|
veggie

Registered: 07/25/04
Posts: 17,504
|
Bush War Crimes Trials
#7421043 - 09/17/07 07:21 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
September 17, 2007 - mwcnews.net
Bush War Crimes Trials Greenspan Iraq oil confession & One Million Iraqi deaths
The ostensibly “liberal” UK Guardian has finally found the courage to lead British Mainstream media in facing up to the horrendous realities of the humanitarian disaster that is the Bush-Blair invasion and occupation of the formerly sovereign nation of Iraq. In an article entitled “Greenspan admits Iraq was about oil, as deaths put at 1.2 million” (Guardian & Observer September 16 2007) the Guardian unwittingly makes the case for war crimes trials of the US and US Alliance leaders.
In short, Alan Greenspan was the chairman of the US Federal Reserve for 2 decades, having been appointed by Republican President Reagan in 1987 and retiring only in 2006. Greenspan is the most important Republican economist and the ultimate “insider” in relation to the essential operations of the United States and the World. Alan Greenspan has finally and authoritatively come clean – in his forthcoming memoir he writes: “'I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.”
Well we have all known this, as Greenspan states, but this is from the “horse’s mouth”, from a top Republican economist and insider. Successful prosecution of Mafia bosses required organizational “insider” confessions – it was insufficient that “everyone” knew that the likes of Al Capone were running organized crime. We have all known it, and indeed the recent movie “A Crude Awakening” cites oil experts that all Middle East wars for the last century were about oil. Outstanding Jewish American scholar Professor Noam Chomsky of 63-Nobel-laureate MIT has recently in a Monthly Review article incisively argued that the crucial strategic importance of Iraq has been about oil and global hegemony through strategic control. Well, now we have it from the top insider expert, Alan Greenspan, the man who has had his hand on the control knobs of the US economy for 20 years – it’s the economy, stupid.
One can only speculate why this top insider has decided to come clean. He is 81, perhaps his conscience is pricking him or perhaps he is appalled by the downhill slide of the American economy and American wealth under the Bush Administration. Thus 2001 US Economics Nobel laureate Professor Joseph Stiglitz (Columbia University) and his colleague Professor Linda Bilmes (Harvard University) have estimated that the accrual cost of the Bush War on Terror now stands at $2.5 TRILLION (see “The Cost of War” on MWC News).
When a violent crime such as an armed bank robbery is committed and people die there are 2 key evidential elements to be considered by the Prosecutors: (1) the pecuniary profit intent and (2) the homicides. Bush, Blair, Howard, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Dr Rice (Dr Death) and their confrères have always strenuously denied (1) any pecuniary intent and (2) the evidence from the UN and top medical epidemiologists of horrendous loss of life associated with the Bush Wars. These Global Bank Robbers still declare that (1) they did it to liberate the bank tellers and customers and that (2) the deaths they actually admit have happened are due to insurgent bank tellers and customers.
Now a leading UK commercial market analysis company ORB has done for “evidence for homicide” what Greenspan has done for “evidence for intent”. Now in September 2007 a UK polling agency ORB (Opinion Research Business) has estimated that 1.2 million Iraqis have died violently post-invasion, twice as many as the 0.6 million post-invasion Iraqi violent deaths estimated by the top US Johns Hopkins medical epidemiologists in their research paper published in the top medical journal The Lancet in October 2006.
The ORB estimate of 1.2 million post-invasion Iraqi deaths is consonant with steadily increasing estimates of horrendous Iraqi deaths that I and others have provided over the last 4 years. On the occasion of the 4th anniversary of the Iraq Invasion (March 2007) I estimated that about 1 million Iraqis had died avoidably post-invasion – from 5 estimates using 4 independent set of data from authoritative sources (see MWC News ).
I have now re-calculated and updated the “post-invasion Iraqi excess deaths” as of about Sep, 2007 using the latest information from the same sources, namely UNICEF, the UN Population Division and scientific papers from the top US medical epidemiology group in the World’s top Public Health Department (the Bloomberg School of Public Health) at the top US medical university, Johns Hopkins University, and published peer-reviewed in the top British medical journal The Lancet.
The various estimates of post-invasion Iraqi excess deaths (avoidable deaths, deaths that should not have happened) as of September 2007 are 0.7 million (from under-estimating UN Population Division data); 0.8 million (from estimating post-invasion under-5 infant deaths from UNICEF data and dividing by 0.7) (see “Layperson’s Guide to Counting Iraq Deaths” on MWC News); 1.0 million (using data from The Lancet published in 2004); 1.0 million (using data from The Lancet, 2006); and 1.1 million (the “best estimate” from using data published in The Lancet in 2006 and using Iraq’s impoverished but peaceful neighbours Syria and Jordan for a mortality baseline).
Six (6) years after the 9/11 atrocity (and noting that the actual culprits have yet to be conclusively identified in a proper judicial trial) , the Bush-Blair-Howard War on Terror is associated with post-invasion excess deaths in Occupied Iraqi and Afghan Territories totalling (as of September 2007) 1.1 million (see the “best estimate” above) and 2.5 million, respectively; post-invasion under-5 infant deaths totalling 0.5 million and 2.0 million, respectively (90% avoidable and due to US Alliance war crimes in gross violation of the Geneva Convention); and refugees totalling 4 million and 3.7 million, respectively.
In addition it has been estimated that about 0.1 million people die each year around the world (0.6 million over 6 years) from opiate drug-related causes. Accordingly about 0.5 million have died avoidably since 9/11 from opiate drug-related causes due to the US-UK restoration of the Taliban-destroyed Afghan opium industry from about 5% in 2001 to a current 93% of world market share (see UN Office on Drugs and Crime, UNODC, World Drug Report 2007.)
The human cost of the Bush-Blair-Howard War on Terror is thus 1.1 million + 2.5 million + 0.5 million = 4.1 million excess deaths, this carnage approaching that of the World War 2 Jewish Holocaust (6 million victims) or the “forgotten” and contemporaneous, man-made, World War 2 Bengal Famine Holocaust in British India (4 million victims; associated with horrendous sexual abuse of starving women and girls; possibly due to a deliberate British strategic scorched earth policy to prevent Japanese invasion of India; and “rubbed out” of British history) (see “Body Count”; Mason, C. (2000), A Short History of Asia. Stone Age to 2000AD (Macmillan, London); Gilbert, M. (1969), Jewish History Atlas (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London); Gilbert, M. (1982), Atlas of the Holocaust (Michael Joseph, London)).
The Bush War on Terror is in horrible actuality a cowardly, racist War on Women and Children and, more specifically, a War on Arab Women and Children, a War on Muslim Women and Children, a War on Asian Women and Children, a War on South Asian Women and Children, and a War on Non-European Women and Children.
Slobodan Milosevic was indicted, arraigned and tried before the International Criminal Court (ICC) for complicity in war crimes in the recent Balkans Civil War in which some 0.25 million people died - yet the Bush War on Terror has already killed over 4 million.
In 2004 and thence in 2005 I made formal complaints over US-UK and US Alliance war crimes to the International Criminal Court (see “Formal complaint to ICC over Coalition War Crimes” on MWC News ). According to the UK Telegraph “the court's chief prosecutor told The Sunday Telegraph that he would be willing to launch an inquiry and could envisage a scenario in which the Prime Minister and American President George W Bush could one day face charges at The Hague.”
British Nobel Laureate Harold Pinter has called for the prosecution of Bush and Blair for war crimes stating: “How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and a war criminal? One hundred thousand? More than enough, I would have thought. Therefore it is just that Bush and Blair be arraigned before the International Criminal Court of Justice.”
Over 4 million? More than enough, I would have thought. Bring on the Bush-ite and Bush War Crimes trials.
|
demiu5
humans, lol


Registered: 08/18/05
Posts: 43,948
Loc: the popcorn stadium
|
Re: Bush War Crimes Trials [Re: veggie]
#7421092 - 09/17/07 07:39 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
so is this actually going to happen?
-------------------- channel your inner Larry David
|
veggie

Registered: 07/25/04
Posts: 17,504
|
Re: Bush War Crimes Trials [Re: demiu5]
#7421174 - 09/17/07 08:02 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
No. It is highly unlikely that war crime charges would ever be placed against Bush. The author is making the case that it should happen and that if there was a trial, based on the evidence, that he could be found guilty.
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
Re: Bush War Crimes Trials [Re: veggie]
#7421345 - 09/17/07 08:43 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Sigh. What a heap of gibberish.
There is so much pure unadulterated CRAP in that appalling screed it would take me all night to even begin to debunk it.
In my six-plus years of reading this forum I've seen some pretty deranged fever swamp ramblings, but this festering heap of parrot droppings takes the cake. There's probably not a single sentence in it which is not at the least misleading at worst an outright lie. Almost every word in it is wrong, including "and" and "the". This polemic (almost certainly scribbled in crayon) covers the entire spectrum of stupid, including the parts the human eye cannot detect, but can be seen only by bees. I can’t believe the author gets his shoes tied in the morning without somehow accidentally shutting off the circulation to his fingers when he gets the words messed up to the shoe tying song.
I shake my head at the increasingly rampant stupidity that passes for "journalism" these days.
Phred
--------------------
|
Luddite
I watch Fox News


Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
|
Re: Bush War Crimes Trials [Re: Phred]
#7424761 - 09/18/07 05:24 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Iraqi oil was taken away from Saddam Hussein and given to the Iraqi people.
|
Syle
Kenai Sigh


Registered: 10/16/05
Posts: 6,678
Loc: WA
Last seen: 10 months, 26 days
|
Re: Bush War Crimes Trials [Re: Phred]
#7424836 - 09/18/07 05:48 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred said: Sigh. What a heap of gibberish.
There is so much pure unadulterated CRAP in that appalling screed it would take me all night to even begin to debunk it.
In my six-plus years of reading this forum I've seen some pretty deranged fever swamp ramblings, but this festering heap of parrot droppings takes the cake. There's probably not a single sentence in it which is not at the least misleading at worst an outright lie. Almost every word in it is wrong, including "and" and "the". This polemic (almost certainly scribbled in crayon) covers the entire spectrum of stupid, including the parts the human eye cannot detect, but can be seen only by bees. I can’t believe the author gets his shoes tied in the morning without somehow accidentally shutting off the circulation to his fingers when he gets the words messed up to the shoe tying song.
I shake my head at the increasingly rampant stupidity that passes for "journalism" these days.
Phred
great post!
-------------------- https://kenaisigh.bandcamp.com/ <- Just completed the 2021 RPM challenge for February - An EP in one month (5 songs or 20 minutes). Check it out!
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
Re: Bush War Crimes Trials [Re: Syle]
#7424845 - 09/18/07 05:51 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
> great post!
Great ramble. Not that I disagree, but I would have loved to see discussion points.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Syle
Kenai Sigh


Registered: 10/16/05
Posts: 6,678
Loc: WA
Last seen: 10 months, 26 days
|
Re: Bush War Crimes Trials [Re: Seuss]
#7424854 - 09/18/07 05:53 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said: > great post!
Great ramble. Not that I disagree, but I would have loved to see discussion points.
yeah, i didn't mean great post as in it totally refuted the original post. i just enjoyed reading it a whole lot
-------------------- https://kenaisigh.bandcamp.com/ <- Just completed the 2021 RPM challenge for February - An EP in one month (5 songs or 20 minutes). Check it out!
|
ChesterCopperpot
Stranger


Registered: 01/04/07
Posts: 30
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
|
Re: Bush War Crimes Trials [Re: Luddite]
#7424911 - 09/18/07 06:08 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah, this article is a mash of obscure "facts." Without a doubt I believe the Bush Administration has done a grave injustice in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other anti-terrorism points of interest. But I believe the sad truth is that Bush truly believes (out of stupidity) he is doing good. I blame ignorance for the violent actions of the past... not some secret plot to overtake the world. I would like to see some consequences for this administration but it is this over-the-top kind of methodology that the author uses that keeps the public split over who to believe. Articles like this do more harm than good.
-------------------- This goes out to The Bearded Men of Space Station 11.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bush War Crimes Trials [Re: veggie]
#7425019 - 09/18/07 06:37 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I don't think there has been a more aptly named poster.
--------------------
|
Luddite
I watch Fox News


Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
|
Re: Bush War Crimes Trials [Re: zappaisgod]
#7429204 - 09/19/07 05:45 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
chemical lobotomy --> vegetative state
|
wilshire
free radical


Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 3 days
|
Re: Bush War Crimes Trials [Re: Phred]
#7429548 - 09/19/07 07:09 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
|
BrAiN
Art Fag

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: Bush War Crimes Trials [Re: wilshire]
#7429936 - 09/19/07 08:34 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I started to read that article... then I fell asleep about 3 words into it. Bush is bad.. bla bla bla bla... war crimes....zzzzzzzzzzzzz
Unfortunately, not a damn thing is ever going to happen to Bush as long as we have the nukes. I know it. You know it... bla bla zzzzzzz
|
GazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 26 days, 20 hours
|
Re: Bush War Crimes Trials [Re: Phred]
#7476489 - 10/02/07 06:23 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
So are you saying that Greenspan didnt say the Iraq war was about oil Phreddy boy?? You should have listened to me all along buddy, I told you that years ago but would you listen...sigh.
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
Re: Bush War Crimes Trials [Re: GazzBut]
#7476522 - 10/02/07 06:48 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
> So are you saying that Greenspan didnt say the Iraq war was about oil Phreddy boy??
So are you saying that Greenspan cannot be wrong about the reasons for war with Iraq, Gazzybutty boy?
Anybody that thinks there was one single reason for going to war with Iraq is wrong. Anybody that thinks oil was the only reason for going to war with Iraq is wrong. Oil was certainly a very large bit, but there was more to it than that.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
GazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 26 days, 20 hours
|
Re: Bush War Crimes Trials [Re: Seuss]
#7476603 - 10/02/07 07:50 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
So are you saying that Greenspan cannot be wrong about the reasons for war with Iraq, Gazzybutty boy?
No Im not saying he cant be wrong, but lets face it, its unlikely that he is.
Quote:
but there was more to it than that.
Counter terrorism? WMD? Purrrlease.
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
Re: Bush War Crimes Trials [Re: GazzBut]
#7476612 - 10/02/07 07:55 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
> Counter terrorism? WMD? Purrrlease.
In my mind, the single biggest reason Bush led the US into Iraq was because Saddam tried to assassinate his daddy. Everything else, oil included, was icing on the cake.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
Re: Bush War Crimes Trials [Re: GazzBut]
#7476630 - 10/02/07 08:07 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
GazzBut writes:
Quote:
So are you saying that Greenspan didnt say the Iraq war was about oil Phreddy boy??
Greenspan says that he (Greenspan) felt the war could be justified on economic grounds -- that it was so important to the world's (and America's, of course) economy to ensure a free flow of oil from the Gulf that deposing Hussein by force made sense.
Greenspan also says that when he presented this argument to the Administration, it was rejected. And of course, it is not one of the two dozen points mentioned in Congress's AUMF (authoriziation of the use of military force) either.
So no... Greenspan didn't say the war was about oil, he said that in his opinion it should have been.
Phred
--------------------
|
GazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 26 days, 20 hours
|
Re: Bush War Crimes Trials [Re: Phred]
#7476670 - 10/02/07 08:33 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Here is the quote Phred:
"“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,”
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
GazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 26 days, 20 hours
|
Re: Bush War Crimes Trials [Re: Seuss]
#7476674 - 10/02/07 08:35 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
In my mind, the single biggest reason Bush led the US into Iraq was because Saddam tried to assassinate his daddy.
Do you seriously think Bush has enough power to go to war on the back of some personal grudge? Not a chance. The decision to go to war and the reasons for that decision were made by people with more power and influence than Bush Jr.
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
Re: Bush War Crimes Trials [Re: GazzBut]
#7476912 - 10/02/07 10:18 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
> Do you seriously think Bush has enough power to go to war on the back of some personal grudge?
Obviously.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bush War Crimes Trials [Re: Seuss]
#7477131 - 10/02/07 11:29 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Bullshit
--------------------
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
Re: Bush War Crimes Trials [Re: zappaisgod]
#7477165 - 10/02/07 11:40 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
> Bullshit
Perhaps, but I still think for Bush, that was the primary reason. Other people in the administration had other interests, but for Bush, I think that was number one. (I've been wrong before... *grin*)
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
Re: Bush War Crimes Trials [Re: GazzBut]
#7477576 - 10/02/07 02:12 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
GazzBut writes:
Quote:
Here is the quote Phred:
"“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,”
Yeah, and as soon as that quote was publicized in The Times, Bob Woodward from the Washington Post called Greenspan for clarification, because Woodward (for a number of reasons) smelled something fishy.
First of all, Woodward (and pretty much anyone else who knows even a little bit about American politics) was well aware Greenspan wasn't exactly a member of the inner circle of the Bush administration. Woodward also figured it was not improbable that those around Greenspan would have favored deposing Hussein for economic reasons (specifically, to keep oil supplies from the Gulf region stable) rather than other reasons. These guys are economists after all, and tend to view foreign policy through the prism of economics first and foremost. This doesn't mean the actual decision makers saw things the same way a bunch of economics wonks did. And as it turns out, Greenspan says they didn't see things the same way --
Quote:
Greenspan clarified his remarks in an interview with the Washington Post, telling the newspaper that although securing global oil supplies was “not the administration’s motive,” he had presented the White House with a case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy.
“I was not saying that that’s the administration’s motive,” Greenspan said. “I’m just saying that if somebody asked me, ‘Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?,’ *I* would say it was essential.”
He said that in his discussions with President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, “I have never heard them basically say, ‘We’ve got to protect the oil supplies of the world,’ but that would have been my motive.”
Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-oil17sep17,1,1292645.story?track=rss&ctrack=7&cset=true
The boldface is mine, not the LA Times. Pretty hard to misinterpret that clarification from Greenspan, and the clarification was widely reported -- not just in the LA Times and the Washington Post.
How odd that mcnews.net missed the clarification <sarcasm>.
Phred
--------------------
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond



Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 16 days
|
Re: Bush War Crimes Trials [Re: veggie]
#7479632 - 10/03/07 03:12 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
The oil-thingy is only the convenient and profitable lie to cloud and cover the main reasons for the war. To simply empower and stabilize political and economical presence of the USA in the middle east. I like staying simple there.
|
GazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 26 days, 20 hours
|
Re: Bush War Crimes Trials [Re: Phred]
#7479653 - 10/03/07 03:31 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah sounds like Alan's doing some backtracking after somebody had a quiet word in his ear!!
His initial comment is fairly straight forward and cannot really be misinterpreted.
"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,”
“I was not saying that that’s the administration’s motive,”
"“I’m just saying that if somebody asked me, ‘Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?,’ *I* would say it was essential.”
Blatant backtracking, Im surprised you didnt spot that.
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
|