Monday December 1, 2008, 5:48 am


طلب جندي أميركي هرب من الجيش الأميركي لأنه يرفض الخدمة في العراق، اللجوء في المانيا موضحا انه لا يريد المشاركة في «جرائم حرب» على ما افاد محاميه. U.S. troops fled the request of the U.S. military because he refused to serve in Iraq, asylum in Germany, adding that he does not want to participate in the «war crimes» according to a lawyer.

واستقال طالب اللجوء اندري شيفرد (31 سنة) من الجيش الاميركي في يونيو 2007 لان وحدته كانت عائدة الى العراق بعد ان ارسل الى هناك بين سبتمبر 2004 وفبراير 2005». And the asylum seeker resigns Andre Shepherd (31 years) of the U.S. military in June 2007 because his unit was returning to Iraq after being sent there between September 2004 and February 2005 ».

وصرح رينهارد ماركس محامي شيفرد الذي هرب من الجيش ويعيش في المانيا لانه «لأ يريد المشاركة في الحرب الأميركية على العراق، التي لا تخضع للقانون الدولي واضافة الى ذلك لا يريد التورط في جرائم حرب». The lawyer said Reinhard Marx Shepherd, who escaped from the army and lived in Germany because he «did not want to participate in the American war on Iraq, which are not subject to international law and in addition to that, does not want involvement in war crimes».

Monday December 1, 2008, 5:50 am
If this soldier did not want to serve he should never have volunteered for the military. He was not drafted. And anyone who deserts during wartime is guilty of a very serious crime. He should be jailed for a very long time.

Monday December 1, 2008, 6:46 am
Unilaterally attacking and occupying a sovereign nation that had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11 should be illegal and the people that made those calls should be held accountable.

Monday December 1, 2008, 6:52 am
I think he should not of volunteered for the Military.

Monday December 1, 2008, 7:33 am
I agree, Ben, the soldier did not sign up to committ war crimes.

Monday December 1, 2008, 7:35 am
None of us knew this was an illegal war in the beginning. These troops learned after the fact.

I don't blame this soldier for defecting. I wish more of them would. There is no pride in staying loyal to an illegal war and a lying government that forces you to murder innocent people and risk you life. What kind of sense does that make?

Monday December 1, 2008, 7:39 am
Soldiers know when they sign up for the military that they will not have freedom of choice in deciding whether or not to fight. They know before they sign up that they won't be asked for their opinion on the justness of any conflict.

They make a conscious choice to submit themselves to military discipline. And that discipline is necessary. We cannot allow soldiers the luxury of personal choice and opinion in battle. The military very rightly has different standards than most of us are allowed in private life. Because of the circumstances under which their work is performed.

Anyone who wants to exercise his right to freedom of speech and freedom of action in his work should not join the military. Because those things do not, and cannot, exist there.

Monday December 1, 2008, 7:41 am
And the soldier did have one legal option. No soldier can be ordered to perform an action which is illegal under military rules. One does not have to obey illegal orders. If the soldier believed he was being ordered to do something illegal, he could refuse. Of course, his definition of "illegal" and the actuality of the situation may differ.

Monday December 1, 2008, 8:49 am
Such bold insight, Lindsey! Have you served in the military?

I have. I'm a 20 year vet and served at the tail end of Viet Nam. I'm right up there with loyalty to my country and obeying military rules. I have the awards to prove it. However, most of the bravest soldiers will tell you that to serve a LIE is a disservice to your country.

Screw the legal options. They don't work for the most part. When you have a legal system as ours, I wouldn't trust it in this situation. Education without insight and experience can be deadly.

Monday December 1, 2008, 8:51 am
But if each individual soldier is allowed to decide what, in his opinion, is a "lie", there will be chaos and wholesale desertion.

If you don't like the rules, don't join the military. Period.

Monday December 1, 2008, 9:08 am

FRANKFURT (Reuters) - A U.S. soldier who deserted his unit to avoid returning to Iraq has applied for asylum in Germany, saying the Iraq war was illegal and that he could not support the "heinous acts" taking place.

Andre Shepherd, 31, who served in Iraq between September 2004 and February 2005 as an Apache helicopter mechanic in the 412th Aviation Support Battalion, has been living in Germany since deserting last year.

"When I read and heard about people being ripped to shreds from machine guns or being blown to bits by the Hellfire missiles I began to feel ashamed about what I was doing," Shepherd told a Frankfurt news conference Thursday.

"I could not in good conscience continue to serve."

Shepherd, originally from Cleveland, Ohio and ranked as an army specialist, applied for asylum in Germany Wednesday, said Tim Huber from the Military Counseling Network, a non-military group which is assisting him.

According to U.S. law, soldiers who desert during a time of war can face the death penalty.

The soldier said he was particularly hopeful he would be granted asylum in Germany, a staunch opponent of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, due to the legacy of the post-war trials of Nazi officials, notably in Nuremberg in 1945-1949.

"Here in Germany it was established that everyone, even a soldier, must take responsibility for his or her actions, no matter how many superiors are giving orders," he said.

Shepherd, who enlisted in January 2004, is only the second U.S. soldier to have applied to Germany for asylum "in a similar situation," said Claudia Moebus from the government's department for migration. The earlier application was later withdrawn.

The specialist was posted to Germany in 2005 where he undertook desk jobs, but he gradually began questioning the justification for the Iraq war and began worrying he would be sent back to serve there, said Huber.

"That's when he went AWOL," he added.

Earlier this year, Jeremy Hinzman, an American who applied for refugee status in Canada after deserting the U.S. Army when he received orders to go to Iraq, said he would appeal a deportation order returning him to the United States.

Another U.S. deserter, Robin Long, was deported from Canada in July and sent to jail in Colorado.

(Writing by Josie Cox; Editing by Sophie Hares)

Monday December 1, 2008, 9:09 am
Bravo for him!!!

"Here in Germany it was established that everyone, even a soldier, must take responsibility for his or her actions, no matter how many superiors are giving orders," he said.

Monday December 1, 2008, 9:11 am
"There is no pride in staying loyal to an illegal war and a lying government that forces you to murder innocent people and risk you life. What kind of sense does that make?"

Well said Marion!!

Monday December 1, 2008, 9:22 am
AniTa ~ Thank you for your support and clarity of thinking. It is so refreshing after 8 years of ignorance and deadly consequences as a result.

Monday December 1, 2008, 1:26 pm
The military leadership is under the impression that everyone that joins is a blindfolded sheep. For the most part, they are correct in their assumption. There are a few of us who actually have library cards, non-pickled livers and thought processes that aren't made up of 50% sports trivia and 50% movie quotes. We have a hard time dealing with our situations. Defending the Constitution against all enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC takes a lot out of a person who has a firm grasp of history and politics. We don't know what our leaders will ask of us when we join. If something makes your conscience uncomfortable, you should have the courage to do what is right from within the system if possible. If that isn't an option, find one that works for you. That's what this soldier did and in the end he'll be able to sleep at night knowing he's done all he can to make the situation better.

Monday December 1, 2008, 1:57 pm
hi uhoo its beena long time snse we have been friends this l like cos as you know my friend g w busgh and his puppet mr blair from uk deserve hanging thhey do though for war crimes blair admited he maid a mistake but went for imunity so l dont tink we can touch him londonerthey think they they are the uk.but keeep on the presure and lets al toethether put this man on the gallows .but then my friend l couldnt watch such a show like that give him the max jil sen

Monday December 1, 2008, 8:38 pm
"There is no pride in staying loyal to an illegal war and a lying government that forces you to murder innocent people and risk you life. What kind of sense does that make?"

Marion, what does make sense? Are you suggesting that all troops should lay down their weapons, and flee to another country or spend years in the stockade? would there be enough room?

What does make sense for the soldiers right now, to do..., all of them?

I am being serious, because this is why I can't discuss the military with my family members..heh. They keep on with their rage of loyalty to this nation and its people, and never hear my point. Like what you wrote...I don't understand how they can keep going...However, I am told that it is because I am a whimp and don't care for our nation. That "I" could be considered "the traitor." I want Peace and No War. They continue to serve...., and it is very frustrating. I love my family.

I would LOVE to lay out to them A SOLUTION that would end anyone killing anyone. Any killing is wrong. I am so passed, "we never should have gone in Iraq," because almost everyone knows this by now. For me now it is, "get the heck out of Iraq" and anywhere else the U.S. is killing people. It is like I am so disappointed in the choices that others make, but I do love them and I don't want them to die. I guess that is why I am so fired up in my area about these recruiters' tactics, especially with less students qualifying for financial aid or not being able to afford it. I feel they should NOT be allowed to be in our children's schools with tables set up, often. I am so tired of hearing, "but they pay for all my college." ugh

Great replies, noted and thank you Uhoud

Monday December 1, 2008, 8:45 pm
Military recruiters are like any other college or job recruiters - they offer students a choice - a voluntary one. And it's a choice that makes sense for some of them. And doesn't for others. If the military happened to be such a poor choice across the board, there would be no re-enlistments. And many do re-enlist. And many make the military their career. And that career can be especially good for those people who don't have a college education. It's all just a matter of personal choice.

Monday December 1, 2008, 10:15 pm
True Lindsey, some have served over 20 years and are career members. However, joining the U.S. military isn't a wise choice, because of who controls the rank of orders. They are corrupt too! If someone makes the choice to join the service actually understanding that "they might kill people" in the name of our nation and its people......., then I don't support that action. However, that is my opinion and choice, since I am Pro-Peace, No Wars. This corrupt system calls invasions with total destruction, WARS...., and that is a deceitful action to the troops and the people of the U.S.

Monday December 1, 2008, 10:35 pm
well said Marion and AniTa
Return troops home thats the solution

Monday December 1, 2008, 10:37 pm
He is humanbeen thus why he refuse to kill inocents he want to stop war crimes against civilian.

Monday December 1, 2008, 10:59 pm
Dar ~ Like most soldiers, I joined the war early in life to pay bills and receive benefits for my family. Most of us joined during peace time and had no idea how corrupt the system is. Like them, I truly believed in protecting my country from enemies - still do - but have a different understanding of what that means from what I have learned since then.

This "personal choice" is no different than a civilian going to work for a corrupt employer only to turn around and walk off the job because of abuse or refusing to do something that is illegal or unethical for the employer. Of course, military contracts are different, especially during war time. Yet, conscientious objectors can receive pardons after it is found the war was illegal. Who wants to wait years for that? And there's no guarantee that will happen.

There's no getting around it: we must have a military. Native Americans always had there soldiers. All tribes do and all nations do. It's why we have locks on our doors. The moment you let your guard down is just when a criminal might invade your home. So there's no getting around having a military. What is key is having an honest leader who doesn't send soldiers to war on a lie. My thought is we should use our soldiers to protect our homeland only from attack.

What should the soldiers do? Now that we know this is an illegal war, our troops should stop fighting. Simply lay down their weapons and refuse to fight. They can do it en masse all at once where there is no need to defect. Most of the officers would no doubt join them. There would be no way to arrest all these soldiers. I doubt they will ever do this because not enough will go for it, but that is what they should do. They have the support of the majority of Americans who want the soldiers out of there, including the Iraqis.

Monday December 1, 2008, 11:16 pm
I think being a soldier is much different than being an employee for the United States. Just my opinion. I do know for a fact many of these troops want out of the Middle East, all of it. However, no way would they do like you wrote of ALL putting their weapons down. To even think that they HAD that option, would assume we knew everything about their individual circumstances, but we don't. If this was such a big possibility, I wouldn't have so much conflict with the members in my family who served over 20 years, and those still serving. Many who serve this nation, come from generations of military. Personal choice for every person in our military in the Middle East, doesn't come so easy or without huge conflicts when children and spouses are involved, and it all just isn't that easy. I mean, I wish everyone would LOVE each other, but that isn't going to happen. I can remind, but not force. It is for each one to handle towards their own unique circumstances. I didn't mean no military in the U.S., I said we need to come home from killing from whomever or wherever we are killing on the globe.

Putting down the weapons isn't an option for too many...., in their own opinion. So this doesn't become a solution, in my opinion.

Monday December 1, 2008, 11:48 pm
I might not be in the thick of things here in the Middle East but I'd much rather be at home with my wife and children. Yes, defecting is an option but not when I've put in 15 years already. After the first decade, they sort of have you stuck in many other ways than just starting illegal wars. I have a retirement and a future to plan for. Call me a hypocrite if you want but I choose to fight my battles from within where it's not expected.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 1:10 am
Yes they joined the military to pay bills and receive benefits for their families. They dont have other choice

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 1:29 am
Its not right to impose another culture or sell democracy to a culture that is older than USA

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 1:50 am
MANY of our young people enlist in the military without any real clue what they are getting themselves into. MANY of our current forces enlisted to get an education and/or to escape poverty or other disadvantaged situations. I know from a recruiter friend that enlistees are told many things of opportunites which they will never attain. Recruiters know kids don't understand that. I caanot help but have a very deep respect for anyone who leaves the military once they learn the truth of the lies they were told!!! BTW: My oldest son joined the Army during the Gulf War because he had a baby son who he wanted to be responsible for!

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 5:16 am
Yvonne, while we have no right to impose democracy on anyone, selling it is another matter. If, by that you mean trying hard to convince other nations that democracy is a good idea. Not only IS it a good idea but it benefits us to have as many democratic nations in the world as possible. Because other democratic nations generally don't want to blow up our landmarks and terrorize our citizens.

And the age of a culture has no bearing on anything. Older doesn't necessarily mean better.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 5:43 am
Dar D, anyone who joins the military must know that they may be required to kill other people. Aside from their deterrent effect, that's what soldiers are for: to fight wars. And fighting wars always involves killing. No one can be ignorant of that fact. Nor can they be under any misapprehension that war is always noble and uncontroversial. Recent history tells anyone otherwise (Korea, VietNam, the Gulf War, Afghanistan, Iraq). Some foolish enlistees may be irrational enough to try and convince themselves that it won't happen during their own enlistment; however, that's wishful thinking.

And Uhoud - yes people do have choices. They don't have to join the military (most people don't, after all.) If a person feels that the security and benefits are worth the risks - that's their own choice and they have a right to it. And I'm profoundly grateful to the men and women who DO make that choice. Because, if they didn't, then we'd have no choice other than to institute the draft again. A situation under which there truly is NO choice. Because we can't survive without a strong military.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 5:49 am
Lindsey right we cant survive without a strong military but they came to Iraq to help not to do war crimes against civilian. before 2003 the Iraqi Army is one of the strongest Army in the middle east but now we have milita and benafical weak Army can you tell me how we will survive. ?

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 5:56 am
Kathleen yes I accept what you said they joined the Army to go to finish there education to pay bills to help there families no way to them only join the Army I fell sad for them I remener one of them he work a clown in disny land one day he is sick and he is in duty he cry for him mother I gived him hug running to his officer asked him to give him 2 days reast he is sick and in duty I gave him thoraya phone and let him call his mother after two days he hug and thank me he said you are my older sister. They are not comming to kill us but Its the orders .... thats not their mistack Its the politions fault.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 5:58 am
You're quite right, Uhoud, that the Iraqi military was one of the strongest in the Middle East. Which is why Kuwait required the help of the U.S. to stop Iraq when it, without provocation, invaded that helpless little country to openly try and steal its oil and its land. Just thought I'd bring that up to remind you that it isn't only the U.S. who gets involved in what others consider to be unreasonable wars.

And as to how Iraq will defend itself once the U.S. military presence is gone - I don't know. And I have a feeling Iran is probably considering its invasion options in that regard even as we speak.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 6:55 am
"Not only IS it a good idea but it benefits us to have as many democratic nations in the world as possible."

What sheer arrogance!! Not only should we NOT try to "sell" democracy anywhere in the world, we don't even have it here. This is the same thinking that has gotten America in trouble by trying to change other nations into our model. For what? You can be sure it is to manipulate them and create a united force...like global domination.

Just like religious evangelism being spread around the world. How dare we think we have the best religion or governing system to push it on others? Only through walking that talk and being a model that other countries and people wish to emulate should it happen.

As for soldiers being under "any misapprehension" about fighting, read the above comment I made. Fighting an illegal war and killing innocent victims is wrong, immoral and possibly criminal when the truth is known to the soldier. It is now common knowledge this is an illegal war. However, the US government doesn't want to declare this as it would make the occupation criminal in itself and begs the question: is Bush a criminal if the war is on record as being illegal? I believe this is the reason he has not be tried for war crimes as no formal declaration has been made.

----
Today the world is the victim of propaganda because people are not intellectually competent. More than anything, the United States needs effective citizens competent to do their own thinking. -- William Mather Lewis - President ,George Washington University 1923 -1927

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 7:16 am
Marion, my remark was made solely in response to Dar D's comment that, "If someone makes the choice to join the service actually understanding that "they might kill people" in the name of our nation and its people, then I don't support that action." I was trying to point out to her that when anyone joins the military they do and must understand that at some point they may be required to kill - that possibility is part of the job description. And that new enlistees shouldn't try and kid themselves that they'll never be put in that position. That's all.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 7:24 am
I don't subscribe to the politically-correct view that everything is relative. There are certain things in this world which are always wrong. And there are certain things which are always right. Freedom is an absolute good. The ability to have choices in your life is an absolute good. The ability to have some say in political life is an absolute good. While no system is perfect and people can and do make wrong choices while utilizing their freedom, freedom itself remains good. The concept of having choices remains good.

Democracy may not be everything we'd like it to be - but it's a hell of a lot better system than any other humans have come up with over the millenia.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 7:33 am
Lindsey, you have just shown why and how Bush has done his work with your way of thinking right here....pity... wish we could all mind our own business and respect the other for what they are.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 7:34 am
"Which is why Kuwait required the help of the U.S. to stop Iraq when it, without provocation, invaded that helpless little country to openly try and steal its oil and its land. Just thought I'd bring that up to remind you that it isn't only the U.S. who gets involved in what others consider to be unreasonable wars. "

That is propaganda and continues U.S. lies!!!

When the Iraqi government nationalized the Iraqi Petroleum Company in 1972, the Nixon Administration embarked on a campaign to destabilize the Iraqi government. It was in the 1970s that the U.S. first armed and then abandoned the Kurdish people, costing tens of thousands of Kurdish lives. The U.S. manipulated the Kurds through CIA and other agencies to attack Iraq, intending to harass Iraq while maintaining Iranian supremacy at the cost of Kurdish lives without intending any benefit to the Kurdish people or an autonomous Kurdistan.

If you truly seek the truth, visit that link. Otherwise, keep drinking the Kool-Aid.

Regardless of the fighting in the Middle East, the US went there and is STILL there for one primary reason alone: OIL and DOMINATION. Period.

The US government creates the chaos, comes in to "help," then walks away after they achieve their agenda. The US is so sinister as to terrorize its own country (9/11) to achieve its goals. Don't get me wrong: I love this country and will defend it when required. We have wonderful people in America, just as there are wonderful in all countries. But our government commits crimes in our name and we are complicit if we know the truth and do not stand against these crimes.

Folks, do your homework and go for comprehension and depth. Reading right wing propaganda such as above does nothing to bring truth to war crimes. Nothing can be stopped and corrected if these lies continue. I am ashamed of Americans who don't do their homework and try to paint the US as heroes for the horrendous crimes done in our name.

-----
"They tell us that we live in a great free republic; that our institutions are democratic; that we are a free and self-governing people. That is too much, even for a joke...Wars throughout history have been waged for conquest and plunder...And that is war in a nutshell. The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles." : Eugene Victor Debs

Our scientific capabilities have outrun our spiritual capabilities. We now have guided missiles and misguided men.—Martin Luther King, Jr.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 7:44 am
Marion, I was specifically speaking of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait - not the Iran/Iraqi war or Iraq's war against the Kurds. Iraq invaded Kuwait. Kuwait posed absolutely no threat to Iraq whatsoever - it didn't even have the means to protect itself from the Iraqi military let alone start the war. That isn't propoganda - it's the truth.

Are you saying that Iraq DIDN'T invade Kuwait?

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 7:48 am
There are many things in life, Yvonne, which aren't worthy of "respect." A belief that slavery is right is not worthy of respect. Nor is a belief in "honor killings." The belief that people should be prohibited by their governments from freely crossing their own border isn't worthy of respect. Nor is a belief that women are inferior to men respectable.

Respect isn't something which is merely given - it has to be earned.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 7:49 am
"Are you saying that Iraq DIDN'T invade Kuwait?"

I'm saying read the background at that link.

You read my post without going further. I will not respond to your flimsy arguments that blow hot air if you don't do the work for further discussion.

Comprehension and depth, Lindsey. Comprehension and depth.

It's an insult to members to continue with your arguments without you understanding their statements.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 7:53 am
Lindsey ~ This is why I typically ignore you in threads. You are a troll with a personal agenda to disrupt and create chaos. Many people here have blown your cover. Like the neocons and Sarah Palin types, you operate by preying on the ignorance of just enough people to create divisiveness and prevent truth. Shameful.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 7:56 am
On the contrary, Marion. I'm merely one of those who doesn't see democracy and the United States as the source of all the world's ills.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 8:13 am
"Respect isn't something which is merely given - it has to be earned."

Wrong again. Respect should be given until it is proven unworthy to give it. How inhumane!

Your statements are so full of holes it's incredible. We've had this discussion on respect before, Lindsey. I see you still don't understand it.

------
Every human being, of whatever origin, of whatever station, deserves respect. We must each respect others even as we respect ourselves. (unknown)

Being brilliant is no great feat if you respect nothing. (unknown)

A man who lies to himself, and believes his own lies, becomes unable to recognize truth, either in himself or in anyone else, and he ends up losing respect for himself and for others. When he has no respect for anyone, he can no longer love, and in him, he yields to his impulses, indulges in the lowest form of pleasure, and behaves in the end like an animal in satisfying his vices. And it all comes from lying to others and to yourself.
~ Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 8:19 am
Lindsey ~ Still not reading, not comprehending and spinning your brief, vacuous statements. You talk and write to hear yourself, not others.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 8:20 am
When dealing with an unknown, one remains decently neutral until the unknown shows itself to be worthy of respect. One reserves judgment. When dealing with a known quantity, one looks at the beliefs and history of the person or nation. And determines if those beliefs and historical actions are worthy of respect. Sometimes they are. Sometimes not.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 8:21 am
Marion, I noticed that you had been in the armed service. Much has changed since the Viet Name war, according to what my students tell me. At least in ROTC- officers in training, they are trained better to questions so that illegal acts do not happen. This because of things like what was it- friendly fire? and other not so nice things.

Lindsey, yes it is true that you have to assume if you enlist that you may be in a position where you will have to kill people. However, recruiters do shall we say stretch the truth a bit. I had a pre-med student who didn't get in to medical school the first time around. He looked at the Army as a way to go. They told him that they would send him to medical school. He was all set to sign up. I asked him WHEN they would send him- before or after they sent him to Iraq. He had never thought to ask that. He went back and did ask- they told him that he would probably go to Iraq first and could be medic. Then he could use that experience to be accepted to Med school. As long as he stayed in the Army- they would pay for it. Not exactly what he thought after the first meeting. So I can imagine what it is like for some idealistic kid to get into a war out of a sense of patriotism and then be very disillusioned whne he or she finds the reality in Iraq.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 8:21 am
The United States military is a volunteer service, there is no draft. Should a soldier not wish to take part of the service that person can apply for a general discharge. If he was part of a crime while serving and knew it was a crime it is incumbent on him to report that crime to the military judicial authority. From the time one signs up to be a part of the military service the possibility of war time service is ever present. That this individual is suddenly running from consequences of actions taken while serving is not justification for his current actions. If he was forced into these actions let him come forward so that those responsible may be prosecuted. Again, joining the military is a choice in America. I think there is far more to this story. If he does not come forward then he should be prosecuted in absentia.
Detractors of the United States based on the actions of one individual with out further knowledge of the details of the case are simply and uncompromisingly anti-American. As the newly elected President has stated he plans to remove us from Iraq, and thereby effectively ending the United States involvement there, that should go through the necessary and legal process till the government is satisfied that leaving will not cause us any further harm. My concern is that the new government is aggressively perusing a war in Afghanistan, which will be far greater harm to this country in long run.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 8:28 am
I'm a Vietnam Vet, and when I joined I became a corpsoman (sort of doctor) cause I didn't want to kill anyone. Well, after awhile, you will kill someone, especially if its you or them. When you sign up, you sign up for a term, and that's it. They own you. You have no rights other than to follow orders. Most everyone I know, did not approve or condone the war in Vietnam, but we joined or whatever to defend our country and to follow orders.

Same thing in Iraq. You can't have each troop decideing what is best for him, nothing would work. So, you have to follow orders. Even if the comander in cheif lies to you, decives you, as Bush and his group has done. He is still the president, and we honor the title, not the man (thank God). To run away is to become a traitor, to those who serve with you and for you. We have to all stand together. Divided we fail. Just look at what Bush and the religious right hsa done to our country and the world, by dividing us.

I voted for Obama, I voted for HOPE over FEAR. But, not everyone did vote for him. But, as a country, we are now to stand behind and with our president. It is the title, the president we honor. The man will make it worthwile or not.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 8:35 am
I fully agree with you, Nancy, that military recruiters are well known spinners of truth in order to keep their recruitment numbers up.

And, Marion - you seem to agree with me more than you realize. You do not agree with my beliefs and think they are wrong. You certainly have no respect for those beliefs or for me because I espouse them. You are looking at my history, my words, and my actions to determine whether or I am worthy of your respect. And you find me wanting in that regard. Which is perfectly acceptable. Because your beliefs are in many cases diametrically opposed to mine.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 8:47 am
This subject should not be discussed along emotional lines. This soldier like any other knows he has the right to protest a direct order AFTER he has carried it out. As has been stated this is a volunteer Army. There is much more to this story then we have knowledge of. You have someone who has been in the service for 31 years, has already served two tours in Iraq and hasn't submitted for retirement. Somethings wrong here. We also don't know what his rank or MOS ( Military Occupational Speciality) is. These would determine just what risk he would face by going back.

This is not Viet Nam. Congress authorized the war due to the U.N. sanctions that had been repeatly violated which affectively voided the cease fire that took place after Desert Storm, the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq.

Should soldiers take it upon themselves to determine where or when they'll serve? Should solidiers be able to refuse to go to Korea because a truce was never signed there and only a cease fire remains in affect? Civilian standards simply don't fly in the military. The military relies on one thing that has been so forgottn in our lives. DISIPLINE! Think with your heads, not with your hearts. I'd like to see all war end. Maybe someday.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 8:51 am
Ben, your are correct fighting any system from within can be effective. I had a brother-in-law who found himself serving in Korea during the Vietnam era, he was most unhappy and disillusioned. He found his way out by reading every detail of the military manual of rules and regulations. He grew half of a moustache, yes only half, other then that he followed all rules. He was soon granted a general discharge. That is of course presented for the humor, and I do not think nor belief this is an example for those who find themselves in a moral quandary. To assume that one does not know and understand that joining the military may mean fighting, killing, and maybe dying, is to assume that the person is complete bereft of any knowledge of any history. That indeed they have not seen a movie, or read a book, or even a comic book. This person would probably not pass the basic entrance exam. When the country is angry there are those in all situations that are willing and eager to take advantage of the lack of normative stability. A few quotes in a new article do not convince me that I know the whole story. Marion, if our troops simply laid down their weapons because of a political disagreement this country would be in far greater danger then the "terrorist" could ever pose, short of them having a real weapon of mass destruction. When you reduce the debate to name calling because you disagree with some one's opinion, you also attempt to stifle all intellectual thoughts that are not in accord with you. You can delete me as a friend, you cannot delete my right to independent thinking.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 9:10 am
Perhaps I didn't make clear what I mean by the word "respect." I respect anyone's right to hold a particular belief or to make any statement. That doesn't mean that I respect the belief itself or any action taken in furtherance of that belief. And I do not consider common courtesy to be equivalent to respect. Because courtesy is often a mere facade designed to smooth relations between people. In my opinion, respect is deeper and requires that we approve in some way of the thing or person being respected.

I respect the right of any person to hold the belief that women are subordinate to men. I very definitely do not respect the belief itself nor do I respect the person holding that belief. Because those things are separate issues.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 10:06 am
Lindsey Kuwait part of Iraq they imforce Saddam to inter Kuwait they said we will buy Iraqi girls they stolen Iraqi oil I would like to say to all Iraqi women not for sale I dont like two Iranian and kuwaiti.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 10:24 am
Uhoud, Kuwait is not part of Iraq. They are a sovereign nation. Iraq formally recognized Kuwait's complete independence in 1963.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 10:37 am
"When I read and heard about people being ripped to shreds from machine guns or being blown to bits by the Hellfire missiles I began to feel ashamed about what I was doing," Shepherd told a Frankfurt news conference Thursday.

So, he suddenly realize the helicopter he works on actually uses it's weaponry? He reads and hears. Here's my take, he's a traitor. Simple as that. He had ways to go within the system and instead just fled. As Many have stated you join the military which has a mandate to wage war when ordered or protect our country against any and all threats. The Legislature allowed it, which means those individuals who re-elected those congressmen/senators allowed it. If you don't believe in killing human beings you don't join. Period. There is no draft.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 10:41 am
Tom and Nick, both are veteran of Vietnam, and many military men vehemently opposed that war, however, they did the duty that is required. This soldier has/had options, I have to wonder if one of his options might be to try to find a book deal in all of this.

Yvonne do you celebrate the freedoms enjoyed by South Korea, Japan, India, some countries in South America? Please remember that by saying something is wrong does not make it so, we have done some very good things in this world. By "selling" democracy we have created trade partners in the world and many people have benefited by their own countries developing a form of democracy.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 10:48 am
Kit What kind of democracy America develop to Iraq what kind of freedom !!!! Iraq destried mess explosion terrorist no infrastruchure deadgroups militia very bad goverment pro Iran our sons in prisions or escape out side Iraq before we have life but now we are died ... Can I ask whats Iraq did to America ?? why America destoied Iraq and killed our life Saddam dectetor ok but who govern now they came over the American tanks they are worse than Saddam millar times. I fell sad...

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 11:06 am
International War Crimes Tribunal
United States War Crimes Against Iraq

Initial Complaint
Charging

George Bush, J. Danforth Quayle, James Baker,
Richard Cheney, William Webster, Colin Powell,
Norman Schwarzkopf and Others to be named
With

Crimes Against Peace, War Crimes, Crimes Against
Humanity and Other Criminal Acts and High Crimes in
Violation of the Charter of the United Nations,
International Law, the Constitution of the United States
and Laws made in Pursuance Thereof.

Preliminary Statement
These charges have been prepared prior to the first hearing of the Commission of Inquiry by its staff. They are based on direct and circumstantial evidence from public and private documents; official statements and admissions by the persons charged and others; eyewitness accounts; Commission investigations and witness interviews in Iraq, the Middle East and elsewhere during and after the bombing; photographs and video tape; expert analyses; commentary and interviews; media coverage, published reports and accounts gathered between December 1990 and May l991. Commission of Inquiry hearings will be held in key cities where evidence is available supporting, expanding, adding, contradicting, disproving or explaining these, or similar charges against the accused and others of whatever nationality. When evidence sufficient to sustain convictions of the accused or others is obtained and after demanding the production of documents from the U.S. government, and others, and requesting testimony from the accused, offering them a full opportunity to present any defense personally, or by counsel, the evidence will be presented to an International War Crimes Tribunal. The Tribunal will consider the evidence gathered, seek and examine whatever additional evidence it chooses and render its judgment on the charges, the evidence, and the law.
Background
Since World War I, the United Kingdom, France, and the United States have dominated the Arabian Peninsula and Gulf region and its oil resources. This has been accomplished by military conquest and coercion, economic control and exploitation, and through surrogate governments and their military forces. Thus, from 1953 to 1979 in the post World War II era, control over the region was exercised primarily through U.S. influence and control over the Gulf sheikdoms of Saudi Arabia and through the Shah of Iran. From 1953 to 1979 the Shah of Iran acted as a Pentagon/CIA surrogate to police the region. After the fall of the Shah and the seizure of U.S. Embassy hostages in Teheran, the U.S. provided military aid and assistance to Iraq, as did the USSR, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and most of the Emirates, in its war with Iran. U.S. policy during that tragic eight year war, 1980 - 1988, is probably best summed up by the phrase, "we hope they kill each other."
Throughout the seventy-five year period from Britain's invasion of Iraq early in World War I to the destruction of Iraq in 1991 by U.S. air power, the United States and the United Kingdom demonstrated no concern for democratic values, human rights, social justice, or political and cultural integrity in the region, nor for stopping military aggression there. The U.S. supported the Shah of Iran for 25 years, selling him more than $20 billion of advanced military equipment between 1972 and 1978 alone. Throughout this period the Shah and his brutal secret police called SAVAK had one of the worst human rights records in the world. Then in the 1980s, the U.S. supported Iraq in its wrongful aggression against Iran, ignoring Iraq's own poor human rights record.[l]

When the Iraqi government nationalized the Iraqi Petroleum Company in 1972, the Nixon Administration embarked on a campaign to destabilize the Iraqi government. It was in the 1970s that the U.S. first armed and then abandoned the Kurdish people, costing tens of thousands of Kurdish lives. The U.S. manipulated the Kurds through CIA and other agencies to attack Iraq, intending to harass Iraq while maintaining Iranian supremacy at the cost of Kurdish lives without intending any benefit to the Kurdish people or an autonomous Kurdistan.[2]

The U.S. with close oil and other economic ties to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait has fully supported both governments despite the total absence of democratic institutions, their pervasive human rights violations and the infliction of cruel, inhuman and degrading punishments such as stoning to death for adultery and amputation of a hand for property offenses.

The U.S., sometimes alone among nations, supported Israel when it defied scores of UN resolutions concerning Palestinian rights, when it invaded Lebanon in a war which took tens of thousands of lives, and during its continuing occupation of southern Lebanon, the Golan Heights, the West Bank and Gaza.

The United States itself engaged in recent aggressions in violation of international law by invading Grenada in 1983, bombing Tripoli and Benghazi in Libya in 1986, financing the contra in Nicaragua, UNITA in southern Africa and supporting military dictatorships in Liberia, Chile, E1 Salvador, Guatemala, the Philippines, and many other places.

The U.S. invasion of Panama in December 1989 involved the same and additional violations of international law that apply to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. The U.S. invasion took between 1,000 and 4,000 Panamanian lives. The United States government is still covering up the death toll. U.S. aggression caused massive property destruction throughout Panama.[3] According to U.S. and international human rights organization estimates, Kuwait's casualties from Iraq's invasion and the ensuing months of occupation were in the "hundreds" - between 300 and 600.[4] Reports from Kuwait list 628 Palestinians killed by Kuwaiti death squads since the Sabah royal family regained control over Kuwait.

The United States changed its military plans for protecting its control over oil and other interests in the Arabian Peninsula in the late 1980s when it became clear that economic problems in the USSR were debilitating its military capacity and Soviet forces withdrew from Afghanistan. Thereafter, direct military domination within the region became the U.S. strategy.

With the decline in U.S. oil production through 1989, experts predicted U.S. oil imports from the Gulf would rise from 10% that year to 25% by the year 2000. Japanese and European dependency is much greater.[5]

The Charges
1. The United States engaged in a pattern of conduct beginning in or before 1989 intended to lead Iraq into provocations justifying U.S. military action against Iraq and permanent U.S. military domination of the Gulf.
In 1989, General Colin Powell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and General Norman Schwarzkopf, Commander in Chief of the Central Command, completely revised U.S. military operations and plans for the Persian Gulf to prepare to intervene in a regional conflict against Iraq. The CIA assisted and directed Kuwait in its actions. At the time, Kuwait was violating OPEC oil production agreements, extracting excessive amounts of oil from pools shared with Iraq and demanding repayment of loans it made to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. Kuwait broke off negotiations with Iraq over these disputes. The U.S. intended to provoke Iraq into actions against Kuwait that would justify U.S. intervention.
In 1989, CIA Director William Webster testified before the Congress about the alarming increase in U.S. importation of Gulf oil, citing U.S. rise in use from 5% in 1973 to 10% in 1989 and predicting 25% of all U.S. oil consumption would come from the region by 2000.[6] In early 1990, General Schwarzkopf informed the Senate Armed Services Committee of the new military strategy in the Gulf designed to protect U.S. access to and control over Gulf oil in the event of regional conflicts.

In July 1990, General Schwarzkopf and his staff ran elaborate, computerized war games pitting about 100,000 U.S. troops against Iraqi armored divisions.

The U.S. showed no opposition to Iraq's increasing threats against Kuwait. U.S. companies sought major contracts in Iraq. The Congress approved agricultural loan subsidies to Iraq of hundreds of millions of dollars to benefit U.S. farmers. However, loans for food deliveries of rice, corn, wheat and other essentials bought almost exclusively from the U.S. were cut off in the spring of 1990 to cause shortages. Arms were sold to Iraq by U.S. manufacturers. When Saddam Hussein requested U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie to explain State Department testimony in Congress about lraq's threats against Kuwait, she assured him the U.S. considered the dispute a regional concern, and it would not intervene. By these acts, the U.S. intended to lead Iraq into a provocation justifying war.

On August 2, 1990, Iraq occupied Kuwait without significant resistance.

On August 3, 1990, without any evidence of a threat to Saudi Arabia, and King Fahd believed Iraq had no intention of invading his country, President Bush vowed to defend Saudi Arabia. He sent Secretary Cheney, General Powell, and General Schwarzkopf almost immediately to Saudi Arabia where on August 6, General Schwarzkopf told King Fahd the U.S. thought Saddam Hussein could attack Saudi Arabia in as little as 48 hours. The efforts toward an Arab solution of the crisis were destroyed. Iraq never attacked Saudi Arabia and waited over five months while the U.S. slowly built a force of more than 500,000 soldiers and began the systematic destruction by aircraft and missiles of Iraq and its military, both defenseless against U.S. and coalition technology. In October 1990, General Powell referred to the new military plan developed in 1989. After the war, General Schwarzkopf referred to eighteen months of planning for the campaign.

The U.S. retains troops in Iraq as of May 1991 and throughout the region and has announced its intention to maintain a permanent military presence.

This course of conduct constitutes a crime against peace.

2. President Bush from August 2, 1990, intended and acted to prevent any interference with his plan to destroy Iraq economically and militarily.
Without consultation or communication with Congress, President Bush ordered 40,000 U.S. military personnel to advance the U.S. buildup in Saudi Arabia in the first week of August 1990. He exacted a request from Saudi Arabia for U.S. military assistance and on August 8, 1990, assured the world his acts were "wholly defensive." He waited until after the November 1990 elections to announce his earlier order sending more than 200,000 additional military personnel, clearly an assault force, again without advising Congress. As late as January 9, 1991, he insisted he had the constitutional authority to attack Iraq without Congressional approval.
While concealing his intention, President Bush continued the military build up of U.S. forces unabated from August into January 1991, intending to attack and destroy Iraq. He pressed the military to expedite preparation and to commence the assault before military considerations were optimum. When Air Force Chief of Staff General Michael J. Dugan mentioned plans to destroy the Iraqi civilian economy to the press on September 16, 1990, he was removed from office.[7]

President Bush coerced the United Nations Security Council into an unprecedented series of resolutions, finally securing authority for any nation in its absolute discretion by all necessary means to enforce the resolutions. To secure votes the U.S. paid multi-billion dollar bribes, offered arms for regional wars, threatened and carried out economic retaliation, forgave multi-billion dollar loans (including a $7 billion loan to Egypt for arms), offered diplomatic relations despite human rights violations and in other ways corruptly exacted votes, creating the appearance of near universal international approval of U.S. policies toward Iraq. A country which opposed the U.S., as Yemen did, lost millions of dollars in aid, as promised, the costliest vote it ever cast.

President Bush consistently rejected and ridiculed Iraq's efforts to negotiate a peaceful resolution, beginning with Iraq's August 12, 1990, proposal, largely ignored, and ending with its mid-February 1991 peace offer which he called a "cruel hoax." For his part, President Bush consistently insisted there would be no negotiation, no compromise, no face saving, no reward for aggression. Simultaneously, he accused Saddam Hussein of rejecting diplomatic solutions.

President Bush led a sophisticated campaign to demonize Saddam Hussein, calling him a Hitler, repeatedly citing reports - which he knew were false - of the murder of hundreds of incubator babies, accusing Iraq of using chemical weapons on his own people and on the Iranians knowing U.S intelligence believed the reports untrue.

After subverting every effort for peace, President Bush began the destruction of Iraq answering his own question, "Why not wait? . . . The world could wait no longer." The course of conduct constitutes a crime against peace.

3. President Bush ordered the destruction of facilities essential to civilian life and economic productivity throughout Iraq.
Systematic aerial and missile bombardment of Iraq was ordered to begin at 6:30 p.m. EST January 16, 1991, eighteen and one-half hours after the deadline set on the insistence of President Bush, in order to be reported on television evening news in the U.S. The bombing continued for forty-two days. It met no resistance from Iraqi aircraft and no effective anti-aircraft or anti-missile ground fire. Iraq was defenseless.
The United States reports it flew 110,000 air sorties against Iraq, dropping 88,000 tons of bombs, nearly seven times the equivalent of the atomic bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. 93% of the bombs were free falling bombs, most dropped from higher than 30,000 feet. Of the remaining 7% of the bombs with electronically guided systems, more than 25% missed their targets, nearly all caused damage primarily beyond any identifiable target. Most of the targets were civilian facilities.

The intention and effort of the bombing of civilian life and facilities was to systematically destroy Iraq's infrastructure leaving it in a preindustrial condition. Iraq's civilian population was dependent on industrial capacities. The U.S. assault left Iraq in a near apocalyptic condition as reported by the first United Nations observers after the war.[8] Among the facilities targeted and destroyed were:

electric power generation, relay and transmission;
water treatment, pumping and distribution systems and reservoirs;
telephone and radio exchanges, relay stations, towers and transmission facilities;
food processing, storage and distribution facilities and markets, infant milk formula and beverage plants, animal vaccination facilities and irrigation sites;
railroad transportation facilities, bus depots, bridges, highway overpasses, highways, highway repair stations, trains, buses and other public transportation vehicles, commercial and private vehicles;
oil wells and pumps, pipelines, refineries, oil storage tanks, gasoline filling stations and fuel delivery tank cars and trucks, and kerosene storage tanks;
sewage treatment and disposal systems;
factories engaged in civilian production, e.g., textile and automobile assembly; and
historical markers and ancient sites.
As a direct, intentional and foreseeable result of this destruction, tens of thousands of people have died from dehydration, dysentery and diseases caused by impure water, inability to obtain effective medical assistance and debilitation from hunger, shock, cold and stress. More will die until potable water, sanitary living conditions, adequate food supplies and other necessities are provided. There is a high risk of epidemics of cholera, typhoid, hepatitis and other diseases as well as starvation and malnutrition through the summer of 1991 and until food supplies are adequate and essential services are restored.
Only the United States could have carried out this destruction of Iraq, and the war was conducted almost exclusively by the United States. This conduct violated the UN Charter, the Hague and Geneva Conventions, the Nuremberg Charter, and the laws of armed conflict.

4. The United States intentionally bombed and destroyed civilian life, commercial and business districts, schools, hospitals, mosques, churches, shelters, residential areas, historical sites, private vehicles and civilian government offices.
The destruction of civilian facilities left the entire civilian population without heat, cooking fuel, refrigeration, potable water, telephones, power for radio or TV reception, public transportation and fuel for private automobiles. It also limited food supplies, closed schools, created massive unemployment, severely limited economic activity and caused hospitals and medical services to shut down. In addition, residential areas of every major city and most towns and villages were targeted and destroyed. Isolated Bedouin camps were attacked by U.S. aircraft. In addition to deaths and injuries, the aerial assault destroyed 10 - 20,000 homes, apartments and other dwellings. Commercial centers with shops, retail stores, offices, hotels, restaurants and other public accommodations were targeted and thousands were destroyed. Scores of schools, hospitals, mosques and churches were damaged or destroyed. Thousands of civilian vehicles on highways, roads and parked on streets and in garages were targeted and destroyed. These included public buses, private vans and mini-buses, trucks, tractor trailers, lorries, taxi cabs and private cars. The purpose of this bombing was to terrorize the entire country, kill people, destroy property, prevent movement, demoralize the people and force the overthrow of the government.
As a result of the bombing of facilities essential to civilian life, residential and other civilian buildings and areas, at least 125,000 men, women and children were killed. The Red Crescent Society of Jordan estimated 113,000 civilian dead, 60% children, the week before the end of the war.

The conduct violated the UN Charter, the Hague and Geneva Conventions, the Nuremberg Charter, and the laws of armed conflict.

5. The United States intentionally bombed indiscriminately throughout Iraq.
In aerial attacks, including strafing, over cities, towns, the countryside and highways, U.S. aircraft bombed and strafed indiscriminately. In every city and town bombs fell by chance far from any conceivable target, whether a civilian facility, military installation or military target. In the countryside random attacks were made on travelers, villagers, even Bedouins. The purpose of the attacks was to destroy life, property and terrorize the civilian population. On the highways, civilian vehicles including public buses taxicabs and passenger cars were bombed and strafed at random to frighten civilians from flight, from seeking food or medical care, finding relatives or other uses of highways. The effect was summary execution and corporal punishment indiscriminately of men, women and children, young and old, rich and poor, all nationalities including the large immigrant populations even Americans, all ethnic groups, including many Kurds and Assyrians, all religions including Shia and Sunni Moslems, Chaldeans and other Christians, and Jews. U.S. deliberate indifference to civilian and military casualties in Iraq, or their nature, is exemplified by General Colin Powell's response to a press inquiry about the number dead from the air and ground campaigns: "It's really not a number I'm terribly interested in."[9]
The conduct violates Protocol I Additional, Article 51.4 to the Geneva Conventions of 1977.

6. The United States intentionally bombed and destroyed Iraqi military personnel, used excessive force, killed soldiers seeking to surrender and in disorganized individual flight, often unarmed and far from any combat zones and randomly and wantonly killed Iraqi soldiers and destroyed materiel after the cease fire.
In the first hours of the aerial and missile bombardment, the United States destroyed most military communications and began the systematic killing of soldiers who were incapable of defense or escape and the destruction of military equipment. Over a period of forty-two days, U.S bombing killed tens of thousands of defenseless soldiers, cut off most of their food, water and other supplies and left them in desperate and helpless disarray. Without significant risk to its own personnel, the U.S. led in the killing of at least 100,000 Iraqi soldiers at a cost of 148 U.S. combat casualties, according to the U.S. government. When it was determined that the civilian economy and the military were sufficiently destroyed, the U.S. ground forces moved into Kuwait and Iraq attacking disoriented disorganized, fleeing Iraqi forces wherever they could be found, killing thousands more and destroying any equipment found. The slaughter continued after the cease fire. For example, on March 2, 1991, U.S. 24th Division Forces engaged in a four-hour assault against Iraqis just west of Basra. More than 750 vehicles were destroyed, thousands were killed without U.S. casualties. A U.S. commander said, "We really waxed them." It was called a "Turkey Shoot." One Apache helicopter crew member yelled "Say hello to Allah" as he launched a laser-guided Hellfire missile.[10]
The intention was not to remove Iraq's presence from Kuwait. It was to destroy Iraq. In the process there was great destruction of property in Kuwait. The disproportion in death and destruction inflicted on a defenseless enemy exceeded 1,000 to one.

General Thomas Kelly commented on February 23, 1991, that by the time the ground war begins "there won't be many of them left." General Norman Schwarzkopf placed Iraqi military casualties at over 100,000. The intention was to destroy all military facilities and equipment wherever located and to so decimate the military age male population that Iraq could not raise a substantial force for half a generation.

The conduct violated the Charter of the United Nations, the Hague and Geneva Conventions, the Nuremberg Charter, and the laws of armed conflict.

7. The United States used prohibited weapons capable of mass destruction and inflicting indiscriminate death and unnecessary suffering against both military and civilian targets.
Among the known illegal weapons and illegal uses of weapons employed by the United States are the following:
fuel air explosives capable of widespread incineration and death;
napalm;
cluster and anti-personnel fragmentation bombs; and
"superbombs," 2.5 ton devices, intended for assassination of government leaders.
Fuel air explosives were used against troops-in-place, civilian areas, oil fields and fleeing civilians and soldiers on two stretches of highway between Kuwait and Iraq. Included in fuel air weapons used was the BLU-82, a 15,000-pound device capable of incinerating everything within hundreds of yards.
One seven mile stretch called the "Highway of Death" was littered with hundreds of vehicles and thousands of dead. All were fleeing to Iraq for their lives. Thousands were civilians of all ages, including Kuwaitis, Iraqis, Palestinians, Jordanians and other nationalities. Another 60-mile stretch of road to the east was strewn with the remnants of tanks, armored cars, trucks, ambulances and thousands of bodies following an attack on convoys on the night of February 25, 1991. The press reported that no survivors are known or likely. One flatbed truck contained nine bodies, their hair and clothes were burned off, skin incinerated by heat so intense it melted the windshield onto the dashboard.

Napalm was used against civilians, military personnel and to start fires. Oil well fires in both Iraq and Kuwait were intentionally started by U.S. aircraft dropping napalm and other heat intensive devices.

Cluster and anti-personnel fragmentation bombs were used in Basra and other cities, and towns, against the convoys described above and against military units. The CBU-75 carries 1,800 bomblets called Sadeyes. One type of Sadeyes can explode before hitting the ground, on impact, or be timed to explode at different times after impact. Each bomblet contains 600 razor sharp steel fragments lethal up to 40 feet. The 1,800 bomblets from one CBU-75 can cover an area equal to 157 football fields with deadly shrapnel. "Superbombs" were dropped on hardened shelters, at least two in the last days of the assault, with the intention of assassinating President Saddam Hussein. One was misdirected. It was not the first time the Pentagon targeted a head of state. In April 1986, the U.S. attempted to assassinate Col. Muammar Qaddafi by laser directed bombs in its attack on Tripoli, Libya.

Illegal weapons killed thousands of civilians and soldiers.

The conduct violated the Hague and Geneva Conventions, the Nuremberg Charter and the laws of armed conflict.

8. The United States intentionally attacked installations in Iraq containing dangerous substances and forces.
Despite the fact that Iraq used no nuclear or chemical weapons and in the face of UN resolutions limiting the authorized means of removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the U.S. intentionally bombed alleged nuclear sites, chemical plants, dams and other dangerous forces. The U.S. knew such attacks could cause the release of dangerous forces from such installations and consequent severe losses among the civilian population. While some civilians were killed in such attacks, there are no reported cases of consequent severe losses presumably because lethal nuclear materials and dangerous chemical and biological warfare substances were not present at the sites bombed.
The conduct violates Protocol I Additional, Article 56, to the Geneva Convention, 1977.

9. President Bush ordered U.S. forces to invade Panama, resulting in the deaths of 1,000 to 4,000 Panamanians and the destruction of thousands of private dwellings, public buildings, and commercial structures.
On December 20, 1989, President Bush ordered a military assault on Panama using aircraft, artillery, helicopter gunships and experimenting with new weapons, including the Stealth bomber. The attack was a surprise assault targeting civilian and non-combatant government structures. In the E1 Chorillo district of Panama City alone, hundreds of civilians were killed and between 15,000 and 30,000 made homeless. U.S. soldiers buried dead Panamanians in mass graves, often without identification. The head of state, Manuel Noriega, who was systematically demonized by the U.S. government and press, ultimately surrendered to U.S. forces and was brought to Miami, Florida, on extra-territorial U.S. criminal charges.
The U.S. invasion of Panama violated all the international laws Iraq violated when it invaded Kuwait and more. Many more Panamanians were killed by U.S. forces than Iraq killed Kuwaitis.

President Bush violated the Charter of the United Nations, the Hague and Geneva Conventions, committed crimes against peace, war crimes and violated the U.S.Constitution and numerous U.S. criminal statutes in ordering and directing the assault on Panama.

10. President Bush obstructed justice and corrupted United Nations functions as a means of securing power to commit crimes against peace and war crimes.
President Bush caused the United Nations to completely bypass Chapter VI provisions of its Charter for the Pacific Settlement of Disputes. This was done in order to obtain Security Council resolutions authorizing the use of all necessary means, in the absolute discretion of any nation, to fulfill UN resolutions directed against Iraq and which were used to destroy Iraq. To obtain Security Council votes, the U.S. corruptly paid member nations billions of dollars, provided them arms to conduct regional wars, forgave billions in debts, withdrew opposition to a World Bank loan, agreed to diplomatic relations despite human rights violations and threatened economic and political reprisals. A nation which voted against the United States, Yemen, was immediately punished by the loss of millions of dollars in aid. The U.S. paid the UN $187 million to reduce the amount of dues it owed to the UN to avoid criticism of its coercive activities. The United Nations, created to end the scourge of war, became an instrument of war and condoned war crimes.
The conduct violates the Charter of the United Nations and the Constitution and laws of the United States.

11. President Bush usurped the Constitutional power of Congress as a means of securing power to commit crimes against peace, war crimes, and other high crimes.
President Bush intentionally usurped Congressional power, ignored its authority, and failed and refused to consult with the Congress. He deliberately misled, deceived, concealed and made false representations to the Congress to prevent its free deliberation and informed exercise of legislature power. President Bush individually ordered a naval blockade against Iraq, itself an act of war. He switched U.S. forces from a wholly defensive position and capability to an offensive capacity for aggression against Iraq without consultation with and contrary to assurances given to the Congress. He secured legislation approving enforcement of UN resolutions vesting absolute discretion in any nation, providing no guidelines and requiring no reporting to the UN, knowing he intended to destroy the ammed forces and civilian economy of Iraq. Those acts were undertaken to enable him to commit crimes against peace and war crimes.
The conduct violates the Constitution and laws of the United States, all committed to engage in the other impeachable offenses set forth in this Complaint.

12. The United States waged war on the environment.
Pollution from the detonation of 88,000 tons of bombs, innumerable missiles, rockets, artillery and small arms with the combustion and fires they caused and by 110,000 air sorties at a rate of nearly two per minute for six weeks has caused enormous injury to life and the ecology. Attacks by U.S. aircraft caused much if not all of the worst oil spills in the Gulf. Aircraft and helicopters dropping napalm and fuel-air explosives on oil wells, storage tanks and refineries caused oil fires throughout Iraq and many, if not most, of the oil well fires in Iraq and Kuwait. The intentional destruction of municipal water systems, waste material treatment and sewage disposal systems constitutes a direct and continuing assault on life and health throughout Iraq.
The conduct violated the UN Charter, the Hague and Geneva Conventions, the laws of ammed conflict and constituted war crimes and crimes against humanity.

13. President Bush encouraged and aided Shiite Muslims and Kurds to rebel against the government of Iraq causing fratricidal violence, emigration, exposure, hunger and sickness and thousands of deaths. After the rebellion failed, the U.S. invaded and occupied parts of Iraq without authority in order to increase division and hostility within Iraq.
Without authority from the Congress or the UN, President Bush continued his imperious military actions after the cease fire. He encouraged and aided rebellion against Iraq, failed to protect the warring parties, encouraged migration of whole populations, placing them in jeopardy from the elements, hunger, and disease. After much suffering and many deaths, President Bush then without authority used U.S. military forces to distribute aid at and near the Turkish border, ignoring the often greater suffering among refugees in Iran. He then arbitrarily set up bantustan-like settlements for Kurds in Iraq and demanded Iraq pay for U.S. costs. When Kurds chose to return to their homes in Iraq, he moved U.S. troops further into northern Iraq against the will of the government and without authority.
The conduct violated the Charter of the United Nations, international law, the Constitution and laws of the United States, and the laws of Iraq.

14. President Bush intentionally deprived the Iraqi people of essential medicines, potable water, food, and other necessities.
A major component of the assault on Iraq was the systematic deprivation of essential human needs and services. To break the will of the people, destroy their economic capability, reduce their numbers and weaken their health, the United States:
imposed and enforced embargoes preventing the shipment of needed medicines, water purifiers, infant milk formula, food and other supplies;
individually, without congressional authority, ordered a U.S. naval blockade of Iraq, an act of war, to deprive the Iraqi people of needed supplies;
froze funds of Iraq and forced other nations to do so, depriving Iraq of the ability to purchase needed medicines, food and other supplies;
controlled information about the urgent need for such supplies to prevent sickness, death and threatened epidemic, endangering the whole society;
prevented international organizations, governments and relief agencies from providing needed supplies and obtaining information concerning needs;
failed to assist or meet urgent needs of huge refugee populations including Egyptians, Indians, Pakistanis, Yemenis, Sudanese, Jordanians, Palestinians, Sri Lankans, Filipinos, and interfered with efforts of others to do so;
consistently diverted attention from health and epidemic threats within Iraq caused by the U.S. even after advertising the plight of Kurdish people on the Turkish border;
deliberately bombed the electrical grids causing the closure of hospitals and laboratories, loss of medicine and essential fluids and blood; and
deliberately bombed food storage, fertilizer, and seed storage facilities.
As a result of these acts, thousands of people died, many more suffered illness and permanent injury. As a single illustration, Iraq consumed infant milk formula at a rate of 2,500 tons per month during the first seven months of 1990. From November 1, 1990, to February 7, 1991, Iraq was able to import only 17 tons. Its own productive capacity was destroyed. Many Iraqis believed that President Bush intended that their infants die because he targeted their food supply. The Red Crescent Society of Iraq estimated 3,000 infant deaths as of February 7, 1991, resulting from infant milk formula and infant medication shortages.
This conduct violates the Hague and Geneva Conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other covenants and constitutes a crime against humanity.

15. The United States continued its assault on Iraq after the cease fire, invading and occupying areas at will.
The United States has acted with dictatorial authority over Iraq and its external relations since the end of the military conflict. It has shot and killed Iraqi military personnel, destroyed aircraft and materiel at will, occupied vast areas of Iraq in the north and south and consistently threatened use of force against Iraq.
This conduct violates the sovereignty of a nation, exceeds authority in UN resolutions, is unauthorized by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and constitutes war crimes.

16. The United States has violated and condoned violations of human rights, civil liberties and the U.S. Bill of Rights in the United States, in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere to achieve its purpose of military domination.
Among the many violations committed or condoned by the U.S. government are the following:
illegal surveillance, arrest, interrogation and harassment of Arab-American, Iraqi-American, and U.S. resident Arabs;
illegal detention, interrogation and treatment of Iraqi prisoners of war;
aiding and condoning Kuwaiti summary executions, assaults, torture and illegal detention of Palestinians and other residents in Kuwait after the U.S. occupation; and
unwarranted, discriminatory, and excessive prosecution and punishment of U.S. military personnel who refused to serve in the Gulf, sought conscientious objector status or protested U.S. policies.
Persons were killed, assaulted, tortured, illegally detained and prosecuted, harassed and humiliated as a result of these policies.
The conduct violates the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights , the Hague and Geneva Conventions and the Constitution and laws of the United States.

17. The United States, having destroyed Iraq's economic base, demands reparations which will permanently impoverish Iraq and threaten its people with famine and epidemic.
Having destroyed lives, property and essential civilian facilities in Iraq which the U.S. concedes will require $50 billion to replace (estimated at $200 billion by Iraq, killed at least 125,000 people by bombing and many thousands more by sickness and hunger, the U.S. now seeks to control Iraq economically even as its people face famine and epidemic.[l1] Damages, including casualties in Iraq, systematically inflicted by the U.S. exceed all damages, casualties and costs of all other parties to the conflict combined many times over. Reparations under these conditions are an exaction of tribute for the conqueror from a desperately needy country. The United States seeks to force Iraq to pay for damage to Kuwait largely caused by the U.S. and even to pay U.S. costs for its violations of Iraqi sovereignty in occupying northern Iraq to further manipulate the Kurdish population there. Such reparations are a neocolonial means of expropriating Iraq's oil, natural resources, and human labor.
The conduct violates the Charter of the United Nations and the Constitution and laws of the United States.

18. President Bush systematically manipulated, controlled, directed, misinformed and restricted press and media coverage to obtain constant support in the media for his military and political goals.
The Bush Administration achieved a five-month-long commercial for militarism and individual weapons systems. The American people were seduced into the celebration of a slaughter by controlled propaganda demonizing Iraq, assuring the world no harm would come to Iraqi civilians, deliberately spreading false stories of atrocities including chemical warfare threats, deaths of incubator babies and threats to the entire region by a new Hitler.
The press received virtually all its information from or by permission of the Pentagon. Efforts were made to prevent any adverse information or opposition views from being heard. CNN's limited presence in Baghdad was described as Iraqi propaganda. Independent observers, eyewitnesses' photos, and video tapes with information about the effects of the U.S. bombing were excluded from the media. Television network ownership, advertizers, newspaper ownership, elite columnists and commentators intimidated and instructed reporters and selected interviewees. They formed a near-single voice of praise for U.S. militarism, often exceeding the Pentagon in bellicosity.

The American people and their democratic institutions were deprived of information essential to sound judgment and were regimented, despite profound concem, to support a major neocolonial intervention and war of aggression. The principal purpose of the First Amendment to the United States was to assure the press and the people the right to criticize their government with impunity. This purpose has been effectively destroyed in relation to U.S. military aggression since the press was denied access to assaults on Grenada, Libya, Panama and, now on a much greater scale, against Iraq.

This conduct violates the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and is part of a pattern of conduct intended to create support for conduct constituting crimes against peace and war crimes.

19. The United States has by force secured a permanent military presence in the Gulf, the control of its oil resources and geopolitical domination of the Arabian Peninsula and Gulf region.
The U.S. has committed the acts described in this complaint to create a permanent U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf, to dominate its oil resources until depleted and to maintain geopolitical domination over the region.
The conduct violates the Charter of the United Nations, international law, and the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Scope of the Inquiry
The Commission of Inquiry will focus on U.S. criminal conduct because of its destruction of Iraq, killing at least 125,000 persons directly by its bombing while proclaiming its own combat losses as 148, because it destroyed the economic base of Iraq and because its acts are still inflicting consequential deaths that may reach hundreds of thousands. The Commission of Inquiry will seek and accept evidence of criminal acts by any person or government, related to the Gulf conflict, because it believes international law must be applied uniformly. It believes that "victors' justice" is not law, but the extension of war by force of the prevailing party. The U.S. Senate, European Community foreign ministers, and the western press, even former Nuremberg prosecutors, have overwhelmingly called for war crimes trials for Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi leadership alone. Even Mrs. Barbara Bush has said she would like to see Saddam Hussein hanged, albeit without mentioning a trial. Comprehensive efforts to gather and evaluate evidence, objectively judge all the conduct that constitutes crimes against peace and war crimes and to present these facts for judgment to the court of world opinion requires that at least one major effort focus on the United States. The Commission of Inquiry believes its focus on U.S. criminal acts is important, proper, and the only way to bring the whole truth, a balanced perspective and impartiality in application of legal process to this great human tragedy.
Ramsey Clark
May 9, 1991

Final Judgement: International War Crimes Tribunal

The Basis in International Law
Testimony and Evidence
International Law
Notes
Covert Operations: The Persian Gulf and the New World Order (Washington, DC: Christic Institute, 1991).
Rhodri Jeffreys-Jones, The CIA and American Democracy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), p. 206.
Independent Commission of Inquiry on the U.S. Invasion of Panama, The U.S. Invasion of Panama: The Truth Behind Operation Just Cause(Boston: South End Press, 1990).
Amnesty International Reports, 1991, pp. 122-124.
Congressional Record, June 12, 1990, S8605.
"Saddam's Oil Plot." London Observer, October 21, 1990.
Rick Atkinson, "U.S. to Rely on Air Strikes if War Erupts," Washington Post, September 16, 1990: Al + . Eric Schmitt, "Ousted General Gets A Break," New York Times, November 7, 1991: Al9.
Joint WHO / UNICEF Team Report: A Visit to Iraq (New York: United Nations, 1991). A report to the Secretary General, dated March 20, 1991 by representatives of the U.N. Secretariat, UNICEF, UNDP, UNDRO, UNHCR, FAO and WHO.
Patrick E. Tyler, "Powell Says U.S. Will Stay In Iraq," New York Times, March 23, 1991: Al + .
Patrick J. Sloyan, "Massive Battle After Cease Fire," New York Newsday, May 8, 1991: A4+.
"U.S. Prepares UN Draft on Claims Against Iraq," New York Times, November 1, 1990.
Next » Final Judgement: International War Crimes Tribunal

The Basis in International Law
Testimony and Evidence
International Law

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 11:08 am
Uhoud, it is not our troops alone killing Iraqi's. You have Sunnis killling shites and vice versa. You have women of another sect being raped by those of the other even your own militia. You have women left without fathers, husbands, sons and brothers killed by extremists of both sides. Not our soldiers your own people preying on Iraqis. So don't try to make it sound as if we are the only killers in Iraq. Whether or not Bush ordered a war on false information or knowing it was false does not change the fact troops stayed trying to give your country stability from sectarian and extremist violence.

As Lindsey stated Kuwait was and is an independent country. Sadaam invaded it to gain oil and anything else he could take from another sovereign nation. Period.

You say you had peace and prosperity but without any freedoms. Our mistake was assuming you wanted freedom and remained to secure that. I believe the legislature stayed the course out of guilt for creating instability and underestimating the will of the Iraqis for their own sovereign nation giving freedoms to their citizens.

Personally I want the troops home NOW and let the Iraqis sort themselves out.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 11:13 am
Lndesy want me to copy this I will do wish she is happy
it. I told you I already write it I dont like two Iranian regime and Kwaiti they kill Iraqi are you happy now...



Original Message:
-----------------


Then I assume you would have no problem with my copying your original statement onto the forum so that all will know how you feel?

Original Message:
-----------------

Lindsey I wrote it I write I dont like two Iranian and Kwaiti and Iam not prejudiced I say what I belive

Original Message:
-----------------

But it hasn't been part of Iraq for almost 50 years. Therefore, Iraq was invading another nation.

And I'm sure you don't like Kuwaitis. Strange how you only wrote that in a personal e-mail to me rather than posting it openly on the forum like you have in all your other statements. Perhaps you are concerned that saying you don't like Kuwaitis might cause other people to believe you are prejudiced?

I suggest you now go to the forum and post openly what you just said to me privately. Unless you are embarassed to do so.

Original Message:
-----------------

but before its part of Iraq... I dont like Kwati.

Original Message:
-----------------
Hi Uhoud,

Lindsey O.. left a comment on the following article:

U.S. troops escape to Germany from the (war crimes).!
U.S. troops fled the request of the U.S. military because he refused to serve in Iraq, asylum in Germany, adding that he does not want to participate in the «war crimes» according to a lawyer.


Comment:

Uhoud, Kuwait is not part of Iraq. They are a sovereign nation. Iraq formally recognized Kuwait's complete independence in 1963.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 11:19 am
Christy I dont blame the troops I dont said the troops kill Iraqi but I said mess and no life comming after American occupation to Iraq before we have life.. I agree with you I wish troops return home soon and let Iraqi solve their problems by them self.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 11:21 am
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1862837,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

perhaps some good comes of so much dissension.

Iran and Iraq along with most middle eastern territories/countries have been at war for thousands of years. I don't see that ever ending. Uhoud's statements only prove that true.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 11:23 am
Thank you, Uhoud.

I wonder how you, Uhoud, would have reacted if I had said, "I don't like Iraqis." Or, "I don't like Palestinians." (Which, of course, isn't true.)

But, then, you feel justified in disliking Kuwaitis?

So it seems that each nationality does find ways of justifying it's own agenda against other peoples.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 11:43 am
Uhoud ~ I will say what others here will not: I am deeply sorry about the tragedy in Iraq and the crimes committed by the US against your country and people. Nowhere else in this thread do you see the word "sorry" even though we all know you are an Iraqi. I don't care who else is involved in harming Iraq. I am only concerned with the part of the US, and for that I am deeply sorry. Over 1 million innocent Iraqis have been killed, millions more maimed for life and injured, and countless more displaced. Your country has been trashed and ruined primarily by the US. Historical and irreplaceable artifacts have been stolen. If this had been done to America, you can only imagine the outcry and revenge. Please excuse these people who fail to acknowledge your pain and our wrongdoing.

It is a tendency for Americans to say "But it wasn't me directly," or "He played a part in it too." These people are in denial and never admit wrongdoing, but they are in fact part of the wrongdoing because they deny it or ignore it. Most Americans want us out of Iraq because of the cost to the US in money and lives to US soldiers. They also know the US lost this war. I want the US out of Iraq because we don't belong there and have caused enough damage.

Uhoud, I see you know the facts. Thank you for posting the war crimes as many here refuse to acknowledge it. I hope you know that not all Americans are cold and dispassionate about these matters. Although I am an American, I refuse to stifle my heart and think unemotionally. That is what is wrong with America. They only get emotional when it happens to them or their kind.

Fortunately, God does listen. America is suffering now for our misdeeds, greed and lies. We face economic collapse next year. It will arrive in about 6 months, maybe sooner, and will most likely be a long, hard one going on for years. Since many of us have no humane feelings for the lives of others caught up in an illegal war of our doing, justice will come to America. It is known as karma.

America is so busy try to WIN and compete with others that we have LOST the battle of life. So busy trying to lie and cheat to win at all costs. So busy trying to manipulate others out of what does not belong to us. This has been the history of the US: steal the land from the Native Americans, build the country on the backs of black slaves, create wars around the world, and steal from its own people. Yet, this is a country that hides its sins behind a bible they do not follow.

Everyone was angry when Rev. Wright (Obama's controversial preacher) said, "God damn America!" Rev. Wright was wrong. He should have said, "America has damned itself!"

Regardless, I'm glad the soldier defected. I encourage all others to do the same. Just like Bush breaks laws and murders millions of innocent people, the soldiers should break the law too when they object to murdering for a lie.

Justice in America? I'm waiting...

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 11:52 am
I wonder how many Iraqis have apologized to Kuwaitis? Do I hear any such apologies here?

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 11:55 am
Marion If I said thank you for you thats not enough you are real human god bless you , every thing you write it I know it I dont care to those try to desterb abuse me or talk bad or not respect they know the truth but they hide it by lie I wait for the Justice that will coming with president elect. Obama I belive him and I fell he will make a change in allover the world and he will help to give Justic not only to America but to Iraq too. Marion Wish all American kind hinest strong like you I am proud by your friend ship again thank you
peace to all

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 12:06 pm
Dar D, anyone who joins the military must know that they may be required to kill other people. Aside from their deterrent effect, that's what soldiers are for: to fight wars. And fighting wars always involves killing. No one can be ignorant of that fact. Nor can they be under any misapprehension that war is always noble and uncontroversial. Recent history tells anyone otherwise (Korea, VietNam, the Gulf War, Afghanistan, Iraq). Some foolish enlistees may be irrational enough to try and convince themselves that it won't happen during their own enlistment; however, that's wishful thinking.

*****************************************

I strongly agree to disagree with you Lindsey. It is exactly like what Kathleen R. explained..., these kids don't know what the heck they want or do. Heck, they rarely pull up their pants from hanging off their butts. These recruiters play the college and benefits card, without pushing the war part. We had no business in occupying Iraq. None, nada, zip. These kids are swayed, and many join just for the benefits and college, thinking that they will never be in a killing on the front lines position.

I have no problem with someone choosing not to kill or commit "war" crimes, and leaving their military service. Although, I don't know how many the other countries would except. It is the proclamation, of ALL should lay down there weapons. Too many depend on the service to survive with their families, and I do agree that this nation needs a defense department with military people. Hopefully, the majority of the people who live in Iraq and are suffering, understand it isn't the people of America that wanted or did this, but it was the leaders and their covert operations that invaded their country.

SOLUTIONS, viable solutions to end this continued "war" which is really hot in Afghanistan and Pakistan, too.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 12:06 pm
We need to LIVE in the "NOW"

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 12:07 pm
Lindesy I worked in Bahrain as auniversity teacher I swear by god the Kwaite them self aplogize to me I never ever apologize to Kwaiti Do you know who opologize to them?? only current Iraqi goverment because they are theifs like them .

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 12:12 pm
Yes Dar we need to live the Now but the now in Iraq is scary explosins ...

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 12:33 pm
As I said, what uhoud says proves my point yet again. You don't want to apologize to a sovereign nation your country invaded, then I don't believe any of us should apologize to you as an individual. I certainly never will.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 12:35 pm
Uhoud ~ Thank you very much for the kind and thoughtful words. It means alot to me. I was against this war from the beginning and have cried many, many times over it. I don't know how Americans can sleep at night knowing what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan and that our soldiers are in the middle of it.

I have followed this war and the horrible things that have happened. It is just the way I am. What happens to others happens to me because we are all connected on this planet. I am so ashamed for America.

I know that Iraq and Iraqis are not perfect. But no one person or country is perfect in this world. If Iraq has problems with its neighbors, we should have stayed out of it. As my grandmother said, "If a man and his wife are fighting, try to bring them together, but do not take sides."

I'm glad you support Obama too. While I believe he is a man of his word, we should be careful to think he will solve all our problems. The problems he is faced with are enormous. And everything he will try to fix, there are evil people who will try to stop him. So let's keep him in our prayers that he will stop these wars and work toward peace.

Finally, I am proud to be your friend too. You always share good information and have kind words for all. I hope and pray your country will have peace soon.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 12:38 pm
Dar D, are young men and women so stupid that they don't know WITHOUT being specifically having it impressed on them by a recruiter that being a soldier means sometimes going to war? Of course they know. They just don't like to think about it. Which is their own fault if they don't.

Of course recruiters present the positive side of military service. But there is not a person alive of sound mind who doesn't understand that war is part and parcel of military service.

You're trying very hard to take all responsibility off individuals and place it on the government. But individuals have to take responsibility for their own choices. If a young man or woman enlists - they know what that entails. Whether they like it or not. They make the choice.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 1:07 pm
did not know that Uhoud was an Iraq citizen and I doubt many others could have till the recent postings. I am very proud to be an American, and stand with our troops in the task this country has put before them. These men and women are doing the best possible under extreme duress. This was a discussion about a man that is attempting to hide out in Germany, rather then deal with his country. Now it has become an indictment about all things American, I can not disagree enough. This is now and has been the best country on the planet, for those who disagree, I feel pity for you. I wonder how many countries on earth would allow such pure traitorious language, particularly at a time of war. In fact it proves what an wonderful place this is that anyone can say what they want, without fear of government repercussion. Like all countries we have a spotty history, in it's own time it was considered the most effective way to settle and grow this country. From some apologies and forward advancement is never enough. Their true joy comes from being angry, unfortunate. Uhoud, I am sorry that although you want apologies from us, you cannot offer the same to others, you see our invasion of your country as wrong and the invasion of Kuwait as acceptable, there is little that can be said to you. Obviously, your people have much to learn about compassion. America is on the other hand a is very compassionate country, and as a people we went into your country believing we were offering help and hope to your people. You claim you were better off under Saddam, well we will be leaving soon and you will then have the right to find another dictator to take his place. However, there are many in your country that will disagree with you. For the sake of the future generations of Iraq I hope you will a have free and democratic government to help stabilize and grow Iraq. These things will take time, no one here in America wishes you harm, in fact we hope for the best for all the people of the world. Do we make mistakes? Do we sometimes have leaders that make poor decisions? Of course, but keep in mind that those mistakes are made will a generous heart and the desire to help.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 1:19 pm
"Obviously, your people have much to learn about compassion. America is on the other hand a is very compassionate country, and as a people we went into your country believing we were offering help and hope to your people. You claim you were better off under Saddam, well we will be leaving soon and you will then have the right to find another dictator to take his place. However, there are many in your country that will disagree with you. For the sake of the future generations of Iraq I hope you will a have free and democratic government to help stabilize and grow Iraq. These things will take time, no one here in America wishes you harm, in fact we hope for the best for all the people of the world. Do we make mistakes? Do we sometimes have leaders that make poor decisions? Of course, but keep in mind that those mistakes are made will a generous heart and the desire to help."

What a bunch of CROCK!!! This is an insulting statement to Iraq and their people. We attack their country on a lie and we are compassionate?!!! And those mistakes our leaders make are intentional crimes against humanity. Please tell this to someone who believes you.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 1:49 pm
I am looking at this issue of "traitor" all of a sudden a different way. And perhaps Nick and Tom will take exception to what I am about to say, I have never been in the military nor ever wanted to even think about being in the military. But in any war, there is a line that should be drawn that you just don't go beyond. Like not killing non military women and children. Following the Geneva Conventions, etc. So, this soldier feels that something was done that shouldn't have been done. If it is merely a realization that his job is to Kill or be killed, then he should suck it up and do his job. But if it is more serious....

What if more German soldiers during WWII stood up and said what was going on in Germany was wrong? Is that treason? Or were they all just following orders. I don't really think we can begin to equate this war with WWII so please don't take it the wrong way. The article really doesn't say much about what he thinks the crimes are. But perhaps it isn't so bad if there are true war crimes going on.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 2:03 pm
Unlike you Marion, I am not ashamed of my country. Indeed mistakes have been made, and will be again I have no doubt. That you don't like what I said means less than nothing to me. I found what you said to be insulting. Indeed, insulting to all Americans, most particularly to those who have given their lives in hope of fighting for the freedoms you find so reprehensible. I am not debating with you, it is evident that you cannot debate without attacking those with whom you find fault. That of course, is anyone that disagrees with you.

Your apologies are only from you and not this country. What has been done, has been done, I will not apologize for the country, and certainly not to someone who cannot even see that their own country does in fact share some of the fault. These old hatreds are exactly why so many Americans are confused and disillusioned by our honest efforts to be helpful. That is not the politics of the situation, just the heart felt honesty of the majority of people in this country. No one wishes Iraq or any one else harm, we also do not wish to drown in sea of nonsensical platitudes.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 2:18 pm
Those are reasonable questions, Nancy. But in wartime, it is very difficult for an individual soldier to fully understand where the "line" is to be drawn. He may not have full knowledge of why he's being ordered to do something - and there may be good, solid reasons for an action he may feel is wrong. And refusal on his part may jeopardize the safety of his own comrades as well as jeopardizing a mission.

And German soldiers were, like all soldiers, following orders. We aren't talking about the SS concentration camp guards who were committing undeniable and acknowledged murder (even they, throughout the war years, tried to hide what they were doing) - we're talking about soldiers fighting a war. It's only in hindsight that it's easy for many of those former soldiers to see that they were fighting on the wrong side (if they feel that today, of course, and some probably don't.)

And we don't know why this soldier has deserted. All we have is his word for it. It's just as possible that he just doesn't want to go back into a situation where he may be killed (a very understandable reaction from anyone.) But we simply cannot allow individual soldiers to decide when they will and will not fight. No country can survive when its soldiers are unwilling to follow orders and accept the discpline they promised to accept when they joined the military.

It's an ugly situation for all concerned.

And I'm not speaking about crimes unrelated to ordinary military situations. Any soldier who commits any wrongful act when not directly under orders or reasonably necessary to his mission should be punished as any criminal should be punished under similar circumstances.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 2:46 pm
Kit - Your usual neocon-style drivel. Your patriotism is is hollow and false. Bleeding heart liberals such as myself have more patriotism and may care more about America and the people than you. The words below are by Sara Robinson, but express perfectly what I think. I've addressed several topics argued in this thread:

"1. For the record: Liberals love America. In fact, what makes us liberals is that we actually read and believed all those pretty words in the Declaration of Independence about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and in the Bill of Rights about freedom of speech, religion, assembly, privacy, and all the rest of it.

We're idealists that way. We want to live in the country the Founders described. We believe that the nation's founding documents expressed a uniquely powerful moral contract between the people and their government, and an audaciously positive vision of people's ability and competence to shape their own future. When we get annoying and whiny, it's usually because we believe so much in America's astonishing promise -- and our own responsibility for realizing it -- that we're sorely disappointed when the country falls short of that standard. We really want to believe we can do better.

Conservatism, by contrast, tends to take a dim view of human nature, prefers hierarchy to liberty, and isn't completely convinced people can or should be trying to contravene the will of God or their betters by trying to arrange their own futures. This tends to lead to a selective reading of the Constitution (as well as the Bible), and -- as we've seen in the Bush years -- a far more flexible attitude toward its interpretation.

The proof, however, is in the history -- and it's pretty irrefutable. America's greatest moments of progress, generosity, and moral strength occurred when the country stuck most closely to its progressive ideals. We loved America so much that we freed the slaves, passed child labor laws, built schools and colleges, gave the vote to women, enacted civil rights laws, rebuilt Europe after a war we helped win, and put a man on the moon. All of these were progressive projects -- and all were fought tooth and nail by conservatives in their time, simply because they feared change and saw power as a zero-sum game. Yeah, we sometimes overshoot and miss -- but you can't argue with the daring scope of our dreams.

Conversely, most of our worst moments -- the Native American genocide, the continued justification of slavery and Jim Crow, the Japanese internment, Abu Ghraib -- were conservative projects that were driven by narrow-minded xenophobia and short-term greed, and are regretted by everyone (including most conservatives) when we look back now.

Rick Perlstein has called this out as a predictable pattern: conservatives will loudly obstruct social progress for decades before finally accepting it -- and then, they'll insist they were 100 percent for it all along.

Love us or hate us; but we're every bit as American as our conservative friends, and have been since the day the Declaration was written (by a liberal, in fact).

2. Liberals want to leave us defenseless in the face of evildoers around the world.

The big disconnect on security issues begins with the fact that we have a far more expansive definition of "security" than conservatives do. And, perhaps, a broader sense of what the actual threats are, and what can be done about them.

When conservatives discuss "security," they're usually thinking in terms of solving all our problems by sending in more guys and gals with guns. The flip side of this that they tend not to give much credence to real threats that can't be fixed by guys and gals with guns.

But as progressives, we know that the country's financial crisis is a security issue. And in a world of superbugs and epidemics, universal health care is a security issue. And global warming is, plain as day, a looming security issue (and the Pentagon agrees). We also know that sending in the Marines, hiring more cops, and taking off our shoes at the airport won't begin to address some of our most terrifying problems. Real-world security is far more complex, and requires a much wider range of solutions, than most conservatives are willing to consider.

3. Liberals hate our troops.

We love our troops. We love them so much that we want them brought home safe and sound to their families, as soon as possible.

This one's almost depressingly easy. Who blocked the new GI Bill because it might encourage troops not to re-up? Who refused to increase VA funding? Who oversaw last year's debacle at Walter Reed? Who is making soldiers buy their own body armor?

News flash: it ain't the libruls. Putting a yellow ribbon decal on your car is not enough. Making sure our troops have everything they need to do their jobs -- and keeping our promises to them when they get home -- is putting our money where our mouth is. Liberals have been there doing the heavy lifting from the start, while the conservatives in government have been nowhere on the scene unless there was a photo op involved.

4. Liberals don't believe in personal responsibility.

Again, there's a definitional disconnect at work here. Conservatives tend to use the rule of law to enforce traditional morality and social hierarchies, which usually means light treatment for those at the top, and harsh penalties for those at the bottom. Liberals tend to use the rule of law to maintain some semblance of fairness and equality, which means that those who have more should be given sentences proportional to their greater wealth and power; and those with less should be given a more gentle hand. Naturally, each side finds the other side's reasoning and criteria appalling.

But there is common ground. The bare fact -- which everybody at the table may agree on -- is that in present-day America, nobody is happy with the way justice is being doled out, and people all over are getting away with things no civilized nation should allow to slide by. Absurd leniency abounds on both sides. You can either argue over whose side is getting the worst of it; or you can simply agree that the system is broken all over, and move on to the pumpkin pie."

Take a walk on the wild side

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 2:54 pm
Only problem with that quotation, Marion, is that it doesn't apply to me. I'm not a conservative. Nor a liberal. I'm a Libertarian. And though some of my views fall more deeply into the conservative realm, others are quite radically liberal.

Just because a person favors a strong military and has a more "conventional" love of country, does not mean that they oppose civil rights for all or many other things you speak of. I judge each issue on its own merits - as do many people.

You can't categorize people that easily.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 3:16 pm
Dar D, are young men and women so stupid that they don't know WITHOUT being specifically having it impressed on them by a recruiter that being a soldier means sometimes going to war? Of course they know. They just don't like to think about it. Which is their own fault if they don't.

Of course recruiters present the positive side of military service. But there is not a person alive of sound mind who doesn't understand that war is part and parcel of military service.

You're trying very hard to take all responsibility off individuals and place it on the government. But individuals have to take responsibility for their own choices. If a young man or woman enlists - they know what that entails. Whether they like it or not. They make the choice.
**************************

Lindsey..., I don't know if you have had children in high school or middle school, but you are really in the clouds with this one. Nancy M's first comment is ANOTHER example of what I tried to explain to you. The nation's energy has always trickled down to our youth. They imitate adults, or try too. This nation's heightened strife over the last eight years has also influenced our youth, but in many others ways. Many are joining from tactics that these recruiters use to maintain their quota. They have the ROTC program, and DON'T have to be camped out, during lunch hours or events. Hiring for the military should NOT be in our schools.

I had to call this year to tell the schools NOT to submit my daughter's information to the miliary. They AUTOMATICALLY send our child's information to the military, unless we (the parents) CALL THEM and tell them that they CAN NOT give our child's information out. This starts in some districts in the middle schools. They stalk your child's school years, and guess who they target! The vulnerable, who have very few options for their future.

I wish you would learn the entire problem, before you made such incorrect assumptions. Unless the bewildered teenager, which turns into adult at 18, decides to ask more questions, the recruiters DON'T imply that they will be doing any killing.

Lindsey..., Iraq's invasion WAS our government and military's FAULT. Many of these kids, especially the poor..., have enlisted and it is the military's FAULT. Now, blame for the unified of negative energy in our nation of NO Change, is every adult's fault, in this nation. Blame can go around for many reasons. However, I know the PEOPLE will bring change, NOW. I am very happy that you are in the minority with your opinions, and maybe in the future, you will see more confirmations that make you confident in changing your opinion.

Our troops need to return home to a loving nation! There is bad and good in everything. Who can be the ones to make judgements on these men and women? No one. It is an individual situation with each person, that we have no clue. Forgiveness, Compassion, Patience, Tolerance, and LOVE is attainable for anyone. I stumble too, with all this conflict within our nation, and the world.

Many comments to this post have been very inspiring to me.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 3:17 pm
As usual you don't have even a vague idea of who you are talking to, foolish to assume. You again prove only too clearly exactly who are and your lack of concern for your country. Of course again you must rely on name calling and posting long a irrelevant posts. Because I care about my country and those who would give their life for my freedoms, you call me names. Keep in mind they are your freedoms as well, your right to slander people you do not know, your right to castigate the men and women who have died for those rights. Your right to dismiss those people as wrong, while your flatter those who would kill your brethren, your right to make statements that lay all those freedoms aside as just talk and lacking justice. There are problems in this country and working together most of us will try to address them. Your help, that of throwing stones, is not needed.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 3:20 pm
You can't categorize people that easily.

****************************

But..heh, that is exactly what YOU are doing!

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 3:42 pm
Then those bewildered teenagers must never have watched television or movies or ever read a newspaper. Because if they don't understand that soldiers carry and learn to shoot guns because they may have to one day use them to kill - they must have led an extremely sheltered life indeed.

Maybe you should stop sheltering your daughter to that extent, Dar D, and teach her about the realities of life instead. Because the fact that soldiers fight in wars and have to kill people is a very basic and simple concept to teach at any age. Your child is going to look foolish indeed when someone talks to her about the war in Iraq and she expresses total surprise that our soldiers are actually (GASP) killing people over there....

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 3:59 pm
I am not throwing stones, but I am defending our brave young men and women who always get caught in the cross-fire when these discussions occur.

I have not called anyone a name, nor defamed them in any way, I have tried to point out, that even when we have problems at home we must stand up for those defending our rights.

If you choose to not stand behind our troops then please STAND IN FRONT OF THEM. This not about opposition to a war, it is about being true to those who would die to defend us.

Sad that you can't figure out the difference.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 4:51 pm
I've read some posts here and wondered if these people are from the same country as me, the U.S. After reading their profiles I now wonder if they are from the same planet.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 5:00 pm
It appears there is perhaps greater diversity among humankind than we might have once thought in our pre-Care2 days, Tom. An experience sometimes thought-provoking, sometimes ulcer-provoking, and sometimes provoking nothing more than a giggle or two.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 5:14 pm
Maybe you should stop sheltering your daughter to that extent, Dar D, and teach her about the realities of life instead. Because the fact that soldiers fight in wars and have to kill people is a very basic and simple concept to teach at any age. Your child is going to look foolish indeed when someone talks to her about the war in Iraq and she expresses total surprise that our soldiers are actually (GASP) killing people over there....
*********************************

As a matter of fact, my daughter is about to start a trial testifying against the man who molested her at 11 for over a year. So NO, SHE ISN'T SHELTERED. This world has introduced itself to her long before she turned 15, this year. You really do let your fingers rant off on that keyboard without any conscious to what you are saying. I is very sad. I wonder if you will be giggling in a few years....

It is obvious you WANT to remain in the box, as you have no clue of what is happening to these kids..heh. Even my daughter, knows more truth than what you have displayed in this post. I should have known you didn't have any personal experience in what you peck at on the keyboard. I thought you wanted a better world, for some silly reason.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 5:19 pm
Lindsey, also..., one more thing. I am teaching my daughter that when she has people like YOU, cross her path, for her to look for their Light within...I teach her to look for the lesson in all who we meet. I explain that individuals like yourself, can teach us to strengthen our Tolerance, Patience, and Compassion. You do serve a good purpose for mankind, heh.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 5:50 pm
Sometimes a "better world" has to be fought for, Dar.

And sometimes we make it better just by helping others to "strengthen their tolerance, patience, and compassion." Glad to have been of service!

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 9:33 pm
I am deeply thankful for people who include factual history, especially when taken from newer released discoveries!!! I always want to do that, but haven't the time. BTW: I support all troops and I do not support their leaders and I am immensely patriotic. Also, it is tremendously naive to think that kids know what they are getting into by listening to recruiters!!! Good point, Tom! Many others have made them too!

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 10:06 pm
There is no inclusive desttaction weapons in Iraq thats what bush said before few days can I ask why this war happened It's war for oil.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 10:07 pm
Dar I am proud by you Bless you and your family.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 10:44 pm
yes America attack Iraq and Irai on a lie and And those mistakes Bush make are intentional crimes against humanity. and who pay the coast of thats mistakes ?? Iraqi inocents pay it and your troops too they killed for war oil....

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 11:09 pm
Uhoud ~ I think you are saying that Bush said there are no weapons of mass destruction, right? I don't remember if he admitted it, but others in his administration have admitted this. Everything you said is correct.

I am hoping and praying Obama will work out a way to help Iraq get on its feet. There is no way to know what the US and Iraq governments will work out, but I do hope they will do something for your people.

For anyone who wants to learn more, Winter Soldier documents testimony from US veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan occupations, giving an accurate account of what is really happening day in and day out, on the ground.

This four-day event brought together veterans from across the country to testify about their experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan - and present video and photographic evidence. In addition, panels of scholars, veterans, journalists, and other specialists gave context to the testimony. These panels covered everything from the history of the GI resistance movement to the fight for veterans' health benefits and support.

As Vincent Emanuele, a former Marine who served in Iraq from 2004 to 2005, commented on why he testified on Capitol Hill:

"This is not about being unpatriotic. I think this is about being as patriotic as you can possibly be. Being honest and saying, 'Hey, listen, our government has been doing some bad things in a Middle Eastern country,' and that's ok to admit that. Because if we don't admit that, and don't learn from that, we're going to continue down this very same path."

There are many different issues facing the soldiers. This site documents it all.

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 11:28 pm
From Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW), Here are 10 reasons why veterans, active duty, and National Guard men and women are opposed to the war in Iraq:

1. The Iraq war is based on lies and deception

The Bush Administration planned for an attack against Iraq before September 11th, 2001. They used the false pretense of an imminent nuclear, chemical and biological weapons threat to deceive Congress into rationalizing this unnecessary conflict. They hide our casualties of war by banning the filming of our fallen soldiers' caskets when they arrive home, and when they refuse to allow the media into Walter Reed Hospital and other Veterans Administration facilities which are overflowing with maimed and traumatized veterans.

For further reading: http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/index.html

2. The Iraq war violates international law

The United States assaulted and occupied Iraq without the consent of the UN Security Council. In doing so they violated the same body of laws they accused Iraq of breaching.

For further reading:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/imtconst.htm
http://www.westpointgradsagainstthewar.org/

3. Corporate profiteering is driving the war in Iraq

From privately contracted soldiers and linguists to no-bid reconstruction contracts and multinational oil negotiations, those who benefit the most in this conflict are those who suffer the least. The United States has chosen a path that directly contradicts President Eisenhower's farewell warning regarding the military industrial complex. As long as those in power are not held accountable, they will continue...

For further reading:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0714-01.htm
http://www.publicintegrity.org/wow/

4. Overwhelming civilian casualties are a daily occurrence in Iraq

Despite attempts in training and technological sophistication, large-scale civilian death is both a direct and indirect result of United States aggression in Iraq. Even the most conservative estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths number over 100,000. Currently over 100 civilians die every day in Baghdad alone. [This is where Uhoud lives. Horrifying!!!]

For further reading:
http://www.nomorevictims.org/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1338749,00.html
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70A1EF73C5A0C758DDDA10894DE404482

5. Soldiers have the right to refuse illegal war

All in service to this country swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. However, they are prosecuted if they object to serve in a war they see as illegal under our Constitution. As such, our brothers and sisters are paying the price for political incompetence, forced to fight in a war instead of having been sufficiently trained to carry out the task of nation-building.

For further reading:
http://thankyoult.live.radicaldesigns.org/content/view/172/
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Qa6ZHYcG_EM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1dAXQeH7y9g&mode=related&search=
http://girightshotline.org

6. Service members are facing serious health consequences due to our Government's negligence

Many of our troops have already been deployed to Iraq for two, three, and even four tours of duty averaging eleven months each. Combat stress, exhaustion, and bearing witness to the horrors of war contribute to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), a serious set of symptoms that can lead to depression, illness, violent behavior, and even suicide.

Additionally, depleted uranium, Lariam, insufficient body armor and infectious diseases are just a few of the health risks which accompany an immorally planned and incompetently executed war. Finally, upon a soldier's release, the Veterans Administration is far too under-funded to fully deal with the magnitude of veterans in need.

For further reading:
http://www.ncptsd.va.gov/
http://www.vets4vets.us/

7. The war in Iraq is tearing our families apart

The use of stop-loss on active duty troops and the unnecessarily lengthy and repeat active tours by Guard and Reserve troops place enough strain on our military families, even without being forced to sacrifice their loved ones for this ongoing political experiment in the Middle East.

For further reading:
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_loss_092704,00.html

8. The Iraq war is robbing us of funding sorely needed here at home

$10.3 billion per month is spent on a war which could have aided the victims of Hurricane Katrina, gone to impoverished schools, the construction of hospitals and health care systems, tax cut initiatives, and a host of domestic programs that have all been gutted in the wake of the war in Iraq.

For further reading:
http://www.costofwar.com

9. The war dehumanizes Iraqis and denies them their right to self-determination

Iraqis are subjected to humiliating and violent checkpoints, searches and home raids on a daily basis. The current Iraqi government is in place solely because of the U.S. military occupation. The Iraqi government doesn’t have the popular support of the Iraqi people, nor does it have power or authority. For many Iraqis the current government is seen as a puppet regime for the U.S. occupation. It is undemocratic and in violation of Iraq’s own right to self-governance.

For further reading:
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

10. Our military is being exhausted by repeated deployments, involuntary extensions, and activations of the Reserve and National Guard

The majority of troops in Iraq right now are there for at least their second tour. Deployments to Iraq are becoming longer and many of our service members are facing involuntary extensions and recalls to active duty. Longstanding policies to limit the duration and frequency of deployments for our part-time National Guard troops are now being overturned to allow for repeated, back-to-back tours in Iraq. These repeated, extended combat tours are taking a huge toll on our troops, their families, and their communities.

For further reading

Tuesday December 2, 2008, 11:39 pm
Q: Why do Iraq Veterans Against the War call for the immediate withdrawal from Iraq?

A: There are several reasons why immediate withdrawal is the critical first step toward solving the problems in Iraq.

1. The reasons and rationale given for the invasion were fraudulent

There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq during the time of the invasion according to US officials and former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix. The idea that Al Qeada and the 9/11 terrorist attacks were connected to Saddam Hussein and the Baath party were proven false in the 9/11 Commission Report. Members of the Bush Administration have admitted that they “misspoke” in the run up to the war.

[Note: "misspoke" is the Bush Administration's word for "lied."]

2. The presence of the US military is not preventing sectarian violence

The US occupation of Iraq has proven to be unable to prevent sectarian violence and halt an escalation towards a civil war. Despite having an average of 140,000 troops in the country since the occupation began, internal violence and attacks against civilians and Iraqi security forces have been on a steady incline.

3. The occupation is a primary motivation for the insurgency and global religious extremism

The insurgency can be broken down into many individually named factions with various goals, beliefs, and techniques. However, our membership of veterans believe that the occupation of Iraq is the primary thing encouraging the insurgency and giving it legitimacy in the eyes of many Iraqis. Likewise, other people of the Islamic faith are encouraged to resist America’s policies internationally based on how they perceive our military operations in the Middle East.

4. We can no longer afford to fight this "war of choice"

The financial burden is destroying our domestic programs that could be used to protect us from natural disasters, provide medical programs, or help improve education. We are jeopardizing the US economy and putting strains on the budgets of important government agencies like the Veterans Affairs Department.

5. National security is compromised

Funds that could be used to protect our ports and transportation are being stripped away while our National Guard units are on constant deployments instead of being used to protect and defend us here at home.

6. The world is becoming more dangerous

International terrorist attacks have increased and it has become more dangerous for Americans to travel abroad. Approval for US policy has decreased and the dislike of Americans has increased.

7. Our national “moral authority” is being undermined

The US has lost credibility to much of the world as the defender of liberty and freedom and our national identity is eroding. We can no longer deploy our armed forces for peace keeping measures with the good faith of the international community. We need to regain the respect and faith of the global community. This begins by withdrawing our troops from Iraq and helping the Iraqi people rebuild their country and society.

8. The majority of American citizens, Iraqi citizens and US military would like to see an immediate end to the war in Iraq

If we are truly a democracy and we aim to create a democracy in Iraq our leaders will represent the will of the citizens and lead according to their wishes

9. The military is broken

We are abusing the small population of armed service members with multiple deployments while using inadequate vehicles and equipment. Less than one half of a percent of the American population is serving in the active armed forces, which is the least amount in the last century. Only 25% of the troops in Iraq are there for their first tour, while 50% are there on their second tour, and the remaining 25% are there three times or more. We continue to involuntarily extend soldiers with Stop-Loss, recall them repeatedly for additional service using the Individual Ready Reserve, and send soldiers with diagnosed medical problems into combat.

Article here

Wednesday December 3, 2008, 1:11 am
A few hours later and nothing much has changed, the same snipers of righteous indignation still preaching. You certainly know how to push the buttons. I find myself taking extreme oppositional positions just to give your posts some contrast and balance. I have in fact protested the Vietnam war, albeit peacefully, fought and will fight for civil rights for ALL Americans, believe deeply the importance of justice, and still love this country. I am sure a few who know me are ROFL to see some one call me a neo con. In fact it is funny, and still find your endless preaching redundant and useless, your attitude of moral superiority convoluted as there is nothing moral or superior in your barrage of words that say little, and prove even less.
It may not have occurred to you that simply because some one does not agree does not make less knowledgeable, or intelligent.


dar, I must guess that your daughter is for some reason unable to use a computer. I know that a loving and caring mother would never use such deeply personal information just to win a point.
SHAME ON YOU!!! Perhaps you could use a flashlight to find your light!

Wednesday December 3, 2008, 1:46 am
I guess I will leave the discussion. Most of you have made some great and valid points -- from different aspects too. I've enjoyed the sharing of information here and most of you are a friend. However, I simply no longer have the extra time to read through comments where someone makes assumptions or someone else speaks nastily, ETC., especially if only a little factual information is provided by assumers and bad-mouthers.
Peace~

Wednesday December 3, 2008, 2:20 am
Kim I am Iraqi and proud to be Iraqi I dont like wars I am not with Saddam with his war against Kwait even I dont like Kwait we are peaceful pepole want to live in peace If in Saddam time million killed now 2 million widow 5 million search for third country I am against any war I dream with peace we forget the meaning of happy I fight the terrorist wish all of the world live together in peace and love return troops home is not my talk Its all Iraq request your troops is not our enamy our enamy is Iranian regim and there followers and Al Qayda they want to kill both of your troops and Iraqi are you understand now.?

Wednesday December 3, 2008, 5:31 am
You are quite right, Marion. We need to get out and let the Iraqis handle their own affairs. Of course, as Uhoud said, that will leave them undefended since their previous military might is now gone and I question how long it will be before Iran takes full advantage of that situation. But since they want to handle their own affairs that will be their own affair.

Wednesday December 3, 2008, 5:40 am
Well, let's hope Obama keeps the balance between his programe and Bushe's plans and the troops start moving back home very soon.
But the Iraqui government have a hard task to control terrorism. Tradicional armies are useless against such dangerous people.And as I have said in many forums, the answer to stop them is the cooperation of their fellow nationals with the police.Espionage and delation.

Wednesday December 3, 2008, 5:46 am
As for the soldier that scaped to Germany, is nothing but a desertor. If caught in Irak he could have been sentenced to death.
And as for "legal" or "iligal" wars, who decides? A simple document from UNO? Haw many countries wipe their bottom with such documents?
To me, the only legal wars are the ones to defend your own country from external attack.

Wednesday December 3, 2008, 5:54 am
But sometimes, Enric, it makes far more sense to respond to a threat before that nation actually has the chance to attack and inflict casualties on us. Because it doesn't always require a physical attack to know that a grave threat to our own national security exists.

But I do agree that only grave threat to the safety of the U.S. should ever again justify our entry into international affairs, whether through war or other means.

Wednesday December 3, 2008, 8:55 am
Enric, that is so true, if we shape our policies to reflect an attitude of protection, rather then aggression, we will save ourselves much grief and many lives.

Wednesday December 3, 2008, 1:24 pm
Whew, long thread!
I just wish to add, that, in Viet Nam, soldiers by the hundreds DID lay down their arms and REFUSE to fight. This is WHAT BROUGHT AMERICA TO LEAVE VIET NAM. We could NOT "win", under such circumstances. This is detailed in a book by a Colonel Heidl {I hope I have spelled the name correctly} which is available on the Internet; for anyone who wants to check the FACTS.
So, EN MASSE LAYING DOWN ARMS REALLY DOES WORK -- BEAUTIFULLY! They don't want you to know it, of course. That is why it is not in the history textbooks! The Macedonian troops of ALEXANDER THE GREAT refused to help him conquer India and made him turn homewards -- who'da thunk it! Also, troops in the 18th century British Navy; and, during WWI, RUSSIAN, FRENCH, GERMAN, BRITISH and CANADIAN troops all refused to carry on with war! [Not in your school textbooks -- but in contemporary documents, court cases and memoirs, which I have read.]
This is called MUTINY. You may notice, my Middle Name, is MUTINY.
Sure, to mutiny is against the "Law", and you risk getting killed. But, in WAR you don't risk getting killed???? Might as well die, then, if die you must, for a GOOD CAUSE; not for an EVIL one!!!
THERE HAVE BEEN MASS MUTINIES IN THE IRAQ WAR. The 10th Mountain Division; and the 343rd Quartermasters, are entire units that DISOBEYED DIRECT ORDERS EN MASSE. However, these mass defections have not been frequent enough or numerous enough to stop the war. There have been RUMORS of other mutinies also. Such as, of Air Force pilots REFUSING ORDERS to bomb Iran [and start WWIII]. And, I am sure there have been and are continuing to be mutinous occurrences, that military censorship does not allow us to hear of.
Soldiers are moral beings who do not hand over their moral senses when a weapon is put into their hands. In fact, they must with lethal force at their disposal HAVE A HEIGHTENED MORAL SENSE. ONLY a dictator, autocrat or tyrant of the worst sort, would require Blind Obdience as is touted here. To the extent that the Army DOES require Blind Obedience, that shows HOW FAR THE ARMY HAS STRAYED FROM ANYTHING REMOTELY RESEMBLING THE DEMOCRATIC IDEALS IT IS SUPPOSED TO DEFEND. If soldiers were TRULY "defending Democracy", they would GLADLY DIE AND TAKE RISKS FOR IT -- as they did during WWII, Valley Forge, etc.
All soldiers should immediately refuse to fight AS A GROUP; to defend one another so that no "scapegoat" gets singled out for punishment. ALL of them; EVERY SINGLE LAST ONE. IMMEDIATELY. NOW.
The Army could deal with the logistics of getting them all back home.
And they'd know better than ever again to start more wars to make Contractors, War Profiteers like Halliburton and Blackwater, and Oil Barons, rich!

Wednesday December 3, 2008, 1:35 pm
"Soldiers are moral beings who do not hand over their moral senses when a weapon is put into their hands. In fact, they must with lethal force at their disposal HAVE A HEIGHTENED MORAL SENSE. ONLY a dictator, autocrat or tyrant of the worst sort, would require Blind Obdience as is touted here. To the extent that the Army DOES require Blind Obedience, that shows HOW FAR THE ARMY HAS STRAYED FROM ANYTHING REMOTELY RESEMBLING THE DEMOCRATIC IDEALS IT IS SUPPOSED TO DEFEND."

BMutiny ~ Thank you, my friend!! Being the historian that you are, there's a wealth of information you are able to provide...and here it is. Well said!!!

Wednesday December 3, 2008, 2:09 pm
The strong man is not the good wrestler; the strong man is only the one who controls himself when he is angry.

-Prophet Muhammad, from Sayings of Muhammad by Prof. Ghazi Ahmad

Wednesday December 3, 2008, 2:10 pm
An eye for an eye will make you blind.... Mahatma Gandhi

Its better to be humble than to be a fool.

Wednesday December 3, 2008, 2:17 pm
"May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't." Gen. George S. Patton

Wednesday December 3, 2008, 4:39 pm
What i think is just AWFUL, is how the recruiters go to the poorest and hardest hit areas of the country in this financial nightmare, and offer these high school "kids" (YES! kids who arent old enough to drink or buy beer, who arent allowed to vote, who somne arent even driving a car yet, KIDS!) who are about to graduate a big bonus to sign up for the military, these "recruiters" hang out at malls, grocery stores and any other place where a teen might be hanging out...when these kids look at their current living situations, no jobs, no money NO HOPE...they sign up just for the money because there are NO OTHER CHOICES for many, they sign up without knowing FULLY what they are headed for...where they are headed, and for how long they will last! this is fact, people are NOT enlisting like they were 10 years ago, so they offer "kids" these big bonus's to sign up...ITS NOT RIGHT, ITS CALLED BRIBERY, in MY opinion...the majority of young new enlistees are from poverty stricken areas of the country...THAT IS NOT A CHOICE, THAT IS THE ONLY OPTION THEY SEE FOR SOME TYPE OF FUTURE...its just not right, recruiters should not put their focus on poverty stricken areas of the country...IT ACTUALLY SICKENS ME! you DONT see THEIR kids over in Iraq do you? not many, this is fact also...
i feel bad for these KIDS...age does not make you an adult...
END THE WAR IN IRAQ IMMEDIATELY!
thank you Uhoud!

Wednesday December 3, 2008, 5:00 pm
I wonder, do any of you actually realize that this war is over? Our troops are standing down, and as of June those who are still there will aid in a training capacity - only.

Some of that is true, and some exaggerated, Amy. My own ogd-son was not quite eighteen and had he not gone into the military he is sure he would have been in prison. It is a choice and is made for many reasons, and all that join do know the possible consequences. Death has a different meaning to an 18 year old when he/she signs up for service, and for all of us at a very young age.

Still we must have a standing military, much as anyone might want for all countries to come to peaceful terms, I doubt we are there yet.

Wednesday December 3, 2008, 5:02 pm
The statistics do not bear out that claim that the poor are overwhelmingly represented in the military. According to the General Accounting Office study performed from 1999 to 2003:

"Recruits are not disproportionately poor. Mean household income for recruits in 1999 was $41,141 (in 1999 dollars), compared to the general population median of $41,994. Recruits in 2003 came from households with an average 1999 income of $42,822."

Therefore, those recruits came, on average, from families with slightly above-average income.

"Middle-income quintile ZIP code areas provided consistently higher
proportions of recruits. Areas in the lowest-income quintile provided disproportionately low numbers of recruits in 1999 and 2003 (18.0 and 14.6 percent, respectively)."

So lower-income people were actually disproportionately UNDER-represented in the military.

There are quite a few other statistics contained in that report, which may be seen at:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/upload/84924_1.pdf

Wednesday December 3, 2008, 7:27 pm
Self: "I guess I will leave the discussion." LOL :/ Some comments just inspire responses~~~
Uhoud, I do understand your feelings a lot and am thankful for your sharing this news item, plus this extensive discussion!!!
Amy, BMutiny, & other like-minded compassionate and well-informed commentors: THANK YOU!!! Thanks especially to all who share reliable sources, too!
Yvonne, these are two of my favorite quotes(!!): "An eye for an eye will make you blind" ~Mahatma Gandhi & "Its better to be humble than to be a fool."
Kit, re: "Still we must have a standing military..." Yes, especially to be on hand to HELP after attacks and natural disasters!
Lindsey, re: "The statistics do not bear out that claim that the poor are overwhelmingly represented in the military." You referenced a good source. I could believe that for recent years, since even the non-poor may have a need for (blindly!) following recruiters. However, overall & historically it it is true the poorer folks held the majority. For an example, check-out some Appalachian history. Our particular county was always the first to sign-up MANY, from the Civil War on.
PEACE~

Wednesday December 3, 2008, 7:46 pm
Historically, I believe I've read that the South as a whole was over-represented in the military. Perhaps partly out of the greater poverty our regions has always enjoyed, but also I think perhaps because our region is more traditional in its culture. Of course, it still is!

Wednesday December 3, 2008, 9:50 pm
Lindsey, Appalachian region are in the North and the South. Extensive poverty exists in Northern cities and rural regions, too. NO one's culture is "more TRADITIONAL" than any else's to anyone -- that is surely inaccurate generalization, and generalizations do not help promote truths.

Thursday December 4, 2008, 5:37 am
Taken from the 2000 U.S. Census: the percentage of persons 65 years and older living below the poverty level is OVERWHELMINGLY higher throughout the South (the states highlighted in green have the greatest poverty levels):

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ThematicMapFramesetServlet?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-tm_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_M00278&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-_MapEvent=displayBy&-_dBy=040

Map of income levels by state (darker greens indicate higher incomes - the South does not have ONE STATE in the highest income level and has only one state, Virginia, in the second highest):

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ThematicMapFramesetServlet?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-tm_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_M00270&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-_MapEvent=displayBy&-_dBy=040&-redoLog=false&-tm_c

Thursday December 4, 2008, 5:41 am
The last link got cut off:

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ThematicMapFramesetServlet?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-tm_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_M00270&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-_MapEvent=displayBy&-_dBy=040&-redoLog=false&-tm_c

Thursday December 4, 2008, 5:45 am
I can't get the entire links to post - keep getting cut off. Anyone wanting the links please send me your Care2 e-mail address and I'll be happy to e-mail them to you.

Or google U.S. Census Bureau American Fact Finder 2000 - you should be able to find the same site I did.

Thursday December 4, 2008, 5:51 am
I don't dispute that great poverty exists elsewhere. But Southern states I do believe have historically had a higher level of poverty than other regions, for a variety of regions (part of which is the lingering results of slavery, Jim Crow, and Reconstruction.)

We in Alabama have a saying: "Thank God for Mississippi." Because we know that even if Alabama is ranked 49th in some list of bad qualities, we can usually count on Mississippi to keep us from being 50th!

Thursday December 4, 2008, 6:02 am
Further data on the greater extent of Southern poverty v. other regions:

http://srdc.msstate.edu/publications/srdcpolicy/harris_zimmerman.pdf

"Poverty is considerably more prevalent in the southern states. In a clear majority of counties in the South, the proportion of persons in poverty is higher than the national rate."

http://www.censusscope.org/us/map_poverty.html

Thursday December 4, 2008, 8:05 am
"The South is overrepresented among military recruits. It provided 42.2 percent of 1999 recruits and 41.0 percent of 2003 recruits but contained just 35.6 percent of the population ages 18?24."

While other states can also be overrepresented individually, the South "as a whole" is considered to be overrepresented in the military.

http://www.heritage.org/research/nationalsecurity/cda05-08.cfm

From Newsweek: "White Southerners are the most martial subculture in the United States. Private military academies are as commonplace in the South as liberal-arts colleges are in New England. Southern whites have always been, and remain, over represented in the U.S. military--and underrepresented in the diplomatic corps." http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2002/bush_whistles_dixie

Wednesday December 17, 2008, 7:03 pm
But not to forget that many dictators like Sadam, Pinochet, Batista, Noriega, Musharrif, Zardari (the list goes on and on)were put into power by the US gov. Ensuring plenty of trouble and strife, murder, endless killing and destruction, stealing resources, and banking millions. Mubarak also 100% supported by US. The only laws in these puppet states are there to protect the ruling juntas. Where exactly is the so called democracy that these troops are fighting for?? I wouldn't blame anyone for wanting out. All troops out plz..