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 22 of 29 FirstFirst ... 122021222324 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 285

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

  1. #211
    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
    BULL **** You have no proof and THERE ARE NO PERJURY CHARGES FILED or CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS Until that happens you are in fact slandering the president by constantly asserting he lied without proof AND committing libel.
    I beg your pardon. Libby was convicted of Obstruction of Justice. Have you forgotten about him? No one else has been charged because of Libby's lies.

    If it's true, it's not slander or libel. Whether there are charges pending doesn't matter. I've posted Scott McClellan stating that Bush admitted to him that he authorized the outing of Plame. And make no mistake about it, that doesn't make it legal. Also, Scooter Libby testified UNDER OATH that Bush leaked her identity.

    Scott McClellan Says George W. Bush Told Him He Outed CIA Agent Valerie Plame:
    YouTube - George W. Bush Outed CIA Agent Valerie Plame

    George Bush Leaks identity of CIA agent – according to Scooter Libby: YouTube - George Bush Leaks identity of CIA agent

    Now, as far as that other point, that Bush lied to take us to war, Colin Powell stated that he was misled by the adminstration. "Misled"? What do you think that means? To me, that means he was "lied" to.

    Colin Powell Saying He Was Misled Before UN Speech on WMDs: YouTube - Colin Powell Saying He Was Misled Before UN Speech on WMDs

    Gen. Colin Powell - "I Tried To Avoid This War.": YouTube - Gen. Colin Powell - "I Tried To Avoid This War."

    Bush's ex Treasury Secretary Paul O'neill from:
    Bush Sought ‘Way’ To Invade Iraq?, O'Neill Tells '60 Minutes' Iraq Was 'Topic A' 8 Months Before 9-11 - CBS News
    said this:
    And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.

    “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.

    Again, the "forged document" is a debunked myth.
    Debunked Myth? Isn't that like a triple negative? It's a fact that there was a forged document that helped to get this all rolling. It is that doc that the Brit's doc was based on which Bush claimed his reason was for suspecting Iraq tried to buy yellow cake when he knew, from Joe Wilson's trip, was not valid claims. That is why Cheney went after Valerie Wilson with a vengeance! Their whole position lay on the door step of that phony Iraq-Niger fairy tale.

    You don't have to serve in theater to know what's happening, but I know many people who have and their unclassified personal accounts match our resident G.S, not yours, your accounts match those of the kooks that constantly spread mis-information to people like
    WTF? You mentioned them being "in theater" as if that gives them more credibility as to the reasons they got where they are. My comment is simply, one has nothing to do with the other.

    Does the term witchhunt mean anything to you?
    Hey, common ground. Yes, a witch hunt is what Bush+Cheney+Rove were doing going after Joe and Valerie Wilson. Except that they knew they were going after honest people, innocent people. As opposed to the Repubs' witch hunt going after the Clintons during their multi-million dollar Whitewater witch hunt. You do remember that witch hunt, right?

    "egg on my face"? Armitage admitted he outted Plame and it does seem it was an accident. Dumb and irresponsible but, an accident. So what? His actions didn't clear the board for the Bush-Cheney conspiracy to out Mrs. Wilson. When Rove outed her, it was still illegal.

    So, you can use your capital letters and pound salt. They don't bother me. And Jesus Christ ain't going to help you. Bush lied and committed treason and we all know it. The sooner you accept that, the easier it will be for you when he looks like my avatar.

    By the by, I'm quite calm writing this. Maybe you should see someone for anger management? Embracing a lying President will make a body nuts.
    Thank You Barack Obama for Restoring Honor To The Presidency.
    President Obama will rank as one of our greatest presidents!

  2. #212
    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 ADK_Forever View Post
    I beg your pardon. Libby was convicted of Obstruction of Justice. Have you forgotten about him? No one else has been charged because of Libby's lies.
    Libby was indeed charged with perjury because of an e-mail he sent, this is true, however it was something to do with the time of a meeting if I remember correctly and was not related to the charge of "outing" the very overt Valerie Plame. What happened to Libby was a process crime, that is, he couldn't have committed perjury if Armitage had simply been honest in the first place and admitted he gave Plame to Novak to begin with, no hearing, no perjury.

    If it's true, it's not slander or libel. Whether there are charges pending doesn't matter. I've posted Scott McClellan stating that Bush admitted to him that he authorized the outing of Plame. And make no mistake about it, that doesn't make it legal. Also, Scooter Libby testified UNDER OATH that Bush leaked her identity.
    Is Bush a proven liar, no, you have the opinion that he lied and are trying to pass that off as a fact, that is defamation.

    Scott McClellan Says George W. Bush Told Him He Outed CIA Agent Valerie Plame:
    YouTube - George W. Bush Outed CIA Agent Valerie Plame
    McClellan is not exactly a credible source, he has been known to change his tune with the political winds, which is probably why he was replaced as the press secretary to begin with.

    George Bush Leaks identity of CIA agent – according to Scooter Libby: YouTube - George Bush Leaks identity of CIA agent
    Again, trying to back your arguments solely with Youtube videos, where are the charges?

    Now, as far as that other point, that Bush lied to take us to war, Colin Powell stated that he was misled by the adminstration. "Misled"? What do you think that means? To me, that means he was "lied" to.
    The information was mis-leading, he did not say he was lied to. Mis-leading can be anything from an honest mistake to data being inaccurate to a lie. You are trying to play a semantics game here and that is dishonest.


    Debunked Myth? Isn't that like a triple negative? It's a fact that there was a forged document that helped to get this all rolling.
    So produce it.
    It is that doc that the Brit's doc was based on which Bush claimed his reason was for suspecting Iraq tried to buy yellow cake when he knew, from Joe Wilson's trip, was not valid claims.
    Joe Wilson had two stories about that, not a credible source.
    That is why Cheney went after Valerie Wilson with a vengeance! Their whole position lay on the door step of that phony Iraq-Niger fairy tale.
    You are a master of speculation, but here's the deal, there was an attempt to gain yellow cake by Iraq, that was in multiple U.N. reports AND Joe Wilson's original report. Did they lie?


    WTF? You mentioned them being "in theater" as if that gives them more credibility as to the reasons they got where they are. My comment is simply, one has nothing to do with the other.
    Oh, I'm sorry, did you need to know that in theater they need information, or maybe that many soldiers currently in theater also did some time in the Sudan, Somalia, Mogadeshiu(sp?), etc. under the Clinton administration and saw many of these things. Yeah, that means they know more than we do, some of it is classified, some is not. You sound an awful lot like most of the anti-war movement, one that doesn't deal with fact as much as speculation, so you'll have to forgive me if I trust people who had to know the facts to survive and do their job over speculation.



    Hey, common ground. Yes, a witch hunt is what Bush+Cheney+Rove were doing going after Joe and Valerie Wilson. Except that they knew they were going after honest people, innocent people. As opposed to the Repubs' witch hunt going after the Clintons during their multi-million dollar Whitewater witch hunt. You do remember that witch hunt, right?
    WOW! Just WOW! I can't believe you guys hold on to this, the dirtbags in this are the Wilsons and somehow it's the presidents fault that an idiot accidentally spills an overt agents identity and the Democrats have zero credible charges to file. WOW!



    "egg on my face"? Armitage admitted he outted Plame and it does seem it was an accident. Dumb and irresponsible but, an accident. So what? His actions didn't clear the board for the Bush-Cheney conspiracy to out Mrs. Wilson. When Rove outed her, it was still illegal.
    He slips up and it's the administrations fault huh? BTW, she wasn't a COVERT OP so there were no charges to file.

    So, you can use your capital letters and pound salt. They don't bother me. And Jesus Christ ain't going to help you. Bush lied and committed treason and we all know it. The sooner you accept that, the easier it will be for you when he looks like my avatar.
    So prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that he lied instead of playing these semantic games, otherwise drop it.

    By the by, I'm quite calm writing this. Maybe you should see someone for anger management? Embracing a lying President will make a body nuts.
    I'm not angry, just trying to pound some common sense into your head, actually, you partisans on both sides are really funny to me.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  3. #213
    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?

    uhm adk, libby was convicted for perjery when there was no underlying crime, left right or center to be convicted of this should piss you off.....


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

  4. #214
    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 Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    uhm adk, libby was convicted for perjery when there was no underlying crime, left right or center to be convicted of this should piss you off.....
    People who hate the outgoing president never let facts get in the way of a good attack though.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  5. #215
    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 LaMidRighter View Post
    People who hate the outgoing president never let facts get in the way of a good attack though.




    if one has nothing flattering to say about someone, one should air on the side of restraint over commentary.......


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

  6. #216
    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 LaMidRighter View Post
    BULL **** [B]You have no proof ...
    ...
    another, that means you are spreading falsehoods, if you can prove yourself even half correct, I will apologize, until then quit with the "Bush lied" garbage, it makes you look silly.
    This has been all but proven as much as it can reasonably be done on an internet forum. The Bush is a good guy crowd has done a LOT to deny the evidence, claim it's been debunked, etc.

    I mean even from the time when it was announced that Saddam was going to nuke america, from sources within the intelligence community showed conflicting information on the subject. So, The only question left to determine whether or not Bush lied was proving that he HAD all the information and and stated that Iraq had nukes anyway.

    Which, as I've said before; for saddam to be as crazy as he was claimed AND in possession of NUCLEAR wmds.... an invasion of that country is an INVITATION to UNLEASH those WMD's if only as a final desperate act of inflicting as much damage prior to his inevitable defeat.

    Jesus ****ing christ, your side already got shot down on this, Joe Wilson basically came out with two different stories under two different administrations, if you wanna be pissed about lying, be pissed at him.
    Allright, here's the deal : If his lying was considered a BAD thing then he would have been demoted or fired from his position... that he has kept his job is an insinuation that the administration supported a known liar.

    Again, the "forged document" is a debunked myth.
    Debunked: How? by who? When? Let's see the source of this... cause you got 1 side of the intelligence community talking about forged documents and the other side saying that it's a myth.... are you CERTAIN that it's not your position that is the myth?

    Does the term witchhunt mean anything to you? In other words, ...
    ...
    YouTube - Richard Armitage Admits Plame Leak "Extraordinarily Foolish"
    No, not 'interrogation techniques' but 'enhanced interrogation'. Which in a government memo was essentially defined as : Anything up to the line which would be called torture without actually being torture. Again this is a conflictng situation since Bush supports enhanced interrogations, but not torture, meanwhile waterboarding IS considered to be an act of torture.... where do you draw the line?

    [QUOTE=LaMidRighter;1057869163]
    It prevents torture of U.S. citizens, and that actually came about because of court cases and an ....
    ...
    debateable when talking about U.S. law and invalid towards the Geneva conventions and nill on the need for an international tribunal.
    The whole point is that : the bush administration has kept itself in such the gray area on just about all it's activities since 9-11.

    Regardless of the legality of the administration Bush has successfully created a divide in the US. Between those that feel that the constitution and our rule of law is of utmost importance to protect, and another who feels that it's the security and 'prosperity' of the US as a country that deserves to be protected.... so, what's more important : the people of the country or the ideals that are meant to guide the direction of our country.



    Bush's personnel, okay, they were talking about interrogation ... protections are due them exactly?
    I'm going to side-step this question... I mean ideally all humans should be protected and guaranteed at least a basic level of respect and protection against abuses I see this accurately as being an ideal. The only real problem I have with this 'enemy combatant' definition is that on paper it sounds fair... but we are attacking groups that are NOT based on the country in which the war is fought.... (kinda like having a war with mexico as example where mexican americans would be joining the fight... how do you make the distinction between an 'enemy combatant' and a 'pow'? If an enemy combatant gets a military uniform, does that protect him? If a venezuelan in this circumstance joins the fight, does that mean that he is forfeiting his status of being a citizen of that country? Where does this stop? If there is an american anti-war protestor that comes along, since he isn't 'supporting our soldiers' can he also be deemed to be an enemy combatant??

    Do you catch my meaning?

    Anyway, there was a quote from the video specifically : "History will not look kindly upon this discussion taking place in the whitehouse.'

    No, there is more to it, at the intial purchase then it is this "handful" of ... supply chain is used......etc.......etc.
    You're right I did over-simplify.... but the point being the over-time all the funds of this contract gets syphoned to the bigger companies... but then taxpayers are left holding the bag for the debt generated. To put it simply : the profits of war are privatized while the costs are socialized. Noone wants to admit the increase of tax burden that is left for the citizens to take on. That is why we shouldn't be so eager to go to war.


    Really, that's why I've never had a job with pay rate stagnation, I put .... the government and overregulation/taxation at all levels, and leaving the gold standard.
    I'm not talking about 'stagnant rates of pay' due to union contracts... I'm saying that while a doctor today has seen an increase in pay between 150-250% over the past 50 years the COSTS of products has increased in the 1000's of percent over the same time frame. Factors NOT considered in the measures of inflation that we see reported (using tactics like 'people buy cheaper alternatives more now so let's use this cheaper alternative to measure', etc)

    Yes, it is socialism that wrecked the economy, by slowing down the processes necessary for markets to correct, war jump starts economies like this,
    I actually think I'm in agreement with you that socialism has wrecked our economy... but does this mean that you were also against the banker bailout, which for all intents and purposes was a 'socialist' move??

    which is why they are so easy to get into, all you need is a bad guy. That doesn't invalidate our wars or reasons to get into them, but it just explains why they are easy to get into.
    This illustrates our differences in opinion.... while I know that war stimulates the economy (like a band-aid over gaping wound)... that this factor makes it so easy to go to war at least in some respects DOES invalidate the 'justification' used to start them.

    We may see that within the next generation or so, I don't think the .... questioning.
    Thank you for at least conceding that much. I would appreciate a bit of clarification as to some of the things where the president seems to have gotten a 'pass' where he should not have?

    Understood, I think we need to be fair and have some standard of criticism, instead of the current method of throwing out unsubstantiated opinion as fact.
    LOL, for the record, I've repeated that approximately a dozen times on this site, and you were the first to address that point. So again, thanks. In my defense though, I have made an attempt to minimizing the 'unsubstantiated' claims (although I'm not very eager to source the same point repeatedly.... which leads to some claims being called that without necessarily being so)

    It's not an impossible stretch, Iraq and Al-Quaida did have a loose relationship, it's a judgement call.
    You're right, it's not impossible... but it's also not a stretch to say that the connection was emphasized without saying it, maybe overemphasized, either way is speculation at best.

    I stand corrected on the numbers, however that isn't proof on anything, also, public opinion is tainted IMO because of daily negative press and opposition attacks on him, hard evidence MUST be the standard.
    No, it's not proof of anything other than that in a 'democracy' you'd expect that such low-support would be deemed reason enough to remove the guy from power. Know what I mean, do a bad job and you LOSE YOUR JOB type of thing. That there is so little discussion of impeachment (other than Kucinich, I'm not sure how many other times it's been brought up officially.) implies that the president is doing a 'good job' (regardless of the trememdous lack of support).

    This is speculation, but ultimately I could see Bush being part of a grander plan.... consider : he's successfully created a divide in the US, he's blundered around the past 8 years, like you said in a barely passible fassion... then some eloquent character (who I predicted would win 3-4 weeks prior to the election, which is why I state this) Obama comes in to sweep the nation into blindly supporting the government again meanwhile very little if anything will actually change... especially not for the better. Obama however has the eloquence to do some pretty terrible things, bonus that he's black so now if you don't support the president not only are you gonna be some whack-job repbulican... you get to be a racist too. Sorry I'm ranting.

    The downing street memo wasn't even a third party account, it was quite a few tiers down from that.
    Even still doesn't necessarily make the memo baseless, if it's some secretary that overheard a meeting (as example) doesn't mean the people talking also didn't know for sure. Let's just say the validity of the memo is debateable rather than 'debunked'.

    Actually, yes, I am college educated in broadcasting and know quite a few editing techniques, and I know that most news packages are edited for ..... something that didn't actually happen. This is why I don't trust anything other than raw footage in full.
    You are right, and while that makes any sort of video evidence on this site 'inadmissable'. Since even a copy of 'raw footage' can be accused of being edited... however, wouldn't the type of editing your referring to be apparent to the trained eye?

    I'm just saying it's one thing to show a video, and you come up and say that it's been edited without any further comment, a time index of where editing is evident, or something to base the claim on beyond the assertion that you don't trust it because it's not the raw video?

    I'm not using the video, so my credibility isn't in question.
    But you ARE asserting that it's fake with no evidence, so as much as I might like you, I'm not asking for much, just something to show that THIS video had been edited in such a way. A time index of showing that the video had been altered (a frame skip, or something)

    Nice try, I am a republican but will probably be switching to .... we simply state that the invalid or discredited aren't valid points.
    It turns out that I wasn't really referring to you on this, but many times valid points do get brushed aside in that manner. In the same way that you told us that no video evidence that can be presented on this site can be used as evidence of anything on this site (if not intentionally by implication). On some issues, these points had been 'debunked' by opinion alone... so while you may not be purposely included in this, there are a great deal of neo-con supporters that DO engage in these things.

    While I do agree that a discredited point is not a valid one, it's also important to question the means in which it had been discredited.

  7. #217
    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 BmanMcfly View Post
    This has been all but proven as much as it can reasonably be done on an internet forum. The Bush is a good guy crowd has done a LOT to deny the evidence, claim it's been debunked, etc.
    Reasonable evidence would include perjury charges, especially with a currently unfriendly house.

    I mean even from the time when it was announced that Saddam was going to nuke america, from sources within the intelligence community showed conflicting information on the subject. So, The only question left to determine whether or not Bush lied was proving that he HAD all the information and and stated that Iraq had nukes anyway.
    The problem is that the conflicting information was in doubt, since many politicians before the presidency were calling for action against Iraq using the same standard.


    Allright, here's the deal : If his lying was considered a BAD thing then he would have been demoted or fired from his position... that he has kept his job is an insinuation that the administration supported a known liar.
    Again, if there is rock solid proof he lied, that's fine, but we are in speculation period at the moment, and I give the "accused" the benefit of the doubt without hard evidence to the contrary, I applied the same standard to the Blogojevich/Obama argument against some in my own party.




    No, not 'interrogation techniques' but 'enhanced interrogation'. Which in a government memo was essentially defined as : Anything up to the line which would be called torture without actually being torture. Again this is a conflictng situation since Bush supports enhanced interrogations, but not torture, meanwhile waterboarding IS considered to be an act of torture.... where do you draw the line?
    As far as these prisoners go, I don't, not if it saves one soldier or civilian.



    Regardless of the legality of the administration Bush has successfully created a divide in the US. Between those that feel that the constitution and our rule of law is of utmost importance to protect, and another who feels that it's the security and 'prosperity' of the US as a country that deserves to be protected.... so, what's more important : the people of the country or the ideals that are meant to guide the direction of our country.
    If this is the first administration people are bringing the constitutional protection argument into then we have already lost the battle on that one, it has been violated since at least the late 18 hundreds.



    I'm going to side-step this question... I mean ideally all humans should be protected and guaranteed at least a basic level of respect and protection against abuses I see this accurately as being an ideal. The only real problem I have with this 'enemy combatant' definition is that on paper it sounds fair... but we are attacking groups that are NOT based on the country in which the war is fought.... (kinda like having a war with mexico as example where mexican americans would be joining the fight... how do you make the distinction between an 'enemy combatant' and a 'pow'?
    It's hard because they aren't in fact soldiers of any state, but are engaged in para-military style attacks on various countries, if there is a better answer than enemy combatant I will listen.
    If an enemy combatant gets a military uniform, does that protect him?
    Technically yes, realistically, since they don't have a nation signed into the Geneva conventions, probably not.
    If a venezuelan in this circumstance joins the fight, does that mean that he is forfeiting his status of being a citizen of that country?
    Possibly, depending on that country's laws to the effect, I really couldn't answer this one honestly
    If there is an american anti-war protestor that comes along, since he isn't 'supporting our soldiers' can he also be deemed to be an enemy combatant??
    Not on it's face, as long as it is protected speech and doesn't surpass that, if said war protester gave aid and comfort to the enemy, then yes, that could be considered treason


    You're right I did over-simplify.... but the point being the over-time all the funds of this contract gets syphoned to the bigger companies... but then taxpayers are left holding the bag for the debt generated. To put it simply : the profits of war are privatized while the costs are socialized. Noone wants to admit the increase of tax burden that is left for the citizens to take on. That is why we shouldn't be so eager to go to war.
    This is true, but the fact is we overspend in general as a country. One problem is unconstitutional v. constitutional spending, defense is mandated in the constitution whereas social programs are supposed to be prohibited, neither of the two have been efficiently done in our modern history, the military must be given what they need, however many on both sides have buddies in the defense industry and will supply expensive yet less than worthwile equipment because their buddies get an economic boost, this needs to be reigned in, not just in defense and infrastructure spending, but across the board.




    I'm not talking about 'stagnant rates of pay' due to union contracts... I'm saying that while a doctor today has seen an increase in pay between 150-250% over the past 50 years the COSTS of products has increased in the 1000's of percent over the same time frame. Factors NOT considered in the measures of inflation that we see reported (using tactics like 'people buy cheaper alternatives more now so let's use this cheaper alternative to measure', etc)
    It's all part of the same problem, it's a system in need of a fix, a legally proper one.



    I actually think I'm in agreement with you that socialism has wrecked our economy... but does this mean that you were also against the banker bailout, which for all intents and purposes was a 'socialist' move??
    Absolutely, the market would have worked itself out, it would have been painful, but efficient.



    This illustrates our differences in opinion.... while I know that war stimulates the economy (like a band-aid over gaping wound)... that this factor makes it so easy to go to war at least in some respects DOES invalidate the 'justification' used to start them.
    Yes, the validity of some of our wars can be questioned, Iraq is up for debate, I believe it would have happened anyway, but the timing is fair game. I don't think it necessarily makes it easier to justify a war to the public, but could see how some of our politicians would exploit a war to spur an economy for their economic legacy. This is in no way meant to say this administration went to this war for that reason, I will wait for the historians to piece it together.



    Thank you for at least conceding that much. I would appreciate a bit of clarification as to some of the things where the president seems to have gotten a 'pass' where he should not have?
    The above mentioned bail out bill for one, the automaker bailout also comes to mind, I don't think he was hammered nearly hard enough for the immigration debate, and overall his spending was attrocious. I can't think of some of the other issues at the moment, but those readily come to mind.



    LOL, for the record, I've repeated that approximately a dozen times on this site, and you were the first to address that point. So again, thanks. In my defense though, I have made an attempt to minimizing the 'unsubstantiated' claims (although I'm not very eager to source the same point repeatedly.... which leads to some claims being called that without necessarily being so)
    You bring some pretty good firepower to the debate, the problem is with some posters that bring the most partisan garbage out there, I will accept things stated as opinion, but not opinion stated as fact.



    You're right, it's not impossible... but it's also not a stretch to say that the connection was emphasized without saying it, maybe overemphasized, either way is speculation at best.
    I have no doubt Saddam helped Al-Quaida to prosper and survive. He didn't necessarily have anything to do with 9/11, but one could argue(devil's advocate) that he facilitated in a small part the people who pulled off the attacks. It really is a speculation issue however, I can fully concede that.



    No, it's not proof of anything other than that in a 'democracy' you'd expect that such low-support would be deemed reason enough to remove the guy from power. Know what I mean, do a bad job and you LOSE YOUR JOB type of thing. That there is so little discussion of impeachment (other than Kucinich, I'm not sure how many other times it's been brought up officially.) implies that the president is doing a 'good job' (regardless of the trememdous lack of support).
    This particular president got hammered daily for eight years, I am curious to see what the approval ratings would have been without the daily attacks, we can never know, I don't think he was a great president, but certainly not the evil idiot he was portrayed to be.





    You are right, and while that makes any sort of video evidence on this site 'inadmissable'. Since even a copy of 'raw footage' can be accused of being edited... however, wouldn't the type of editing your referring to be apparent to the trained eye?
    Not necessarily, really depends on how carefully someone pays attention to "jump cuts" which is a fancy way of saying the scenes don't synch up in a way that would portray a natural flow of events, things like body movement/word matches, etc. Setting up a video argument in the manner I described is tricky, but when someone is purposefully trying to make someone look a certain way they seem to find all the time in the world.

    I'm just saying it's one thing to show a video, and you come up and say that it's been edited without any further comment, a time index of where editing is evident, or something to base the claim on beyond the assertion that you don't trust it because it's not the raw video?
    Don't get me wrong, video is a powerful thing, I just don't like when people use it exclusively to make a point, also, time stamps on many cameras and tracking code can deactivated, plus, with digital editing equipment much is possible.



    But you ARE asserting that it's fake with no evidence, so as much as I might like you, I'm not asking for much, just something to show that THIS video had been edited in such a way. A time index of showing that the video had been altered (a frame skip, or something)
    Not saying it's fake, only that the credibility is suspect automatically so other evidence should be used in support of it. I would really have to look at the video for a while, frame by frame, and have software handy with a freeze/slow feature to be able to process it fully.



    It turns out that I wasn't really referring to you on this, but many times valid points do get brushed aside in that manner. In the same way that you told us that no video evidence that can be presented on this site can be used as evidence of anything on this site (if not intentionally by implication). On some issues, these points had been 'debunked' by opinion alone... so while you may not be purposely included in this, there are a great deal of neo-con supporters that DO engage in these things.
    Again, video evidence is fine, but needs other supporting evidence else it is subject to questions about the validity.

    While I do agree that a discredited point is not a valid one, it's also important to question the means in which it had been discredited.
    I wouldn't expect anything less.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  8. #218
    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=LaMidRighter;1057869691]
    Reasonable evidence would include perjury charges, especially with a currently unfriendly house.
    It's a touchy issue, because the implication of a perjury charge would imply that Saddam was really someone 'wrongly accused' type of thing... when he really was a bad guy. Kucinich seems to be the most vocal in raising impeachment... implying that the evidence is there... it seems that whoevers really running things feels that Bush is doing a good job.

    As far as these prisoners go, I don't, not if it saves one soldier or civilian.
    Ok, another hypothetical example : The government becomes truly and openly oppressive, and there is a resistance movement revolting against this. WOuld you still agree that american citizens should be deemed 'enemy combatants' and stripped of all rights?? (I'm talking born and raised citizen of several generations, within the US). While I might agree that protecting the soldiers as best possible should be a priority, tactics that run just shy of torture are ineffective at getting info (either the person has dated information, will supply falsehoods, or will genuinely NOT KNOW what is asked.

    It's hard because they aren't in fact soldiers of any state, but are engaged in para-military style attacks on various countries, if there is a better answer than enemy combatant I will listen.
    So is it that you believe that America is meant to be the 'world police' or that we've taken on and embraced the role? So, are you saying that a civilian that takes up arms to fight an invading army should be stripped of his rights? I promise you, if another countries army places boots on the ground IN MY CITTY YOU BETTER BELIEVE I'm gonna take out as many as I can.

    That we've used the distinction of fighting a 'war on terror' the reason this whole 'enemy combatant thing flies is because is because we say 'enemy combattants are terrorists' when they are merely attempting to protect their home and their lives from an invading army.

    Technically yes, realistically, since they don't have a nation signed into the Geneva conventions, probably not.
    This answer scares me. So, if I got this right, you are sayng that so long as we go to war with the countries that have not signed the geneva convention we are allowed to invade the country, and strip the rights of all civilians that protect themselves and are not killed of their rights and detained indefinately???

    Or is it that if you pick up a gun to protect yourself from an invading army that the nation no longer recognizes you as one of its citizens?? Or is it that by doing so the invading army deems you independant of the country you are fighting to protect?

    if said war protester gave aid and comfort to the enemy, then yes, that could be considered treason
    agreed.


    This is true, but the fact is we overspend in general as a country. One problem is unconstitutional v. constitutional spending, defense is mandated in the constitution
    Invading another country is a twisted sense of 'defense'. The last country that invaded another in the name of 'national security' (re: national defense) was 'national socialism'

    this needs to be reigned in, not just in defense and infrastructure spending, but across the board.
    Agreed.

    Absolutely, the market would have worked itself out, it would have been painful, but efficient.
    Agreed, now we are in a trap where the market alone will not be able to fix the problem... 'bailouts' are going to make the problem worse in the long run.

    Yes, the validity of some of our wars can be questioned, Iraq is up for debate, I believe it would have happened anyway, but the timing is fair game.
    Agreed. Look at PNAC - Rebuilding america's defenses. Which was read by people in government mainly that says specifically that the process of justification would be long and drawn out without an event like 9-11.

    You bring some pretty good firepower to the debate, the problem is with some posters that bring the most partisan garbage out there, I will accept things stated as opinion, but not opinion stated as fact.
    In 2 opposing viewpoints the truth is generally somehwere in the middle.

    This particular president got hammered daily for eight years, I am curious to see what the approval ratings would have been without the daily attacks, we can never know, I don't think he was a great president, but certainly not the evil idiot he was portrayed to be.
    I'm honestly uncertain whether Bush was just a dumb-guy that fudged his way through the presidency or some sort of evil genius that's playing us all for fools. For every piece of stupidity I see from Bush, it's stupidity that gets used to get things done. His script writers are genius however.

    Not necessarily, really depends on how carefully someone pays attention to "jump cuts" which is a fancy way of saying the scenes don't synch up in a way that would portray a natural flow of events, things like body movement/word matches, etc. Setting up a video argument in the manner I described is tricky, but when someone is purposefully trying to make someone look a certain way they seem to find all the time in the world.

    Don't get me wrong, video is a powerful thing, I just don't like when people use it exclusively to make a point, also, time stamps on many cameras and tracking code can deactivated, plus, with digital editing equipment much is possible.
    So long as distinction is made... not sure about others, but I generally try to determine the validity of a video prior to using it as a source... since this time it wasn't my vid posted I'll continue...

    Not saying it's fake, only that the credibility is suspect automatically so other evidence should be used in support of it. I would really have to look at the video for a while, frame by frame, and have software handy with a freeze/slow feature to be able to process it fully.
    True, there are those with that level of skill... but generally the level of editing skill of the average youtube vid creator is likely to be average at best, also that most 'fake' videos are so clearly fake that it's painful.

    Again, video evidence is fine, but needs other supporting evidence else it is subject to questions about the validity.
    Fair enough.

  9. #219
    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
    Libby was indeed charged with perjury because of an e-mail he sent, this is true, however it was something to do with the time of a meeting if I remember correctly and was not related to the charge of "outing" the very overt Valerie Plame. What happened to Libby was a process crime, that is, he couldn't have committed perjury if Armitage had simply been honest in the first place and admitted he gave Plame to Novak to begin with, no hearing, no perjury.
    Oh, so now lying under oath isn't such a bad thing. Interesting how you guys change your tune when it's one of your boys lying. Libby actually abstructed justice, not once but several times, in the effort to out a CIA spy! But, when Clinton lied about a bj ... now THAT was serious shiite, ehh?

    From: Online NewsHour: Analysis | Libby Convicted of Perjury | March 6, 2007 | PBS
    Libby was convicted on four of five counts resulting from Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation into who leaked the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame.

    RAY SUAREZ: There were five counts in all. Could you quickly walk us through how they broke down?

    CAROL LEONNIG: I sure can. There were five counts. Two counts were felony charges of lying to the FBI; two counts of lying to the grand jury, perjury counts; and one count, the most serious of all, which was obstruction of justice.

    The jury found Mr. Libby guilty on all but one of those counts. On the one that he was found innocent of was one that the jury had struggled with for the last five days, lots of questions back and forth. It was the charge suggesting that Mr. Libby had lied to the FBI about conversations he had about Valerie Plame, the CIA officer, who's at the center of this leak probe, conversations he had with Time magazine's Matt Cooper about her.
    Don't kid yourself that Libby was convicted only because of a misinterpreted email!


    Is Bush a proven liar, no, you have the opinion that he lied and are trying to pass that off as a fact, that is defamation.
    He is and I've provided plenty of proof that he lied. Period. End of case.

    McClellan is not exactly a credible source, he has been known to change his tune with the political winds, which is probably why he was replaced as the press secretary to begin with.

    Again, trying to back your arguments solely with Youtube videos, where are the charges?
    McClellan testified under oath to Congress. Bush refused to do the same, or to allow any of his staff do so. Not exactly the actions of an innocent man.

    So produce it. Joe Wilson had two stories about that, not a credible source. You are a master of speculation, but here's the deal, there was an attempt to gain yellow cake by Iraq, that was in multiple U.N. reports AND Joe Wilson's original report. Did they lie?
    I did. You just don't want to read or accept it.

    There was not an attempt by Iraq to buy yellow cake. It was wrongly put into the SSIC (sp) report by the Republicans. And the Dems gave up Wilson when they decided not to fight every detail of the report.

    Valerie Wilson details in her book, Chapter 11, what was wrong in that report.


    WOW! Just WOW! I can't believe you guys hold on to this, the dirtbags in this are the Wilsons and somehow it's the presidents fault that an idiot accidentally spills an overt agents identity and the Democrats have zero credible charges to file. WOW!
    The Wilsons were not partisan until she was outed and Cheney went after both of them. Joe actually worked for Bush 41 and was awarded some medal of service for his work.

    He slips up and it's the administrations fault huh? BTW, she wasn't a COVERT OP so there were no charges to file.
    I agreed that Armitrage's outting of Wilson was accidental. Dumb, unprofessional and irresponsible but, not intentional. Can't you read?

    So prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that he lied instead of playing these semantic games, otherwise drop it.
    I'll drop nothing. The proof here IS beyond a shadow of a doubt. Prosecution of BushCo will all depend on how big Obama's balls are.


    I'm not angry, just trying to pound some common sense into your head, actually, you partisans on both sides are really funny to me.
    Actually, it is you who is arguing against proof put right in front of your face. As I've said, this is very complicated and a lot of lies have been told being portrayed as truth.

    The bottom line is... Joe Wilson gave a verbal report to the CIA when he returned from Niger. It looks like some mistakes were made in that report. Then his testimony to Congress was written up wrong. It is the one constantly referred to here calling him a liar.

    And from these 2 reports all this conspiracy crap arose. Cheney pushed this idea that Wilson's wife sent him, trying to discredit Wilson's Niger report. WTF does it really matter if she did send him? But, this is politics.

    So, either you accept the truth, that I have laid at your door step, or you refuse it. In the end, it is solely up to you. But, make no mistake, this was an orchestrated conspiracy to out a CIA spy and to take us into an unprovoked war. THAT IS TREASON AND FOR THAT THEY SHOULD ALL GO TO LEAVENWORTH!
    Thank You Barack Obama for Restoring Honor To The Presidency.
    President Obama will rank as one of our greatest presidents!

  10. #220
    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 BmanMcfly View Post

    It's a touchy issue, because the implication of a perjury charge would imply that Saddam was really someone 'wrongly accused' type of thing... when he really was a bad guy. Kucinich seems to be the most vocal in raising impeachment... implying that the evidence is there... it seems that whoevers really running things feels that Bush is doing a good job.
    I probably should have included impeachment as well, that would certainly have been another clue that the president wasn't on the up and up, again, Bush does some things well and is a total f-up at others, history will judge him better than we can currently.


    Ok, another hypothetical example : The government becomes truly and openly oppressive, and there is a resistance movement revolting against this. WOuld you still agree that american citizens should be deemed 'enemy combatants' and stripped of all rights?? (I'm talking born and raised citizen of several generations, within the US). While I might agree that protecting the soldiers as best possible should be a priority, tactics that run just shy of torture are ineffective at getting info (either the person has dated information, will supply falsehoods, or will genuinely NOT KNOW what is asked.
    I would say this is an apples/oranges argument, the problem we have here is that Americans have rights we would have to fight for, and I believe most would immediately defend our own country from a dictatorial or oppressive government, any soldier that drew weapons against an armed resistance would effectively be a traitor either way, i.e. he would be betraying his country if he fired on civilians even with the order to do so, but to not do so he would be betraying his government and contractual duty. The problem with Iraq is multifaceted, the insurgents weren't all Iraqis, some were Iranian and Al-quaida snuck in for good measure, most of the citizens didn't mind our presence, however Baath loyalists and those loyal to the racical Mullas like Al-Sadr definitely want us out as they have their own desires for the country.



    So is it that you believe that America is meant to be the 'world police' or that we've taken on and embraced the role? So, are you saying that a civilian that takes up arms to fight an invading army should be stripped of his rights? I promise you, if another countries army places boots on the ground IN MY CITTY YOU BETTER BELIEVE I'm gonna take out as many as I can.
    Let's take it back a second, I'm an isolationist at heart, I can't stand the U.N. and don't think the U.S. should automatically police the world, however, in our modern day and age I don't have a problem with small involvements if we have a treaty signed with or are asked directly for help by another country. If a civilian rightfully fights back against oppression they have that natural right, however with these detainees they aren't fighting for the oppressed nor are they fighting for a country, they are fighting for their own brand of oppression, however, if we are holding a civilian who is absolutely innocent or was defending themself/family, we should let them go.

    That we've used the distinction of fighting a 'war on terror' the reason this whole 'enemy combatant thing flies is because is because we say 'enemy combattants are terrorists' when they are merely attempting to protect their home and their lives from an invading army.
    Same as above, it boils down to whether it was a defensive or offensive act IMO.



    This answer scares me. So, if I got this right, you are sayng that so long as we go to war with the countries that have not signed the geneva convention we are allowed to invade the country, and strip the rights of all civilians that protect themselves and are not killed of their rights and detained indefinately???
    I don't have a solid opinion on any specific war, but take it as they come, the only thing my answer meant was how the geneva conventions would apply under their direct interpretation.

    Or is it that if you pick up a gun to protect yourself from an invading army that the nation no longer recognizes you as one of its citizens?? Or is it that by doing so the invading army deems you independant of the country you are fighting to protect?
    It depends on whether we are talking about a freedom fighter or a terrorist.




    Invading another country is a twisted sense of 'defense'. The last country that invaded another in the name of 'national security' (re: national defense) was 'national socialism'
    Iraq was different in that we let it fester after we kicked them out of Kuwait, we should have taken Saddam out of power then and there which arguably would have stopped much of the terrorist acts that followed in the Clinton/Bush administrations, but it is too late now. The reasons will always be suspect because of the economics of war though, I can concede that.


    In 2 opposing viewpoints the truth is generally somehwere in the middle.
    Typically I find that to be the case.


    So long as distinction is made... not sure about others, but I generally try to determine the validity of a video prior to using it as a source... since this time it wasn't my vid posted I'll continue...
    Fair enough.



    True, there are those with that level of skill... but generally the level of editing skill of the average youtube vid creator is likely to be average at best, also that most 'fake' videos are so clearly fake that it's painful.
    However don't forget that anyone can post on youtube, it may be someone else's work that a second party is using to make a case, where a third party passes it again as a source during a debate such as this. There are other tricks, such as starting at points that destroy the context of the speech, or off camera baiting, those are more amateur grade tricks, but effective and much easier than the other editing tactics, also they are almost as effective.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

Page 22 of 29 FirstFirst ... 122021222324 ... 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
  •