[HOZ]

98 detainees are KNOWN (let alone how many the U.S. is covering up) to have died since August 2002 in the custody of US officials abroad. The U.S. military itself classifies 34 of these deaths as suspected or confirmed homicides. But in half of all deaths, the cause was never announced or was reported as undetermined. At least eight, and as many as twelve, were tortured to death. In only 12 of the 34 admitted homicides have any military personnel or US officials been punished. In the cases of detainees tortured to death, only half have resulted in punishment. The harshiest prison sentence meted out to anyone involved in a torture-related death was five months.
- Command's Responsibility: Detainee Deaths in U.S. Custody in Iraq and Afghanistan, released in Februrary by Human Rights First.

Now is this Abu Gharib? Or is this from the Iraq and Afghanistan in general? You started your rant against the Power about Abu Gharib now I have the goalpost moving reply. OH, you mean the all the conflicts now....war is hell. Crappy things have happend in all wars by all sorts of people, not just Americans.

There was no torture in Abu Gharib prison by the Americans.

Was the (let alone covering up) your addition or was it there from Human Rights First? If it is from Human Rights First then their information has to be questioned due to their bias against the Americans.



I think it is funny how you quote the failings of the UN in Sudan, but I certainly do not see any American, or Canadian, troops there. Why are they in Iraq but not in Darfur where huge atrocities are taking place? The UN is only as powerful as it's member-states make it, it is not a global government. Are you willing to send Canadian troops to Darfur, guaranteeing casualties? Do you think the Canadian government under Harper would even consider sacrificing lives in an area that guarantees no economical, political or tactical importance? Why did Rwanda fail? No country was willing to donate resources to Africa. Regardless of what is happening in other parts of the world, the bottom line is the world came to a conclusion in regards to Iraq, and the U.S. did not listen.


1) Canada is in Afghanistan. Thanks to 3 decades of Trudeaupean neglect our military is stretched to the limit with one major deployment. S the point again is moot. Canada wil not send a single soldier there.
2) Thanks to the "Anti-War" crowd you can be guaranteed that the USA will never unilaterally invade a oil producing muslim country (ie Sudan) EVER AGAIN. Which would be in order since Sudan has barred the UN from sending any UN force to Sudan anyways.
3) Why can't France and Germany invade? They have nothing to do. Oh...THE UN HAS STATED that they want only African or Muslim countries to participate.
4) There is no genocide in Sudan...didn't you hear? 2 years after Colin Powell went to Sudan for the USA and declared that there WAS genocide the UN sent it's trusty observers in to discover...that there was in fact.... no genocide. This is after the Sudanese government has killed off 1-2 million Christians in the South and 1-2 black Muslims in the west.
5) You are right about one thing. The UN is ineffectual because it's member states can't get the political will to do anything of consequence. Hences the US's unilateral actions in Iraq (Afghanistan has UN approval). China gets 1/3 of it's oil from Sudan. Trust me, only when the last man has been killed and his wife raped and his children sold into slavery will the UN act. They'll send in another fact finding team.


Funny you should mention that Saddam was not acting normal... The U.S. has never allowed the IAEA weapon inspectors in. What does that say about them? Who supplied Saddam with all those weapons in the first place to fight the Soviets? Yeah... I'll give you a hint, their president is a moron.

Won't let IAEA inspectors in? Well I can guarantee you that the Americans have nuclear weapons. So what does this have to do with Iraq? Or is this some pathetic "moral equivalence " thing?


All those weapons? The Soviets definitely gave him thew MiGs, T-72 tanks and all those AK47s. Americans don't make those.

If you are refering to the chemical weapons. Then no one supplied him them. Saddam made them himself, which was the real danger prior tot he dsecond Iraq war. Those chemical weapons components can be easily made from industrial (ie OIL industry) materials. A whole bunch of countries, not just the USA, are to blame for allowing their companies to profit by selling chemicals and materials beyond those necessary for Oil production. This happened well before GW Bush's presidency.