Bush is being hunted

And Clinton gave the order to go after Aidid. How is that Bush's fault?

It's Bush's "fault" for committing to the whole thing in the first place. Seems to me one should tidy up before closing shop.

Too bad world affairs don't always conform to our election cycles.

Bottom line is if you honestly don't believe that Clinton was responsible for an order he gave, then you're simply a partisan hack and there's no help for you.

:lol:

I'm the partisan hack..eh? Yep..I am partisan..but I try to see the world through a clear lens.

Somalia was a mess. Clinton probably thought that if he offed a guy here..and a guy there..that would be the end of it. That wasn't the case. So he got out of dodge before things got messier.

Simple as that. The whole "Clinton was a coward" meme for doing that..is a "hack" view.
 
arresting bush is not an act of war.

and not even the topic.

the act of wars were committed by bush.
The act of war was committed by muslim terrorists, idiot.

o'rly?

that's why bush ordered the iraq invasion?

i thought it was about WMD


AGAIN, Bush couldn't have done SHIT without DEMS voting for the invasion. When HJ RES 114 got to the Senate, where DEMS could have blocked it, 29 of 49 Dems voted FOR the war. So, how could BOOOOSHHHH have "ordered" anything?
 
These folks might want to remember that as a former POTUS, Bush is still protected 24/7 by the United States Secret Service. Somehow I would suggest that is going to make arresting him QUITE DIFFICULT, since Secret Service agents are well armed and quite good at using their weapons.

if Bush is in a foreign country and the country wants to arrest him the Secret service will do nothing. They will calmly let the police in the foreign country take him into custody. what would the Secret service do???? start shooting at switzerlands police,then try and get Bush back to the airport and have the plane take off w/o switzerland stopping them:lol:
 
Last edited:
What part of "He cancelled his trip" didn't you get?

What part of "kidnapping a foreign head of state is an act of war" do you not get?

Small minded and petty - such is the left.

And what is my dog doing in your avatar?

Athena says that she has never met you.

Bush is no longer head of state... he is a former had of state and is now just a civilian,one who can be arrested just like any other person....

I hope GWB like the US since its likely he wont be able to do much traveling outside of it:lol::lol::lol:
 
The act of war was committed by muslim terrorists, idiot.

o'rly?

that's why bush ordered the iraq invasion?

i thought it was about WMD


AGAIN, Bush couldn't have done SHIT without DEMS voting for the invasion. When HJ RES 114 got to the Senate, where DEMS could have blocked it, 29 of 49 Dems voted FOR the war. So, how could BOOOOSHHHH have "ordered" anything?

You still around?

Hey..they created a thread..dedicated to you!:lol:
 
kidnapping does not equal arresting.

Arrest requires the authority of law.

Stupid fuck leftists have no legal authority.

this whole topic concerns torture.

No, it concerns your insane hatred of your political opponents and your deranged belief that you or other mindless fools can exact revenge on them for daring to have politics that differ from those you blindly and stupidly follow.


"Swiss law




Fuck Swiss law. It has no bearing on Americans nor American diplomats.

You not liking it means nothing. Your hatred of Bush as the representation of the opposition to your shameful party means nothing.


from the state department website


CRIMINAL PENALTIES: While you are traveling in Switzerland, you are subject to its laws even if you are a U.S.citizen.



While you are overseas, U.S. laws don’t apply



next time try getting a few facts before opening your mouth
 
Kuwait is an ally, and the UN went in with us and backed the idea. If you want to say fuck our allies, I'm good with that, most are a waste of time. Iraqs act of war was when Saddam claimed he had the weapons, a breach of the peace treaty and therefore an act of war.

I simply pointed out what it stated in wiki. do you have irefutable proof that they do?

Erm..



And um..

Hence, none of the GCC states entered into a written, official defense agreement with the United States. Regional diplomatic maneuvering was their first line of defense; U.S. intervention would be requested only given the worst possible scenario. It says something about the volatility of the area that this situation of thinking the unthinkable happened twice between the early 1980s and early 1990s, with the Iranian war on tankers (during the Iran-Iraq war) and the Iraqi seizure of Kuwait.

THE UNITED STATES AND THE GULF STATES: ALLIANCE IN NEED

hmm

The shit we have to do for thier fucking oil.

I hate the ME, I really really do. Keeping that shithole straight is a full time job all by itself.

....And, we thought creating borders (so it'd be easier, controlling each little-section), back in the '30s, was a good idea......​

"A century ago, the map looked much different. There was no Iraq, no Jordan, no Israel, no Lebanon. The Ottoman Empire, stretching from the Balkans to North Africa, enveloped much of the region. Powerful, industrialized European nations with empires of their own — especially Great Britain — had a keen interest in the Middle East.

At the same time, Britain encouraged Arab revolts against the Ottoman Empire with the promise that victory would lead to a united Arab nation, reaching from the Red Sea to the Persian Gulf. And in November 1917, British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour wrote to the Zionist leader Lord Rothschild promising British government support for "the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish People." (The Zionist movement, which originated in Europe, sought creation of a Jewish state.)

The British government had promised the same country to two nations.

At the war’s end, private interests hopeful of exploiting the region’s oil urged their governments to ignore war-time promises to Arab leaders. A variety of small, divided Arab states would be much easier to maneuver into oil deals than a large, independent Arab republic. The European powers agreed. France assumed control of Syria and Lebanon. Britain took Palestine and Mesopotamia. London granted local control to kings and sheiks favorable to British interests. These arrangements were ratified by the League of Nations; Britain’s Palestinian colony was officially a League "Mandate."

The new states needed boundaries. Five days of wrangling over the borders (at a conference in Baghdad) ended when Sir Percy Cox, British High Commissioner, arbitrarily drew the boundary lines setting off Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

The Ottoman Empire’s three Mesopotamian provinces of Mosul, Baghdad and Basra became a new nation, Iraq. What had been an adjunct of Basra became a separate political entity, Kuwait. Tiny Kuwait obtained 310 miles of coastline, Iraq just 36. Britain offered the Iraqi throne to the Bedouin leader Faysal, Kuwait to the al-Sabah family, Transjordan to the Hashemite leader Hussein and confirmed Ibn Saud as ruler of Saudi Arabia (the world’s only country named after its ruling family).

The opening up of Palestine to Jewish settlements, meanwhile, served imperial strategy by furthering division in the region and by establishing a beachhead for British interests.

The confirmation of oil beneath Iraqi soil led to intense wrangling among imperialist interests, resulting in the 1928 "Red Line Agreement." The Anglo-Persian Oil Co., Royal Dutch/Shell, the French oil company CFP, Standard Oil of New Jersey (Exxon), Mobil, Atlantic Petroleum, Gulf Oil, and Standard Oil of Indiana (Amoco) formed a joint venture called the Near East Development Co. The new company was required to cooperate with the Turkish Petroleum Co. — itself 50 percent-owned by Anglo-Persian. The agreement allowed for oil drilling rights in the old Ottoman Empire — with a red line drawn on the map to indicate the boundaries of the bonanza. The line ran from Turkey through Jordan, Syria and Iraq to the southern tip of Saudi Arabia, excluding Kuwait and Iran.

Thanks to backing from the U.S. government, Exxon and Mobil together gained a guarantee of one-fourth of the oil produced. The British-controlled Iraqi government received just four shillings per ton of oil. Exxon’s profits per barrel between 1934 and 1939 were more than twice the royalty paid to Iraq."

Yeah....you'd think those folks would be a little-more appreciative of all our efforts....

Wankin.gif
 
o'rly?

that's why bush ordered the iraq invasion?

i thought it was about WMD


AGAIN, Bush couldn't have done SHIT without DEMS voting for the invasion. When HJ RES 114 got to the Senate, where DEMS could have blocked it, 29 of 49 Dems voted FOR the war. So, how could BOOOOSHHHH have "ordered" anything?



Blah blah blah


AGAIN, Bush couldn't have done SHIT without DEMS voting for the invasion. When HJ RES 114 got to the Senate, where DEMS could have blocked it, 29 of 49 Dems voted FOR the war. So, how could BOOOOSHHHH have "ordered" anything?
 
AGAIN, Bush couldn't have done SHIT without DEMS voting for the invasion. When HJ RES 114 got to the Senate, where DEMS could have blocked it, 29 of 49 Dems voted FOR the war. So, how could BOOOOSHHHH have "ordered" anything?



Blah blah blah


AGAIN, Bush couldn't have done SHIT without DEMS voting for the invasion. When HJ RES 114 got to the Senate, where DEMS could have blocked it, 29 of 49 Dems voted FOR the war. So, how could BOOOOSHHHH have "ordered" anything?

History is not your strong point.

When a President wants to use force..congress has never denied it.
 
It's Bush's "fault" for committing to the whole thing in the first place. Seems to me one should tidy up before closing shop.

Too bad world affairs don't always conform to our election cycles.

Bottom line is if you honestly don't believe that Clinton was responsible for an order he gave, then you're simply a partisan hack and there's no help for you.

:lol:

I'm the partisan hack..eh? Yep..I am partisan..but I try to see the world through a clear lens.

Somalia was a mess. Clinton probably thought that if he offed a guy here..and a guy there..that would be the end of it. That wasn't the case. So he got out of dodge before things got messier.

Simple as that. The whole "Clinton was a coward" meme for doing that..is a "hack" view.

Claiming it's Bush's fault is hardly seeing "the world through a clear lens". It's simple hackery.
 
Lame

It's been tried. If anyone had anything on him it would have been done by now. This is little more than grandstanding.

Where's the demands for Clintons head? He got Americans killed in Somalia for nothing, but he gets a pass, even though peace keepers were killed while they were negotiating.

I wonder is the people that cheer this would think differently if he decided not to waterboard and they had to bury thier family?

fyi; If they go after Bush, they MUST also go after Pelosi. Elsewise is just a republican whitch hunt. (it is, but at least they might have to admit it)
It took years to get Pinochet.
 
What Bush are we talking about? B/c neither started a war. both responded to acts of war, but neither started one.

oh, and

Check wiki, it states there's no oil reserves in Somalia.

o tempora, o mores.

ok, bush did not start a war.

it was an invasion.

started by saddam, by not providing the WMD he did not have.

and, did you know, that evil saddam did TORTURE his victims!!

fuck off with your "neither started a war" dishonesty.

he's a WAR president after all.

Uhm no. You fuck off with your lies.

Here's an education for you. We had a treaty with saddam that included he was not to have any wmd's. He claimed he had them, that's a breach of the treaty and an act of war.

shame you don't give a fuck about all the facts.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJO_PpvKPe8"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJO_PpvKPe8[/ame]

His final sentencence in that clip was quite prophetic and ironic don't you think?
 
Too bad world affairs don't always conform to our election cycles.

Bottom line is if you honestly don't believe that Clinton was responsible for an order he gave, then you're simply a partisan hack and there's no help for you.

:lol:

I'm the partisan hack..eh? Yep..I am partisan..but I try to see the world through a clear lens.

Somalia was a mess. Clinton probably thought that if he offed a guy here..and a guy there..that would be the end of it. That wasn't the case. So he got out of dodge before things got messier.

Simple as that. The whole "Clinton was a coward" meme for doing that..is a "hack" view.

Claiming it's Bush's fault is hardly seeing "the world through a clear lens". It's simple hackery.

Ah..so we should all forget that President George HW Bush ordered troops into Somalia. That wouldn't be partisan hackery. Then..he left the mess to be taken care of..by the next administration..and that wouldn't be partisan hackery.

The blame entirely falls on Clinton..because believing that..isn't partisan hackery.

Gotcha.:lol:
 
:lol:

I'm the partisan hack..eh? Yep..I am partisan..but I try to see the world through a clear lens.

Somalia was a mess. Clinton probably thought that if he offed a guy here..and a guy there..that would be the end of it. That wasn't the case. So he got out of dodge before things got messier.

Simple as that. The whole "Clinton was a coward" meme for doing that..is a "hack" view.

Claiming it's Bush's fault is hardly seeing "the world through a clear lens". It's simple hackery.

Ah..so we should all forget that President George HW Bush ordered troops into Somalia. That wouldn't be partisan hackery. Then..he left the mess to be taken care of..by the next administration..and that wouldn't be partisan hackery.

The blame entirely falls on Clinton..because believing that..isn't partisan hackery.

Gotcha.:lol:

Holding Clinton responsible for a decision Clinton made is responsible. Blaming GHW Bush for a decision Clinton made is hackery. Bush decided to put troops in Somalia. Clinton decided how his own administration would use them.
 
AGAIN, Bush couldn't have done SHIT without DEMS voting for the invasion. When HJ RES 114 got to the Senate, where DEMS could have blocked it, 29 of 49 Dems voted FOR the war. So, how could BOOOOSHHHH have "ordered" anything?



Blah blah blah


AGAIN, Bush couldn't have done SHIT without DEMS voting for the invasion. When HJ RES 114 got to the Senate, where DEMS could have blocked it, 29 of 49 Dems voted FOR the war. So, how could BOOOOSHHHH have "ordered" anything?


BUSTED!!!

:eusa_whistle:
 
Last edited:
The act of war was committed by muslim terrorists, idiot.

o'rly?

that's why bush ordered the iraq invasion?

i thought it was about WMD


AGAIN, Bush couldn't have done SHIT without DEMS voting for the invasion. When HJ RES 114 got to the Senate, where DEMS could have blocked it, 29 of 49 Dems voted FOR the war. So, how could BOOOOSHHHH have "ordered" anything?

More Democrats in the two bodies voted against the war than for it - and the Dems had no control of either house, even if they voted en bloc.
 
Lame

It's been tried. If anyone had anything on him it would have been done by now. This is little more than grandstanding.

Where's the demands for Clintons head? He got Americans killed in Somalia for nothing, but he gets a pass, even though peace keepers were killed while they were negotiating.

I wonder is the people that cheer this would think differently if he decided not to waterboard and they had to bury thier family?

fyi; If they go after Bush, they MUST also go after Pelosi. Elsewise is just a republican whitch hunt. (it is, but at least they might have to admit it)

Clinton didn't start Somalia.

That would be Bush's Daddy.

Who cares who started it?

Clinton changed the mission, totally away from what Bush had laid out with the UN. I mean, completely.

Who started it is irrelevant. Somalia is an albatross across Clinton's neck. No one elses.
 

Forum List

Back
Top