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

SeanWah · Feb 12, 2004, 10:08 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Deckard59,)
Since it's now obvious to everyone in the United States, although the rest of the world knew before the war started, that there was never W. of Mass Destruction in Iraq, the question remains, what right did the United States have to attack Iraq.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Never? Don't use absolutes, especially when you don't know how dramatically it alters what you're saying.

He did have one weapons at one point, and we know this because he used them -- against Iranians, Kurds, Shiites, Marsh Arabs, and Kuwaitis. He had them, he used them, and now no one can find them. This is serious and not something you should be tossing around lightly, with the kind of political English you're putting on it.

Why do you insist Bush should be punished? Whether or not you agree with the action, you can't be so thickheaded as to realize that no humanitarian good can come out of it eventually. Elsewhere in the world there are REAL tyrants deserving to be dragged before a war crimes tribunal and eventually shot.

This is the kind of political BS that makes me sick and makes other people not want to vote. Nobody has any consistency any more. It's one thing to be isolationist (hell, I am), but stop trying to justify it by saying that MORE good can come from doing so.

The Black Flag · Feb 12, 2004, 10:16 pm

Saddam is an asshole, we all know that, but Bush is a greedy fucking pig, the U.S.A put him there to begin with, so that should automatically tell you something (they're all a bunch of fuck ups), and they want one thing when the go to war: Resources. It's a big fucking game to them, Saddam isn't the worste of'em all. Bush is just as greedy, if not more so, and he uses sheeple's trust, and the medias influence to make it sound like he cries himself to sleep at night thinking about the poor Iraqis.
If you're gonna use the excuse "He killed a bunch of people", well guess what, there are pleeeeeeeennnnnnnnty more countries to go after, so that excuse is stupid. WMD's, well, that turned out to be full of shit, didn't it? And knowing how good the intelligence motherfuckers are SUPPOSE to be, they must be some dumbasses, so this leads me to the conclusion that they were just greedy and used the media to spread misinformation to the masses to make the U.S. seem like God is on our side. Well, I'm christian, and if the God people keep talking about is blessing this country, than I better re-think my religion, because he's just as greedy as the politicians that started this shit.
My point is, all of the motherfuckers leading government are all a bunch of criminals and theives, so fuck this country, fuck that country, and fuck the rest of them, too.

JohnLockeRocks · Feb 13, 2004, 12:38 pm

I can't say I'm a fan of Bush. He says he invaded Iraq because of their "WMD's," but do you see any? Neither do I. He (or is this an opinion of one of his cabal? I forget...) then thinks that, since there weren't any nasty weapons, the liberation of Iraq is justification enough. It WOULD be... excepting one thing: why is it that he supports (or at least tolerates) other odious regimes?

Cuba comes immediately to mind: hell, it's only 90 miles from Florida! Castro has his country locked in a 1950's time-warp, and has this bad habit of killing those against him, those leaving the country for the States... come to think of it, anyone that strikes his fancy. If we were in the business of deposing Regimes of Mass Destruction, why not start there?

And what about China? Remember Tienemen (sp?) Square? I was in grade school when that was going on, but I remember it well, I remember feeling so bad for those Chinese folks who just wanted something better... China's quite a bit worse than Cuba, but we do business with them, we trade and travel and treat with China, unlike Cuba. Are they somehow better than Iraq?

There are other nations just as nasty as Iraq: N. Korea (don't ask, just look it up, it's terrible), Sudan and Mauritania (slavery still a going concern there), Saudi Arabia (praise Allah! We hate women!), etc. So why do we ignore them? Is it because North Korea and Cuba are small, Sudan/Mauritania have no oil?

It seems as though Bush was looking to invade Iraq. I remember when, weeks before the war, tanks and humvees were rolling through town on rail flatcars, going all night and going for days. I think he was looking to invade long before he actually did. Iraq will be better off without Saddam, true, but the lack of WMD's puts Bush in a precarious position. If his excuse for invading Iraq was to "help the people," he should have started near home.

I don't think he can be tried as a war criminal, because he did a good thing in liberating Iraq. But liberating Iraq is a side-effect, though a good one. He hijacked this government to go invade another on shaky pretenses, which is wrong. If it was early in his term I'd say he should be impeached, but because this is an election year, the electoral process will do the job and he'll be booted from office.

Stigmata66 · Feb 13, 2004, 03:42 pm

Geuss what! A president has to be impeached for "High crimes and or misdemeaners". Bush has not committed any of those, although Clinton did lie under oath... Unless liberating a country is a high crime or messing up words once in awhile is a misdemeaner then I don't think he should be impeached. Now please stop waving your "No Blood For Oil" Flag because we don't profit of Iraq's oil, the money IS being given to the Iraqis and if you think otherwise then you're a fucking RETARD. I don't know what idiot came up with the notion that we went into Iraq for their oil but it sickens me that you Liberals will bitch and moan about something whether or not it's right or wrong so long as the other side doesn't win. NO BLOOD FOR OIL! LET IRAQI'S STARVE! WE LOVE SADDAM NOT BUSH! If you cared so god damn much about innocent civilians dying where the fuck were when the Rwanda genocide was happening or when Saddam was still in power and the war on terror wasn't going on? It's not that you didn't care, you jsut chose to ignore that because raising taxes and redistributing wealth is higher up on the left's adgenda than saving millions of lives.

P.S. Saddam took power after President Ahmad Hasan al-Bakr steps aside as chairman of the RCC. The US didn't put him in power...

SeanWah · Feb 13, 2004, 05:00 pm

JohnLockeRocks -- nations have different circumstances and have to be dealt with in different ways. This is the reason many human rights hellholes are still existing today.

An invasion of North Korea, for example, would see millions of deaths as nuclear stockpiles are detonated over Pyongyang. No invasion of Cuba is necessary, since Castro is on his last legs and it'll probably become the 51st state after he dies, anyway. An invasion of China, beyond merely degenerating rapidly into a bloodbath, would also be politically disastrous.

Geopolitics is simply too complex to say that the same solution works in every country. Besides, every human rights campaign has to start somewhere, right? And who knows, maybe we haven't seen the end.

damnrad · Feb 13, 2004, 05:33 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Deckard59,)
Since it's now obvious to everyone in the United States, although the rest of the world knew before the war started, that there was never W. of Mass Destruction in Iraq, the question remains, what right did the United States have to attack Iraq.

True, Iraq didn’t meet all the requests of the Weapons Inspectors, but there was nothing to find. Iraq’s objections and lack of cooperation was somewhat within reason, especially now, when we can clearly see that Bush and the rest of the hawks were just using the United Nations.

Some do see the truth as to what happened, but still many fellow Americans feel they can pat themselves in the back because of all the horrific murders and human rights violations that they’ve uncovered and stopped. They feel that if the US didn’t go, those things would still be continuing today. That point maybe true, but in no way does that give a country the right to attack another country. All though not on the same scale, every country in the world is guilty of human rights violations, even the US.

When anyone looks now, it’s obvious to see that the United States only motive in attacking Iraq was because of Greed, Money and Power.

Without any legitimate reasons, it’s clear that the leader of such an aggressive war mongering country should be up for war crimes.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Even had Saddam had WMDs as Dubya claimed, the U.S. invasion was illegal -- it was up to the UN to act. But the UN knew that Dubya's claims were wrong (that there was no evidence of WMDs at all, and that there was no possibility that Saddam had as much as Dubya claimed), and in fact the UN knew that it had Saddam contained. And why had there been a break in UN inspections in the first place? Because the U.S. had started using the inspection process to spy militarily on Iraq, preparing for an invasion. The facts were simply that Saddam was known to not present a danger to anyone much outside of Iraq; and there was simply no justification for military action beyond enforcing the no-fly zones. Conclusion: Dubya and company are war criminals.

Then, Dubya and the Bushistas had been warned that an invasion would result in great turmoil in Iraq, possibly splitting the country, possibly bringing invasions by neighboring countries, or possibly just leading to a Islamic-fundamentalist government, even dictatorship, in Iraq. Dubya didn't listen; and now Iraq is in danger each of these outcomes. Dubya doesn't know what to do, so wants to dump it all off on the UN, so long as favored American countries get their lucrative contracts and the American military gets some bases. Meanwhile, the entire region is much less secure than it was before. Conclusion: the Bushistas are war criminals.

Dubya and Rummy said the U.S. could invade with fewer troops than the generals wanted and then would be rapidly out. In May, Dubya appeared as a clown in a flight suit, declared the war over, and then said 'bring them on.' They came on, and more U.S. troops have been killed in the nine months since than in the invasion. Conclusion: Dubya and the Busheviks are felons in the U.S. as well as international war criminals.

Dubya claimed that the war wasn't about oil or world dominance, but we knew that it was blood for oil and human sacrifices to the god of world domination as preached by PNAC. Since, the Bushistas have let sweet-heart contracts to favored U.S. firms, keeping out firms of even countries that contributed to Iraqi reconstruction if they didn't participate in the criminal invasion of the country. Moreover, the U.S. military is constructing bases in Iraq that it expects to last for years. Conclusion: Dubya is a greedy, expansionist war criminal.

The Busheviks were warned that an invasion would result in dangers to cultural property in the 'Cradle of Civilization,' that this had been the result of the Gulf War, that this had been U.S. experience in the Balkans, and that provisions should be made to protect cultural property. Instead, U.S. troops were instructed to protect the Iraqi Oil Ministry but nothing else, with the consequences of looting of museums and archeological sites, burning of irreplacable documents in libraries, and trashing of the governmental infrastructure that both a U.S. occupation and an eventual Iraqi government would need. This even included trashing of some of the infrastructure of the oil industry itself. Conclusion: Dubya and company are war criminials guilty of crimes against cultural property.

Let's face it: Dubya should be indicted for crimes against the United States; but he won't be. He certainly should be tried by the World Court. We need a president and Congress that will not stand in the way of such an eventuality.

Stigmata66 · Feb 13, 2004, 05:45 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Instead, U.S. troops were instructed to protect the Iraqi Oil Ministry but nothing else, with the consequences of looting of museums and archeological sites, burning of irreplacable documents in libraries, and trashing of the governmental infrastructure that both a U.S. occupation and an eventual Iraqi government would need. This even included trashing of some of the infrastructure of the oil industry itself. Conclusion: Dubya and company are war criminials guilty of crimes against cultural property.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

You have no proof of those orders or have not presented it and they're nto war crimals...Hitler = War Criminal not Bush. Tell again how liberating a country and paying to rebuild it with our own money are war crimes??????????? The UN is useless...where was your precious UN during the Rwanda Genocide??? Arguing and sitting around with their thumbs up their asses...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh.../slaughter.html

Paavo · Feb 13, 2004, 06:17 pm

Stigmata, instead of rambling on about the sorry tale of Rwanda (which is sorry, no doubt about that!), would you mind replying to the rest of the questions??????????????????????????????????????

(Enough questionmarks for you?)

EDIT: "our precious" UN is your UN too. The USA played a strong role in setting it up and should stand with it. What else do we have than UN? Right now, it's the US, and it's just not cutting it.

Stigmata66 · Feb 13, 2004, 06:47 pm

Rwanda has everything to with the legitimacy of the UN. Click on the link and find out how useless the UN really is.

Paavo · Feb 13, 2004, 06:52 pm

I know about Rwanda and You're right, the UN fucked up majorly in that case. This thread isn't about the UN only though.
I'd love to see you respond to my and damnrad's posts. Unless "LOOK AT RWANDA OMG" is all you can come up with.

Paavo · Feb 13, 2004, 06:54 pm

And to add one question, even though I asked it earlier, just to refresh your memory:

What else is there than the UN?
Sure, we can change its' name, we can reform it (and should!), we can change the people running it... but what else is there?

Stigmata66 · Feb 13, 2004, 07:03 pm

As in world authority...hm the EU lol.

As for "not responding" to any of your questions...I have. Please go back and read some of my posts.

sguy · Feb 13, 2004, 07:45 pm

It is my belief that for President Bush to be tried as a war criminal, he must have done to war for an illegal reason. However, as Iraq was already in a clear breach of UN Resolution 1441 then going to war was legal.

The question of the weapons of mass destruction is not are there WMDs but rather where are the WMDs. David Kay has said that they are probably in Syria. A Syrian reporter told a Dutch newspaper that there are three sites where Iraqi WMDs are stored, and the Syrian government has said that they cannot effectively patrol their border - dissolving responsiblity in case WMDs are found there.

The issue of human rights abuses is one which have been happening for a while. The US glazed over it during the 1980s, they needed a friendly government in the Middle East when most of them were under the influence of the Soviet Union. Indeed, it was more of a working relationship and when Iraq attacked Kuwait then that relationship was finished. After 7 years of weapons inspections, the Iraqis kicked the UN out, so Clinton bombed Iraq and was chastised for it. During this time, even though there were UN inspectors in the country, the torturings continued. Videos were made of the tortures which aired on US television. Coalition soldiers have found killing fields, where thousands of innocent civilians were massacred because of their religious affiliation which Saddam did not agree with. This is but one reason for going to war.

The notion that the US should not go to war because of human rights abuses means that you would not want the US to stop Nazi Germany and Japan during WW2.

Bill Hodges · Feb 13, 2004, 07:54 pm

sguy, you summed it up in simplicity and wholeness. It cannot be stated any clearer or more precise.

jmclaughtx · Feb 14, 2004, 06:05 pm

There were WMD in Iraq at one point in time. It's a proven fact. To say there were NEVER any WMD in Iraq is in and of itself kind of funny. And just for the record, Bush is not a war criminal, neither is Clinton for lobbing cruise missles into Iraq and blowing up the Sudanese pharm facility. The war criminal is Saddam, or is using chems againest Iranian soldiers and your own people not considered criminal now.

dotcoma · Feb 16, 2004, 12:56 pm

If Clinton and Bush were held to the same standards as the Nazis, they would be considered war criminals. Saddam was a minor pup used as a tool of the U.S. for nearly thirty years. He was a CIA asset for much of the late '50s and his weapons were supplied mostly by the U.S. and Britian. The weapons he used against the Iranians were supplied by the U.S.(to quote Henry Kissinger, "I hope they kill each other"....)

ArtyP · Feb 16, 2004, 05:08 pm

50 years ago there were no laws against luring children to their pedophilic doom on the Internet. This was changed to address a recognized NEW threat. But no one ever changed International Law to take into account the changes in technology in the last 50 years!

Until GW Bush came along with his new preventive doctrine. Even Kofi Annan when he addressed the UN agreed that things had to be shaken up
to take into account the new threats from terrorists with their
WMD. On this Bush was merely ahead of the curve.

In the past people used to get locked up for saying that the earth went round the sun etc., now for revolutionizing international law and dragging it kicking and screaming into the new millennium people are SERIOUSLY asking themselves "Should Bush be tried as a war criminal"!

As the Bible says, "A true prophet is never appreciated
in his own time".

All our grandchildren's grandchildren will tell each other stories about the things GW Bush has done, and how he made the world safe for them all to live in.

Stigmata66 · Feb 16, 2004, 05:12 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
If Clinton and Bush were held to the same standards as the Nazis, they would be considered war criminals. Saddam was a minor pup used as a tool of the U.S. for nearly thirty years.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

No! Most of the Nazis faced charges of genocide and or other crimes against humanity. Neither Bush nor Clinton did those things. Last time I checked Saddam took power without the aid of the US.

dotcoma · Feb 16, 2004, 06:03 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (ArtyP,)
All our grandchildren's grandchildren will tell each other stories about the things GW Bush has done, and how he made the world safe for them all to live in.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

That's hysterical. The man is a member of a society dubbed "The Order of Death.(along with his father, grandfather, and John Kerry)" His father was arrested for trading with the Nazis and you insinuate that he may be a prophet. Get a clue...

dotcoma · Feb 16, 2004, 06:04 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Stigmata66,)

No! Most of the Nazis faced charges of genocide and or other crimes against humanity. Neither Bush nor Clinton did those things. Last time I checked Saddam took power without the aid of the US.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Wow, what a concrete argument...

Feb 12, 2004, 10:08 pm	#21 (permalink) (top)
SeanWah Molten Ash Posts: 47	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Deckard59,) Since it's now obvious to everyone in the United States, although the rest of the world knew before the war started, that there was never W. of Mass Destruction in Iraq, the question remains, what right did the United States have to attack Iraq.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Never? Don't use absolutes, especially when you don't know how dramatically it alters what you're saying. He did have one weapons at one point, and we know this because he used them -- against Iranians, Kurds, Shiites, Marsh Arabs, and Kuwaitis. He had them, he used them, and now no one can find them. This is serious and not something you should be tossing around lightly, with the kind of political English you're putting on it. Why do you insist Bush should be punished? Whether or not you agree with the action, you can't be so thickheaded as to realize that no humanitarian good can come out of it eventually. Elsewhere in the world there are REAL tyrants deserving to be dragged before a war crimes tribunal and eventually shot. This is the kind of political BS that makes me sick and makes other people not want to vote. Nobody has any consistency any more. It's one thing to be isolationist (hell, I am), but stop trying to justify it by saying that MORE good can come from doing so.

Feb 12, 2004, 10:16 pm	#22 (permalink) (top)
The Black Flag Molten Ash Location: thomaston, GA Posts: 132	Saddam is an asshole, we all know that, but Bush is a greedy fucking pig, the U.S.A put him there to begin with, so that should automatically tell you something (they're all a bunch of fuck ups), and they want one thing when the go to war: Resources. It's a big fucking game to them, Saddam isn't the worste of'em all. Bush is just as greedy, if not more so, and he uses sheeple's trust, and the medias influence to make it sound like he cries himself to sleep at night thinking about the poor Iraqis. If you're gonna use the excuse "He killed a bunch of people", well guess what, there are pleeeeeeeennnnnnnnty more countries to go after, so that excuse is stupid. WMD's, well, that turned out to be full of shit, didn't it? And knowing how good the intelligence motherfuckers are SUPPOSE to be, they must be some dumbasses, so this leads me to the conclusion that they were just greedy and used the media to spread misinformation to the masses to make the U.S. seem like God is on our side. Well, I'm christian, and if the God people keep talking about is blessing this country, than I better re-think my religion, because he's just as greedy as the politicians that started this shit. My point is, all of the motherfuckers leading government are all a bunch of criminals and theives, so fuck this country, fuck that country, and fuck the rest of them, too. Whenever citizens are seen routinely as enemies of their own government, writers are routinely seen to be the most dangerous enemies. --E.L. Doctorow

Feb 13, 2004, 12:38 pm	#23 (permalink) (top)
JohnLockeRocks Junior Member? Hah! Location: Houston, TX Posts: 54	I can't say I'm a fan of Bush. He says he invaded Iraq because of their "WMD's," but do you see any? Neither do I. He (or is this an opinion of one of his cabal? I forget...) then thinks that, since there weren't any nasty weapons, the liberation of Iraq is justification enough. It WOULD be... excepting one thing: why is it that he supports (or at least tolerates) other odious regimes? Cuba comes immediately to mind: hell, it's only 90 miles from Florida! Castro has his country locked in a 1950's time-warp, and has this bad habit of killing those against him, those leaving the country for the States... come to think of it, anyone that strikes his fancy. If we were in the business of deposing Regimes of Mass Destruction, why not start there? And what about China? Remember Tienemen (sp?) Square? I was in grade school when that was going on, but I remember it well, I remember feeling so bad for those Chinese folks who just wanted something better... China's quite a bit worse than Cuba, but we do business with them, we trade and travel and treat with China, unlike Cuba. Are they somehow better than Iraq? There are other nations just as nasty as Iraq: N. Korea (don't ask, just look it up, it's terrible), Sudan and Mauritania (slavery still a going concern there), Saudi Arabia (praise Allah! We hate women!), etc. So why do we ignore them? Is it because North Korea and Cuba are small, Sudan/Mauritania have no oil? It seems as though Bush was looking to invade Iraq. I remember when, weeks before the war, tanks and humvees were rolling through town on rail flatcars, going all night and going for days. I think he was looking to invade long before he actually did. Iraq will be better off without Saddam, true, but the lack of WMD's puts Bush in a precarious position. If his excuse for invading Iraq was to "help the people," he should have started near home. I don't think he can be tried as a war criminal, because he did a good thing in liberating Iraq. But liberating Iraq is a side-effect, though a good one. He hijacked this government to go invade another on shaky pretenses, which is wrong. If it was early in his term I'd say he should be impeached, but because this is an election year, the electoral process will do the job and he'll be booted from office. "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell." Do you make things better where you live, or do you screw things up and live in the suburbs?

Feb 13, 2004, 03:42 pm	#24 (permalink) (top)
Stigmata66 Molten Ash Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 74	Geuss what! A president has to be impeached for "High crimes and or misdemeaners". Bush has not committed any of those, although Clinton did lie under oath... Unless liberating a country is a high crime or messing up words once in awhile is a misdemeaner then I don't think he should be impeached. Now please stop waving your "No Blood For Oil" Flag because we don't profit of Iraq's oil, the money IS being given to the Iraqis and if you think otherwise then you're a fucking RETARD. I don't know what idiot came up with the notion that we went into Iraq for their oil but it sickens me that you Liberals will bitch and moan about something whether or not it's right or wrong so long as the other side doesn't win. NO BLOOD FOR OIL! LET IRAQI'S STARVE! WE LOVE SADDAM NOT BUSH! If you cared so god damn much about innocent civilians dying where the fuck were when the Rwanda genocide was happening or when Saddam was still in power and the war on terror wasn't going on? It's not that you didn't care, you jsut chose to ignore that because raising taxes and redistributing wealth is higher up on the left's adgenda than saving millions of lives. P.S. Saddam took power after President Ahmad Hasan al-Bakr steps aside as chairman of the RCC. The US didn't put him in power... Hate heals, you should try it some time! Fukin Arch Enemy!

Feb 13, 2004, 05:33 pm	#26 (permalink) (top)
damnrad Igneous Magma Posts: 264	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Deckard59,) Since it's now obvious to everyone in the United States, although the rest of the world knew before the war started, that there was never W. of Mass Destruction in Iraq, the question remains, what right did the United States have to attack Iraq. True, Iraq didn’t meet all the requests of the Weapons Inspectors, but there was nothing to find. Iraq’s objections and lack of cooperation was somewhat within reason, especially now, when we can clearly see that Bush and the rest of the hawks were just using the United Nations. Some do see the truth as to what happened, but still many fellow Americans feel they can pat themselves in the back because of all the horrific murders and human rights violations that they’ve uncovered and stopped. They feel that if the US didn’t go, those things would still be continuing today. That point maybe true, but in no way does that give a country the right to attack another country. All though not on the same scale, every country in the world is guilty of human rights violations, even the US. When anyone looks now, it’s obvious to see that the United States only motive in attacking Iraq was because of Greed, Money and Power. Without any legitimate reasons, it’s clear that the leader of such an aggressive war mongering country should be up for war crimes.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Even had Saddam had WMDs as Dubya claimed, the U.S. invasion was illegal -- it was up to the UN to act. But the UN knew that Dubya's claims were wrong (that there was no evidence of WMDs at all, and that there was no possibility that Saddam had as much as Dubya claimed), and in fact the UN knew that it had Saddam contained. And why had there been a break in UN inspections in the first place? Because the U.S. had started using the inspection process to spy militarily on Iraq, preparing for an invasion. The facts were simply that Saddam was known to not present a danger to anyone much outside of Iraq; and there was simply no justification for military action beyond enforcing the no-fly zones. Conclusion: Dubya and company are war criminals. Then, Dubya and the Bushistas had been warned that an invasion would result in great turmoil in Iraq, possibly splitting the country, possibly bringing invasions by neighboring countries, or possibly just leading to a Islamic-fundamentalist government, even dictatorship, in Iraq. Dubya didn't listen; and now Iraq is in danger each of these outcomes. Dubya doesn't know what to do, so wants to dump it all off on the UN, so long as favored American countries get their lucrative contracts and the American military gets some bases. Meanwhile, the entire region is much less secure than it was before. Conclusion: the Bushistas are war criminals. Dubya and Rummy said the U.S. could invade with fewer troops than the generals wanted and then would be rapidly out. In May, Dubya appeared as a clown in a flight suit, declared the war over, and then said 'bring them on.' They came on, and more U.S. troops have been killed in the nine months since than in the invasion. Conclusion: Dubya and the Busheviks are felons in the U.S. as well as international war criminals. Dubya claimed that the war wasn't about oil or world dominance, but we knew that it was blood for oil and human sacrifices to the god of world domination as preached by PNAC. Since, the Bushistas have let sweet-heart contracts to favored U.S. firms, keeping out firms of even countries that contributed to Iraqi reconstruction if they didn't participate in the criminal invasion of the country. Moreover, the U.S. military is constructing bases in Iraq that it expects to last for years. Conclusion: Dubya is a greedy, expansionist war criminal. The Busheviks were warned that an invasion would result in dangers to cultural property in the 'Cradle of Civilization,' that this had been the result of the Gulf War, that this had been U.S. experience in the Balkans, and that provisions should be made to protect cultural property. Instead, U.S. troops were instructed to protect the Iraqi Oil Ministry but nothing else, with the consequences of looting of museums and archeological sites, burning of irreplacable documents in libraries, and trashing of the governmental infrastructure that both a U.S. occupation and an eventual Iraqi government would need. This even included trashing of some of the infrastructure of the oil industry itself. Conclusion: Dubya and company are war criminials guilty of crimes against cultural property. Let's face it: Dubya should be indicted for crimes against the United States; but he won't be. He certainly should be tried by the World Court. We need a president and Congress that will not stand in the way of such an eventuality.

Feb 13, 2004, 05:00 pm	#25 (permalink) (top)
SeanWah Molten Ash Posts: 47	JohnLockeRocks -- nations have different circumstances and have to be dealt with in different ways. This is the reason many human rights hellholes are still existing today. An invasion of North Korea, for example, would see millions of deaths as nuclear stockpiles are detonated over Pyongyang. No invasion of Cuba is necessary, since Castro is on his last legs and it'll probably become the 51st state after he dies, anyway. An invasion of China, beyond merely degenerating rapidly into a bloodbath, would also be politically disastrous. Geopolitics is simply too complex to say that the same solution works in every country. Besides, every human rights campaign has to start somewhere, right? And who knows, maybe we haven't seen the end.

Feb 13, 2004, 05:45 pm	#27 (permalink) (top)
Stigmata66 Molten Ash Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 74	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Instead, U.S. troops were instructed to protect the Iraqi Oil Ministry but nothing else, with the consequences of looting of museums and archeological sites, burning of irreplacable documents in libraries, and trashing of the governmental infrastructure that both a U.S. occupation and an eventual Iraqi government would need. This even included trashing of some of the infrastructure of the oil industry itself. Conclusion: Dubya and company are war criminials guilty of crimes against cultural property. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You have no proof of those orders or have not presented it and they're nto war crimals...Hitler = War Criminal not Bush. Tell again how liberating a country and paying to rebuild it with our own money are war crimes??????????? The UN is useless...where was your precious UN during the Rwanda Genocide??? Arguing and sitting around with their thumbs up their asses... http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh.../slaughter.html Hate heals, you should try it some time! Fukin Arch Enemy!

Feb 13, 2004, 06:17 pm	#28 (permalink) (top)
Paavo Location: Finland Posts: 712	Stigmata, instead of rambling on about the sorry tale of Rwanda (which is sorry, no doubt about that!), would you mind replying to the rest of the questions?????????????????????????????????????? (Enough questionmarks for you?) EDIT: "our precious" UN is your UN too. The USA played a strong role in setting it up and should stand with it. What else do we have than UN? Right now, it's the US, and it's just not cutting it.

Feb 13, 2004, 06:47 pm	#29 (permalink) (top)
Stigmata66 Molten Ash Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 74	Rwanda has everything to with the legitimacy of the UN. Click on the link and find out how useless the UN really is. Hate heals, you should try it some time! Fukin Arch Enemy!

Feb 13, 2004, 06:52 pm	#30 (permalink) (top)
Paavo Location: Finland Posts: 712	I know about Rwanda and You're right, the UN fucked up majorly in that case. This thread isn't about the UN only though. I'd love to see you respond to my and damnrad's posts. Unless "LOOK AT RWANDA OMG" is all you can come up with.

Feb 13, 2004, 06:54 pm	#31 (permalink) (top)
Paavo Location: Finland Posts: 712	And to add one question, even though I asked it earlier, just to refresh your memory: What else is there than the UN? Sure, we can change its' name, we can reform it (and should!), we can change the people running it... but what else is there?

Feb 13, 2004, 07:03 pm	#32 (permalink) (top)
Stigmata66 Molten Ash Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 74	As in world authority...hm the EU lol. As for "not responding" to any of your questions...I have. Please go back and read some of my posts. Hate heals, you should try it some time! Fukin Arch Enemy!

Feb 13, 2004, 07:45 pm	#33 (permalink) (top)
sguy Sedimentary Rock Posts: 14	It is my belief that for President Bush to be tried as a war criminal, he must have done to war for an illegal reason. However, as Iraq was already in a clear breach of UN Resolution 1441 then going to war was legal. The question of the weapons of mass destruction is not are there WMDs but rather where are the WMDs. David Kay has said that they are probably in Syria. A Syrian reporter told a Dutch newspaper that there are three sites where Iraqi WMDs are stored, and the Syrian government has said that they cannot effectively patrol their border - dissolving responsiblity in case WMDs are found there. The issue of human rights abuses is one which have been happening for a while. The US glazed over it during the 1980s, they needed a friendly government in the Middle East when most of them were under the influence of the Soviet Union. Indeed, it was more of a working relationship and when Iraq attacked Kuwait then that relationship was finished. After 7 years of weapons inspections, the Iraqis kicked the UN out, so Clinton bombed Iraq and was chastised for it. During this time, even though there were UN inspectors in the country, the torturings continued. Videos were made of the tortures which aired on US television. Coalition soldiers have found killing fields, where thousands of innocent civilians were massacred because of their religious affiliation which Saddam did not agree with. This is but one reason for going to war. The notion that the US should not go to war because of human rights abuses means that you would not want the US to stop Nazi Germany and Japan during WW2.

Feb 13, 2004, 07:54 pm	#34 (permalink) (top)
Bill Hodges Sedimentary Rock Location: Oklahoma City, OK/Amarillo, TX Posts: 3	sguy, you summed it up in simplicity and wholeness. It cannot be stated any clearer or more precise. <span style='font-family:Times'><span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'><span style='color:red'>Conservatism requires one to choose to strive for success and act for themselves. Socialism forces all to act without inspiration.</span></span></span>

Feb 14, 2004, 06:05 pm	#35 (permalink) (top)
jmclaughtx Sedimentary Rock Posts: 5	There were WMD in Iraq at one point in time. It's a proven fact. To say there were NEVER any WMD in Iraq is in and of itself kind of funny. And just for the record, Bush is not a war criminal, neither is Clinton for lobbing cruise missles into Iraq and blowing up the Sudanese pharm facility. The war criminal is Saddam, or is using chems againest Iranian soldiers and your own people not considered criminal now.

Feb 16, 2004, 12:56 pm	#36 (permalink) (top)
dotcoma Volcanic Erupter Posts: 3,154	If Clinton and Bush were held to the same standards as the Nazis, they would be considered war criminals. Saddam was a minor pup used as a tool of the U.S. for nearly thirty years. He was a CIA asset for much of the late '50s and his weapons were supplied mostly by the U.S. and Britian. The weapons he used against the Iranians were supplied by the U.S.(to quote Henry Kissinger, "I hope they kill each other"....)

Feb 16, 2004, 05:08 pm	#37 (permalink) (top)
ArtyP Sedimentary Rock Posts: 21	50 years ago there were no laws against luring children to their pedophilic doom on the Internet. This was changed to address a recognized NEW threat. But no one ever changed International Law to take into account the changes in technology in the last 50 years! Until GW Bush came along with his new preventive doctrine. Even Kofi Annan when he addressed the UN agreed that things had to be shaken up to take into account the new threats from terrorists with their WMD. On this Bush was merely ahead of the curve. In the past people used to get locked up for saying that the earth went round the sun etc., now for revolutionizing international law and dragging it kicking and screaming into the new millennium people are SERIOUSLY asking themselves "Should Bush be tried as a war criminal"! As the Bible says, "A true prophet is never appreciated in his own time". All our grandchildren's grandchildren will tell each other stories about the things GW Bush has done, and how he made the world safe for them all to live in. Arty P is Telling it like it is... at http://RedWhiteAndRight.blogspot.com

Feb 16, 2004, 05:12 pm	#38 (permalink) (top)
Stigmata66 Molten Ash Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 74	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by If Clinton and Bush were held to the same standards as the Nazis, they would be considered war criminals. Saddam was a minor pup used as a tool of the U.S. for nearly thirty years.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No! Most of the Nazis faced charges of genocide and or other crimes against humanity. Neither Bush nor Clinton did those things. Last time I checked Saddam took power without the aid of the US. Hate heals, you should try it some time! Fukin Arch Enemy!

Feb 16, 2004, 06:03 pm	#39 (permalink) (top)
dotcoma Volcanic Erupter Posts: 3,154	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (ArtyP,) All our grandchildren's grandchildren will tell each other stories about the things GW Bush has done, and how he made the world safe for them all to live in.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That's hysterical. The man is a member of a society dubbed "The Order of Death.(along with his father, grandfather, and John Kerry)" His father was arrested for trading with the Nazis and you insinuate that he may be a prophet. Get a clue...

Feb 16, 2004, 06:04 pm	#40 (permalink) (top)
dotcoma Volcanic Erupter Posts: 3,154	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Stigmata66,) No! Most of the Nazis faced charges of genocide and or other crimes against humanity. Neither Bush nor Clinton did those things. Last time I checked Saddam took power without the aid of the US.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Wow, what a concrete argument...