Is Blair a war criminal ?
Dschugan Rosenberg | 21.07.2003 18:28 | Analysis | Cambridge | London
The germans and I am a german were responsible for two world wars: destroing the lives of more than 90 000 000 people throughout Eurasia and Afrika. Almost every family in germany lost one relative throughout war and we caused that almost every family in Europe lost someone by war. We learned something about it. That war is a crime, especially a war on suspection or a preemtive war.
In the discussion about the war against Iraq there were several arguments justifying an attac:
1. weapons of mass destruction
There was no evidence that Iraq had developed weapons of mass destruction. But even in this case. The USA, former UdSSR, Israel, India, Pakistan, France and the UK have nuclear weapons. So the fact that Iraq has also become available to produce such weapons could not be a reason for war alone. Otherwise the USA would have had attacking itself because of this reason. But these weapons are not there in Iraq.
2. The potential to develop weapons of mass destruction
This is a technology based on the US standard in the 50th of the last century. Every country will have the capability to develop such weapons because what was high-tec 1950 is no longer high tec in 2003. But could this be a reason to attac a country ?
3. The dictatorship of Saddam Hussein
If this is a logical argument than please US and UK bomb out your own dictators you brought to power in the past. Bomb out the home of Pinochet and your own secret service buildings which were supporting this dictator.
4. The support of terrorism
The birth of Al Quaida based on the support by US secret services. The flight education of terrorists of 9/11 were received on US military bases. Three months before Saddam Hussein was meeting a CIA director in the VIP lounge of the american hospital on dubay city. The brother of Osama Bin Laden and the former US president J. Bush senior were partners running an oil company together.
And Blair - if you want war because a country could have been developing a nuclear bomb in future - and this is a justification for an attac: this is a war crime.
1. weapons of mass destruction
There was no evidence that Iraq had developed weapons of mass destruction. But even in this case. The USA, former UdSSR, Israel, India, Pakistan, France and the UK have nuclear weapons. So the fact that Iraq has also become available to produce such weapons could not be a reason for war alone. Otherwise the USA would have had attacking itself because of this reason. But these weapons are not there in Iraq.
2. The potential to develop weapons of mass destruction
This is a technology based on the US standard in the 50th of the last century. Every country will have the capability to develop such weapons because what was high-tec 1950 is no longer high tec in 2003. But could this be a reason to attac a country ?
3. The dictatorship of Saddam Hussein
If this is a logical argument than please US and UK bomb out your own dictators you brought to power in the past. Bomb out the home of Pinochet and your own secret service buildings which were supporting this dictator.
4. The support of terrorism
The birth of Al Quaida based on the support by US secret services. The flight education of terrorists of 9/11 were received on US military bases. Three months before Saddam Hussein was meeting a CIA director in the VIP lounge of the american hospital on dubay city. The brother of Osama Bin Laden and the former US president J. Bush senior were partners running an oil company together.
And Blair - if you want war because a country could have been developing a nuclear bomb in future - and this is a justification for an attac: this is a war crime.
Dschugan Rosenberg
Comments
Hide the following 3 comments
media was not transmitted
21.07.2003 18:36
Dschugan Rosenberg
wrong points
21.07.2003 18:53
in point 4 you are assuming Al-Queda did it alone. The last itme I looked at it there were more evidence to point the finger at Enron.
ram
To correct myself
22.12.2003 22:11
Dschugan Rosenberg