A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Open Letter to Kofi Annan and George Walker Bush



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 29th 04, 02:09 PM
Matt Wiser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Open Letter to Kofi Annan and George Walker Bush


Ramsey Clark? Saddam's most persistent apologist-anything he writes/says is
heavily suspect. He even offered to defend the Butcher of Baghdad at his
upcoming trial. Mr. Clark would be advised to collect his fee in advance.
And get ready to defend himself on charges of aid and comfort to the enemy,
embargo violations, and (hopefully) treason. Oh, and Mr. Clark ignores the
fact that the Taliban harbored and Sheltered Al-Queda; they refused to kick
OBL and his thugs out, and paid the price. Saddam's removal did the world
a favor. Picking up the pieces is messy, but when a dictatorship is tossed
out by force, democracy takes time to take root. Hard to stomach for someone
using a bunch of Stalinsts as his supporters.









"= Vox Populi " wrote:
wrote:
OPEN LETTER FROM RAMSEY CLARK - to UN Secretary

General Kofi Annan,
members of the UN Security Council, and Our

'Fear and War' President
George Walker Bush


-------------------------------------------------------------------------

January, 29, 2004

Dear Secretary General Annan,

U.S. President George W. Bush again confirmed

his intention to
continue waging wars of aggression in his

State of the Union message
on January 20, 2004.

He began his address:
" As we gather tonight, hundreds of thousands

of American service men
and women are deployed across the world in

the war on terror. By
bringing hope to the oppressed, and delivering

justice to the violent,
they are making America more secure."

He proclaimed:
" Our greatest responsibility is the active

defense of the American
people... America is on the offensive against

the terrorists..."

Continuing, he said:
" ...our coalition is leading aggressive raids

against the surviving
members of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.... Men

who ran away from our
troops in battle are now dispersed and attack

from the shadows."

In Iraq, he reported:
" Of the top 55 officials of the former regime,

we have captured or
killed 45. Our forces are on the offensive,

leading over 1,600 patrols
a day, and conducting an average of 180 raids

a week...."

Explaining his aggression, President Bush

stated:
" ...After the chaos and carnage of September

the 11th, it is not
enough to serve our enemies with legal papers.

The terrorists and
their supporters declared war on the United

States and war is what
they got."

Forget law. No more legal papers, or rights.

Forget truth. The claim
that either Afghanistan, or Iraq declared

war on the U.S. is absurd.
The U.S. chose to attack both nations, from

one end to the other,
violating their sovereignty and changing their

"regimes", summarily
executing thousands of men, women and children

in the process. At
least 40,000 defenseless people in Iraq have

been killed by U.S.
violence since the latest aggression began

in earnest in March 2003
starting with its celebrated, high tech, terrorist

"Shock and Awe" and
continuing until now with 25, or more, U.S.

raids daily causing
mounting deaths and injuries.

All this death-dealing aggression has occurred

during a period, Mr.
Bush boasts, of "over two years without an

attack on American soil".
The U.S. is guilty of pure aggression, arbitrary

repression and false
portrayal of the nature and purpose of its

violence.

President Bush's brutish mentality is revealed

in his condemnations of
the "killers" and "thugs in Iraq" "who ran

away from our troops in
battle". U.S. military expenditures and technology

threaten and
impoverish life on the planet. Any army that

sought to stand up
against U.S. air power and weapons of mass

destruction in open battle
would be annihilated. This is what President

Bush seeks when he says
"Bring 'em on."

President Bush declared his intention to change

the "Middle East" by
force.
" As long as the Middle East remains a place

of tyranny and despair
and anger, it will continue to produce men

and movements that threaten
the safety of America and our friends. So

America is pursuing a
forward strategy of freedom in the greater

Middle East. We will
challenge the enemies of reform, confront

the allies of terror, and
expect a higher standard from our friends."

"...America is a nation with a mission...

we understand our special
calling: This great republic will lead the

cause of freedom."

He extended his threat to any nation he may

choose:
" As part of the offensive against terror,

we are also confronting the
regimes that harbor and support terrorists,

and could supply them with
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. The

United States and our
allies are determined: We refuse to live in

the shadow of this
ultimate danger."

President Bush's utter contempt for the United

Nations is revealed in
his assertion that the United States and other

countries "have
enforced the demands of the United Nations",

ignoring the refusal of
the U.N. to approve a war of aggression against

Iraq and implying the
U.N. had neither the courage nor the capacity

to pursue its own
"demands".

His total commitment to unilateral U.S. action,

was asserted by
President Bush when he sarcastically referred

to the "permission slip"
a school child needs to leave a classroom:
" America will never seek a permission slip

to defend the security of
our people".

President Bush intends to go it alone, because

his interest is
American power and wealth alone, though he

prefers to use the youth of
NATO countries and others as cannon folder

in his wars.

President Bush believes might makes right

and that the end justifies
the means. He declares:
" ...the world without Saddam Husseins regime

is a better and safer
place".

So U.S. military technology which is omnicidal-

capable of destroying
all life on the planet-will be ordered by

President Bush to make the
world "a better and safer place" by destroying

nations and individuals
he designates.

President Bush presided over 152 executions

in Texas, far more than
any other U.S. governor since World War II.

Included were women,
minors, retarded persons, aliens in violation

of the Vienna Convention
on Diplomatic Relations and innocent persons.

He never acted to
prevent a single execution. He has publicly

proclaimed the right to
assassinate foreign leaders and repeatedly

boasted of summary
executions and indiscriminate killing in State

of the Union messages
and elsewhere.

The danger of Bush unilateralism is further

revealed when he states:
" Colonel Qaddafi correctly judged that his

country would be better
off, and far more secure without weapons of

mass murder. Nine months
of intense negotiations involving the United

States and Great Britain
succeeded with Libya, while 12 years of diplomacy

with Iraq did not."

Forget diplomacy, use "intense negotiations".

If President Bush
believed it was "diplomacy", which maintained

genocidal sanctions
against Iraq for twelve years that failed,

rather than an effort to
crush Iraq to submission, then why didn't

he use "nine months of
intense negotiations" to avoid a war of aggression

against Iraq? He
was President for nearly twenty seven months

before the criminal
assault on Iraq, he apparently intended all

along. Iraq was no threat
to anyone.

What President Bush means by "intense negotiations"

includes a threat
of military aggression with the example of

Iraq to show this in no
bluff. The Nuremberg Judgment held Goerings

threat to destroy Prague
unless Czechoslovakia surrendered Bohemia

and Moravia to be an act of
aggression.

If Qaddafi "correctly judged his country would

be better off, and far
more secure, without weapons of mass murder",

why would the United
States not be better off, and far more secure,

if it eliminated all
its vast stores of nuclear weapons? Is not

the greatest danger from
nuclear proliferation today without question

President Bush's
violations of the Non Proliferation (NPT),

ABM and Nuclear Test Ban
treaties by continuing programs for strategic

nuclear weapons, failing
to negotiate in good faith to achieve "nuclear

disarmament" after more
than thirty years and development of a new

generation of nuclear
weapons, small "tactical" weapons of mass

murder, which he would use
in a minute? Has he not threatened to use

existing strategic nuclear
weapons? The failure of the "nuclear weapon

State Party(s)" to the NPT
to work in good faith to achieve "nuclear

disarmament these past 36
years is the reason the world is still confronted

with the threat of
nuclear war and proliferation.

None of the many and changing explanations,

excuses, or evasions
offered by President Bush to justify his war

of aggression can erase
the crimes he has committed. Among the less

invidious misleading
statements, President Bush made on January

20, 2004 was:
" Already the Kay Report identified dozens

of weapons of mass
destruction-related program activities and

significant amounts of
equipment that Iraq concealed from the United

Nations."

Three days later, Dr. Kay told Reuters he

thought Iraq had illicit
weapons at the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf

War, but that by a
combination of U.N. inspections and Iraq's

own decisions, "it got rid
of them". He further said it "is correct"

to say Iraq does not have
any large stockpiles of chemical or biological

weapons in the country.
He has added that no evidence of any chemical

or biological weapons
have been found in Iraq.

Iraq did not use illicit weapons in the 1991

Gulf war. The U.S. did -
900 tons plus of depleted uranium, fuel air

explosives, super bombs,,
cluster bombs with civilians and civilian

facilities the "direct
object of attack". The U.S. claimed to destroy

80% of Iraq's military
armor. It dropped 88,500 tons of explosives,

7 1/2 Hiroshima's, on the
country in 42 days. Iraq was essentially defenseless.

Tens of
thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians

perished. The U.S. reported
157 casualties, 1/3 from friendly fire, the

remainder non combat.

U.N. inspectors over more than 6 years of

highly intrusive physical
inspections found and destroyed 90% of the

materials required to
manufacture nuclear, chemical and biological

weapons. U.N. sanctions
imposed August 6, 1990 had caused the deaths

of 567,000 children under
age five by October 1996, the U.N. FAO reported.

Twenty four percent
of the infants born live in Iraq in 2002 had

a dangerously low birth
weight below 2 kilos, symbolizing the condition

of the whole
population.

In March 2003 Iraq was incapable of carrying

out a threat against the
U.S., or any other country, and would have

been pulverized by U.S.
forces in place in the Gulf had it tried.

More than thirty five nations admit the possession

of nuclear,
chemical and/or biological weapons. Are these

nations, caput lupinum,
lawfully subject to destruction because of

their mere possession of
WMDs? The U.S. possesses more of each of these

impermissible weapons
than all other nations combined, and infinitely

greater capacity for
their delivery anywhere on earth within hours.

Meanwhile the U.S.
increases its military expenditures, which

already exceed those of all
other nations on earth combined, and its technology

which is
exponentially more dangerous.

The U.N. General Assembly Resolution on the

Definition of Aggression
of December 14, 1974 provides in part:
Article 1: Aggression is the use of armed

force by a State against the
sovereignty, territorial integrity or political

independence of
another State;

Article 2: The first use of armed force by

a State in contravention of
the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence

of an act of
aggression;

Article 3: Any of the following acts ... qualify

as an act of
aggression:

(a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces

of a State of the
territory of another State, or any military

occupation, however
temporary, resulting from such invasion or

attack;

(b) Bombardment by the armed forces of a State

against the territory
of another State or the use of any weapons

by a State against the
territory of another State;

(c) The blockade of the ports or coasts of

a State by the armed forces
of another State;

(d) An attack by the armed forces of a State

on the land, sea or air
forces, or marine and air fleets of another

State.

If the U.S. assault on Iraq is not a War of

Aggression under
international law, then there is no longer

such a crime as War of
Aggression. A huge, all powerful nation has

assaulted a small
prostrate, defenseless people half way around

the world with "Shock
and Awe" terror and destruction, occupied

it and continues daily
assaults. President Bush praises U.S. soldiers'

"...skill and their
courage in armored charges, and midnight raids."

which terrorize and
kill innocent Iraqis, women, children, families,

nearly every day and
average 180 attacks each week.

The first crime defined in the Constitution

annexed to the Charter of
the International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg)

under Crimes Against
Peace is War of Aggression. II.6.a. The Nuremberg

Judgment proclaimed:
" The charges in the indictment that the defendants

planned and waged
aggressive war are charges of the utmost gravity.

War is essentially
an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined

to the belligerent
states alone, but affect the whole world."

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore,

is not only an
international crime, it is the supreme international

crime...

The "seizure" of Austria in March 1938 and

of Bohemia and Moravia from
Czechoslovakia in March 1939 following the

threat to destroy Prague
were judged to be acts of aggression by the

Tribunal even in the
absence of actual war and after Britain, France,

Italy and Germany had
agreed at Munich to cede Czechoslovakia's

Sudetenland to Germany.

The first conduct judged to be a war of aggression

by Nazi Germany was
its invasion of Poland in September 1939.

There followed a long list,
Britain, France, Denmark, Norway, Belgium,

Holland, Luxemburg,
Yugoslavia, Greece. The attack on the USSR,

together with Finland,
Romania and Hungary, was adjudged as follows:

It was contended for the defendants that the

attack upon the U.S.S.R.
was justified because the Soviet Union was

contemplating an attack
upon Germany, and making preparations to that

end. It is impossible to
believe that this view was ever honestly entertained.

The plans for the economic exploitation of

the U.S.S.R., for the
removal of masses of the population, for the

murder of Commissars and
political leaders, were all part of the carefully

prepared scheme
launched on 22 June without warning of any

kind, and without the
shadow of legal excuses. It was plain aggression.

The United Nations cannot permit U.S. power

to justify its wars of
aggression if it is to survive as a viable

institution for ending the
scourges of war, exploitation, hunger, sickness

and poverty.
Comparatively minor acts and wars of aggression

by the United States
in the last 20 years, deadly enough for their

victims, in Grenada,
Libya, Panama, Haiti, the Dominican Republic,

Sudan, Yugoslavia, Cuba,
Yemen with many other nations threatened,

sanctioned, or attacked,
some with U.N. complicity and all without

effective United Nations
resistance, made the major deadly wars of

aggression against
Afghanistan and Iraq possible.

Failure to condemn the massive U.S. war of

aggression and illegal
occupation of Iraq and any U.N. act providing

colorable legitimacy to
the U.S. occupation will open wide the gate

to further, greater
aggression. The line must be drawn now.

The United Nations must recognize and declare

the U.S. attack and
occupation of Iraq to be the war of aggression

it is. It must refuse
absolutely to justify, or condone the aggression,

the illegal
occupation and the continuing U.S. assaults

in Iraq. The U.N. must
insist that the U.S. withdraw from Iraq as

it insisted Iraq withdraw
from Kuwait in 1990.

There must be no impunity or profit for wars

of aggression.
The U.S. and U.S. companies must surrender

all profits and terminate
all contracts involving Iraq.

There must be strict accountability by U.S.

leaders and others for
crimes they have committed against Iraq and

compensation by the U.S.
government for the damage its aggression has

inflicted on Afghanistan
and Iraq, the peoples injured there and stability

and harm done to
world peace.

This must be done with care to prevent the

eruption of internal
divisions, or violence and any foreign domination

or exploitation in
Iraq. The governance of a united Iraq must

be returned to the diverse
peoples who live there, acting together consensually

in peace for
their common good as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Ramsey Clark

The identical letter has been sent to:
Members of the UN Security Council
The President of the UN General Assembly
The Secretary General of the UN
The President of the United States



(Please post this open letter from Ramsey

Clark widely. On March 20
join Ramsey Clark and thousands of others

in the mass protest at Times
Square in New York City to demand "Impeach

Bush" and "Bring the troops
home now," and more. There is more information

on the March 20
demonstration in New York City and those being

held around the
country: http:/unitedforpeace.org/)

--

"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the
leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people
can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."

- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall




Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!
Ads
  #2  
Old March 8th 04, 11:17 PM
Stephen Harding
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

King Johnny wrote:

Big Sky

We, as glorious human beings, are wondrously effected by
the nature's of perception, but as so 99.9 percent
wondrous, we come with some recognizable universal draw
backs. One: actual evidence as measurable, must be a


[snipped 4002-4 lines (the math of big numbers is too difficult
for me) of confused, inarticulate rambling]

Johnny Wizard


Ahhh Johnny! Four thousand and two (4002)lines! Ten (10)
Newsgroups!

You've outdone even yourself this time...and most all of it
nicely right justified!

You da King! You da Wizaaahd!


SMH

  #3  
Old March 12th 04, 05:05 PM
Matt Wiser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


The Man wrote:

(rant deleted)

Yawn......

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.