View Poll Results: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

Voters
64. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes we will see them and they are justified.

    5 7.81%
  • Yes we will see them but they will not be justified.

    4 6.25%
  • No we will not see them but they would have been justified.

    21 32.81%
  • No we will not see them and they would not have been justified.

    34 53.13%
Page 17 of 29 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 285

Thread: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

  1. #161
    Banned Billo_Really's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    HBCA
    Last Seen
    01-14-09 @ 09:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    18,930

    Re: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    Lies? What lies? E-5's are the ones who man those drones. YOu just said they kill on purpose innocents.....


    Are you confused? Are you on medication or something?
    Who is this "they" people you are referring too?

  2. #162
    Banned Billo_Really's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    HBCA
    Last Seen
    01-14-09 @ 09:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    18,930

    Re: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

    Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und
    That is his schtick he thinks he is not a partisan when he is one of the most anti-american, anti-semetic, anti-troop, posters you will ever come across...
    More irresponsible slander.

    Your kind of patriotism would've supported Hitler 'till the bitter end.

  3. #163
    Guru
    ADK_Forever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    05-07-11 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,706

    Re: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Billo_Really View Post
    More irresponsible slander.

    Your kind of patriotism would've supported Hitler 'till the bitter end.
    Yup, all neo-cons have acted the same for the past 8 years
    in their blind support of our service ducking, lying, traitorist president.
    There really isn't much of a difference, only degree of destruction.
    Thank You Barack Obama for Restoring Honor To The Presidency.
    President Obama will rank as one of our greatest presidents!

  4. #164
    King of Videos
    dirtpoorchris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    WA
    Last Seen
    09-27-16 @ 03:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    6,554

    Re: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Billo_Really,

    I did not say that no abuses or war crimes took place. I said only that there is no credible and legally-admissable evidence to try either President Bush or Vice President Cheney for war crimes. Leaders are not automatically responsible for the acts of some members of military forces that might violate the Laws of War. One needs evidence that the leaders ordered such methods with the appropriate intent and knowledge of what they were doing. Barring the discovery of new documents toward that end, I believe it is very unlikely that either the President or Vice President will be prosecuted or charged, much less convicted, of war crimes.

    On a separate note, clearly some of the incidents you cited e.g., events at Haditha, would properly amount to war crimes. Moreover, the individuals responsible have been convicted and/or are being brought to justice in at least some of those cases.
    I think the more power a president is given or aquired the more blame rests upon their shoulders. To a degree in slight measurements. How much responsability has he assumed in this world he is trying to forge?
    Is society was made of coral our world would be floral.

  5. #165
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,473

    Re: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by ADK_Forever View Post
    Yup, all neo-cons have acted the same for the past 8 years
    in their blind support of our service ducking, lying, traitorist president.
    There really isn't much of a difference, only degree of destruction.
    Service ducking? His father was a high ranking CIA official during the war, do you really think they would allow him to become a P.O.W. with that situation? If you do you don't understand military strategy. Lying? I think you've already lost quite a bit of credibility when you throw that charge out with no evidence, except for "I feel he lied, so.......". Treason? It has already been explained earlier in the thread why he didn't commit treason and it isn't even close, unless you consider disagreeing with YOUR ideology as treason.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  6. #166
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,473

    Re: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by dirtpoorchris View Post
    I think the more power a president is given or aquired the more blame rests upon their shoulders.
    And you would be wrong, since the military structure rests upon field command.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  7. #167
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    12-14-09 @ 05:19 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,772

    Re: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

    i for one believe torture was state policy and that the 'bad apples'were fall guys. Not enough evidence to prove it tho.

  8. #168
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Littleton, Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-21-15 @ 06:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,036

    Re: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by dragonslayer View Post

    We prosecuted Saddam, and Bush is far worse than him.
    This is as ignorant a statment as I have ever seen.

    The dictator, Hussein, invaded the soveriegnty of Iran and Kuwait. He flew his military jets over the soveriegnty of Saudi Arabia and Jordan as late as 2002. He instigated the extreme escallation of suicide bombers in Israel. (That would make "5" soveriegn nations he disrecpected and scoffed at.)

    Clinton's administration:

    1) January 13, 1993 (The week before his inauguration): US forces stepped up our confrontation with Hussein. More than 100 American, British, and French fighters bombed Iraqi air-defense targets. Five days later, forty-five TLAMs launched ay sea destroyed a factory that had ben a key part of Iraqi's nuclear program. These attacks were followed with further jet-fighter air strikes the next day.

    2) In the fall of 1994, he demanded that the UN lift sanctions, and to force the issue he deployed 80,000 troops near the Kuwaiti border. Clinton sent 50,000 troops, including an aircraft carrier battle group and hundreds of aircrafts. (Operation Vigilant Warrior). After Hussein backed down, 5,000 American troops remained in Kuwait.

    3) One year later, Hussein pulled a similar stunt. American troops once again reinforced Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan. As a result of these efforts, the US maintained a sizable force in the Persian Gulf.

    ** Isn't one of the heartbreaks of the Radicals and extremists that we have a presence in the ME? We were there because of Hussein's defiance to behave. In '96 a suicide terrorist detonated a truck bomb at the Khobar Towers where Air Force perosnel slept, killing 19. Al-Queda called on all Muslims to expel the US from Saudi Arabia. Somewhere we wouldn't be had it not been for Hussein's continued behavior to threaten his neighbors.

    4) August 1996: Two months after the Khobar Towers bombing, Hussein launched another offensive inside Iraq that forced his fourth confrontation with Clinton in less than four years. He attacked the Kurds in the north. They were under the protection of the no-fly zone, imposed in 1991 by Operation Provide Comfort; HUssein's action also violated the U.N. Security Council Resolution prohibiting him form repressing his people. Clinton's military planners readied the military, but neither the Sauds nor the Turks allowed US planes to launch air strikes from their territory. (Sauds worried about radicals and extremists and the Turks are wary about anything that might help a Kurd). So on September 3, Clinton ordered a cruise missile strike, sending forty-four TLAMs against air defense targets in southern Iraq.

    **The result of this latest "confrontation" was a calling from mmilitary and political officials to invade and remove Hussein once and for all. The covert operation by the CIA (started under the first Bush) was given more funding by Clinton to organize internal opposition to challenge Hussein). Albright stated, "Our policy of contrainment is time-consuming, fraught with repeated crisis, and costly to maintain in temrs of our relationships. The repeated conforntations with Saddam Hussein's regime and the loss of momentum from the Gulf War have led to containment fatigue within the internaitonal community."

    5) Autumn 1997: Hussein began placing restrictions again on UN inspectors and demanded that all American be kicked off the teams. Clinton ordered another buildup of U.S. military forces in the Gulf. Hussein backed off. Wolfewitz, who once defended Bush's policy to maintain the dictator after the Gulf War was now looking for the inevitable solution and stated, "military action will need to be part, but only a part and not the main part."

    6) 1998: Hussein once aain prevented the UN inspectors from working and Clinton found the UN Security Council deadlocked over whether or not it should use "proper" military means to compel him to cooperate. Gore states, "Saddam delivers phony concessions and backs off just enough until we are forced into another crisis, and he keeps doing this over and over until we run out of steam." Clinton states to the Pentagon, "We are faced with the predators of the 21st century. They feed on the free flow of information and technology...and they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. The clearest example of this kind of threat was Saddam's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us. If we fail to respons today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will e emboldened tomorrow b y the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

    7) Mid year 1998: Congress passes and Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act, codifying the aim of regime change into U.S. law and authorizing nearly $100 million in Pentagon funds to support the Iraqi opposition. One month later, Hussein started polaying games with UN inspectors again and Operation Desert Fox commenced. Once again targets were obliterated, however this time General Zinni became sceptical of a weapons of mass destruction program because the targets were towards conventional and "maybe" targets.

    **In 2000, Berger states, they "Had a responsibility to leave the next administration with a viable Iraq policy, not a mess. It would be up to that administration to decide what to do."

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

    This was all done for his continued defiance of the numerous strictures the U.N. Security Council had placed on his behavior. These included forcing the Baghdad regime to fully disclose (which he never did) and dismantle (which he did unilaterally and in secret to keep his regional enemies guessing and in fear) his weapons programs, adhere to comprehensive international inspections (which he refused repeatedly), and end the repression of its people, namely the Kurds and Shia populations (which he refused to do).

    And aren't we held responsible for seeking a peace between Palestinians and Israelis? With Hussein funding suicide bombers we were hopelessy locked in failure.

    As late as 2002, Hussein flies military jets over Jordan and Saudi Arabia's airspace to further taunt American action. Along comes 2003. Bush goes into Iraq with the same "confusion" of whether or not a weapons of mass destruction was going on in the absence of UN inspectors. Our intel reports can't specify locations or targets, but the continued defiance to keep UN inspectors away from select areas or from doing their job implies that their is something to hide. The result is a removed Hussein, no WMD program located, and the tribes begin to slaughter each other. Bush is labeled a "Hitler" and an orchestrator of genocide (which actually accuses US troops of genocide). He is accused of tyranny simply for not respecting Hussein's sovereignty. Yet, the absence of sovereignty for Bosnia, Kosovo, and Haiti are forgiven. Further, we are to pretend that UN intervention since 1991 and American, British, and French bombins somehow implied that Hussein's soveriegnty was intact and respected in the first place.

    What I have always found great humor about is how people seem to think that "dipolomacy" wasn't even tried. That an entire decade of playing games with our military and against the UN didn't occur. That repeated confrontations wasn't going to be forever in our future with his regime (whether with him or his worse sons). That somehow, we could absolve ourselve of responsibility if we only pretended that this thorn could forever remain in ours, the UNs, and the Middl East's side.

    You have no basis to accuse Bush of being worse than Hussein. Absolutely none. And this is why protestors are taken seriously only to their first exaggeration or lie. One would think that a protestor would have enough to protest about without inventing a reality to protest about.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  9. #169
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Littleton, Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-21-15 @ 06:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,036

    Re: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by ADK_Forever View Post
    You obviously don't know much about international law.


    He know's it's BS. He knows that "sovereignty" only matters when the threat is in proximity to Europe or America. He knows that Rwanda and Sudan suffered genocide inside their soveriegnty while we moved removed the laws of sovereignty for Kosovo, Bosnia, and Haiti. He knows that the moment the UN declares a situation a genocide that America and the UN is obligated to act by international law, which is why Bush and Blair failed to convince the UN to acknowledge what was occurring in Darfur. Notice how "genocide" was labeled towards Rwanda and Sudan after the slaughter was coming to an end in the '90s? Notice how America stood by as genocide erupted in Europe, insisting that the Europeans and the UN take the lead, but neither was up to the task and "genocide" was a word used later when America got involved?

    You see, the concept that outside powers might together decide to use force to strip a state (or individual) of its right to govern had started to take shape in 1991, when US forces occupied northern Iraq and established a no-fly zone to protect the Kurds. It had evolved further in 1994 when American dipolomatis and military action removed the military junta in Haiti and restored to power the democratically elected president.

    And the idea that it is some tyrannical action to unilaterally take out an offendor of humanity also has presedence with Clinton. The approach to Bosnia had a gloss of allied involvement and buy-in, but in the end it was unilateral, rejecting U.N. participation and keeping allies at arm's length. The Clinton approach to international institutions was skeptical once he discovered the hidden under belly. He felt burned by the way other countries used the UN as cover to pretend they were doing somehting to solve a problem. This led to America's unilateral effort to replace Boutros-Ghali as secretary general of the UN.


    Instead of accusing him of lacking "edumacation," maybe you could try to place your beloved international law next to reality and see how horribly it fits. When dictators rage and celeberate their death machines upon his people or when tribal slaughter can continue simply because a word (genocide) has been refrained from being used, international law becomes an insult to good morality and the spirit of a so called advancing world.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  10. #170
    Another day in paradise..
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    68,004

    Re: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Billo_Really View Post
    More irresponsible slander.

    Your kind of patriotism would've supported Hitler 'till the bitter end.



    Actually given your anti semetic diatribes against jews, wouldn't YOU be the one who supported hitler to the bitter end?


    Matthew 10:34
    Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Page 17 of 29 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •