• 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
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
That is his schtick he thinks he is not a partisan when he is one of the most anti-american, anti-semetic, anti-troop, posters you will ever come across...


Don't bother. :roll:
Click to expand...
Yeah, but it's fun watching his blood pressure go up.:)
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
That is his schtick he thinks he is not a partisan when he is one of the most anti-american, anti-semetic, anti-troop, posters you will ever come across...


Don't bother. :roll:
Click to expand...

He may be zealos. But if you talk bad about certian things about a country for critisisms sake, in an attempt to improve. He obviously has enough patriotism to surpass personal holds on reputation Right or wrong.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
He may be zealos. But if you talk bad about certian things about a country for critisisms sake, in an attempt to improve. He obviously has enough patriotism to surpass personal holds on reputation Right or wrong.
Click to expand...




When you call troops murderers for political gain you are doing more than critisizing. He ain't a horse you want to back.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
When you call troops murderers for political gain you are doing more than critisizing. He ain't a horse you want to back.
Click to expand...

I give lots of leeway to the confused. I'd never fight someone if they where drunk. Well... Unless I was.
 
Billo_Really,

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

On a separate note, clearly some of the incidents you cited e.g., events at Haditha, would properly amount to war crimes. Moreover, the individuals responsible have been convicted and/or are being brought to justice in at least some of those cases.
 
MachuPicchu said:
Calls are getting more, not less, obvious in the public spectrum. So the question is, will we see prosecutions of public officials and are they justified?

To me, it is not a left vs right issue. This isn't just about Bush/Cheney. It is an issue of the highest ethical implications. It is not about revenge, it is about justice. Our public leaders must be held responsible for criminal actions. We must set a precedent that politicians are not above the law, regardless of their motivations.

It no longer is a fringe position to hold that we need to bring this to court and systematically determine if people committed war crimes. It is now a fringe position to ignore the overwhelming evidence that crimes very likely were committed.
Click to expand...



What war crimes were committed and by whom?
 
donsutherland1 said:
Billo_Really,

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

On a separate note, clearly some of the incidents you cited e.g., events at Haditha, would properly amount to war crimes. Moreover, the individuals responsible have been convicted and/or are being brought to justice in at least some of those cases.
Click to expand...
I will agree that no charges will be filed, no matter what the evidence is. But that's more of a statement on just how disgusting American's have become.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Lies? What lies? E-5's are the ones who man those drones. YOu just said they kill on purpose innocents.....


Are you confused? Are you on medication or something? :lol:
Click to expand...
Who is this "they" people you are referring too?
 
Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und
That is his schtick he thinks he is not a partisan when he is one of the most anti-american, anti-semetic, anti-troop, posters you will ever come across...
Click to expand...
More irresponsible slander.

Your kind of patriotism would've supported Hitler 'till the bitter end.
 
Billo_Really said:
More irresponsible slander.

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

Yup, all neo-cons have acted the same for the past 8 years
in their blind support of our service ducking, lying, traitorist president.
There really isn't much of a difference, only degree of destruction. :confused: :roll: :mrgreen:
 
donsutherland1 said:
Billo_Really,

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

On a separate note, clearly some of the incidents you cited e.g., events at Haditha, would properly amount to war crimes. Moreover, the individuals responsible have been convicted and/or are being brought to justice in at least some of those cases.
Click to expand...

I think the more power a president is given or aquired the more blame rests upon their shoulders. To a degree in slight measurements. How much responsability has he assumed in this world he is trying to forge?
 
ADK_Forever said:
Yup, all neo-cons have acted the same for the past 8 years
in their blind support of our service ducking, lying, traitorist president.
There really isn't much of a difference, only degree of destruction. :confused: :roll: :mrgreen:
Click to expand...
Service ducking? His father was a high ranking CIA official during the war, do you really think they would allow him to become a P.O.W. with that situation? If you do you don't understand military strategy. Lying? I think you've already lost quite a bit of credibility when you throw that charge out with no evidence, except for "I feel he lied, so.......". Treason? It has already been explained earlier in the thread why he didn't commit treason and it isn't even close, unless you consider disagreeing with YOUR ideology as treason.
 
i for one believe torture was state policy and that the 'bad apples'were fall guys. Not enough evidence to prove it tho.
 
dragonslayer said:
We prosecuted Saddam, and Bush is far worse than him.
Click to expand...

This is as ignorant a statment as I have ever seen.

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

Clinton's administration:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You have no basis to accuse Bush of being worse than Hussein. Absolutely none. And this is why protestors are taken seriously only to their first exaggeration or lie. One would think that a protestor would have enough to protest about without inventing a reality to protest about.
 
ADK_Forever said:
You obviously don't know much about international law.
Click to expand...


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

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

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


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

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




Actually given your anti semetic diatribes against jews, wouldn't YOU be the one who supported hitler to the bitter end? :roll:
 
ADK_Forever said:
Yup, all neo-cons have acted the same for the past 8 years
in their blind support of our service ducking, lying, traitorist president.
There really isn't much of a difference, only degree of destruction. :confused: :roll: :mrgreen:
Click to expand...




Yup the house communists act the same year after year with wild stories about lies and made up words like "traitorist" [sic].



:roll:
 
Billo_Really said:
It is equally un-American to turn your back on the values that are the cornerstones of this country. Which is the rule of law.
Click to expand...

American values according to situation right Billo? The dictator that invades nations in Europe gets hunted down and either kills himself (Hitler) or captured and placed on trial (Milosevic) to die in prison. The dictator in the Middle East gets walked back to his throne to be maintained for over a decade while he punishes his people and scoffs at that international body by denying them access and threatens the soveriegnty of three more nations.

Our values have been wrecked ever since we ventured out in the world Europe created. After all all three 20th century explosions or crisis (WWI, WWII, Cold War) started in Europe. The problem is that we can't maintain our American values all the time and deal with the European messes we are expected to deal with. Would you have prefered an all out nuclear war with the Soviets or the dictator support game we both played to spread a specific influence to maintain a sense of stability, which we would later equate ot "peace" no matter who sufferred underneath.

The rule of law would have Hitler throwing himself parades as he burned people alive his entire life as long as he satisfied his quench for death inside Germany. The rule of law would have genocides in Africa dealt with if the UN applied the word (genocide) towards the situation. The rule of law is selective and is only scrutinized when we need an action done or when we wish to protest an action.



Billo_Really said:
We would be showing the world that we are not a nation of god-damn hypocrits!
Click to expand...


And...by the way....Hypocracy lives in all people and governments. I just showed you a little bit of that with yor argument of "American values" or international "rule of law." Know any body else who dropped two atomic bombs on civilian cities and preaches to the rest of the world that they will not use or even develop nuclear weapons? And how much of the West was more than willing to watch Africans suffer genocide, yet move the earth to stop it in Europe as a matter of international law during the same period? Protestors. Always swimming in exaggeration and fantasy.

Like I stated earlier, the only thing "un-American" is losing. Which is why Vietnam stands out so boldy to us.
 
Last edited:
GySgt said:
Like I stated earlier, the only thing "un-American" is losing. Which is why Vietnam stands out so boldy to us.
Click to expand...

Just like Iraq...there was no reason for us to be in Vietnam in the first place.
The American people were sold a lie about the spread of communism in the same exact way that this administration manipulated 911 and preyed on the fears of the American public based on lies to sell the invasion of Iraq.
 
disneydude said:
Just like Iraq...there was no reason for us to be in Vietnam in the first place.
The American people were sold a lie about the spread of communism in the same exact way that this administration manipulated 911 and preyed on the fears of the American public based on lies to sell the invasion of Iraq.
Click to expand...

I bet the South Koreans are glad we were there to stop the non-existent spread of communism.
 
disneydude said:
Just like Iraq...there was no reason for us to be in Vietnam in the first place.
The American people were sold a lie about the spread of communism in the same exact way that this administration manipulated 911 and preyed on the fears of the American public based on lies to sell the invasion of Iraq.
Click to expand...

Well, unlike Vietnam, Iraq is succeeding and will so beyond our presence because their government is moving forward with a functioning military and security force. If you wish to be accurate, Afghanistan is and always has been the closer comparison to Vietnam. But protestors were to busy seeking more things to protest in regards to Iraq to see Afghainstan more clearly.

But "no reason to be in Iraq in the first place" is an illusion preached by protestors who pretend that containment was to be our ever lasting policy. Being a man in uniform, I grew tired of seeing our troops being treated like a yo-yo because we had to deal with Hussein, but also had to refrain from ripping the band-aid off once and for all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom