Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Impenitent · Jan 29, 2004, 12:26 pm

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1067552/posts

this is an excellent revelation about lies about Iraq...

enjoy

damnrad · Jan 29, 2004, 02:44 pm

Is being wrong about another country's weapons grounds for impeachment? I suggest not.

Is lying about the same topic grounds for impeachment? I suggest not.

Is lying about that topic and using the lies as an excuse to invade that country? I think so. On the other hand, this close to the next election, better to just vote the perpetrator out of office -- and then turn him over to the World Court for prosecution.

Impenitent · Jan 29, 2004, 06:03 pm

you really want to turn clinton over to the world court for bombing iraq?

gbayoo · Jan 29, 2004, 11:30 pm

Well, what is this another blame Clinton supporter? Clinton did not invade Iraq. The Iraq question is about invasion for purposes of war. This question involves putting our troops in harms way. To be making light of it is not reasonable or American. Everything that has happened for the bad during the Bush administration was blamed on Clinton. Anything good that happened in the Clinton administration was given to the Republican Senate. It is always like that with republican/conservatives. If believed, nothing a democrat does is good but everything a republican/conservative does is great.
It is so amazing to hear how Bush inherited his failed economy and deficits. Anyone who knows anything knows that was not the case or close to the case. I have no idea how an average earner in this country could ever support a conservative. What do they do or care about you? I am serious about this. i am amzed at how average Americans listen to Rush and Hannity and let them brainwash them into mental oblivion. In the process, they help down grade the country in relation to the middle income to poor people. I can tell you from experience, this is so true.
Please try to make decisions with an open mind and after really listening and observing just what is going on. I give the death tax as a prime example. I bet you and most have no idea how that even works. It does not have any affect on people with moderate to even decent income. It has no effect on the farms that are always used by Rush for his example. The average farm is not worth $4 million today. Never really was. To be stuck with the death tax, a person had to be worth $2 Mil and a couple would be $4 Mil. Otherwise it does not come into play. Again, this whole idea with conservatives is to keep all the money they can in their pockets. Bush has given away the "farm" and we need to get back what Clinton gave us. The money is gone for generations if there is nothing done to stop this spending nut. He has spent more than any conservative in history. Conservatives are mad as hell at Bush for his liberal spending.

gbayoo

Eulux · Jan 30, 2004, 02:43 am

OK. First off, the article referred to programs for the most part. Second, not all of these statements were made by Clinton, as Bush made a clear statement that they had them in his SOTU...not this one, but the one before. Infact, only two of them were made by Clinton, and they did not imply anything but the truth. Clinton did not like the program, so therefore no grounds for impeachment. Also as gbayoo said, no invasion with a thinly veiled agenda. Statement D referred to a belief that the regime would use the WMD's again...E points to Iraq's failure to end the programs. This was not based on NOT finding evidence, as was the current fracas. Maybe I'll add more later, but eh.

Impenitent · Jan 30, 2004, 02:02 pm

this was about the whining democRATS who are moaning about impeaching bush for lying... "therefore no grounds for impeachment"

damnrad · Jan 30, 2004, 02:31 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
you really want to turn clinton over to the world court for bombing iraq?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

No, Clinton did not invade Iraq. Clinton enforced the no-fly zones. I supported the no-fly zones -- not because of any nonsense about WMDs, but because they provided protection for Shias in the south and Kurds in the north. That, plus the sanctions, likely had much to do with the fact that Saddam was NO THREAT TO THE U.S. by the end of the Clinton Administration.

Dubya lied about WMDs then invaded Iraq. It was not just that he had 'faulty intelligence' about WMDs, as did Clinton; Dubya's administration distorted the intelligence it received in order to claim that Iraq was a threat to the U.S., to use this as an excuse for pre-emptive war, an excuse for invading the country. Clinton, though he had many faults, never went that far -- certainly not over the protests of the rest of the world. Even Colin Powell refused to use the worst of the Bushista distortions when he 'made his case' to the U.N.; Dubya used the whole load of lies in his SOTU last year.

Get it? It's not the lying, it's attacking another country on the basis of those lies. But impeachment isn't the route to go -- it's dumping the Bushistas in November 2004.

damnrad · Jan 30, 2004, 05:47 pm

Here's a good article on the subject: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36854.

Jan 30, 2004, 05:53 pm

Impenitent,

Clinton, Bush I and Bush II in the case of Iraq. That scumbag Reagan should be exposed in court for his antics (I mean not just Nicaragua). It might encourage other nations to believe that there is justice in the world. It might convince certain elements to use diplomacy, not suicide bombers.

Justice for all.

Impenitent · Jan 30, 2004, 07:01 pm

for all?

there are no innocents...

BURN THE PLANET, KILL 'EM ALL...

Zeebadee · Jan 30, 2004, 09:53 pm

What a total crock of sh!t! It's obvious that the intelligence community is going to have to "take one for the team" here. In a speech in Cincinnati on Oct 7, 2002, Bush said, "We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas." He didn't say we had evidence, or intelligence of this, he said "we know". He sent Colin Powell to the UN with claims of "proof" of WMD's in Iraq.

The facilities required to store "thousands of tons" of WMD's would have to be secure, protected, and guarded 24/7 by a significant number of troops to prevent Iraqi dissidents from getting hold of them. These facilities would be easily apparent to overhead collection, and impossible to hide. "Misinterpretation" of satellite imagery would be out of the question. There was no "failure" of intel on this, the truth is that intel had nothing to do with this war. Bush was going to invade no matter what the intelligence community had to say.

"surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons"

So show us those photos. Let's see the "proof".

"Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

Another intel "failure", huh?

"the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons"

Yeah, we were threatened by a government that couldn't even mount the most basic defense of their own country!

Over 500 American troops have now died due to this "intel failure". No problem for Bush, it's just a simple mistake. In the words of our former Liar-in-Chief, "time to move on".

castille · Jan 31, 2004, 11:13 am

Shouldnt we also put Gorbachev and the entire Soviet government (which makes up the present Russian government, most of the Soviet killers are still on high-level places) on trial?

What about 90% of the African governments? We should put the 4000 Rwandan officials on trial for condoning the '94 killings.

What about 75% of Asian officials for corruption?

Or the entire European governments over the age of 70 for trial for war crimes during WW2? (even the British committed war crimes by bombing German POW camps).

Hell, while we're trialling Bush for invading Iraq, how about trialing all the Russians for invading Hungary/Czech/Afghanistan, trialling all the Germans for joining the Nazi Party, trialling all Japanese for invasion of China/Asia, trialling everyone in this entire world....

Zeebadee · Jan 31, 2004, 06:29 pm

So are you suggesting that since we obviously can't try all those people that we try no one? Since everyone can't be held accountable, Bush shouldn't be either?

castille · Jan 31, 2004, 10:02 pm

Well we CAN try all these people.

Europe can easily arrest everyone involved with Nazism. Many are still alive today. (Or hand them to Israel to shoot)

Russia can easily arrest all former Soviet-affiliated officials and try them for genocide, crimes against humanity, multiple breaches of the Geneva treaty, and illegal invasion.

Africa is probably the only place where you can't trial anyone, since most of their war criminals happen to be national leaders.

I'm simply saying that if people want to trial Bush, then they should also trial every other leader in the world who has involvement in any form of crime.

Zeebadee · Feb 1, 2004, 03:34 am

We don't really have any control over what the rest of the world does with their "impeachable offenses", although Bush is trying his best to get that control. Even if no one else is ever charged, I don't think that Bush should get a walk. The war was based on his statements that Iraq was a threat to the world. It's time to back up those claims with some facts, or answer for the lies that were told. I don't think that pointing to the intel community and saying, "They made me do it" is going to be enough.

tusaki · Feb 1, 2004, 01:28 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)
Europe can easily arrest everyone involved with Nazism. Many are still alive today. (Or hand them to Israel to shoot)<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I would say that almost all the people involved with the original war have been put to death or have been jailed. And those who are still alive, because they fled somewhere or have been hidden somewhere; we try to punish them even now. Only extreme age or health problems have stopped people from taking them to court. You can hardly argue that Europe has done nothing to punish them for their sins.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)
Russia can easily arrest all former Soviet-affiliated officials and try them for genocide, crimes against humanity, multiple breaches of the Geneva treaty, and illegal invasion.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Yes they could and should. I'm not claiming I know too much about this situation. But I do know you can hardly claim their situation and posibilities of taking the soviets to court are equal. Tsar Putin and his secret police controlled country is not the easiest place to get your justice. And people there are more bussy with surviving than getting justice.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)
Africa is probably the only place where you can't trial anyone, since most of their war criminals happen to be national leaders.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
And they should, as soon as there is a shift of power.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)
I'm simply saying that if people want to trial Bush, then they should also trial every other leader in the world who has involvement in any form of crime.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Yep, but this is another discussion entirely. Every case should be looked upon seperately, or all the 'war crime criminals' could argue that BEFORE they can trial 'him/her' the world should trial the 'others' first.

I already told you a couple of times that pointing at the faults of others does not make the original 'fault' in any way less 'wrong'.

Eulux · Feb 4, 2004, 08:25 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)
Shouldnt we also put Gorbachev and the entire Soviet government (which makes up the present Russian government, most of the Soviet killers are still on high-level places) on trial?

What about 90% of the African governments? We should put the 4000 Rwandan officials on trial for condoning the '94 killings.

What about 75% of Asian officials for corruption?

Or the entire European governments over the age of 70 for trial for war crimes during WW2? (even the British committed war crimes by bombing German POW camps).

Hell, while we're trialling Bush for invading Iraq, how about trialing all the Russians for invading Hungary/Czech/Afghanistan, trialling all the Germans for joining the Nazi Party, trialling all Japanese for invasion of China/Asia, trialling everyone in this entire world....<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Those aren't our governments. We should hold ours to a higher standard, cause we can afford to.

Jan 29, 2004, 12:26 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1067552/posts this is an excellent revelation about lies about Iraq... enjoy "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Jan 29, 2004, 06:03 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	you really want to turn clinton over to the world court for bombing iraq? "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Jan 30, 2004, 02:43 am	#5 (permalink) (top)
Eulux Molten Ash Location: houston Posts: 27	OK. First off, the article referred to programs for the most part. Second, not all of these statements were made by Clinton, as Bush made a clear statement that they had them in his SOTU...not this one, but the one before. Infact, only two of them were made by Clinton, and they did not imply anything but the truth. Clinton did not like the program, so therefore no grounds for impeachment. Also as gbayoo said, no invasion with a thinly veiled agenda. Statement D referred to a belief that the regime would use the WMD's again...E points to Iraq's failure to end the programs. This was not based on NOT finding evidence, as was the current fracas. Maybe I'll add more later, but eh. "Man acts as though he were the shaper and master of language, while in fact language remains the master of man." -Heidegger www.rorta.com -knowledge is power...

Jan 30, 2004, 02:02 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	this was about the whining democRATS who are moaning about impeaching bush for lying... "therefore no grounds for impeachment" "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Jan 30, 2004, 02:31 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
damnrad Igneous Magma Posts: 264	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) you really want to turn clinton over to the world court for bombing iraq?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No, Clinton did not invade Iraq. Clinton enforced the no-fly zones. I supported the no-fly zones -- not because of any nonsense about WMDs, but because they provided protection for Shias in the south and Kurds in the north. That, plus the sanctions, likely had much to do with the fact that Saddam was NO THREAT TO THE U.S. by the end of the Clinton Administration. Dubya lied about WMDs then invaded Iraq. It was not just that he had 'faulty intelligence' about WMDs, as did Clinton; Dubya's administration distorted the intelligence it received in order to claim that Iraq was a threat to the U.S., to use this as an excuse for pre-emptive war, an excuse for invading the country. Clinton, though he had many faults, never went that far -- certainly not over the protests of the rest of the world. Even Colin Powell refused to use the worst of the Bushista distortions when he 'made his case' to the U.N.; Dubya used the whole load of lies in his SOTU last year. Get it? It's not the lying, it's attacking another country on the basis of those lies. But impeachment isn't the route to go -- it's dumping the Bushistas in November 2004.

Jan 29, 2004, 02:44 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
damnrad Igneous Magma Posts: 264	Is being wrong about another country's weapons grounds for impeachment? I suggest not. Is lying about the same topic grounds for impeachment? I suggest not. Is lying about that topic and using the lies as an excuse to invade that country? I think so. On the other hand, this close to the next election, better to just vote the perpetrator out of office -- and then turn him over to the World Court for prosecution.

Jan 29, 2004, 11:30 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
gbayoo Sedimentary Rock Posts: 2	Well, what is this another blame Clinton supporter? Clinton did not invade Iraq. The Iraq question is about invasion for purposes of war. This question involves putting our troops in harms way. To be making light of it is not reasonable or American. Everything that has happened for the bad during the Bush administration was blamed on Clinton. Anything good that happened in the Clinton administration was given to the Republican Senate. It is always like that with republican/conservatives. If believed, nothing a democrat does is good but everything a republican/conservative does is great. It is so amazing to hear how Bush inherited his failed economy and deficits. Anyone who knows anything knows that was not the case or close to the case. I have no idea how an average earner in this country could ever support a conservative. What do they do or care about you? I am serious about this. i am amzed at how average Americans listen to Rush and Hannity and let them brainwash them into mental oblivion. In the process, they help down grade the country in relation to the middle income to poor people. I can tell you from experience, this is so true. Please try to make decisions with an open mind and after really listening and observing just what is going on. I give the death tax as a prime example. I bet you and most have no idea how that even works. It does not have any affect on people with moderate to even decent income. It has no effect on the farms that are always used by Rush for his example. The average farm is not worth $4 million today. Never really was. To be stuck with the death tax, a person had to be worth $2 Mil and a couple would be $4 Mil. Otherwise it does not come into play. Again, this whole idea with conservatives is to keep all the money they can in their pockets. Bush has given away the "farm" and we need to get back what Clinton gave us. The money is gone for generations if there is nothing done to stop this spending nut. He has spent more than any conservative in history. Conservatives are mad as hell at Bush for his liberal spending. gbayoo

Jan 30, 2004, 05:47 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
damnrad Igneous Magma Posts: 264	Here's a good article on the subject: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36854.

Jan 30, 2004, 05:53 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
PeterWolf Guest Posts: n/a	Impenitent, Clinton, Bush I and Bush II in the case of Iraq. That scumbag Reagan should be exposed in court for his antics (I mean not just Nicaragua). It might encourage other nations to believe that there is justice in the world. It might convince certain elements to use diplomacy, not suicide bombers. Justice for all.

Jan 30, 2004, 07:01 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	for all? there are no innocents... BURN THE PLANET, KILL 'EM ALL... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Jan 30, 2004, 09:53 pm	#11 (permalink) (top)
Zeebadee Volcanic Erupter Posts: 3,836	What a total crock of sh!t! It's obvious that the intelligence community is going to have to "take one for the team" here. In a speech in Cincinnati on Oct 7, 2002, Bush said, "We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas." He didn't say we had evidence, or intelligence of this, he said "we know". He sent Colin Powell to the UN with claims of "proof" of WMD's in Iraq. The facilities required to store "thousands of tons" of WMD's would have to be secure, protected, and guarded 24/7 by a significant number of troops to prevent Iraqi dissidents from getting hold of them. These facilities would be easily apparent to overhead collection, and impossible to hide. "Misinterpretation" of satellite imagery would be out of the question. There was no "failure" of intel on this, the truth is that intel had nothing to do with this war. Bush was going to invade no matter what the intelligence community had to say. "surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons" So show us those photos. Let's see the "proof". "Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States." Another intel "failure", huh? "the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons" Yeah, we were threatened by a government that couldn't even mount the most basic defense of their own country! Over 500 American troops have now died due to this "intel failure". No problem for Bush, it's just a simple mistake. In the words of our former Liar-in-Chief, "time to move on". "Everybody knows that the boat is leaking Everybody knows that the captain lied." - Leonard Cohen

Jan 31, 2004, 11:13 am	#12 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	Shouldnt we also put Gorbachev and the entire Soviet government (which makes up the present Russian government, most of the Soviet killers are still on high-level places) on trial? What about 90% of the African governments? We should put the 4000 Rwandan officials on trial for condoning the '94 killings. What about 75% of Asian officials for corruption? Or the entire European governments over the age of 70 for trial for war crimes during WW2? (even the British committed war crimes by bombing German POW camps). Hell, while we're trialling Bush for invading Iraq, how about trialing all the Russians for invading Hungary/Czech/Afghanistan, trialling all the Germans for joining the Nazi Party, trialling all Japanese for invasion of China/Asia, trialling everyone in this entire world.... Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Jan 31, 2004, 06:29 pm	#13 (permalink) (top)
Zeebadee Volcanic Erupter Posts: 3,836	So are you suggesting that since we obviously can't try all those people that we try no one? Since everyone can't be held accountable, Bush shouldn't be either? "Everybody knows that the boat is leaking Everybody knows that the captain lied." - Leonard Cohen

Jan 31, 2004, 10:02 pm	#14 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	Well we CAN try all these people. Europe can easily arrest everyone involved with Nazism. Many are still alive today. (Or hand them to Israel to shoot) Russia can easily arrest all former Soviet-affiliated officials and try them for genocide, crimes against humanity, multiple breaches of the Geneva treaty, and illegal invasion. Africa is probably the only place where you can't trial anyone, since most of their war criminals happen to be national leaders. I'm simply saying that if people want to trial Bush, then they should also trial every other leader in the world who has involvement in any form of crime. Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Feb 1, 2004, 03:34 am	#15 (permalink) (top)
Zeebadee Volcanic Erupter Posts: 3,836	We don't really have any control over what the rest of the world does with their "impeachable offenses", although Bush is trying his best to get that control. Even if no one else is ever charged, I don't think that Bush should get a walk. The war was based on his statements that Iraq was a threat to the world. It's time to back up those claims with some facts, or answer for the lies that were told. I don't think that pointing to the intel community and saying, "They made me do it" is going to be enough. "Everybody knows that the boat is leaking Everybody knows that the captain lied." - Leonard Cohen

Feb 1, 2004, 01:28 pm	#16 (permalink) (top)
tusaki Playful Location: Groningen, the Netherlands Posts: 805	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,) Europe can easily arrest everyone involved with Nazism. Many are still alive today. (Or hand them to Israel to shoot)<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I would say that almost all the people involved with the original war have been put to death or have been jailed. And those who are still alive, because they fled somewhere or have been hidden somewhere; we try to punish them even now. Only extreme age or health problems have stopped people from taking them to court. You can hardly argue that Europe has done nothing to punish them for their sins. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,) Russia can easily arrest all former Soviet-affiliated officials and try them for genocide, crimes against humanity, multiple breaches of the Geneva treaty, and illegal invasion.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yes they could and should. I'm not claiming I know too much about this situation. But I do know you can hardly claim their situation and posibilities of taking the soviets to court are equal. Tsar Putin and his secret police controlled country is not the easiest place to get your justice. And people there are more bussy with surviving than getting justice. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,) Africa is probably the only place where you can't trial anyone, since most of their war criminals happen to be national leaders.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> And they should, as soon as there is a shift of power. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,) I'm simply saying that if people want to trial Bush, then they should also trial every other leader in the world who has involvement in any form of crime.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yep, but this is another discussion entirely. Every case should be looked upon seperately, or all the 'war crime criminals' could argue that BEFORE they can trial 'him/her' the world should trial the 'others' first. I already told you a couple of times that pointing at the faults of others does not make the original 'fault' in any way less 'wrong'. Hope & Dream

Feb 4, 2004, 08:25 pm	#17 (permalink) (top)
Eulux Molten Ash Location: houston Posts: 27	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,) Shouldnt we also put Gorbachev and the entire Soviet government (which makes up the present Russian government, most of the Soviet killers are still on high-level places) on trial? What about 90% of the African governments? We should put the 4000 Rwandan officials on trial for condoning the '94 killings. What about 75% of Asian officials for corruption? Or the entire European governments over the age of 70 for trial for war crimes during WW2? (even the British committed war crimes by bombing German POW camps). Hell, while we're trialling Bush for invading Iraq, how about trialing all the Russians for invading Hungary/Czech/Afghanistan, trialling all the Germans for joining the Nazi Party, trialling all Japanese for invasion of China/Asia, trialling everyone in this entire world....<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Those aren't our governments. We should hold ours to a higher standard, cause we can afford to. "Man acts as though he were the shaper and master of language, while in fact language remains the master of man." -Heidegger www.rorta.com -knowledge is power...