Americans to withdraw from Iraqi cities

After the discusting, lowly and cowardly acts undertaken by the Amercians and their allies, against a people unable to defend themselves here is a reminder of those that should face war crimes for crimes against Iraqis.  Please note more than 500,000 Iraqis have been killed, and this is a consertaive estimate.

George the Buffoon Bush
The fact the the Amercians elected this guy twice is pretty worrying and not a good reflection on them.  His idiocity has become such a joke that a new word was invented for his impromtu comedy routines, 'Bushims'. Here is a selection:

"The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein and his willingness to terrorize himself."
Source: The Washington Post, "With Edwards, White House Shows First-Strike Capability," Dana Milbank, Feb. 11, 2003


"Do you have blacks, too?"
—Bush, speaking to Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso.
Source: Salon.com, "Bushed," Jake Tapper, June 20, 2002

"I should have clarified it by my statement. I just clarified it by my—not should have—I just."

—Bush, trying to clarify a statement
Source: FDCH Political Transcripts, "George W. Bush Holds Media Availability with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi," Sept. 14, 2002. 

And some pictures as well:



Verdict: Guilty of being an imbecile.  Responsible for the deaths of British and US soldiers and hundreds and thousands of Iraqi, Me, womena and children such as:

whilst his friend poses for the cameras:
Verdit for GW: Any civilised jury would find him guilty of war crimes.

Tony the Poodle Blair
A Devil with a silver tongue.  To use a British expression he could sell ice to eskimos.  Ofcourse Britain would not have gone to war without the approval of the cabinet.  But the whole thing was farcical, and would make a great comedy show.  'Sexing up a dossier',  'Spin', 'Plagiarism'.  These are the very things that children are told not to do ever since they are able to walk and talk.  'Copying is wrong' were told.  And to think that the British government was guilty of what many under graduate students consider, 'ripping off someone else work and pass it in as your own by using google' is wrong on too many fronts.  Does it mean that their are no competent researchers in the UK? Ofcourse those in parliment who voted for war should not be absolved of their responsibilities.  They are as guilty as Blair.  They cannot claim to be misled.  We could all see that the sales pitch was farcical.If they were misled then they are not fit to represent the people of Britain, because they do not have the mental capacity to process information.  There were some shining lights, most notably the late Robin Cook MP,
who resigned from Cabinet and the Birmingham MP Clair Short. It begs the question, what the rest of them in the British government were doing voted for a war based on such shoddy facts.  Maybe they thought they were embarking on some greater cause, like a modern day crusade.  However, the truth of it I think, is that Britain has to side with the Americans.  Britains owes Americans a debt of gratitude.  America intervened in the second world war, it backed the UK against Argentina in the falklands  It will always back the UK, and teh UK will always stand by its side. Not a relationship based on taking moral jdgements about good and bad, but as a good servant who will stand by it's master's side and not questions the motives of the master.  This ofcourse is very different from a good freind who who advise a freind when they are commiting evil, that in fact, this is in fact morally a wrong action.

Verdit for TB: Any civilised jury would find him guilty of war crimes.

The other actors in this global drama are ofcourse Colin and Condi.  Colin must feel like an idiot after being asked to sell the war on that shoddy evidence and even shoddier presentation.  Colin should have taken a moral judgement.  In the situation he was in the only option was resignation or oiling the machine of slaughter of innocents.  He chose the latter.  I can not believe that he was so naive as to not be able to see what was going on.  Condi, on the othe hand is just a yes woman.

The illigitmate war cost at least 500,000 Iraqi lives, but closer to 1 million.  Men, women and children.  The Economic value of life in a developed country is say $1.5 million.   See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics.

In Iraq, say it is worth $1 million.  This is not a proper value of life, but in the absence of other things it enables some kind of quantification.  Also, it does not account for the wrecked infrastructure, only those killed.  On the basis of this the Allies owe Iraqi families £1million * 1 million =  $1,000,000,000,000.  This is the rough estimate of what the Allies owe Iraq.  This is exlcuding the cost of infrastucture, injury to people, environmental degredation etc;.  Assume that Saddam would have topped say 200 people.  You need to remove 200 from the overall cost of the impact of the invasion. The equation is clear.  Iraq would have been better off in Eoconomic terms being ruled by that dicatator, Saddam.

Iraq and certainly the civilians in the country should ask for this level of compensation.  Incidently this is 1,000 billion or 1 trillion dollars.  Current US GDP is about $11 trillion dollars.  This means that they owe close to 10% of the annual GDP to Iraq as compensation.  This is a lot.  They will never pay , but to those who think that the costs of the war are insignificant, they are not.  They are only insiginciant to those who have inflicted the damage because they pay a very small part of those costs.

So it is good the Allies are getting out of the cities, and they should stay out.

Featured