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

page: 15
0
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 08:29 AM
link   
So tell me why theres FOOTAGE of President bushs PEOPLE, BEFORE they came into office STATING they had no proof or didnt beleive saddam was making wmd's?




posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by neformore
........................
Furthermore - the premise used for the justification of the invasion by the US and others was that there was a violation of the conditional status of the ceasefire in '91 and that Iraq posed a direct threat to the United States and other countries - as no WMD's that were/are viable weapons have been found there is direct evidence that the premise that is was a "lawful" war has been flushed right down the toilet.


Really?.... so where are your protests against what people like the prime minister of France, Chirac, and the president of Russia, Putin, have said about wmd in Iraq before the war?....

What about the fact that Putin and the Russian intelligence agencies among others giving intelligence to the U.S. that Saddam was planning terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and U.S. interests?....

Why do you, and your crew, remain quiet about that?.....

Why not ask for sending to prison "the Clintons" who were saying the same thing...even when they were in office and they were the ones who saw all the intelligence......


[edit on 12-1-2007 by Muaddib]


Well Muadibb, it would be kinda hard to protest about France, or Russia's involvement in Iraq, seeing as how they HAVEN'T BEEN INVOLVED.

Talking about it before hand is one thing, doing it is another. The reason that the action in Iraq is not security council mandated is because France and Russia disagreed with the premises put forward and wanted more tim to carry out inspections and try and reach a diplomatic solution.

You are trying to fudge the issue by side-tracking it. This thread isn't about Russia or France, but you need to read this from the Washington Post, because your facts are wrong - the pertinent parts are in bold



Putin, who opposed Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq, did not go into detail about the information that was forwarded, and said Russia had no evidence that Hussein was involved in any attacks.

After Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services, the intelligence service, received information that officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other interests," Putin said, according to RIA Novosti, the Russian news agency. "American President George Bush had an opportunity to personally thank the head of one of the Russian special services for this information, which he regarded as very important," the Russian president told an interviewer while in Astana, capital of Kazakhstan.

A senior U.S. intelligence official said yesterday that Russia has provided helpful information in the war on terrorism, but that he was "not aware of any specific threat information we were told" about Iraqi activities before the March 2003 invasion.


Taken from here
Russia warned US about Iraq, Putin Says

You quote about the Clintons - but the fact is that Clinton didn't invade Iraq, Bush did. This thread is about Bush and what HAS happened. Its about the fact that the initial premise of the war was wrong, and its about 3000+ dead US soldiers, 128 dead British Soliders and thousands of dead Iraqi civilians.

People are dying, and whether you like it or not the one person that gave that executive order to invade is Bush.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by GT100FV
B- The armistice at the end of Desert Storm was conditional, and any violation by Saddam could result in resumption of hostilities(so that whole unlawful war of aggression theory goes down the toilet there).


Conditional on what exactly? Because the UN inspectors found nothing, and Iraq was complying - albeit reluctantly.

And wasn't it the Bush administration that tried to discredit Hans Blix so badly to refute his claims that he couldn't find anything? As I recall Blix wanted more time, but Bush's government said no so the UN observers pulled out in order to protect themselves.

Furthermore - the premise used for the justification of the invasion by the US and others was that there was a violation of the conditional status of the ceasefire in '91 and that Iraq posed a direct threat to the United States and other countries - as no WMD's that were/are viable weapons have been found there is direct evidence that the premise that is was a "lawful" war has been flushed right down the toilet.


Because the terms required Saddam to A-provide evidence that his WMD had been destroyed, and that he no longer possessed any. B- to allow inspectors free no notice access so sites couldn't be sanitized before their arrival. He did neither, and the onus was on him under the UN Resolutions.
Without his refuting the opinions of every intel agency in the world that he still possessed these weapons, we acted in good faith going in.



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by GT100FV
Because the terms required Saddam to A-provide evidence that his WMD had been destroyed, and that he no longer possessed any. B- to allow inspectors free no notice access so sites couldn't be sanitized before their arrival. He did neither, and the onus was on him under the UN Resolutions.
Without his refuting the opinions of every intel agency in the world that he still possessed these weapons, we acted in good faith going in.


I'm sorry, but every single member of the Bush adminsitration was all over TV, all over the world telling us the guy was guilty, ripping hte crap out of the UN, saying Blix was incompetent and shouting down anyone from another country who disagreed. The US and the UK acted outside the security council on this one. There was no "good faith" here. Just two fingers shoved up at the rest of the world.

And yes, Saddam Hussein was undoubtedly a bad man, and deserved to be deposed, but the premise of this war was/is a lie, and the Bush administration & Pentagon propaganda machine steamrollered everything else in its way to convince the US public of things that just were not true.

There was no imminent threat, the 9/11 commision has established that there were no links between Sadda Hussein and Al-Quaeda, Rumsfled lied on national TV because he said he knew where the weapons were....there have been no significant finds in Iraq to prove the case.... what more do you need?



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 03:49 PM
link   
So you are disagreeing with what the Resolutions said that Saddam must do?

Like I said, the burden of proof was on him, not us. The fact that we haven't found what we'd looked for, doesn't mean that it was a lie. If we knew that it didn't exist, why would we continue looking after we got there?
Why not just go straight for the oil, like many here think is the sole reason we attacked. Maybe Saddam did destroy his WMD(unlikely), but more likely it's either A- still in Iraq(probably not), or B- in Syria. It's not as if he didn't have time to move it. He knew the limitations of satellite intel(hence the difficulty in Desert Storm finding Scud launchers), and could have very easily used the windows where Satellites weren't able to watch, to move.



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by GT100FV
So you are disagreeing with what the Resolutions said that Saddam must do?

Like I said, the burden of proof was on him, not us. The fact that we haven't found what we'd looked for, doesn't mean that it was a lie. If we knew that it didn't exist, why would we continue looking after we got there?
Why not just go straight for the oil, like many here think is the sole reason we attacked. Maybe Saddam did destroy his WMD(unlikely), but more likely it's either A- still in Iraq(probably not), or B- in Syria. It's not as if he didn't have time to move it. He knew the limitations of satellite intel(hence the difficulty in Desert Storm finding Scud launchers), and could have very easily used the windows where Satellites weren't able to watch, to move.


Firstly, The burden of proof was imposed on Iraq by the USA, and the tools of that proof - the UN inspectorate - were ridiculed by the Bush administration, dubbed ineffective, useless and pointless. The Bush administration used the UN inspectorate as patsies in its own set-up.


As for your second point, you've been and gone and reached into the realms of fantasy.

We've established that Saddam Hussein is/was a ruthless guy. We have a farily good idea that, within his own country, he committed a fair few nasty events. We also have a fairly good idea that he gassed several villages (in 1988) to quell an inssurection in that part of Iraq.

So, given this record, what kind of subhuman, monstrous dictator says or thinks the following

"These guys - who I hate with a passion and want to see the downfall of their country - are coming to get me, my normal forces aren't up to stopping them, I'm going to have to make a run for it because they will kill me (eventually!) if they find me and the only thing I can delay them with is my fantasticly secret Weapons of Mass destruction.

So heres what I'm going to do - I'm going to either bury them in the sand or ship them off to another country"

So why would he do that, exactly? What advantage is it to him? How, exactly, does that benefit the Ba'ath party, ensure his survival and give the troops invading "his" country the bloody nose that his conventional forces can't do?

Remember - you've been told that this guy HATES the USA - you've gone to "protect your freedom" remember. I'm fairly sure he really wouldn't give a stuff if he gassed several thousand American soldiers, dropped a dirty bomb on them or sprayed them with anthrax or some other such nasty.

Or - to put it another way, god help the USA if it ever faces an enemy that has a technological edge over it because in the face of an enemy, that might be slowed or even stopped by using nukes and WMD, you are more likley to dump them into the Marianas trench in the Pacific, or bury them in the desert in Nevada, because if someone who was a "threat to your freedom, and a menace to the world as a whole" isn't going to use them on troops invading "his" country, your own government which sees itself as the "leader of the free world" certainly is not.

Please, get some perspective and THINK about it. You are towing the party line, and swallowing it by the spoonful. Your argument makes no sense.



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 03:40 PM
link   
The same reason he sent part of his air force to Iran in Desert Storm. To try to spare the weapons he could. The belief he'd actually win in the long run, and come back, once a guerilla campaign was over. He figured that after seeing America's resolve after Mogadishu falter, that he wouldn't have to win militarily but just bloody our nose and have the left demand we quit. He also realized that if he used chemical weapons, we could respond with nukes, so why not save those for a rainy day against some other foe(or try to embarass the USA, who was looking for these devices). Obviously all of this, and anybody's remarks are speculation, but Saddam wasn't exactly the clearest thinking guy(a paranoid delusional, surrounded by yes men).



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by GT100FV
The same reason he sent part of his air force to Iran in Desert Storm. To try to spare the weapons he could. The belief he'd actually win in the long run, and come back, once a guerilla campaign was over. He figured that after seeing America's resolve after Mogadishu falter, that he wouldn't have to win militarily but just bloody our nose and have the left demand we quit. He also realized that if he used chemical weapons, we could respond with nukes, so why not save those for a rainy day against some other foe(or try to embarass the USA, who was looking for these devices). Obviously all of this, and anybody's remarks are speculation, but Saddam wasn't exactly the clearest thinking guy(a paranoid delusional, surrounded by yes men).


I see. So this megalomaniac dictator who held his country in a grip of steel using fear as a tool and brute force when things didn't suit his liking actually cared about the US using nuclear weapons in his country? And that would have inconvinienced this (now dead) man in what way exactly? The guy was dead from the moment the first shots were fired. I don't think anyone in their right mind anywhere in the world thought that once the crap hit the fan Saddam Hussein was going to be anything but dead in the end, including the man himself which is why he was found hiding in a tiny pit in the middle of no-where. So why, exactly, would he have given a toss?

But hey, lets talk some more about paranoid delusional unlcear thinking people surrounded by yes men shall we? Theres one in the Whitehouse at the moment and its by listening to the yes men and those who shouted the saner people down that the US has lost over 3000 servicemen and women in this whole mess.









[edit on 14/0107/07 by neformore]

[edit on 14/0107/07 by neformore]



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 04:09 PM
link   
I don't pretend to understand what was going through Saddam's head. Merely offering ideas. He did bury a lot of conventional weapons prior to the US invasion, for a rainy day I suppose.



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Why not ask for sending to prison "the Clintons" who were saying the same thing...even when they were in office and they were the ones who saw all the intelligence......


Oh I just adore, when Muaddib starts to play on the "demokraut" card.

Makes it just more interesting!

BUT BEHOLD;

I actually Agree with You Muaddib!

YES - I also say; "SEND CLINTONS TO PRISON!", because for me, they are all the same heads of the same dragon; Bush, Clinton, everyone. And if we were looking for Justice, we should hang them all, since none of them is innocent, and basicly all of them are guilty.

But that's the difference between You and Me - I have no doubt that probably ALL politicians are just a bunch of currupt, fraudulent, greedy, demented and perverted bastards, which do not serve the people who elected them, but they only serve their selfish needs. If they are democratic, republican, libertarian, green, yellow, brown, red or blacknwhite - it does not matter.

But that's another story.

Just wanted to let you know that I agree with you on Clintons.

We all know what great coccaine smuggling business Clintons and Bushies had back in the 80's; but that's also another story....



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 05:58 AM
link   

including the man himself which is why he was found hiding in a tiny pit in the middle of no-where.

Well...the whole thing with the tiny pit was pure propaganda, it was a setup for the news. The US bought Saddam from the kurds then put him in a hole and filmed that.



posted on Nov, 13 2007 @ 08:20 PM
link   
How about a UFOs For Bush Fund so he can escape like Hitler.

The evil banksters government might not have use for him later.
So far since 1945 and the end of WWII, two things we can't get rid of.

Banksters and UFOs.

Banksters: Banking Gangsters

Obviously JFK only fired a few henchmen in his government and barely
touched the main cause or the banksters.

Why is the UFO from outer space, mind control so earth owner ship
is skipped over. Why do the henchmen hate Tesla and all his works.


The CFR/TC, Bank of London, Vatican... some one has ownership of
something that is feared worse than death.

Is Bush a soft spoken Hitler?

America has been programmed to do evil, war, as a response to the
evil of 9/11.
Just who's evil is now a CT.

Is Bush the greatest programmer of the world?
Better than Hitler?

Looks that way.



posted on Nov, 13 2007 @ 08:56 PM
link   
I've been having dreams, premonitions if you will...

I see the PNAC gang in court. Looks like Nuremberg.

I can't shake the imagery. I wake up in the middle of the night at least twice a week to images of huge crowds shouting in the streets and/or images of Bush & Co. standing tied to a post with a blindfold on.

Yeesh... it's ugly, and I hate it. Much as I think they probably deserve it, I do not condone the death penalty. I downloaded and watched a video once of a person being executed. I thought it was going to be something else... the filename was mislabeled or something. It made me so sick, god I wish I could get the image out of my head.

I would rather they were punished by becoming housemaids and servants to the families of those who have died and/or were killed in the wars. Let them see the pain inflicted on the families, up close and personal.



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 12:30 AM
link   
How this plays out will be something indeed.

Now 9/11 to war has been completely out of the control of the
people.

The programming deserves an award, Hitler award.

Now with Aliens and Tesla and UFOs, there is a difference.

People can cast away all the programing effort and reject the dissing of
Tesla and renounce Outer Space ownership of devices owned by bankers
like peoples cars and houses except the UFOs are owned by banksters.

The CFR/TC and present and pasr menber are most likely owned by
banksters and following some program to power, perhaps in the dark
about Tesla, UFOs and the Alien hoax.

They fear our knowing the truth, so far people still talk about ET owning
UFOs and not a group of Banking Gangsters.


To bad we will never hear:
Bin Laden: "Bush has escaped." like Stalin did of Hitler.
(then quickly the cover, CIA: Hitler burnt up, no id. )


I would like to hear: The FOO is true, Tesla to sue.



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 07:45 PM
link   
I'm assuming that all of you can lead the country better, right?
Why don't you? Whats with all the hate for Bush? You can't judge someone whom you have never sat down and talked to. Sure he made an idiotic decision. But have you ever thought how many people were pushing him?


"If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions?"
-Scott Adams





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in

join