It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

George W. Bush should be charged with crimes against humanity as well

page: 10
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 03:45 AM
link   
Oh...and BTW... Here is a speech given by Hillary Clinton.


In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

clinton.senate.gov...

She is saying right there that Saddam is known to have helped, given aid and sanctuary to terrorists including from Al Qaeda....and btw, she says the same thing president Bush has said, that we didn't have any direct evidence that Saddam was involved in the particular event of 9/11.... but some people also twist this and claim something else...


and from that same speech she does say also and I quote...


In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.


Excerpted from.
clinton.senate.gov...

Yes, the U.S. policy towards Iraq did change before president Bush was in office from "containment to regime change"... from the words of Hillary herself....

[edit on 3-1-2007 by Muaddib]




posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 03:46 AM
link   
Quote by Muaddib
Anyways... I think you better hang all the people who said Saddam was a threat....that includes several heads of State from several countries, from France to Russia..."

These countries didnt go in and bomb the countries infrastructure back to the stone age. It was the U.S. gov. that did

Quote by Muaddib
You probably still think it wasn't when several nations made the same statements as the U.S. concerning Iraq."

I guess all of these countries made the assesment that Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States? Is that what your saying?

Quote by Muaddib
Countries like Russia, China, Germany and France just wanted for the sanctions that killed 500,000 Iraqi children in two years to continue...so they could keep filling their pockets with money while more Iraqi children and Iraqi adults died...."

You make statements like this recognizing the fraud and scandalous doings of these other countries and governments but you cannot recognize the fact that bush and his administration have their hands in on the same kind of evil and deceit. It just amazes me that people think these guys dont do any wrong. These people abuse the power that they have acquired. period. end of story.

Of course there is going to be very limited documented proof the average joe like myself can get a hold of. But when it is spoken by many thousands of people. There has to be some kind of truth to the corrupt doings.


Quote by Agit8dChop
of you can answer them I will put my case down and praise you,
because everytime u bring up these points, you all seem to avoid the questions u cant answer. "

I too find this funny. That Muaddib just avoids the tough questions and documents that have been presented to him/her. Sounds like a typical politician. I have seen this sort of thing over and over again from people who are trying to debate for the side of bush and his administration. They just pick and choose what they want to respond too. An absolute joke if you ask me.

Quote by Muaddib
Countries like Russia, China, Germany and France just wanted for the sanctions that killed 500,000 Iraqi children in two years to continue...so they could keep filling their pockets with money while more Iraqi children and Iraqi adults died...."

How would they be lining their pockets with money? With or without the sanctions. please give me a brief explanation of this. thank you in advance.

Quote by Muaddib
If you want to be a clown "mate" you better join a circus...if anyone is making any drama is yourself with all this acting as if you were outraged at what you claims were lies, when you are lying your teeth out..."

Instead of recognizing the persons statements. or trying to reply to it. You post the above statement. More dodging the questions at hand.

Quote by Muaddib
What the hell?.... oh i forgot...it is not as if every country around the world has been able to stop every terrorist attack..... You must be right...no country has ever been attacked by terrorists....

You dont fly huge planes into 2 of the largest buildings in the world in one of the most highly secured cities in the world in one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world. It just dont work like that. It automatically raises red flags when that happens. and im not talking red flags of terrorist attacks by other nations or other groups of people



Hammer

[edit on 3-1-2007 by number1hammer]



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 03:52 AM
link   
Learn how to properly quote please...

most of the anwsers I already gave in past posts in this same thread...and as to your statement that "you don't fly planes into one of the most secure nations in the world".... You think the U.S. government has some sort of machine that stops planes in midflight and can read the minds of terrorists and know what they are about to do and the ability to stop them all before they do anything?..... Because if you do you, need a reality check...

Islamic terrorists are like thieves... If a thief sees a car that is well "protected and with several security measures" some thieves might go to an easier car, but persistant thieves will steal any car and pass any security you can put up... Unfortunately Islamic terrorists are the same, but it doesn't mean you have to "stop protecting your car"...at least you are taking measures to try to persuade, and even try to stop car thieves....the same can be said of terrorists and measures to stop them, or at least try....

Anyways, is late, and i have to work in the morning.

[edit on 3-1-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
fundly enough i was talking about the 3000 innocent civilians he ALLOWED to die in sept11..

Well with respect are you going to then say we should have blair trialled for the events of 7/7?



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 04:09 AM
link   
Quote by Muaddib
Right...so firts you claim, he is a dictator and a war criminal...then when the president didn't take the power from the Mayor of N.O. and the Governor of Luisiana, both who refused the help he offered, to send in more troops from the national guard from other states...and that shows he is also a "dictator and a war criminal"..... Whoever said you were a joke was right... "

The President of the United States dropped the ball in new orleans. Plain and simple. They knew a catastrophic storm was coming to the gulf coast region. And they were totally unprepared for the devastation that came. If you as teh president of the united states cant get the # done that needs to be done to get MORE than enough help to the gulf coast. You need to be held accountable. Now obviously you dont need the gallows. But he is the president. he should take accountability for the problem. not pass it on down the line. Most individual states do not have the funds, goods, services needed to take care of something that catastrophic.

That is why we pay federal taxes. I think natural disasters fall under that. There should have been more than enough helicoptors roaming the waters. More than enough mobile hospitals. More than enough clean water. More than enough buses. More than enough food to eat. more than enough of everything that was goign to be needed to make that situation the best it could be. And he simply did not make sure that got done. You cannot argue that. People were straned in flood waters for weeks. Sitting on top of their houses for weeks. That is not exceptable.

Quote by Gt100fv
The point was is that you were "speaking for God," with some of your previous remarks. If you're not drawing on any one particular religion, what was the basis for some of the presumptions?"

Im not sure what you mean by drawing, but if i am interprating it correctly i would assume you mean practice any one religion. excuse me as i am a hillbilly. But just because i dont practice any 1 paticular religion doesnt mean i dont have morals and i know right from wrong. And also, what do you mean speaking for god. I thought it was a given that murdering innocent people is not morally correct. Am i wrong on this situation?

Quote by Gt100fv
As for rules of engagement, the protected status of a building or site is extended, so long as it isn't being used unlawfully(it is a war crime to hide among civilians(i.e. human shields), use hospitals, schools, religious sites to stage military operations from).

I understand that. Clearly, 100%. But it dont give a country the right to bomb these facilities just because their is military officials or bases operating out of them. Please dont tell me you think that is acceptable. You cant justify one war crime because someone commits another. You should be forced to go in on foot. Plain and simple.

Quote by Gt100fv
Your 100% accidental standard is simply unrealistic, and not even the Geneva and Hague conventions require that standard. "

How is it unrealistic? I said as long as the casualties are 100% accidental, then it is the only way it can be justified. God will know if they are accidental or not. It truly is that simple.

As for Truman, Japan, and the A Bomb, there were estimates of how many men it would take to invade mainland Japan, the prepping it would take before such an invasion, and the loss of life of Allied and Japanese. It's true that there's no way to say exactly what the losses would be, but based on previous engagements, a lot of correlations could be made. Suffice it to say, it was a tough decision to make, and it turned out to be the correct one. You can't make the standard for war crimes be- well if the plans works out, it's cool, otherwise your going to jail and hanging.

Its not caualties of war when you purposely murder innocent people. How hard is that to understand.


Hammer



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 04:17 AM
link   
Bush was very fond of executions when governor of Texas. The texecutioner.

I think it would be great if Bush was castrated, shown live on Fox News, and then executed and his body buried in the same coffin as Saddam

[edit on 3-1-2007 by golddragnet]



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
That's BS.... there is no "juicy links and extracts"... all you gave were "claims" with no real evidence to back those claims... Where is the information that the U.S. government knew what date, from what city and what airline where the hijackings going to happen?.... or once again, did you expect the U.S. government to stop all flights from all cities indefinetely?....


This a great quote.

In fact its a fantastic one!

You are arguing about the events of Sept 11th and saying that the Bush Administration could have done nothing to prevent it because the evidence was circumstantial, and yet at the same time you defend the Bush administration for acting in Iraq on very dubious circumstantial evidence.

So which is it? Are we supposed to believe in circumstantial evidence or not?

[edit on 3/0107/07 by neformore]



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 05:24 AM
link   
Quote by Gt100fv
Like it or not, the world runs on oil, and a madman can't be allowed to threaten global stability."

Why did you put these 2 thoughts into one sentance? I am curious as to why you did that. will you please explain to me what you mean by it?

Quote by Pavil
Take a look at the link above. On the Allied side alone there were projections on the low side of 1.2M casualties with 267,000 dead and on the high end of 1.7 to 4 Million casualties with 400-800K dead. Those numbers do not include Japanese casualties and death, so at the very least double those numbers. The Japanese would be fighting on their home Islands and with Okinawa as an example, it was going to be bloody for all involved."

The majority of the casualties would come from willing combatants,(i.e. military soldiers)not innocent civilians who didnt want the war. Dropping an atomic bomb is a war crime. As anyone knows alot of innocent people WILL die. They did this knowing that this would happen. They TARGETED civilians. Just so they wouldnt suffer heavy military casualties. Does that sound fair and just to you? Even if it is a just war(which i personally feal that wwII was), you still cant condone the use of A-bombs against civilian population. Plain and simple. I dont care what country you are. And that is clearly what the intention was when they were dropped. You cannot justify the use of the atomic bombs because you would suffer heavy military casualties. It is not humane or morally correct.

Quote by Pavil
t is pretty obvious that the Atomic bombs saved lives on both sides,

Like i stated. The lives lost from the A-bombs were innocents. Almost all of the lives lost due to an invasion would have been willing combatants and military soldiers.

Quote by Pavil
If they hadn't worked, the invasion would have occurred.

Who is to say they wouldnt have kept dropping the bombs until they did comply? You cannot be 100% for sure the invasion would have taken place after a couple of bombs being dropped.

Quote by DCP
2)Are you guys saying EVERY American president should be/have been charged with war crimes? Because reading some of your posts, EVERY American president sounds like they were evil and wrong

Are you insinuating that all presidents have had a hand in large scale deaths of civilian populations?

Quote by GT100FV
You can't make the standard for war crimes be- well if the plans works out, it's cool, otherwise your going to jail and hanging.

This is a good point to build off of. Thanks for bringing this up. Yes you could do something along these lines. Not necessarily hanging the president/pm/king of the nation. But obviously in some instances that would be the case.

Going to war is the one of if not the biggest and toughest decisions to be made known to man. Would you agree with that? So why not go by a standard of you better be right or you will be held accountable for your decisions. Sounds pretty logical to me. I would venture to say this would cut down all of the violence proposed by the governments of the world dramatically. (i.e. wars). You should not be able to wage wars and just say i was wrong. no big deal. move onto the next order of business. that is total horsechit.

If you recieve bad intel. It is your fault for trusting that source. Plain and simple. You as the president are the one who will now be held accountable for this false and inaccurate intel. I dont see how that isnt a fair policy that should be adopted by all countries of the world. And everyday people such as the milk man, the convenient store clerk, the autobody shop guy.etc, etc are the ones who make up the courts for these hearings. the everyday people of the world who generally want peace. not the big business men who make oodles of money off of war. It is a conflict of interest all across the board.



Hammer



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 05:56 AM
link   
Quote by Pavil
Where is you proof? How do you know he knew the evidence was FAKE? Have you read his mind? When your CIA director tells you it is a "slam dunk" you are supposed to doubt him?"

Noone is saying he dont have to doubt his C.I.A. director. But the president is vouching for him. Basically like if you get a co signer on a house. You now are responsible for that policy as well. Would you not think that is fair to say? I certaintly do. And even more so when you are talking about human life rather than a piece of property.

Quote by Pavil
Does anyone here think the Patriot Act and other measures would have been put in place prior to 9/11, let alone passed by Congress?

No, it obviously took the tragic events of that day to get the patriot act passed.

Quote by Pavil
That's basically what you are asking Bush to have done to prevent the attacks in the first place.

That is a ludicrous statement. I would never expect to president to shred up the constitutional rights of its citizens to prevent a terrorist attack. But what i expect him to do is get his head out of his arse. And put morals to the forefront and big business on teh back burner.

Quote by Muaddib
BTW there was only some intelligence that they might use planes in a U.S. city, but they didn't know which city, what airline, or what day and/or hour, and they didn't know if it was real intelligence or just some crazy talk"

Its funny you say they didnt know if it was real intelligence or just some crazy talk. The same could be said for the intel that was received by teh president pre iraq invasion 2003. You know the WMD intel thing. But you will justify the invasion of the iraq war based on intel. But you wouldnt justify the shutting down of all airports and saving of innocent peoples lives based on intel. That is what is rediculous. The way some people think. So what if airports were shut down for even as much as a few days. So be it. chit happens right. This chit just would have happened to be the right chit to do.

Like i said before. groups of people known as terrorists dont fly big planes into big buildings inside one of the biggest cities in one of the most technological advanced countries in the world. It dont work like that. Sorry, wrong answer. Especially dudes with box cutters. I mean come on. Get real. Little scrawny asss arab dudes with boxcutters aint gonna stop people who fear they are going to die. How hard is that to understand.

A question i have for anyone who knows this. But isnt the pilots cabin bullet proof and locked where noone can get in? Am i correct in saying this. And if it isnt. Why the heck isnt it? Seems to me like that would solve any hijacking of aircrafts.

Quote by Muaddib
First of all, the claim that "hundreds of thoudsands of Iraqis were killed by the U.S. military" is a lie.... There are no reliable sources for the "hundreds of thousands of deaths""

It honestly doesnt matter one bit if it is 1,000, 10,000, or 1,000,000.

Quote by Muaddib
BTW....why is it that so many members who are replying here claim that "the government is playing you again when the threat level is raised because of some intelligence that something could happen?....

Why do you think? Because of all the inconsistencies and lies about 9/11. That is why.

Quote by Maddib
If you want to be a clown "mate" you better join a circus...if anyone is making any drama is yourself with all this acting as if you were outraged at what you claims were lies, when you are lying your teeth out...

You are the one who lied about teh I.C.C. Maddib

Quote by Maddib
No, but I bet the way is clear for you, and the rest of the people who want to make this a "political scandal" by exagerating, and lying through your teeth....

Why would any average joe want to make it a scandal? It is all the lies and the inconsistencies that make it a scandal maddib.


hammer

[edit on 3-1-2007 by number1hammer]



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
I am defending the truth, and you are far away from it....

Now THIS really cracked me up right now!



If you are the "Defender of Truth", then we are all severelly SCREWED!

What do you know about "Truth" Muaddib?

And why are Your posts to be considered the holy grail of Truths, and others are not?

And since you are the allmighty "Truth Keeper"; did the "Truth" you carry set you free? Because you look very edgy, when somebody does not agree with you.

As I said before, I suggest we start hanging EVERY single corrupt politician, and then slowly move our way up, to the real big fishies.

That way JUSTICE would be done.

This way, you are just saying that the Puppet Master are Above the Law, and the rest (which get what they want, when the Puppet Masters need them), will just get removed, when they not desired anymore.

Anyway,
A Happy New Year!




posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 06:49 AM
link   
Quote by Maddib
You probably still think it wasn't when several nations made the same statements as the U.S. concerning Iraq. Countries like Russia, China, Germany and France just wanted for the sanctions that killed 500,000 Iraqi children in two years to continue...so they could keep filling their pockets with money while more Iraqi children and Iraqi adults died....

I seriously doubt the U.S. took into consideration intel from any other country. Why would they make dicisions based off of those countries intel? That would be stupidity at its best. So please quit with the claims that other countries said the same thing. And anyway. you say they only wanted sanctions enforced on iraq so they could keep lining their pockets with money. So obviously these countries would have some kind of connections with iraq in your statement. Well these connections would be no longer if sanctions were imposed on iraq. So why would they want the sanctions?

Quote by Shearder
As i said before the USA is not a free country and Americans are controlled by the government and a lot of people don't see that! Very sad!

The U.S. states gov. definately is a puppet that has to much power.

Quote by Maddib
You claim "president Bush was the only one to make this claims and he was lying,

The president is the commander and chief. Ultimately he is the one who makes these decisions. That is why he is the president. He has to make the decisions noone else wants to make. When he is wrong, he has to own up just like anyone else would. It dont get excused becasue it was a tough decision.

Quote by Maddib
I have come to the conclusion that you, among others are indeed just blinded by your "hatred induced trance" that you can't see the lies that you keep telling.... After a while after people keep repeating lies to themselves they believe it is the truth... In your case this seems to be true.

It is not hatred. It is wanting the truth that we all deserve to know. Im sure everyone is sick of all of the so called political lobbying, debating. etc, etc. We want the truth. It is only right.

You act as if there is no way bush could have his hand in a scandal such as the one that has come about with this whole iraq affair. When it has been proven in the court of law that many upon many politicians have been charged, tried and prosecuted because of having their hands in scandalous situations. Throughout all forms of gov. It is just very hard to get someone(s) to charge and try these people who hold these high positions. I mean when you have to fear for your life if you were to try these people. It makes the decision pretty easy not to pursue it.

In all of the years of this planet. and all of the human beings. and all of the technological advances and all of the things we have learned to do. We CANT learn to get along. I find this so rediculous and sad. And it is the less than 1% of the men and women who wear suits who are cause for the majority of all the murders that have been comitted. How hard is that to see. And it is not just "proven" evil dictators such as saddam hussein. It is almost every administration from almost every country from every era that this applies too. It is truly sad.



hammer



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 07:14 AM
link   
Quote by Maddib,

Learn how to properly quote please...

Im assuming you say this because i dont use the quote button. I will politely decline to learn how to properly quote. As the method i use is just as sufficient. Thank you

Quote by Maddib,
You think the U.S. government has some sort of machine that stops planes in midflight"

Yes they do, its called a fighter jet.

Quote by Maddib,
can read the minds of terrorists and know what they are about to do and the ability to stop them all before they do anything?

They dont have to read the minds of terrorists on hijacked planes to know the planes have been hijacked. They obviously have them on radar. And know when they go off course the minute it happens. I cant believe people think there was so much incompetence from n.o.r.a.d. and the u.s. gov. that they couldnt even locate the planes and get them back on track or take other measures if neccessary.

Quote by Maddib,
If a thief sees a car that is well "protected and with several security measures" some thieves might go to an easier car, but persistant thieves will steal any car and pass any security you can put up... Unfortunately Islamic terrorists are the same, but it doesn't mean you have to "stop protecting your car"...at least you are taking measures to try to persuade, and even try to stop car thieves....the same can be said of terrorists and measures to stop them, or at least try....

Please dont compare stealing of a car with the hijacking of a commercial airliner. It is 2 totally different ballgames.

Quote by Neformore
This a great quote.

In fact its a fantastic one!

You are arguing about the events of Sept 11th and saying that the Bush Administration could have done nothing to prevent it because the evidence was circumstantial, and yet at the same time you defend the Bush administration for acting in Iraq on very dubious circumstantial evidence.

So which is it? Are we supposed to believe in circumstantial evidence or not?"

Good observation. And not to mention you are extremely hot if that is you in that picture. I hope i dont need to apologizing for saying this, as it wont change my way of thinking. lol.



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by number1hammer
These countries didnt go in and bomb the countries infrastructure back to the stone age. It was the U.S. gov. that did


Where do you get your information from. Bombed back to the stone age? The US took great pains not to attack the infrastructure whenever possible, as we knew we would just have to rebuild it. We intentionally bypassed major cities in the south of Iraq as we knew we would have to damage large parts of them to totally secure them. We intentionally didn't target dams for instance, when in total war you would do those things. Power plants were hit in ways to shut them down but also minimize the damage to them, again beacause we knew we were going to have to rebuild them. Tv and radio stations just had their towers destroyed rather than the whole complex. Were parts of the infrastructured damaged/destroyed, sure. Was Iraq "bombed back to the stone age", no You are stating inaccuracies as fact.

There was minimal damage to the infrastructure by US attacks, otherwise there would have been far more civillian deaths. Sure command and control targets were hammered but most other things were left alone. Only when civilian buildings were used for military purposes, ie. storing weapons ect, were they considered fair game.




You dont fly huge planes into 2 of the largest buildings in the world in one of the most highly secured cities in the world in one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world. It just dont work like that. It automatically raises red flags when that happens. and im not talking red flags of terrorist attacks by other nations or other groups of people


I guess it was impossible for the London and Madrid attacks as well. They are both advanced countries with a track history of fighting local groups (IRA and ETA) security-wise and yet even after 9/11 and heightened security, these attacks were "allowed" to happen in your world. Terrorists are not caveman as some like to think. They plan their attacks very well and execute them very well too. They even do dry runs and we still do not catch them before they do their deadly deeds.


Hammer

[edit on 3-1-2007 by number1hammer]



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by number1hammer
These countries didnt go in and bomb the countries infrastructure back to the stone age. It was the U.S. gov. that did


Where do you get your information from. Bombed back to the stone age? The US took great pains not to attack the infrastructure whenever possible, as we knew we would just have to rebuild it. We intentionally bypassed major cities in the south of Iraq as we knew we would have to damage large parts of them to totally secure them. We intentionally didn't target dams for instance, when in total war you would do those things. Power plants were hit in ways to shut them down but also minimize the damage to them, again beacause we knew we were going to have to rebuild them. Tv and radio stations just had their towers destroyed rather than the whole complex. Were parts of the infrastructured damaged/destroyed, sure. Was Iraq "bombed back to the stone age", no You are stating inaccuracies as fact.

There was minimal damage to the infrastructure by US attacks, otherwise there would have been far more civillian deaths. Sure command and control targets were hammered but most other things were left alone. Only when civilian buildings were used for military purposes, ie. storing weapons ect, were they considered fair game.


The infrastructure was severely destroyed. Roads, bridges, homes, electricity, water and sanitation..All things essential for daily life..The essentials for the daily life of innocent civilians. Women and children.
Schools and hospitals were also attacked. The incidence of waterborne disease due to poor sanitation has increased greatly.
Pavil this is well documented a simple google search will find reams.
You provide us with the documentation, that proves your point and I don't mean the US state dept..I have read that spin!
I can't believe you equate infrastructure damage with the number of dead civilians

How do you do that.??
The only infrastructure the allied forces went to great pains to protect was the oil infrastructure. Even then they damaged that.



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Bottom line - the war is not 'illegal'. It received proper approval through our government channels.



You and semper always have the same stuff to say, citing "technically correct" items, but meanwhile sidestepping the substance.


Is it moral to CONTINUE THE WAR, when it has been determined that the premises we're ALL WRONG?? Like faulty intellegence, manufactured to build the case? At the same time you debunk the figures of the critics, you have trouble addressing the fact that Cheney, clearly with intent, tried to manipulate the public with his Al-Queida / Iraq links, which has been disputed by most of the scholars I have heard every day for the last 2 years.


This is bias, nothing more or less.

If Bush admits he was wrong, some of these fervent people would not feel so adamantly about trying him for war crimes, that's all.

It is the arrogance that pisses everyone off, as well as his apparant perception that he has some privilaged information from Jesus Christ that no one else has, like Commissioner Gordon had with the Batphone, except those who buy into the garbage only help perpetuate the bs.



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by tha stillz

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Bottom line - the war is not 'illegal'. It received proper approval through our government channels.

You and semper always have the same stuff to say, citing "technically correct" items, but meanwhile sidestepping the substance.

Is it moral to CONTINUE THE WAR, when it has been determined that the premises we're ALL WRONG??


This is priceless.

All people hear is "Illegal War!!! Illegal War!!! Illegal War!!!". And when pressed for facts it becomes "Er...ok...Immoral War!!! Immoral War!!! Immoral War!!!.

"Morality" is an individuals code of conduct based upon their ideals and opinions. Your ideals and opinions differ from that of other people. To impose yours on someone else is essentially the same thing the US is doing in Iraq. So do not impugn the morality of others, lest ye be judged.

So I'm waiting for the next rallying cry: "Bad War!!! Bad War!!! Bad War!!!



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
All people hear is "Illegal War!!! Illegal War!!! Illegal War!!!". And when pressed for facts it becomes "Er...ok...Immoral War!!! Immoral War!!! Immoral War!!!.


Iraq War is Illegal



“ Article 2(3) and 2(4) of the United Nations Charter read:

“ (3) All member states shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.”

“ (4) All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.”

Sounds simple, reasonable and clear enough. Let me add that there are two and only two exceptions to the Charter’s Article 2(4) prohibition against the use of unilateralist force

“ … if an armed attack occurs…” (or is imminent) as contemplated by Article 51 of the UN Charter is one. Authorisation by the United Nations Security Council is the other.”




The United Nations Charter is the constitution of the United Nations. It was signed at the United Nations Conference on International Organization in San Francisco on June 26, 1945 by the 50 original member countries. It entered into force on October 24, 1945, after being ratified by the five founding members—the Republic of China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States — and a majority of the other signatories.


The Iraq war is illegal according to International Law. It was a war of aggression against a soverign nation that posed no threat.

What don't you understand?



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
All people hear is "Illegal War!!! Illegal War!!! Illegal War!!!". And when pressed for facts it becomes "Er...ok...Immoral War!!! Immoral War!!! Immoral War!!!.


Iraq War is Illegal



“ Article 2(3) and 2(4) of the United Nations Charter read:

“ (3) All member states shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.”

“ (4) All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.”

Sounds simple, reasonable and clear enough. Let me add that there are two and only two exceptions to the Charter’s Article 2(4) prohibition against the use of unilateralist force

“ … if an armed attack occurs…” (or is imminent) as contemplated by Article 51 of the UN Charter is one. Authorisation by the United Nations Security Council is the other.”




The United Nations Charter is the constitution of the United Nations. It was signed at the United Nations Conference on International Organization in San Francisco on June 26, 1945 by the 50 original member countries. It entered into force on October 24, 1945, after being ratified by the five founding members—the Republic of China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States — and a majority of the other signatories.


The Iraq war is illegal according to International Law. It was a war of aggression against a soverign nation that posed no threat.

What don't you understand?

They do but don't want to accept there was any wrong doing. I loved the "went through gov. channels" The US signed up to the UN and international law.
They have to obey by it!
Thats like me going out and killing someone and saying my mum and dad said I could do it..Their rules stand in this house!!


DCP

posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 09:47 AM
link   
i need help with the right word...would this situation be ironic or hypocritical:

some people believe bush was told about 9/11 before it happened, and he didn't act...so he is EVIL
Bush was told that Iraq had and was going to use WMD so he acted...so he is EVIL



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The Iraq war is illegal according to International Law. It was a war of aggression against a soverign nation that posed no threat.

What don't you understand?

Let's try this-

How does the UN judge and prosecute a crime like this? The same way as they did to Slobodan Milosevic, they try the actor(s) at the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

However, the United States, and indeed no US citizen, can be held accountable to the International Criminal Court. The US, and a number of other countries, rescinded their signature of the Rome Statute and refuses to participate in or recognize the International Criminal Court.

Furthermore, to attempt to force the US to recognize it, or to hold their citizens accountable to the ICC, is to impose another's will upon a sovereign nation, illegally. This is the same thing that many accuse the US of doing in Iraq, imposing foreign will upon another nation.


So, the US cannot be tried by the ICC. They are innocent until proven guilty in court. The court has no jurisdiction to judge, therefore they cannot be judged as committing an illegal act.

What part of this do you not understand Benevolent Heretic?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join