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 23 of 29 FirstFirst ... 132122232425 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 285

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

  1. #221
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:41 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
    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?
    There shouldn't have been a trial, the leaker was known and there was no initial crime since Plame wasn't a covert status agent at the time, sorry you can't grasp that. And, Clinton lied about questions related to why he was in court, he wasn't there for a B.J. as partisans like yourself like to state, that was part of the pattern of sexual deviance that was related to the sexual harassment case against him from his years as governer, so yes, perjury WAS an appropriate charge for Clinton and not Libby.




    Don't kid yourself that Libby was convicted only because of a misinterpreted email!
    And don't kid yourself that he needed to be a witness, and yes, it was involving a specific e-mail.



    He is and I've provided plenty of proof that he lied. Period. End of case.
    You have provided two things, jack and ****, and jack left town. Bring something concrete and credible or drop it, cause you haven't proven he lied, you have proven yourself to be partisan and incapable of producing credible sources.



    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.
    McClellan is an idiot, and he is a backstabber, so who cares what oath he takes, it is only as good as his integrity, of which he is proven to have none.





    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.
    Get your head out of the sand, plenty of reports are decidedly in
    favor of the argument that Iraq wanted yellow cake.

    Valerie Wilson details in her book, Chapter 11, what was wrong in that report.
    She is also a disgraced liar, what's your point. Do you want to see her C-Span spin where she weakly tries to explain why she was covert even though her status wasn't.




    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.
    Bull.



    I agreed that Armitrage's outting of Wilson was accidental. Dumb, unprofessional and irresponsible but, not intentional. Can't you read?
    Doesn't matter, he did it, and the proceeding trial for a non-crime forced someone else to pay for it for something that shouldn't have happened(perjury)


    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.
    Then you are a partisan if you can't see that "Bush Lied" is as of now an un-informed opinion based on your hatred of his ideology, until you have proof you are nothing more than a bitter partisan, and are coming across as a hack.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  2. #222
    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
    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.
    Here's one last hypothetical; Let's say another country managed to invade our own and used that same standard to determine who deserves POW status and who gets 'dissappeared'. Would that distinction of how this type of action be used against us make it anymore accusrate??

    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.
    I would wager that 90-95% of soldiers that would be ordered to shoot an american would do so without hesitation, since the punishment for disobeying orders is WORSE than that of committing war-crimes even.

    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.
    First, the soldiers on the ground... are they really going to make that distinction before deciding how a captured combatant would be treated? Get his ID to determine if he was really Iraqi to start and all? Is it that we as an invading army have stripped them of their 'citizen of a country' status, or is it that the country (the combatant calls his own) rejects their status of being a citizen of any country, or are we just saying that because they were fighting in a country in which they do not belong that they are deemed to have no affiliation with any country and will not determine which country that is?

    Second, I agree that Iraq is multi-faceted... Sunni, shiite and kurds... essentially 3 rival factions wuth a clear difference in numbers. What I disagree with is that imposing a 'democracy' on them is even a good thing, since there is the racial/religious divide existing in the country in a democratic election, the faction with the highest number of people will be guaranteed to have their candidate be elected everytime... so what the US has done is simply turned power over from the Shiites to the Sunnis (or vice versa, I forget at the moment).

    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,
    I disagree with isolationism... but would strongly support a policy of 'non-interference' (non-interference would allow the defense of our country but NOT of defending specific interests...) it's my opinion that we have created such huge political messes by interfering where we do not belong and then being forced into further interference as a result of our initial actions.



    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.
    This is a gray area for sure, and care should be taken in deciding which ventures should be taken on in such a circumstance.

    Same as above, it boils down to whether it was a defensive or offensive act IMO.
    On the ground that would be a difficult distinction to make, especially in the cases of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, since we our an invading force in another country.

    It depends on whether we are talking about a freedom fighter or a terrorist.
    They are one in the same. A terrorist, in spite of Bush's assertion that they simply hate OUR freedoms, is a response to BEING oppressed. You won't strap a bomb to your chest because the people you're attacking have too much freedoms, but because YOUR PEOPLE are being restricted on their freedom in an oppressive way.


    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.
    Yes, we should have stopped him when we were already in conflict with him rather than allowing the hatred created in the 90's to 'fester' as you've said. I was too young at the time to have an opinion ofo such matters, but I feel that I would have supported that action.

    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.
    Allright, I will try to use that in my determination of what constitutes a video worthwhile of using for further points. I'm by no means a professional at spotting these things, but I believe myself to have the common sense to determine. Even though I have tended to use newscasts and apparent copies of raw footage already.

  3. #223
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:41 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
    Here's one last hypothetical; Let's say another country managed to invade our own and used that same standard to determine who deserves POW status and who gets 'dissappeared'. Would that distinction of how this type of action be used against us make it anymore accusrate??
    Depends really. If they have a solid constitution as do we and that didn't allow for treaties it is possible, don't really want to speculate though without definites.



    I would wager that 90-95% of soldiers that would be ordered to shoot an american would do so without hesitation, since the punishment for disobeying orders is WORSE than that of committing war-crimes even.
    again, possible. It all would depend on protocol, the country of origin, their miliatary code, and how closely international law applies to their sovreignity.



    First, the soldiers on the ground... are they really going to make that distinction before deciding how a captured combatant would be treated? Get his ID to determine if he was really Iraqi to start and all?
    No, that would be suicide in the heat of battle, but there are, as I understand release provisions to allow for those distinctions.
    Is it that we as an invading army have stripped them of their 'citizen of a country' status, or is it that the country (the combatant calls his own) rejects their status of being a citizen of any country, or are we just saying that because they were fighting in a country in which they do not belong that they are deemed to have no affiliation with any country and will not determine which country that is?
    If they are citizens of the country the rules are obviously different, I would think the action would be a case by case, if they are insurgents of that country's origin it would depend on faction affiliation I would think, if they are terrorists they are a completely different situation, as they are not really citizens of their native countries anymore since they typically renounce said citizenship or are stripped of such by said country, if they are enemy forces from a neighboring country, that opens the door to alot of questions that would be up for yet another debate.

    Second, I agree that Iraq is multi-faceted... Sunni, shiite and kurds... essentially 3 rival factions wuth a clear difference in numbers. What I disagree with is that imposing a 'democracy' on them is even a good thing, since there is the racial/religious divide existing in the country in a democratic election, the faction with the highest number of people will be guaranteed to have their candidate be elected everytime... so what the US has done is simply turned power over from the Shiites to the Sunnis (or vice versa, I forget at the moment).
    This is a good argument, and is where I believe diplomatic relations are of the utmost importance, instead of imposing democracy, we should, and I think are, become more or less advocates of a democratic republic system with similar yet culturally relevent checks and balances in place to insure stability and fair representation. That will in no way be an easy task and the Iraqis ultimately must shape their own destiny, but let's not forget that this country had it's own constitutional growing pains in it's early days.



    I disagree with isolationism... but would strongly support a policy of 'non-interference' (non-interference would allow the defense of our country but NOT of defending specific interests...) it's my opinion that we have created such huge political messes by interfering where we do not belong and then being forced into further interference as a result of our initial actions.
    I can agree to that.





    This is a gray area for sure, and care should be taken in deciding which ventures should be taken on in such a circumstance.
    No doubt, one of the biggest tasks though is to deal with a media that by and large fails to bring all of the relevant information to we the people. By relevent I do realize that critical information which is classified should be protected and hidden, that standard only should apply to that which protects the mission, and not the special interest of those seeking the action.


    On the ground that would be a difficult distinction to make, especially in the cases of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, since we our an invading force in another country.
    True, however I believe we are doing it correctly for the most part, I have no problem with additional safeguards to allow for the innocent or harmless to be released, but we shouldn't be so lax as to allow for those who would re-join the battle to be allowed to do so.



    They are one in the same. A terrorist, in spite of Bush's assertion that they simply hate OUR freedoms, is a response to BEING oppressed. You won't strap a bomb to your chest because the people you're attacking have too much freedoms, but because YOUR PEOPLE are being restricted on their freedom in an oppressive way.
    I think there are some who simply wish to impose their militant version of Islam on the world, they exploit the repressed, and no one in the west is necessarily innocent in that, the current terrorist acts date back to the U.N. and post war allocations of the German released lands, there is work to do, but we must defend ourselves in the meantime.




    Yes, we should have stopped him when we were already in conflict with him rather than allowing the hatred created in the 90's to 'fester' as you've said. I was too young at the time to have an opinion ofo such matters, but I feel that I would have supported that action.
    This is a small part of the problem, but still a part of it. The nineties were a major failing of G.H.W.B, he wasn't the worst of presidents, but this current Iraq situation was a result of his bowing to political pressure, and it was a mistake.



    Allright, I will try to use that in my determination of what constitutes a video worthwhile of using for further points. I'm by no means a professional at spotting these things, but I believe myself to have the common sense to determine. Even though I have tended to use newscasts and apparent copies of raw footage already.
    By all means use video, but it is so much more powerful when backed up by original transcripts and other evidence.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  4. #224
    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 disneydude View Post
    You really need to go back to the 70's. Rumsfield and Cheney were instigating a plan to invade Iraq decades before you start you analysis.

    Any meaningful and accurate account needs to take that into account.

    What are you talking about? During the '80s Rumsfeld was the most senior conduit for crucial American military intelligence, hardware and strategic advice to Saddam Hussein against Khomeini. Before this he was dealing with Soviet issues. Given his job, he was tasked with multiple invasion scenarios around the world. Obama's cabinet will do the same. It's contingency planning. 1991 marked the beginning of the Hussein game.

    And Cheney? Cheney doesn't have much of a history with Iraq until the Gulf War. If you are referring to his relationship with Wolfowitz and other NeoCons, then you have to consider what they believed. The spreading of democracy and American values went far beyond Iraq. Iraq wasn't a focus until 1991. And even after the Guld War, both Cheny and Rumsfeld agreed with the policy of containment, which conflicted with what Wolfowitz believed.

    What you seem to be doing is glossing over the very real issues between 1991 and 2003 as if they didn't exist and opting to cling to your rhetorics. Why is this? Certainly there is enough actual story to criticize without seeking to bend everything into an issue.
    Last edited by MSgt; 01-05-09 at 10:48 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  5. #225
    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
    If only you guys had to donate $1 to the national debt every time you turned an argument back on Clinton.

    Yep, and all parties were being led by the nose by Bush's lies.
    The argument, is that this history did not begin in 2003 like "you guys"wish in vain that it did. The decision to take out Hussein did not come in a Bush dream. There is a history. The fact is that Clinton was preaching about Hussein and his WMD long before Bush was in the White House. Once again....history did not begin in 2003.

    Quote Originally Posted by ADK_Forever View Post
    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?
    Could it be that he simply used 9/11 to do what was already set in motion? This is more true to the facts than your implications. Bush stopped pursuing Bin Laden because he was not persuable. We were a 21st century military being asked to board donkeys into mountains that were so high that our choppers and ground support would be useless. But Bin Laden is dead now. Our mission is to beat Taliban lingerers down enough for the Afghani government to have an upper hand before they "talk."

    Quote Originally Posted by ADK_Forever View Post
    And Hussein and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
    It really is that simple.
    And? I have stated this enough times that I grow tired of replying to the complaint. "Afghanistan was about the immediate threat post 9/11...and Iraq was about the a bigger picture in the region."

    Quote Originally Posted by ADK_Forever View Post
    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.
    "Proven?" Given that President Clinton wanted to take him out, what exactly was their to "prove?" Seems to me that this was as much a White House/Pentagon vision as it was a single man's. I believe Clinton and Gore blasted "daddy" on the campaign trail for coddling the dictator and allowing him to remain in power. Once again..this history began before 2003.

    And by the way...using words like "daddy" kind of places you in a certain category of protestor.

    Quote Originally Posted by ADK_Forever View Post
    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.
    Think so, huh? You Obama worshippers are in for a surprise. I like Obama too. But for reasons beyond the disciple fantasies. It's going to get bloody.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  6. #226
    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
    They lied through their teeth.
    [/u
    Who "lied?" .....

    "If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a farg greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."

    Considering such bold assertions and the dramatic show of force, many might think this could only have been George W. Bush in March 2003. But it was actually Bill Clinton, more than four years earlier.

    I realize that you wish to dismiss such history in favor for pretending that this "lie" was a Bush invention thereby protecting your partisan argument, but the truth is that this history began in 1991. And since Clinton had entered office, Hussein had been a constant irritant for American policy-makers, doing his best to skirt obligations placed on him by the United Nations resolutions and to break the will of the fragile international consencus supporting them.

    Complain, bitch, moan, and complain all you want, but the truth goes back further than a Bush vision for a Saddam-less Middle East.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  7. #227
    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 GySgt View Post
    Think so, huh? You Obama worshippers are in for a surprise. I like Obama too. But for reasons beyond the disciple fantasies. It's going to get bloody.
    YouTube - Obama's Plan for The Draft- MANDATORY SERVICE everyone 18-25

    I can't wait to be forced to join some youth squad... I bet they'll give me a taser AND a gun.

  8. #228
    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
    Who "lied?" .....
    Complain, bitch, moan, and complain all you want, but the truth goes back further than a Bush vision for a Saddam-less Middle East.
    The TRUTH goes back to when dubya and dickie and rummy took office. They started calculating how they could invade Iraq from day 1! 9/11 answered their prayers. They lied to invade Iraq and the true reason had nothing to do with 9/11.

    I'm surprised that you, as a military man, are not incensed at this.

    They lied and were irresponsible with the power we entrusted them with. I pray Obama grows a pair and goes after them. However, I am realistic...
    Thank You Barack Obama for Restoring Honor To The Presidency.
    President Obama will rank as one of our greatest presidents!

  9. #229
    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 ADK_Forever View Post
    The TRUTH goes back to when dubya and dickie and rummy took office. They started calculating how they could invade Iraq from day 1! 9/11 answered their prayers. They lied to invade Iraq and the true reason had nothing to do with 9/11.
    That the administration SO FULLY took advantage of 9-11 that it could almost be seen as a piece of circumstantial evidence to the administrations involvement in the attacks.

  10. #230
    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?

    Pity the poor neocon's!

    All they have left is this Gaza war to get warm and fuzzy again.

    Pity the Poor Neocons
    By Robert Parry January 2, 2009

    As bloody and grotesque as Israel’s pounding of Gaza has been, it marks a bitterly disappointing end for seven-plus years of neoconservative dominion over U.S. foreign policy, a period that was supposed to conclude with the dismantling of Israel’s Muslim enemies in the region.
    History is about to write the final chapter on these true American terrorists from the Project for a New American Century and it is not good. As we look back on what the neocon's have done to this country, that country, the world and everything inbetween, it can all be summed up in one word.............DESTROYED!

    Neocon's have destroyed:
    • Iraq
    • Afganistan
    • US economy
    • Global economy
    • US reputation around the world
    • the Justice Dept
    • our heritage
    • our values
    • the sacrifices we made in other wars to stop aggression
    • freedom of speech
    • our Constitution
    • the Republican Party
    • democracy as we knew it
    • honest debates
    • this thread
    The list just goes on and on of their shock and awful way of viewing American power and the un-American way that it should be used. Even though they are such bad liars, I feel sorry for them and their dwindling sphere of inluence.

    Contrary to those neocon plans, George W. Bush is limping toward a historical judgment as possibly “the worst President ever”; U.S. power is waning in Iraq under a “status-of-forces agreement” that is showing the Americans the door by 2011 if not earlier; and key neocon targets – Iran, Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon – have gained in regional influence.

    All the neocons have left now is to cheer the Israeli air force as it, in effect, shoots fish in a barrel, i.e. blasting away at selected Palestinian targets inside the crowded confines of Gaza, killing more than 400 people, including many children and other civilians, over the past week.

    In 2001, especially after 9/11, the neocon dreams were so much more ambitious. The neocons planned to achieve “regime change” in all Middle Eastern countries that were perceived as threats to Israel and replace them with compliant, pro-Western leaders
    However, their vision was a little too despotic to come to fruitition.
    First on the list was Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, which was a center for Arab nationalism and an advocate for resisting Israeli occupation of Palestinian land. Since Iraq was too strong – and too far from the effective reach of the Israeli military – U.S. forces would be needed to conquer Iraq.

    After that, Iraq was supposed to become the staging area for projecting American power across the region, with the governments of Iran and Syria the next targets.

    A favorite neocon joke in 2003 was whether after capturing Baghdad, U.S. forces should go east or west, to either Damascus or Tehran, with the punch line: “Real men go to Tehran.” Of course, unlike American soldiers, the neocons weren’t really going anywhere, except to the next AEI conference or a Georgetown cocktail party.

    By replacing the governments of Iran and Syria, the neocons would knock out the support structure for Israel’s two most immediate threats, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories. Then, with Israel – aided by some Arab allies – finishing off those two weakened militant groups, Israel could dictate terms of a final settlement to the Palestinians.
    I said years ago neocon's were mentally incapable of handling public office, it's nice to see the rest of the country has finally caught up.

Page 23 of 29 FirstFirst ... 132122232425 ... 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
  •