• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Official: UN may prosecute Bush administration, regardless of US action

Moon said:
I agree. Of course, that has nothing to do with the impending civil war you predicted, or perhaps are pining for. It's hard to tell.
Click to expand...

Yes it certainly do have everything to do with that. The US society falling apart in several ways has everything to do with a possible civil war, and especially the likeliness of such is rising as extremism, polarization and "flag ideologies" is on the rise in the US.

I would not be surprised if the US during any of the next 25 years goes into civil war.
I would not be surprised if it doesn't happen either, just a little.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
Yes it certainly do have everything to do with that. The US society falling apart in several ways has everything to do with a possible civil war, and especially the likeliness of such is rising as extremism, polarization and "flag ideologies" is on the rise in the US.

I would not be surprised if the US during any of the next 25 years goes into civil war.
I would not be surprised if it doesn't happen either, just a little.
Click to expand...

Yeah, okay.
 
ludahai said:
This coming from a man who doesn't even know how we nominate candidates for public office.
Click to expand...

Wow, how genius you are at debate, coming from someone like you who knows nothing about the Norwegian labor party.. (I am just demonstrating here how stupid your way of debating is).

:doh
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
Wow, how genius you are at debate, coming from someone like you who knows nothing about the Norwegian labor party.. (I am just demonstrating here how stupid your way of debating is).

:doh
Click to expand...

I am not making comments on the Norweigan Labour Party. YOU ARE making comments about American politics.

Any more strawmen today?
 
ludahai said:
I think YOU are the one who needs intelectual honesty. Didn't she (and the President) talk about NOT WAITING for that kind of a smoking gun? RIF!
Click to expand...

Yeah, you can attack ANYONE with that qualifier.

We can't wait for Vatican City to get a nuke. We must attack now. :roll:
 
ADK_Forever said:
The U.N. can initiate proceedings against ANYONE who broke international laws. Sure they would rather have the U.S. go after the Bush traitorist criminals first and then they can follow up. However, they do not have to wait for the U.S. before they begin their own proceedings.

tick::: tock:::tick:::tock:::

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Gonzalez, Rove, Ashcroft, etc. are going down.

It's just a matter of time. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Strong the BDS is with this one-seduced by the socialist side of the force he has been
 
ludahai said:
I am not making comments on the Norweigan Labour Party. YOU ARE making comments about American politics.

Any more strawmen today?
Click to expand...

I was just trying to be as silly as you..

Maximus zeebra said:
Your political system has fallen apart. Its a joke, a laughingstock even in Africa.
Click to expand...
Your answer....
Ludahai said:
This coming from a man who doesn't even know how we nominate candidates for public office.
Click to expand...

My real answer to that rather than my joke that I made would be..

Thats some little technicality you are pointing to there, and me not knowing that is not relevant at all to me knowing about the American political system in genera, and thinking so is just as narrow minded as it can get; Besides, the point you are trying to say is not valid, because I do know about how you nominate candidates, I am just not 100% certain about one technicality, which is about US partiesz, and running for them..

Anyways, you have still not provided any kind of proof in that case, so I may easily dismiss your whole argument as a ridiculous claim, which would be ridiculous even if you were right in what you mean, rather than the ridiculous and wrong way you formulated it..

Happy now? The honest long version of the answer, just for you.... Perhaps you preferred the little joke?


You know nothing about Europe, because you do not know about our(Norwegian) labor party top meetings in Kirkenes!
:rofl
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Yeah, you can attack ANYONE with that qualifier.

We can't wait for Vatican City to get a nuke. We must attack now. :roll:
Click to expand...

Except that there was obviously credible intel at some point that Saddam was seeking WMDs, UNLIKE the Vatican.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
I was just trying to be as silly as you..


Your answer....


My real answer to that rather than my joke that I made would be..

Thats some little technicality you are pointing to there, and me not knowing that is not relevant at all to me knowing about the American political system in genera, and thinking so is just as narrow minded as it can get; Besides, the point you are trying to say is not valid, because I do know about how you nominate candidates, I am just not 100% certain about one technicality, which is about US partiesz, and running for them..

Anyways, you have still not provided any kind of proof in that case, so I may easily dismiss your whole argument as a ridiculous claim, which would be ridiculous even if you were right in what you mean, rather than the ridiculous and wrong way you formulated it..

Happy now? The honest long version of the answer, just for you.... Perhaps you preferred the little joke?


You know nothing about Europe, because you do not know about our(Norwegian) labor party top meetings in Kirkenes!
:rofl
Click to expand...

You can be so silly. I was not opining on Norwegian politics. You regular opine on U.S. politics, but obviously your knowledge of how the system works is not sufficient to intelligent comment on the US electoral process or other issues concerned US electoral politics.
 
Moon said:
Ah, I get it. Can't refute my point, so it must be time to run off.

TTFN.
Click to expand...
Don't flatter yourself. Your "point" has only consisted of one logical fallacy after another. I refuse to waste my time with someone who can't or won't understand the difference between lie and hyperbole. If you want to invent your own version of the English language, do it on your own time, because most people here aren't that stupid. You are out of your league.

ludahai said:
I think YOU are the one who needs intelectual honesty. Didn't she (and the President) talk about NOT WAITING for that kind of a smoking gun? RIF!
Click to expand...
No she talked about not waiting for a mushroom cloud. You and Moon both need to read post 107 very carefully. I won't hold my breath for Moon, but surely you'll get it.
 
"We can't wait for Vatican City to get a nuke."

That implies 2 things:

1. Vatican City exists.
2. Vatican City might get a nuke.

"We can't wait for a smoking gun to turn into a mushroom cloud."

That implies 2 things:

1. A smoking gun exists.
2. The smoking gun might turn into a mushroom cloud.

Tell me I'm getting through here.
 
ludahai said:
You can be so silly. I was not opining on Norwegian politics. You regular opine on U.S. politics, but obviously your knowledge of how the system works is not sufficient to intelligent comment on the US electoral process or other issues concerned US electoral politics.
Click to expand...

No, what you said was COMPLETELY irrelevant to what I said. This debate is ridiculous, petty, nothing, worthless, waste of my time, you are debating just to debate and disagree on something that isnt even far remote relevant.

I know how the US system works. You claim something about party politics, then you do not even prove it, and then claim you are right, and use your silly assumption to bombard me with irrelevant stuff whenever I mention anything about US politics, thats just ridiculous and highly annoying.

Besides it wasnt just about the US system, but western systems in general, they are all broken, most of them quite so. You are so soar..
 
Binary_Digit said:
No she talked about not waiting for a mushroom cloud. You and Moon both need to read post 107 very carefully. I won't hold my breath for Moon, but surely you'll get it.
Click to expand...

Again, she was creating a hypothetical. This is NOT a lie. Her point was to do something BEFORE this happens. This is NOT a lie if it is something that the information you have access to leads to that as a possibility.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
I know how the US system works. You claim something about party politics, then you do not even prove it, and then claim you are right, and use your silly assumption to bombard me with irrelevant stuff whenever I mention anything about US politics, thats just ridiculous and highly annoying.
.
Click to expand...

It WAS shown by myself as well as others. You are European, so you can not be expected to know the nuances of the US system. I have lived through it and have a MA in political science. I have a FAR BETTER understanding of the mechanics of the US system than most other Americans go. Remember, others from the US also confirmed what I was saying.

Check out this link:

NEW HAMPSHIRE PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY

To qualify for the election, you only have to:

1. Met the requirements in the Federal Constitution for the office of president;
2. Be a registered Democrat of Republican (whatever the case may be)

No provision for the party leadership to disqualify a candidate as you claimed in another thread. Will you finally yield on that point and admit you were wrong?
 
ludahai said:
Except that there was obviously credible intel at some point that Saddam was seeking WMDs, UNLIKE the Vatican.
Click to expand...

Obviously, it wasn't credible.
 
ludahai said:
Is this the best you can come up with?
Click to expand...

Is that what I said? :doh

Didn't you notice the CONDITIONAL language used? 'Could'?
Click to expand...

Very good. I'm impressed that you see my point. Do you take a country to war with such thin accusations? He didn't even say "our" intelligence agencies said Iraq had WMDs. He insinuated the Brits did, which they didn't. :roll: Now I wonder, what would his reasons be for using another country's proven false claims? Hmmm....

Want some heavier proof Bush lied and pushed the CIA to carry their water on this? Look into the differences between the White Paper, that the CIA released, and the unclassified NIE report released later. Can you explain the differences? Could it be that Bush and Cheney (whose fingerprints are all over this!) knew that the NIE's actual report would not convince the country that Iraq posed a big enough threat to us? Perhaps it needed a little "modification" to get their lies across as the truth. :roll:

For example:
As the Bush administration ratcheted up its case for war in September 2002, senators on the Intelligence Committee wrote to the director of central intelligence, George J. Tenet, requesting an NIE about Iraq's weapons programs and any connections to Al Qaeda. With Congress set to vote on the war resolution the next month, intelligence officials rushed to produce the estimate.

But the Senate committee's sharpest criticism of the unclassified document focused not on changes made in haste but on the systematic alteration of the classified version.

For example, the panel cited changes made in the section of the NIE dealing with chemical weapons:

"Although we have little specific information on Iraq's CW stockpile," the classified NIE read, "Saddam Hussein probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons" of such poisons.

In the unclassified version of the report, the phrase "although we have little specific information" was deleted. Instead, the public report said, "Saddam probably has stocked a few hundred metric tons of CW agents."

The Senate report also noted one instance in which a dissenting view was left out of the unclassified version.

In that example, the classified NIE stated that Iraq was developing unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, "probably intended to deliver biological warfare agents."

But in a footnote, the U.S. Air Force's director for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance said he did not agree.

By eliminating that footnote from the unclassified version, the panel said, the public NIE "is missing the fact that [the] … agency with primary responsibility for technological analysis on UAV programs did not agree with the assessment."
Click to expand...
CIA Blacked Out Knowledge from NIE Report

And don't forget that Cheney's own fact finding investigation into whether Iraq tried to buy yellow cake uranium from Niger was shown to be wrong. Yet, Cheney and Bush ignored that report and even tried to "kill the messenger" by going after Ambassador Joe Wilson and in the process commit another crime by outing a covert CIA agent.

Bush, Cheney, Rove and company are criminals and will be prosecuted.

tick...tock...tick...tock...
 
ludahai said:
Again, she was creating a hypothetical. This is NOT a lie. Her point was to do something BEFORE this happens. This is NOT a lie if it is something that the information you have access to leads to that as a possibility.
Click to expand...

No, Rice was lying to use FEAR to push us into war. Even though she and Cheney and Bush had been warned that all evidence to the contrary was not reliable, they all continued to push their lies on the American people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom