Is it a crime?

[jillian]

Non, c'est le vendredi - ce soir - pour moi

ce n'est pas ventredi maintenant. c'est samedi, non?

 

[dread]

Colin Powell did that song and dance show. Remember that? Bullshit all of it.

But no matter, the killing and the dying will keep on keeping on to make sure the oil is in safe corporate hands.

Killing and dying will ALWAYS happen. It is a part of life. Get over yourself.


Now tell me...How much Iraqi oil is in Americans hands?


But then since that is Iraqs greatest resource tell me how they are supposed to support themselves and pay for their part in life?

 

[Diuretic]

ce n'est pas ventredi maintenant. c'est samedi, non?

Non, 2356 heures, maintenant.

 

[Diuretic]

Killing and dying will ALWAYS happen. It is a part of life. Get over yourself.


Now tell me...How much Iraqi oil is in Americans hands?


But then since that is Iraqs greatest resource tell me how they are supposed to support themselves and pay for their part in life?

American hands?

American hands???????

Sorry, I can't type for laughing.

 

[wihosa]

Well, as I expected, the right wing fools who bought into Bush's fabrications could only answer my question by declaring that "You can't prove Bush lied", to which I say there are none so blind as those that WILL not see.

But of course their feeble protestations aside, they missed the point of my question (or ignored it, as ignorance is their trait), and that is, Even if Bush didn't lie he is still a WAR CRIMINAL.

Even if Bush didn't lie, his reckless and wanton disregard of the need for hard evidence before asking our best and bravest to lay down their lives is a crime of negligence. The obvioust fact that war will lead to the death of non-combatants puts the burden to be right about his claims of WMD entirely upon Bush.

Bush clearly did not meet the burden and is defensless against the charge of WAR CRIMINAL!

 

[rayboyusmc]

All the Dem leaders believed the same thing, Retired?

How about these who voted against it?

On October 11, 2002, the United States Senate voted 77-23 in favor of Joint Resolution 114 – the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

We are, of course, all too familiar with the consequences of that vote and the extent to which many Democrats such as John Kerry and John Edwards are only recently willing to admit to making such a terrible mistake. Others – certainly the vast majority of George W. Bush's henchmen on the Republican side of the aisle – will never come clean and take responsible for the mess they have allowed our president to make of the world. Indeed, as we have seen over the last couple of days, Bush and Cheney are even willing to use that vote as a weapon against those they duped three years ago.

Although we spend a lot of time talking about what – and who – got us into this quagmire, let's take a moment to look at the names and the words of the Senators who defied bullying by Team Bush and had the wisdom and courage to vote "nay" on October 11, 2002.

Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Robert Byrd (D-WV)
Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Jon Corzine (D-NJ)
Mark Dayton (D-MN)
Richard Durbin (D-IL)
Russell Feingold (D-WI)
Robert Graham (D-FL)
Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
James Jeffords (I-VT)
Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Paul Wellstone (D-MN)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)

Revisionist history already?

The rest of the Dems screwed up royally. Some voted to cover their asses either way, others actually believed the shit Bush, Cheney, Powell were pushing. And yes the president has intelligence that the senators don't have.

Shit, they even formed their own intelligence agency in the Pentagon to get the intelligence they wanted.

Play more of your games about parsing the work "lie". History will show the truth.


http://www.democrats.com/node/6890

 

[wihosa]

Perhaps you didn't see (or you ignored) the part where I showed that even if you believe(d) what Bush said, by any clear headed analysis the "intelligence " was poorly vetted. Since we all remember that it was the Bush Admin. that pushed for a war with Iraq the burden of being right rested soley with Bush.

Knowing the consequences of war, being wrong about the claims Bush and Co. made is criminal, criminal negligence.

War Criminal is Bush's legacy.

 

[Alpha1]

All the Dem leaders believed the same thing, Retired?

How about these who voted against it?




Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Robert Byrd (D-WV)
Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Jon Corzine (D-NJ)
Mark Dayton (D-MN)
Richard Durbin (D-IL)
Russell Feingold (D-WI)
Robert Graham (D-FL)
Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
James Jeffords (I-VT)
Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Paul Wellstone (D-MN)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)

Revisionist history already?

The rest of the Dems screwed up royally. Some voted to cover their asses either way, others actually believed the shit Bush, Cheney, Powell were pushing.

No doubt they actually believed the same shit Bush and Cheney were saying, no doubt at all...Why? because they were saying that shit EVEN BEFORE BUSH WAS ELECTED moron.....


And yes the president has intelligence that the senators don't have.

Shit, they even formed their own intelligence agency in the Pentagon to get the intelligence they wanted.

Play more of your games about parsing the work "lie". History will show the truth.


http://www.democrats.com/node/6890

0

 

[mattskramer]

I am STILL waiting for anyone of you to provide evidence Bush lied. Also waiting for anyone of you to provide Evidence Bush got every Intelligence Agency, all the leaders of the Democratic party and leaders around the world to lie for him.

Perhaps a smoking gun of him bribing the Czechs to make up lies about Iraq and Al Queda?

I don’t really care. The key point for me is that “Bush pushed the button”. It doesn’t matter that congress authorized him to do so. That does not mean that a congressman would have sent our soldiers to war. It is like the difference between me telling someone to get into a bull pin and fight a bull and me volunteering to do it myself. I wonder. If Hillary was president at the time, and congress had authorized her to go to war, would she have done so? Probably - and then backtracked. Now, if Obama would have been president at that time and he was authorized to declare war, would he have done so? I doubt it. I don’t know if I’m explaining myself well. The point is that Bush ultimately pushed the button. It was his call to make and he made it – unfortunately.

 

[wihosa]

Do you deny that it was Bush who pushed for the invasion of Iraq?

Talk about revisionist history!

This war is Bush's and Bush's Administration alone. The fact that people were coerced into supporting it shows political cowardice on the parts of many in Congress, on both sides of the aisle. But there is no doubt that it was the Republican party that marched lock step behind Bush into this folly. To the extent that there was any opposition at all it was Democrats who resisted.

But regardless of who was foolish enough to follow Bush, there is no doubt that it was his initiative, his desire, it was his Presidency that for the first time in American history STARTED AN UNPROVOKED WAR!

And of course you still haven't addressed the point that Bush was criminally negligent and thus is a WAR CRIMINAL.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Get back to me when you convene your war crimes tribunal. As for invading the ONLY reason we needed was that Saddam Hussein did not meet the requirements of the ceasefire from 1991. And he did not. But thanks for playing.

Ohh as for your analogy.... If your driving by a pedestrian and going the legal limit and he choses at the last second to LEAP in front of or against your car, guess what? Even if he dies, you are not guilty of manslaughter.

 

[jreeves]

Question
If someone, while operating a motor vehicle, mistakenly thinks he can drive by a pedestrian but unfortunately hits and kills the pedestrian, has a crime been committed?
Answer
Yes. The crime is called manslaughter, and people are imprisoned for this crime especially if negligence on the part of the vehicle operator is a contributing factor.

Question
If a President of the United States starts an unprovoced war because he believes that there is a threat against the United States and later it turns out that there was no threat and in fact the "evidence" of said threat turns out to have been poorly vetted showing negligence on the part of the President, is this not also a crime?

Answer

YES! At the very least Bush's War is mass manslaughter, clearly a war crime.

No, the person wouldn't have committed the crime of manslaughter, the driver would have to do something that is reckless. How is misjudging distances reckless?? Idoitic post sorry.

But it really doesn't suprise me that you wouldn't know what manslaughter is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter
Involuntary manslaughter, sometimes called criminally negligent homicide in the United States, gross negligence manslaughter in England and Wales or culpable homicide in Scotland occurs where there is no intention to kill or cause serious injury but death is due to recklessness or criminal negligence.

 

[Paulie]

But no matter, the killing and the dying will keep on keeping on to make sure the oil is in safe corporate hands.

As much as I disagree with the occupation right now, I'm getting tired of seeing people make this accusation.

To just say "the oil is safe in corporate hands" is unbelievably vague first of all, and irresponsible on the whole. What information do you have that in any way proves this war to be about stealing oil, or putting it into the hands of oil corporations?

As for invading the ONLY reason we needed was that Saddam Hussein did not meet the requirements of the ceasefire from 1991.

Really? You sure about that? I'll give you the opportunity to correct this statement before I post the authorization text and make you look stupid. Not that I need to post it, as I'm sure EVERYONE here has read it at this point.

 

[Taomon]

I guess you are never too old to learn. I didn't know Bush had a war, or the authority to start a war. According to your post, I was laboring under the misconception that the Constitution gave Congress and only Congress the option to declare war. Live and learn I always say.

Actually, the President declared war. Bush petitioned Congress for the authority to remove Saddam Hussein from power, with a military option as a last resort. Congress granted Bush the authority to remove Saddam from Power and Bush rushed us into war before the ink was dry.

Bush used cherry-picked intel to distort the truth about Iraq's threat to our security. Congress was led to believe the lies and they gave authority to the President. The President lied, and continues to lie about the war and the information surrounding it.

Just listen to his speech the other day, he is still claiming that we are in Iraq because of 9/11. But how true is that? Because of 9/11, Americans and Congress were more apt to believe the lies presented and allowed this criminal to create this quagmire that we are now trapped in.

Yes, he committed war crimes as did his entire cabinet (past and present).

 

[Gunny]

Question
If someone, while operating a motor vehicle, mistakenly thinks he can drive by a pedestrian but unfortunately hits and kills the pedestrian, has a crime been committed?
Answer
Yes. The crime is called manslaughter, and people are imprisoned for this crime especially if negligence on the part of the vehicle operator is a contributing factor.

Question
If a President of the United States starts an unprovoced war because he believes that there is a threat against the United States and later it turns out that there was no threat and in fact the "evidence" of said threat turns out to have been poorly vetted showing negligence on the part of the President, is this not also a crime?

Answer

YES! At the very least Bush's War is mass manslaughter, clearly a war crime.

Question ... if only a ceasefire is declared, dependent on the compliance of a knucklehead with the terms of the ceasefire agreement, is it completely legal to resume hostilities the first, never mind the hundreth, time said knucklehead violates the terms of said ceasefire agreement?

Answer: Yes.

Not even a good try.

 

[Taomon]

Question ... if only a ceasefire is declared, dependent on the compliance of a knucklehead with the terms of the ceasefire agreement, is it completely legal to resume hostilities the first, never mind the hundreth, time said knucklehead violates the terms of said ceasefire agreement?

Answer: Yes.

Not even a good try.

Unilaterale invasions are against International law, and we are not above any law.

 

[Larkinn]

Question ... if only a ceasefire is declared, dependent on the compliance of a knucklehead with the terms of the ceasefire agreement, is it completely legal to resume hostilities the first, never mind the hundreth, time said knucklehead violates the terms of said ceasefire agreement?

Answer: Yes.

Not even a good try.

It was a cease-fire between the Coalition and Iraq, not between the US and Iraq. Even disregarding that, considering under domestic law to invade Iraq Congress had to declare war it is clear that a war was not already underway, and hence the US had no right to unilaterally invade Iraq.

Its pretty clear that it was illegal under int'l law.

 

[Larkinn]

No, the person wouldn't have committed the crime of manslaughter, the driver would have to do something that is reckless. How is misjudging distances reckless?? Idoitic post sorry.

Actually no. They would have to do something that is reckless or criminally negligent. And there are many ways that misjudging the distance could be either of those.

That is, of course, for states that follow the model penal code. Otherwise you would have to look at it from state to state as all of this is state law, not federal law. This also only applies to the US...dunno how it is in other countries.

 

[jreeves]

It was a cease-fire between the Coalition and Iraq, not between the US and Iraq. Even disregarding that, considering under domestic law to invade Iraq Congress had to declare war it is clear that a war was not already underway, and hence the US had no right to unilaterally invade Iraq.

Its pretty clear that it was illegal under int'l law.

Why doesn't impeach Bush for committing crimes against international law then? Oh wait he hasn't violated international law.

 

[Larkinn]

Why doesn't impeach Bush for committing crimes against international law then?

Stunning argument. Because the law always gets it right. Have I ever smoked pot? Nope. How can you tell? Because I've never been arrested for it, duh!

Oh wait he hasn't violated international law.

Actually its pretty fucking clear that he has.