Obama Confers Immunity (Impunity) On George W. Bush:

[JakeStarkey]

fakey, piss off.

and in your free time check the UN Security Council resolution 1441 and 678

They do not empower the US to invade Iraq. The bushies failed to UN approval in early 2003 and failed. GWB is a war criminal.

 

[MikeK]

There were no war crimes in Iraq exposed by treason of Bradley manning

False.

Let's say none were revealed that we didn't already know about -- all of which are bad enough.

 

[Billo_Really]

no, it was not. It had a bipartisan blessing from the Congress and a "do it" from the UN.

It was not a right decision ( which was not known at a time) but not a crime.

There was no "do it" from the UN.

That would go against everything they stand for.

 

[Billo_Really]

There were no war crimes in Iraq exposed by treason of Bradley manning

Yes there was.

The targeting of people taking no part in hostilities, is a war crime.

The targeting of people bringing aid to the wounded, is a war crime.

 

[Vox]

no, it was not. It had a bipartisan blessing from the Congress and a "do it" from the UN.

It was not a right decision ( which was not known at a time) but not a crime.

There was no "do it" from the UN.

That would go against everything they stand for.

yes there was. Security Council resolutions 1441 and 678

 

[JakeStarkey]

There was no do it frome the UN in early 2003. Earlier resolutions, as some have suggested wrongly, did not empower the USA to act on behalf of the UN.

 

[JakeStarkey]

no, it was not. It had a bipartisan blessing from the Congress and a "do it" from the UN.

It was not a right decision ( which was not known at a time) but not a crime.

There was no "do it" from the UN.

That would go against everything they stand for.

yes there was. Security Council resolutions 1441 and 678

You can't quote any part of those resolutions that would allow the USA to act on behalf of the UN without UN approval.

 

[Vox]

There were no war crimes in Iraq exposed by treason of Bradley manning

Yes there was.

The targeting of people taking no part in hostilities, is a war crime.

The targeting of people bringing aid to the wounded, is a war crime.

NOpe. There were NO WAR CRIMES.

we've been through with it already.

Deal with it.

NO war crimes - no proof, no court decisions - nothing.

 

[Vox]

fakey piss off and learn to read

 

[JakeStarkey]

There were no war crimes in Iraq exposed by treason of Bradley manning

Yes there was.

The targeting of people taking no part in hostilities, is a war crime.

The targeting of people bringing aid to the wounded, is a war crime.

NOpe. There were NO WAR CRIMES.

we've been through with it already.

Deal with it.

NO war crimes - no proof, no court decisions - nothing.

The International Court in Rome has decided differently, as you well know, silly.

That you disagree with the IC means nothing.

 

[Billo_Really]

There may have been war crimes in Iraq but I have yet to see exactly what they were.

WTF do you mean "there may have been..."?

Do you not realize how wrong it is to attack a country that did not attack you first?

Because ever since the end of WWII, that has been codified as a "war of aggression".

And a "war of aggression", is considered a "crime against humanity".

And all "crimes against humanity", are considered "war crimes".

 

[Vox]

There were no war crimes in Iraq exposed by treason of Bradley manning

False.

Let's say none were revealed that we didn't already know about -- all of which are bad enough.

nothing "revealed" was a war crime.

 

[MikeK]

There may have been war crimes in Iraq but I have yet to see exactly what they were. Even if there were Congress would be as responsible.

[...]

The invasion, itself, was a crime. And if you don't consider what was done (in your name) at Abu Ghraib a crime, then what does it take?

What we have done to that nation, as the result of a duplicitous criminal conspiracy on the part of the Bush Administration, was not only a massively egregious war crime with many separate specifications, it is a moral outrage by any civilized standard.

How would you justify any of it?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Vox is denying war crimes occurred. Her belief is her evidence. It is not enough.

 

[Billo_Really]

NOpe. There were NO WAR CRIMES.

we've been through with it already.

Deal with it.

NO war crimes - no proof, no court decisions - nothing.

You talk like a 2 year old not getting his way.

It doesn't matter how many times you close your eyes and put your fingers in your ears, it won't make what you wish for, to come true.

 

[Vox]

The Government of the United States believes that the invasion was explicitly authorized by Security Council Resolution 678 and thus complies with international law.

There is no debate that Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement Resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.",just debate about what that resolution actually means. The only legal jurisdiction to find "aggression" or to find the invasion illegal rests with the Security Council under United Nations Charter Articles 39-42. The Security Council met in 2003 for two days, reviewed the legal claims involved, and elected to be "seized of the matter". The Security Council has not reviewed these issues since 2003.

 

[Billo_Really]

yes there was. Security Council resolutions 1441 and 678

Do you know what the UNSC means when they end a resolution with the term, "we remain siezed on the matter"?

It's pretty important if you're trying to use 1441 as a UN green light for military action.

And 678 was about getting Iraq out of Kuwait, not the US into Iraq.

You can't pick and choose parts of a UN resolution at some later date (and completely out of context) to justify your claim.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A false interpretation of the UN resolutions does not help your case, Vox.

 

[Vox]

There may have been war crimes in Iraq but I have yet to see exactly what they were. Even if there were Congress would be as responsible.

[...]

The invasion, itself, was a crime.

NO, it was not. It fells under the SC resolution 678 and partially 1441

And if you don't consider what was done (in your name) at Abu Ghraib a crime, then what does it take?

it is not a war crime. Pissing over somebody might be a criminal act, but not a war crime.

What we have done to that nation, as the result of a duplicitous criminal conspiracy on the part of the Bush Administration, was not only a massively egregious war crime with many separate specifications, it is a moral outrage by any civilized standard.

propaganda blah-blah-blah

How would you justify any of it?

.

 

[Vox]

yes there was. Security Council resolutions 1441 and 678

Do you know what the UNSC means when they end a resolution with the term, "we remain siezed on the matter"?

It's pretty important if you're trying to use 1441 as a UN green light for military action.

And 678 was about getting Iraq out of Kuwait, not the US into Iraq.

You can't pick and choose parts of a UN resolution at some later date (and completely out of context) to justify your claim.

I can do whatever I want, since I am just following what the coalition forces and the countries they represented did.

I don't care about hysteria of the libtard bedwetters who miraculously turned to be warmongers over Syria - you to be named the first