At 12:47 PM 10/9/2004, Wirt Atmar wrote:
>Jim writes:
>
> > So, to answer the question: was the allied bombing of enemy
> >  cities a war crime in 1945? No, because the allies won.  Winners
> >  are never found guilty because they rarely try themselves.
>
>In this very regard, I'm still madder than hell that the United States
>launched an unprovoked aggression into Iraq. In a more just and equitable
>world,
>Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, Feith, Kristol and Perle would be facing
>trial as war criminals. The invasion of Iraq was an illegal act. More than
>that,
>it was a deeply immoral act.

You do understand that the 91 gulf war ended in a cease fire as long as
Iraq abided the terms of the cease fire?  And you do realize that they
didn't abide those terms and were chastised time and time again by the UN
with 14 resolutions, and continued to violate the terms of the cease
fire?  What occurred was a resumption of hostilities basically.

An immoral act?  I'm sure the women subject to the rape rooms, and men with
their limbs cut off, and children tortured and killed and the hundreds of
thousands of others of the Iraqi population that were brutalized and
murdered would likely not agree with your concept of morality.


>I wrote on February 25, 2003, during the current administration's campaign of
>nonsense, in their runup for the war, prior to the invasion:
>
>=======================================
>
>Life is not nearly as simple as the current administration is making it seem.
>Perhaps more relevant, nothing Iraq has done lately has posed any threat to
>either the United States or any of Iraq's neighbors. Saddam is 65 years old
>now, he has no active WMD programs, and he governs an army that is only 30%
>to 50% the size it was during the 1991 invasion of Kuwait. The situation in
>Iraq will come to an end in another 10 years of its own accord. Containment
>as a policy worked for the Soviet Union, for Libya, and it would work for
>Iraq. The most pro-western Islamic country in the region is now Iran, and it
>became so on its own, primarily because we left it alone.
>
>=======================================
>
>I further wrote on May 22, 2003:
>
>=======================================
>
>Although that statement caused the list to erupt in squabling as to what
>constituted a weapon of mass destruction and how many cubic football stadiums
>Saddam's current biological weapons production could fill, I only all the more
>resolutely stand by my statement. The war in Iraq was not only a great waste
>of
>money, lives and international credibility, it has done a significant amount
>of
>harm to the long-term prospects of peace in the region.
>
>As the occupying power, we are now obligated to rebuild Iraq as well as we
>can, but that remains something that I have gave doubts that we will see
>through
>to even a mediocre end. If we had left the situation alone, to evolve on its
>own, we -- and the people of the region -- would certainly have been better
>off.
>
>========================================
>
>There are a great many people on this list who should be deeply ashamed of
>their uncritical, unthinking support of the administration's nonsensical
>justifications for war with Iraq. In a very real way, you are partially
>responsible
>for the death of tens of thousands of people.
>
>Greg Stigers quoted someone a few weeks back who said that anyone who thinks
>that George Bush is dumb isn't worth arguing with. I therefore expect no
>argument from anyone regarding this post, if for no other reason than I deeply
>believe that Bush is as dumb as the day is long -- and one of the most
>dangerous
>presidents that the United States has had during the last 100 years.
>
>Wirt Atmar
>
>* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
>* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *


Regards,

Shawn Gordon
President
theKompany.com
www.thekompany.com
949-713-3276

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *