Forums → WEPR → The World War III Theory

ahboeboe, it's quite obvious what is on and off...

anyway, if you readed my post well then you readed i was about economic activities. like the graph was on about. you brought in debt. and went further off topic.
and i originally said. that "belgium is more like greece" then the other. what i didn't say was "belgium is greece".

A little history:

I wouldn't have put NK as a major international player, more a Chinese proxy, but whatever.

[quote]Next: Iraq. In 2000 Iraq (after being obliterated by the Gulf War) started something called the "Oil-For-Food Program". The name says it all. In fact, Iraq now sold *oil for euros*. Of course, this was terribly bad for the US. What did the US do? Point a finger and yell "They've got a nuke!" and invaded the country. Again. Well, turns out that Iraq didn't have a nuke. The country was destroyed, though. After the Iraq war (2003) the nation suddenly stopped selling oil for euros and reverted back to dollars. Economical interests? Nope, they suffered about 20% loss because of this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-for-Food_Programme

is this discussion still on? if so i would like to comment on the matter.

doesn't intent to sound like some US defiant/hater, but to me, this single fact (?) is the one of the major reason US attacked Iraq. What do US said? Ending " Saddam Hussein reign of terror"? Suspected WOM ( weapons of mass destruction ) cache? they never even found the WOM at all and yet they still execute Saddam Hussein anyway. The UN isn't even functioning at that moment when they execute Saddam. sure he is bad. sure he is not very nice to his own people (about this one i'm not really sure, correct me if i'm wrong) . but remember in this world we have Rules, Saddam is executed , but on what basis? that is my first question

second, while saddam is executed, why George Bush ( again, i am not intending to sound like a Anti US. i am neutral here) was not trialed for war crimes? he destroyed a country, literally obliterated it and the main justification (WOM's) is not even found. sure he (?) promised to restore the country. but promises can't repair the pride of a nation, or justify an attack

this is the only ***** of false actions that US took that i can found. i don't know if there are others. I'm sorry if i offended anybody, but frankly that's how i feel

@Kennethhartanto
There are many others.
And who would trial Bush? The United Nations? Yea, because America isn't part of the UN etc. America is like that little kid in kindergarten who bullies others into abiding its wishes. If it can't find a reason to bully, it just makes its own reasons up. That's basically what the past century has been: America taking advantage of other nations.

why George Bush ( again, i am not intending to sound like a Anti US. i am neutral here) was not trialed for war crimes?

George Bush didn't actually commit any war crimes; hurting people's feelings isn't one. Historically, war crimes have been such things as genocide, inhumane treatment of civillians and prisoners of war, failing to follow various conventions, etc.

I'm not even going to dignify that with a true response.

If you don't call ignoring everyone's pleas not to invade and then invading anyway (without proper reason other than self-enrichment) a crime.

"the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity."

"Wanton destruction" is the targeting and destroying of property that serves no purpose to further the campaign.

Bombing a factory that produces tanks for the enemy is justified, as it contributes to the enemy's ability to make war. Conversely, bombing a factory that makes refrigerators because it happens to be there is not justified.

okay, then how about the siege of Baghdad or Fallujah insurgency? if you see how the soldiers are fighting there, they are destroying a city with heavy artilery with (i think) no regards of possible civilian casualties. they even destroyed a building with civilians on it ( accidentally but still ). is that your "wanton destruction"

targeting and destroying

( accidentally but still ).is that your "wanton destruction"

I'd need specifics to make a better assessment, since I'm not sure what exactly you're referencing.

For Baghdad, I think you mean the pre-invasion aerial bombardment? In whoch case, the strikes were directed at viable military emplacements and key infrastructure. Command posts, radar installations, anti aircraft batteries, rail ways, bridges, etc.

With Fallujah, I'm guessing you mean the Marine invasion following the death of the civillian contractors. In that time, most of the civillians had actually left the city, and it was a hot bed for openly hostile terrorists.

But you seem to think civillian deaths indicate wanton destruction, which isn't neccesarily true. It's war; we must not be quick to forget that people die. That's just the nature of the thing. A civillian dieing in an airstrike that also takes out members of an insirgency is unfortunate, but justifiable. Bombing a hospital because it happens to be there is u justifiable, as well as illegal (Geneva Convention, I believe: Anything marked with a Red Cross is not to be engaged, period).

@Maverick4: I never said Bush committed war crimes.
Several of his soldiers did though, and they were punished accordingly.

Anyway, this is besides the point. War crimes are petty things compared to robbing the entire western world.