Bush's Lying To Start A War Is A War Crime!!!

[jimnyc]

This nutcase supplied the motherload of shit sights for your reading pleasure!

I bought the National Enquirer and Globe earlier so I have no use for these sites.

 

[eric]

Ok now I have looked at these internet sites and come to the conclusion they are for fools, thanks but I will stick with the corporate owned Wall Street Journal, bias and all, at least the facts are correct !!

 

[jon_forward]

Jim and Eric...the paper you qouted for facts just wont do....if they dont have pictures he cant understand!!!!

 

[OCA]

Bush will be elected for another 4 years and will never, I repeat never be convicted of any crime because no crime has been committed. It always cracks me up when they say the thousands, hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi's killed by Bush and never offer any proof that that many were killed and then even if that many are dead to link them to Bush but conveniently skip over the fact that Sadaam, during his tenure is estimated to have slaughtered millions. Give up this silly rant and get back to reality.

 

[leesb]

Originally posted by jon_forward
Let the courts decide??? decide what you fool??? where was YOUR court when saddam murdered his own people? where was YOUR court when he used WMD against Iran? or gassed them? murdered and filled mass graves with innocents??? where was YOUR court then??? you say crimes against humanity???? saddam was and is guilty of such a charge, has been removed from power and Iraq is moving toward being a free and democratic nation.

Saddam did murder his own people. but he did so with weapons sold to him by the U.S. this is well documented and the U.S even called saddam a "bulwark against islamic fundamentalism". you must notice the irony in what you are saying about mass graves when just over 7000 iraqi civillians have been killed by U.S bombing raids. if you have the brains and the morality to do a bit of legal research you will notice that the U.S is in breach of at least 3 articles of the roman statute and of the Geneva convention which in european human rights law is classified as a crime against humanity. you need to ignore the propaganda and search for alternative media sources.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by leesb
Saddam did murder his own people. but he did so with weapons sold to him by the U.S. this is well documented and the U.S even called saddam a "bulwark against islamic fundamentalism". you must notice the irony in what you are saying about mass graves when just over 7000 iraqi civillians have been killed by U.S bombing raids. if you have the brains and the morality to do a bit of legal research you will notice that the U.S is in breach of at least 3 articles of the roman statute and of the Geneva convention which in european human rights law is classified as a crime against humanity. you need to ignore the propaganda and search for alternative media sources.

Can you tell me when the charges are going to be filed? When can we expect the proceedings to start? What country has brought forth these charges? If you have the brains, surely you can supply us with this info. Thanks!

 

[spillmind]

Bush will be elected for another 4 years

we shall see, shant we?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by spillmind


we shall see, shant we?

Yes, the competition is tough. THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA TAKE BACK WASHINGTON - YAAAAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHH!!!!

World wrestling characters aren't going to be running the white house any time soon.

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by OCA
Bush will be elected for another 4 years and will never, I repeat never be convicted of any crime because no crime has been committed. It always cracks me up when they say the thousands, hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi's killed by Bush and never offer any proof that that many were killed and then even if that many are dead to link them to Bush but conveniently skip over the fact that Sadaam, during his tenure is estimated to have slaughtered millions. Give up this silly rant and get back to reality.

You are misinformed.

Saddam bought the bulk of his weapons from Russia, France and China. Unsurprisingly, they were not infavor of removing Saddam from power.

http://www.thedissidentfrogman.com/bureau/000113.html

 

[jon_forward]

Originally posted by wonderwench
You are misinformed.

Saddam bought the bulk of his weapons from Russia, France and China. Unsurprisingly, they were not infavor of removing Saddam from power.

http://www.thedissidentfrogman.com/bureau/000113.html

" SURPRISE...SURPRISE.....SURPRISE......"........Goober...andy griffith show...1966

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by jon_forward
" SURPRISE...SURPRISE.....SURPRISE......"........Goober...andy griffith show...1966

I can hear that voice now!

 

[Bry]

it won't do to derride admitedly laughable sources and then refer us to thedissidentfrogman.com.

That table has made the rounds more than once here, and it has been pointed out more than once that it shows nothing specific about sales of technology for WMDs. What has been demonstrated is that the US was implicated in selling strains of biological agents to iraq, and that the US was involved in helping draw up battle plans in the Iran Iraq war which included the use of such weapons when such use was outlawed by the international community.

On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with Russia and France acting to protect their business interests, a tactic the US has thoroughly embraced. I don't think, however, that they should be raised to the moral pedestal that much of the left has put them on.

The point stands, however, that Saddam was a convenient ally and passed quickly to being a convenient enemy. I think we'd do well to skip the moral arguments in favor of this war. Here, as always, morality had nothing to do with it.

Bry

 

[jon_forward]

and you are a communist yes???

 

[Bry]

er, I don't think we've met.

Shall I reply by asking if you are a fascist?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bry
thedissidentfrogman.com.

I didn't even notice that at first. What a great name for a webpage! LOL

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bry
er, I don't think we've met.

Shall I reply by asking if you are a fascist?

Simmer down, gentlemen!

Jon, Bry was an avid poster here a few months back. He may not have the opinion of the majority, but he's generally polite and extremely well spoken. It's actually a treat to read his posts after being subjected to the likes of Jones for so long.

 

[jon_forward]

one would assume that by sticking up for money driven nations against the liberation of Iraq...freeing the Iraqi people from the tyrant saddam..yes...I would think you area communist..links to back up your claims please...and no I am no facist...not be a long shot...

 

[Bry]

If I were a communist, I wouldn't be "sticking up for money driven nations", now, would I? I think they have as much right as the US to defend their interests, and you will note that I went out of my way to say that they don't have the moral motivations that many on the left ascribe to them.

At the same time, I harbor no illusions about the "liberation" of the people of Iraq being a significant factor in the US decision.

The only argument that holds water is that of the broken UN resolutions, and that is not clear cut, given that the body which presided over those resolutions decided not to endorse the US petitions, and were in favor of continued inspections. Maybe we should count the UN resolutions that Israel is in violation of and talk about why we didn't invade them instead.

Glad to hear you're not a facist, Jon.

 

[jon_forward]

bry...is not 12 years long enough a wait??? The body that governed over the resolutions, The U.N. ..without the USA is just that, the un...un able to do anything. toothless...powerless....... Israel...I dont see Israel using suicide bombers...where is the terrorism ....saddams money goes to the bombers family... and glad to meet you.....:cof:

 

[Bry]

is not 12 years long enough a wait???

That's a fair question. I think that Clinton's handling of Iraq was none too good either. From a moral standpoint, the twelve years of embargo probably took a far greater toll on the people of Iraq than the year since the invasion started. Pressure should have been applied earlier and more consistently. That being said, Bush went from almost no pressure to a full scale invasion in a matter of months. I think that the serious threat of invasion, sponsored by the UN, would have forced Saddam to give the inspectors all the freedom of action they could have possibly wanted. The UN could have saved face, the US could have saved trillions, and the objective of bringing Saddam into compliance could have been accomplished, and if it wasn't, the UN could then have been more effectively persuaded to support an invasion, and of course to shoulder more of the economic burden.

I've seen it bandied about on this message board, but I've never heard the administration talk about Saddam's payments to the families of suicide bombers. I'd be interested in seeing a report on one of those families that presumably benefited from Saddam's money. In any case, Palestenians have enough reasons without Saddam's blood money.

Have you ever read Frantz Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth? It's a brilliant account of the psychology of the resistances. Suicide Bombers do not shock me, nor does the torture employed by Israel, and I don't think their blood feud was what we had in mind when we declared a "war on terror." If anything, giving money to the families of suicide bombers is the lesser of two evils when compared to the aid the US metes out to Israel each year. Either way, you're implicated in a very nasty and labyrinthine conflict in which the concepts of good and bad, right and wrong, have little or no meaning. But that discussion is for another forum.