PDA

View Full Version : THE NEED FOR FURTHER UNITED NATIONS ACTION ON IRAQ -- House of Representatives - Feb



MJ19
02-26-2003, 07:05 PM
This is a presentation give by Curt Weldon yesterday. I have highlighted areas I found interesting and/or thought all Americans should be aware of.
THE NEED FOR FURTHER UNITED NATIONS ACTION ON IRAQ -- (House of Representatives - February 25, 2003)
[Page: H1324]
---
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) is recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to lay on the record information that needs to be brought to the attention of this body and every American as we struggle with the current crisis involving our relationship with Iraq.
We have seen a lot of information, in the media, a lot of public protests, both against and for action that this country might need to take, but there has been one major part of the debate that has been missing
As we talk about Saddam Hussein and the need for him to abide by the agreement that he reached with the U.N. And the U.N. Security Council 12 years ago, as we discuss the fact that the U.N. inspectors have not yet been able to determine that he in fact has taken apart his weapons of mass destruction, there is in fact one set of facts, Mr. Speaker, that are obvious, that are documented, and that need action.
It is for this reason that I rise this evening to present to this body, our colleagues, our country and the world, the facts that will support a resolution that I will introduce in this body on Thursday of this week, a bipartisan resolution, with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), and a whole host of other Democrats and Republicans, that calls for the President to require and request the U.N. to convene a special war crimes tribunal to hold Saddam Hussein accountable for the egregious acts against human beings that he has perpetrated over the past 20 years.
Mr. Speaker, it is certainly time that the world holds Saddam Hussein accountable .
Mr. Speaker, the facts are all over the place. They have been documented by human rights groups, by Amnesty International, by agencies of the U.N. and the U.S. Government, and by other nations around the world. In fact, there have been specific actions taken by the U.N. The United States budget in fiscal year 2001 and 2002 contributed $4 million to a special U.N. Iraqi War Crimes Commission to document the evidence, some of which I am going to put out this evening.
The United Nations Security Council and the Commission on Human Rights have repeatedly condemned Iraq's human rights record. On April 19, 2002, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights passed a resolution drawing attention to ``the systematic widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law by the Government of Iraq resulting in an all-pervasive repression and oppression sustained by broad-based discrimination and widespread terror.''
In fact, the United Nations Security Council Resolution 674 called on all states to provide information on Iraq's war-related activities and atrocities to the U.N.
Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to me as we heard Americans, especially those coming from Hollywood , recently on our national media outlets, praising and defending Saddam Hussein as a man who can be trusted, as someone who will do the right thing if just given the right amount of time.
It is amazing to me that this country went to war just a few short years ago, pushed very aggressively by France and Germany, to remove Milosevic from power in Yugoslavia because he was allegedly committing war crimes.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am no fan of Milosevic. In fact, I think he is where he belongs, in the Hague before a war crimes tribunal. But, Mr. Speaker, tonight I am going to lay out the evidence that will make the case that Saddam Hussein makes Milosevic look like a common street criminal. In fact, I am not the only one that feels this way, Mr. Speaker.
Let me quote from a recent op-ed that ran this past Sunday, written by Richard Holbrooke. Now, Richard Holbrooke was the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations under President Bill Clinton. Let me quote from Mr. Holbrooke's op-ed that ran nationwide this past weekend.
``When one considers that Saddam Hussein is far worse than Slobodan Milosevic and that Iraq has left a long trail of violated Security Council resolutions while there were none in Kosovo.'' So Richard Holbrooke, the U.N. Ambassador under President Clinton, has publicly acknowledged as recently as this past week that, in his opinion, Saddam Hussein is far worse than Slobodan Milosevic .
This country went to war to oust Slobodan Milosevic. This country murdered innocent Serbs with bombs to oust Slobodan Milosevic. And who pushed this country? France and Germany , because the French and Germans were concerned that Milosevic was in their neighborhood.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, in a quote from a book just recently released, The Threatening Storm, by the expert on Iraq during the Clinton administration in both the CIA and the Security Council, Ken Pollack, one section documents the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, and I want to quote from this book, which I think every Member of this body should read. It is page 122, discussing the Iraqi state and security. Again, this individual, Ken Pollack, is an acknowledged intelligence expert on Iraq. This is what he said:
``Max Van der Stoel, the former United Nations Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Iraq, told the United Nations that the brutality of the Iraqi regime was of an exceptionally grave character, so grave that it has few parallels in the years that have passed since the Second World War .''
In other words, Mr. Speaker, that the Saddam Hussein regime has not been equaled since Adolf Hitler. Not Slobodan Milosevic, who the Germans and French supported militarily to remove, but not since Adolph Hitler.
Let me continue. ``Indeed, it is to comparisons with the obscenity of the Holocaust and Stalin's mass murders that observers are inevitably drawn when confronted with the horrors of Saddam's Iraq. Saddam's Iraq is a state that employs arbitrary execution, imprisonment and torture on a comprehensive and routine basis.''
A full catalogue is not yet totally available, but tonight we are going to put on the record, Mr. Speaker, the examples that are available.
[Page: H1325]
Let me read again some from Ken Pollack's account, and these are not the most pleasant facts, but they are facts , Mr. Speaker.
``This is a regime that will gouge out the eyes of children to force confessions from their parents and grandparents. This is a regime that will crush all the bones in the feet of a 2-year-old girl to force her mother to divulge her father's whereabouts. This is a regime that will hold a nursing baby at arm's length from its mother and allow the child to starve to death to force the mother to confess. This is a regime that will burn a person's limbs off to force him to confess or comply, a regime that will slowly lower its victims into huge vats of acid, either to break their will or simply as a means of execution. This is a regime that applies electric shocks to the bodies of its victims, particularly their genitals, with great regularity. This a regime that in 2000 decreed that the crime of criticizing the regime, which can be as harmless as suggesting that Saddam's clothing did not match, would be punished by cutting out the offender's tongue.
[Time: 22:45]
A regime that practices systematic rape against its female victims. A regime that dragged in a man's wife, daughter, and female relative and repeatedly raped her in front of him. A regime that forced a white-hot metal rod into a person's anus or other orifices. A regime that employs thallium poisoning, widely considered one of the most excruciating ways to die. A regime that beheaded a young mother in the street in front of her house and children because her husband was suspected of opposing the regime. A regime that used chemical warfare on its own Kurdish citizens , not just on the 15,000 that were killed and maimed at Halabja, but on scores of other villages all across Kurdistan. A regime that tested chemical and biological warfare agents on Iranian prisoners of war and used the POWs in controlled experiments to determine the best ways to disperse these agents to inflict the greatest damage.
All of this, Mr. Speaker, I quote, and is from the documentation by Ken Pollack, the intelligence expert on Iraq during the Clinton administration in the book available to everyone in America entitled ``The Threatening Storm.''
But, Mr. Speaker, it is not just Ken Pollack. In fact, the citations and documentations of the violations of human rights by Saddam Hussein are overwhelming and comprehensive. As a member of the Human Rights Caucus in this Congress, I am outraged that there has been no solid vocal outcry, not just from this body and America, but from those countries in Europe, especially Germany and France, who claim to be for the human rights of innocent people.
Let me summarize. The methods of torture, the human rights abuses documented by our special military commission looking into our own POWs that Saddam held against the Geneva Convention that controls the treatment of prisoners. Let me read the documentation in summary.
Americans experienced the following: 21 service members captured during Desert Storm were all covered by the Geneva protections. They were beaten to the rhythm of songs. The beatings were done by led pipes, by clubs, by rifle butts, by rubber hoses, by black jacks and batons, by kicks and punches to the face, neck, ears, prior injuries, genitals and kidneys. Malice to their knees, cat-o'-nine tails, burning of individuals with cigarettes, including the butts being placed into open wounds. Urination on POWs. Genital investigations and harassment to determine if POWs were circumcised as Jews.
Mock executions, threatened dismemberment, threatened castration, cattle prod shocking, talkman shocking, electrocuted wires run around a person's head attached to the ears, causing massive convulsions in the jaw, knocking out teeth, sexual abuse, fingernail extraction, person hung by their feet with barbed wire.
Mr. Speaker, these were American citizens , and this is how they were treated by Saddam Hussein in direct violation of the international agreements on caring for prisoners of war. This was not made up, Mr. Speaker. These are documented cases involving America's sons and daughters.
Where is the outcry in America? Where is the outcry in Hollywood and from those experts on TV and the movies who claim to know all about how Americans were treated by this madman in Baghdad? And what about the actions that have been documented by Amnesty International, by all of the major groups that monitor human rights of what Saddam did against the Kuwaitis and the Kurds?
Let me again run through some of those cases that have been documented, including knifings, boring holes in bodies with drills, tongue and ear removal, hammering nails into hands, eye-gouging, inserting broken bottlenecks into rectums, pumping air and gasoline through people through their rectums and other orifices and then igniting the gasoline until the bodies exploded. Pouring acid on skin, forcing detainees to watch the torture, rape and execution of others and relatives, random and unjustified killings, electric shocks to the mouth, forcing women to eat flesh cut from their own body, removal of eye balls, placement of people into rotating washing machines, execution by electric drill, cutting with razors, rubbing salt into wounds, castrations, blow torches, suspension from ceiling fans.
Mr. Speaker, all of these actions are documented and conducted and ordered by Saddam Hussein and those people currently in control in Baghdad.
Where is the outrage, Mr. Speaker? France and Germany, pushing America to go in to remove Milosevic who committed ethnic cleansing; none of the charges against Milosevic at the Hague at this point in time come anywhere near the atrocities that Saddam Hussein has been documented as having committed on a regular and routine basis. There is no shame in those countries, Mr. Speaker, because it is unbelievably a double standard and total hypocrisy.
Let us talk about some of the documented human rights violations within Iraq. Again, these are all documented , Mr. Speaker, documented through extensive files, portions of which I will lay into the RECORD this evening for our colleagues to review. In Iraq, this is what Saddam has done: killing of prison inmates to account for overcrowding. Loss of freedoms of speech, press, assembly, association, religion, movement and due process; arbitrary punishment of death for suspected violations of laws, political disagreements and social actions; beheading of prostitutes and displaying of heads. Iraq is the country with the highest number of disappearances reported to the working group on enforced and involuntary disappearances established by the Commission on Human Rights. Beating of Iraqi soccer players because they lost a game. Refusal to permit visits by human rights monitors. Campaign of murder, summary execution and protracted arbitrary arrests against religious followers of the Shia Muslim population, the Kurds. Harassment and intimidation of relief workers and U.N. personnel, removal of children of unwanted minority groups to get them from cities and regions, and only 48 percent of the supplied medicines and equipment to clinics and hospitals. The rest were in government warehouses overflowing.
This is a man who challenged our President to a debate. What an absolute joke , Mr. Speaker. This man deserves to debate no one. This man deserves to be taken to the Hague and deserves to have a war crimes tribunal convened to lay out all of the charges that have been brought forward against him in a formal way by the U.N., and this resolution we will put into place on Thursday will have this body go on record in asking that that be done.
Let us talk about the chronology of murder of Saddam Hussein, Mr. Speaker, again, all documented. Not documented by the U.S. Government; documented by international groups that monitor human rights, documented by the U.N. special rapporteur for human rights . Let us go through them in a chronological order.
In 1979, the purge of the Baath Party leadership, members were forced to confess to invented crimes and then arbitrarily executed. Family members were held hostage. In 1980, Saddam led the attacks on the Fayli Kurds, removal of the Kurds in Baghdad and the southern cities of Kut, Basra and Hilla. Forced expulsions from homes to Iran. Execution of most captured young males; there was an unknown amount of these young males that were executed. Fourteen tons of captured Iraqi secret police documents, videotapes and pictures provided a character of Iraqi rule over the Kurds that has been matched by no one since the great Holocaust of World War II. In fact, there is enough paperwork to document over 200,000 murders.
Mr. Speaker, where are the French and the Germans who cried to America
[Page: H1326]
to get Milosevic out of power for his ethnic cleansing, when we have documentation through the U.N. and these NGOs that Saddam Hussein has been responsible for the murder of 200,000 people? In 1980, Mr. Speaker, the invasion of Iran, a clear violation of article 2, section 4 of the U.N. charter. Launch of indiscriminate attacks on civilian targets. Use of human shields, physical and mental torture of captives, all documented, on-file offenses. Eight military offensives in 1988. Systematic campaign of extermination and genocide waged against the Kurdish population of northern Iraq. Code name Anfal comes from a Koranic verse that legitimizes the right to plunder women and the property of infidels. During this time there were mass executions and indiscriminate killings of fighters and civilians. There was an order very similar to the Nazi order of ``sturm and nebel'' to proclaim thousands of square kilometers of Kurdistan to be a free-fire zone in which neither human nor animal life was to remain.
Saddam during that time used chemical weapons and poison gas. He forced resettlement. He destroyed between 1,000 and 2,000 villages. The estimated killings during that period was between 50,000 and 100,000; but it may be as high as 182,000 people. There were 16,496 reported disappearances in 1988.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot hear the French and the Germans. Where is their outrage, Mr. Speaker? Are the French so blinded by oil that their principles have gone down the cesspool? Was Slobodan Milosevic so bad that he is in the Hague being tried, but Saddam Hussein who has committed these crimes is not worthy of action by the U.N.?
Let us go on, Mr. Speaker. In 1990, the invasion of Kuwait, Saddam orders to kill any civilian found after curfew or bearing anti-Iraqi slogans on homes. A violation of the clear contravention of article 2, section 4 of the U.N. charter. Systematic torture as a method of extracting information. Holding thousands of foreign hostages to dissuade their countries from joining the coalition and used as human shields, including Americans.
In 1991, the invasion in March, attacks on civilians following a cease-fire in the cities of Basra, Najaf, Karbala; massive executions, bombarding residential areas, destroying religious shrines. And how about other actions before 2000, Mr. Speaker? Mass executions in a grave in Burjesiyya, a district near Zubair south of Basra, torturing and extended detentions preceding the deaths due to suspicion of political demonstrations. In April 14, 1999, 56 detainees charged with treason who were executed at Abu Ghraib on August 10 of 1999; 26 prisoners were executed at Abu Gharaib prison. March of 1999, the bombarding of residential areas of tribes by an armored division number 6 in Basra, Al-Ghameigh, Bail Wafi and Bait Sayed Noor. January, February, 1999, destruction of 52 houses of political opponents with bulldozers in Basra, nine in Jamhuriyah, five in Al-Zubier, seven in Al-Karmah, 12 in Abo Al-Khaseib, and five in Al-Tanumah. July 20, 1999, demolished six houses in Thawra after the detention of their entire families.
[Time: 23:00]
But here is a man, Mr. Speaker, who has a family of human rights abusers of the worst possible kind. It is not just Saddam.
His son, Udai Hussein, created the Saddam's martyrs, who go around, 30,000, dressed in black, and they are known for executing and doing gruesome public spectacles of killing the President's critics. In fact, he is known, when there is a sporting loss, for torturing and in some cases killing the athletes because they have not been successful. His group has also been known to abduct women from the streets.
Qusai Hussein, the deputy for his father's military security and intelligence, heads Amn al-Khass, and they have also conducted outrages against innocent people.
Finally, Lieutenant General Hussein Kamal Hassan al-Majid, is known as ``Chemical Ali'' for his brutality against the Kurds , especially for his use of weapons procurement and weapons of mass destruction, and being able to sneak in those supplies that the U.N. has prohibited.
This individual defected. He returned to Iraq after having received a pardon. What happened? Saddam murdered him and he murdered his family, his own blood relatives.
Mr. Speaker, we have people in this country and we have people in France, we have Jacques Chirac, saying we should trust Saddam Hussein, just give him time. Mr. Speaker, it is time to lay the facts on the table. It is time to hold Saddam Hussein accountable.
Whether one is for military action or against it, this resolution does not discuss that. Whether one supports Iraq, whether one disagrees and does not support Iraq, whether one thinks there should be more time, 2 months, 5 months, 12 years, it does not apply to this resolution. This resolution simply says that we must hold this regime responsible for the crimes they have committed against humanity.
Mr. Speaker, I call upon my colleagues to hold this man accountable, at least equal to the way we are holding Slobodan Milosevic accountable.
Mr. Speaker, just a few short years ago there were claims from the administration that there would be mass graves that we would find in Serbia containing perhaps millions of bodies. Well, several years after the fact, the truth did not quite bear that out. That is not to lessen the atrocities of Milosevic; he is a war criminal, make no mistake about it. But there was a gross exaggeration of what he had done, even though the crimes he committed were outrageous. He is being held accountable for those crimes right now at the Hague, in a trial that has been going on for almost a year.
Mr. Speaker, the French and the Germans, where were they in this case? They were pushing America: Get your troops over here, America. Get this man out of power. He is a brutal dictator. He has committed ethnic cleansing. Help us rid Europe of him because of the crimes he has committed against humanity. In the words of Richard Holbrooke, who was our U.N. Ambassador during the nineties under Bill Clinton, Slobodan Milosevic does not come anywhere near Saddam Hussein in terms of committing war crimes.
Mr. Speaker, do I detect a double standard here? Do the French think that Milosevic is worse than Saddam? The U.N. does not think so. Are the French denying the facts of the U.N. special rapporteur? Are the French and Germans not realizing the gross atrocities that have occurred against human beings, or do they not want to admit to what occurred?
Let me go through some more evidence , Mr. Speaker. I take this information from the Report on Iraqi War Crimes prepared under the auspices of the U.S. Army.
This was released on March 19, 1993, as a result of an intense investigation of our own citizens who were captured by Saddam. These are specific cases. Americans and members of this body can ask for the documentation of these cases and they can get them.
POW number 1 , file number 176.1. Our own Americans were exhibited as war prizes. They were urinated on. They were beaten constantly , including to the rhythm of a song on a radio.
POW number 2 , file number 176.2. He was abandoned by his captors in spite of having a broken leg. In fact, they put an Arab headdress on him.
POW number 3 , file number 176.3. Saddam's troops beat and kicked him while being transported; punched him in the face; hit him in the head with a rifle; kicked him in a circle, and injured his leg; beaten severely with a lead pipe; and from the guards' boots smeared on the face. He had multiple cigarette burns all over his body from Saddam's leaders.
POW number 4 , file number 176.4, American POW. Dragged by the hair, kicked by the captors, sexually molested during transport, slapped and spat upon, threatened with death. That was a female, Mr. Speaker.
Where are those in America expressing outrage at what this man ordered to be done to our citizens?
POW number 7 , file number 176.7. Karate-chopped, forced to make a videotape.
POW number 9 , beaten with fists, batons, rifle butts; kicked in the head and legs broken; beaten to the rhythm of a song; knocked unconscious many times; forced to make a videotape; beaten in the stomach and back with club, resulting in long-term pain to his kidneys; eye injuries from his beatings .
[Page: H1327]
Mr. Speaker, these are actions documented by Saddam Hussein against American citizens. We have Saddam Hussein now on international TV proclaiming he is for peace, he is against war. Mr. Speaker, cut me a break. Are we that naive? Are we that short of our memory that we do not understand what this man has done over the past 20 years?
Let me go through some more examples, Mr. Speaker.
As we know, in capturing a prisoner-of-war, the only thing a prisoner has to do is to state their surname, first and last name and rank, their date of birth, and their army or unit that they are involved with. That is all they have to give under the special protections under the Geneva Convention. That is it.
In the case of our POWs, Saddam consistently, along with his military, grossly abused their rights and tortured them. In fact, he forced them to do things that are absolutely sickening to read.
POW number 12 , assaulted twice with a cattle prod; beaten with a hard rubber stick while being interrogated by the voice; assaulted with a stun gun; an AK-47 placed against his head and threatened with execution as a war criminal; threatened with dismemberment; shocked with a Talkman; multiple beatings.
POW 13 , struck with hands, fists, a wooden club, blackjack, and sticks; punctured his eardrums; loosened his teeth from the beatings ; beaten so severely he could not walk and could not stand.
Mr. Speaker, there is a lawsuit that has been filed in the courts of the District of Columbia. The lawyer represents these brave American POWs who are suing Saddam and Iraq because of what he did to them. Is America going to stand behind these brave young people? Are we going to stand up and hold Saddam accountable for what he did, or can they only sue civilly in a court, as documented by this lawsuit?
Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask special permission to have texts of this lawsuit entered into the RECORD, even though it will cost extra money, because I want every one of our colleagues and every American to understand the facts of what was done to our citizens by Saddam Hussein and by his evil subordinates in his military.
Let us go on to Article 32, documented by the Army also back in 1993, the specifics of some of which I mentioned already.
Iraq's violation and Saddam's violations of Article 27 and 32, which were absolutely outrageous: torturing Kuwaiti nationals. Widespread and barbaric actions, such as beatings on all parts of the body with various implements; beating people while they were suspended in air; hanging with cables; breaking appendages; knifings; extracting their finger- and toenails; boring holes in their body with drills; cutting off their tongues and ears; cutting off their body parts with saws; gouging out their eyes; castrations; hammering nails into their hands; shootings; rapes; inserting broken bottlenecks into their rectums; pumping air or gasoline into their orifices; pouring acid on their skin ; Asian and Kuwaiti women routinely raped by Iraqi soldiers; all of this documented by the official commission of our Army and sent to the U.N. for further action.
How about some specific cases, Mr. Speaker, that were also filed with the U.N. that took place in Kuwait City?
[Time: 23:10]
This Kuwaiti citizen file number 66.01015 was arrested by the Iraqis at his home on the 23rd of December 1990 and held until mid-December. During his captivity he received repeated beatings and electric shocks to his mouth, nose and genitalia. He was suspended from the ceiling and subjected to mock executions. He witnessed the torture of other Kuwaitis by techniques which included forced ingestion of gas causing abdominal pains, forcing a woman to eat flesh cut from her own body, an execution by ax, removal of eyeballs, dismemberment, burning with a hot iron, execution by electric drill, and placement of a person into a large rotating washing machine.
Mr. Speaker, we are not dealing with a human being. We are dealing with an animal. We are not dealing with a person that we can have some feeling of a moral authority. This man is the lowest of the low , Mr. Speaker. It has all been documented through thousands of pieces of information assembled by nonprofit organizations, organizations concerned with human rights violations by governments around the world and by the U.N. itself. It has been documented. It is time to hold him accountable.
Mr. Speaker, here is a man, with all the documentation we have, who some people say we should trust. If you listen to Jacques Chirac, whose country has millions of dollars of oil contracts with Saddam Hussein and who himself is a personal friend of Saddam's, we should trust this man. Shame on Jacques Chirac. Mr. Speaker, shame on Jacques Chirac. By defending someone like Saddam Hussein, by not having his government take action to hold this man accountable, he has no moral authority. In fact, in my opinion he has no credibility.
Our government , Mr. Speaker, can do the right thing. Members on both sides of the aisle have introduced resolutions in the past 10 years. The Senate has voted on a resolution in the past 10 years. One of my Democrat colleagues offered a resolution, has an amendment in the Committee on International Relations just recently holding Saddam accountable.
This body has repeatedly publicly called on the U.N. to hold Saddam accountable, and I think we should do it again, Mr. Speaker. And so, therefore, this Thursday I will introduce along with colleagues from both sides of the aisle, there are already over 25 co-sponsors, and I urge all of my colleagues to sign on to a resolution to ask our President to appeal to the U.N. to convene a special war crimes tribunal against Saddam Hussein.
Mr. Speaker, we did that for Milosevic, and he is today being tried for those crimes he committed against innocent people in the former Yugoslavia. Innocent Kosovars, innocent Serbs, innocent Montenegroans, innocent people that Milosevic thought he could abuse. He deserves the full weight of the punishment meted out by that special tribunal.
Is Saddam Hussein any less deserving of a tribunal? Are all of these cases documented by the U.N., by these NGOs, by other governments, should we just discard them and pretend that they do not exist and let Saddam go on as if nothing has happened?
Mr. Speaker, we have not done right by the American people. We talk about the need to deal with Saddam because he has chemical precursors for his weapons of mass destruction, because he has missiles that will go longer than what the U.N. said he could. They are all violations, and they are all material breaches of the agreements that were reached by Saddam and the U.N. 12 years ago. But why, Mr. Speaker, is there not more discussion about this man for the evil person that he is?
The U.N. special rapporteur said, No one has come close to this kind of activity since World War II, since the great Holocaust. No one, Mr. Speaker, including Milosevic. Is the world going to ignore the activities of Saddam Hussein? Are we going to ignore the atrocities he committed against our own people when they were captured? If that is the case, then international agreements mean nothing. The Geneva Convention has no basis. The Helsinki Final Act has no meaning. If we are not going to hold leaders who commit such outrageous acts accountable, then we might as well not have those acts, those agreements existing in the first place.
Mr. Speaker, this body, our body can take action soon, to lay out to the world those who support military action and those who oppose military action, that regardless of whether or not you think war is inevitable, there is one thing that we all can agree on: Saddam Hussein is a war criminal. There is no doubt about that.
Those who understand the facts, those who look at the documents, those who see the evidence understand that this man comes as close to Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin as anyone that we have seen in the last several decades.
And so, Mr. Speaker, I appeal to our colleagues to co-sponsor this legislation before I drop it. Our colleagues have that opportunity. Democrats and Republicans are already on. We have over 25 Members and that was in the
[Page: H1328]
first day. I would hope that we would end up with over 300 co-sponsors and send a signal to the world that Saddam Hussein is an unacceptable leader because of his war crimes.
Again, Mr. Speaker, and I know I have said this before, but it really irks me because initially I opposed the Kosovo war, not because I support Milosevic, he is a war criminal, but because I felt that we had not brought Russia in to use their influence to get Milosevic out of power. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I led a delegation to Vienna with five of our Democrat colleagues and five of our Republican colleagues. We took a State Department official. And with the support of our State Department, we flew to Vienna; and for 2 days around the clock working with the leaders of the Russian political factions, we fashioned a statement that called Milosevic a war criminal for his ethnic cleansing. We laid the groundwork with the help of the Russians that became the basis of the G-8 document to end the war 10 days later.
Mr. Speaker, we were prodded into war against Milosevic by the French and the Germans. They were bold back then. They did not want to put their own troops in harm's way without America being there. So we went into Kosovo. America was the number one supplier of the military. There were more American planes than there were any other nation, even though Yugoslavia is not far away from France and Germany. The French and Germans came in after us, but they pushed us the whole way. And why? Because they said Milosevic was a war criminal who had abused people. And they were right. But, Mr. Speaker, so is Saddam Hussein, only a far worse war criminal than Milosevic ever was. Those are not my words. Those are the words of Richard Holbrook, U.N. Ambassador for the United States under President Clinton in an op-ed he wrote this past week. Those are the words of the special rapporteur of the U.N. who said that Saddam Hussein's regime has no equal since World War II.
[Time: 23:20]
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that every one of our colleagues would cosponsor the resolution to hold Saddam Hussein accountable for war crimes. It is a very simple resolution and I at this point in time enter that resolution into the Record so that all of our citizens, all of our colleagues can see the text, the documents, the actions, that we now request of the United Nations against Saddam Hussein.
H. Res. --
Whereas in 2001 and 2002, the Department of State contributed $4,000,000 to a United Nations Iraq War Crimes Commission, to be used if a United Nations tribunal for Iraqi war crimes is created;
Whereas the United Nations Security Council and the United Nations Commission on Human Rights have repeatedly condemned Iraq's human rights record;
Whereas Iraq continues to ignore United Nations resolutions and its international human rights commitments;
Whereas on April 19, 2002, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights passed a resolution drawing attention to ``the systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law by the Government of Iraq, resulting in an all-pervasive repression and oppression sustained by broad-based discrimination and widespread terror'';
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 674 calls on all states or organizations to provide information on Iraq's war-related atrocities to the United Nations;
Whereas Iraq's aggressive pursuit of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and its past use of weapons of mass destruction against its own people and Iraq's neighbors illustrates the danger of allowing Saddam Hussein to go unchallenged;
Whereas torture is used systematically against political detainees in Iraqi prisons and detention centers;
Whereas this regime gouges out the eyes of the victims, crushes all of the bones in their feet, and burns a person's limbs off to force him to confess or comply ; and
Whereas citizens of Iraq live in constant fear of being tortured, kidnapped, or killed : Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That consistent with Section 301 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (Public Law 102-138), House Concurrent Resolution 137, 105th Congress (approved by the House of Representatives on November 13, 1997), and Senate Concurrent Resolution 78, 105th Congress (approved by the Senate on March 13, 1998), the Congress urges the President to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law.
Mr. Speaker, in fact, the resolution which does not have yet a number, lays out the fact that we spent, as I said earlier, $4 million in each of the past 2 years for a special U.N. Iraqi War Crimes Commission. It is already in place, continuing from the 1990s. American tax dollars are being used to support this U.N. effort.
This war crimes commission has, in fact, seen resolutions passed by the Security Council and the Commission on Human Rights as recently as April 19 of 2002, U.N. Security Council Resolution 674, all of which deal with Saddam Hussein's abuses of human rights. This resolution says, and resolves, that consistent with section 301 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, the House concurrent resolution and the Senate concurrent resolution, that the Congress urges the President to call upon the United Nations to establish an International Criminal Tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law.
Mr. Speaker, we can do no less .
END
What is your position after reading this information?

SandbarScot
02-26-2003, 07:11 PM
We shoulda killed him back in '91 :mad:

Sleek-Jet
02-26-2003, 07:29 PM
Unfortunately this will fall on deaf ears. The French will say most of this is unsubstantiated. The Germans are born-again sinners. And some people in the good 'ole USA will cry for even more proof.
The world wants an Adali Stephenson moment at the UN. They are not going to get it. Saddam is far more cunning the Castro every could be.
The proof is there, the time for diplomacy is running scarce. It's time to kick ass!

MJ19
02-27-2003, 09:55 AM
Sleek-Jet:
Unfortunately this will fall on deaf ears. It's sad, that it is falling on deaf ears here in our own country :( cry :(
Imagine being raped...Or having your daughter raped...what would you want to happen to the rapists? devil
Or if you were at the river and some jerk cold cocked you to the ground and then started to piss on your face what would you do? devil How would you feel? burningm

skeepwerkzaz
02-27-2003, 10:45 AM
Sleek,
Absolutely right, we definately need someone like Adali to grab sack and lay it all down. No more room for "Politics" as usual.
[ February 27, 2003, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: skeepwerkzaz ]

miller19j
02-27-2003, 11:20 AM
RiverDave:
I wonder if the leaders of Isreal are going to have a war crimes tribunal as well? Some of the shit they do is right on Par with Saddam.
RD RD,
I am not going to argue that the Israelis are Angles. But being “on Par” with the above list is taking it a little far to say the least.

burbanite
02-27-2003, 11:39 AM
I took a cue from someone else on these boards and emailed a copy of this presentation to all of the French and German Embassies I could find, just to let them know that the uncomfortable feeling they have is my finger stuck up their ass!

Charley
02-27-2003, 11:45 AM
I pray that this type of documented evidence will rub off on the french, germans and bleeding heart liberal idiots that seem to think they know something about justice..... I say we forceably stick a red hot poker up their ass and then see if their heart still bleeds or if it's something else burningm

Thunderbutt
02-27-2003, 11:56 AM
River Dave I don't know why I alwayes agree with you. It must be the flag you fly. Are you a Raider fan? You're right the Israelies like to kill people. What we should do is turn them loose on Saddam, it would be over in a week and we would save the lives of our people and money. Saddam should have been tried in 1991 after he lite off the oil wells, but the Bush Goverment wanted to save it for another war. Just like they did in Korea.

twistedpair
02-27-2003, 12:15 PM
Thunderbutt:
Saddam should have been tried in 1991 after he lite off the oil wells, but the Bush Goverment wanted to save it for another war. Just like they did in Korea. The objective in '91 was to drive the Iraqis out of Kuwait, which we accomplished in record time. The 'Elite Republican Guard' is second only to the French in their ability to run away and raise a white flag. We had no mandate to remove Sodom. The only mistake we made was following the rules, we should have taken him out, screw world opinion.

Thunderbutt
02-27-2003, 12:29 PM
twistedpair:
Thunderbutt:
Saddam should have been tried in 1991 after he lite off the oil wells, but the Bush Goverment wanted to save it for another war. Just like they did in Korea. The objective in '91 was to drive the Iraqis out of Kuwait, which we accomplished in record time. The 'Elite Republican Guard' is second only to the French in their ability to run away and raise a white flag. We had no mandate to remove Sodom. The only mistake we made was following the rules, we should have taken him out, screw world opinion. I hope you don't believe that Bush was worried about world opinion in 1991. He left that war for another day. So here we are. Last night on the Rather interview Saddam said he thinks he won the war of 1991 because he is still alive. Maybe this time we will Kill him

miller19j
02-27-2003, 12:39 PM
RiverDave:
Well let's see here..
Toture?? Check
Torturing Family Members?? Check
Torturing Friends?? Check
Mass Murder of civilians?? Check
Torture of POW's?? Check
Cruel and Unusual Torture?? (This includes the shoving of things up peoples butts, dismemberment, basically all the things listed above and more) Check (and take pride in it as well)
Execution of POW's?? Check (daily)
Inviting people for peace negotiations then killing them all when they arrive?? Check (Whoop Saddam hasn't done that one yet)
Military Action on a community?? Check (Daily I might add)
Using Weapons of Mass destruction on civilians?? (Well now that'd depend on what you define as a weapon of mass destruction, but for the WARMONGERS on the board, that defined IRAQ's field artillery rockets with an 11 Mile range as a WMD) CHECK American Made too, right into an apartment complex.. (from further then 11 miles)
Ya know... After thinking about this for a second, I think I'm going to have to go with there on Par with Saddam.
RD RD,
I have come to the conclusion that you like to argue for the sake of arguing! Your posts very seldom contain any facts, but are full of your unsupported opinions.
I would bet that if I said, “The World is Round” you would argue that it was flat and five other sheep on these boards would follow you feeding your ego. Are you trying to be the captain of the hot boat debating society or are you really this disillusioned?
Your last argument that no one would support us if we went to war with Iraq was totally unsubstantiated. Just take a few minutes and read MJ19 other post that outlines all the European countries that do support us.
All this torture happens daily in Israel? Give me a break! Where do you get your news Saturday Night Live?

miller19j
02-27-2003, 01:19 PM
I'd be very curious to know where that list of "supporters/non supporters" came from. I don't doubt that it is real, or even factual, but the list of countries seemed awful short. RD,
The information in her post was from the BBC

miller19j
02-27-2003, 01:25 PM
RiverDave:
P.S. The world isn't round. It's more "oval" shaped, and ever changing in it's shape. (Now I'm just being a smart ass)
RD :D RD,
As far as the earth being “Oval”. Oval denotes a two dimensional shape. So you are saying that the earth is flat, I knew it! :D
Now I am being a smart ass. wink

Thunderbutt
02-27-2003, 01:45 PM
WHO REALLY SHOULD BE IN CHARGE OF OUR COUNTRY IN TIME OF WAR??
1) Woodrow Wilsonn, a Democrat, went into World War 1 and came out with a victory.
2) Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, was forced into World War 2 but passed away during the war so his vice-president, Harry Truman, took charge of the war and ended it with an atomic bomb.
3) John Kennedy, a Democrat, entered the Vietnam War; this war was fought for 11 years (1963-1974). John Kennedy was killed in 1963 so his vice-president Lynden Johnson took over and fought the war (not very well I must admit) until Richard Nixon, a Republican, replaced him and he surrendered to North Vietnam - who knows when they will pop up again?
4) Just a note...After the Korean war, when I was coming home (1954) we were put on alert to go to Indo China (Vietnam, a French colony) to help the French who were being overthrown by Ho Chi Minh, a communist war lord from the north. Because Eisenhower (a Republican) disliked Charles de Gaulle, the French President, because of some disagreements during World War 2, we abandoned our alert and came home. This gave North Vietnam 9 years to buuild a fighting force. (Preserve the war for later)
5) George Bush #1 (also head of the CIA 1967) went into Kuwait to drive Saddam Hussein (Iraq) out but he didn't finish the job by putting Saddam in prison as a war criminal. (So now we have Iraq as a problem.)
6) Bill Clinto (a Democrat) went into Cosovo and ;he put Malosovich out of business and in prison.
7) Now we have George Jr. who cannot find Osama and will keep this so-called war going on and on, and he wants to enter another one that his father didn't finish. I'm not against doing that, but will he finish it?
It seems to me that when the Republicans get into a fight, no matter if they inherited it or started it, they always leave it open for a later date and another war. Why don't they finish them? If the Democrats arre considered warmongers, why are all of the top brass in the military Republicans? I think it's called longevity.
It's like when the high school bully told me that he was bigger than me and I responded with "but, do you know how to fight?"

Seadog
02-27-2003, 01:46 PM
The issue with the Israelis is difficult under any circumstances. Unfortunately, they have a element that is very hard line. They want to take the land belonging to the Palestinians. It puts us in a bad spot and there is wrong on both sides. If Hamas had not kept up their bombing campaign, the international sentiment would be against Israel and all us to push for reform. The Israelis are a needed force now, just like many of our allies during WWII.
Don't expect any help from the French, Germans or Russians. The #1 and #2 trading partners of Iraq. France has a major deal to drill for Iraqi oil and the Russians are major importers of Iraqi oil. I just saw a picture of the inspectors checking out a Peugout factory in Iraq, The Iraqi use French and Russian weapons. These countries stand to lose a fortune if Saddam is ousted. We are not going to war because of oil, The triad is opposed to war becasue of oil.

Blown 472
02-27-2003, 01:48 PM
River"Laying tha lumber" Dave, while we are at it when you hear on the news that schools need money and might start closing ask your self "Why are we sending 9.8 BILLION DOLLARS to a country we get nothing but grief in return?"

Blown 472
02-27-2003, 01:53 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Seadog:
[QB] The issue with the Israelis is difficult under any circumstances. Unfortunately, they have a element that is very hard line. They want to take the land belonging to the Palestinians. It puts us in a bad spot and there is wrong on both sides. If Hamas had not kept up their bombing campaign, the international sentiment would be against Israel and all us to push for reform. The Israelis are a needed force now, just like many of our allies during WWII.
What choice do they have?? forced into concentration/refugee camps, forced off their land, so to be shoved into the sea as the new cabinet is looking into a total take over of the gaza strip. Once agian the media portraies the israelis as non agresive, memory serves me right they bombed and terrorized the brits to drive them out.

Blown 472
02-27-2003, 02:06 PM
Didn't the Dutch file a request for the prime minister to face war crimes for something he did during the 80's at refugee camp??http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2754877.stm
[ February 27, 2003, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: Blown 472 ]

fear the turtle
02-27-2003, 02:21 PM
RiverDave:
Miller19J, let me ask you. Just from the three examples that I listed.
PayPhone
Missile Into an Apartment Complex
2000lb bomb into a hotel
Two of those attack were Millitary in Nature, on civillians. 1 was "terrorist" in Nature again in a civillian setting.
(All of those were in the last year and CERTAINLY not the only things they did, but just 3 that stand out in my mind)
Do you think that there should be a war crimes tribunal on the Prime Minister of Isreal as well?
RD Sorry to stick my nose in here, but those 3 people the Israelis were going after, how many civilians do you think they killed?
These people don't fight a conventional war. And in order to get them, civilians will be lost. They are cowards that like to hide behind them. To test your resolve to come after them or in there minds show weakness. So however, tragic it may be that innocent people died. If they did not attack I guarantee those three idividuals would show no mercy to innocent Israel people. On a much smaller scale, these idividuals are launching attacks like the WTC on innocent people everyday. What is the Prime Minister suppose to do? Sit back and let another bus get blown up, because he didn't want to risk innocent deaths.....that's what these people are counting on.
JMHO, and this $.99 still won't buy you nothing on the dollar menu. Sorry for the spelling.

fear the turtle
02-27-2003, 02:34 PM
FTR - I do have to agree I don't think we enough international support to fight this war.
IMHO, we should continue to hunt down the taliban and Osama and shift our attention to N. Korea who poses the much bigger threat at this time.
A war with Iraq will come, but it's time isn't yet. The only people that have Saddam to fear our the Iraqi people. Until he actually has a weapon of mass destruction or attacks another neighbor again, we just don't have just cause right now.
Don't say WTC, because truth beknown Osama and Saddam were better enemies. We are now forcing them to become allies.

bigq
02-27-2003, 02:42 PM
RiverDave,
I’m just curious what you would have Israel do in that region, are all the attacks from Israel unprovoked? I would agree that they probably don’t give one shitza for the people they are killing, but what should they do when trying to get”one”guy. Did your college professor, totally unbiased views, I’m sure, have any resolutions or just condemnation? I don’t see an end to any of the violence over there till it becomes an all out war and one side wins.

Blown 472
02-27-2003, 02:50 PM
bigq:
RiverDave,
I’m just curious what you would have Israel do in that region, are all the attacks from Israel unprovoked? I would agree that they probably don’t give one shitza for the people they are killing, but what should they do when trying to get”one”guy. Did your college professor, totally unbiased views, I’m sure, have any resolutions or just condemnation? I don’t see an end to any of the violence over there till it becomes an all out war and one side wins. Or they stop their push to take over the entire area.

Seadog
02-27-2003, 02:59 PM
Thunderbutt, your view of history is interesting, if not ludicrous. Truman bungled Korea by shutting down too much military after WWII. Eisenhower was hired to finish it, but the liberal UN accepted a truce. The Kennedy/Johnson bungling got us into Vietnam, but the democratic lead Congress would not allow the military to do their jobs. By the time Nixon was hired, the die was cast and it was too late to win. Under Jimmy Carter, the hard-liners took over Iran and held our people prisoners for years. Reagan took over and they were released. Under JC, the military was stripped to nothing, but RR rebuilt it until it was the powerhouse that whopped Iraq. I agree that we should have finished the job in 91, Even Bush and his administration agreed, but there was no support from the UN r Congress. Do not forget that as a result of Billy the rapist, we suffered in Somalia. Do not forget all the attrocities that happen in Yugoslavia/Bosnia/Serbia/Kosolvo before Clinton finally did anything.
There are many questions that need to be dealt with. It may not be the best thing to go after SH now, but when is? The world is becoming more dangerous for civilized nations and at some point in time, we have to accept the need to get rid of the troublemakers. All we can do is pray that our leaders find the right solution at the right time. There is too much at stake. The world for all its complaints, looks to us for answers.

twistedpair
02-27-2003, 03:11 PM
RiverDave:
They really don't need our help over there. Saddam poses the biggest threat to Isreal ("Our Friends in the middle east") I say let them take care of the Saddam issue if in fact it's really an issue of security. RD True, they didn't need any help blowing up his Nuke plant back in the 80's.
RiverDave:
2ndly, if they gave back a little (Not even all) of the land that they just take whenever they feel like, I think most of the violence would come to a stop.RD Maybe some of it would stop, but you still need to get rid of that nut-case Arafat. And remember, annhialation of Israel is part of the Palestinian Charter.
But overall I agree, I have no idea why we have Israels back all the time. We capture any other foriegn spys and they're dead, we catch an Israeli and he gets a hand slap and a plane ticket home. They must have some MAJOR dirt on us.
Twisted(runnin' the risk of becoming one of RD's sheep)pair

miller19j
02-27-2003, 03:12 PM
RiverDave:
Miller19J, let me ask you. Just from the three examples that I listed.
PayPhone
Missile Into an Apartment Complex
2000lb bomb into a hotel
Two of those attack were Millitary in Nature, on civillians. 1 was "terrorist" in Nature again in a civillian setting.
(All of those were in the last year and CERTAINLY not the only things they did, but just 3 that stand out in my mind)
Do you think that there should be a war crimes tribunal on the Prime Minister of Isreal as well?
RD Dave,
No I don’t.
I believe that the Israeli’s are in a War on terrorism. Lets face it the Palestinians have people blow themselves on a weekly bases with the goal to kill Israeli citizens. The suicide bombers are killing innocent people not military targets. So they need to fight back accordingly. They are doing there best to keep their country safe. It is not an easy problem with a clear solution.
During WWII the US and British killed a lot of innocent civilians during the bombing raids into Europe. Does that mean they need to have a war crimes tribunal? No it is just part of war.
Now all that being said I do not think that the Israeli’s should be there in the first place but that does not give the Palestinians the right to kill innocent civilians with suicide attacks.
I am not a war monger and do not like war. But there are times when you need to stand your ground and I think that this is one of those times.
I am going to agree to disagree with you on this issue and let it stop at that.
But if you tell me that the earth is flat again I am going to have to open the can of whop ass, and you will have to get your own beer from then on. wink

unleashed
02-27-2003, 03:15 PM
Damn, here we go again World Politics.
I'll tell you this much I definitly dont support a war in Iraq. Not just for the many civilians that will probably end up being killed but also for our boys that are over there being used like pawns in a big political chess game.
You think Suddam is such a bad guy but in times of war all rules get thrown out the window. If history serves me correct many autrocities have also been reaped by the US on Foreign armies and people. I can think of the numerous killings of civilians including women and children in the vietnam war and thats not even counting rape. I can recount a north korean story where the US army lined up a whole village of innocent people under a bridge and mowing them down one by one with machinegun fire.
Now can I understand these types of autrocities. You bet your ass I can. This is war. I mean if you saw 10 of your buddies you've been in combat with get blown to pieces it would leave a lasting impression. Now after witnessing something like this if you got you hands on the enemy what would you do? Kiss their ass and feed them. No you would do everything possible without getting court martialed to make their life hell and that includes torture, rape, and killing. Hey this is war. The objective is to Kill, conquer and defeat the enemy. If your going to sit there and tell me that we dont commit or have never commited the same autrocities you better think a little harder.
Their are about 30 different countries in the world that have the same problems Iraq does. I can remember the infamous death squads in El salvador trained by US troops. We supported wars in central America on the backs of drug sales(Which the majority ended up in the US). We even befreinded one of the biggest drug lords Noriega until he became a thorn in our sides.
In world opinion we are definitly lacking a clear cut majority. If we go to war I think it may have a very negative effect on our being the World Power of the next generation.
Now that being Said, I will support our troops 100% in time of war. As far as politicians go thats another story. Its very easy to sit behind a big desk and make decisions that are not supported by the world. If suddam was such a big threat Iran would take him out. They are bitter enemies. If Iran can't even support this war there must be a problem.
Deano
Unleashedclothing (http://www.unleashedclothing.com)
PS As far as Israel goes that is one F*cked scenario for the world. I mean how do you take a people as a whole and transplant them in the middle of the arab world. There will always be war in Israel. And like the saying goes "alls fair in love and war!"

bigq
02-27-2003, 03:18 PM
RiverDave:
Well this is going to be a pretty simplified answer, but it's my honest take on this thing.
I could give a rats ass what Isreal does, I just don't think we should support them anymore.
Currently, (Using American Technology) Isreal has the 3rd most powerful millitary in the world. (I about fell outta my chair when I read that, and I'll try to dig it up again and quote it so you all can read it as well and judge it for yourself.)
They really don't need our help over there. Saddam poses the biggest threat to Isreal ("Our Friends in the middle east") I say let them take care of the Saddam issue if in fact it's really an issue of security.
2ndly, if they gave back a little (Not even all) of the land that they just take whenever they feel like, I think most of the violence would come to a stop.
RD I believe that about there military, but we don't only sell to them. I wish we did not provide any of our equipment, to anyone for that matter.
As you stated, you believe that if they gave back even some land the violence would stop, this I would disagree with, being content does not seem to be a well know thought over there, I believe the hate for Israel will be to strong for the violence to stop. Plus, didn't they already try that?
Do you believe that if we stopped supporting Israel that the hatred in that region towards America would subside?

scgms1
02-27-2003, 03:25 PM
RD,
I'm curious as to what your response would be if this were happening to you, or our country. (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Terrorism/victims.html) I would hardly put Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in the same category as Saddam. While Israel isn't totally without blame in this situation, I wouldn't classify them as the aggressor. All of what you have posted are in response to terrorist acts against their country. I wonder what type of self-control you would be able to exercise given the same circumstances?

rivercrazy
02-27-2003, 03:27 PM
bigq:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by RiverDave:
[qb]
Do you believe that if we stopped supporting Israel that the hatred in that region towards America would subside? I agree with this statement 100%. We should stop using tax money to support them.....

bigq
02-27-2003, 03:40 PM
rivercrazy:
bigq:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by RiverDave:
[qb]
Do you believe that if we stopped supporting Israel that the hatred in that region towards America would subside? I agree with this statement 100%. We should stop using tax money to support them..... But would it change anything? that was my question.

rivercrazy
02-27-2003, 03:45 PM
I believe it would help to start changing the perceptions some middle eastern cultures have toward the US. From what I've read, they feel Isreal is another state of the USA cause we give them so much support. They also feel that one major reason so many of their citizens are killed using USA made weapons.
To me a more fundamental question is why the heck are we sending so much monetary support over there? They are not a 3rd world country that cannot afford to feed their citizens. What product does the USA receive for sending so much money there? We have starving citizens right here in the US and children not receiving good educations due to funding shortfalls. My point is we need to take care of our own "first".....
[ February 27, 2003, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: rivercrazy ]

MJ19
02-27-2003, 03:52 PM
RiverDave:
Ya know... After thinking about this for a second, I think I'm going to have to go with there on Par with Saddam.
RD If you read the article in full you will see where it is documented that NO ONE has come close to SADDAM since HITLER. Yes other's have caused terrible torture, but no where near the degree Saddam has.
By the way, if in fact we had ANY support right now from the UN, then we'd already be at war.
We do have a lot of support. (read my post, it's not short by any means)
France is not in support because they get all their oil from Iraq. France is one of the countries that have U.N. "veto" power. France could support us and still would have a difficult time saying "YES let's loose all of our oil resources and fight with Iraq" It's not that easy. France has put themselves in a stupid position.
For the RECORD folks...this post is NOT about the issue with the Israelis or the issue of going to war with Iraq. Somehow it was high jacked and taken off topic.
Let's get back on topic...It IS about SADDAM and the WAR CRIMES he committed. It IS about putting him on trial for his war crimes. Do you think he should be put on trial? What are your thoughts in regards to SADDAM and if he should be held accountable for his war crimes?

miller19j
02-27-2003, 03:56 PM
rivercrazy:
I believe it would help to start changing the perceptions some middle eastern cultures have toward the US. From what I've read, they feel Isreal is another state of the USA cause we give them so much support. They also feel that one major reason so many of their citizens are killed using USA made weapons.
To me a more fundamental question is why the heck are we sending so much monetary support over there? They are not a 3rd world country that cannot afford to feed their citizens. What product does the USA receive for sending so much money there? Don’t let all this fool you not all the Arab countries hate America!
I was in Egypt a few years ago and when people found out that I was an American they were overjoyed,and told me how much they love America! Several people stopped me on the street to buy me tea and sit and talk.
One of Egypt’s main money sources is American aide and they know it. The people there love Americans and the help that they are offering their country.

scgms1
02-27-2003, 04:02 PM
[b] RiverDave
Fact of the matter is these guys are strapping explosives to themselves, because they, themselves are the ONLY weapons they have! If they had an F 16 and a 2000 lb bomb they would've lobbed one right back. If they had a rocket to shoot at an apartment complex they woulda shot one right back. Bingo, which brings us back to the point of what was originally posted. There are some countries and leaders that should not have these types of weapons as they have demonstrated many times in the past that they don't deserve them. I hate to use the word deserve, possibly they have shown how irresponsible they have been in the past and it would be foolish of us to let them have weapons such as these.

MJ19
02-27-2003, 04:03 PM
unleashed:
You think Suddam is such a bad guy but in times of war all rules get thrown out the window. The fact is there are rules in war. Leaders must pay attention to those rules and follow those rules. Saddam should be held accountable in a trial for his war crimes. Terrorist acts are different from Declared war acts. Many of you are comparing apples to oranges.

MJ19
02-27-2003, 04:13 PM
Alright Mr. RiverDave...I'm gunna have to open a can of whoop ass on you. devil wink
This thread is NOT about Israel...it's about SADDAM...stop high jacking my thread and stick to the subject :D

miller19j
02-27-2003, 04:14 PM
MJ19:
Alright Mr. RiverDave...I'm gunna have to open a can of whoop ass on you. devil wink
This thread is NOT about Israel...it's about SADDAM...stop high jacking my thread and stick to the subject :D Report that jackass to a moderator…….Oh….Never mind :D wink

bigq
02-27-2003, 04:17 PM
MJ19
For the RECORD folks...this post is NOT about the issue with the Israelis or the issue of going to war with Iraq. Somehow it was high jacked and taken off topic.
Let's get back on topic...It IS about SADDAM and the WAR CRIMES he committed. It IS about putting him on trial for his war crimes. Do you think he should be put on trial? What are your thoughts in regards to SADDAM and if he should be held accountable for his war crimes? [/QB]Your right, sorry. wink What's the point of a trial, don't we know he is guilty. I don't say this lightly, but am very sincere when I say put him on his knees and put a hollow point through his forehead and be done with it or are we more humane than that.By reading some of the post here it appears we are not or are we? I don't say that out of vengence or hatred for Saddam or because it might be popular to just kill him off it just seems like a waste of time for a trial.
Am I being to harsh?

bigq
02-27-2003, 04:25 PM
RiverDave:
Like I said,
I'm a full supporter of putting Sadam up for trial on War Crimes.
I just think they oughta throw some of the Israeli government (past and present) in a war crime tribunal as well.
(One last little thing I promise)
Doesn't that part about them targetting people in the U.S. scare the shit out of you? I can't believe that nobody is concerned about that!
RD I think the Islamic extremist already beat them to it, doesn't that scare the shit out of you, but as you said you won't be seeing my family at 711 anytime soon. eek!

MJ19
02-27-2003, 04:28 PM
RiverDave:
(One last little thing I promise)
Doesn't that part about them targetting people in the U.S. scare the shit out of you? I can't believe that nobody is concerned about that!
RD Where did you hear that? I heard Mr. Bin L wanted to target US folks...but I haven't heard Saddam state that? Show me where to look for more info on it. Yes it is scary to think we could live in a country where terrorism is a daily fact of life. Very Scary!

miller19j
02-27-2003, 04:33 PM
MJ19:
RiverDave:
(One last little thing I promise)
Doesn't that part about them targetting people in the U.S. scare the shit out of you? I can't believe that nobody is concerned about that!
RD Where did you hear that? I heard Mr. Bin L wanted to target US folks...but I haven't heard Saddam state that? Show me where to look for more info on it. Yes it is scary to think we could live in a country where terrorism is a daily fact of life. Very Scary! He is talking about Israel targeting Palestinian terrorists on American soil. It is in one of his posts.
I was going to reply to it but I decided to keep on the subject of your thread.

MJ19
02-27-2003, 04:33 PM
bigq:
What's the point of a trial, don't we know he is guilty. I don't say this lightly, but am very sincere when I say put him on his knees and put a hollow point through his forehead and be done with it or are we more humane than that.By reading some of the post here it appears we are not or are we? I don't say that out of vengence or hatred for Saddam or because it might be popular to just kill him off it just seems like a waste of time for a trial.
Am I being to harsh? It's not that easy. First it's a crime to kill another leader and if he was out of power it doesn't mean his terror wouldn't still rein.
His immediate family members are political figures as well and they too are performing these acts of violence on the American POWs. By taking him and the others that performed these acts to court, it could get them all out of power. By going about it at this angle we could avoid war and still be able to change the Iraqi govt.

MJ19
02-27-2003, 04:35 PM
RiverDave:
It sais ISRAEL is going to start "targetting" (RD Oh My Gosh....Mr. RD you're pushing it...ISRAEL IS NOT THE TOPIC HERE!!! :rolleyes:
H...E...L...L...O Anyone home??? :p wink :D

scgms1
02-27-2003, 04:38 PM
MJ19:
RiverDave:
It sais ISRAEL is going to start "targetting" (RD Oh My Gosh....Mr. RD you're pushing it...ISRAEL IS NOT THE TOPIC HERE!!! :rolleyes:
H...E...L...L...O Anyone home??? :p wink :D Sorry about this Mrs. MJ19,... :p Can you provide link for that RD?

MJ19
02-27-2003, 04:40 PM
RiverDave:
We could start a new thread.. I'm dieing to hear your opinion on that.
RD DONE :D

Irishluck
02-27-2003, 04:50 PM
Saddam on trial, why waste the money? Let the Isralies deal with palestine. Is it me or is that whole area a bunch of savages. It seems when one dictator like Saddam is killed their is another to take his place. Then some how it's our fault.

bigq
02-27-2003, 04:55 PM
MJ19:
bigq:
What's the point of a trial, don't we know he is guilty. I don't say this lightly, but am very sincere when I say put him on his knees and put a hollow point through his forehead and be done with it or are we more humane than that.By reading some of the post here it appears we are not or are we? I don't say that out of vengence or hatred for Saddam or because it might be popular to just kill him off it just seems like a waste of time for a trial.
Am I being to harsh? It's not that easy. First it's a crime to kill another leader and if he was out of power it doesn't mean his terror wouldn't still rein.
His immediate family members are political figures as well and they too are performing these acts of violence on the American POWs. By taking him and the others that performed these acts to court, it could get them all out of power. By going about it at this angle we could avoid war and still be able to change the Iraqi govt. Yes i know that it is a crime to kill another leader. I misunderstood you. You think that we can take him to court along with his family to avoid the war. I'm saying that will not happen, Saddam will not go to trial, at least by his choice. He will not come out and say here I am, so anyway you look at it we need to go in and get him and I guarantee you we won't be able to just walk in and get him. If he does go on trial, it would be after we destroyed his country and or he gasses the place and everyone around.

MJ19
02-27-2003, 05:35 PM
bigq:
I misunderstood you. You think that we can take him to court along with his family to avoid the war. I'm saying that will not happen, Saddam will not go to trial, at least by his choice. He will not come out and say here I am, so anyway you look at it we need to go in and get him and I guarantee you we won't be able to just walk in and get him. If he does go on trial, it would be after we destroyed his country and or he gasses the place and everyone around. Saddam states that he will not leave his country and he prefers to die in his country. I do not think he'd run and hide, like Mr Binny Lanna and yes it is possible we'd have to go get him. But to go and get him (& his leaders) would be shorter and less civilian deaths then if we just simply go to war.
This topic is not easy..cut & dry, it is complicated, twisted and very very tricky. We can debate pros and cons for hours, days, weeks, months...(in fact, Bush has been)I would not want to be in Bush's shoes at this time. No matter what choice he makes for our country I support it because I know it will be made after weighing all the options, all the pros and cons. After considering all the various angles that could be taken. He has a HUGE weight on his shoulders, one none of us would take on (or we'd be running for president)

MJ19
02-27-2003, 05:40 PM
Irishluck:
Saddam on trial, why waste the money? Let the Isralies deal with palestine. Saddam, Isralies, Palestine??? :confused: I don't see how letting the Isralies deal with Palestine has anything to do with Saddam??? :confused:

MJ19
02-27-2003, 05:44 PM
Mr. RD...Please take your Israel link to the Israel thread. wink :D
I will read it and get back to you over in the proper thread after I do some research on the topic. :)

LUVNLIFE
02-27-2003, 05:50 PM
This may be the wrong thread and if it is I'm sorry and kick my ass out but. Last night on the news they talked about American citizens volunteering to be human shields in Iraq. They are already there.Isn't that some sort of treason?

MJ19
02-27-2003, 06:11 PM
LUVNLIFE:
Last night on the news they talked about American citizens volunteering to be human shields in Iraq. They are already there.Isn't that some sort of treason? Yes they are there...and they have been informed that what they are doing is a war crime and they have accepted their fate.
Here are some bits on the topic.
US issues 'human shields' warning
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has warned that any attempt by Iraq to deploy people as "human shields" in the event of war will be regarded as a war crime.
His comments come as growing numbers of Western volunteers arrive in Iraq to act as human shields, in an attempt to prevent a US-led war.
Mr Rumsfeld accused Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein of making no distinction between combatants and innocent civilians.
"He deliberately constructs mosques near military facilities, uses schools, hospitals, orphanages and cultural treasures to shield military forces, thereby exposing helpless men, women and children to danger," he told reporters at the Pentagon in Washington.
The principle that civilians must be protected lies at the heart of international law of armed conflict
Donald Rumsfeld
"These are not tactics of war, they are crimes of war. Deploying human shields is not a military strategy, it's murder, a violation of the laws of armed conflict, and a crime against humanity, and it will be treated as such."
The United States has already threatened to prosecute any Iraqi military leaders who use chemical or biological weapons.
Mr Rumsfeld made it clear that the same conditions applied to human shields.
"Those who follow his (Saddam Hussein's) orders to use human shields will pay a severe price for their actions," he said.
Volunteers
Dozens of volunteer human shields in a convoy of vehicles, including double-decker buses, arrived in Baghdad this week after travelling from London. Others are flying to Amman in Jordan before making their way overland to Iraq.
General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that intentionally placing civilians in danger was illegal.
General Myers said: "It is a violation of the law of armed conflict to use non-combatants as a means of shielding potential military targets - even those people who may volunteer for this purpose."
The term "human shields" became common currency before the Gulf War in 1991, when Saddam Hussein threatened to place Westerners detained in Iraq at sites deemed likely to be attacked by the US-led coalition.
He did not carry out this threat, and most of the detainees were released before hostilities began. The US has already declared that the deployment of human shields is a crime, warning there is no guarantee that they will not be bombed.
[ February 27, 2003, 06:15 PM: Message edited by: MJ19 ]

LUVNLIFE
02-27-2003, 06:39 PM
But the American Volunteers can be brought up on treason charges here in the states, right.

twistedpair
02-27-2003, 06:43 PM
Guess that's one way to thin out the liberal herd! idea

bigq
02-27-2003, 07:05 PM
MJ19:
bigq:
I misunderstood you. You think that we can take him to court along with his family to avoid the war. I'm saying that will not happen, Saddam will not go to trial, at least by his choice. He will not come out and say here I am, so anyway you look at it we need to go in and get him and I guarantee you we won't be able to just walk in and get him. If he does go on trial, it would be after we destroyed his country and or he gasses the place and everyone around. Saddam states that he will not leave his country and he prefers to die in his country. I do not think he'd run and hide, like Mr Binny Lanna and yes it is possible we'd have to go get him. But to go and get him (& his leaders) would be shorter and less civilian deaths then if we just simply go to war.
This topic is not easy..cut & dry, it is complicated, twisted and very very tricky. We can debate pros and cons for hours, days, weeks, months...(in fact, Bush has been)I would not want to be in Bush's shoes at this time. No matter what choice he makes for our country I support it because I know it will be made after weighing all the options, all the pros and cons. After considering all the various angles that could be taken. He has a HUGE weight on his shoulders, one none of us would take on (or we'd be running for president) That's my point MJ.They are not going in to conquer a country, we are going in to disarm and get Sadam. That will be the goal this time. So the way I see it is the military is doing just as you say, I just don't think he will be alive for a trial. When we do occupy Iraq ,I think they will find a lot more than what everyone is saying he doesn't have including many biological compound, warheads, mass graves etc. No one has even seen the tunnels under the city yet, but they will when it's over, many miles of tunnels.

mike37
02-27-2003, 07:35 PM
twistedpair:
Guess that's one way to thin out the liberal herd! idea let them all go over there befor we bom the shit out of IRAQ

Jordy
02-27-2003, 11:19 PM
bigq:
No one has even seen the tunnels under the city yet, but they will when it's over, many miles of tunnels. While I don't put blind faith in Hollywood and their depictions of world events, I do believe to a certain extent alot of what was seen in the post-Gulf War movie "3 Kings." You know, the one with Ice Cube, Clooney and Marky Mark. The part where they're driving into villages and climbing down into secret passageways to rooms full of gold and who knows what all else through the village well or other hidden entry way I don't think is too very far from the truth. I'm sure Saddam's tunnels will put shame to the ones the Tunnel Rats in Viet Nam mapped out, and those were pretty extensive.

bigq
02-28-2003, 12:05 AM
jordanpaulk:
bigq:
No one has even seen the tunnels under the city yet, but they will when it's over, many miles of tunnels. While I don't put blind faith in Hollywood and their depictions of world events, I do believe to a certain extent alot of what was seen in the post-Gulf War movie "3 Kings." You know, the one with Ice Cube, Clooney and Marky Mark. The part where they're driving into villages and climbing down into secret passageways to rooms full of gold and who knows what all else through the village well or other hidden entry way I don't think is too very far from the truth. I'm sure Saddam's tunnels will put shame to the ones the Tunnel Rats in Viet Nam mapped out, and those were pretty extensive. From what I have read it is more than just tunnels. It was suppose to be an underground subway Iraq was building and Saddam took over them, yes many miles I would assume.

MJ19
02-28-2003, 08:18 AM
bigq:
That's my point MJ.They are not going in to conquer a country, we are going in to disarm and get Sadam. That will be the goal this time. So the way I see it is the military is doing just as you say, I just don't think he will be alive for a trial. When we do occupy Iraq ,I think they will find a lot more than what everyone is saying he doesn't have including many biological compound, warheads, mass graves etc. No one has even seen the tunnels under the city yet, but they will when it's over, many miles of tunnels. Yes I agree with you on this, yet I see we are currently having 'issues' with the approach that is being taken. Therefore I see this other approach as a possible way in without so much conflict.

MJ19
02-28-2003, 08:21 AM
bigq:
From what I have read it is more than just tunnels. It was suppose to be an underground subway Iraq was building and Saddam took over them, yes many miles I would assume. Where did you read this? If you remember please send me a PM link or post it here for everyone. I'd love to read more about it. :)

Seadog
02-28-2003, 11:27 AM
As far as I'm concerned, the first of the human shields that get blown away will pretty much end that maneuver by the hollyduds. I may like their acting, but I won't bleed too much if Sarandon or Clooney and their ilk got blasted being a human shield. Actors can be replaced easier than soldiers. My biggest regret was we didn't drop a few on Hanoi Jane when we had a chance.
We do not have consensus in this country, so why expect it of the world. Each country has its own worries and could give a shit less for the good ole USA, if it goes against their needs. There are many who agree with us, but there are also those who hate anything that goes against their narrow religious, social or economic beliefs. We will have to take out Saddam if we are ever to have peasce in the Middle East. He is an agitator and we have to get rid of him and then start working on the other trouble makers. A defeat in this and we will encourage the others. A rounding defeat of Saddam and the others will retreat or at least be less upfront. You don't ignore a trouble maker. You confront and show them for the low life they are.

Thunderbutt
02-28-2003, 01:21 PM
Lets get this all out in the open...OK, so I'm a Democrat (not a liberal but a Democrat) SeaDog, I wounder what political party you belong to. Our country lost a lot of lives and spent a lot of money to defeat the Japanese, Germans and the Communists in Korea. Guess what? It was done with a Democrat in charge of our government. We would not have lost 65 + thousand lives in Vietnam if we would have gone in 1954 instead of 1963 but Eisenhauer said no. I agree with you about Johnson screwing it up. I also believe that he had Kennedy killed. As for Clinton, I agree that he avoided the Vietnam war but so did Bush and Chaney and thousands of others. The 60's and 70's produced more cowards then any generation of this country. Even after 9/11 I still don't see a long line at the recruiting stations.
We probably have more terrorists in this country then Saddam has. The KKK have been terrorizing people for 100's of years. What about the abortion clinic bombers? Tim McVeigh and the Texans that dragged the black guy to death - the ones that hung the gay guy on the fence post and the Uni-Bomber
As for as Saddam the way to end this is to kill the son of a bitch so we can go boating with cheaper gas.