Bush and Blair guilty of war crimes

 

Bush, Blair found guilty of war crimes in Malaysia tribunal

BY 

HALUK DEMIRBAG

 – MARCH 19, 2012POSTED IN: FEATURED STORIES, MALAYSIA, UK, USA, WORLD

Former US president George Bush and his former counterpart Tony Blair were found guilty of war crimes by The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal which held a four day hearing in the Malaysia.

The five panel tribunal unanimously decided that Bush and Blair committed genocide and crimes against peace and humanity when they invaded Iraq in 2003 in blatant violation of international law.

The judges ruled that war against Iraq by both the former heads of states was a flagrant abuse of law, act of aggression which amounted to a mass murder of the Iraqi people.

In their verdict, the judges said that the United States, under the leadership of Bush, forged documents to claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

They further said the findings of the tribunal be made available to members of the Rome Statute and the names of Bush and Blair be entered into a war crimes register.

Both Bush and Blair repeatedly said the so-called war against terror was targeted at terrorists.

Lawyers and human rights activists present here say the verdict by the tribunal is a landmark decision. And the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Foundation said it would lobby the International Criminal Court to charge former US president George Bush and Former British prime minister Tony Blair for war crimes.

Countries of the world should unite and form parallel organizations like those controlled by the Americans and the West that were used to serve their political interests in outright violation of human rights and human decency. Mahathir has done the right thing for once, taken the right initiative to provide a more level playing field in the stage of international relations. Well done Mat.

Chen Guangcheng wants to see the world

Chinese activist and dissident wants to leave China to see the world. But a huge political row erupted between the US and China like a circus in town. The US wants him, China does not want him but wants to keep him. Why doesn’t China just help the US, makes the US happy and send Chen and his families, plus extended families to the US?

Mao Tse Tung once offered to send 100m Chinese women to the US. China can afford to send all its activists and dissidents to the US, even 100m of them and let them be US citizens. It is a win win situation. The US loves dissidents and activists and their fight for freedom. They and the activists can cohabit happily in the US. China will not have any more trouble on home ground to deal with the activists and dissidents and give excuse to the western world to take pot shot at her.

China should liberate the activists and set them free. And the US will go down on its knees to beg China not to do so. They would have to show their ugliness by slamming the door at all the activists. China, what the hell are you thinking? Give them everything they want and save the trouble and bring out the hypocrisy of the US and the West.

The world’s 4th most liveable place

Why Sinkies complaining? Singapore is the world’s 4th most desirable place to live. It is so spacious, so clean and so easy to get around. If they raise the COEs to $200k, it will mean the roads will be a joy to drive. And the houses are so big, with swimming pools. There is no need to even live the house to enjoy life.

Now where got traffic jams and people jams? The only jams are the high quality imported fruit jams in the high end supermarkets. Hardly have to squeeze with a foreign worker in all the nice places. This is truly paradise, better than Swiss standard of living.

What? Got people living in 90 sq m flats? And what, some living in 50 sq m flats? Hollycow, no joke! Never know that they exist. Never come across or meet such people. Come look at my neighbourhood, come enjoy my sea front view and the private berth for my yacht.

Australia a model for sustainable growth

Australia was once a lowly inhabited continent. The population of aborigines was small when the British planted their flag to stake a claim to the land. Finder’s keepers. And when the needed to increase the population, they dumped their convicts there first. Subsequently when the land was safely secured, they started their selective immigration programme, choosing those they are comfortable and compatible with. They don’t dump rubbish in a good piece of land. The initial rubbish was there for a different reason.

With such a huge piece of land, and all the resources, the Australians can take growth and development at a measure pace, without joining the rat race. Even if there were no growth, they will still be living a very good quality of life, by living off the land. They are very careful with their development programme as well as their population programme. They are doing it slow and steady, with sustainable growth in all sectors. There is no hurry to kill or destroy themselves.

But we cannot be like Australia. We are an exception. We must hungry, increase our population and rapid growth are the strategies for our survival. We have no choice. If we are wrong we will just destroy ourself in the process. If we don’t do it, we will also destroy ourself in the process. So just do it, bring in all the rubbish and dump into this little piece of continent and we should be alright. It is sustainable growth.

Ask an economist and the answer is growth

The debate for more population is heating up but the thinking is one track, growth. Without population growth, it will be the end of the Singapore story. Growth is the essence of an economics approach to the country’s problem, or for that matter to any other problems. Send Pavarotti to the economists and the recommendation will be 5% growth annually. Send a yoda to an economist and it will be the same answer, feed the yoda to ensure 5% growth.

Is growth really the solution, or can innovation and productivity be the alternatives? There are many ways to maintain or better the life of the people instead of growth. Under this economics theory of growth, any country, including Singapore, will see its ruin without growth. The realities around the world proved that this is the biggest bullshit.

If the well being of any country is simply to maintain growth through population growth, many countries would have been wiped out from the face of the earth, and many countries with high population growth would have been the most prosperous and with better standard of living.

Can anyone come up with a smarter answer, with so much being paid to feed them for their personal growth? If we go on a path of unstopping population growth, we are as good as feeding ourselves to death. Maybe that is better than dying from starvation. The limitations of our physical size are staring down at us. Why don’t they look at how to improve the life of the people by maintaining the population size as the breaking point is appearing everywhere, even with the creme ala crème in charge?

Did anyone ask why Pavarotti had to die? Has anyone asked why every yoda cannot keep growing by feeding him more and more? It is nature’s way to terminating those who want to grow and grow. Countries are not different in the area of population growth. Unrestraint population growth is a sure way to self destruct faster.

No wonder they don't believe in no salary increment.