Spanish government considers legal actions against US officials

[DiveCon]

WAIT, lemme guess...

Ahahaha, look at this guy. Once again, he's his own worst enemy.

Props on calling out his blatant idiocy.

fuck off asshole

yeah, fuck off asshole
thats what you get when you are a fucking ignorant asshole
dont like it, dont be one

 

[Agnapostate]

I believe the US Courts should retaliate and bring charges of harrassment and denial of human rights on those lawyers, any judges and any prosecutors that bring the charges to court.

We should threaten Spain with legal retaliation and threaten to seize assets of the Spanish Government and expel their Diplomats.

Yeah yeah! Those damn European socialists are imposing their Marxist Muslim ACLU atheism on the leader of the free world, democracy, and free markets again, damn it! Who the hell are Mossadeq, Arbenz, and Allende anyway?!

 

[Peejay]

WAIT, lemme guess...

fuck off asshole

yeah, fuck off asshole
thats what you get when you are a fucking ignorant asshole
dont like it, dont be one

Feel free to provide a single word of support for anything you have said here.

You got nothing.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

WAIT, lemme guess...

yeah, fuck off asshole
thats what you get when you are a fucking ignorant asshole
dont like it, dont be one

Feel free to provide a single word of support for anything you have said here.

You got nothing.

Nah, man, we can't expect anything from him. He can barely understand sentences and has some difficulty reproducing them- nevermind PARAGRAPHS or something as daunting and monolithic as the internet. Sometimes there's no alternative but to let complete morons be complete morons like our friend DiveCon here. An epic failure poster. = \ It's very sad, but what can you do against something as insane and well thought-out as "fuck off asshole"!? *Flinches* Whoa, he really showed me the fallacy in my posts with that one!! Now I realize my mistakes!

 

[Epsilon Delta]

fuck off asshole

.

 

[Yukon]

Bush Junior is a war criminal guilty of crimes against humanity. He should be executed in Texas.

 

[thanatos144]

Bush Junior is a war criminal guilty of crimes against humanity. He should be executed in Texas.

should Obama follow for his crimes on bombing those poor defenseless terrorists? You are such a dumbass.

 

[Yukon]

I say again: Bush Junior is a war criminal guilty of crimes against humanity. He should be executed in Texas.

 

[thanatos144]

I say again: Bush Junior is a war criminal guilty of crimes against humanity. He should be executed in Texas.

and I say again you are a dumb ass. Why dont you go force a woman in to having an abortion and leave the rest of us thinking people alone.

 

[Yukon]

Abortion is the only thing you can think of ?

 

[Tech_Esq]

Bush Junior is a war criminal guilty of crimes against humanity. He should be executed in Texas.

Dumbass troll. Have you ever said anything even mildly intelligent?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Yukon can't say anything intelligent.......

The jizz of the choir boys has clogged his brain.

 

[mightypeon]

Iraq had abso
lutely NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11!

The only reason that we went into Iraq was for oil.

Let's assume you're right. Ok...we won. Where's the fucking oil?

Who said that you won?
I mean yes, you won the conventional war (truth to be told, Bush 2 would have been replaced with a mentally retarded Chimpanzee, the US would have won he conventional war anyway, there is no way the US could possibly loose a conventional confrontation with an embargoed 3rd world country), but a lot of things went wrong with the buisness of installing the appropriate vasalls or the process of turning Iraq into a nice satellite.
I see the point of invading Iraq from a Machiaviellian PoV. Irak was secular (so it should be easier to hold on for a non Muslim occupier), fairly educated (more exploitable human ressources), in a strategic position (always nice, means more competition though), rich in resources and split amog ethnic lines (should make divide and conquer much more feasable).
From a power point of view, Iraq can be seen as one of the better place to invade (one just has to fake a Casus Belli, whoops FAIL), what amazed me was the amount of trouble it made/makes.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Iraq had abso
lutely NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11!

The only reason that we went into Iraq was for oil.

Let's assume you're right. Ok...we won. Where's the fucking oil?

Who said that you won?
I mean yes, you won the conventional war (truth to be told, Bush 2 would have been replaced with a mentally retarded Chimpanzee, the US would have won he conventional war anyway, there is no way the US could possibly loose a conventional confrontation with an embargoed 3rd world country), but a lot of things went wrong with the buisness of installing the appropriate vasalls or the process of turning Iraq into a nice satellite.
I see the point of invading Iraq from a Machiaviellian PoV. Irak was secular (so it should be easier to hold on for a non Muslim occupier), fairly educated (more exploitable human ressources), in a strategic position (always nice, means more competition though), rich in resources and split amog ethnic lines (should make divide and conquer much more feasable).
From a power point of view, Iraq can be seen as one of the better place to invade (one just has to fake a Casus Belli, whoops FAIL), what amazed me was the amount of trouble it made/makes.

I think any objective observer would count it as a win now. It was actually a win before the civil war etc. If our sole objective was simply to defeat a potential enemy, we should have left when Bush was on the "Mission Accomplished" carrier. Granted, we would have left a broken country, but technically it would have been a victory.

Having said that, our objectives went beyond simply removing Saddam and his capacity to make war. Especially for the neo-cons, the ultimate wet dream of a plan was that they flip Iraq to a going concern as a democratic country to be a "shining beacon on a hill" in the muslim world which would, by its very presence, foment home grown revolution or at least democratic reform in the region by the Iraqis showing how great it is living in a democracy. (Ok, I think they were smoking some really good weed when they thought that up, but.... I think that was their ultimate plan).

I agree with your "Real Politick" analysis of why we did it. That's pretty much what I've been saying since the beginning of this adventure. I NEVER EVER bought the WMD cassus belli. I don't want to be too harsh on those that did, but really you'd have to be dumb as a post, not so much to think that he did have them (since he used WMD on his own people), but that they posed any kind of a significant threat to the US.

We attacked them because of the reasons you state and because the coalition from the first Gulf War was about to break down completely. Aside from the corruption in the Oil for Food program which has been well documented, the French were desperately trying to get contracts back in Iraq, if I'm not mistaken Germany and Russia were also trying to get various contracts. In any case, the members of the coalition were putting pressure on the US and Britain to end the sanctions. Basically, the US had to shit or get off the pot. They chose to shit. Revisionists who now claim that there was an option to just keep the sanctions up are not dealing in historical fact. That was no longer an option by 2003.

 

[mightypeon]

Let's assume you're right. Ok...we won. Where's the fucking oil?

Who said that you won?
I mean yes, you won the conventional war (truth to be told, Bush 2 would have been replaced with a mentally retarded Chimpanzee, the US would have won he conventional war anyway, there is no way the US could possibly loose a conventional confrontation with an embargoed 3rd world country), but a lot of things went wrong with the buisness of installing the appropriate vasalls or the process of turning Iraq into a nice satellite.
I see the point of invading Iraq from a Machiaviellian PoV. Irak was secular (so it should be easier to hold on for a non Muslim occupier), fairly educated (more exploitable human ressources), in a strategic position (always nice, means more competition though), rich in resources and split amog ethnic lines (should make divide and conquer much more feasable).
From a power point of view, Iraq can be seen as one of the better place to invade (one just has to fake a Casus Belli, whoops FAIL), what amazed me was the amount of trouble it made/makes.

I think any objective observer would count it as a win now. It was actually a win before the civil war etc. If our sole objective was simply to defeat a potential enemy, we should have left when Bush was on the "Mission Accomplished" carrier. Granted, we would have left a broken country, but technically it would have been a victory.

Having said that, our objectives went beyond simply removing Saddam and his capacity to make war. Especially for the neo-cons, the ultimate wet dream of a plan was that they flip Iraq to a going concern as a democratic country to be a "shining beacon on a hill" in the muslim world which would, by its very presence, foment home grown revolution or at least democratic reform in the region by the Iraqis showing how great it is living in a democracy. (Ok, I think they were smoking some really good weed when they thought that up, but.... I think that was their ultimate plan).

I agree with your "Real Politick" analysis of why we did it. That's pretty much what I've been saying since the beginning of this adventure. I NEVER EVER bought the WMD cassus belli. I don't want to be too harsh on those that did, but really you'd have to be dumb as a post, not so much to think that he did have them (since he used WMD on his own people), but that they posed any kind of a significant threat to the US.

We attacked them because of the reasons you state and because the coalition from the first Gulf War was about to break down completely. Aside from the corruption in the Oil for Food program which has been well documented, the French were desperately trying to get contracts back in Iraq, if I'm not mistaken Germany and Russia were also trying to get various contracts. In any case, the members of the coalition were putting pressure on the US and Britain to end the sanctions. Basically, the US had to shit or get off the pot. They chose to shit. Revisionists who now claim that there was an option to just keep the sanctions up are not dealing in historical fact. That was no longer an option by 2003.

Trying to get back contracts? Of course, precisly when did "moral considerations" ever stopped major powers like Russia or medium powers like Germany and France from doing buisness.
From Russia, Sadam could have been a potential asset against the more or less US satellites of Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia too, and having Iraq as a satellite would be an immense help to reestablish Russian control of the Caucasus.

Mind you, if the US goal would have been a bit more realistic, like "set up another random dictator with some token democratic legitimation as a puppet, hope that you wont have to invade again soon, make funny faces at Iran, than the whole thing may have worked.

The only examples were "forced democratisations" worked were Germany and Japan, and both had scores of differences.
To name some:
-The former gouverment systems of Germany and Japan were "univerisally reviled" after WW2. Iraqs Mudschahedin are at least morally supported by a significant part of the world.
-In the bipolar world following WW2, there was the common threat of the Soviet Union, today, the only threat potentially big enough would be the USA itself.
-At least Germany had a democratic tradition, several ancient Germanic tribes used democratic decision making processes, and German city states were republics nominally subservient to the Emperor. Bismarks Prussia also had democratic elements, as did the German Empire pre WW1, some individual counties like Baden also had significant democratic elements in their constitution.

I am no expert on Iraqi history, but I do know that no Empire in the area ever had something like "Free cities", and at least the Ottomans were, although quite tolerant in religious terms, hugely adversed to democratic ideas.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Who said that you won?
I mean yes, you won the conventional war (truth to be told, Bush 2 would have been replaced with a mentally retarded Chimpanzee, the US would have won he conventional war anyway, there is no way the US could possibly loose a conventional confrontation with an embargoed 3rd world country), but a lot of things went wrong with the buisness of installing the appropriate vasalls or the process of turning Iraq into a nice satellite.
I see the point of invading Iraq from a Machiaviellian PoV. Irak was secular (so it should be easier to hold on for a non Muslim occupier), fairly educated (more exploitable human ressources), in a strategic position (always nice, means more competition though), rich in resources and split amog ethnic lines (should make divide and conquer much more feasable).
From a power point of view, Iraq can be seen as one of the better place to invade (one just has to fake a Casus Belli, whoops FAIL), what amazed me was the amount of trouble it made/makes.

I think any objective observer would count it as a win now. It was actually a win before the civil war etc. If our sole objective was simply to defeat a potential enemy, we should have left when Bush was on the "Mission Accomplished" carrier. Granted, we would have left a broken country, but technically it would have been a victory.

Having said that, our objectives went beyond simply removing Saddam and his capacity to make war. Especially for the neo-cons, the ultimate wet dream of a plan was that they flip Iraq to a going concern as a democratic country to be a "shining beacon on a hill" in the muslim world which would, by its very presence, foment home grown revolution or at least democratic reform in the region by the Iraqis showing how great it is living in a democracy. (Ok, I think they were smoking some really good weed when they thought that up, but.... I think that was their ultimate plan).

I agree with your "Real Politick" analysis of why we did it. That's pretty much what I've been saying since the beginning of this adventure. I NEVER EVER bought the WMD cassus belli. I don't want to be too harsh on those that did, but really you'd have to be dumb as a post, not so much to think that he did have them (since he used WMD on his own people), but that they posed any kind of a significant threat to the US.

We attacked them because of the reasons you state and because the coalition from the first Gulf War was about to break down completely. Aside from the corruption in the Oil for Food program which has been well documented, the French were desperately trying to get contracts back in Iraq, if I'm not mistaken Germany and Russia were also trying to get various contracts. In any case, the members of the coalition were putting pressure on the US and Britain to end the sanctions. Basically, the US had to shit or get off the pot. They chose to shit. Revisionists who now claim that there was an option to just keep the sanctions up are not dealing in historical fact. That was no longer an option by 2003.

Trying to get back contracts? Of course, precisly when did "moral considerations" ever stopped major powers like Russia or medium powers like Germany and France from doing buisness.
From Russia, Sadam could have been a potential asset against the more or less US satellites of Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia too, and having Iraq as a satellite would be an immense help to reestablish Russian control of the Caucasus.

Mind you, if the US goal would have been a bit more realistic, like "set up another random dictator with some token democratic legitimation as a puppet, hope that you wont have to invade again soon, make funny faces at Iran, than the whole thing may have worked.

The only examples were "forced democratisations" worked were Germany and Japan, and both had scores of differences.
To name some:
-The former gouverment systems of Germany and Japan were "univerisally reviled" after WW2. Iraqs Mudschahedin are at least morally supported by a significant part of the world.
-In the bipolar world following WW2, there was the common threat of the Soviet Union, today, the only threat potentially big enough would be the USA itself.
-At least Germany had a democratic tradition, several ancient Germanic tribes used democratic decision making processes, and German city states were republics nominally subservient to the Emperor. Bismarks Prussia also had democratic elements, as did the German Empire pre WW1, some individual counties like Baden also had significant democratic elements in their constitution.

I am no expert on Iraqi history, but I do know that no Empire in the area ever had something like "Free cities", and at least the Ottomans were, although quite tolerant in religious terms, hugely adversed to democratic ideas.

Moral considerations? Never (which was part of the point) It was more political considerations that stopped them from "overtly" flouting the sanctions even though it was patently obvious to everyone that by 2003 underground trade was occurring.

Oh, I agree, there were other countries, not the least of which Russia, that had geo-political interests in Iraq. And, the US didn't just step on some toes, but stomped on a good many toes by occupying Iraq. A good measure of why the US had such trouble there is just because of that reason. From a US prospective, pouting "also rans" we going to make the US suffer the results of its adventurism alone. (And see how we like it). From a more political prospective, it suited the rest of the world, especially in the beginning France and China, but later Russia to have the US pinned down and over-stretched fully engaged in two long-term and seemingly interminable wars. It's hard for the "remaining super power" to act too tough when they are essentially, militarily paralyzed. (As we saw with the Georgia affair.)

I would argue that Saddam's Ba'athist government was also reviled. Where it exists in Syria it is still reviled. Certainly, it does not compare to the level of the end years of the Nazi regime, but it does bare some the earmarks of the earlier Nazi era. I won't dispute you on your own country's history. I do wonder if perhaps in political-economic terms you overstate the importance of democratic traditions and institutions in pre-Wiemar Republic Germany.

In Japan, it seems clear, there were no democratic traditions. Further, it seems that Middle-Eastern culture has more in common with far-eastern culture than western culture. Especially in the fighting tactics and willingness to partake in suicidal missions. (ie Human wave attacks so common in the Iran-Iraq war, as well as the by the Japanese in WW II and the Chinese in the Korean war and of course Kamikaze attack of the Japanese and suicide bombers currently).

Leaving that discussion aside for a moment, I don't think it would be correct to say that some peoples of the Earth don't desire/deserve to live in a free society. At some point, each society was despotic or authoritarian. Each society that is no longer that evolved or revolted to become something else. The Shi'ites revolted against Saddam after the 1991 war. They were suppressed.

I look at this in the long tradition of the US encouraging revolution against tyranny, but not so much helping when it comes about (see 1956 Hungary and 1968 Czechoslovakia and the rest). So the question in my mind is, if the US had instead successfully helped the Hungarians, Czechs and Shi'ites, would we still be seen as "imposing" democracy? I think not. So, why should the "freedom," though it happens 12 years later, be considered less desired by the Iraqis? After all freedom came to the Hungarians 33 years later and 21 years later for the Czechs.

As to installing a puppet regime. I think we did that in 1952 and it came back to bite our ass in 1979. So, maybe we're past that stage now. I think a lot of the puppet installation was done in the perceived "emergency" of the Cold War. Some of it was the ham-fisted actions of a new world power unused to power politics on the world stage. Some of it was simply the desire to block the Soviets at any cost. I think in retrospect people here have looked back and said, if it needs to be done, it should only be done like Germany and Japan were done. Long-term commitments to develop true allies and not mere puppets with penetrated processes that the CIA runs as field office. The list of disasters where that was done is too long to deny.

 

[mightypeon]

Apart from that, the whole "democratisation" thingy is more or less equivalent to earlier attempts at religious force conversion.

There were several ways under which "conversion" attempts worked:

Take 1: The Charlemange approach: Kill everyone who does not agree, repeat until no non agreers left. Not advisable if you dont have the total Public relations superiority that Charlemange enjoyed. I seriously doubt that the US wants to do this, I also doubt that it could comit such atrocities while beeing a democracy.

Take 2: The Protestant approach: Convince and convert the leaders.
It is an interesting question how Protestantism was able to become dominant force in European politics. The most direct awnser: The ones already in power saw it as benificial to convert to Protestantism, after they converted, the masses followed. Conversion of Rulers to Protestantism were usually motivated by the wish of gaining the church monasteries/lands etc. which sometimes made up half of the county in question.

Concerning Irak, well, the "leaders" were a bit pissed about the "DeBaathification" (Its not as if Denazification really happened in Germany, yes, some got exekuted, some more got into a prison, but the only ones who gave a damn about Nazi Pasts after 1950 were the Soviets)I assume, besides that, anyone will have a hard time of selling "democracy" (which is in theory less power to the rulers) to those already in power.
However, this part apperantly worked decently in Northern Irak, which seems to be the real estate with the most value.

Another approach that worked were the Spanish, even the target population beliefs you are a god, you naturaly have an easier time of converting them.
Unfortunatly, I doubt Obama can convince Osama that he is a God/The Mahdi/The Flying Spagetti Monster.
Although, one could try something like: "listen Al-Quaida, Obama is the Mahdi and works to destroy the big Satan from within! Support him by only attacking Russia and China and evil Republicans!"

 

[DiveCon]

"a man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still"

source unknown

 

[CRKNERR]

The evidence is overwhelming that the "W" CROWD -- UP TO AND INCLUDING "W" -- authorized war crimes . .


Americans wish to ignore thiis reality . . . WELL . . THE WORLD IS ANGRY . . .




Report: The "Bush Six" to Be Indicted by Spanish Prosecutors
ABC News - ‎15 hours ago‎
Spain has no jurisdiction. If they attempt to act on their little game-playing, it should be considered an act of war. Given that both Democratic and ...
Spain to indict the "Bush Six" over torture Foreign Policy
Decision likely in US torture case in Spain Fort Mills Times
Bush Six To Be Indicted For War Crimes OpEdNews
all 131 news articles » [/I][/I]

 

[Sinatra]

The leftists running Spain can go to hell.

Hopefully the Spanish people will wise up and return some degree of normalcy to their chaotic political environment. Hell, even the French shake their heads at Spain and declare, "Those people are nutters."