World Tribunal on Iraq says US killed more in Iraq than Saddam

Yet another group claiming the US is the greatest threat to humanity since Pee Wee Herman. Well maybe not that bad but the WTI accused the USA on Saturday of causing more deaths in Iraq than Saddam Hussein.

“With two wars and 13 years of criminal sanctions, the United States have been responsible for more deaths in Iraq than Saddam Hussain,” Larry Everest, a journalist, told hundreds of anti-war activists gathered in Istanbul.

Founded in 2003, the WTI is modelled on the 1960s Russell Tribunal, created by the British philosopher Bertrand Russell to denounce the war in Vietnam. It has held about 20 sessions so far in different locations around the world.

Link

No numbers whatsoever given in the article. Sadaam's death toll is at least 3 million. We're probably at 40,000 and that's mostly the bad guys.

Well I'll say one thing..from 1995-2003 Saddam was pretty much behaving himself, most of the mass killing that had occured was during Iraq's vicious war with Iran, in which the Iranians repeatedly exploited Iraq's ethnic problems, 1 million Iraqi's and Iranians were killed from that war, and then there was another crack-down after the first gulf war..

but from 1995- things were not that bad, not anyworse than any other countries human-rights record in that region, Turkey, Syria, Israel..

since the US invaded 10,000's Iraqis are dying, maybe even 100,000 and then so many more maimed by US and suicide bombs, no doubt WAR MAKES THINGS WORSE, NOT BETTER! US started an unnecessary war and this is what you get.

I believe that the article or one that I read similiar was also including and blaming the US for the sanctions and those that died during the sanctions.





seekerof

Originally posted by RedWhiteandBlood
No numbers whatsoever given in the article. Sadaam's death toll is at least 3 million. We're probably at 40,000 and that's mostly the bad guys.

Correction, Saddam's death toll is believed to be at least 250,000. That the US death toll is "mostly bad guys" is doubtable, as is that all Saddam's victims were innocent good guys. Saddam had to deal with the likes of Al Sadr during the uprise. A black and white worldview with only good guys and bad guys is however very comforting for those who find the world difficult to understand.

"The evidence collated in this tribunal should ... be used by the International Criminal Court — whose jurisdiction the United States does not recognise — to try as war criminals George Bush, Tony Blair, John Howard, Silvio Berlusconi, and all those government officials, army generals, and corporate CEOs who participated in this war and now benefit from it."

Its quite obvious that the War for Iraq started back in the early 90s, when Bush Senior started the First Gulf War.

Since then Iraqi people know only one thing - VIOLENCE.

Either by ex-Saddam Regime or during the US led invasion of Iraq or today, when their lives are still in the same danger as before, or maybe even bigger.

War in Iraq is NOT over - its far from it, its only starting.

The Civil War frontlines are not seen in the cities, but in the Open Country the lines are drawn very clearly in the Sands. One side wears the Uniforms, other doesnt.

So, what are the US doing to Stop it, and stop the Violence from spreading?

Why are there more terrorist attacks then ever before?

And you call this "invasion" a Success?

Ask the Iraqi people, common people, what they know best - and they will answer like this:

"We only know Violence since the Start of this War. And it did not End at all."

RedWhiteandBlood,

What was the purpose of the war?

Cheers

BHR

Originally posted by Souljah

Its quite obvious that the War for Iraq started back in the early 90s, when Bush Senior started the First Gulf War.

War in Iraq is NOT over - its far from it, its only starting.

Why are there more terrorist attacks then ever before?

Ok, first off souljah you need to open a history book and put the liberal crap your reading away. Bush sr did not start the first gulf war, it started when saddam invaded kuwait. You seem to be in favor of a continuing struggle in iraq?

The reason there are more terrorist attacks is because they are sliping accross the syrian border and fighting in iraq.

[edit on 28-6-2005 by XphilesPhan]

Terrorists slipping across the Syrian border is just propaganda to depict Syria negatively and influence public opinion against Syria. There are probably just as many coming in from Jordan. It's not like they have "terrorist" tattood on their forehead.

Originally posted by RedWhiteandBlood
No numbers whatsoever given in the article. Sadaam's death toll is at least 3 million. We're probably at 40,000 and that's mostly the bad guys.

Probably? You ask for numbers and then give us a probably?

As for Saddam invading Kuwait. I have read numerous times over the years that the US lured Saddam into invading Kuwait. Anyone have any good sources on that particular theory?

[edit on 28-6-2005 by cargo]

www.firethistime.org...
www.whistlestopper.com...

Full story at this link, the original link seems to be edited a bit

www.infowars.net...


RedWhiteandBlood:

No numbers whatsoever given in the article. Sadaam's death toll is at least 3 million. We're probably at 40,000 and that's mostly the bad guys.

Do you have numbers to support your 3 million stat? Saddam killed 3 million of his people, or that includes all the Iraqis who died during the Iran-Iraq War (and were thus killed by Iranians)?

The United States is responsible for every single death that happens in Iraq right now. Because you, as occupiers, are responsible for the safety and security of the population. Not to bring up a sore spot, but it's in the Geneva Conventions. The Hague Convention requires that the occupier "restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety."

The Geneva Convention goes a lot further. Occupiers are required to ensure that the country's population has access to food and medical supplies. If they're not available in the country, the occupying power must bring them in. They're also responsible for maintaining health services, hygiene, law enforcement , government services and tax collection.

So in other words, as Occupying Power you are responsible for stopping the suicide bombers and insurgent attacks on the civilian population. The Iraqis did not ask to be invaded, and did not ask for these daily attacks. (Of course I realize the main blame for the attacks is upon the wacko bombers themselves, but you are still responsible for the security according to the provisions of occupation.)

And the US is also at least partly responsible for the Kurds killed in the 1991 uprising (they stood back and let Saddam crush it after the war) and the more than 500,000 deaths that resulted from 12 years of sanctions. Madeline Albright once actually said that 500,000 Iraqi deaths was "worth it" if it stopped Saddam.



jako

Originally posted by Jakomo
The United States is responsible for every single death that happens in Iraq right now. Because you, as occupiers, are responsible for the safety and security of the population. Not to bring up a sore spot, but it's in the Geneva Conventions. The Hague Convention requires that the occupier "restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety."

I hear what you are saying, but the conventions are not as absolute as stated, the key through the diplomatic language is “…as far as possible”

Under the conventions in situations such as Iraq, there are always two or more parties to which the conventions apply.

The protection as outlined by Convention IV., Part III, sec. III., Art. 55 and 56 (which I believe to which are referenced) of the Fourth convention both begin with a caveat “To the fullest extent of the means available to it…..”

An occupier may also enlist the services of ‘outside’ sources to aid moving toward attainment of the afore mentioned general goals, such as the Red Cross. The coalition as well as non-coalition members have enlisted multitudes of organizations aid in this task.

The ‘suicide bombers’ as mentioned are breeching many, many articles of the conventions. Responsibility for the transgressing acts fall directly upon the acting party first. These acts are borne of deception and intent is disruption.

Protocol I, Article 50 (definition of civilian) and 51 are applicable as an example:

Art. 51. - Protection of the civilian population

1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.

2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.

3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities. (emph. added)

Furthermore the coalition is not denying indigenous Civil Defense, Military, Police, governing bodies, tribunals or other internal security forces and is in fact training, supporting and equipping.

Support or non-support for the Iraqi situation irrelevant to the topic and is a differnt topic entirely. Saddam was directly responsible for the non-treatment/treatment of his people any and all periods under his leadership.

Indirect responsibility may fall upon those which may have had elements of foreseeability of Saddam’s regime’s actions; however premeditated or wantonness reprisals against ‘civilians’, again, are a breech of law which will take precedence over indirect culpabilities and correctly falls squarely upon the source and not the cause which is now a matter before the indigenous courts. Ethics are a different issue.


.

What the hell is the matter with you people? "mostly the bad guys"! You can't honestly tell me that you believe the majority of the people who were killed in the Iraq-American War are "bad guys". Lets be realistic. If you haven't realized it, we are in the age of "Total War". Yes ladies and Gentlemen, total war. Now you probaly are too stupid to know what that means, but this is the age with people, such as yourselves are now targets. Unlike in the 18th Century, The targets have grown to mass sizes, and the kind of weaponry we use, can not be just targetted at one person. I don't want to be the one to tell you this, but when you drop a bomb, the explosion and the force from the explosion, does not stay in a enclosed area which only targets the "bad guys". Civilians, probaly make up the death toll. And I don't know if you know this, with all the censorship and propaganda in America, but 1/10 of the body bags that return are soldiers, who've committed sucide. Selfish little freaks, putting your young men to war. You people are what, 30, 40. Well from the prespective of a 16 year old, no one wants to die at that age. And many of these boys are Christain, so what are they suppose to do? You people who support the war should be ashamed.

Originally posted by Jakomo
The United States is responsible for every single death that happens in Iraq right now. Because you, as occupiers, are responsible for the safety and security of the population.

And the US is also at least partly responsible for the Kurds killed in the 1991 uprising (they stood back and let Saddam crush it after the war) and the more than 500,000 deaths that resulted from 12 years of sanctions. Madeline Albright once actually said that 500,000 Iraqi deaths was "worth it" if it stopped Saddam.

Madeline Albright was a spawn of satan himself, she'd probably eat her own children.

The US is responsible for more deaths in Iraq than Saddam, yes, the sanctions. Preventing medical supplies, food, and general supplies from entering Iraq under the pretense that if they are allowed to enter, Saddam will use them for his soldiers rather than civillians. This is how they justified starving the people of Iraq, how they allowed them to die without proper medical supplies.

No wonder everyone in Iraq (not to mention most of the known world) hates the USA. The lie that "some Iraqis like Americans," is just that, a blatant lie...those people they show on TV, were most likely just given massive amounts of money, food, shelter, protection....just so they'd look happy on TV. Pure propoganda. Why is it that we only see American news media coverage in Iraq?

The only reason the population looks civilized in television shots, is because they are scared out of their minds. Who can argue, honestly, that any Iraqi advertising anti-American sentiment would not automatically become labeled "INSURGENT - SHOOT TO KILL"

Give me a break. People that believe that the situation in Iraq is anything but worse than EVER......well....they're the ones running around going.....baaaaaaaaaaa baaaaaaaaaa....dont shave my wool.

Originally posted by scatz


but from 1995- things were not that bad, not anyworse than any other countries human-rights record in that region, Turkey, Syria, Israel..

So, are you volunteering for the "rape room," or the "human wood-chipper" out by the back driveway?

The number one phrase used to describe the Saddam era is still "the republic of fear."

Just because Iraqis are not always enthusiastic about the USA doesn't neccesarily mean they'd prefer to have Saddam's sons "Saddam-izing" their own sons.

I know that most of the death cause by the sanctions were children, during Saddam rule his killings were mostly on targeted portions of the population.

Because the death toll in Iraq of civilians is not kept we really don't know how many actually had died in Iraq, and that includes "bad people along with the good people"

US is protected under the Geneva convention and it doesn't have to keep tag on civilian deaths in Iraq.

The established government in Iraq starting with the first interim government also prohibited hospitals from keeping tag of civilian deaths.

So what we think is a good number of the death actually could not even come close to the real numbers.

Originally posted by afterdark
Preventing medical supplies, food, and general supplies from entering Iraq under the pretense that if they are allowed to enter, Saddam will use them for his soldiers rather than civillians. This is how they justified starving the people of Iraq, how they allowed them to die without proper medical supplies.

Actually, such things were not forbidden from entering Iraq, Iraq was fully allowed to buy them. The problem after 1991 was that Iraq didn't have the money to buy them as Iraq's main source of foreign valuta to buy all that was the sale of its oil, which was under embargo. For that purpose, after a few years when it became clear to even the US that the Iraqi people were starving, the oil for food program was instated, which despite all of the rightwing propaganda did alleviate a large part of the burden of the Iraqi people.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
So, are you volunteering for the "rape room," or the "human wood-chipper" out by the back driveway?

The human wood-chipper may be propaganda as it is pretty much unsubstantiated. The US occupation has further dteriorated the situation of Iraqi women as many keep girls and women at home for fear of rape and abduction by criminals, insurgents and/or terrorists. Spare us the humanitarian side of the US invasion as on many accounts there is little improvement. Because as has been pointed out, the interim puppet government actually forbade hospitals of keeping records of death, it may even be that the situation has worsened.

[edit on 30-6-2005 by Simon666]

Originally posted by afterdark
The US is responsible for more deaths in Iraq than Saddam, yes, the sanctions. Preventing medical supplies, food, and general supplies from entering Iraq under the pretense that if they are allowed to enter, Saddam will use them for his soldiers rather than civillians. This is how they justified starving the people of Iraq, how they allowed them to die without proper medical supplies.

The UN (Resolution 661) are responsible for this sanctions therefore we share a collective blame for this deaths during sanctions after first Gulf War. US was just enforcing them.

We cannot blame solely US for this.

Most member states wanted to lift the ban when they discovered it only hurt the Iraqi people. The US and UK were to blame for threatening to use their veto to block lifting the sanctions.