Friday, March 28th, 2003
RUMSFELD has just specifically threatened Saddam’s ” death squads ” with justice after the war is over.
Archive for March 28th, 2003
Friday, March 28th, 2003
BEHOLD, THE VOICE OF FEAR:
” If the Coalition does not remove the regime, half of us will die. We will all be killed just for talking to you. Saddam’s eyes and ears are all over here ”
-Jasser, an Iraqi in Az-Zubayr to The Chicago Tribune
Let’s hear again from Stanley Kutler, Tom Spencer, Jimmy Carter, Robert Byrd, Micheal Moore, the Bush-is-Hitler celebrity morons in Hollywood- on how this war is immoral.
Friday, March 28th, 2003
QUOTE OF THE DAY:
” Nothing but unconditional surrender “
General Ulysses Grant
Friday, March 28th, 2003
WHY IRAQ FEELS FREE TO IGNORE THE GENEVA CONVENTION:
1) The regime is monstrous – systemically and in terms of its top leadership
2) The United States has not attempted serious enforcement of its Geneva rights in over fifty years
The Iraqi government has ominously announced that American POW’s will be treated in accord with the laws of Islam instead of adhering to the Geneva Convention. An admission in effect, of an intent to commit war crimes.
Iraq feels free to mistreat American prisoners in part because it knows the United States government has a history after WWII of ignoring abuses of American POWs and that doing so involves no serious consequences. Saddam Hussein’s direct experience from the first Gulf war was that American soldiers could be tortured with impunity and not receive so much as a public reprimand; indeed, American politicians are more concerned with enforcing highly restrictive rules of engagement on the U.S. military than in taking actions that would deter enemy forces from mistreating our prisoners.
In WWII the Nazis were restrained from executing captured Allied airmen or using poison gas on the battlefield because the Wehrmacht and the Luftwaffe generals impressed upon Hitler that if he followed the advice of Nazi radicals, the Allies would certainly retaliate in kind. We in fact did. After the infamous Malmedy Massacre by the SS of American captives, American GI’s simply refused to accept surrender from Waffen-SS forces for several weeks. In response to the reprisals, SS atrocities against Allied POW’s ceased and generally honoring the Geneva Convention was resumed. Likewise, German soldiers caught violating Geneva prohibitions on fighting out of uniform as in the Ex Parte Quirin case or Skorzeny’s paratroopers in the Battle of the Bulge, were swiftly tried and executed.
Without the surety of such a severe response it is unlikely that the sorts of enemies the United States faces – Islamist radicals and ghoulish totalitarian dictatorships like Saddam’s Iraq – will be highly unlikely to respect what in their view is a mere scrap of paper. The world has watched the U.S. incarcerate al Qaida members but be too afraid to mete out justice to those who have violated Geneva by targeting civilians, executing prisoners and fighting out of uniform. By backing away from the perfectly legitimate use under international law of military tribunals we have encouraged our enemies to commit further crimes. Correctly, al Qaida, Saddam and European states supporting Iraq like France, interpret such a decision as weakness and an area to pressure America for concessions that would delay victory or compromise our security.
It’s time to stop worrying about criticism from Chirac, EU High Commissioners, the ” Arab Street “, Ramsey Clark and his Communist misfits and other peripheral political concerns and begin exercising our rights to justice under Geneva. First of all, we have an obligation to our soldiers. Secondly, it’s the right thing to do. Third, if we do, we might just find more nations respecting the Convention down the road.
Friday, March 28th, 2003
AH, THE FRENCH.
With all the diplomatic surefootedness and sophistication that anti-war critics see lacking in the Bush Administration. Compare this to the furor over Rumsfeld’s brief ” Old Europe ” comment. From the Telegraph.
Villepin refuses to say which side he supports
By Anton La Guardia, Diplomatic Editor
(Filed: 28/03/2003)
France’s attempt to repair relations with America and Britain over Iraq backfired yesterday when Dominique de Villepin, their foreign minister, refused to say which side he supported.
During a speech in London, M de Villepin said he hoped for “a swift conclusion with the minimum possible number of casualties”.
But asked by The Telegraph whether he hoped American and British forces would win the military campaign to remove Saddam Hussein, he replied angrily: “I’m not going to answer. You have not been listening carefully to what I said before. You already have the answer.”
M de Villepin had come to London to mend fences after the bitter disputes over the failed attempt to secure a UN resolution authorising war, saying: “We must rebuild the world order shattered by the Iraq crisis.”
But his apparent reluctance to choose sides will have done serious damage to his charm offensive. Senior British officials said they were “stunned”.
Embarrassed French officials tried to salvage the situation by pointing out that, on French television on Monday, M de Villepin said: “Clearly, we hope the US will win this war quickly.”
One diplomat said: “We have no hesitation about where we stand.”
But M de Villepin’s faux pas is likely to harden suspicion in America and Britain of his demands that the UN take over the administration and rebuilding of Iraq after the downfall of Saddam Hussein.
Michael Ancram, shadow foreign affairs spokesman, said: “It is beyond belief that the French foreign minister was unable to bring himself to look forward to a coalition victory and the liberation of the people of Iraq from the tyranny and oppression.
“France appears to be backing herself into a corner from which she cannot get out.” M de Villepin, who speaks fluent English, did not meet any British ministers when he came to London to deliver a lecture to the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
However he briefly met Sir Michael Jay, former ambassador to Paris and now head of the Diplomatic Service.
The Foreign Office said no snub was intended as the Foreign Secretary was with the Prime Minister at Camp David. “Jack Straw said he would have been happy to meet M de Villepin had he been in London,” said a spokesman.
In his address, M de Villepin said France was ready to re-establish a “close and trusting relationship with the United States”.
But his comments made clear that the rift is far from being bridged.
Moreover M de Villepin did himself few favours with Washington when, recalling the “bleakest time in our history” during the Second World War, he extolled Winston Churchill and Charles de Gaulle but left out Franklin D Roosevelt’s role in the liberation of France.
M de Villepin argued that the use of force should be subordinated to “law, justice and legitimacy” if it was not to provoke a “clash of civilisations”.
He seemed more concerned with the need to constrain America’s doctrine of “pre-emptive” action than removing the danger posed by Saddam.
He spoke more about the “destabilising” effect of America’s resort to force than the destabilising impact of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of rogue states.
M de Villepin derided American hawks for believing that “democracy can be imposed from the outside” and that “international legal tools become constraints more than safeguards of international security”.
He said: “We do not oppose the use of force. We are only warning against the risk of pre-emptive strikes as a doctrine. In endorsing this doctrine, we risk introducing the principle of constant instability and uncertainty.” Despite the disagreements over Iraq, M de Villepin said there were many areas where united international action needed to intensify.
He said there should be greater intelligence sharing in the campaign against terrorism, and co-operation to limit the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Highlighting the looming crisis in North Korea, he proposed a permanent group of UN weapons inspectors. Having threatened to veto UN approval for military action, M de Villepin insisted: “The UN must be at the heart of the reconstruction and administration of Iraq. The legitimacy of our action depends on it.”
M de Villepin’s central message was that a world dominated by a supremely powerful America was dangerously unstable. Instead, there should be “a number of regional poles” that co-operate with each other.
One of those would be the European Union and M de Villepin was keen to draw the British Government into a common foreign and security policy that would be dominated by France and Britain
