Opinions on Iraq

by karlof1 Thu Mar 20, 2003 09:04

There is no diplomatic immunity from war crimes. It's time for the people to enforce the law everywhere it needs enforcing. WW2 taught a hard lesson; it must not be allowed to be repeated. Please pass this along. Those who can traslate please do and post at the relevent indymedia site. More info at http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/imt.htm

All members of Bush et al--members of the governments of the USA, UK and Australia (the axis) that have shown no attempt to stop, are hindering attempts to stop, or are actively abetting the war crimes being committed by their superiors--are now war criminals and subject to arrest, and force should they resist, by any citizen or group of citizens. The same holds for any member of a state or local government--or their equivalents in other axis countries--who impairs anyone lawfully trying to end this illegal war and its associated war crimes. The justification for these actions are located within the Nuremberg Code and other international laws ratified by the Senate and thus a part of US fundamental law (and their equivalents elsewhere). This general information and its specific particulars must be conveyed to local and state authorities to enlist their cooperation in enforcing the law, and they must help or be subject to arrest as mentioned above. Axis government officials residing in other countries face the same choice: help or be arrested. Remember, no one is diplomatically immune from arrest for committing or assisting war crimes. Members of governments that have tacitly allied themselves with the main axis powers of the USA, UK and Australia will also find themselves subject to arrest for abetting war crimes and should be removed from power by citizens also.

by Toquegirl Thu Mar 20, 2003 09:07

These attacks are indefensible, unjust, and unnessary. The history of American direct or backed invasions and political instillations don't bode well for peace and disarmament, but does bode well for starvation, oppression, and more military regimes.

by Jason Thu Mar 20, 2003 10:15 jasongrehan at yahoo dot com

Okay, arrest them then why don't you?

by Shooter Thu Mar 20, 2003 10:40

its a duck shoot! 2 weeks max!

by Michael Lenehan Thu Mar 20, 2003 12:47 lenehanm at vodafone dot ie

In Bush's war speech he claimed "More than 35 countries are giving crucial support, from the use of naval and air bases, to help with intelligence and logistics, to the deployment of combat units." I urgently need a suggestion as to where I can find out if he has named these countries explicitly. Particularly I need to know if he is including Rep. of Ireland in this number. Thanks in advance.

by T Dillon Thu Mar 20, 2003 13:55

Michael, as you can see from the following article Bush is a dyslexic liar.
Published on Thursday, February 27, 2003 by the Inter Press Service US Building a 'Coalition of the Coerced'? by Jim Lobe   WASHINGTON - While U.S. President George W. Bush insists that many countries are eager to join what he calls a ''coalition of the willing'', a more apt name may be ''coalition of the coerced'', according to a report released Wednesday by the Institute for Policy Studies, a progressive Washington think tank. While some European leaders appear genuinely committed to Washington's drive to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein despite massive public opposition, most of the 34 governments that Bush may be counting as coalition members appear less than enthusiastic at best, says the report. ''Almost all, by our count, join only through coercion, bullying, bribery, or the implied threat of U.S. action that would directly damage the interests of the country,'' adds the 13-page report. ''This 'coalition of the coerced' stands in direct conflict with democracy.'' In most nations, including those most closely allied to the United States, over 70 percent of the public opposes U.S. military action against Iraq, according to the report, 'Coalition of the Willing or Coalition of the Coerced: How the Bush Administration Influences Allies in its War on Iraq'. The degree to which other countries and the United Nations are perceived as supporting U.S. policy toward Iraq is considered crucial to the administration's efforts to rally support at home. A solid majority of U.S. public opinion has consistently told pollsters over the past year that while they support military action against Baghdad, they do so on the condition that Washington has international support. Earlier this week a TIME/CNN poll found that 57 percent of the public said the final decision on invading Iraq should be in the hands of the U.N. Security Council, not up to Bush. The administration also hopes for U.N. authorization to enhance its chances of getting other nations to help cover the huge financial and peacekeeping costs resulting from a U.S. invasion and occupation. That is one reason why the United States, Britain and Spain - all Security Council members that support war - submitted a draft resolution earlier this week that declares that Iraq has missed its ''final opportunity'' to disarm peacefully, remains in ''material breach'' of its obligations to the Council, and thus faces ''serious consequences'', which implies an authorization for military force. To take effect, any draft resolution must be approved by at least nine members of the 15-member Council. At the same time, it cannot be vetoed by any of the permanent members - Britain, China, France, Russia, and the United States. Most analysts believe that Washington currently has four supporting votes, the three co-sponsors plus Bulgaria, while France, Germany, Russia, China and Syria will either abstain or vote no. As a result, U.S. pressure - in the form of both carrots and sticks - is now being brought to bear on the six undecided countries: Mexico and Chile from Latin America; Angola, Cameroon and Guinea from Africa; and Pakistan, the lone Islamic country. While U.S. officials insist publicly that they are not bargaining over members' votes, this has evoked widespread skepticism - not to say derision - even from the generally credulous White House press corps, which broke out in laughter Tuesday after White House spokesman Ari Fleischer rejected a question that suggested that ''the leaders of other nations are buyable''. Indeed, portents indicate that the six undecided members have a great deal to gain if they throw in with Washington. Turkey, where public opinion is running 95 percent against co-operating with Washington, has been offered some 15 billion dollars in immediate aid and loan guarantees in exchange for providing a northern launching pad for the invasion, while Israel, Egypt, and Jordan are expected to ask and get billions more of their own. But the report points out that dollars and guarantees are not the only way that Washington can exercise leverage over undecided members of the Security Council or the broader ''coalition'' it is counting on for support. On the military side, it said, the Washington maintains an effective veto over nations wishing to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a major aspiration of most of Eastern and Central Europe, which helps explain why Bulgaria has lined itself up behind the United States so early in the game. Washington also provides military aid or other forms of military support or subsidized military sales to well over 150 countries worldwide. Although French aid programs to Cameroon and Guinea are substantially greater than what Washington offers, the United States has recently offered a substantial military training program to Conakry - which assumes the presidency of the Security Council in March - to help it fight a Liberia-backed insurgency. Pakistan has been counting on buying substantial amounts of subsidized U.S. military equipment since Washington lifted its 10-year ban on weapons sales to Islamabad after the Sep. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. On the economic front, U.S. bilateral aid is rarely as significant as Washington's status as the world's largest economy and export market and as its influence in major international financial institutions, including the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). U.S. trade officials have substantial discretion in deciding which countries receive trade benefits under the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) for example, which requires as one of its conditions for eligibility that a recipient country does ''not engage in activities that undermine United States national security interests''. The United States represents a huge market for Mexico, Pakistan, and Chile, in particular, and reports of pressure by Mexican businessmen on President Vicente Fox to back Bush have already surfaced. Similarly, the administration enjoys wide latitude in deciding what countries it should buy oil from in stocking its strategic reserves. As oil exporters, Cameroon, Angola, and Mexico all stand to benefit. Given the U.S. Treasury's influence on the World Bank and the IMF, U.S. officials are particularly confident about bringing the three African countries around, despite the tight historic relations that exist between France and francophone Africa, of which Cameroon and Guinea are a part. U.S. opposition can delay, if not defeat, loans on which both countries depend. And the government of Angolan President Eduardo dos Santos, which is in a major fight with the IMF management over corruption, could gain some protection from a sympathetic Washington. The administration is taking few chances, engaging in both direct and indirect diplomacy. It sent Assistant Secretary of State for Africa Walter Kansteiner to all three African states just last week, while Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have been working the phones. It has also asked for lobbying help from other allies, including Japan - which has a large aid program in Africa - and Portugal's Prime Minister Jose Durao Barroso, a friend of dos Santos. Copyright © 2003 IPS-Inter Press Service ###  
   FAIR USE NOTICE  
  This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.  
   
Common Dreams NewsCenter A non-profit news service providing breaking news & views for the progressive community.  Home | Newswire | About Us | Donate | Sign-Up | Archives © Copyrighted 1997-2003 www.commondreams.org

by Kim Kailstrom Thu Mar 20, 2003 15:32 dvsatwork at yahoo dot co dot uk

The war has started and governments no longer able to sit on the fence fall on to US side. FG, Sinn Feinn and Labour all apose war now, but if they were in power would they be doing the same with US presure upon them. Probably not. I hate Fianna Fail , d'ont get me wrong but i c'ant stand the Band Waggon principles of Irish politicans especially Sinn Fein, who the hell are they to say no to war, bunch of fcking terrorists. The strength of their convictions is seen by the fact they only seem to come out of the wood work at popular events where the crusty element is not the ovious dominant group involved.
Because of these individuals one c'ant but question motives of others who are probably genuine. The main partys probably had meetings to decide if they would support the war or not and when it became clear that the public majority was against war they came out to play. Some of them are clearly in it to do the usual opposition bashing rather than anything constructive. Its people not politics, me hoop its Popularity not politics.

by Marc - theirishcrimes.com Thu Mar 20, 2003 21:28 editor at thirishcrimes dot com

I was just down at the protest in Dawn Square in Cork and it was one of the most impressive I have ever seen staged. After a vigil in dawn square about 2000 people walked through the city centre to Patricks bridge where we had a sit down protest and a minutes silence. Another is planned for 6 o'clock on saturday.

www.theirishcrimes.com

by Norbert Thu Mar 20, 2003 21:41

Check this out & Tell Many others ! Please Link it !

BETTER WORLD LINKS - 30,000 Links ! #1 in the world
on Peace, Human Rights, Social Justice, Environment, etc.
http://www.betterworldlinks.org

IRAQ & the US WAR - 2000 Top Links for Activists !
http://www.betterworldlinks.org/irak.htm

PEACE MOVEMENT in the US - 600 Links
http://www.betterworldlinks.org/book03b.htm

P.S.
If you like Better World Links:
a banner can be found here:
http://www.betterworldlinks.org/mission3.htm
leaflets can be printed here:
http://www.betterworldlinks.org/grafik/links-english.pdf

by Lee Thu Mar 20, 2003 23:55 leeannett2000 at yahoo dot com

It is an absolute disgrace and a moral tradegy, that a country which claimed to be the 'home of democracy' for so many years, can without leave or approval from any international bodies, wage war on innocent victims in the form of the Iraqi civilians, thus creating a new role for the U.S.A. - 'the international rogue state terrorist of the world'.

May George Bush, his power & oil-thirsty administration and those who have guttlessly followed his blood-hungry lead, personally pay the price for the lives of each and every innocent victim of this conflict.

by Justin Morahan - Peace People Thu Mar 20, 2003 23:56 justinmorahan at eircom dot net 71 Scolarstown Park 4944124

That's me in the picture. I am sick of being lied to, in my face, by Bertie Ahern and his FF and PD ministers.
They pretended to need UN authorisation for this bloodshed, but when they didn't get it, they lied again and continue to lie. "It's the economy, stupid - morals are not important" - that's the real message. Te waffle you will hear on every government minister's radio otr TV interview. Bertie prefers now to let them take the flak.
I believe that all war is evil and therefore that no war is just.
We are led however by men and women who are prepared to use evil and are now using it for their own political reasons.
If these people were in Government in Hitler's time and if Hitler's Germany was the superpower to whom we had close ties of friendship, then not all the suffering of Auschwitz, Belsen et alia would have dissuaded this arrogant government from allowing German warplanes to use Shannon

by Deadly Serious - Deadly Serious Investigations Sun Mar 23, 2003 10:56 darragh_scully at yahoo dot com Darwin, Australia

We shift further and further towards international democracy, yet I hear complaints against war in iraq. Those bastards support terrorism. However the truth is the other side are just better at it and well some one has to win if there is going to be a fight. Anyway what I really want to say is that a Leading Australian social psychologist has conducted research and found that Irish immigrants who pretend to be Australian get treated with more respect at work. While those who remain Irish and proud of it find them self stuck with the horrible jobs and get less pay and less chance of a promotion regardless of talent and UN regulations. This is because the Brittish stick together to hog resources for them selves and the dominant population in Australia is infact Brittish and decendant from Brittish.
A follow up study has shown that the culprits will feign rather than admit the accusations. Hence the legal rammifications in australia of making an addmission of such an offence would acctually carry a heavy penalty, but this doesent stop it. although it is not criminal the majortiy will plead ignorance. One participant commented that ignorance is bliss to which the researcher had replied, " I heard someone say nothing works". Indeed as the gap between the rich and the poor widens, ignorance for some is bliss, and for the rest nothing seems to work. So the intrests of the state are clearly protected by the influence of those who control it. And well it is not us fellow Irish people is it. However there is no harm in trying lads!!
Any way the welfare payments in Australia are better but I am personally wondering if the crack is worth missing out on. There is nothing as bad as being home sick. Yes the heat is good at the beginning but one soon starts to realize that paradise is not what it is all cracked up to be.

by frank Thu Mar 27, 2003 23:12

ill bet u were against the liberation of afghanistan too.But that was a huge success.John oshea from GOAL is on recordas saying it saved a millon lives . 2 millon afghans have moved home.THIS JUST WAR WILL ULTIMATELY SAVE LIVES TOO.