quote:

Originally posted by d!abolic That's the stupidest fucking thing i've ever heard on the net. Period. And that's saying a lot. You're comparing a few thousand deaths in Iraq to 61,000,000 deaths in WWII? What's 'close enuf' for you? Because so far, we're at about 0.5% of WWII's death toll.

i think it is pointless to compare which is worse, the death of people, is a sad event, no matter the size.

quote:

Originally posted by nycionx you might aswell include george bush too. the americans are causing more perversion/killing/hatred/abuse (i can go on..) of humanity with the war in iraq, than hitler did....well theyre getting close enuf

i agree, no matter what the stats say ...organized crime/ death or precalculated/intentional crime is no different. point is, it is what it is. DEATH! even one is too many! they're all sick bastards!


diabolic this is for you!


U.S. Tries to Get Off the Hook on War Crimes

Ahead of U.N. Resolution on Iraq, U.S. Tries to Exclude Its Troops from Prosecution

(New York, May 20, 2004) – The United States is insisting that its
troops be exempt from international war crimes prosecutions while serving in any U.N. force in Iraq, despite U.S. abuse of prisoners there, Human Rights Watch said today.

Without prior notice to members of the U.N. Security Council, the
United States yesterday demanded an immediate vote to renew contentious Security Council Resolution 1487. This
measure grants immunity to personnel in U.N. authorized or approved
operations from states that have not ratified the International Criminal Court (ICC) treaty.

A similar resolution granting immunity to U.S. peacekeepers was first adopted in July 2002, and was renewed by Resolution 1487 last year. Resolution 1487 does not require renewal for another
five weeks.

“Given the recent revelations from Abu Ghraib prison, the U.S.
government has picked one hell of a moment to ask for special treatment on war crimes,” said Richard Dicker, director of the
International Justice program at Human Rights Watch. “The U.N. Security Council should not grant special favors to any country, including the United States.”

Human Rights Watch said that the U.S. government wanted to push an ICC resolution through as quickly as possible so that the contentious issue would not overshadow efforts to win Security Council backing for the transfer of sovereignty to Iraqi authorities on June 30.

In 2002, the Bush administration’s insistence on an ICC exemption for U.S. troops involved in U.N. operations seemed unnecessary at the time. In light of recent abuses by U.S. forces in Iraq,
this insistence has taken on a more sinister meaning. Just hours before he proposed Security Council renewal of Resolution 1487, Ambassador James Cunningham, the Deputy U.S. Representative to the United Nations, said during a Council debate on Iraq that the “shameful acts” committed by U.S. forces against Iraqi detainees would be punished.

“The ICC can only prosecute the most serious crimes where national
courts fail to punish those responsible,” said Dicker. “It is time for the United States to demonstrate that it will abide by
international standards and has nothing to fear from the ICC.”

The ICC is a court of last resort. Credible U.S. war crimes trials or courts-martial would preclude the ICC prosecutor from taking up cases against U.S. military personnel.

Human Rights Watch opposes Resolution 1487. The resolution distorts the Rome Statute, the treaty establishing the ICC. The Security Council has overstepped its authority under the U.N. Charter by seeking to amend a multilateral treaty in this way.

Renewal of the resolution was expected to occur sometime next month and generate a huge debate in a public meeting of U.N. member states at the Security Council. An open meeting will still take place, but the U.S. rush to early renewal with only 48 hours notice is a deliberate effort to curtail debate.

“The United States fears any meaningful discussion of this resolution,” said Dicker.
“Washington wants to steamroll renewal of Resolution 1487 in 48 hours to undercut growing objections to its campaign of special exemption from the rule of law. Last year three states didn't
vote for the resolution, and this year that number will grow."

The ICC, based in The Hague, has broad international support. Currently 94 countries have ratified the Rome Statue establishing the court and nearly 140 have signed the treaty. Last year
these states elected the court's first 18 judges and prosecutor. The
court's first investigations in Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo are expected to begin this year.

Iraq has neither signed nor ratified the ICC treaty.



..............

___________________
life's too short~simply do!

u tell him girl

diabolic...i see why u think its nothin much for just a "few thousand" iraqis to be killed cos someone elses death tickles u....

___________________
www.elkdee.com
Soundcloud sampler: www.soundcloud.com/elkdee

quote:

Originally posted by DJ El Kay Dee u tell him girl diabolic...i see why u think its nothin much for just a "few thousand" iraqis to be killed cos someone elses death tickles u....

Don't put words in my mouth. I do think the civillian deaths in Iraq are tragic, but to claim Bush is worse than Hitler when Hitler killed 200 times as many people is just plain silly. Besides, even though Bush went to war in Iraq for the wrong reasons, Iraqis are far better off now than they were before, and that's something no one can argue with.

Last edited by d!abolic on May-27-2004 at 02:01

quote:

Originally posted by disko-kandi diabolic this is for you!

Well, first things first. The UN wouldn't even EXIST without US funding, so let's keep that in mind while painting a picture that makes the US look like a naughty kid trying to get away with bad behavior. Their move, as described in the article was just good PR. Having their own troops on trial for war crimes next to the likes of Slobo wouldn't make the US look good. Is it right? Of course not, but it's damage control, and you can't expect the US to allow the scandal to escalate without trying to make it better. Those troops WILL be tried and punished nevertheless, so as long as justice is served, i personally couldn't care less if it's done by a court by Washington or The Hague. And besides, we shouldn't forget that the troops weren't exactly torturing nuns and schoolgirls in that prison. Those people were there for a reason: they were criminals. Not convicted criminals perhaps, but believe me when i say that most, if not all of them have US blood on their hands and that's exactly why they were tortured. That's not what our democracy stands for, i agree, but these weren't innocent bystanders, and that does matter.

quote:

Originally posted by d!abolic ...Besides, even though Bush went to war in Iraq for the wrong reasons, Iraqis are far better off now than they were before, and that's something no one can argue with.

OMGFGGGGGG!!! HOLY SHIT! YOU GOTTA BE THE MOST DUMBEST PERSON IN THE WORLD


tell me something...theyre better off NOW without shelter, food, thier loved ones that DIED! better NOW that theyre in jail doing abnormal sexual shit that only ur friendly american can think of??? ur fuken smart


see i kno wut kinda person u are...ur one of those many dumbasses that listen to cnn and other shit news like that. completely brainwashed


(should of kept my mouth shut..i cant try to prove a point like this to u)

___________________

Oscar G. & Ralph Falcon vs. Lil' Louis - French Kiss to the Dark Beat (Murk Monster Club Mix)
Vadim Zhukov - Exit vs. Remy and Roland Klinkenberg - Fearless (Acapella) vs. Thomas Datt - 2v2 (John Askew Remix) [ASOT 150 RIP]
DJ Tiesto - In My Memory (V-One Remix) [Tiesto@Club Space 2002 RIP]
Miami Ice - Better Than Perfect (Full Intention Club Mix)
(Love) Tattoo - History Of Disco Part 2 (Oh How I Love Your Disco Extended Edit)
Bent feat. Simon Lord (Simian) - To Be Loved (Mr. B Remix)
Nicolas Bulostin - Nothing Better Than Sex

quote:

Originally posted by d!abolic Well, first things first. The UN wouldn't even EXIST without US funding, so let's keep that in mind while painting a picture that makes the US look like a naughty kid trying to get away with bad behavior. Their move, as described in the article was just good PR. Having their own troops on trial for war crimes next to the likes of Slobo wouldn't make the US look good. Is it right? Of course not, but it's damage control, and you can't expect the US to allow the scandal to escalate without trying to make it better. Those troops WILL be tried and punished nevertheless, so as long as justice is served, i personally couldn't care less if it's done by a court by Washington or The Hague. And besides, we shouldn't forget that the troops weren't exactly torturing nuns and schoolgirls in that prison. Those people were there for a reason: they were criminals. Not convicted criminals perhaps, but believe me when i say that most, if not all of them have US blood on their hands and that's exactly why they were tortured. That's not what our democracy stands for, i agree, but these weren't innocent bystanders, and that does matter.

How about we go attack The US and occupy them and reap the benefis of controling thier economy all in the name of "removing a dictator [BUSH] and liberating the people of the US from this theif who stole office".. oh.. and lets not forget about those hundreds of WMD's that WE KNOW EXIST in Colorado and Nevada

___________________
"This place isn't big enough for me to blow it up."
-MARCO V

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King How about we go attack The US and occupy them and reap the benefis of controling thier economy all in the name of "removing a dictator [BUSH] and liberating the people of the US from this theif who stole office".. oh.. and lets not forget about those hundreds of WMD's that WE KNOW EXIST in Colorado and Nevada

Last time i checked, Bush wasn't using poison gas to wipe out unsuspecting villagers

quote:

Originally posted by nycionx (should of kept my mouth shut..i cant try to prove a point like this to u)

After reading the preceding statement, i fully agree with this sentence

Alright, to be fair though: are people suffering? Yes. Would more people end up suffering in the long run if Saddam remained in power? yes. I think this pretty much sums it up. The Iraqis welcomed Americans with open arms, that was very clearly captured on video by dozens of reporters from different countries. Now they've turned against them because their own tribal leaders want power and are stirring up trouble. Now it's Palestina Part Deux thanks to their own stupidity. Had they followed the footsteps of someone like Gandhi instead though, things would have turned out differently.

Last edited by d!abolic on May-27-2004 at 04:56

quote:

Originally posted by d!abolic Last time i checked, Bush wasn't using poison gas to wipe out unsuspecting villagers

Last time you checked, you forgot to research the fact that his father (Bush Senior) sold Saddam that gas, and then sold him more after he commited that horrid act

Lets not forget that Bush is best buddies with the Saudi's right now, a monarchy bent on torture, public execution, and human rights abuses against women

p.S did you ever see Rumsfeld shaking Saddams hand? I can show you that pic!

___________________
"This place isn't big enough for me to blow it up."
-MARCO V

Last edited by Cyrus King on May-27-2004 at 04:54

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King Last time you checked, you forgot to research the fact that his father sold Saddam that gas, and then sold him more after he commited that horrid act Lets not forget that Bush is best buddies with the Saudi's right now, a monarchy bent on torture, public execution, and human rights abuses against women p.S did you ever see Rumsfeld shaking Saddams hand? I can show you that pic!

He sold him more gas after Saddam used it on civillians? Link to proof please. I know about the Saudis. Hell, who doesn't. But Bush has his hands tied. He *HAS* to be on good terms with them because they control the oil. He simply has no choice. As for Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand: yeah, i've got the video even. That was before Saddam invaded Kuwait: Rumsfeld had no reson NOT to.

quote:

Originally posted by d!abolic He sold him more gas after Saddam used it on civillians? Link to proof please. I know about the Saudis. Hell, who doesn't. But Bush has his hands tied. He *HAS* to be on good terms with them because they control the oil. He simply has no choice. As for Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand: yeah, i've got the video even. That was before Saddam invaded Kuwait: Rumsfeld had no reson NOT to.

The reagan administration helped foster the attack indirectly, yet knowingly and Bush SR. continued to support Saddams brutal treatment of the Kurds after he took office. The Neo cons then are the same people running the US govt today.

The link is in Chomsky's Pirates and Emperors: old and New

Read that book...im sure with the reaction you have to my claims will be furthered once you finish it

And Rumsfeld was shaking the hand of a man that murdered hundreds of thousands of Iraq's that opposed him BEFORE he invaded Kuwait

Give me a break

___________________
"This place isn't big enough for me to blow it up."
-MARCO V