Sadaam Is Going To Sue

[5stringJeff]

Were the people comparing him to chruchill the same people who told us Saddam had WMD?

In 2002, even the cowardly French thought Saddam had WMDs.

 

[yeula]

Can you people do nothing but whine and insult and call names? Who the heck are you to question my intelligence since I don't preceive any of you to be geniuses.

I think it is pitiful when people reduce the public debate to a cult of personalities. You think public debate is an argument over Bush and clinton or Kerry. for the love of God you make me sick with your childlike thinking. I have no cult heros. I look at the ideas and policies and I have absolutely nothing vested in defending Bill Clinton or anyone else. you are laughable to defend bush as tho any comment critizing him is a personal insult. That only serves to demonstrate that you have no critical thought about issues and are only into dogma and worship of your cult leaders. Good grief. Bush and those of his ilk laugh at you because you support him like he's a saint or something and the fact is his economic policies do nothing but hurt people like you. They laugh at you because you have no sense.

Gop Jeff even if Saddam did have WMD which he didn't, we were lied to by a lying president who should be impeached for his lies, we could have deterred him, we didn't have to invade his two bit country.

Sir Evil evidently you haven't heard but the Democrats also voted to give Bush the power to start a war and John Kerry posed no opposition to Bush whatsoever on this issue which is why I most certainly did not vote for him. The Democrats fixed the nominating process by refusing to give Gore campaign money or support and by leaving Kucinich, the only other person to represent opposition to the war out to swing in the wind. I regret that you see these things only in left or right and support the right without critical thought.

 

[5stringJeff]

Gop Jeff even if Saddam did have WMD which he didn't, we were lied to by a lying president who should be impeached for his lies, we could have deterred him, we didn't have to invade his two bit country.

Yeula, thanks for your diatribe. To rebut:

1. What specific lies did Bush tell, and why are they impeachable? Did Bush lie under oath?
2. What further deterence would have persuaded Saddam to give full disclosure into his WMD programs, since 17 UN resolutions and 12 years of sanctions failed to do so?
3. Do you consider the blatant, repeated violation of the 1991 cease-fire agreement that ended Gulf War I to be a justification for military action against Saddam Hussein?

 

[yeula]

1. What specific lies did Bush tell, and why are they impeachable? Did Bush lie under oath?

Are you suggesting to me that you respect the law? Are you saying we must abide by rule of law? Are you saying we must abide by the Constitution? Thats rich. The Supreme court selected bush, he was never elected to anything but you're pretending that we must abide by the law and your new criteria is "lied under oath". What a hoot. You can steal the White House and all is well and good but by god if you lie under oath about a blow job we'll get you! hhahahahahahahahahaha

Bush lied under oath when he was sworn in and he swore to defend the Constituion of the United States. He broke the constituion when he took the power to wage war which does not belong with the Executive Branch. If lying about a blow job rises to the level of impeachment I would have to say that breaking the constitution does as well.

Bush could also be taken to the International Court in The Hague for war crimes. Attacking another soverign nation that has done nothing to you is a war crime. Preemptive war is a crime. Not to mention its undemocratic.

A judge in Denmark stopped and prohibed the law there from seizing Bush recently when he visited the Netherlands saying that it would have an adverse affect on relations with the US. In other words the US is too powerful militarily for the world to bring Bush and Sharon to justice the way we are bringing Saddam. But they are criminals nevertheless. The only people who will be able to bring them to justice are the American people.

2. What further deterence would have persuaded Saddam to give full disclosure into his WMD programs, since 17 UN resolutions and 12 years of sanctions failed to do so?

Excuse me - Saddam had complied. He had no WMD. duh.

3. Do you consider the blatant, repeated violation of the 1991 cease-fire agreement that ended Gulf War I to be a justification for military action against Saddam Hussein?

No I do not consider that a reason to invade Iraq. The only firing I'm aware of is when the US kept shooting down Iraqi planes while controling 2/3 of Iraqi airspace.

Israel and the US are nations that flagrantly violate and break laws right and left. Might does not make right.

 

[no1tovote4]

Yeula, thanks for your diatribe. To rebut:

1. What specific lies did Bush tell, and why are they impeachable? Did Bush lie under oath?
2. What further deterence would have persuaded Saddam to give full disclosure into his WMD programs, since 17 UN resolutions and 12 years of sanctions failed to do so?
3. Do you consider the blatant, repeated violation of the 1991 cease-fire agreement that ended Gulf War I to be a justification for military action against Saddam Hussein?

Amazingly the Senate and President did. In 1998. In that year the Senate passed and the President signed into US Code the expressed US Policy of Regime Change in Iraq. Then when the next President made it a priority it suddently became illegal?

I am fascinated by the rhetoric from the left that attempts to make such policy illegal when it was passed into US Code in 1998 to work toward just such a goal and it was never repealed. What a silly argument you have attempted to lend your superhuman intelligence to, yeula. It is an attempt to make yourself seem as if you hadn't fallen for the left's propaganda hook, line, and sinker and make anybody else who had a differing opinion seem like kool-aid drinkers. Unfortunately, you have your mouth under the left-wing keg of kool-aid and when you speak it keeps spilling out.

 

[Trinity]

1. What specific lies did Bush tell, and why are they impeachable? Did Bush lie under oath?

Are you suggesting to me that you respect the law? Are you saying we must abide by rule of law? Are you saying we must abide by the Constitution? Thats rich. The Supreme court selected bush, he was never elected to anything but you're pretending that we must abide by the law and your new criteria is "lied under oath". What a hoot. You can steal the White House and all is well and good but by god if you lie under oath about a blow job we'll get you! hhahahahahahahahahaha

Bush lied under oath when he was sworn in and he swore to defend the Constituion of the United States. He broke the constituion when he took the power to wage war which does not belong with the Executive Branch. If lying about a blow job rises to the level of impeachment I would have to say that breaking the constitution does as well.

Bush could also be taken to the International Court in The Hague for war crimes. Attacking another soverign nation that has done nothing to you is a war crime. Preemptive war is a crime. Not to mention its undemocratic.

A judge in Denmark stopped and prohibed the law there from seizing Bush recently when he visited the Netherlands saying that it would have an adverse affect on relations with the US. In other words the US is too powerful militarily for the world to bring Bush and Sharon to justice the way we are bringing Saddam. But they are criminals nevertheless. The only people who will be able to bring them to justice are the American people.

2. What further deterence would have persuaded Saddam to give full disclosure into his WMD programs, since 17 UN resolutions and 12 years of sanctions failed to do so?

Excuse me - Saddam had complied. He had no WMD. duh.

3. Do you consider the blatant, repeated violation of the 1991 cease-fire agreement that ended Gulf War I to be a justification for military action against Saddam Hussein?

No I do not consider that a reason to invade Iraq. The only firing I'm aware of is when the US kept shooting down Iraqi planes while controling 2/3 of Iraqi airspace.

Israel and the US are nations that flagrantly violate and break laws right and left. Might does not make right.

and your plane to Syria leaves when?

 

[yeula]

Policy of regime change does not alter the illegality of pre-emptive war. Bush may be serverely lacking in imagination but that does not mean he can illgeally invade another nation that has done nothing to us. We must impeach all presidents who break the law.

Carrying the analogy of drink to its logical conclusion you don't drink kool aid you drink similac.

 

[GotZoom]

Policy of regime change does not alter the illegality of pre-emptive war. Bush may be serverely lacking in imagination but that does not mean he can illgeally invade another nation that has done nothing to us. We must impeach all presidents who break the law.

Carrying the analogy of drink to its logical conclusion you don't drink kool aid you drink similac.

Wow.

 

[no1tovote4]

Policy of regime change does not alter the illegality of pre-emptive war. Bush may be serverely lacking in imagination but that does not mean he can illgeally invade another nation that has done nothing to us. We must impeach all presidents who break the law.

Carrying the analogy of drink to its logical conclusion you don't drink kool aid you drink similac.

Illegal according to which authority? This is the kool-aid we were talking about, slavishly repeating the whole "illegal" thing with no supporting evidence of any illegality. Just repeating that it is "illegal" doesn't make it so. Which controlling authority has expressed that this was illegal?

This President has not broken US law, nor does, nor should we let, any other legal controlling authority have precedent over the US in our own decision making in our Foreign policy. That was the same policy that led the US to 9/11 to begin with. Foreign policy set by a gaggle of people that worked more toward "stability" than human rights. The same policy of supporting governments of the most heinous type in order to continue such "stability".

To hold only one man liable for the action of the Senate is irredeemably ignorant of who has the actual authority to bring us to war. Without the resolutions passed by the Senate that gave the authority to him to run the war in Iraq, then I would agree with you, but he simply received exactly that.

We may disagree with the whole "preemptive strike" idea, but that does not make it illegal, there is no authority over the US Senate when it comes to Declaring War. In lieu of that they chose to give that authority to the President, but it certainly is legal.

 

[Johnney]

1. What specific lies did Bush tell, and why are they impeachable? Did Bush lie under oath?

Are you suggesting to me that you respect the law? Are you saying we must abide by rule of law? Are you saying we must abide by the Constitution? Thats rich. The Supreme court selected bush, he was never elected to anything but you're pretending that we must abide by the law and your new criteria is "lied under oath". What a hoot. You can steal the White House and all is well and good but by god if you lie under oath about a blow job we'll get you! hhahahahahahahahahaha

old

2. What further deterence would have persuaded Saddam to give full disclosure into his WMD programs, since 17 UN resolutions and 12 years of sanctions failed to do so?

Excuse me - Saddam had complied. He had no WMD. duh.

3. Do you consider the blatant, repeated violation of the 1991 cease-fire agreement that ended Gulf War I to be a justification for military action against Saddam Hussein?

No I do not consider that a reason to invade Iraq. The only firing I'm aware of is when the US kept shooting down Iraqi planes while controling 2/3 of Iraqi airspace.

Israel and the US are nations that flagrantly violate and break laws right and left. Might does not make right.

so how many times must one slap his hand before being punished?

 

[5stringJeff]

1. What specific lies did Bush tell, and why are they impeachable? Did Bush lie under oath?

Are you suggesting to me that you respect the law? Are you saying we must abide by rule of law? Are you saying we must abide by the Constitution? Thats rich. The Supreme court selected bush, he was never elected to anything but you're pretending that we must abide by the law and your new criteria is "lied under oath". What a hoot. You can steal the White House and all is well and good but by god if you lie under oath about a blow job we'll get you! hhahahahahahahahahaha

Bush lied under oath when he was sworn in and he swore to defend the Constituion of the United States. He broke the constituion when he took the power to wage war which does not belong with the Executive Branch. If lying about a blow job rises to the level of impeachment I would have to say that breaking the constitution does as well.

Bush could also be taken to the International Court in The Hague for war crimes. Attacking another soverign nation that has done nothing to you is a war crime. Preemptive war is a crime. Not to mention its undemocratic.

A judge in Denmark stopped and prohibed the law there from seizing Bush recently when he visited the Netherlands saying that it would have an adverse affect on relations with the US. In other words the US is too powerful militarily for the world to bring Bush and Sharon to justice the way we are bringing Saddam. But they are criminals nevertheless. The only people who will be able to bring them to justice are the American people.

First, "selected" vs. elected = Even the NYT is over that story.
Second, where has Bush specifically failed to defend the Constitution?
Third, did you miss the Iraq War Resolution, passed by both houses of Congress, that allowed Bush to fight the Iraq War?
Fourth, invading Iraq was justified, and hardly a war crime, regardless of what the Dutch think.

2. What further deterence would have persuaded Saddam to give full disclosure into his WMD programs, since 17 UN resolutions and 12 years of sanctions failed to do so?

Excuse me - Saddam had complied. He had no WMD. duh.

Yet he still failed to comply with the UN resolutions that mandated that he follow certain inspection guidelines. So again, what other course of action should have been taken to enforce those resolutions?

3. Do you consider the blatant, repeated violation of the 1991 cease-fire agreement that ended Gulf War I to be a justification for military action against Saddam Hussein?

No I do not consider that a reason to invade Iraq. The only firing I'm aware of is when the US kept shooting down Iraqi planes while controling 2/3 of Iraqi airspace.

Israel and the US are nations that flagrantly violate and break laws right and left. Might does not make right.

In several different incidents, Iraqis shot at US and UK planes enforcing the no-fly zones. These zones were established by the UN Security Council, and the 1991 cease fire. Even one such incident would have been a breach of the cease-fire, which is more than adequate justification to restart military operations.

And what the hell does Israel have to do with any of this... unless you are just spouting off some liberal

 

[theim]

It's the Zionist Conspiracy. You see, the people who were invaded by their neighboring countries, pushed them back, and now have people running into their country to blow up busses and machine gun pregnant women and their children are really the "bad guys". This is to trick you, of course. Likewise, Saddam Hussein was a great man. He was the legal ruler of Iraq, which makes him right. Saddam Hussein should never have been removed. All those things you hear about putting people in shredders and iron maidens and torturing children in front of their parents...well..its America's fault. If we really wanted to get terror supports, we should invade Saudi Arabia. Not that we should, because that would totally be all about oil.

 

[manu1959]

I wanted to set the record straight because it is Bush who is comparable to Hitler, not Saddam.

not true and i will use your own quote:

Saddam cannot be compared to Hitler since nothing he has done identifies him with Hitler and his crimes. George Bush can be compared to Hitler in the following way. At Nuremberg the precedent was set that if one nation attacks another soverign nation that has done nothing to it then that is a war crime. That was Hitler's crime and that is Bush's crime.

saddam invaded kuwait unprovoked guilty

 

[yeula]

Now you have admitted that invading another nation unprovoked is a crime. Thats progress. The proper thing to do with Saddam is for the International Community to put him on trial in The Hague.

Now we need to do something about Bush who has committed the same crime. He must be taken to The Hague.

 

[no1tovote4]

Now you have admitted that invading another nation unprovoked is a crime. Thats progress. The proper thing to do with Saddam is for the International Community to put him on trial in The Hague.

Now we need to do something about Bush who has committed the same crime. He must be taken to The Hague.

Hitler's war crimes were not for invading another country, there were for the atrocities committed during the war. Stuff like Dachau, where the Freemasons, Jews, Gays, Gypsies, etc were systematically slaughtered and put into mass graves. Much like the mass graves we are still finding in Iraq....

 

[archangel]

Now you have admitted that invading another nation unprovoked is a crime. Thats progress. The proper thing to do with Saddam is for the International Community to put him on trial in The Hague.

Now we need to do something about Bush who has committed the same crime. He must be taken to The Hague.

What the heck are we part of a one government world..NWO...was I asleep when this occured...geez I had better wake up and grab my trustee musket..
I'm kinda lacking the nice blue uniforms of old...but what the heck I'll make do with something!

 

[5stringJeff]

Now you have admitted that invading another nation unprovoked is a crime. Thats progress. The proper thing to do with Saddam is for the International Community to put him on trial in The Hague.

It would have never happened. First, the crime wasn't invading Kuwait; the crime was the atrocities committed by Saddam to the Iraqi, Kuwait, and Kurdish people. Second, the UN wouldn't have gone along, since France and Russia were getting paid BRIBES for allowing Saddam to skirt the Oil-for-Food restricitons.

Now we need to do something about Bush who has committed the same crime. He must be taken to The Hague.

What people did Bush gas to death?

Where are the mass graves of the people Bush ordered killed?

I'll give you a hint: start looking here.

 

[Trinity]

I'll give you a hint: start looking here.

:rotflmao: Tried to rep ya, but I have to spread it around some more first!

 

[5stringJeff]

:rotflmao: Tried to rep ya, but I have to spread it around some more first!

I think you can rep me now!

 

[Merlin1047]

Policy of regime change does not alter the illegality of pre-emptive war. Bush may be serverely lacking in imagination but that does not mean he can illgeally invade another nation that has done nothing to us. We must impeach all presidents who break the law.

Carrying the analogy of drink to its logical conclusion you don't drink kool aid you drink similac.

Good Lord, where do these people come from? Bush = Hitler, Saddam to be tried in the Hague, Al Gore cheated out of another presidential flop by the Demos. And somehow it has become illegal for us to strike first at our enemies. Say what? Since when?

Is there an oxygen shortage somewhere? These people are obviously deprived.