# Bush Admin wants to narrow the scope of the War Crimes Act **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 16, 2006, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979 "2006-08-16T17:44:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/121 "2006-08-20T03:53:30Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] No, that’s not a synonym of “genocide”. [/quote] Oh. Well, that settles that, I guess. > [@](#): > > Hmm. Sounds like what a lot of people were saying about Iraq. Unfortunately it was a \*lie \* then, told for marketing purposes. You knew that too, of course. Now about your insistence that Clinton is just as much a war criminal as Bush - care to drop that foolishness yet? > [@](#): > > World civilization would have collapsed had we not interfered in Kosovo? :rolleyes: Come on now. \*Do \* try to be honest. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/122 "2006-08-20T04:06:06Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] Oh. Well, that settles that, I guess.. [/QUOTE] They mean different things. But if you want to insist on using them interchangeably, then explain how either applies to only Milosovich and not to Hussein. > [@](#): > > Unfortunately it was a lie then, told for marketing purposes. You knew that too, of course. Well, if you have a cite that the majority of Iraqis would prefer that Saddam were still in power, let’s see it. > [@](#): > > Now about your insistence that Clinton is just as much a war criminal as Bush - care to drop that foolishness yet? There’s a difference in degree in what they did, but not in kind. You have yet to counter any of the points I’ve made, and have in fact made several factually incorrect assertions. I said I didn’t think either was a war criminal, but if you insist that Bush is one, you need to explain how his actions differ in kind from Clinton’s. You haven’t done that. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/123 "2006-08-20T04:11:32Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] If this were so, they wouldn’t be changing their minds as the truth outs. And they are. [/QUOTE] Some of them are. Most of the conservatives and moderates on this board are at least able to see Bush as something like what he is, though I don’t think they see it with the clarity that people on the left do. But you know and I know that there are a lot of people out there who are totally cool with torturing any Muslim raghead the US can find who seems Al Qaeda-ish, no matter how flimsy the proof. And they’re totally cool with the invasion of Iraq, either unwilling to admit they bought a lie or unconcerned with the lie. They are scum. They’re vile cretins who don’t deserve to live in the land of Jefferson, Lincoln and Washington. They belong in some stinking Third World cesspool where you can be hauled in for questioning and disappear any day of the week … 'cause they’re OK with that sort of thing. I really hate thinking about Americans like that, and I didn’t used to, but by damn that second time they elected Bush, they crossed a fucking line, as far as I’m concerned. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/124 "2006-08-20T04:32:27Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] They mean different things. But if you want to insist on using them interchangeably, then explain how either applies to only Milosovich and not to Hussein. [/quote] You can first provide your own definition. I do not intend to play your favorite game, “Semantics”, with you, nor let you pretend you haven’t meant what you’ve said. > [@](#): > > Well, if you have a cite that the majority of Iraqis would prefer that Saddam were still in power, let’s see it. If you can actually \*underatnd and address \* what you’re being told, let’s see _that_. :rolleyes: Clinton told the \*truth \* about his reasons for wanting to end the Serbian/Bosnian genocide, as demonstrated by his subsequent actions. Bush lied about his reasons for his Iraq invasions, as demonstrated by his own actions. You do know that as well, but apparently you enjoy petty argumentation even more. ☹ > [@](#): > > There’s a difference in degree in what they did, but not in kind. You have yet to counter any of the points I’ve made. You confuse making an assertion with making a point. A point is supported. You’ve only handwaved and repeated. > [@](#): > > if you insist that Bush is one, you need to explain how his actions differ in kind from Clinton’s. You haven’t done that. What part of “war of aggression” do you \*still \* not understand? ☹ ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/125 "2006-08-20T04:44:21Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] You can first provide your own definition. I do not intend to play your favorite game, “Semantics”, with you, nor let you pretend you haven’t meant what you’ve said. [/quote] I said I’d accept that they are synonyms. Now, explain how Milosovich was different from Saddam wrt to either or both of those terms. > [@](#): > > Clinton told the \*truth \* about his reasons for wanting to end the Serbian/Bosnian genocide, as demonstrated by his subsequent actions. Bush lied about his reasons for his Iraq invasions, as demonstrated by his own actions. You do know that as well, but apparently you enjoy petty argumentation even more. Which brings me back to my original question. No one has answered it so far, so perhaps you’d like to: “So, it’s OK to wage aggressive war as long as you don’t lie?” > [@](#): > > You confuse making an assertion with making a point. A point is supported. You’ve only handwaved and repeated. No, I corrected your factually incorrect assertions. For instance, you claimed Russia was the only barrier to a UNSC resolution backing the Kosovo war. That was incorrect. China was against the action as well. The military action against Serbia violated the UN charter and the charter of NATO. Just like the war in Iraq did (although it wasn’t really an issue for NATO). I’ve already said they differ in degree, but they do not differ in kind. If you think they differ in kind, what are the facts that support that view? I’ve given you mine. You’ve done nothing but state an opinion without one supporting fact. Not one. > [@](#): > > What part of “war of aggression” do you still not understand? The Kosovo military action was not defensive, hence it was aggressive. We were not being attacked. We might have been defending the Kosovars, but then were defending the Shi’a and Kurds in Iraq, too. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/126 "2006-08-20T04:57:38Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] If Iraqis, as a whole, remember Hussein with nostalgia\*, that’s because of our incompetence, not our intentions. [/quote] I think the majority did fear him, but a good number tolerated him and others supported him. I assume that based on what did happen, not on what the administration told us to expect. > [@](#): > > I think we can safely assume that most Iraqis, pre-war, wanted Saddam out. We actually were greeted as liberators-- for the first few weeks. Most Iraqis wanted Saddam out? Maybe, but I have strong doubts that was so when they experienced the price for removing him. Protests against invasion were mostly ignored or repressed, and one of the first big lies of the invasion was the toppling of the Saddam statue: [http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3024.htm](http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3024.htm) > [@](#): > > The Toppling Of Saddam Statue: An Eyewitness Report. > > SBS TV Australia: April 17, 2003 > > ALAN SUNDERLAND: Reverend Watson, welcome to Insight. You were in Baghdad right through the bombing, the arrival of the coalition troops. So tell me, what are we to make of the scenes of Iraqi jubilation on the streets that we’ve been seeing here? > NEVILLE WATSON, PEACE ACTIVIST: Well, there certainly was some jubilation, but I certainly wouldn’t go along with that presented by television. The one that I’ve seen a lot of since I’ve been back is the toppling of the statue of Saddam and I can hardly believe it was the same one that I saw, because it happened at only about 300m from where I was and it was a very small crowd. The rest of the square was almost empty, and when we inquired as to where the crowd came from, it was from Saddam City. In other words, it was a rent-a-crowd. Now, that piece of television has been played over and over again, but I’ve seen nothing of the pieces of television, for example, what happened in Mosul the other day, where the Americans opened fire on a crowd killing 10 and injuring 100 when it became anti-American. So I think the scenes of jubilation have to be balanced against the other side of the picture. > > ALAN SUNDERLAND: Well, overall, you’ve talked on your return about your fears for the future. You’ve talked about the possibility of civil war. What do you base that on? > > NEVILLE WATSON: Well, the reign of Saddam Hussein was a brutal one. It was one in which the community was polarised into those against Saddam and for Saddam. Now that has been removed, it’s obvious as to what’s going to happen. Those who were subjected to great cruelty are going to take revenge on those who did the subjecting. And I fear for Iraqi society in the next 5 or 10 years, because you remember that the Six Day War ended in 1967 but that war is still going on in Israel and Palestine today, and I fear that we have not seen the end of the war in Iraq, we’ve seen just the beginning of it. Months later in some papers, but never on the headlines, was the revelation that the toppling of the Saddam statue was a Psy-ops US military action: > **[The Seattle Times | Local news, sports, business, politics, entertainment,...](https://www.seattletimes.com)** > > Local news, sports, business, politics, entertainment, travel, restaurants and opinion for Seattle and the Pacific Northwest. [QUOTE=John Mace] It’s when we became occupiers that we lost the hearts and minds. [/QUOTE] Less than a year after the invasion: [http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.17867/article\_detail.asp](http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.17867/article_detail.asp) > [@](#): > > One in four prefer the United States as the best model for Iraq’s new government, but 39 percent pick one or another Arab or Muslim country. Only 13 percent of the Sunnis choose the U.S.,while 20 percent pick Saudi Arabia and 14 percent, Iran. > > Most want to be left alone to run their own government, while one in three want help from the U.S. and Great Britain. Almost all residents in Sunni Al Ramadi and most Sunnis overall want Iraqi self-determination. **Two of three Iraqis overall–and seven in ten Sunnis–want U.S. and British forces out of Iraq in a year.** > > While only 36 percent of Iraqis have a favorable view of Osama bin Laden, two thirds of Sunnis are favorable to the terrorist leader. A majority of Shiites are unfavorable. > > Perhaps most ominously, half of all Iraqis polled say the U.S. will hurt Iraq over the next five years. Only 36 percent say the U.S. will help. Two in three Sunnis are negative about the U.S. presence, and more positive about the U.N. and Saudi Arabia. That was back in 2003, the other articles are more optimistic! Yet, one has to remember how the situation has deteriorated since then. Around early 2004 there were polls showing a slight approval of the invasion (It was pure coincidence that an election in the US was coming, right after Bush got reelected I remember then that hard line actions to deal with the insurgents in cities controlled by them was increased); then polls in 2005, specially in a secret poll made by the British, showed that the numbers got much worse for the US. Today it is not a bad guess to assume the numbers are worse than in 2005. As the Shiite protests in favor of Hisballah showed, it is MHO that Iraqis are way past the time they thought of us as just occupiers, many now see us as colonizers. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/127 "2006-08-20T05:28:26Z")
[QUOTE=Evil Captor] Some of them are. Most of the conservatives and moderates on this board are at least able to see Bush as something like what he is, though I don’t think they see it with the clarity that people on the left do. But you know and I know that there are a lot of people out there who are totally cool with torturing any Muslim raghead the US can find who seems Al Qaeda-ish, no matter how flimsy the proof. And they’re totally cool with the invasion of Iraq, either unwilling to admit they bought a lie or unconcerned with the lie. They are scum. They’re vile cretins who don’t deserve to live in the land of Jefferson, Lincoln and Washington. They belong in some stinking Third World cesspool where you can be hauled in for questioning and disappear any day of the week … 'cause they’re OK with that sort of thing. I really hate thinking about Americans like that, and I didn’t used to, but by damn that second time they elected Bush, they crossed a fucking line, as far as I’m concerned. [/QUOTE] It could be worse, also during wartime Nixon won reelection by more than 23 points, in 2004 Bush barely made it over 2%. Also since today 60% think the Iraq war was a mistake I think one could be mad at them in 2004, but I can not be angry now when Americans are uniting against the war mongers. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/128 "2006-08-20T06:10:31Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] I think the majority did fear him, but a good number tolerated him and others supported him. I assume that based on what did happen, not on what the administration told us to expect. Most Iraqis wanted Saddam out? Maybe, but I have strong doubts that was so when they experienced the price for removing him. Protests against invasion were mostly ignored or repressed, and one of the first big lies of the invasion was the toppling of the Saddam statue: [http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3024.htm](http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3024.htm) Months later in some papers, but never on the headlines, was the revelation that the toppling of the Saddam statue was a Psy-ops US military action: > **[The Seattle Times | Local news, sports, business, politics, entertainment,...](https://www.seattletimes.com)** > > Local news, sports, business, politics, entertainment, travel, restaurants and opinion for Seattle and the Pacific Northwest. Less than a year after the invasion: [http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.17867/article\_detail.asp](http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.17867/article_detail.asp) That was back in 2003, the other articles are more optimistic! Yet, one has to remember how the situation has deteriorated since then. Around early 2004 there were polls showing a slight approval of the invasion (It was pure coincidence that an election in the US was coming, right after Bush got reelected I remember then that hard line actions to deal with the insurgents in cities controlled by them was increased); then polls in 2005, specially in a secret poll made by the British, showed that the numbers got much worse for the US. Today it is not a bad guess to assume the numbers are worse than in 2005. As the Shiite protests in favor of Hisballah showed, it is MHO that Iraqis are way past the time they thought of us as just occupiers, many now see us as colonizers. [/QUOTE] I can’t tell if you’re agreeing with me or disagreeing. None of what you’ve posted contradicts anything I said, btw. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/129 "2006-08-20T06:32:30Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] I can’t tell if you’re agreeing with me or disagreeing. None of what you’ve posted contradicts anything I said, btw. [/QUOTE] I don’t think your assumptions, (like this one btw) are safe at all. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/130 "2006-08-20T06:46:27Z")
> [@](#): > > …Which brings me back to my original question. No one has answered it so far, so perhaps you’d like to: “So, it’s OK to wage aggressive war as long as you don’t lie?”… Taking you at your word, and assuming that you’re not posing the question for its annoyance value… No. Of course not. But I sincerely doubt that the aggressive war would have been possible without the lies. This war was packaged, focus grouped and sold like so much Ovaltine. Without the lies, without the fear and misplaced rage, this war would never have happened, GW’s bluster would have been ignored as quickly as if he were threatening to colonize Mars. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/131 "2006-08-20T14:51:13Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Taking you at your word, and assuming that you’re not posing the question for its annoyance value… [/quote] It only has annoyance value if you want to play fast and lose with terms like “war crimes”. > [@](#): > > No. Of course not. So, is Bush or Clinton (or both) guilty of war crimes? Assuming that your earlier post about war crimes was relavent to the discussion and wasn’t posted simply to smear one of them as a war criminal w/o the inconvenience of having to actually prove it. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/132 "2006-08-20T14:56:46Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] I don’t think your assumptions, (like this one btw) are safe at all. [/QUOTE] So, you’ve posted some info that the toppling of the Saddam statue was staged, and you posted (with no cite) that by 2004 only a slight majority of Iraqis approved of the invasion. How does that contradict anything in my post? Was I negligent in not adding “Bush is a poopypants” at the end? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/133 "2006-08-20T15:00:06Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] I said I’d accept that they are synonyms. [/quote] I’d still be interested in knowing what _you_ think the difference is, if in fact you weren’t making that claim merely for the fun of argumentativeness. > [@](#): > > Now, explain how Milosovich was different from Saddam wrt to either or both of those terms. Just did. Scroll up. :rolleyes: And \*do \* learn to spell. > [@](#): > > So, it’s OK to wage aggressive war as long as you don’t lie? I did ask you to try to be honest. I’ll ask that again. Take down your strawmen if, in fact, you are actually interested in an actual discussion here. That is less apparent with every post, unfortunately. > [@](#): > > For instance, you claimed Russia was the only barrier to a UNSC resolution backing the Kosovo war. That was incorrect. China was against the action as well. You didn’t get \*that \* point, either. The action to stop the genocide in Yugoslavia was by, and on behalf of, the bulk of the civilized world (China as well had, and still has, its own good reasons not to support the cause of human rights in so direct a manner). The action in Iraq was \*despite \* the desires and interests of the civilized world. Got it now? :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > The military action against Serbia violated the UN charter and the charter of NATO. Cite? Relevance, for that matter? > [@](#): > > If you think they differ in kind, what are the facts that support that view? Already stated. Do a text search on “genocide” on this page. :rolleyes: Really now. You \*do \* know better; I’m sure of that. > [@](#): > > The Kosovo military action was not defensive, hence it was aggressive. Excluded middle, between two false premises at that. You know _that_, too. Now do yourself a huge favor. Step way back, take a long, deep breath, and reconsider if this is \*really \* a view, or line of reasoning, that you wish to associate yourself with, if simply acting out your favored gadfly role is really contributing anything useful here to anyone, least of all yourself. Okay, pal? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/134 "2006-08-20T15:06:09Z")
Just for clarity’s sake, [here](http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-nurem.htm) you can read all about the principles which the civilized world declared to be crimes against humanity, not all that long ago, and upon which rest our claims ever since to be the “good guys”. I do understand that this post is wasted upon those, like our interlocutor here, who dismiss it as mere “winner’s justice”, but it has its importance nonetheless. It’s short and public domain: > [@](#): > > Principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal, 1950 > > Principle I > Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment. > > Principle II > The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law. > > Principle III > The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law. > > Principle IV > The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him. > > Principle V > Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law. > > Principle Vl > The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law: > > Crimes against peace: > Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; > Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i). > > War crimes: > Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or illtreatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity. > > Crimes against humanity: > Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime. > > Principle VII > Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principles VI is a crime under international law. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/135 "2006-08-20T17:13:01Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] So, you’ve posted some info that the toppling of the Saddam statue was staged, [/quote] Ignoring that that was to show that saying that “We actually were greeted as liberators-- for the first few weeks.” to be an ignorant thing to say. > [@](#): > > and you posted (with no cite) that by 2004 only a slight majority of Iraqis approved of the invasion. I posted the polls before in both the pit and in GD, maybe you missed them, but most likely you forgot. In any case, I pointed to the poll of 2003 to show that around the time we were killing Saddam’s sons and capturing Saddam 2/3 of Iraquis wanted us out in a year, or wanted to follow a system of government like Saudi Arabia (no democracy) or Iran (democracy for fanatics) it is not clear still that Iraqis wanted Saddam out so you are the one that is dodging a cite. The biggest Iraqi support for that idea came from exile groups commanded by weasels like Chalabi. That showed to me that the Bush administration flushed down the toilet the lessons of the Bay of pigs regarding another exile community: don’t ever rely on information from exiles with axes to grind. > [@](#): > > How does that contradict anything in my post? Was I negligent in not adding “Bush is a poopypants” at the end? That would have help. 🙂 Really, on top of ignoring the lessons of the past, Bush following Chalabi’s advice to fire all military and police forces in Iraq ended up helping the insurgency and Iran, allowing what in all intents was a mole from Iran to be close to the president was bad enough, stalling investigations against Chalabi points to Bush liking what he got. With the cover blown the investigation against Chalabi and administration leakers has stalled for reasons that now amount IMO to butt covering only, truth be dammed, stay the course! > **[Chalabi 'boasted of Iranian spy link'](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/may/26/usa.iraq3)** > > Iraqi accused by CIA made claim in 1997, says former inspector. [http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/10962352/iran\_the\_next\_war/5](http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/10962352/iran_the_next_war/5) > [@](#): > > For years, the National Security Agency had possessed the codes used by Iran to encrypt its diplomatic messages, enabling the U.S. government to eavesdrop on virtually every communication between Tehran and its embassies. After the U.S. invaded Baghdad, the NSA used the codes to listen in on details of Iran’s covert operations inside Iraq. But in 2004, the agency intercepted a series of urgent messages from the Iranian embassy in Baghdad. Intelligence officials at the embassy had discovered the massive security breach—tipped off by someone familiar with the U.S. code-breaking operation. > > The blow to intelligence-gathering could not have come at a worse time. The Bush administration suspected that the Shiite government in Iran was aiding Shiite insurgents in Iraq, who were killing U.S. soldiers. The administration was also worried that Tehran was secretly developing nuclear weapons. Now, crucial intelligence that might have shed light on those operations had been cut off, potentially endangering American lives. > > On May 20th, shortly after the discovery of the leak, Iraqi police backed by American soldiers raided Chalabi’s home and offices in Baghdad. The FBI suspected that Chalabi, a Shiite who had a luxurious villa in Tehran and was close to senior Iranian officials, was actually working as a spy for the Shiite government of Iran. Getting the U.S. to invade Iraq was apparently part of a plan to install a pro-Iranian Shiite government in Baghdad, with Chalabi in charge. The bureau also suspected that Chalabi’s intelligence chief had furnished Iran with highly classified information on U.S. troop movements, top-secret communications, plans of the provisional government and other closely guarded material on U.S. operations in Iraq. On the night of the raid, The CBS Evening News carried an exclusive report by correspondent Lesley Stahl that the U.S. government had “rock-solid” evidence that Chalabi had been passing extremely sensitive intelligence to Iran—evidence so sensitive that it could “get Americans killed.” > The revelation shocked Franklin and other members of Feith’s office. If true, the allegations meant that they had just launched a war to put into power an agent of their mortal enemy, Iran. Their man—the dissident leader who sat behind the first lady in the president’s box during the State of the Union address in which Bush prepared the country for war—appeared to have been working for Iran all along. > > Franklin needed to control the damage, and fast. He was one of the very few in the government who knew that it was the NSA code-breaking information that Chalabi was suspected of passing to Iran, and that there was absolute proof that Chalabi had met with a covert Iranian agent involved in operations against the U.S. To protect those in the Pentagon working for regime change in Tehran, Franklin needed to get out a simple message: We didn’t know about Chalabi’s secret dealings with Iran. > > Franklin decided to leak the information to a friendly contact in the media: Adam Ciralsky, a CBS producer who had been fired from the CIA, allegedly for his close ties to Israel. On May 21st, the day after CBS broadcast its exclusive report on Chalabi, Franklin phoned Ciralsky and fed him the information. As the two men talked, eavesdroppers at the FBI’s Washington field office recorded the conversation. > > That night, Stahl followed up her original report with “new details”—the information leaked earlier that day by Franklin. She began, however, by making clear that she would not divulge the most explosive detail of all: the fact that Chalabi had wrecked the NSA’s ability to eavesdrop on Iran. “Senior intelligence officials were stressing today that the information Ahmed Chalabi is alleged to have passed on to Iran is so seriously sensitive that the result of full disclosure would be highly damaging to U.S. security,” Stahl said. “Because of that, we are not reporting the details of what exactly Chalabi is said to have compromised, at the request of U.S. officials at the highest levels. The information involves secrets that were held by only a handful of very senior intelligence officials.” Thanks to the pressure from the administration, the public was prevented from learning the most damaging aspect of Chalabi’s treachery. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/136 "2006-08-20T17:48:00Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] Ignoring that that was to show that saying that “We actually were greeted as liberators-- for the first few weeks.” to be an ignorant thing to say. [/quote] Why? Just because it was staged (if it was) doesn’t mean we weren’t greeted as liberators. Are you contending that the Iraqis who participated in the shoe-slapping did so under duress? All the polls that I saw showed (and continue to show) that most Iraqis are glad Saddam is gone, and did support the invasion (at least in the early phase). That’s all I’ve said. Do you really need me to dig up those news articles from 2003? Now, do you want to quibble over whether “approved of the invasion” = “viewed as liberators”? If so, then I’ll pass on that semantic debate. You want to launch into a discussion about how Iraqis want us out now (actaully, I think the polls show they want us out “sometime soon”). I don’t dispute that and that doesn’t contradict anything I posted. I specifically said that Iraqis now view us as occupiers. And just to be clear: Bush is a poopypants! 🙂 **Elvis** : It’s nice that you’ve posted that cite for war crimes. Now, take the next step and apply it to both situations. There is no way you can claim that Bush is guilty under those terms and that Clinton isn’t. The Kosovo military action violated the UN Charter, plain and simple. So, unless you don’t consider that to be a treaty, it was a “crime against peace”. Your handwaving of the objections by the Russians and the Chinese sounds just like the handwaving we heard by Bush et al of the objections by the French, the Russians and the Chinese in the lead up to the Iraq War. You’d make a terrific neocon! ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/137 "2006-08-20T18:52:29Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Why? Just because it was staged (if it was) doesn’t mean we weren’t greeted as liberators. Are you contending that the Iraqis who participated in the shoe-slapping did so under duress? [/quote] I’m not sure then what to call a request by armed soldiers to get on the pulling tank and celebrate. > [@](#): > > All the polls that I saw showed (and continue to show) that most Iraqis are glad Saddam is gone, and did support the invasion (at least in the early phase). That’s all I’ve said. Do you really need me to dig up those news articles from 2003? Now, do you want to quibble over whether “approved of the invasion” = “viewed as liberators”? If so, then I’ll pass on that semantic debate. [http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10224234&BRD=1817&PAG=461&dept\_id=68561&rfi=6](http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10224234&BRD=1817&PAG=461&dept_id=68561&rfi=6) > [@](#): > > [Gallup poll] September 2003.. > … > > But they’re not convinced that Iraq is better off now - 47 percent said the country is worse off than before the invasion and 33 percent said it is better off. It seems to me that most of the [del]Gosh darned[/del] “Alash darned” “we are glad for the invasion!” numbers showing support were based on questions regarding wishful thinking for the future, like asking for example if they think Iraq “will be in better condition five years from now than it was before the U.S.-led invasion”. Also the British poll from 2004 with the horrid numbers was done in secret, IIRC the people polled thought it was Iraqi students making the questions for an Iraqi university, the best poll numbers for the west are obtained when western media identifies as the questioners, I do think knowing who is making the questions has tainted the results in our favor, and I think fear (unfounded in this case but still there) makes many Iraqis tell the west what we want to hear. I have to mention here it is fascinating to check back on how reports can apparently say one thing and in reality the opposite was true, this war remains a treasure trove for propaganda researchers. > [@](#): > > You want to launch into a discussion about how Iraqis want us out now (actaully, I think the polls show they want us out “sometime soon”). You missed the bolded “they want us out in a year” from 2003. > [@](#): > > I don’t dispute that and that doesn’t contradict anything I posted. I specifically said that Iraqis now view us as occupiers. No problem there, the more than a nitpick item still remains that it is not safe at all to assume Iraqis were mostly glad for getting rid of Saddam, doubtful just before and during the invasion and a doubtful thing to assume in recent times. > [@](#): > > And just to be clear: Bush is a poopypants! 🙂 And to be clear also: I’m glad Saddan is gone, but there was a chance to do a Haiti maneuver and send Saddam to exile, and leave most of the military and police power base in place, but there would not have been any propaganda footage from that, or oil and contracts for Bush’s cronies, so never mind. Only the BBC bothered to correct the record by reporting that the celebration was staged, to this day outfits like FOX (I still remember one reporter saying gleefully that “this footage is gold” for the Bush administration) and CNN and the other big three have not bothered to correct the record yet. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/138 "2006-08-20T19:09:32Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Why? Just because it was staged (if it was) doesn’t mean we weren’t greeted as liberators. [/quote] What other evidence do you have to present that we _were_? > [@](#): > > Now, do you want to quibble over whether “approved of the invasion” = “viewed as liberators”? If so, then I’ll pass on that semantic debate. 🙂 > [@](#): > > There is no way you can claim that Bush is guilty under those terms and that Clinton isn’t. Apparently you don’t understand \*any \* part of “war of aggression” any more than you understand “genocide”, then. Go do your homework. > [@](#): > > The Kosovo military action violated the UN Charter, plain and simple. Repetition =/= cite, as already explained (but, sadly, not grasped). Further, UN =/= civilized world, not with the Security Council permanent members each having a veto. If you don’t get that distinction by now, there’s not much hope you ever will. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/139 "2006-08-20T19:28:09Z")
> [@GIGO](#): > > It seems to me that most of the Gosh darned “Alash darned” “we are glad for the invasion!” numbers showing support were based on questions regarding wishful thinking for the future, like asking for example if they think Iraq “will be in better condition five years from now than it was before the U.S.-led invasion”. No, I think you’re wrong on that. This [2005 ABC poll](http://abcnews.go.com/International/PollVault/story?id=1389228) shows that in 2004 well under 50% of Iraqis thought it was wrong for the US to invade in 2003, although the number is about half now: > [@](#): > > Other views, moreover, are more negative: Fewer than half, 46 percent, say the country is better off now than it was before the war. And half of Iraqis now say it was wrong for U.S.-led forces to invade in spring 2003, up from 39 percent in 2004. That’s not an inference from questions about optimsim about the future, but a direct question about the invasion iteslf. Nevertheless: > [@](#): > > There are positive political signs as well. Three-quarters of Iraqis express confidence in the national elections being held this week, 70 percent approve of the new constitution, and 70 percent — including most people in Sunni and Shiite areas alike — want Iraq to remain a unified country. And… > [@](#): > > There’s other evidence of the United States’ increasing unpopularity: Two-thirds now oppose the presence of U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq, 14 points higher than in February 2004. Nearly six in 10 disapprove of how the United States has operated in Iraq since the war, and most of them disapprove strongly. And nearly half of Iraqis would like to see U.S. forces leave soon. > > Specifically, 26 percent of Iraqis say U.S. and other coalition forces should “leave now” and another 19 percent say they should go after the government chosen in this week’s election takes office; that adds to 45 percent. Roughly the other half says coalition forces should remain until security is restored (31 percent), until Iraqi security forces can operate independently (16 percent), or longer (5 percent). Now, I’m not presenting that as some shining example of how great things are, but clearly only a minority wants us “out now” even if they disapprove of our presence longterm. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/140 "2006-08-20T19:47:30Z")
Polling Iraqis has got to be a problem. If a white guy with a translator shows up, they’ll probably tell him something different than if one of the Shia militia types asks. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979.md?page=8)