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

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

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

  • Yes we will see them and they are justified.

    Votes: 3 6.3%
  • Yes we will see them but they will not be justified.

    Votes: 4 8.3%
  • No we will not see them but they would have been justified.

    Votes: 14 29.2%
  • No we will not see them and they would not have been justified.

    Votes: 27 56.3%

  • Total voters
    48
Your argument doesn't wash. Because the purpose of a war crimes trial is not to kill Iraqis. The purpose of the trial is because we killed Iraqis. So by your definition, if we are the winners, we'd be putting them (the losers) on trial. We're not. And if we ever did go to trial, it would be the winners who are charged. And the charges would be over torture, not genocide. Or do you think its okay to torture people?

Dog.
Sadams already dead.
Your example blows.
He went down for crimes, cause he lost.
Lets keep it real here.

Homie is not saying that thats how it SHOULD work. Hes sayin its how it DOES.
Think stalin woulda gone out a free man to natural causes if hed lost a war to the U.S?
2 words. **** no.
The losers pay. The winners keep on playin. Till they lose or they die.
 
I would point out that modern war crimes trials are prosecuted by the UN and are international in character.

IF your nation extrodites you. Which they dont do if they dont want you to get prosecuted.

U know hwo many Israeli's we'd see on the stand if it were truley international?
If your cursious, just check U.N general assembly motions condemining israeli atrocties. In an international system, ariel sharon for example, would have died in jail.
 
Last edited:
No law is worth more than the ability to enforce it. Our President will never face trial for war crimes, and no US citizen will face trial for war crimes without our consent.

At least as far as the United States is concerned, "international law" is not worth the paper that it is printed upon.

What in the world makes you think an international body needs our consent to prosecute one of our citizens? If a trial went all the way through to a conviction and the international community was galvanized together and the majority of U.S. citizens agreed with it, which they would, then our government would indeed give up the treasonist liar.
 
We won't see any prosecutions. War crimes prosecutions are for countries that lose wars on their home turf, and they're nothing more than a means for victorious countries to install more pliable governments once they're ready to withdraw.

Noone's going to win a war on American soil in the immediate futureThe Japanese, now the Chinese governments have been winning an economic "war" for some time; soon GM, Ford will be history, as they have never learned to respect the comsumer.., and both Bush and Cheney are probably going to be dead in their graves before it ever happens.

War is a crime upon mankind..How many more tens of millions must die before man see this ???
Bush and Cheney have neither the intellect nor morals to see this..
To prosecute anyone will not solve anything...there is no solution other than time and far greater knowledge.
 
Dog.
Sadams already dead.
Your example blows.
He went down for crimes, cause he lost.
Lets keep it real here.

Homie is not saying that thats how it SHOULD work. Hes sayin its how it DOES.
Think stalin woulda gone out a free man to natural causes if hed lost a war to the U.S?
2 words. **** no.
The losers pay. The winners keep on playin. Till they lose or they die.
We're not talking about Hussein. We're talking about Bush/Cheney and their crimes of aggression:
  • Illegally attacking a country in violation of Article 51 of the UN Charter.
  • Bombing hospitals, power plants, water treatment facilities and other Iraqi infrastructure.
  • Using cluster bombs in urban areas, WP in Fallujah and spewing depleted uranium munitions all over the country.
  • Forcing a puppet government to write a constitution during a time of war.
  • Abuses at Abu Ghraib
  • Abuses at GITMO
  • The practice of renditions.
  • Incarcerating people for years without charges.
  • Torture.
  • Completely destroying a nation that never attacked yours for the same reason a dog licks' its balls!
I'm not talking about Hussein.

I'm talking about the assholes you elected!
 
War is a crime upon mankind..How many more tens of millions must die before man see this ???
Bush and Cheney have neither the intellect nor morals to see this..
To prosecute anyone will not solve anything...there is no solution other than time and far greater knowledge.
Oh? Is this always true? What about defensive wars? Wars to liberate enslaved people? Wars to prevent even greater wars?

How do you propose to oppose profound evil, if not by war? Or do you?
 
For what possible Earthly reason, since they are in fact not the same at all?
You're right, Christian evangelical's are more of a threat to this country than radical Islam. But maybe that will change when muslims get their own lobby groups like AIPAC.

This is, to my mind, a very peculiar position indeed. To illustrate, I oppose slavery in all its forms. But I would not equate the practice of slavery in "Virginia" in 1850, with the practice of slavery in a "Ancient Persia". I can opposes both institutions, but I would have certain problems in moral judgment if I held the same opinion of both.
I oppose slavery in all forms. I oppose it in Virginia and Ancient Persia. Subjugating people is wrong no matter what part of history you live in.

Religions vastly differ from each other, and command different responses from the religious and the irreligious. And unless you are out of touch with objective reality, which hopefully you are not, you must know this.
This isn't a disussion on the differences of various religions, it is a discussion on threats to this country and if our elected leaders acted in self defense or as an act of aggession. And attacking a country that did not attack you first, is aggression. Therefore, war crimes have been committed and my views on religion have nothing to do with that. But you trying to make a case that it does, is simply ridiculous fear-mongering.

You can even test your awareness. Which case in each of these pairs would surprise you more:
Go for it!
  1. a Catholic Cardinal calling for the eradication of a non-Catholic state, by violence if necessary.
  2. an Islamic Imam calling for the eradication of a non-Islamic state, by violence if necessary.
Both are whack! I don't listen to religious leaders in regards to political issues, just on issues of faith. That's their area of expertise. Not foreign policy.

  1. a Jewish youth blowing himself up with an explosive belt in a crowded restaurant of Buddhists because he thinks this will get him into paradise.
  2. a Muslim youth blowing himself up with an explosive belt in a crowded restaurant of Hindus because he thinks this will get him into paradise.
That cannot possibly happen because Israel doesn't have 700 virgins!
  1. A Jehovah's Witness posting a video in which he slowly cuts off the head of a telephone repairman of foreign origin who came into his neighborhood.
  2. A Muhammadan posting a video in which he slowly cuts of the head off a telephone repairman of foreign origin who came into his neighborhood.
Both the Jehovah and Muhammadan should be locked up for the rest of their lives with no possibility of parole.
Feel free to keep the results of this little test private, it you don't wish to post the honest results.
Why keep it "private"? Ask and you shall recieve. I'm not shy.
Again, your ecumenicism is is ill advised. As I have state before, it behooves you to make at least some small study of the tenants of mainstream and militant Islam, before declaring them harmless.
When did I declare anyone harmless? And who is this "them" people? You think muslims are all one entity with one common goal and act all in unison with each other? You don't think there is disagreement within the ME over certain issues with the west? Or how about this one, you don't think they have a right to be angry at us for bombing the **** out of them for the last 13 years?

You assessment that people who disagree with you are mentally disturbed is an example of the typical leftist mindset that equates heightened emotion with rational argument.
My assessment was directed at the holier than thou way you debate. Do you really think your perspective is the right way to look at this situation? Or the only way? And what makes you think your argument is rational? Broadstroking an entire culture as being bad, just because they refer to God with a different name, is pretty irrational to me.
I do agree that you should not fear me. I am the one trying to present to you a rational, knowledge based position. Reason is not to feared, nor are reasonable people. (In more enlightened times, they are to be emulated.)
You are not presenting an argument at all. You are spending most of your time trying to make it seem that I am difficient in some way because I don't want to study religion any further than I already have. And quite frankly, it is pretty arrogant to speak as though my "emotions" are "heightened" or irrational just because I don't buy into your argument. You need to look at your own views and ask yourself, "Is a fanatical fringe group of another religion justification to kill over 1 million men, women and children in another country?"

I find it very difficult to make a rational response to a position based upon willful blindness. Traditional Islam is a threat to the precepts of Western Civilization. This is a simple fact, whether one has the courage to address the issue, or retreat into comforting denials.
I could make the same case of "Western Civilization" being a threat to "Traditional Islam". After all, we're the ones who started bombing first. We started ****ing with them, before they started ****ing with us.

The time may come in your lifetime when you'll have to take a stand and choose a side. It is interesting to wonder what you would do in such a situation.
I will "take a stand" and fight anyone that is a threat to my country. And that goes for any significant military that would invade us or any whacked out preacher that wants to persuade militism or any dumbass, anti-American, neocon terrorist that happens to get into my government and destroy my Constitution (or true American values).
Very, very good! Perhaps anger will motivate study. This could be a turning point.
Again with the personal attacks. What makes you think that I haven't studied?
I'm not actually terribly arrogant, but I am addressing facts, which are perhaps the most arrogant things in Creation. I do appreciate being thought of as a classic, however.
Your welcome!
As for me "knowing," well to be frank, this is the state of mind one enters into when one has spent some time and effort learning facts. I advise everyone to try it.
Again, why do keep insisting that I haven't? And a "fact" is nothing more than an "agreement" between two people.
To be perfectly honest, I have grown very tired of modern liberal thought that seem to believe that denial makes truth, emotional assertion makes fact, and a shallow pronouncement of moral relativism evokes a strong character.
I'm getting deja vu here. Didn't you already say this above?
Now once again, if you are serious about making relevant and well founded statements on subjects such as these, I direct you first to a study of the Koran and Hadith, and the principles of traditional Islam, and certainly the pronouncements of leading militant Muslim clerics which guide the Islamic faithful.
I don't have to study the specific differences of the various religions. They are not a threat to this country. You're more of a threat than they are! You're trying to say the Bush Doctrine is justified because of another cultures fanatics. I'm saying that every culture has fanatics and that they are a police issue, not a national security one.
I would expect that you can direct your own studies, but I can provide an elementary reading list on request.
By all means, if you want to suggest something worth reading, I welcome all of it. I learn something new every day of my life. The more I know, the more I find out what I don't know. I'm not one of those people who put so much stock into their political views, they never admit to being wrong. I'm one of the few posters on this website who has actually come out and apologized for being wrong on a particular issue. Some around here think that is tantamount to death. I think it's just another part of life, 50% of the time.
 
Last edited:
All completely irrelevant. You didn't even try to counter the charge that the Iraq war broke international law. You tried to slander instead. Very telling.
International law does not trump American constitutional war powers, so that is completely irrelevent to the discussion, the war was approved by the United States Congress, therefore it was legal, the U.N.'s opinion is worthless.
 
War crimes arent even nececary.
Just treason.
He lied to the american public to lead them to war.
Thats treason. Nuff said.
Death penalties all round.
You can't prove the president lied, no-one can, so until you have something solid drop that ridiculous argument, second, it would not fall under treason or sedition under any stretch of the imagination, however, code pink, Micheal Moore, Cindy Sheehan, and many of the anti-war extremists could easily get treason charges if we got serious, and frankly, I wouldn't shed a tear if they got the death penalty.
 
Although your statement is more true than false, it is also un-American and irresponsible.


According to history, it is very American to drop nuclear bombs on civilian cities. I appreciate the plea to keep the "white capitol on the hill" illusion but the only thing that is "un-American" is losing. Winning by any means necessary has always trumped the fantasies. Failure is forever remembered. Success is forgiven.

"War crimes" is a matter of perception. And as long as America maintains the upper hand in this world, we will police ourselves. And apparently, with the examples of Presidential impeachments, open political investigations, and military court-martials, we police ourselves to a far better degree than everybody else.

If you think differently, then compare your vision to the reality. The argument of what is and is not "un-American" is largely based on an illusion. Survival and victory is American.
 
Last edited:
What in the world makes you think an international body needs our consent to prosecute one of our citizens?
Because our laws trump theirs, any attempt to enforce international law on our sovereign shores would be an act of war, and we would destroy them if the attempt was made.
If a trial went all the way through to a conviction and the international community was galvanized together and the majority of U.S. citizens agreed with it,
That would be our consent.
which they would,
Doubtful.
then our government would indeed give up the treasonist liar.
How is he treasonist? Nevermind, you couldn't prove your case because their isn't one. And where is your proof the president lied? Nevermind, you don't have any.
 
IF your nation extrodites you. Which they dont do if they dont want you to get prosecuted.

U know hwo many Israeli's we'd see on the stand if it were truley international?
If your cursious, just check U.N general assembly motions condemining israeli atrocties. In an international system, ariel sharon for example, would have died in jail.

The safe and self appointed voices of morality are always too eager to define the tactics of Israel as "criminal" while ignoring the obvious criminal tactics of its enemies.

Did you know that despite how many times Hezbollah has used UN posts as a shield and how many times the UN has condemned the terrorist acts of Hezbollah, it only called for a disarmament for the first time in 2008? What does this tell you of the international body as a source of morality?

With the Anglo-English speaking world (Australia, Canada, United Kingdom, United States) and the Netherlands labeling Hezbollah for what it is, why has the UN refused to acknwoledge it? The cowardice of the UN has always been quick to condemn from a far and demand morality only from those who offer reservation for morality.

I'm not eager to see an international system like the UN to have anymore power than it has. And "let's be real." The UN has power because America gives it power. Otherwise, it's just a failed League of Nations.
 
Last edited:
Note: I am running late. I try to proofread longer posts for typos, but I just don't have time for a proper job at the moment

Billo_Really has several times taken the effort to make substantive replies to some of my posts, and I wish to reciprocate, so I have elected to favor substance over style.
-OC


You're right, Christian evangelical's are more of a threat to this country than radical Islam. But maybe that will change when muslims get their own lobby groups like AIPAC.
I shall simply leave it to others to digest this pearl.

I oppose slavery in all forms. I oppose it in Virginia and Ancient Persia. Subjugating people is wrong no matter what part of history you live in.


Why keep it "private"? Ask and you shall recieve.
I wished to spare you embarrassment.

. . .

My assessment was directed at the holier than thou way you debate. Do you really think your perspective is the right way to look at this situation? Or the only way? And what makes you think your argument is rational?
Yes.
No, but probably the best way.
Because I really on history, facts, and experience. I study and analyze, I am suspicious of powerful emotion clouding judgment, because I have a deep understanding of the highs and lows of human nature.

. . . And quite frankly, it is pretty arrogant to speak as though my "emotions" are "heightened" or irrational just because I don't buy into your argument. You need to look at your own views and ask yourself, "Is a fanatical fringe group of another religion justification to kill over 1 million men, women and children in another country?"
Militant Islam is hardly a fringe group. Note the support its victories enjoy in the mass Islamic population.

The justification is long term survival, which for any country, trumps all other considerations, with the possible exception of virulent expansionism or conquest. For the latter concerns, occasionally a country will risk the former. For instance, Nazi germane, and Imperial Japan to cite recent examples.

This is sad perhaps, but true. Pretty ideals or high sounding words have little change of altering this state of affairs in the foreseeable future.
I could make the same case of "Western Civilization" being a threat to "Traditional Islam". After all, we're the ones who started bombing first. We started ****ing with them, before they started ****ing with us.
Actually, it is rather short work to dismiss the argument that the West was the firth threat. Islamic aggression began at its inception, at a time when the west had yet to coalesce into an overarching super-culture.If we have become a threat to Traditional Islam, it is because the concepts of universal Human rights and Freedom are inimical to the benighted philosophy.

I will "take a stand" and fight anyone that is a threat to my country. . .
Will you? Would you even recongize a threat until it was too late for any resistance other that an act of desperation? How, if you refuse to look at the evidence?


Again with the personal attacks. What makes you think that I haven't studied?
I make no personal attacks. Indeed my patience with you should be seen as a sign that I believe that you have intelligence worthy of appealing to.

I consider you, and others on the Left to be victims who have been taught or allowed to suppress analytical thought in favor of rhetoric and emotionalism.

I believe that you have been taught to consciously or subconsciously judge reality by how beautiful, pleasant, or satisfying a particular assertion is, instead of its objective merit. An example is the idea of equality among religions, philosophies and societies -- a lovely sounding lie.

Or, to make another example, creating champions of evil to battle, (Neo-Cons, Conservatives, Evangelicals,) because one does not really believe that such groups could ever harm them: a comforting belief. To address actual foes that truly wish to inflict real harm is a very discomforting notion from which many are taught to flee.

As to what makes me think you haven't studied. . . well, I think I will just pass on answering that.

. . . And a "fact" is nothing more than an "agreement" between two people.
. . .
Whoever taught you this deserves punishment.

This single idea that has been foisted on you is one of the most vicious assaults on your mind that I hope you ever have to endure. U would almost equate it with a rape.

This is a concept to be taught to a slave.

A fact exists irregardless of anyone's opinion. I hope that you come to accept this a some point.

Didn't you already say this above?

I may have. Repetition is a low-level instructional technique that seems to be indispensable.
I don't have to study the specific differences of the various religions. They are not a threat to this country. You're more of a threat than they are!
Please reconsider your lack if interest in study. I appreciate you belief in my power and influence, however.
You're trying to say the Bush Doctrine is justified because of another cultures fanatics. I'm saying that every culture has fanatics and that they are a police issue, not a national security one.
There is almost too much here to respond to in a short post. I would ask you to consider though what happens whet the fanatics count among their memebers the police in a country, such as in Nazi Germany.

And are you aware that the Police in our country are neither trained nor equipped to deal with say, an insurgency? The Military however is.

By all means, if you want to suggest something worth reading, I welcome all of it. I learn something new every day of my life. The more I know, the more I find out what I don't know.
I posted material above. I'd be more than honored if you'd peruse some of it.


I'm not one of those people who put so much stock into their political views, they never admit to being wrong. I'm one of the few posters on this website who has actually come out and apologized for being wrong on a particular issue. Some around here think that is tantamount to death. I think it's just another part of life, 50% of the time.

You are to be commended for these traits, and I do so now without reservation.


Now an aside.
I am not the terrible person you mat think. I am someone who gives a great deal of thought to what goes wrong in human affairs and how it might have been avoided once past.

I have a visceral detestation for the waste of human potential.

I vastly prefer to live in peace with everyone and for countries to do likewise. But I realize that the power to make peace is almost entirely in the hands of the aggressor. That is, no matter how much we may want peace, if another entity wants war, or even limited violence, it is almost impossible to deny them.

I support the notion of preemptive war, because once hostility is inevitable, I want to see the damage limited for the party that did not originally promote hostilities. Doing otherwise is to allow innocents to bear the burden of an ethical code held by the leaders.

When I am being abrasive in some of these posts, it usually stems from what I said above, I am deeply offended by the mental habits that have been instilled in many of the young in the West. I am not a conspiracy nut, but there are momenmts when I wonder what has led to such a degredation in the teaching of hard thinking.

Perhaps we'll find fertile ground for agreement on other topics.
 
Last edited:
It's more like the only ones who are arguing against war crimes trials are those treasonous American's who give blind allegiance to the flag much like the Christian Germans did with Hitler in Weimar Germany many years ago. I think you'd make a very good German. Never question. Always obey. The government is always right, even when it's wrong. If the government doesn't abide by the Supreme Law of the Land, it's okay. I really don't see how you sleep at night or tell people you're an American citizen. Because the things you say are un-American and the things you do show that you really don't care about your civic duty to this country.

The only ones calling for a war crimes trial are you wacko koolaid drinking die hard Bashers(one only has to look at your gallery to see that you are a die hard bush basher).Your reasons for wanting war crime trials on Bush has to do with your hatred for Bush. You probably hopped on every Bush basher band wagon the Bush stole election band wagon, the Bush went AWOL bandwagon, and the Bush lied to get us into Iraq band wagon. So I will take what you and every other wacko die hard Bush basher has to say regarding patriotism. I find it odd that a leftist like yourself would use a nazi anology when leftist like to cite Godwins law.
 
I said that for ME it's not a right vs left issue.

If you honestly believe that then you are delusional.

And it's hardly just the die hard Bush bashers, Cindy Sheehans, etc. that are calling for it too. But go ahead and keep thinking that.

Yes it is the die hard Bush bashers, Cindy Sheehans , code pinks, and other wackos.
 
And where is your proof the president lied? Nevermind, you don't have any.

I always find it amusing when the Die hard Bush Bashers falsely claim that Bush lied to get us into Iraq. They seem to conveniently forget that even democrats themselves said Saddam had WMDs and this was before Bush was even in office, that Saddam has had WMDs before and has used them, that Saddam kept blocking UN inspectors and gave the impression that he did have WMDs. With those things in mind anyone who says Bush lied to get us into Iraq is either a koolaid drinking liar or a kooliad drinking ****en moron.
 
Last edited:
I always find it amusing when the Die hard Bush Bashers falsely claim that Bush lied to get us into Iraq. They seem to conveniently forget that even democrats themselves said Saddam had WMDs and this was before Bush was even in office, that Saddam has had WMDs before and has used them, that Saddam kept blocking UN inspectors and gave the impression that he did have WMDs. With those things in mind anyone who says Bush lied to get us into Iraq is either a koolaid drinking liar or a kooliad drinking ****en moron.
exactly right
 
The issue is not one of left/right but one of the rule of law, if Bush/Cheney/Rove have broken American laws or laws that are internationally, legally binding then I think its a no brainer, they should be charged according.

If they have done nothing wrong then they should not fear criminal justice proceedings against them.

Rove was subpoenad to appear before congress, and upon his no-show was held in contempt of congress (around June 08), the no show was (under the constitution of the United States of America) an illigal act and it is a legal requirement of congress to send marshalls to arrest him and bring him before congress to answer the question put to him.

The question is should Rove face the charges against him? I cannot see how the answer can be anything but yes.
 
Please do some research, The CIA paied for, organized, trained, and equiped the backbone of modern day 'Islamic extremeist' groups especially through the ISI (the inteligence arm of the ISLAMIC republic of Pakistan, who your government gives millions of $s in military aid to every year).

If you cannot see when your government and corporate media are constructing a threat to take away your liberties you should not be reading at all, let alone the hate filled, fear mongering tripe/anciend history that you posted as you 'reading list'.

Please go and read the US PATRIOT act and ask yourself who is the biggest threat to your constitution, 2000 year old marauding arab armies in Europe, or a government that has legally trashed the document of your founding fathers.
 
I always find it amusing when the Die hard Bush Bashers falsely claim that Bush lied to get us into Iraq. They seem to conveniently forget that even democrats themselves said Saddam had WMDs and this was before Bush was even in office, that Saddam has had WMDs before and has used them, that Saddam kept blocking UN inspectors and gave the impression that he did have WMDs. With those things in mind anyone who says Bush lied to get us into Iraq is either a koolaid drinking liar or a kooliad drinking ****en moron.
I've already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt Bush lied about the Iraqi threat, yet you still spew out this bull****. Bush said Hussein wouldn't allow inspectors back into Iraq. He said this while inspectors were already in Iraq driving around in white vans! He said they had WMD's when Hans Blix reported that he hadn't found any. His ****ing story of why he attacked changed weekly and the Downing Street Memo's showed he planned this entire ruse to fool the American people. The evidence is so overwhelming and can't see how you cannot see this. Dude, that is whack!
 
I've already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt Bush lied about the Iraqi threat, yet you still spew out this bull****. Bush said Hussein wouldn't allow inspectors back into Iraq. He said this while inspectors were already in Iraq driving around in white vans! He said they had WMD's when Hans Blix reported that he hadn't found any. His ****ing story of why he attacked changed weekly and the Downing Street Memo's showed he planned this entire ruse to fool the American people. The evidence is so overwhelming and can't see how you cannot see this. Dude, that is whack!
Please cite your incontrovertible proof, I'd like to read and critique it. I look forward to it.
 
Please do some research, The CIA paied for, organized, trained, and equiped the backbone of modern day 'Islamic extremeist' groups especially through the ISI (the inteligence arm of the ISLAMIC republic of Pakistan, who your government gives millions of $s in military aid to every year).

If you cannot see when your government and corporate media are constructing a threat to take away your liberties you should not be reading at all, let alone the hate filled, fear mongering tripe/anciend history that you posted as you 'reading list'.

Please go and read the US PATRIOT act and ask yourself who is the biggest threat to your constitution, 2000 year old marauding arab armies in Europe, or a government that has legally trashed the document of your founding fathers.

Sources please!

I do find your lack of comprehension amusing, but only because I am too tired to work up annoyance.

What you think of as items of "Ancient History" are in the Muslim World current affairs. If you fail to grasp this extremely basic fact of Islamic Militancy, then your positions are not to be taken seriously.

Normally, I would cite sources for you. But since you seem to reject what I have already posted, I fear that there is little point.

But to take a stab at your question, the greatest threat to the Constitution of this, or indeed any Republic, is an ignorant population of state-dependent persons who fail to exercise analytical thinking or accept the hard truths that a must be assimilated by individuals wishing to develop a mature character.

Such individuals have allowed themselves to become serfs, and await the coming of their masters.

Carry on.
 
Last edited:
Many of the leading republican need to be prosecuted for war crimes.

Bush, Chaney, Rove, are some of the worst. They were down right
anti-american.

We prosecuted Saddam, and Bush is far worse than him.
 
We're not talking about Hussein. We're talking about Bush/Cheney and their crimes of aggression:
  • Illegally attacking a country in violation of Article 51 of the UN Charter.
  • Bombing hospitals, power plants, water treatment facilities and other Iraqi infrastructure.
  • Using cluster bombs in urban areas, WP in Fallujah and spewing depleted uranium munitions all over the country.
  • Forcing a puppet government to write a constitution during a time of war.
  • Abuses at Abu Ghraib
  • Abuses at GITMO
  • The practice of renditions.
  • Incarcerating people for years without charges.
  • Torture.
  • Completely destroying a nation that never attacked yours for the same reason a dog licks' its balls!
I'm not talking about Hussein.

I'm talking about the assholes you elected!

Im not American, If I were I wouldnt have voted for any republican nominee in my lifetime, Im not disagreeing with you.

Im not saying it SHOULDNT happen.
Im saying it WONT.
The U.S does not recognise the juristiction of international courts over its citizens, and it is not going to break this precedant to have a former president arrested at this stage.
An international war crimes trial would require the seizure of inditees by force by an external power.

Which would likely be seen as an act of war aggainst the united states.

No one is going to take the risk. As much as it pains me to say it.
It is not going to happen.

Thats why I wana see them hung for treeson. Just like they hit capone with tax evasion. When the ideal isnt possible, you catch them for what you can.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom