with the Department of Defense Appropriations Act 2006
Section 9010)

We are there and we aren't leaving. Turn the page and focus all of this negative energy on making a difference. Incessant whining about the current administration and fantasizing their demise is boring. I have been listening to it for 6 years. It is beyond old.

We sure are there fah q and guess what? Our armed forces haven’t expanded and guess what our so called objectives are over there?

The President’s strategy also identifies eight
objectives, or pillars, of the integrated political,
economic, and security strategy:
• Defeat the terrorists and neutralize the
insurgency
• Transition Iraq to security self-reliance
• Help Iraqis forge a national compact for
democratic government
• Help Iraq build government capacity
and provide essential services
• Help Iraq strengthen its economy
• Help Iraq strengthen the rule of law and
promote civil rights
• Increase international support for Iraq
• Strengthen public understanding of
Coalition efforts and

Source:

(Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq August 2006 Report to Congress In accordance with the Department of Defense Appropriations Act 2006
Section 9010)


Do you honestly think we can do all of that?? Even though our military might is breaking down? What makes you think we can ‘help strengthen Iraq’s economy’ when we can’t even secure our own? How can we ‘increase international support for Iraq’ when we can’t even do that for our own country? The simple answer is that we can’t.

This kind of reminds me of the Peloponnesian wars of Classical Greece between the Spartan League and the Athenian Empire, after that long 30 year war the military might of Ancient Greece was destroyed and none of the city states could resist the new brutal power of the North, that Macedonians.


I wonder how it will be with America once our military might is destroyed? Who will we not be able to defeat? Perhaps the millions of Hispanics that leave here legally or illegally who are hell bent on taking back the southern part of the United States the exact way they lost it, through demographics? The border is wide open for them, the Federal Government doesn’t do anything to keep them back, on the contrary, Congress tried to give millions of them amnesty! All of this with the so called patriotic Republican party that dominates the Whites House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives!

 

[fah-q]

Ahem not only a Senate (republican controlled mind you) study, but a study of all 16 intelligence organizations disproved every single thing you mentioned. Both came out in the last two weeks. These are objective and if anything, republican-spun reports.

The only facts you're partially correct on, were Saddam disregarding the ultimatums. But, we knew what he had; he hadnt received anything new since the last war.

Where is this tie with Osama? Thats has been disproven by Bush himself. If anything, the ties between Osama and Bush are closer. Stop spouting nonsense.

I find it amazing that after all of these non-partisan reports, and Bush's own statements, that you continue to believe in all of this nonsense.


And finally, do you know anything about Vietnam? Can you not see the parallels? These seperatist groups are fighting for their autonomy, Al Quaida is fighting to disrupt the american presence, and we're basing our exit strategy on a propped up powerless and corrupt government and their militia. MY god, the parrallels are amazing.

The only difference is, the media is no longer reporting with the troops, the troops are no longer drafted (they chose to go), and there is no conventional warfare--its all urban guerilla hit and run tactics.

This 16 organization (NSA, CIA, Army Intelligence etc) report stated not only is the insurgency getting stronger and attracting more terrorists, but its being fought the wrong way. It should be, 20% military, 80% infrastructure etc support. Even if our actions were terribly wrong going in, its our continued failure of addressing the problem in Iraq. What we are doing now is not working. Find out what Iraqis want, how they think, build them infrastructure, move all troops into a few well-protected bases.

The parallels to Vietnam are on the same level with how accurate your horoscope is to your life. Didn't 60k men die in Nam? In Nam, Ho Chi-Min took Saigon. In Iraq, we took the whole country in less than two weeks. The parallels are only there if you want them there.

 

[fah-q]

Dominick 7 - Don't waste your time arguing with Patrick on this issue. It is a lost cause on him. He and I have already gone back and forth, revealing him as a terrorist sympathizer and me as a zionist.

 

[speed]

The parallels to Vietnam are on the same level with how accurate your horoscope is to your life. Didn't 60k men die in Nam? In Nam, Ho Chi-Min took Saigon. In Iraq, we took the whole country in less than two weeks. The parallels are only there if you want them there.

The parallel is our thinking and strategy. The belief of many, that something horrible will occur if we leave; the false staged pretext for war (Gulf of Tonkin); the failure to see the war as more than a fight against communism (it was a fight for naitonalism for the Vietnamese) or terrorism (it had nothing to do with Iraq and hussein); the failure to use non-military options; the support of puppet and corrupt governments; the support of training militias (who were never that effective, and apparently not effective at all in the Iraqi case); the failure to see through our opponents eyes.

Remember, in the first two years of the Vietnam War, only 10,000 soldiers were killed. Not bad considering there were both conventional battles and terrorist/guerilla attacks, and our military technology wasnt anywhere near what it is today (not to mention we had 700,000 troops in Vietnam, instead of 132,000).

 

[SoundMaster]

As an aside, the reasons for Invasion of Iraq were numerous. It's not as simple as the so called "liberal media" declared, either.

three of the most important reasons:
- in late 2002, Saddam announced that Iraq would trade oil in Euros and NOT in the US dollar, going forward. Big mistake.
- we were either kicked out of Arabia, or we chose to vacate Arabia. A new home for military forces was needed
- proximity to the Straight of Hormuz (sp?) through which the majority of ME oil is shipped to the rest of the world and which just happens to be dominated by Iran (ie: they close it off, the world is in deep sh*t)

Question: why didn't Saddam use any of his poison gas in either Gulf War I or Gulf War II ?
Answer: unlike the maniacal theocrats, he, more likely than not, values his own life and new what the consequences would have been.

He was as much a threat to the West as the Boston Red Sox are.

 

[speed]

As an aside, the reasons for Invasion of Iraq were numerous. It's not as simple as the so called "liberal media" declared, either.

three of the most important reasons:
- in late 2002, Saddam announced that Iraq would trade oil in Euros and NOT in the US dollar, going forward. Big mistake.
- we were either kicked out of Arabia, or we chose to vacate Arabia. A new home for military forces was needed
- proximity to the Straight of Hormuz (sp?) through which the majority of ME oil is shipped to the rest of the world and which just happens to be dominated by Iran (ie: they close it off, the world is in deep sh*t)

Question: why didn't Saddam use any of his poison gas in either Gulf War I or Gulf War II ?
Answer: unlike the maniacal theocrats, he, more likely than not, values his own life and new what the consequences would have been.

He was as much a threat to the West as the Boston Red Sox are.

Of course, Saddam did gas the Iranians and his own people during the Iran/Iraq war. Clearly in the first war he had no strategic reason to do so; we left quite quickly. Gassing would have caused a huge international uproar. And in this second war, there was no way in hell the Iraqis were going to hold out at any time at all. Gassing probably would not have been terribly effective against our forces anyway. But Im not Saddam, so I dont know. And I think by calling him more sane than radical clerics, is nonsense. So he killed as a totally secular leader, and they did through a bastardized version of Islam. They're both guily; but one has at least God on their side, not their own ego.

I think some of the reasons you listed, lean towards the conspiracy side.

I think its rather obvious from everything Ive read about it, that W. and his administration (all Reagan and Bush I holdovers) were intent on going after Iraq, and in doing so, testing neo-con ideas: securing oil, trying out a new form of warfare, and using 9/11 as a casus belli to do so. It all sounds great on paper, but the administration clearly did not understand, nor understands to this very day, the region and its unique political, religious, and cultural landscape, nor its history, and it miscalculated on security, ease of setting up an interim government, and it totally lacked a reconstruction plan. Even if the invasion smacked of illegality and hubris, the occupation and its ridiculously idealistic dreaming, has been so incompetant, its a wonder our country's government is even running today with such bafoons running things--they've clearly shown their ineptitude in all matters they control (thank god for the Fed, the fact our economy works without too much reliance on public spending, and our strong State and Local power).

 

[Justin S.]

A very sound post, speed.

 

[Horus]

I agree with Justin. I have no way of effectively adding onto that post.

 

[speed]

And onto the war-crimes point of this thread that seems to have been neglected...

The hegemonistic country in power, or winner of said war, is never guilty of war crimes. Since war took a ugly streak with Sherman (but before that, one had the terrifically terrible terror of Tamerlane, Khan, the ancients, etc), no winner of any major or minor war, has been found responsible for war crimes. In the 2nd Boer War, three british officers were actually sentenced for war crimes, and sentenced; but I am at a loss for any other time, a winner or hegemonistic power has been found culpable. The many British incursions of empire building (quite like the last fifty years of American Empire building) were never prosecuted, even with their reliance on somewhat gentlemanly codes of warfare; WWI, WWII (the bombing of Danzig, Tokyo, Nagasaki, etc), Vietnam, this war. The Israelis last little murderously stupid foray into Lebanon; The Russian adventure in Chechnya. If a country has power, it can do whatever it wants. All is forgiven; all is forgotten; nothing is examined by its citizens. The powerful state has a seemingly divine Hegelian right to commit whatever heinous acts it wishes.

And in a world that places so much faith in vague mysterious human rights that have no real power or meaning; one wonders how such things happen? I think Carlyle was on to something 150 years ago.

 

[Horus]

The reason the winners of wars are rarely/never charged of War Crimes is because they're the ones who are charging the losers with War Crimes. Winning a War doesn't only win a nation whatever it is they're fighting for, but it also wins them control over the Losers' Fate.

 

[The Bringer]

The reason the winners of wars are rarely/never charged of War Crimes is because they're the ones who are charging the losers with War Crimes. Winning a War doesn't only win a nation whatever it is they're fighting for, but it also wins them control over the Losers' Fate.

But in a case where both Afghanistan and Iraq are spiraling out of control (I know this because I am friends with one who use to live there as an Afghan-born English teacher and with another who is still there) and USA could possibly lose these two conflicts, what happens? Lets say USA loses, will Bush and his friends be charged with war crimes?

 

[Norsemaiden]

But in a case where both Afghanistan and Iraq are spiraling out of control (I know this because I am friends with one who use to live there as an Afghan-born English teacher and with another who is still there) and USA could possibly lose these two conflicts, what happens? Lets say USA loses, will Bush and his friends be charged with war crimes?

I expect there would be calls to charge them with warcrimes, but really nothing will come of it.
Here is an interesting article

Moroccan Jews charge Israel with war crimes
http://www.workers.org/2006/world/morocco-0921/

What do you think of this statement from the (wacky and sometimes not so wacky) conspiracy site Godlike Productions?

This week the United States Government is passing into LAW :
- Bills that allow for the warranties wire tapping of ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS. YES YOU!
- Bills that allow TORTURE of prisoners (which is against international law and the Geneva Convention)
- Bills that make SPEAKING OUT against the government GROUNDS FOR ARREST as an enemy combatant which would then subject you to torture.
- Bills that PARDON THE ENTIRE ADMINISTRATION from prosecution under the WAR CRIMES act for TORTURE already committed by this government back to Sept 11 2001.
THIS IS REALLY HAPPENING NOW..

America what have you done?

It is questionable if this website will remain online in light of these new laws..

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/

Is the New World Order going in for the kill now?

 

[SoundMaster]

Of course, Saddam did gas the Iranians and his own people during the Iran/Iraq war. Clearly in the first war he had no strategic reason to do so; we left quite quickly. Gassing would have caused a huge international uproar. And in this second war, there was no way in hell the Iraqis were going to hold out at any time at all. Gassing probably would not have been terribly effective against our forces anyway. But Im not Saddam, so I dont know. And I think by calling him more sane than radical clerics, is nonsense. So he killed as a totally secular leader, and they did through a bastardized version of Islam. They're both guily; but one has at least God on their side, not their own ego.

I think some of the reasons you listed, lean towards the conspiracy side.

I think its rather obvious from everything Ive read about it, that W. and his administration (all Reagan and Bush I holdovers) were intent on going after Iraq, and in doing so, testing neo-con ideas: securing oil, trying out a new form of warfare, and using 9/11 as a casus belli to do so. It all sounds great on paper, but the administration clearly did not understand, nor understands to this very day, the region and its unique political, religious, and cultural landscape, nor its history, and it miscalculated on security, ease of setting up an interim government, and it totally lacked a reconstruction plan. Even if the invasion smacked of illegality and hubris, the occupation and its ridiculously idealistic dreaming, has been so incompetant, its a wonder our country's government is even running today with such bafoons running things--they've clearly shown their ineptitude in all matters they control (thank god for the Fed, the fact our economy works without too much reliance on public spending, and our strong State and Local power).

The reasons for war are listed are more than reasonable, I think. And I think we too easily relagate things that might appear to be fantastic into the dusty realm of "conspiracy theory". Most of what you wrote above (which I've bolded) would have been labelled "conspiracy theory" just a decade ago or, at the very least, been considered for the next Tom Clancy novel. But it's simply the reality.

The simple facts are that Iran strategically controls the straight of Hormuz (do a search and read about its importance); the American military is no longer in Saudi Arabia (again, was their removal our choice? Or on Bandar and CO's order? Or a mutally beneficial decision agreed upon by both parties?). And in September 2000, Hussein announced that Iraq would no longer accept the US dollar for oil being sold in the then oil-for-food program and decided to switch to the Euro as Iraq's oil export currency.
Of course, on 6/10/03, after Saddam's regime was toppled, oil trade resumed with US dollar.

Also, I think it's incredibly reasonable to state, as I did above, that Hussein was not driven by 'otherwordly' dreams of heaven or Paradise as a devoutly religious might be. I'm not saying he's not vicious or whatever, but rather, that he almost certainly values his own life over his own death (unlike someone like a religious 'martyr').

 

[SoundMaster]

The reason the winners of wars are rarely/never charged of War Crimes is because they're the ones who are charging the losers with War Crimes. Winning a War doesn't only win a nation whatever it is they're fighting for, but it also wins them control over the Losers' Fate.

Imagine what would have happened to Truman had Japan, somehow, won the war in spite of the A-bombings.

 

[Patrick R.]

Dominick 7 - Don't waste your time arguing with Patrick on this issue. It is a lost cause on him. He and I have already gone back and forth, revealing him as a terrorist sympathizer and me as a zionist.

HAHA…it was you my friend that doesn’t condemn Israel’s attacks on the United States and you also took their side when they destroyed Lebanon, you have some issues. Furthermore, I try to point out that the United States secretary of Homeland Security blocked the indictment of a suspected terrorist who was involved in Operation Diamondback who sought to arm Bin Laden with nuclear weapons (which doesn’t seem to bother you) and he also allowed over 100 Israeli spies flee back to Israel without fear of prosecution or even being reached by American investigators in the wake of 9/11. There is no way you can wiggle your way out of this one.

 

[speed]

The reasons for war are listed are more than reasonable, I think. And I think we too easily relagate things that might appear to be fantastic into the dusty realm of "conspiracy theory". Most of what you wrote above (which I've bolded) would have been labelled "conspiracy theory" just a decade ago or, at the very least, been considered for the next Tom Clancy novel. But it's simply the reality.

The simple facts are that Iran strategically controls the straight of Hormuz (do a search and read about its importance); the American military is no longer in Saudi Arabia (again, was their removal our choice? Or on Bandar and CO's order? Or a mutally beneficial decision agreed upon by both parties?). And in September 2000, Hussein announced that Iraq would no longer accept the US dollar for oil being sold in the then oil-for-food program and decided to switch to the Euro as Iraq's oil export currency.
Of course, on 6/10/03, after Saddam's regime was toppled, oil trade resumed with US dollar.

You make a good point in that it seems Tom Clancy is writing history these days. Those reasons you listed, are ancillary reasons I contend, to the whole dreamy neo-con strategy of transforming the middle east, proclaiming American Empire, and all of the other fun stuff I mentioned.

And everything seems like conspiracy these days, as the mainstream media is fact-less (they seem to finally be reporting on Bush and the Iraq debacle--it took them 3 years), and blogs and internet news are everywhere. In fact, most news is broken on the web these days; not by conventional methods. We're living increasingly in a fact-less age.