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 20 of 29 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 285

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

  1. #191
    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 GySgt View Post
    If you wish to paint Bush as "dumb enough" then start with Clinton...
    If only you guys had to donate $1 to the national debt every time you turned an argument back on Clinton. Why, we might be able to balance the budget!

    You can't push 9/11 back on Clinton. He warned stupid that OBL and Al Qaeda should be his #1 concern. Stupid and Rice and Cheney ignored him and didn't do one single thing about them UNTIL they attacked us!

    You wanna talk about who is dumb and ignorant? Check out: Bush Sought ‘Way’ To Invade Iraq?, O'Neill Tells '60 Minutes' Iraq Was 'Topic A' 8 Months Before 9-11 - CBS News
    Paul O'Neill was fired from his job as George Bush's Treasury Secretary for disagreeing too many times with the president's policy on tax cuts.

    At cabinet meetings, he says the president was "like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people. There is no discernible connection," forcing top officials to act "on little more than hunches about what the president might think."

    This is what O'Neill says happened at his first hour-long, one-on-one meeting with Mr. Bush: “I went in with a long list of things to talk about, and I thought to engage on and as the book says, I was surprised that it turned out me talking, and the president just listening … As I recall, it was mostly a monologue.”

    He also says that President Bush was disengaged, at least on domestic issues, and that disturbed him. And he says that wasn't his experience when he worked as a top official under Presidents Nixon and Ford, or the way he ran things when he was chairman of Alcoa.

    O'Neill readily agreed to tell his story to the book's author Ron Suskind – and he adds that he's taking no money for his part in the book.

    Suskind says he interviewed hundreds of people for the book – including several cabinet members.

    O'Neill is the only one who spoke on the record, but Suskind says that someone high up in the administration – Donald Rumsfeld - warned O’Neill not to do this book.
    Can you imagine the President of the United States being so detached from important matters concerning this country? To accuse this idiot of being "intellectually lazy" would actually be a compliment.

    Congress was involved. Politicians from both sides were involved. Other nations were involved.
    Yep, and all parties were being led by the nose by Bush's lies. Nobody is arguing that Hussein wasn't a bad man. The argument, that you guys ALWAYS ignore, is that we were supposed to be going after "those folks who attacked us"!

    Can you explain why Bush stopped pursuing Osama Bin Laden, after so few months of attacking us and murdering over 3,000 innocent people on our soil? Could it be that it was too much work for them and wasn't producing improved polling numbers for them?

    And Hussein and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
    It really is that simple.


    It has been proven all over this forum that Bush wanted to invade Iraq before he even took office. Bush always felt that a war helped to bolster a sitting president's popularity. He always thought daddy didn't go far enough. They just under estimated how much effort it would take to occupy Iraq.

    From the above link:
    “From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

    “From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”

    As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

    "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”

    And that came up at this first meeting, says O’Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

    He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. “There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,’" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001.
    Are "we" better off without Hussein? I guess that depends. since he wasn't really a threat to us anyway... and BushCo knew it! But, are we safer from all those new terrorists on the planet, who hate our guts, who weren't there before?

    Are the people of Iraq better off without Hussein? Some of them might argue that point with you. Especially those whose family members have been killed by those new terrorists and suicide bombers.

    Cheney's attitude was also obviously a=not very concerned about America's financial well being with this doosey:
    “He says, ‘You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.’ … O'Neill is speechless.”
    So, answering this thread's question: AB-SO-LOOT-LEE!!! The whole bunch of them should be behind bars. Maybe we'll hear something on this in 19 days.
    Thank You Barack Obama for Restoring Honor To The Presidency.
    President Obama will rank as one of our greatest presidents!

  2. #192
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 01:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    Gotta love you attacking the troops day in and day out. Have you no shame?
    Ultimately the troops have only the blame of their own personal actions... but remember, it's been established that
    a) Soldiers follow orders
    b) That war crimes are punished less harshly than insubordination

    However, since I don't personally blame the soldiers on the ground doing the actual fighting and putting their lives on the lines, I can however be pissed off with the people giving the orders from the safety of a controlled location. You couldn't argue either side conclusively whether these commanders are giving the orders to commit atrocities (for lack of a better term).

    Since Bush is the commander in chief, ultimately any war crimes involving orders gets placed on his shoulders.

    [QUOTE=LaMidRighter;1057860545]
    That sounds like a personal attack to me. I am not a warhawk, simply stating that defense spending goes back into the economy via increases in production, but hey, if you feel better shooting the messenger go ahead, it's not my fault you hold on to these notions that are provably wrong.
    If the 'trickle down' effect worked out to be so great... government prints tax sponsored funds and sends it to a private corporation, sends enlisted civilians armed with the weapons these firms build, and as the equipment becomes used, broken, and or outdated, then MORE public funds and enlisted civilians go into it to create even further profits for a few multi-national corporations AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE!!

    Yes, these enlisted soldiers are paid for their work, and funding does get returned into the economy, the vast majority winds up in the pockets of the very few CEO's of those few select companies. The only sense in which this money helps the economy is to continue that push for the poor to become poorer and the rich to become richer,

    Well, that the economy in North America more or less RELIES on there being nearly continuous wars to keep the house of cards in tact, I suppose being a war-pushing nation would be a good thing, since basically every other factor of the producing economy has been shipped overseas where workers are paid pennies.

    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.
    Really, when it's the bankers that control the power structure (as evidenced by the 'banker bailout' and all related 'circumstance') it doesn't matter if it's the rebublicans or the democrats in power since it's these groups that pull the strings from behind the scenes, and it's with these people that the president of the day is giving his allegiences to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    Actually given your anti semetic diatribes against jews, wouldn't YOU be the one who supported hitler to the bitter end?
    Now, I'm not exactly sure where the anti-semite calling came up, but to anyone capable of making distinctions, it's not 'jews' as in the regular people that you'll see in your neighbourhood. I have no personal problem with jews, however, like with any other group of people there are good and evil characters alligned with that group.

    Now, if you see an brown guy stealing your bike, and you call the cops to report it.... is it racist to tell the cops the guys race?? Or are you just passing on the facts of a given case? It's the same type of distinction that must be made when talking about Jews especially... since anything even remotely suggesting that a jew might not be an upstanding character becomes 'anti-semitic hate-speech'... Again, since I'm not sure what brought this on, I'll leave it at that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    Yup the house communists act the same year after year with wild stories about lies and made up words like "traitorist" [sic].
    Oh, no it's within the spirit of our country and the free market to 'bailout' the institutions that should be pushing the economy into prosperity rather than defrauding it's customers to the point where they become insolvent and must be rescued in order to prevent economic chaos.

    If anything this bailout is a step closer to communism than I would have ever wanted to see (probly more accurate to say socialism)... and yet you see people that have 'national' pride in this emerging 'socialism'... 'national socialism' that would be a good thing, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    If Bush were really HItler, the Bush haters on this board would have been made into lampshades along time ago and the others would be too terrified to spew their BDS nonsense here where anyone who understands computer forensics can find out who they are in a matter of minutes.
    Here is the distinction between the Bush/clinton dynasties (of which Obama happens to be a continuation... but that's not important) :
    Where Hitler was overtly aiming for world domination, the Bush /Clinton dynasty aims for world domination and control through incrementalisation. Taking over so slow that by the time everyone sees what's going on it will be too late to stop.

    Quote Originally Posted by dirtpoorchris View Post
    He is not Hitler. I think he is more like Hitler 2.0. Learned and wise from Hitler and not bound to make the same mistakes.
    Exactly, by pushing people gradually into this new way, in much the same way that you walk a cow into the slaughterhouse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Billo_Really View Post
    I'm about as against Bush as one can legally get, but Bush is not Hitler.
    No, but there is the VERY REAL possibliity that Bush was the next stepping stone in creating THE NEXT Hitler.

  3. #193
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 05:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

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

    The Bush administration will never be tried. The international court system is a laughing stock at this point. If Nuremburg laws were actually enforced fairy and objectively, most Western leaders would have gone to the gallows already. No authority has the power to put a U.S. President in front of an international court, aside from the American people and congress.

    How exactly do you intend to deliver a court summons to Bush? March into the White House with a peacekeeping force? The military would blow them to kingdom come.

    The international courts are only for those who have no power to prevent themselves from being dragged in front of it. Otherwise, state sovereignty and national powers prevent the laws from being enacted. If you want to be above the law, you must have enough power so that you are answerable to no one. The U.S. qualifies.

  4. #194
    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 Orius View Post
    How exactly do you intend to deliver a court summons to Bush? March into the White House with a peacekeeping force? The military would blow them to kingdom come.
    He won't be the President. He'll be in Crawford, Texas. And any such action would probably be coordinated thru the State Dept and White house.

    If that happened, it would be sort of like when Dorothy killed the wicked witch. But, instead of singing, "The wicked old witch is dead", most of the country will be singing, "The traitorous liar is getting his just desserts"! (I'm still looking for the words to that one. Maybe I'll write it myself. ) It might even become a national holiday.
    Thank You Barack Obama for Restoring Honor To The Presidency.
    President Obama will rank as one of our greatest presidents!

  5. #195
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,473

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

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    How exactly do you intend to deliver a court summons to Bush? March into the White House with a peacekeeping force? The military would blow them to kingdom come.
    That is the only fitting response to a direct attack on our shores. I would have no problem with U.N. forces getting obliterated if they breach our shores.

    The international courts are only for those who have no power to prevent themselves from being dragged in front of it. Otherwise, state sovereignty and national powers prevent the laws from being enacted. If you want to be above the law, you must have enough power so that you are answerable to no one. The U.S. qualifies.
    It isn't about that at all, we as the United States have plenty of laws to police ourselves, we do NOT need others to do it for us, we did things our way and legally, enforcement is not necessary internal and their external interference would be an act of war according to our laws.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  6. #196
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:57 PM
    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
    If that happened, it would be sort of like when Dorothy killed the wicked witch. But, instead of singing, "The wicked old witch is dead", most of the country will be singing, "The traitorous liar is getting his just desserts"! (I'm still looking for the words to that one. Maybe I'll write it myself. ) It might even become a national holiday.
    Hey, reality is calling, it wants you to join the party. Most Americans do not thing the president is a traitor, they are displeased with the job he has done, but even more americans are happy with the president than the current congress. Second, there was NO TREASON COMMITTED, read back for the actual constitutional definition that Gobieman provided earlier so that you can drop that silly argument once and for all. Third There were no crimes committed as everything was done through the required channels to go to war, and GunnySgt already provided the history of this war and why it was necessary, so either pay attention this time or drop it, cause this is just getting ridiculous.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  7. #197
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,473

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

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    Ultimately the troops have only the blame of their own personal actions... but remember, it's been established that
    a) Soldiers follow orders
    b) That war crimes are punished less harshly than insubordination
    And that would matter only if they committed war crimes, which most of them have not done since international law doesn't apply to U.S. war powers in this case.

    However, since I don't personally blame the soldiers on the ground doing the actual fighting and putting their lives on the lines, I can however be pissed off with the people giving the orders from the safety of a controlled location. You couldn't argue either side conclusively whether these commanders are giving the orders to commit atrocities (for lack of a better term).
    What attrocities are you talking about specifically?

    Since Bush is the commander in chief, ultimately any war crimes involving orders gets placed on his shoulders.
    Wrong, because he is the commander in chief, but is not issuing direct orders.



    If the 'trickle down' effect worked out to be so great... government prints tax sponsored funds and sends it to a private corporation, sends enlisted civilians armed with the weapons these firms build, and as the equipment becomes used, broken, and or outdated, then MORE public funds and enlisted civilians go into it to create even further profits for a few multi-national corporations AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE!!
    Dude, WTF are you talking about?

    Yes, these enlisted soldiers are paid for their work, and funding does get returned into the economy, the vast majority winds up in the pockets of the very few CEO's of those few select companies. The only sense in which this money helps the economy is to continue that push for the poor to become poorer and the rich to become richer,
    ?????? If you are talking about defense spending you are absolutely incorrect, it's called the supply chain, every step in making any produced unit involves supplies including but not limited to finished goods(parts) made from raw materials, no one company is completely involved in the whole chain as a general rule, so every one unit arguably creates jobs at a 1:5 ratio, that's a lot of paychecks, the next argument is that those paychecks purchase other goods and services or are else invested or saved, creating more mobility of the money as lending or purchasing power. If this is what you are calling "trickle down" it does work, if you are simply blathering then that would explain why you are using that old "rich get richer......" argument.

    Well, that the economy in North America more or less RELIES on there being nearly continuous wars to keep the house of cards in tact, I suppose being a war-pushing nation would be a good thing, since basically every other factor of the producing economy has been shipped overseas where workers are paid pennies.
    Yes, because people are trying to engineer the economy, which wrecks it, if you let the natural rules of economics take effect you wouldn't need external stimuli such as war, but as of right now we must fix what socialists have decimated, and unfortunately war is an easy sell when you have true evil in the world, such as Saddam, Osama, Milosevic, et. al.



    Really, when it's the bankers that control the power structure (as evidenced by the 'banker bailout' and all related 'circumstance') it doesn't matter if it's the rebublicans or the democrats in power since it's these groups that pull the strings from behind the scenes, and it's with these people that the president of the day is giving his allegiences to.
    It's more complex than "banks fail and down the economy", it has more to do with constantly supplementing earnings with goodies, coercion towards risky loans by government on banks, overinflated markets, lack of a hard money standard, overly complex economic theories that don't work replacing the common sense of free-market economics, and an overall "gimme" attitude within our generation.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  8. #198
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 05:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

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

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    It isn't about that at all, we as the United States have plenty of laws to police ourselves, we do NOT need others to do it for us, we did things our way and legally, enforcement is not necessary internal and their external interference would be an act of war according to our laws.
    Just because the U.S. makes a law permitting it to commit an international action, does not mean that that action is necessarily legal on the international playing field. For instance, if Guantanamo Bay actually received a review by a UN Court, it will probably be found to be in violation of international laws. There are plenty of actions committed by the United States which are legally internally but not legal externally.

    However, that is not what I wish to debate. My main point is that regardless if what the U.S. has done recently is legal or not, international law lacks any real teeth to enforce its ethics upon the U.S. The main powers in the world are generally above the law, and even work together to sidestep the law.

  9. #199
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,473

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

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    Just because the U.S. makes a law permitting it to commit an international action, does not mean that that action is necessarily legal on the international playing field. For instance, if Guantanamo Bay actually received a review by a UN Court, it will probably be found to be in violation of international laws. There are plenty of actions committed by the United States which are legally internally but not legal externally.
    What I'm saying is that international law is irrelevent to U.S. constitutional affairs because we cannot sign away american sovreignity, any treaty signed towards that effect would be considered in bad faith and cannot invalidate U.S. War powers as written in the COTUS, therefore international law is rendered inapplicable and we must use our own justice system. Guantanimo Bay is actually much more civil than 90% of world P.O.W. situations if not moreso, the international community is bitching, sure, but our prisoners have special diet considerations, they have U.N. supervision, etc. They have it better than anyone that Hamas, Al-Quaida, Saddam's Royal Guard, or the Taliban would have ever treated their captives.

    However, that is not what I wish to debate. My main point is that regardless if what the U.S. has done recently is legal or not, international law lacks any real teeth to enforce its ethics upon the U.S. The main powers in the world are generally above the law, and even work together to sidestep the law.
    It can't apply, so it's enforceability isn't necessarily an applicable question, however, to play devil's advocate that lack of teeth should let everyone know what I've been saying for years, the U.N. is worthless.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  10. #200
    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 LaMidRighter View Post
    Hey, reality is calling, it wants you to join the party. Most Americans do not thing the president is a traitor,
    Have you taken a gander at his approval ratings lately?

    they are displeased with the job he has done, but even more americans are happy with the president than the current congress.
    Hell-LOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW! How long have you been in that cave? What difference does it make if some people think more of Bush than someone else? What matters is what they think of Bush! That right wing tactic of switching the argument won't hold any water.

    Second, there was NO TREASON COMMITTED, read back for the actual constitutional definition that Gobieman provided earlier so that you can drop that silly argument once and for all.
    You'll forgive me if I don't take Gobieman's word on this issue. Bush ordered Cheney and Rove to disclose the identity of an undercover CIA agent. No matter your party, that should be important to you. Bush ordered torture to be used against prisoners. Torture that people from other countries were convicted of using.

    Third There were no crimes committed as everything was done through the required channels to go to war,
    Bush and Cheney lied to the world about what so-called proof they used to validate invading Iraq. He blamed Britain's intelligence doc which has been proven to be based on forged documents. AND there is talk that Cheney is the one behind that forged document. Oh if only they could prove that one!

    and GunnySgt already provided the history of this war and why it was necessary,
    GySgt provided history. It, however had nothing to do with why Bush invaded Iraq. What happen ten years ago doesn't matter when you're talking about invading an innocent country anticipating killing thousands of people! What is important is what is true at the time! And "at the time" Bush and Cheney and Rummy KNEW Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no WMDs. Got it, yet? To believe that right wing fairy tale is to swallow Bush and Cheney's lies, hook, line and sinker. Wake up and read what they actually did.

    so either pay attention this time or drop it, cause this is just getting ridiculous.
    Not in this life time!

    What is way past ridiculous is people like you defending the crimes this President has committed. If Clinton had done these despicable acts the neo-cons and right-wingers would have been all over him. And I would be right there with them! Party loyalty has its limits. And committing treason is way past any loyalty line.

    Even Bush 41 thinks his son is a traitor! As a former head of the CIA he knows how serious such a crime is.

    YouTube - Bush 41 on Traitors
    Thank You Barack Obama for Restoring Honor To The Presidency.
    President Obama will rank as one of our greatest presidents!

Page 20 of 29 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... 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
  •