# Nothing the US did in Iraq could ever constitute a war crime



## Big Don (Jun 20, 2009)

*Nothing the US did in Iraq could ever constitute a war crime that could be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court.
Radio Netherlands Worldwide
Excerpt:
*
This is the view of Richard Goldstone, a former chief international war crimes prosecutor and international law expert.

_"I don't believe that any allegation that I have read or heard against the United States leaders comes anywhere near the sorts of crimes that the ICC has been set up to investigate. Genocide, crimes against humanity, serious war crimes - it just doesn't measure up."_

Richard Goldstone - chief prosecutor at the war crimes tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda from 1994-1996 and currently head of a UN fact-finding team on international law violations - made his remarks during a Radio Netherlands Worldwide debate in The Hague.

Asked by a member of the audience if former President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, could ever see themselves on trial at the International Criminal Court for their role in the US-led invasion of Iraq - Judge Goldstone was unequivocal in his answer.

_"Let me say I don't believe, while there are allegations of torture - and errors made in bombing of Kosovo during the Clinton administration - or some civilians being killed in Iraq or Afghanistan, I don't believe that any allegation that I have read or heard against the United States leaders comes anywhere near the sorts of crimes that the ICC has been set up to investigate. Genocide, crimes against humanity, serious war crimes - it just doesn't measure up, that's point one. I don't think it's a fair comparison."
End EXCERPT

_


----------



## jarrod (Jun 20, 2009)

still doesn't make it a just war.

jf


----------



## Big Don (Jun 20, 2009)

jarrod said:


> still doesn't make it a just war.
> 
> jf


While US and British aircraft were patrolling the UN designated no fly zones, Iraq, under the direction of Hussein repeatedly fired on the aircraft. That alone is _casus belli_


----------



## jarrod (Jun 20, 2009)

casus belli doesn't mean it was a good idea.  iraq is a quagmire that has drawn on too long, cost too many lives, too much money, & diverted resources from afghanistan.  the US is weaker because of iraq, plain & simple.  if iraq violated a UN no-fly, operations should have been undertaken with UN cooperation.

jf


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 20, 2009)

we WOULD have had UN co-operation, but China, Germany and France blocked it, and GUESS WHAT?? we found out that all three countries had deals with Saddam that were ILLEGAL under the UN sanctions.

wonder why they blocked us, huh?

face it, you are wrong, W R O N G wrong, misinformed, incorrect, WRONG.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 20, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> we WOULD have had UN co-operation, but China, Germany and France blocked it, and GUESS WHAT?? *we found out that all three countries had deals with Saddam that were ILLEGAL under the UN sanctions.*
> 
> wonder why they blocked us, huh?
> 
> face it, you are wrong, W R O N G wrong, misinformed, incorrect, WRONG.


 
Think you'll have to post up proof of that though.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 20, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> we WOULD have had UN co-operation, but China, Germany and France blocked it, and GUESS WHAT?? we found out that all three countries had deals with Saddam that were ILLEGAL under the UN sanctions.
> 
> wonder why they blocked us, huh?
> 
> face it, you are wrong, W R O N G wrong, misinformed, incorrect, WRONG.


 

Actually, he's *right.* More to the point, _international law_ recognizes only 3 legal reasons for war: self defense (which his firing on our planes doesn't really justify, since, as jarrod pointed out, it was under the auspices of the U.N. that those fly overs occured), to aid an ally with whom the country has a mutual defense pact, like NATO, and actions otherwise sanctioned by the U.N.

_Legally,_ then, the lawyer in the original post is on shaky ground, if it can be proven that the invasion of Iraq by the U.S. wasn't self-defense.Since we clearly didn't invade to aid an ally with whom we have a mutual defense pact, and since it clearly _wasn't_ santioned by the U.N. (whether it should have been or not is another story) the U.S. really could be guilty of a war crime in simply invading, never mind any subsequent or ancillary actions such as torture, rape, murder, destruction of property, death of civilians, etc., etc., etc. The lawyer quoted in the OP is probably correct:the worst things he's heard about U.S. actions pale in comparison to war crimes that have been prosecuted, but that doesn't resolve the _legality_ of the invasion of Iraq in terms of _international law governing the classification and conduct of "just war."_


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 20, 2009)

Id be wary of stating that as a lawyer... 

Arent we prosecuting the ones who said "Waterboarding isnt torture?"

It's only a hop skip and a jump to jailing ones who say "Nahh, you aint commiting a crime"


----------



## howard (Jun 20, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Think you'll have to post up proof of that though.



Don't hold your breath. :lol:


----------



## jarrod (Jun 20, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> we WOULD have had UN co-operation, but China, Germany and France blocked it, and GUESS WHAT?? we found out that all three countries had deals with Saddam that were ILLEGAL under the UN sanctions.
> 
> wonder why they blocked us, huh?
> 
> face it, you are wrong, W R O N G wrong, misinformed, incorrect, WRONG.



i guess i must be wrong, otherwise you wouldn't have said it so many times.  

jf


----------



## JDenver (Jun 20, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> we WOULD have had UN co-operation, but China, Germany and France blocked it, and GUESS WHAT?? we found out that all three countries had deals with Saddam that were ILLEGAL under the UN sanctions.
> 
> wonder why they blocked us, huh?
> 
> face it, you are wrong, W R O N G wrong, misinformed, incorrect, WRONG.



Are you suggesting that no prominent American companies were illegally trading with Iraq during the sanction period?  If you are, I'll say you are misinformed.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 20, 2009)

The UN is worthless. We are not as a country under any way shape or form under UN rule, as much as the apologists and non Americans would like you to think.
The sooner we toss the UN to the side the better, there has been few organizations on this planet as corrupt and inefficient and inept as the UN.
Without the Monetary support of the US the UN would be a penniless pile of dung, rather then the expensive pile of dung it is now.
Its pretty simple, those that support the war on Iraq have more then enough argument to justify it.

Those against the war on Iraq have more then enough wiggle room to argue it was unjust.

So really either side can effectively argue their point, there is just to much grey area here.

My view is the war was just, we just have had our heads up our asses and held our soldiers hands behind their backs as we have sent them to fight everywhere since Vietnam.

Maybe one day when we decide to go to war we actually do it to our fullest potential and simply go in an take out everything we need without hampering ourselves to make it look fair. Warfare should not be fair, it should be done to win plain and simple. I am not talking about nuking the place either, or commiting mass genocide. Committing to rebuild  everything at our own cost is ridiculous as well.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 20, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Think you'll have to post up proof of that though.


*http://newsbusters.org/node/2538*
_Roth: The investigators say it was a global looting of the humanitarian program. companies from 66 nations, some household names. The report says a Daimler Chrysler employee paid $7,000 extra to Iraq on a contract violating U.N. sanctions. Volcker says the firm was unaware of the payment. The company said it could not comment because of pending investigations. A subsidiary of Volvo group of Sweden, Volvo CE, a maker of heavy equipment was listed as paying more than $300,000 in kickbacks in connection with contracts. The company told Volckers panel the conclusions are wrong and the evidence is unfamiliar to the firm. The panel says three Siemens subsidiaries paid kickbacks to the regime in order to get contracts. The company told Volcker's commission it's puzzled by the premature and unjustified findings. Most of the companies sited in the report are French or Russian. UN investigators remain perplexed why the UN system, member countries, and banks failed to stop the corruption even though they knew what was taking place

_*http://brain-terminal.com/posts/2004/02/17/how-the-un-helped-saddam-buy-allies*_

Some of these allies included a close political associate and financial backer of French President Jacques Chirac, Russian political figures including the Russian ambassador to Baghdad and officials in the office of President Vladimir Putin, George Galloway, a British member of Parliament, and even some__gasp!prominent journalists.

_I will take that apology now Irene. And you too Howard.How is it that this "arrogant american" as I was called recently knows about this, but apparently, so many DONT know what they are talking about?


----------



## howard (Jun 20, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> I will take that apology now Irene. And you too Howard.



:lfao:

I don't owe you an apology for anything.

First of all, your "evidence" contains nothing that says anything to the effect that "China, Germany and France... had deals with Saddam that were ILLEGAL under the UN sanctions (your words)."  I'll make a big leap of faith and assume that you understand the difference between a country doing something - which happens through its government, clandestinely or not - and companies or citizens of countries doing something. If you do, what you posted does nothing to support your claim.

As for Russia, well, what a surprise. Crookedness from Putin's government? You don't say.

btw, when are you going to post your "proof" that Iraq was responsible for the 9/11 attacks? When you post incontrovertible proof of that, I'll apologize to you (Colin Powell's little act with the vial at the UN doesn't count). In the meantime, you can continue to embarrass yourself here.


----------



## JDenver (Jun 20, 2009)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> .....there has been few organizations on this planet as corrupt and inefficient and inept as the UN......



You're right.  America is one of those few.  Maybe it should be dismantled?



LuckyKBoxer said:


> Without the Monetary support of the US the UN would be a penniless pile of dung, rather then the expensive pile of dung it is now.



Considering the US refused to pay its bill to the UN for almost a decade, prompting it to consider moving out of N.Y, this is an interesting statement.



LuckyKBoxer said:


> Its pretty simple, those that support the war on Iraq have more then enough argument to justify it.



I'd love to hear them, cause none of the ones that I've heard are particularly compelling.



LuckyKBoxer said:


> So really either side can effectively argue their point, there is just to much grey area here.


 
You can have your opinion, but I'll go with invading a country that has done nothing to you or your allies is pretty flimsy justification for a war which has cost hundreds of billions and killed and crippled tens of thousands.



LuckyKBoxer said:


> Maybe one day when we decide to go to war we actually do it to our fullest potential and simply go in an take out everything we need without hampering ourselves to make it look fair. Warfare should not be fair, it should be done to win plain and simple.



I guess.  What does 'winning' a war look like, anyways?  WWII was born out of 'winning' WWI and pitting Germany into an economic mess.  

As for hampering yourselves, and to the original post, I'm not sure that the use of white phosphorous, a banned weapon in civilian areas, could be considered 'hampered' or NOT a war crime.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 20, 2009)

howard said:


> Don't hold your breath. :lol:




wasnt that you? 

and wernt you wrong?


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 20, 2009)

howard said:


> :lfao:
> 
> btw, when are you going to post your "proof" that Iraq was responsible for the 9/11 attacks? When you post incontrovertible proof of that, I'll apologize to you (Colin Powell's little act with the vial at the UN doesn't count). In the meantime, you can continue to embarrass yourself here.



uh, dude?

I didnt claim that iraq was behind 9-11, so i am not sure what windmill you are chasing, but it is the WRONG one.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 20, 2009)

JDenver said:


> You're right.  America is one of those few.  Maybe it should be dismantled?



uh, excuse me, exactly where in the **** are YOU from?


----------



## JDenver (Jun 20, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> uh, excuse me, exactly where in the **** are YOU from?



Canada.

I'm guessing that you disagree with me.  So Americans feel like their country runs very efficiently?  Politicans are not corrupt and neither are the banks or major corporations?  The ballooning debt, economic collapse, dismal evaluations in healthcare and education by international standards, these are signals of efficiency and competency?  

Maybe America isn't a festering hole of corruption-----but then maybe neither is the UN.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 20, 2009)

JDenver said:


> Canada.
> 
> I'm guessing that you disagree with me.  So Americans feel like their country runs very efficiently?  Politicans are not corrupt and neither are the banks or major corporations?  The ballooning debt, economic collapse, dismal evaluations in healthcare and education by international standards, these are signals of efficiency and competency?
> 
> Maybe America isn't a festering hole of corruption-----but then maybe neither is the UN.



no, the UN is in fact a morally and ethicly bankrupt failure of a once good idea.

america is great not because we dont fail, or dont have problems, we are great because we always aim high, DESPITE our problems.

what other western country has elected a black leader?

canada?

England?

France?

NOPE

america

what other country ALWAYS helps people?

where else are people lined up to get into?

all of this:
_"I'm guessing that you disagree with me. So Americans feel like their country runs very efficiently? Politicans are not corrupt and neither are the banks or major corporations? The ballooning debt, economic collapse, dismal evaluations in healthcare and education by international standards, these are signals of efficiency and competency?"_

is a direct result of too much leftist socialist crap.

get rid of that and america will be the leader in all things, just like we once were.

and i am not slamming on canada, i am just speakign up for america


----------



## jarrod (Jun 20, 2009)

JDenver said:


> Canada.
> 
> I'm guessing that you disagree with me.  So Americans feel like their country runs very efficiently?  Politicans are not corrupt and neither are the banks or major corporations?  The ballooning debt, economic collapse, dismal evaluations in healthcare and education by international standards, these are signals of efficiency and competency?
> 
> Maybe America isn't a festering hole of corruption-----but then maybe neither is the UN.



one second there hoss.  

i'm with you about the iraq war, but america remains a damn fine nation full of good people.  name me one powerful country that doesn't have corrupt politicians, banks, & major corporations.  that's because people attracted to those areas are usually attracted to money & power.  money & power tend to corrupt.  these aren't problems particular to america, although are problems may be more prominent at this moment in history.

jf


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jun 21, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Actually, he's *right.* More to the point, _international law_ recognizes only 3 legal reasons for war: self defense (which his firing on our planes doesn't really justify, since, as jarrod pointed out, it was under the auspices of the U.N. that those fly overs occured), to aid an ally with whom the country has a mutual defense pact, like NATO, and actions otherwise sanctioned by the U.N.
> 
> _Legally,_ then, the lawyer in the original post is on shaky ground, if it can be proven that the invasion of Iraq by the U.S. wasn't self-defense.Since we clearly didn't invade to aid an ally with whom we have a mutual defense pact, and since it clearly _wasn't_ santioned by the U.N. (whether it should have been or not is another story) the U.S. really could be guilty of a war crime in simply invading, never mind any subsequent or ancillary actions such as torture, rape, murder, destruction of property, death of civilians, etc., etc., etc. The lawyer quoted in the OP is probably correct:the worst things he's heard about U.S. actions pale in comparison to war crimes that have been prosecuted, but that doesn't resolve the _legality_ of the invasion of Iraq in terms of _international law governing the classification and conduct of "just war."_


 
Curious.  Does the fact that Saddam Hussein paid the families of suicide bombers $25,000 to blow themselves up in Israel (a U.S. ally), thereby encouraging such action, count?  And we do have a defense pact with Israel, although it does specifically refer to the Israeli-Egyptian treaty.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 21, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Curious. Does the fact that Saddam Hussein paid the families of suicide bombers $25,000 to blow themselves up in Israel (a U.S. ally), thereby encouraging such action, count?


 
*No.*

He paid those families after the fact-it hasn't been proven that he at all was involved in planning or "material support," which is what it would take for it to begin "to count." The _honoraria_ bestowed upon the families after the bombers took their lives was a "gesture of respect"-one also extended to Palestinians killed in fighting at the time, though there was a payscale involved: $25,000 for suicide-bombers and $10,000 for fighters. Most importantly, Saddam wasn't the only one making such payments, and payments of this nature are _still_ being made by charities based in Suadi Arabia and Qatar-*both U.S. allies*-but _we almost never hear about those in any of the media_, so-called "left," "right" or whatever.

Wonder why that is???



5-0 Kenpo said:


> And we do have a defense pact with Israel, although it does specifically refer to the Israeli-Egyptian treaty.


 
Support of grieving families afterward does not constitute an "act of war." Though one can easily see how such rewards might make it easier for a potential suicide bomber to make up their minds, it would be naive in extreme to think that they any of them are motivated primarily by money. I'd venture that money for their surviving relatives is likely the furthest thing from their minds, most of the time.

And yes, you're quite right about our defense pact with Israel-therefore, Iraq's passive-agression towards Israel would not be actionable under that treaty, any more than internal conflicts between Israel and the Palestinians would be.

Of course, the entire discussion is moot, since the U.S. isn't a signatory to the treaty that created the ICC in the first place. Under Clinton we kind of signed it-we were going to verify the way it worked before signing, but after that portion of ratification was completed in 2002, George W. Bush decided we weren't going to sign and send it on to the Senate for ratification at all.

Wonder why that is? Not that it was necessarily a bad thing, mind you, but since it was specifically set up for _genocide, *war crimes*, and crimes agains humanity_, our rejection of it was somewhat.......oddly timed.


----------



## JDenver (Jun 21, 2009)

I appreciate the replies-

I wanna also say that America is, and continues to be, very revered by all people.  It's true of course.  I really like what you folks said about your country....well, except for the 'socialist left leaning' thing, but that's okay!

My point was that folks love to bash on the UN, and I was drawing a parallel.  I like TFsts post about how the UN was a great idea that might be failing in practice.  I would add that, and this is unfortunate, under the Bush admin. America actively worked to ensure that the UN didn't function well.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 21, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> *http://newsbusters.org/node/2538*
> _Roth: The investigators say it was a global looting of the humanitarian program. companies from 66 nations, some household names. The report says a Daimler Chrysler employee paid $7,000 extra to Iraq on a contract violating U.N. sanctions. Volcker says the firm was unaware of the payment. The company said it could not comment because of pending investigations. A subsidiary of Volvo group of Sweden, Volvo CE, a maker of heavy equipment was listed as paying more than $300,000 in kickbacks in connection with contracts. The company told Volcker&#8217;s panel the conclusions are wrong and the evidence is unfamiliar to the firm. The panel says three Siemens subsidiaries paid kickbacks to the regime in order to get contracts. The company told Volcker's commission it's puzzled by the premature and unjustified findings. Most of the companies sited in the report are French or Russian. UN investigators remain perplexed why the UN system, member countries, and banks failed to stop the corruption even though they knew what was taking place_
> 
> *http://brain-terminal.com/posts/2004/02/17/how-the-un-helped-saddam-buy-allies*
> ...


 

Er no, I don't think an apology is called for from me as I simply asked for you to put some proof up as I hadn't heard anything about the companies trading. I didn't disbelieve you I simply thought you'd have a link I didn't so I could have a read for myself. Don't start on me, I didn't make the sarky coment either nor offer an opinion. I just wanted to know what you were talking about.


----------



## howard (Jun 21, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> and wernt you wrong?



No, I wasn't wrong.

You have not posted any evidence that the governments of China, France or Germany violated UN sanctions against Saddam Hussein's government. That screed that you posted about companies doesn't support your "argument".

You're the one who appears to be "wrong" here, not that it matters a whit to me.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 21, 2009)

Howard

yes, you were wrong, yes, i was right, yes, your refusal to admit it is pathetic

whatever, this isnt a good use of my time trying to convince someone of the truth they refuse to admit.

Tez,
here is even MORE information for you



News
World news
 

*France's Saddam deals revealed*




 Buzz up!
 Digg it
 


 Antony Barnett and Martin Bright
 The Observer,			 				            Sunday 10 October 2004 01.12 BST
Article history
    Dramatic new details of France's secret dealings with Saddam Hussein's regime have emerged as part of a fresh corruption investigation into alleged illicit oil deals. Three executives of France's largest oil corporation have been charged in Paris over claims that they funnelled millions of dollars through a Swiss company in order to bribe officials to gain oil deals in Iraq and Russia. 
The disclosure will embarrass President Jacques Chirac as it follows on from claims last week by the Iraq Survey Group that Saddam indirectly paid French politicians and individuals to gain support for lifting UN sanctions and influencing French policy. The ISG's claims were dismissed by Chirac as politically motivated. 
In the Nineties, French oil companies Total and Elf-Aquitaine won the rights to develop the $3.4 billion Bin Umar project and the vast Majnoon field in southern Iraq. Total, which acquired Elf, had been unable to exploit these fields while the UN trade embargo against Iraq was still in place. US hawks have accused France of opposing the Iraq war in order to protect its vast oil interests in the country. The three Total executives, arrested after raids on the firm's French headquarters on 29 September, have all been charged with complicity in the improper use of corporate funds. 





http://www.heritage.org/research/iraq/wm217.cfm




*France*



France controls over 22.5 percent of Iraq's imports.[1] French total trade with Iraq under the oil-for-food program is the third largest, totaling $3.1 billion since 1996, according to the United Nations.[2] 
In 2001 France became Iraq's largest European trading partner. Roughly 60 French companies did an estimated $1.5 billion in trade with Baghdad in 2001 under the U.N. oil-for-food program.[3]
France's largest oil company, Total Fina Elf, has negotiated extensive oil contracts to develop the Majnoon and Nahr Umar oil fields in southern Iraq. Both the Majnoon and Nahr Umar fields are estimated to contain as much as 25 percent of the country's oil reserves. The two fields purportedly contain an estimated 26 billion barrels of oil.[4] In 2002, the non-war price per barrel of oil was $25. Based on that average these two fields have the potential to provide a gross return near $650 billion. 
France's Alcatel company, a major telecom firm, is negotiating a $76 million contract to rehabilitate Iraq's telephone system.[5]
In 2001 French carmaker Renault SA sold $75 million worth of farming equipment to Iraq.[6]
More objections have been lodged against French export contracts with Iraq than any other exporting country under the oil-for-food program, according to a report published by the London Times. In addition French companies have signed contracts with Iraq worth more than $150 million that are suspected of being linked to its military operations.[7] Some of the goods offered by French companies to Iraq, detailed by UN documents, include refrigerated trucks that can be used as storage facilities and mobile laboratories for biological weapons. 
Iraq owes France an estimated $6 billion in foreign debt accrued from arms sales in the 1970s and '80s.[8] 
From 1981 to 2001, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), France was responsible for over 13 percent of Iraq's arms imports.[9]
*Germany* 

Direct trade between Germany and Iraq amounts to about $350 million annually, and another $1 billion is reportedly sold through third parties.[10] 
It has recently been reported that Saddam Hussein has ordered Iraqi domestic businesses to show preference to German companies as a reward for Germany's "firm positive stand in rejecting the launching of a military attack against Iraq." It was also reported that over 101 German companies were present at the Baghdad Annual exposition.[11] 
During the 35th Annual Baghdad International Fair in November 2002, a German company signed a contract for $80 million for 5,000 cars and spare parts.[12] 
In 2002, DaimlerChrysler was awarded over $13 million in contracts for German trucks and spare parts.[13] 
Germany is owed billions by Iraq in foreign debt generated during the 1980's.[14] 
German officials are investigating a German corporation accused of illegally channeling weapons to Iraq via Jordan. The equipment in question is used for boring the barrels of large cannons and is allegedly intended for Saddam Hussein's Al Fao Supercannon project.[15] An article in the German daily _Tageszeitung_ reported that of the more than 80 German companies that have done business with Baghdad since around 1975 and have continued to do so up until 2001, many have supplied whole systems or components for weapons of mass destruction. 
*Russia* 

Russia controls roughly 5.8 percent of Iraq's annual imports.[16] Under the U.N. oil-for-food program, Russia's total trade with Iraq was somewhere between $530 million and $1 billion for the six months ending in December of 2001.[17] 
According to the Russian Ambassador to Iraq, Vladimir Titorenko, new contracts worth another $200 million under the U.N. oil-for-food program are to be signed over the next three months.[18] 
Russia's LUKoil negotiated a $4 billion, 23-year contract in 1997 to rehabilitate the 15 billion-barrel West Qurna field in southern Iraq. Work on the oil field was expected to commence upon cancellation of U.N. sanctions on Iraq. The deal is currently on hold.[19] 
In October 2001, Salvneft, a Russian&#8211;Belarus company, negotiated a $52 million service contract to drill at the Tuba field in Southern Iraq.[20] 
In April 2001, Russia's Zaruezhneft and Tatneft companies received a service contract to drill in the Saddam, Kirkuk, and Bai Hassan fields to rehabilitate the fields and reduce water incursion. Together the deals were valued at $13.2 million.[21] 
A future $40 billion Iraqi&#8211;Russian economic agreement, reportedly signed in 2002, would allow for extensive oil exploration opportunities throughout western Iraq.[22] The proposal calls for 67 new projects, over a 10-year time frame, to explore and further develop fields in southern Iraq and the Western Desert, including the Suba, Luhais, West Qurna, and Rumaila projects. Additional projects added to the deal include second-phase construction of a pipeline running from southern to northern Iraq, and extensive drilling and gas projects. Work on these projects would commence upon cancellation of sanctions.[23] 
Russia's Gazprom Company over the past few years has signed contracts worth $18 million to repair gas stations in Iraq.[24] 
The former Soviet Union was the premier supplier of Iraqi arms. From 1981 to 2001, Russia supplied Iraq with 50 percent of its arms.[25] 
Soviet-era debt of $7 billion through $8 billion was generated by arms sales to Iraq during the 1980&#8211;1988 Iran&#8211;Iraq war. 
Three Russian firms are suspected of selling electronic jamming equipment, antitank missiles and thousands of night-vision goggles to Iraq in violation of U.N. sanctions.[26]  Two of the companies identified are Aviaconversiya and KBP Tula. 
*China* 

China controls roughly 5.8 percent of Iraq's annual imports.[27] 
China National Oil Company, partnered with China North Industries Corp., negotiated a 22-year-long deal for future oil exploration in the Al Ahdab field in southern Iraq.[28] 
In recent years, the Chinese Aero-Technology Import&#8211;Export Company (CATIC) has been contracted to sell "meteorological satellite" and "surface observation" equipment to Iraq. The U.N. oil-for-food program approved this contract.[29] 
CATIC also won approval from the U.N. in July 2000 to sell $2 million worth of fiber optic cables. This and similar contracts approved were disguised as telecommunications gear. These cables can be used for secure data and communications links between national command and control centers and long-range search radar, targeting radar, and missile-launch units, according to U.S. officials. In addition, China National Electric Wire & Cable and China National Technical Import Telecommunications Equipment Company are believed to have sold Iraq $6 million and $15.5 million worth of communications equipment and other unspecified supplies, respectively.[30] 
According to a report from SIPRI, from 1981 to 2001, China was the second largest supplier of weapons and arms to Iraq, supplying over 18 percent of Iraq's weapons imports.[31]


and WHO refused to authorize the iraq action?

France
Germany
China


----------



## howard (Jun 21, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> yes, you were wrong, yes, i was right, yes, you are either too lazy to actually READ the links, or search for yourself, or too scared to admit it.
> 
> whatever, this isnt a good use of my time trying to convince someone of the truth they refuse to admit.



:lfao:

OK, now I get it. He who yells loudest is "right", and the rest of us are "wrong".

You still have not posted anything that confirms that the governments you mentioned violated UN sanctions against Iraq.

By the way, speaking of lazy... if you'd bother to learn to punctuate properly and use something approaching correct English grammar, you'd be a lot easier to understand. Now that would be a good use of your time.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 21, 2009)

TF, ta muchly.
I shall have a read up in a minute, have to cook dinner first lol!


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 21, 2009)

ah, the old "ignore the facts, and insult the poster" tactic

yep, you are a true democrat!!





howard said:


> :lfao:
> 
> OK, now I get it. He who yells loudest is "right", and the rest of us are "wrong".
> 
> ...


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 21, 2009)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/20/iraq.oil
*Russia 'giving illegal millions to Saddam for trade deals'*




 Buzz up!
 Digg it
 


 Nick Paton Walsh  in Moscow
 The Guardian,			 				            Tuesday 20 August 2002 15.14 BST
Article history
    Russian officials have given millions of dollars in illegal payments to Saddam Hussein's regime to secure oil purchases from Iraq, according to western diplomatic sources. Emercom, the Russian government ministry which distributes aid in emergency situations, signed a $270m deal last month under the UN oil-for-food programme, enabling it to buy 12m barrels of Iraqi crude oil. 
But western diplomats have told the Guardian that they have seen evidence that large "sweetener" payments were made to Baghdad to secure the deal. 
Such payments are illegal under international law, since security council resolutions prohibit companies making deals with Iraq unless they are supervised by the UN sanctions committee. 



http://www.untergeek.com/?p=333
The French made a lot of money off of Saddam Husseins government in Iraq. They sold *illegal* weapons and dual-use military parts, all specifically banned by multiple U.N. Resolutions, to Saddam for years. When Pres. Bush started talking about taking Saddam out, the French quickly saw a big source of income drying up.


http://www.mail-archive.com/sam11@erols.com/msg00384.html


"No wonder the French are opposing us," one U.S. intelligence official
remarked after *illegal* sales to Iraq of military and dual-use parts,
originating in France, were discovered early last year before the war began.


http://books.google.com/books?id=Rl...f5cQO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10


the truth is staring you in the face Howard. It is up to you wether you man up and admit the truth or keep squawking the party line.


----------



## jarrod (Jun 21, 2009)

JDenver said:


> I appreciate the replies-
> 
> I wanna also say that America is, and continues to be, very revered by all people.  It's true of course.  I really like what you folks said about your country....well, except for the 'socialist left leaning' thing, but that's okay!
> 
> My point was that folks love to bash on the UN, and I was drawing a parallel.  I like TFsts post about how the UN was a great idea that might be failing in practice.  I would add that, and this is unfortunate, under the Bush admin. America actively worked to ensure that the UN didn't function well.




i see your point...the difference is that america is an actual nation: a geographic area, a culture, & a people...in short, america has to have some form of government, & unfortunately we are at point where that government is large & often inefficient.  on the other hand, the UN is an entirely different entity all together.  sort of a government without a nation.  i don't condemn the UN wholesale, but since corruption & government go hand in hand, i question whether or not we need a large, nationless government trying to dictate policy to the rest of the world.  

i'm not saying it's right for the US to dictate world policy either, but that's the nature of empires.  it's also their nature to eventually fold, then stabilize into a relatively prosperous, less militaristic nation.  spain, UK, portugal, france, japan...all one time sprawling empires, now relatatively quiet, economically sound countries doing their own thing.  the US is at a shaky point in history, but i still believe the future holds good things.  but the time between now & then is going to suck a little.

jf


----------



## jarrod (Jun 21, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/20/iraq.oil
> the truth is staring you in the face Howard. It is up to you wether you man up and admit the truth or keep squawking the party line.



TF, i'm not sure you're in a position to criticize someone for towing the party line.  

jf


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 21, 2009)

mine just happens to be backed up by FACTS Jarrod, and i have proven


----------



## howard (Jun 21, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> the truth is staring you in the face Howard. It is up to you wether you man up and admit the truth or keep squawking the party line.



I'm not a member of any party. Don't surmise anything about me.

So you finally bother to post "facts" to support your argument. Until now, you hadn't posted anything but invective. Which means I haven't been wrong at all - especially given that I never claimed any of those governments did not break the sanctions.

Of course, that logic will be lost on you.

And just to repeat... why don't you try to learn how to express yourself properly in your native tongue ("wether"... I could go on and on)? You're an embarrassment to the rest of us Americans who bothered to pay attention in school.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 21, 2009)

*Folks, if the hostile bickering masquerading as debating that has been going on continues, The Study may be placed in read-only mode indefinitely.*


----------



## elder999 (Jun 21, 2009)

howard said:


> And just to repeat... why don't you try to learn how to express yourself properly in your native tongue ("wether"... I could go on and on)? You're an embarrassment to the rest of us Americans who bothered to pay attention in school.


 
You know, I pride myself on how much attention I paid in school. I'm especially proud of how I express myself in english;my usage, spelling and grammar came courtesy of my parents, of course, and Mr. Robert Hawkins, my 9th grade english composition teacher-I've been thinking about him a lot, lately, along with my dad.

My father was easily one of the most educated people you'd ever meet-two masters degrees, a PhD. and a Doctor of Divinity, and went to his deathbed talking about going back for another PhD. One of the things he taught me, though, is that intellect is like a pocket watch: a tool best brought out to tell the time, otherwise, you're just showing off that you have one. I haven't quite got that one down, yet, unfortunately.:lol:

The other thing he taught me, though, is not to look down on someone because I speak or write better than they do, or have more education, _or for any other reason that I come up with to believe I'm better than they are, *because I'm not.*_

I don't often agree with John-in fact, we've frequently disagreed on the particular subject of this thread-but I think pointing out his spelling and grammatical errors, rather than sticking to arguing against his points, _is poor form._

THen again, what do I know?

(My dad-50 years I've been trying to measure up to him, and I reckon I've gotten to about his belt buckle.....:lfao

Oh, and John? The malfeasances of other nations in regard to Iraq, and Iraq's participation in them in no way justifiy our going to war with Iraq, nor do they negate the possibility that doing so constituted a crime.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 21, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Oh, and John? The malfeasances of other nations in regard to Iraq, and Iraq's participation in them in no way justifiy our going to war with Iraq, nor do they negate the possibility that doing so constituted a crime.



Jeff,
I didnt say it justified our invasion of Iraq, did i?


Point A
FACT is, under the terms of the '91 cease fire, we were totally within our rights to invade since 1) they were shooting at the planes patrolling the no fly zones on an almost daily basis and 2) they refused to allow weapons inspections.

so while the idiots can SAY it was illegal, it wasnt.

POINT B
BUT, we went to the UN and made a case for invasion, that case was blocked by 3 countries, France, China and Germany. The links I have posted DO explain why the people that blocked the resolution to use force did so.

see, it works like this.

idiots squawk that since the UN didnt back us going into Iraq, that doing so was illegal

there is ample PROOF that the countries that blocked the resolution did so for financial reasons

That ALONE should negate ANY ONE claiming that lack of UN support made it a crime.

And that is ignoring Point A.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 21, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> Jeff,
> I didnt say it justified our invasion of Iraq, did i?


 
No, you didn't. I was just trying to get us back on point. :wink:




Twin Fist said:


> Point A
> FACT is, under the terms of the '91 cease fire, we were totally within our rights to invade since 1) they were shooting at the planes patrolling the no fly zones on an almost daily basis and 2) they refused to allow weapons inspections.
> 
> so while the idiots can SAY it was illegal, it wasnt.


 
The cease fire, and the U.N. resolutions that accompanied it have pretty vague wording in some regards, which shouldn't be surprising......

.....we're talking about the U.N., after all. 

In any case, they're all vague enough that prominent international lawyers like Michael Ramsey, professor of international law at the University of San Diego, California, have been saying for years (even years _before the 2002 invasion)_ that they could be used to justify using force against Iraq, as well as to oppose using force against Iraq.Case in point: the cease-fire itself. While there's no disputing that Iraq fired on American and British planes after the cease-fire took effect, it was up to the U.N. to say that it had been violated. While the rules of engagement certainly permitted the planes to fire back, it's not as though the U.S. could say, "well, they violated the cease-fire;send in the Marines" Some would argue that it was up to the Security Council to say that the cease-fire had been violated. Others have argued that the U.S. could have said the cease-fire was violated as soon as our planes are fired upon_. There certainly is no argument that Iraq *did* violate the cease-fire,_ there's just a rather convoluted one about whether or not the violation was enough justification for a unilateral, U.S. led invasion-that is to say, _one without the benefit of the aegis of the U.N._





Twin Fist said:


> _POINT B_
> _BUT, we went to the UN and made a case for invasion, that case was blocked by 3 countries, France, China and Germany. The links I have posted DO explain why the people that blocked the resolution to use force did so._
> 
> _see, it works like this._
> ...


 
While on the surface this makes sense, it resonates with a fundamental cognitive dissonance: we went to the U.N. to get a resolution to justify the use of force, arguing that Iraq had violated _U.N. sanctions_-including the cease-fire of 1991-and were turned down. That there were possible ulterior motives for some of the nations that voted it down to do so has been argued from _before_ any actual vote was taken, but it is immaterial. The fact remains that _we sought a resolution from the U.N., didn't get it, and invaded anyway with the justification that *Iraq violated U.N. resolutions.*_

In effect, we acted in defiance of the U.N. to enforce the U.N.'s business. This is illogical, and, as I said, makes the argument cognitively dissonant.

Not saying we weren't justified, or that we are in violation of international law-just that it's not as simple as you'd present it to be.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 21, 2009)

i think it IS that simple, just because they cant pull their thumbs out NOW, doesnt change the fact that we had the authority to do it based on the documents from 1992


----------



## elder999 (Jun 21, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> i think it IS that simple, just because they cant pull their thumbs out NOW, doesnt change the fact that we had the authority to do it based on the documents from 1992


 

What you're missing is that is clearly *not a fact* that we had that authority-it's ambiguous at best. Resolution 1441 says something to the effect of "serious consequences" for violations of the other resolutions, but nothing specific about the use of force-as other resolutions, such as those for Kuwait, Haiti and Bosnia specified.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 21, 2009)

IF the 1992 hostilities were stopped by a cease fire, and the iraqi's violated that cease fire (these are all facts mind you, not up for dispute) then the cease fire is over, and hostilities can start all up again.

thats the thing so many people miss

it was never "over"

it was put on a conditional hold

they violated those conditions


----------



## elder999 (Jun 21, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> IF the 1992 hostilities were stopped by a cease fire, and the iraqi's violated that cease fire (these are all facts mind you, not up for dispute) then the cease fire is over, and hostilities can start all up again.
> 
> thats the thing so many people miss
> 
> ...




In principle, you might be correct. _Legally_, however, many argue that the cease-fire isn't over until the U.N. approves _yet another resolution saying as much._ Even though the U.S. did the bulk of the work back then, it was done under the auspices of the U.N., and the cease-fire and conditions for compliance from Iraq, were all written by and approved by the U.N., and it was the U.N. that signed them, not the U.S. Not missing anything, and I can't tell you how much I agree with what you're saying, _in principle._ Since we're talking *facts*, though, we have to recognize that all those things: the cease-fire, conditions for compliance from Iraq, restriction of weapons and trade, were all conditions set by the U.N., and set out in U.N. resolutions. As much as we'd like to _think_ that the "cease-fire" was with the U.S., it actually was with the U.N.


----------



## Scott T (Jun 21, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> IF the 1992 hostilities were stopped by a cease fire, and the iraqi's violated that cease fire (these are all facts mind you, not up for dispute) then the cease fire is over, and hostilities can start all up again.
> 
> thats the thing so many people miss
> 
> ...


Are you going to use the same reasoning to defend North Korea's coming attack of the South when it happens, or does that line of logic only work for the supposed 'good guys'?


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 21, 2009)

the south koreans have not violated the cease fire.

see? part of being the 'good guys" is that generally? they follow the rules.............


----------



## Scott T (Jun 21, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> the south koreans have not violated the cease fire.
> 
> see? part of being the 'good guys" is that generally? they follow the rules.............



LMAO!

Really? Were the 'good-guys' following the rules when the pointy-gun was authorized to invade Iraq?

If so, whose rules. The ceasefire was negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations. Was it the UN that authorized the violation of that cease-fire by the US and it's 'friends'?


----------



## JDenver (Jun 21, 2009)

Haliburton and JP Morgan also had their mitts in Iraq during the sanction period.  Companies from every country in the world had their fingers in Iraq during the sanction period.

Now that Iraq is a mess and needs significant rebuilding, companies from which country are benefitting?  

If it's fair to say that France, Germany and Russia opposed the war because they foresaw intense loss of profit, then it's equally fair to say that the war began because American companies foresaw intense future profit.  

By the by, if America makes $1 Billion annually selling arms to a country that has violated dozens of UN resolutions, would this be considered a similar transgression?  Cause they do......to Israel.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 21, 2009)

Scott T said:


> Was it the UN that authorized the violation of that cease-fire by the US and it's 'friends'?



The US didnt violate the cease fire with Iraq

Iraq shot at the planes that patrolled the no fly zone on an almost daily basis 

that violates it

they refused weapons inspectors

that violates it

you should study your history and current events harder, you are quite un-informed


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 21, 2009)

JDenver said:


> then it's equally fair to say that the war began because American companies foresaw intense future profit.



equally un-informed

things are not equal, not everyone is the same

some people or countries are the bad guys in some situations

and casting Israel as bad guys? thats just..................i cant say what it is. TOS here prohitits me


----------



## Scott T (Jun 21, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> The US didnt violate the cease fire with Iraq
> 
> Iraq shot at the planes that patrolled the no fly zone on an almost daily basis
> 
> ...


Actually, you are quite hypocritical. The terms of the ceasefire (and this has been said before) were under the auspices of the United Nations, not the United States. When the United States invaded Iraq, _it also violated the UN-authored ceasefire. _Despite Washington's misplaced arrogant belief, the US does not have the right to act unilaterally on behalf of the UN.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 21, 2009)

While I am sure you like to tell yourself that, for whatever reason, it doesnt however make it true.


----------



## JDenver (Jun 21, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> Iraq shot at the planes that patrolled the no fly zone on an almost daily basis
> 
> that violates it



Did you know that, throughout the 1990's, American planes constantly crossed into Iraqi airspace?  Did you know that they also ran sorties and bombed specific Iraqi targets?  



Twin Fist said:


> they refused weapons inspectors
> 
> that violates it



Only if you believe George Bush.  If you believe the actual weapons inspectors, Iraq didn't refuse their presence.



Twin Fist said:


> you should study your history and current events harder, you are quite un-informed



See above--------


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 21, 2009)

JDenver said:


> Did you know that, throughout the 1990's, American planes constantly crossed into Iraqi airspace?  Did you know that they also ran sorties and bombed specific Iraqi targets?



i suppose you can cite that american planes flew, UNPROVOKED into Iraqi airspace while NOT on no fly zone cap patrol?


----------



## JDenver (Jun 22, 2009)

THE GUARDIAN (2000)--

"The Royal Air Force, together with the US, bombs Iraq almost every day. Since December 1998, the Ministry of Defence has admitted dropping 780 tonnes of bombs on a country with which Britain is not at war. During the same period, the United States has conducted 24,000 combat missions over southern Iraq alone, mostly in populated areas."

Gotta run to work, but you get the idea.  I actually thought this was common knowledge because I used to see it everywhere.  Of course, that was in the early 2000's, before the second war.

Claiming that Iraq needed to be invaded because it was shooting down planes becomes an interesting statement when put up against this one.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 22, 2009)

There's a big enquiry here coming up about the Iraq war, it's supposed to be in secret but there's pressure (help put the pressure on, see below) on Gordon Brown to testify in public, thats where we may find out exactly what lies were told and what other shenanigans went on...or course we may not!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/generals-go-to-war-over-iraq-inquiry-1706908.html

Brits sign here! (before Wednesday)

http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/IraqInquiry


----------



## Big Don (Jun 22, 2009)

JDenver said:


> Claiming that Iraq needed to be invaded because it was shooting down planes becomes an interesting statement when put up against this one.


IIRC, they didn't manage to shoot down any. The mere act of shooting AT them was cause.


----------



## JDenver (Jun 22, 2009)

Big Don said:


> IIRC, they didn't manage to shoot down any. The mere act of shooting AT them was cause.



You missed reading WHY Iraq was shooting at American planes, which I posted a little earlier.  Both the US and Britain spent the better part of 8 years bombing the hell out of Iraq, all while trying to keep it very secret.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 22, 2009)

no link, no way to refute it, no thanks.


----------

