• 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
I bet the South Koreans are glad we were there to stop the non-existent spread of communism.

They protest in this manner only because we lost. It's a fact of history for us. Success is forgiven. Failure is not. Amazing how our "crimes" in Iraq and Vietnam are protested, but two atomic bombs over civilian cities go unprotested and even defended. The difference is "victory."

It's a shame that "victory" continues to be defined as it used to be, because Iraq's current theme is successful. We labeled the Gulf War as "victory" even though we allowed the dictator to go home to torment his people and publicly deny the conditions of his continued existence all the way up to 2003. I guess that was "victory" to some. After capturing Hussein in 2003, the tribes would commence to massacre each other while protestors blamed the President (while always being careful to "support the troop"). But because no one came to a table to offer a surrender like the old days of war, there is no "victory."
 
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:

Yeah Neo Cons like Hillary, Edwards and all the other dems in the Senate who voted to take Hussein out as well as "Slick Willie" who made it U.S. Policy............:roll::rofl
 
Last edited:
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.

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. How is Afghanistan a better comparision to Vietnam than Iraq?

I would disagree. The American people were sold on the lie that we needed to go to Vietnam to prevent the spread of communism. Turns out....that was a lie and we lost countless lives fighting a war that we should have never been in in the first place.

Iraq was sold to a frightened public by countless numbers of lies and manipulation....as a result countless lives have been lost fighting a war that we should never have been in in the first place.

I don't fault our troops....like you said....they are doing a fantastic job and are doing their best to salvage some positive measures out of a disaster of a foreign policy.

But lets not kid ourselves, Iraq, like Vietnam was a bad mistake based on a flawed and poor foreign policy.
 
I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. How is Afghanistan a better comparision to Vietnam than Iraq?

The problem we had in Vietnam was that we were supporting a corrupt government that was still heavily reliant on American forces to do everything even as late as 1971. The Vietnamese military was pathetic and not capable of assuming roles for its own security. All the while, the Vietnamese government behaved as if we were going to be there forever. The people were stuck with a promise of "democracy" from America while standing between their corrupt government and the brutality of the Viet Cong. Our promise meant nothing to a bunch of people who merely wanted security for which nobody was offering. This was a "quagmire."

Iraq: 5 years after toppling Hussein, the Iraqi government is pulling the tribes together and has a capable security and military force assuming all responsibilities in just about all provinces. Iraq has shown that it wants us out and knows that the quicker they gain independent security the quicker we leave. The Iraqi people have stood in lines just to wear a uniform and to be trained by American forces for their country.

Afghanistan: 8 years after shoving the Tali ban into the mountains, the Afghani government rely heavily upon us. Their military is almost non-existent. They are showing no interest in stepping up other than public rheotirc from behind microphones. They are talking about "talking" to the Tali ban, but only after they have been subdued to a point by western forces so that the Afghani government has the upper hand. This is very near to how the Vietnamese government treated their situation.

Afghanistan was always the "quagmire" protestors were mistakenly attributing to Iraq.


But lets not kid ourselves, Iraq, like Vietnam was a bad mistake based on a flawed and poor foreign policy.

Do you even know what the policy was in regards to Iraq since 1991? It was pathetic. It was one of "containment" no matter how many times our military was stood up and deployed to counter his threats. No matter how many times he broke UN Security Council resolutions and demands, he was spared from military action. The WMD issue was always on the table because Hussein showed no proof of dismantling anything while leaving the world to wonder about his threat. And in the mean time, the internaitonal community was growing weary of "containing" him at all.

The poor foreign policy was that we allowed ourselves to be stuck in this never ending game just to protect a dictator from what should have happened in 1991. Your argument should not be that the prick was toppled, but that our politicians did it without any regard to what was to come after the statue fell. That is where we screwed up.

But going into Iraq was less about a "lie" than it was about simply not knowing what he had. We could have gone ahead and assumed what was probably obvious to most in our intel world. Even Operation Desert Fox revealed to us that there were no targets when it came to some sort of WMD program. Even Clinton later revealed that this operation created a problem; if there were WMD issues within these targets, they were probably destroyed, but we have no proof either way. This left the international community guessing and assuming. But WMD was not the end all be all issue here. We had over a decade of issues that needed resolved.
 
Last edited:
I don't fault our troops....like you said....they are doing a fantastic job and are doing their best to salvage some positive measures out of a disaster of a foreign policy.


Well, here is the problem with this. Haven't you been on that band wagon of accusing Bush of being a "Hitler," or comparing Gitmo to a "Gulag," or flirting with the "genocide" aspect?

When protestors "choose" to protest in this manner they neglect to appreciate what they are actually implying. If "Hitler" is in the White House, then what does this say about his troops? If Bush is guilty of "genocide," what does this say about his troops? If Gitmo is a "Gulag," then what does this say about the troops that run it? I believe Hitler's troops found no safe haven when they tried to defend themselves by stating that they were just "following orders."

There have been no mass slaughtering or engineered mechanism to slaughter Muslims simply because they are Muslims, yet the "Hitler" aspect was and is a favorite amongst protestors. (Funny how the actual engineered slaughterings of Muslims by Muslims gets defended and absolved while protestors seek to blame America for their doing.) Even with religious rights, nourishment, and medical care, Gitmo is compared to a "Gulag."

Yet, the bumper sticker protests and exaggerated accusations go on simply because the protestor lacks the ability to be honest and the intelligence to build a proper case without those exaggerations. If Bush is a "Hitler," then the American troop is a "stormtrooper." And if Bush is to be accused of war crimes, what does this mean about every single troop that fired a rifle? Were we just following orders like good Nazis?
 
Last edited:
If Bush were really HItler, the Bush haters on this board would have been made into lampshades along time ago and the others would be too terrified to spew their BDS nonsense here where anyone who understands computer forensics can find out who they are in a matter of minutes.
 
If Bush were really HItler, the Bush haters on this board would have been made into lampshades along time ago and the others would be too terrified to spew their BDS nonsense here where anyone who understands computer forensics can find out who they are in a matter of minutes.
Don't you mean, "BVD" nonsense?
 
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.






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.
It doesn't matter what you say, as long as you try to justify un-provoked armed aggression around the world (much like the Nazis did in WWII), everything you say to me means about as much as my morning ****!
 
If Bush were really HItler, the Bush haters on this board would have been made into lampshades along time ago and the others would be too terrified to spew their BDS nonsense here where anyone who understands computer forensics can find out who they are in a matter of minutes.

He is not Hitler. I think he is more like Hitler 2.0. Learned and wise from Hitler and not bound to make the same mistakes.
 
He is not Hitler. I think he is more like Hitler 2.0. Learned and wise from Hitler and not bound to make the same mistakes.
I'm about as against Bush as one can legally get, but Bush is not Hitler.
 
Well, here is the problem with this. Haven't you been on that band wagon of accusing Bush of being a "Hitler," or comparing Gitmo to a "Gulag," or flirting with the "genocide" aspect?

When protestors "choose" to protest in this manner they neglect to appreciate what they are actually implying. If "Hitler" is in the White House, then what does this say about his troops? If Bush is guilty of "genocide," what does this say about his troops? If Gitmo is a "Gulag," then what does this say about the troops that run it? I believe Hitler's troops found no safe haven when they tried to defend themselves by stating that they were just "following orders."

There have been no mass slaughtering or engineered mechanism to slaughter Muslims simply because they are Muslims, yet the "Hitler" aspect was and is a favorite amongst protestors. (Funny how the actual engineered slaughterings of Muslims by Muslims gets defended and absolved while protestors seek to blame America for their doing.) Even with religious rights, nourishment, and medical care, Gitmo is compared to a "Gulag."

Yet, the bumper sticker protests and exaggerated accusations go on simply because the protestor lacks the ability to be honest and the intelligence to build a proper case without those exaggerations. If Bush is a "Hitler," then the American troop is a "stormtrooper." And if Bush is to be accused of war crimes, what does this mean about every single troop that fired a rifle? Were we just following orders like good Nazis?


I've never called Bush "Hitler" or made such a reference. As bad a President as Bush was, his level of "evilness" has not risen to the level of Hitler or Genocide.

However, I believe there is ample and abundant evidence that Cheney and Rumsfield had a three decade old neo-con/imperialism agenda of invading Iraq and had tried unsuccessfully to implement their agenda for decades. GWB was simply dumb enough to allow them to fulfill it...and 9/11 became the perfect ploy to manipulate the public into going along.
 
I've never called Bush "Hitler" or made such a reference. As bad a President as Bush was, his level of "evilness" has not risen to the level of Hitler or Genocide.

However, I believe there is ample and abundant evidence that Cheney and Rumsfield had a three decade old neo-con/imperialism agenda of invading Iraq and had tried unsuccessfully to implement their agenda for decades. GWB was simply dumb enough to allow them to fulfill it...and 9/11 became the perfect ploy to manipulate the public into going along.

what about clinton? he wanted "regime change" as well....
 
However, I believe there is ample and abundant evidence that Cheney and Rumsfield had a three decade old neo-con/imperialism agenda of invading Iraq and had tried unsuccessfully to implement their agenda for decades. GWB was simply dumb enough to allow them to fulfill it...and 9/11 became the perfect ploy to manipulate the public into going along.

Well, damn. You believe entirely wrong. Here are the facts......


1996 ~ Cheney and Rumsfeld was of the opinion that the first Bush was right in regards to containment of the dictator vice taking him out. In typical party partisan slavery theme, they bagan criticizing Clinton in 1996 for allowing Hussein to play his games. All of a sudden they changed their minds and began calling for regime change. This is public record.


1997 ~ Clinton, growing tired of the containment game with Hussein, spoke to the Pentagon and stated....."If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

1997 ~ Paul Wolfewitz is a NeoCon. Former Democrat spoiled during the Carter years, saw the future Reagan as that individual that would spread American values and democracy around the globe. He turned Republican. Like all the others, he became disenchanted when Bush decided that leaving the dictator to slaughter and cause trouble in Iraq was better than finishing the job. He (with Zalmay Khalilzad) penned an article in the Washington Post criticizing Clinton for continuing Hussein's game in 1997. It stated that "military action will need to be part, but only a part and not the main part."


1998 ~ Congress passed 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. Perry and Albright both spoke on the matter in front of military officials, the public, and the UN Secuity Council. Operation Desert Fox was to follow.


This had nothing to do with an agenda of decades and was a culmination of decisions made by three American presidents......

Bush - We went from kicking the prick out only to allow him to be a thorn in Iraq for years.

Clinton - To dealing with a policy of containment while deploying troops inside his country to deal with the hunmanitarian crisis and bombing him out every so often (Clinton four times in four years).

Bush - To finally ripping the bandaid off and invading him to do what should have already been done.

If you wish to paint Bush as "dumb enough" then start with Clinton, because he was actively seeking a way to do it as well. Clinton's words in 1998 after Operation Desert Fox...."After the attack we had no way to know how much of the proscribed material had been destroyed, but Iraq's ability to produce and deploy dangerous weapons had plainly beed reduced." A couple years later, Hussien would play his game again and kick out UN security inspectors as if hiding a program. He went on to fly military jets over Jordan and Saudi Arabia in 2002. One way or another it was clear that this prick was never going to stop his games and he had to go. Your criticisms of Bush are partisan and it is absolutely based on falsehoods and rhetorics.

Congress was involved. Politicians from both sides were involved. Other nations were involved. Liberals and Conservatives spent years and years thinking that WMD was a good probablity given the Hussein never complied with UN demands to publicly destroy his programs. Hussein's quest to unilaterally destroy his own while leaving the rest of the region guessing about his power is what got him toppled.
 
Well, damn. You believe entirely wrong. Here are the facts......


....
Please quit trying to confuse folks with facts.
 
Well, damn. You believe entirely wrong. Here are the facts......


1996 ~ Cheney and Rumsfeld was of the opinion ...

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.
 
If you wish to paint Bush as "dumb enough" then start with Clinton...

If only you guys had to donate $1 to the national debt every time you turned an argument back on Clinton. Why, we might be able to balance the budget! :roll:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

O'Neill is the only one who spoke on the record, but Suskind says that someone high up in the administration – Donald Rumsfeld - warned O’Neill not to do this book.

Can you imagine the President of the United States being so detached from important matters concerning this country? To accuse this idiot of being "intellectually lazy" would actually be a compliment. :roll:

Congress was involved. Politicians from both sides were involved. Other nations were involved.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. “There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,’" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001.

Are "we" better off without Hussein? I guess that depends. since he wasn't really a threat to us anyway... and BushCo knew it! But, are we safer from all those new terrorists on the planet, who hate our guts, who weren't there before?

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

Cheney's attitude was also obviously a=not very concerned about America's financial well being with this doosey:
“He says, ‘You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.’ … O'Neill is speechless.”

So, answering this thread's question: AB-SO-LOOT-LEE!!! The whole bunch of them should be behind bars. Maybe we'll hear something on this in 19 days. :mrgreen:
 
Gotta love you attacking the troops day in and day out. Have you no shame?

Ultimately the troops have only the blame of their own personal actions... but remember, it's been established that
a) Soldiers follow orders
b) That war crimes are punished less harshly than insubordination

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

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

That sounds like a personal attack to me. I am not a warhawk, simply stating that defense spending goes back into the economy via increases in production, but hey, if you feel better shooting the messenger go ahead, it's not my fault you hold on to these notions that are provably wrong.

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

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

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

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:

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

Actually given your anti semetic diatribes against jews, wouldn't YOU be the one who supported hitler to the bitter end? :roll:

Now, I'm not exactly sure where the anti-semite calling came up, but to anyone capable of making distinctions, it's not 'jews' as in the regular people that you'll see in your neighbourhood. I have no personal problem with jews, however, like with any other group of people there are good and evil characters alligned with that group.

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

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

Oh, no it's within the spirit of our country and the free market to 'bailout' the institutions that should be pushing the economy into prosperity rather than defrauding it's customers to the point where they become insolvent and must be rescued in order to prevent economic chaos.

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

If Bush were really HItler, the Bush haters on this board would have been made into lampshades along time ago and the others would be too terrified to spew their BDS nonsense here where anyone who understands computer forensics can find out who they are in a matter of minutes.

Here is the distinction between the Bush/clinton dynasties (of which Obama happens to be a continuation... but that's not important) :
Where Hitler was overtly aiming for world domination, the Bush /Clinton dynasty aims for world domination and control through incrementalisation. Taking over so slow that by the time everyone sees what's going on it will be too late to stop.

He is not Hitler. I think he is more like Hitler 2.0. Learned and wise from Hitler and not bound to make the same mistakes.

Exactly, by pushing people gradually into this new way, in much the same way that you walk a cow into the slaughterhouse.

I'm about as against Bush as one can legally get, but Bush is not Hitler.

No, but there is the VERY REAL possibliity that Bush was the next stepping stone in creating THE NEXT Hitler.
 
The Bush administration will never be tried. The international court system is a laughing stock at this point. If Nuremburg laws were actually enforced fairy and objectively, most Western leaders would have gone to the gallows already. No authority has the power to put a U.S. President in front of an international court, aside from the American people and congress.

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

The international courts are only for those who have no power to prevent themselves from being dragged in front of it. Otherwise, state sovereignty and national powers prevent the laws from being enacted. If you want to be above the law, you must have enough power so that you are answerable to no one. The U.S. qualifies.
 
How exactly do you intend to deliver a court summons to Bush? March into the White House with a peacekeeping force? The military would blow them to kingdom come.

He won't be the President. He'll be in Crawford, Texas. And any such action would probably be coordinated thru the State Dept and White house.

If that happened, it would be sort of like when Dorothy killed the wicked witch. But, instead of singing, "The wicked old witch is dead", most of the country will be singing, "The traitorous liar is getting his just desserts"! (I'm still looking for the words to that one. :lol: Maybe I'll write it myself. ;) ) It might even become a national holiday.
 
How exactly do you intend to deliver a court summons to Bush? March into the White House with a peacekeeping force? The military would blow them to kingdom come.
That is the only fitting response to a direct attack on our shores. I would have no problem with U.N. forces getting obliterated if they breach our shores.

The international courts are only for those who have no power to prevent themselves from being dragged in front of it. Otherwise, state sovereignty and national powers prevent the laws from being enacted. If you want to be above the law, you must have enough power so that you are answerable to no one. The U.S. qualifies.
It isn't about that at all, we as the United States have plenty of laws to police ourselves, we do NOT need others to do it for us, we did things our way and legally, enforcement is not necessary internal and their external interference would be an act of war according to our laws.
 
If that happened, it would be sort of like when Dorothy killed the wicked witch. But, instead of singing, "The wicked old witch is dead", most of the country will be singing, "The traitorous liar is getting his just desserts"! (I'm still looking for the words to that one. :lol: Maybe I'll write it myself. ;) ) It might even become a national holiday.
Hey, reality is calling, it wants you to join the party. Most Americans do not thing the president is a traitor, they are displeased with the job he has done, but even more americans are happy with the president than the current congress. Second, there was NO TREASON COMMITTED, read back for the actual constitutional definition that Gobieman provided earlier so that you can drop that silly argument once and for all. Third There were no crimes committed as everything was done through the required channels to go to war, and GunnySgt already provided the history of this war and why it was necessary, so either pay attention this time or drop it, cause this is just getting ridiculous.
 
Ultimately the troops have only the blame of their own personal actions... but remember, it's been established that
a) Soldiers follow orders
b) That war crimes are punished less harshly than insubordination
And that would matter only if they committed war crimes, which most of them have not done since international law doesn't apply to U.S. war powers in this case.

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

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



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

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

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



Really, when it's the bankers that control the power structure (as evidenced by the 'banker bailout' and all related 'circumstance') it doesn't matter if it's the rebublicans or the democrats in power since it's these groups that pull the strings from behind the scenes, and it's with these people that the president of the day is giving his allegiences to.
It's more complex than "banks fail and down the economy", it has more to do with constantly supplementing earnings with goodies, coercion towards risky loans by government on banks, overinflated markets, lack of a hard money standard, overly complex economic theories that don't work replacing the common sense of free-market economics, and an overall "gimme" attitude within our generation.
 
It isn't about that at all, we as the United States have plenty of laws to police ourselves, we do NOT need others to do it for us, we did things our way and legally, enforcement is not necessary internal and their external interference would be an act of war according to our laws.

Just because the U.S. makes a law permitting it to commit an international action, does not mean that that action is necessarily legal on the international playing field. For instance, if Guantanamo Bay actually received a review by a UN Court, it will probably be found to be in violation of international laws. There are plenty of actions committed by the United States which are legally internally but not legal externally.

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

However, that is not what I wish to debate. My main point is that regardless if what the U.S. has done recently is legal or not, international law lacks any real teeth to enforce its ethics upon the U.S. The main powers in the world are generally above the law, and even work together to sidestep the law.
It can't apply, so it's enforceability isn't necessarily an applicable question, however, to play devil's advocate that lack of teeth should let everyone know what I've been saying for years, the U.N. is worthless.
 
Hey, reality is calling, it wants you to join the party. Most Americans do not thing the president is a traitor,

Have you taken a gander at his approval ratings lately? :doh

they are displeased with the job he has done, but even more americans are happy with the president than the current congress.

Hell-LOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW! How long have you been in that cave? :roll: What difference does it make if some people think more of Bush than someone else? What matters is what they think of Bush! That right wing tactic of switching the argument won't hold any water.

Second, there was NO TREASON COMMITTED, read back for the actual constitutional definition that Gobieman provided earlier so that you can drop that silly argument once and for all.

You'll forgive me if I don't take Gobieman's word on this issue. Bush ordered Cheney and Rove to disclose the identity of an undercover CIA agent. No matter your party, that should be important to you. Bush ordered torture to be used against prisoners. Torture that people from other countries were convicted of using.

Third There were no crimes committed as everything was done through the required channels to go to war,

Bush and Cheney lied to the world about what so-called proof they used to validate invading Iraq. He blamed Britain's intelligence doc which has been proven to be based on forged documents. AND there is talk that Cheney is the one behind that forged document. Oh if only they could prove that one! :lol:

and GunnySgt already provided the history of this war and why it was necessary,

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

so either pay attention this time or drop it, cause this is just getting ridiculous.

Not in this life time! :beat

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

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

YouTube - Bush 41 on Traitors
 
Back
Top Bottom