[fluff]

Makes for interesting reading in hindsight. I can't help wondering what response this would have got back in December 2001.
___________________________________________________
Iraq: The Hostage Nation
By Hans von Sponeck and Denis Halliday

A major shift is occurring in US policy on Iraq. It is obvious that Washington wants to end 11 years of a self-serving policy of containment of the Iraqi regime and change to a policy of replacing, by force, Saddam Hussein and his government.

The current policy of economic sanctions has destroyed society in Iraq and caused the death of thousands, young and old. There is evidence of that daily in reports from reputable international organizations such as Caritas, UNICEF and Save the Children. A change to a policy of replacement by force will increase that suffering.

The creators of the policy must no longer assume that they can satisfy voters by expressing contempt for those who oppose them. The problem is not the inability of the public to understand the bigger picture, as former US secretary of state Madeleine Albright likes to suggest. It is the opposite. The bigger picture, the hidden agenda, is well understood by ordinary people. We should not forget Henry Kissinger's brutally frank admission that "oil is much too important a commodity to be left in the hands of the Arabs".

How much longer can democratically elected governments hope to get away with justifying policies that punish the Iraqi people for something they did not do, through economic sanctions that target them in the hope that those who survive will overthrow the regime? Is international law only applicable to the losers? Does the UN security council only serve the powerful?

The UK and the US, as permanent members of the council, are fully aware that the UN embargo operates in breach of the UN covenants on human rights, the Geneva and Hague conventions and other international laws. It is neither anti-UK nor anti-US to point out that Washington and London, more than anywhere else, have in the past decade helped to write the Iraq chapter in the history of avoidable tragedies.

The UK and the US have deliberately pursued a policy of punishment since the Gulf war victory in 1991. The two governments have consistently opposed allowing the UN security council to carry out its mandated responsibilities to assess the impact of sanctions policies on civilians. We know about this first hand, because the governments repeatedly tried to prevent us from briefing the security council about it. The pitiful annual limits, of less than $170 per person, for humanitarian supplies, set by them during the first three years of the oil-for-food program are unarguable evidence of such a policy.

We have seen the effects on the ground and cannot comprehend how the US ambassador, James Cunningham, could look into the eyes of his colleagues a year ago and say: "We (the US government) are satisfied that the oil-for-food program is meeting the needs of the Iraqi people." Besides the provision of food and medicine, the real issue today is that Iraqi oil revenues must be invested in the reconstruction of civilian infrastructure destroyed in the Gulf war.

Despite the severe inadequacy of the permitted oil revenue to meet the minimum needs of the Iraqi people, 30 cents (now 25) of each dollar that Iraqi oil earned from 1996 to 2000 were diverted by the UN security council, at the behest of the UK and US governments, to compensate outsiders for losses allegedly incurred because of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. If this money had been made available to Iraqis, it could have saved many lives.

The uncomfortable truth is that the west is holding the Iraqi people hostage, in order to secure Saddam Hussein's compliance to ever-shifting demands. The UN secretary-general, who would like to be a mediator, has repeatedly been prevented from taking this role by the US and the UK governments.

The imprecision of UN resolutions on Iraq - "constructive ambiguity" as the US and UK define it - is seen by those governments as a useful tool when dealing with this kind of conflict. The US and UK dismiss criticism by pointing out that the Iraqi people are being punished by Baghdad. If this is true, why do we punish them further?

The most recent report of the UN secretary-general, in October 2001, says that the US and UK governments' blocking of $4bn of humanitarian supplies is by far the greatest constraint on the implementation of the oil-for-food program The report says that, in contrast, the Iraqi government's distribution of humanitarian supplies is fully satisfactory (as it was when we headed this program). The death of some 5-6,000 children a month is mostly due to contaminated water, lack of medicines and malnutrition. The US and UK governments' delayed clearance of equipment and materials is responsible for this tragedy, not Baghdad.

The expectation of a US attack on Iraq does not create conditions in the UN security council suited to discussions on the future of economic sanctions. This year's UK-sponsored proposal for "smart sanctions" will not be retabled. Too many people realize that what looked superficially like an improvement for civilians is really an attempt to maintain the bridgeheads of the existing sanctions policy: no foreign investments and no rights for the Iraqis to manage their own oil revenues.

The proposal suggested sealing Iraq's borders, strangling the Iraqi people. In the present political climate, a technical extension of the current terms is considered the most expedient step by Washington. That this condemns more Iraqis to death and destitution is shrugged off as unavoidable.

What we describe is not conjecture. These are undeniable facts known to us as two former insiders. We are outraged that the Iraqi people continue to be made to pay the price for the lucrative arms trade and power politics. We are reminded of Martin Luther King's words: "A time has come when silence is betrayal. That time is now."

We want to encourage people everywhere to protest against unscrupulous policies and against the appalling disinformation put out about Iraq by those who know better, but are willing to sacrifice people's lives with false and malicious arguments.

The US Defense Department, and Richard Butler, former head of the UN arms inspection team in Baghdad, would prefer Iraq to have been behind the anthrax scare. But they had to recognize that it had its origin within the US.

British and US intelligence agencies know well that Iraq is qualitatively disarmed, and they have not forgotten that the outgoing secretary of defense, William Powell, told incoming President George Bush in January: "Iraq no longer poses a military threat to its neighbors". The same message has come from former UN arms inspectors. But to admit this would be to nail the entire UN policy, as it has been developed and maintained by the US and UK governments.

We are horrified by the prospects of a new US-led war against Iraq. The implications of "finishing unfinished business" in Iraq are too serious for the global community to ignore. We hope that the warnings of leaders in the Middle East and all of us who care about human rights are not ignored by the US government. What is now most urgently needed is an attack on injustice, not on the Iraqi people.

 

[MMike]

freedom hater

 

[fluff]

I only hate the enforced kinds of freedom.

 

[LordOpie]

 

[sanjuro]

I bet the authors are not American, i.e. freedom haters...

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Makes for interesting reading in hindsight. I can't help wondering what response this would have got back in December 2001.
___________________________________________________
Iraq: The Hostage Nation
By Hans von Sponeck and Denis Halliday

A major shift is occurring in US policy on Iraq. It is obvious that Washington wants to end 11 years of a self-serving policy of containment of the Iraqi regime and change to a policy of replacing, by force, Saddam Hussein and his government.

The current policy of economic sanctions has destroyed society in Iraq and caused the death of thousands, young and old. There is evidence of that daily in reports from reputable international organizations such as Caritas, UNICEF and Save the Children. A change to a policy of replacement by force will increase that suffering.

The creators of the policy must no longer assume that they can satisfy voters by expressing contempt for those who oppose them. The problem is not the inability of the public to understand the bigger picture, as former US secretary of state Madeleine Albright likes to suggest. It is the opposite. The bigger picture, the hidden agenda, is well understood by ordinary people. We should not forget Henry Kissinger's brutally frank admission that "oil is much too important a commodity to be left in the hands of the Arabs".

How much longer can democratically elected governments hope to get away with justifying policies that punish the Iraqi people for something they did not do, through economic sanctions that target them in the hope that those who survive will overthrow the regime? Is international law only applicable to the losers? Does the UN security council only serve the powerful?

The UK and the US, as permanent members of the council, are fully aware that the UN embargo operates in breach of the UN covenants on human rights, the Geneva and Hague conventions and other international laws. It is neither anti-UK nor anti-US to point out that Washington and London, more than anywhere else, have in the past decade helped to write the Iraq chapter in the history of avoidable tragedies.

The UK and the US have deliberately pursued a policy of punishment since the Gulf war victory in 1991. The two governments have consistently opposed allowing the UN security council to carry out its mandated responsibilities to assess the impact of sanctions policies on civilians. We know about this first hand, because the governments repeatedly tried to prevent us from briefing the security council about it. The pitiful annual limits, of less than $170 per person, for humanitarian supplies, set by them during the first three years of the oil-for-food program are unarguable evidence of such a policy.

We have seen the effects on the ground and cannot comprehend how the US ambassador, James Cunningham, could look into the eyes of his colleagues a year ago and say: "We (the US government) are satisfied that the oil-for-food program is meeting the needs of the Iraqi people." Besides the provision of food and medicine, the real issue today is that Iraqi oil revenues must be invested in the reconstruction of civilian infrastructure destroyed in the Gulf war.

Despite the severe inadequacy of the permitted oil revenue to meet the minimum needs of the Iraqi people, 30 cents (now 25) of each dollar that Iraqi oil earned from 1996 to 2000 were diverted by the UN security council, at the behest of the UK and US governments, to compensate outsiders for losses allegedly incurred because of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. If this money had been made available to Iraqis, it could have saved many lives.

The uncomfortable truth is that the west is holding the Iraqi people hostage, in order to secure Saddam Hussein's compliance to ever-shifting demands. The UN secretary-general, who would like to be a mediator, has repeatedly been prevented from taking this role by the US and the UK governments.

The imprecision of UN resolutions on Iraq - "constructive ambiguity" as the US and UK define it - is seen by those governments as a useful tool when dealing with this kind of conflict. The US and UK dismiss criticism by pointing out that the Iraqi people are being punished by Baghdad. If this is true, why do we punish them further?

The most recent report of the UN secretary-general, in October 2001, says that the US and UK governments' blocking of $4bn of humanitarian supplies is by far the greatest constraint on the implementation of the oil-for-food program The report says that, in contrast, the Iraqi government's distribution of humanitarian supplies is fully satisfactory (as it was when we headed this program). The death of some 5-6,000 children a month is mostly due to contaminated water, lack of medicines and malnutrition. The US and UK governments' delayed clearance of equipment and materials is responsible for this tragedy, not Baghdad.

The expectation of a US attack on Iraq does not create conditions in the UN security council suited to discussions on the future of economic sanctions. This year's UK-sponsored proposal for "smart sanctions" will not be retabled. Too many people realize that what looked superficially like an improvement for civilians is really an attempt to maintain the bridgeheads of the existing sanctions policy: no foreign investments and no rights for the Iraqis to manage their own oil revenues.

The proposal suggested sealing Iraq's borders, strangling the Iraqi people. In the present political climate, a technical extension of the current terms is considered the most expedient step by Washington. That this condemns more Iraqis to death and destitution is shrugged off as unavoidable.

What we describe is not conjecture. These are undeniable facts known to us as two former insiders. We are outraged that the Iraqi people continue to be made to pay the price for the lucrative arms trade and power politics. We are reminded of Martin Luther King's words: "A time has come when silence is betrayal. That time is now."

We want to encourage people everywhere to protest against unscrupulous policies and against the appalling disinformation put out about Iraq by those who know better, but are willing to sacrifice people's lives with false and malicious arguments.

The US Defense Department, and Richard Butler, former head of the UN arms inspection team in Baghdad, would prefer Iraq to have been behind the anthrax scare. But they had to recognize that it had its origin within the US.

British and US intelligence agencies know well that Iraq is qualitatively disarmed, and they have not forgotten that the outgoing secretary of defense, William Powell, told incoming President George Bush in January: "Iraq no longer poses a military threat to its neighbors". The same message has come from former UN arms inspectors. But to admit this would be to nail the entire UN policy, as it has been developed and maintained by the US and UK governments.

We are horrified by the prospects of a new US-led war against Iraq. The implications of "finishing unfinished business" in Iraq are too serious for the global community to ignore. We hope that the warnings of leaders in the Middle East and all of us who care about human rights are not ignored by the US government. What is now most urgently needed is an attack on injustice, not on the Iraqi people.

well, my boss once told me, when we were talking about a recently fired guy named james.

"have you ever fired somebody?, it isnt easy.
do you remember james?. he wasnt professional, did a lousy job, came in late, missed work without excuse many time. i didnt fire him, he fired himself". that made a bit of sense to me.

 

[fluff]

well, my boss once told me, when we were talking about a recently fired guy named james.

"have you ever fired somebody?, it isnt easy.
do you remember james?. he wasnt professional, did a lousy job, came in late, missed work without excuse many time. i didnt fire him, he fired himself". that made a bit of sense to me.

Oh, the humanity. Not to mention the irrelevance.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Oh, the humanity. Not to mention the irrelevance.

less subtly put.

Despite the severe inadequacy of the permitted oil revenue to meet the minimum needs of the Iraqi people, 30 cents (now 25) of each dollar that Iraqi oil earned from 1996 to 2000 were diverted by the UN security council, at the behest of the UK and US governments, to compensate outsiders for losses allegedly incurred because of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. If this money had been made available to Iraqis, it could have saved many lives.
.......
The most recent report of the UN secretary-general, in October 2001, says that the US and UK governments' blocking of $4bn of humanitarian supplies is by far the greatest constraint on the implementation of the oil-for-food program The report says that, in contrast, the Iraqi government's distribution of humanitarian supplies is fully satisfactory (as it was when we headed this program). The death of some 5-6,000 children a month is mostly due to contaminated water, lack of medicines and malnutrition. The US and UK governments' delayed clearance of equipment and materials is responsible for this tragedy, not Baghdad.

pardon of punishment/retributi of emotional reasoing, while compeling, isnt a sound long term policy, as some deterrance value is lost and, in iraq, the risk of having the money syphoned to less than ideal expenses.

 

[rockwool]

less subtly put.



pardon of punishment/retributi of emotional reasoing, while compeling, isnt a sound long term policy, as some deterrance value is lost and, in iraq, the risk of having the money syphoned to less than ideal expenses.

Yes, money to be spent on even more WMD that would also have been buried, together with the rest, before the invasion in 2003, and never to be found by the popo.

And Peruvians have their politicians to blame alone, and only them, for their poverty. The rich part of the world has nothing to do with it and can go back and finish their 3 course dinners. Let them lazy waps sow for their own tables.

 

[rockwool]

Makes for interesting reading in hindsight. I can't help wondering what response this would have got back in December 2001.
___________________________________________________

The report says that, in contrast, the Iraqi government's distribution of humanitarian supplies is fully satisfactory (as it was when we headed this program). The death of some 5-6,000 children a month is mostly due to contaminated water, lack of medicines and malnutrition. The US and UK governments' delayed clearance of equipment and materials is responsible for this tragedy, not Baghdad.

A very good article, thank you fluff! Do you have a link or any aware of its origin?

5,500 children/month = 66,000/year
For 11 years between 1992-2002 = 726,000 children dead
Add some grownups to that and you easily have the 1million dead Iraqi's due to UN sanctions.

This confirms the 1million (upto 1,5-2million in some articles) Iraqi's dead that I've read about so many times (and George Galloway confirms here:

.
Let's give our selves a because we're multiple times worse than Saddam Hussein.


The whole article shows how the, from the US side, claimed inefectiveness in the UN is because of its bureaucracy, is pure BS and a smoke screen to counter the claimes from other nations that the US is infact the single biggest problem the UN has.

Check how the US puts pressure on poor countries through promises of financial help if they vote the way the US wants or is the paid voice of the US when they them selves aren't represented in that commitee.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Yes, money to be spent on even more WMD that would also have been buried, together with the rest, before the invasion in 2003, and never to be found by the popo.

And Peruvians have their politicians to blame alone, and only them, for their poverty. The rich part of the world has nothing to do with it and can go back and finish their 3 course dinners. Let them lazy waps sow for their own tables.

firstable, i dont know why you bring up the wmd bushism here. its irrelevant.

if it was a one time deal.. then yes, pardon could be the "best" for the most, as long as this pardon doesnt stiff anybody.

but actions like iraq and the like, arent one time deals.
laws, crime and punishment arent one time deals neither. if one person kills, you could make the argument i makes litle sense to lock them up in jail, since this is very expensive and wont bring the dead back.. so it isnt much of a solution.
but, opportunity for crime, isnt a one time deal. it sentences are to be pardoned all the time, the deterrance value of them is lost... and you would be worse off in the long run.

 

[$tinkle]

5,500 children/month = 66,000/year
For 11 years between 1992-2002 = 726,000 children dead

or, if you want to pick the least deadly month of 1 or 2 hundred...

Add some grownups to that and you easily have the 1million dead Iraqi's due to UN sanctions.

and here i thought saddam was doing everything in his power to prevent this by abiding the UN mandated measures; thanks for clearing that up for me.

This confirms the 1million (upto 1,5-2million in some articles) Iraqi's dead that I've read about so many times (and George Galloway confirms here:

.

george galloway? are you serious? for my sake, tell me you're not.

 

[rockwool]

or, if you want to pick the least deadly month of 1 or 2 hundred...

and here i thought saddam was doing everything in his power to prevent this by abiding the UN mandated measures; thanks for clearing that up for me.

george galloway? are you serious? for my sake, tell me you're not.

Sure, it got worse with time. Still, in the article they made clear that it wasn't only a few months, and they didn't even mention senior citizens or other grown ups. We suck bad, anything else is lying to once selfe.

I have no problem credding Saddam Hussein with his fair share. I will take mine upon me, and not blame it on the cat that just walked by. Saddly, the democracy that has been put to power in Iraq went and killed the bastered untried of a lot of stuff that would have put some unwanted light on this...

$tinkle, I love you, you're a serious nutter, but yes, George Galloway. I judge him from the limited things I've seen of him, but it has been a total ownage from his side. The guy knows what he is talking about:

 

[fluff]

I am having trouble believing that Alexis or $tinkle actually read the article, or understood it at least. For answers to their points they should perhaps do a little googling on Hans Von Sponeck.

Pointers:

The constructive ambiguity of the UN resolutions regarding the oil-for-food programme and the possibly illegal sanctions. This means that the sanctions were worded in such a way that they were not objective or measurable and hence Iraq could not comply in any meaningful way, ensuring the whip remained firmly in the hands of the US and UK.

UN monitoring of supplied items - items supplied that could have been put to 'less than ideal purposes' (if you don't mean arms Alexis, what do you mean, sitcoms?) could not as the UN monitored their use.

Furthermore Alexis, can you really beleive that punitive measures causing the death of vast numbers of children (basically genocide) is a deterrent? If so then don't be surprised if someone appears from the furture to remove you from this world just in case you ever could have obtained any power.

 

[fluff]

A very good article, thank you fluff! Do you have a link or any aware of its origin?

Search on the authors - I deliberately didn't link or add anything more.

 

[fluff]

A very good article, thank you fluff! Do you have a link or any aware of its origin?

Search on the authors - I deliberately didn't link or add anything more.

 

[DRB]

I know who they are.

 

[rockwool]

Search on the authors - I deliberately didn't link or add anything more.

But I like to passively consume what ever is put in front of me.

 

[rockwool]

I know who they are.

We know where you live... irate2:

 

[fluff]

I know who they are.

And you can go home early as a reward, young man!

 

[fluff]

But I like to passively consume what ever is put in front of me.

I so want people to think.

 

[$tinkle]

$tinkle, I love you, you're a serious nutter, but yes, George Galloway. I judge him from the limited things I've seen of him, but it has been a total ownage from his side. The guy knows what he is talking about:

dude.
wow.
he actually said the u.s. gives the israelis hundreds of long range nuclear missles that have the range to strike jakarta ("all of the arab & muslim world").
he then perpetuates the lie that israeli shelling killed 7 palestinians on a beach in gaza.

again: dude. wow.

how.
the.
fvck.
can you take this lecherous, libelous drunkard on his word about the color of the sky?

this is to say nothing of his one-sided "understanding" of hezbollah & lebanon. he makes bill oreilly look pleasant, even-handed, soft & cuddly.

i'd like to introduce a wiki page, heavily referenced, and not tagged as "neutrality disputed": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway#Corruption_allegations

while everyone should be given due process, he's got an uphill battle with just these.

 

[rockwool]

I so want people to think.

their five year old son (Hans-Christof vS, later United Nations Diplomat & Assistant Secretary General to Kofi Annan).

Denis J. Halliday/.../ Former United Nations Humanitarian Co-ordinator in Iraq (1997-1998). In 2000, Denis Halliday was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize with Kathy Kelly of Voices in the Wilderness, the campaign against sanctions on Iraq/.../ In October 1998 he resigned after a 34 year career with the UN. He did so to free himself of the constraints imposed on him by the Secretary-General and thereby speak out publicly on the terrible impact of UN economic sanctions on the people of Iraq.

They were surely in positions to know what they was buzzin about. Sponeck also has one interesting family history...

 

[DRB]

Though if one was cynical about such things... I wonder what ties if any either of them had with the food for oil programs.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Furthermore Alexis, can you really beleive that punitive measures causing the death of vast numbers of children (basically genocide) is a deterrent? If so then don't be surprised if someone appears from the furture to remove you from this world just in case you ever could have obtained any power.

i´m not talking in a "i´ll kill the man and his kids so there wont be anyone to retaliate" a la godfather.

but, if you state a punishment for certain behaviour... and then, dont do as you said, you are going to be eroding the value of your word.

in a way, you´ll be proving there is no certainty any future punishable actions (not limited to the initial subject) will be punished. you will be actually be wont getting the most out of your punishment (which is the main point in punishment that doesnt repair the damage), and future iterations will have to be more expensive (both for you and the punishee) in order to restore effectiveness.

 

[rockwool]

Though if one was cynical about such things... I wonder what ties if any either of them had with the food for oil programs.

Secretary-General Kofi Annan appointed Halliday to the post of United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator in Baghdad, Iraq as of 1 September 1997, at the Assistant Secretary-General level.

Hans Sponeck was United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq from 1998 to 2000 when he resigned in protest against the sanctions policies toward Iraq. One of his major responsibilites during his Iraq job was the distribution of goods under the Oil-for-Food programme and the verification of Iraqi complicance with that programme. He reported to the Executive Director of the Iraq Programme, Benon Savan.

Now I get why fluff did want people to search for them selves. Next search is on the guy that questions this.

 

[rockwool]

The constructive ambiguity of the UN resolutions regarding the oil-for-food programme and the possibly illegal sanctions. This means that the sanctions were worded in such a way that they were not objective or measurable and hence Iraq could not comply in any meaningful way, ensuring the whip remained firmly in the hands of the US and UK.

I had totally forgot about how wickedly unfair the UN sanctions were, they were so obviously bizzar what they were about but still the world didn't lift them, at least partially. I was totally against Saddam Hussein but I agreed with him standing up and saying "enough".

UN bureaucracy my dick! The preblem the UN has is because of the VETOing nations. To much power for the week unhumble humanity to handle.

 

[fluff]

Though if one was cynical about such things... I wonder what ties if any either of them had with the food for oil programs.

I wondered when the ad hominem arguments would appear. Still you're in good company, I believe Peter Hain would like the cut of your jib.

 

[fluff]

i´m not talking in a "i´ll kill the man and his kids so there wont be anyone to retaliate" a la godfather.

but, if you state a punishment for certain behaviour... and then, dont do as you said, you are going to be eroding the value of your word.

What punishment was stated before the invasion of Kuwait?

in a way, you´ll be proving there is no certainty any future punishable actions (not limited to the initial subject) will be punished. you will be actually be wont getting the most out of your punishment (which is the main point in punishment that doesnt repair the damage), and future iterations will have to be more expensive (both for you and the punishee) in order to restore effectiveness.

And returning to you intial statement, what exactly were the UN sanctions argainst Iraq designed to be a deterrent from? (In your world.)

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

What punishment was stated before the invasion of Kuwait?

it isnt coded yet (doesnt make it less valid, as most customs from where international law is derived are that, customs), but there have been attempts
http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/remedy.htm

it was widely known and accepted before 1991, any country at war (specially an offensive one) country could well face the consequences iraq did, like embargos (cuba, arab 73 embargo precedents), military intervention (germany 45), blockades, etc, etc.

And returning to you intial statement, what exactly were the UN sanctions argainst Iraq designed to be a deterrent from? (In your world.)

future offensive wars started by other countries for example.

 

[rockwool]

i´m not talking in a "i´ll kill the man and his kids so there wont be anyone to retaliate" a la godfather.

but, if you state a punishment for certain behaviour... and then, dont do as you said, you are going to be eroding the value of your word.

in a way, you´ll be proving there is no certainty any future punishable actions (not limited to the initial subject) will be punished. you will be actually be wont getting the most out of your punishment (which is the main point in punishment that doesnt repair the damage), and future iterations will have to be more expensive (both for you and the punishee) in order to restore effectiveness.

Who is going to punish the biggest punisher in the world? He is comitting a lot of crimes but no one dares to speak up, much less punish him.

Maybe you don't think it's needed as you don't agree with me on that the punisher is a bad guy? Your average citizen will say that he likes the police and that they are doing a good job, but surely no one can object to that even the enforcer needs a superviser who can examine his actions, and if needed, indict and punish him.

 

[rockwool]

it isnt coded yet (doesnt make it less valid, as most customs from where international law is derived are that, customs), but there have been attempts
http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/remedy.htm

it was widely known and accepted before 1991, any country at war (specially an offensive one) country could well face the consequences iraq did, like embargos (cuba, arab 73 embargo precedents), military intervention (germany 45), blockades, etc, etc.



future offensive wars started by other countries for example.

Germany is a very good comparison. What the people of Iraq was put through after 91 can be compared to how the german people had to suffer after WWI. Probably even worse for the Iraqis as I'm not aware of ~1million Germans dying due to the politics that was imposed by the allies that time.

Shame on us cus we are mass murderers, either by our actions or by our silence.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Germany is a very good comparison. What the people of Iraq was put through after 91 can be compared to how the german people had to suffer after WWI. Probably even worse for the Iraqis as I'm not aware of ~1million Germans dying due to the politics that was imposed by the allies that time.

Shame on us cus we are mass murderers, either by our actions or by our silence.

i have very little sympathy for the germans after wwi and wwii.
if we go by what you just said, they were the initial mass murderers, either by their actions, or by their silence.
whatever came as a consequence or necessity to deal with the rolling snowball, isnt very ethically troublesome to me.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Who is going to punish the biggest punisher in the world? He is comitting a lot of crimes but no one dares to speak up, much less punish him.

i dont protect gwb or anything. i think he is idiot who deserves ass cancer and then more, but what are we going to realistically do about that? we can do whatever at out reach, but ultimately, we got dont have any sure grip to enforce anything on him, or the US.
if anything, voting americans are the ones who can do anything about that.

Maybe you don't think it's needed as you don't agree with me on that the punisher is a bad guy?

wrong

Your average citizen will say that he likes the police and that they are doing a good job, but surely no one can object to that even the enforcer needs a superviser who can examine his actions, and if needed, indict and punish him.

thats true. but for US, non american voters, its an academic discussion on itself, since the next cheapest working solution is waaaaaaay too out of reach for anybody, if the counterpart chooses to go gorilla, which is likely the case.

 

[rockwool]

how.
the.
fvck.
can you take this lecherous, libelous drunkard on his word about the color of the sky?

i'd like to introduce a wiki page, heavily referenced, and not tagged as "neutrality disputed":

Cut from your link:

Galloway states that he is a non-drinker from a non-drinking family. "My father didn’t drink alcohol and his father didn’t and my daughter doesn’t... I think it has a very deleterious effect on people"

A sober politician, how refreshing compared to the true drunken politics of the Sith emperor!

He quipped that, in order to overcome a £1.5 million deficit which had arisen in the city budget, he, M.P. Ernie Ross and leading councillors should be placed in the stocks in the city square: "we would allow people to throw buckets of water over us at 20p a time"

Dude's got some self distance!

In a debate with the leader of the Scottish National Party Alex Salmond, Galloway responded to one of Salmond's jibes against the Labour Party by declaring "I don't give a **** what Tony Blair thinks."

That's a healthy attitude!

In 1997 Galloway launched a newspaper, East, largely bankrolled by the Pakistani government, focusing on Pakistan and promoting a pro-Bhutto position. He also worked with the National Lobby on Kashmir, promoting Pakistan's claims to the territory. When Bhutto's government fell, Galloway met with the new Government and wrote a series of letters asking them for funding, which he ultimately obtained.[14] While there was no suggestion that any of his actions in the case were illegal, the way in which he apparently put himself under an obligation to the Government of Pakistan damaged his reputation in some eyes[attribution needed].

That was fishy. lthumbsdown:

Galloway made many aggressive and controversial statements in opposition to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. For these, and after 34 years of membership and having held leadership positions, he was expelled from the Labour party. He reportedly said in a 28 March 2003 interview with Abu Dhabi TV that Tony Blair and George W. Bush had "lied to the British Air Force and Navy, when they said the battle of Iraq would be very quick and easy. They attacked Iraq like wolves...." and added, "... the best thing British troops can do is to refuse to obey illegal orders."[15] He called the Labour government "Tony Blair's lie machine."[16] His most controversial statement from the interview may have been "Iraq is fighting for all the Arabs. Where are the Arab armies?".[17]

The Observer newspaper said in 2003 that the Director for Public Prosecutions was considering a request to pursue Galloway under the Incitement to Disaffection Act, 1934.

A politician that traded his security and career to protest against a war?

The following day, the committee found the charge of bringing the party into disrepute proved, and expelled Galloway from the Labour Party forthwith. Galloway called the Committee's hearing "a show trial" and "a kangaroo court".

Reading about him I find it pretty obvious that his politics has made him very unpopular among typical politicians and the media who has almost witch hunted him.

The ensuing electoral campaign in the seat proved to be a difficult one with heated rhetoric. In response to a question asking if he thought it was "odd" or "misguided" that he should be attempting to unseat one of the few black women in parliament Galloway, referring to the Iraq war, said "100,000 people lie dead as a result of the decisions she made" including a lot of women who "had blacker faces than her."

You gotta love the media, ever so enlighted, and always pushing for the right thing. How gratful I am that we have those people to educate us.

When challenged in a subsequent televised interview by Jeremy Paxman as to whether he was happy to have removed one of the few black women in parliament, Galloway replied by asking if it would not be better to congratulate him for "one of the most sensational election results in modern history?" Pressed further, he said "I don't believe that people get elected because of the colour of their skin. I believe people get elected because of their record and because of their policies. So move on to your next question."[24]

Oona King later told the Today programme that she found Paxman's line of question inappropriate. "He shouldn't be barred from running against me because I'm a black woman ... I was not defined, or did not wish to be defined, by either my ethnicity or religious background."[25]

"It's good to be back", he said on being sworn in as MP for Bethnal Green after the May election. He pledged to represent "the people that New Labour has abandoned" and to "speak for those who have nobody else to speak for them."

Beautiful! He is telling the reporter what is important here, since the reporter can't figure it out for him self. Dangerous he is!

"Pressed further, he said". Is the autor of the article saying that Galloway was under pressure from that stupid questions asking reporter, who totaly failed to ask Galloway why it was "one of the most sensational election results in modern history", which the author also failes to do? Maybe it's just me, but I see some bias here..

I wonder if that sensation was that a really radical party finaly made it? I would expect a thing like that to be down played by the mainstream media.

Galloway has a reputation as a fiery left-winger and advocates redistribution of wealth, greater spending on welfare benefits, and extensive nationalisation of large industries. He /.../ supports the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Raised as a Roman Catholic,/.../He also supports Irish unification

He isn't making him self popular with the wealthy protestant powers, which is good.

Galloway stated "I am on the anti-imperialist left... If you are asking did I support the Soviet Union, yes I did. Yes, I did support the Soviet Union, and I think the disappearance of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophe of my life. If there was a Soviet Union today, we would not be having this conversation about plunging into a new war in the Middle East, and the US would not be rampaging around the globe."

He's not a fan of US foreign policies. I see your beef with this guy.

Labour MP Tam Dalyell said during the controversy over whether Galloway should be expelled from the Labour Party that "in the mid-1980s there was only one MP that I can recollect making speeches about human rights in Iraq and this was George Galloway."[39] When the issue of Galloway's meetings with Saddam Hussein is raised, including before the U.S. Senate, Galloway has argued that he had met Saddam "exactly the same number of times as U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld met him. The difference is Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and to give him maps the better to target those guns."

Long frikking article... I don't agree with the guy 100%, but I don't know if I do that with any politician or person.

this is to say nothing of his one-sided "understanding" of hezbollah & lebanon. he makes bill oreilly look pleasant, even-handed, soft & cuddly.

I can say that I find the way you view them conflicts very one-sided and unbalanced (but you knew that already).

About the allegations you linked to:

The report of this year-long inquiry, published in June 2004,[59] found that the Mariam Appeal was doing charitable work (and so ought to have registered with them), but did not substantiate allegations that any funds had been misused.

You should have read the last bit.

 

[rockwool]

i have very little sympathy for the germans after wwi and wwii.
if we go by what you just said, they were the initial mass murderers, either by their actions, or by their silence.
whatever came as a consequence or necessity to deal with the rolling snowball, isnt very ethically troublesome to me.

The Germans did a whole lot more than exterminate 6million Jews. They killed a whole lot more, AND tried to overtake Brittish supremacy over the world. Twice.

After the second victory over them, the allied nations acknowedged their misstake,the Versailes treaty, that brought so much disaster to the German people. They recognized that you can't let a people suffer that much. Still, the world went on and did it again with the people of Iraq..

So, since the only tried to overtake what was allready taken, they didn't initiate anything.

 

[rockwool]

i dont protect gwb or anything. i think he is idiot who deserves ass cancer and then more, but what are we going to realistically do about that? we can do whatever at out reach, but ultimately, we got dont have any sure grip to enforce anything on him, or the US.
if anything, voting americans are the ones who can do anything about that.

We vote too. We can put our votes on politicians; that aren't afraid to speak up against what is wrong, whom ever he may be; that want to radically change the UN. We can protest and organize. There are a lot of things we can do, it would mean getting of the internet for a few hours per week..

We have to take some personal responsibility, not jsut pass it all on to the elected.