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

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
As stated, saddam was put to death for the 148 people he killed in retaliation for an attempted assination.

GW killed 3000 of his own citizens, then sent 3000 of his own troops to die, while killing hundereds of thousands of innocent members of 'another' country

to me, that justifies the death penalty.

And how is it that No one in power claims that same thing? I don't hear Democrats talking about how Bush "killed" 3,000 of our own citizens. What about the Sept 11th commission? Are all of them "in" on it too?

Again, no real facts to back up the the accusations you make. You claim at least 200,000 civilian deaths in Iraq mainly due to the "fact" that no one really knows the real number. I could just as easily say 57,000 and be able to back it up somewhat. Can you back up your claims?
www.iraqbodycount.org...

www.iraqbodycount.org...

And since when is the U.S. or Bush responsible for the killings of Iraqis by insurgents hell bent on inflicting massive civilian casualties? They (the insurgents) are the ones doing most of the killing of civilians in case you haven't noticed. We try to stop them, even if we leave they will continue to kill Iraqis. When you have two competing "tribe" or "sects" things get bloody quickly, see what happended in Rwanda if you want an example of what could have or might happen in Iraq without help to stabilze the situation.

For the most part, we try not to intentionally target civilians, the insurgents intentionally do target insurgents. Is the U.S. actually behind the insurgency in your world? To prove my point, show me one incidence where the U.S. intentionally or unintentionally targeted civilians causing the deaths of over 60 people at one time? I can easily point to insurgent attacks doing that almost every week.

Originally posted by Vitchilo

Are you kidding? Bush and his croonies killed over 200.000 iraqis during and after the war and over 500.000 BEFORE the war because of the sanctions on medications. The US owe them AT LEAST that.

Shouldn't Bush I and Bill Clinton be hanged then too? Even though the UN supported the sanctions on Iraq. ....... Short memory spans I guess.

Originally posted by crisko
You DO NOT want congress declaring war, unless you have an immediate needfor supplies and materials. War Tax, rationing - anyone?

I am quite aware of the consequences of declaring war. It is such consequences that should prevent the government from becoming involved in military conflicts for light and transient reasons, such as in iraq and vietnam. However when the criminals in washington ignore the law of the land it doesn't work real well. Obviously you don't believe in a constitutional form government or you wouldn't be spewing such tripe. The politician love people like you.

Originally posted by Muaddib
WOW...df1 lying to the American public...

Is republican congressman ron paul lying also?

Ron Paul on declaring war and still more from the honorable congressman. Folks just read the constitution and the truth will set you free.

BTW Muaddib is all the bold your attempt to shout down people like those media conservatives? Im not impressed.

[edit on 31-12-2006 by df1]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Perhaps you should do your own research and find out exactly how many Iraqis are really saying this...

I don't understand your beef. Baghdad is the most highly populated city in Iraq with 5 1/2 million people. They took the poll of the people in Baghdad, Anbar (2.3 million) and Najaf (nearly a million).

Population Density Map

Other Source

Most Iraqis don't live in Baghdad.......

Most US citizens don't live in Chicago or Seattle either, but a poll of the people who do live there would be an appropriate representation of the people of the United States.

Try posting a source now and then for your so-called facts. You might get more credibility.

I have no desire to argue further with you because it always turns into a nasty brawl and I'm not interested.

Originally posted by GT100FV
I can say this from personal experience- any polls that were conducted in Iraq, weren't of a wide cross section of the country, and certainly not 90% of the country. Perhaps 90% of those polled felt that way.

That's what a poll is. When they say that Bush has a 14% approval rating (for example) they haven't asked everyone in the US for their opinion. They take a sampling. And since Baghdad is the most populated city in Iraq, it makes sense (to me, anyway) that they would take a lot of their information from there.

If they were taking a poll of Texans, wouldn't it make sense to poll a lot of people from Dallas, and then a few others from El Paso and Amarillo?

Getting back to the thread topic...


Yes GWB (USA), Tony Blair (UK) and John Howard(Australia) should all be tried for

1. Crimes against humanity (causing more death and suffering in Iraq and
Afghanistan) and for sending cannon fodder (military) to a bogus war.

2. Gross stupidity (to think that most of the population on this planet is as
stupid as they are)



Pathetic ...what next and how many more people have to die to satisfy the lust for oil, gas and the prestige of the USA and its misguided cronies ???











[edit on 31-12-2006 by resistancia]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Muaddib
Perhaps you should do your own research and find out exactly how many Iraqis are really saying this...

I don't understand your beef. Baghdad is the most highly populated city in Iraq with 5 1/2 million people. They took the poll of the people in Baghdad, Anbar (2.3 million) and Najaf (nearly a million).

Population Density Map

Other Source

Most Iraqis don't live in Baghdad.......

Most US citizens don't live in Chicago or Seattle either, but a poll of the people who do live there would be an appropriate representation of the people of the United States.

Try posting a source now and then for your so-called facts. You might get more credibility.

I have no desire to argue further with you because it always turns into a nasty brawl and I'm not interested.

Originally posted by GT100FV
I can say this from personal experience- any polls that were conducted in Iraq, weren't of a wide cross section of the country, and certainly not 90% of the country. Perhaps 90% of those polled felt that way.

That's what a poll is. When they say that Bush has a 14% approval rating (for example) they haven't asked everyone in the US for their opinion. They take a sampling. And since Baghdad is the most populated city in Iraq, it makes sense (to me, anyway) that they would take a lot of their information from there.

If they were taking a poll of Texans, wouldn't it make sense to poll a lot of people from Dallas, and then a few others from El Paso and Amarillo?

Yes, but if you want to know want someone from Kansas thinks you don't take the word of someone from Berkeley, California. You can't compare what Baghdad dwellers think with what Kurds think, with what someone from Al Anbar thinks. There's a very wide demographic you're dealing with. Even going from town to town, you're likely to get wide variances in opinion among the Iraqis. I've worked over in Iraq, and know first hand how hard it is finding out what folks think, so I'm very skeptical of anyone that says they've polled 90 percent of the country.

It's one thing for sure, Shiites are majority, the run the death squats and militia and they do not like Americans meddling in there business.

But the limited elite that holds the poor weak government majority also Shiite will no be able to survived if it wasn't for our troops in that nation.

Then we may ask who is really in power in Iraq, Shiite militias or the US backed up government.

Funny.

Bush will never be accountable for the deaths that the country of Iraq has sustained in the forced liberation.

And our soldiers that had given their lives because they have to follow orders under their commander in chief will never be avenged either.

Originally posted by GT100FV
Yes, but if you want to know want someone from Kansas thinks you don't take the word of someone from Berkeley, California.

Berkeley isn't INSIDE of Kansas. This poll didn't ask Afghanis what Iraqis think... If you want to know what Kansans think, you certainly can ask the people from Witchita.

Iraq is roughly the size of California with California having a larger population. We don't ask New Yorkers what Californians think, but 3 cities in California would give us a pretty good idea. Say LA, Sacremento and San Francisco. It wouldn't be 100% accurate, but we'd get an idea.

You can't compare what Baghdad dwellers think with what Kurds think, with what someone from Al Anbar thinks.

They polled in Baghdad AND Al Anbar.

There's a wide demographic in the US too and in Texas for that matter. There are Democrats and Republicans in Texas, young and old, black and white. Polls are only accurate to a certain degree because of this.

I'm very skeptical of anyone that says they've polled 90 percent of the country.

No one said they've polled 90% of the country. I explained this in my last post. And even if this poll had a 30% margin of error, the majority of Iraqis would STILL think they were doing better before the Bush invasion.

It's not accurate to say that 90% of Iraqis feel this way, I agree. The article used those words and so I did. But clearly 90% of the people polled felt this way. And the people polled do not completely represent the entirety of Iraqis. But the people they polled ARE Iraqis, not from a distant land.

I think the truth is somewhere in the middle, as it usually is.

Please don't quote the entire post you're responding to. Edit it to leave the pertinant information.

[edit on 31-12-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]

My point is that by conducting a poll in Baghdad, you're not going to even have a 30 percent margin of error, and the difference in opinions and lifestyles are as diverse as the Berkeley/Kansas example, if not moreso. If you polled N. Iraq you'd probably find 90 percent approval of the invasion.

Originally posted by GT100FV
If you polled N. Iraq you'd probably find 90 percent approval of the invasion.

Occurs, but they were not considered part of the population by Saddam's elite regime.

Shiites were, they may have agree with the invasion but now that they are in power and pretty much doing what they want with the Sunnis and killing them they do not want the US telling them how to run the country.

This claim against Bush is outrageuos.

Halliburton has done a lot of wrong to our own people. Check out this clip of what goes wrong over there. Leave Bush out of this, down with Halliburton!

www.whoisthemonkey.com... rn

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Most US citizens don't live in Chicago or Seattle either, but a poll of the people who do live there would be an appropriate representation of the people of the United States.

Not an accurate comparison. If Seattle were seeing car bombs go off almost everyother day killing 40+ people each attack, I am sure you would get a much different poll result than you would in Chicago where no car bombs happen and the security is much better. Almost everyone is in agreeement that most of the activity is happening in Baghdad with the sectarian violence and car bombs. There is unrest in the Sunni provinces but the focus is Baghdad. Not all provinces or even most provinces of Iraq are seeing the violence that is present in Baghdad.

That's it for this year.

Happy New Year all.

95 or more percent of all the violence in Iraq is in 4 of the 18 provinces. The other 14 are generally quiet.

Originally posted by GT100FV
95 or more percent of all the violence in Iraq is in 4 of the 18 provinces. The other 14 are generally quiet.

That is because most of the Sunnis with financial means instead to waiting persecution and retaliation has gone in exile to the neighboring Sunni majority nations.

Yes Iraq's belongs to the Shiites now and the Kurds in the north wants not part of it.

When Shiites finish their genocide of the left over Sunnis, they will go after the Kurds.

Then our nation will have to liberate Iraq from Shiite regime killing and targeting the Kurds.

What a vicious circle our liberator president has created.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

I don't understand your beef. Baghdad is the most highly populated city in Iraq with 5 1/2 million people. They took the poll of the people in Baghdad, Anbar (2.3 million) and Najaf (nearly a million).

Thats easy to understand, it is because you don't want to listen, you have your mind set on "it is illegal and this is what most people say"...when you apparently don't want to accept the fact that it is in Baghdad were most of the bad things are happening, hence there will be more people there that will say things are bad, but Baghdad does not make Iraq.

Anyways, several times I have posted links with evidence to back that there are nearly 4 million people in Baghdad.

Baghdad or Bagdad (both: băg'dăd, bägdäd') [key], city (1987 pop. 3,841,268), capital of Iraq, central Iraq, on both banks of the Tigris River.

www.factmonster.com...

According to Wikipedia there are 7 million people in Baghdad.

Population (2006)
- City c. 7 million[1]

en.wikipedia.org...


BTW there are some other sources which say there are about 6 million Iraqis in Baghdad.

The distribution of Sunnis and Shi’a isroughly as follows. Sunnis are better represented in cen-tral Iraq where Baghdad is situated with a population of 6 million people, a large percentage of whom are Sunni. The so-called Sunni Triangle—the heart of Iraqi resistance—is to the west and north of Baghdad. Southern Iraq, between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers(ancient Mesopotamia) is predominantly Shi’a in both the countryside and in the cities of Kufa, Najaf, and Karbala. But Shi’a also live outside the Euphrates area amongst a Sunni minority; approximately 69% of Iraqis in the nine southern governates identify themselves as Shi’a. Iraq’s second largest city, the port of Basra, is in the south.

64.233.161.104...=cache:m9W1uSEt20EJ:www.codepinkalert.org/downloads/IraqiWomenReport.pdf+Iraqis+60-65+%25&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2


The Shiites, the majority of the people "all over Iraq" were one of the groups that Saddam's regime, Saddam himself and his sons were torturing and murdering. They were being oppressed. BTW, not all Shiites are good people, there were/are many atrocities being committed by extremist Shiites. But the fact is that it is not true that "90% of the people in Iraq say it was better under Saddam than now", because the majority of the people, including the Kurds in the north who now have a province of their own "Iraqi Kurdistan" and which number 5.5 million Kurds were being opresed and murdered by Saddam...yet you and some others want to claim "they were living better back when Saddam was in power"?....give me a break...

The following is form 2002.

Shiites make up the majority of the Iraqi population, 60-65 percent of a total of around 23 million.

But Saddam favors Sunni Muslims, who make up 32-37 percent of the population, in everything. And he also tries -- with a mixture of privileges and subjugations -- to win to his side the Christian minority, which is 2-3 percent of the population and of whom almost 300,000 are Chaldean Catholics.

www.chiesa.espressonline.it...

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Most US citizens don't live in Chicago or Seattle either, but a poll of the people who do live there would be an appropriate representation of the people of the United States.

....There is relatively no bombings or any sort of conflict in northern and southern Iraq.... The conflict happens mainly in Baghdad and some surrounding areas where the resistance, which consits mostly of Sunnis which were in power under Saddam's reign, and foreign fighters sent to Iraq by Al Qaeda.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Try posting a source now and then for your so-called facts. You might get more credibility.

Did you also notice how in that poll 82% or so of the people questioned were from Baghdad, and only 9% from each of the other two cities were questioned?... i wonder why?... Yet somehow and for some reason in the city where most people were Shiites, one of the groups being oppressed and murdered by Saddam they say that also 90% of the people say it was better under Saddam?....

Iraq has by some estimates over 26 million people. To the north the Kurds number 5.5 million, another one of the groups which Saddam was oppressing and murdering.

Iraqi Kurdistan
Population
- 2005 estimate 5,500,000

en.wikipedia.org...

Spokesman John Ubaldi said Irbil was relatively stable and that most of the violence in Iraq was taking place in four or five of the nation's 18 provinces.

"There are good things happening (in Iraq) but you never hear about them," Ubaldi told Reuters. "These families want to see what their sons went through and the progress they know is being made."

www.alertnet.org...

You can believe whatever you want to believe, but I find it interesting that some people are "outraged by the supposed lies they were told", yet you like to swallow the lies given to you by the liberal media everyday, and in the face of the facts, you want to deny them and not see them.
Anyways, i got to get back with my family. Happy New Year.


[edit on 31-12-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by crisko

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

Originally posted by FlyersFan

The Americans who died in Iraq are military personel.. soldiers .. not civilians.

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

how else do you explain the enormous amount of intel PRIOR to the attack, he 'fortunately' misunderstood, didnt see or just plain ignored.

And your saying because 'your' governemnt approved the war, its not illegial?

No wonder the world hates you.. you decide if its 'legal' to invade and occupy people regardless of wether the proof you put forward has any shred of truth.

Bush deserves to hang, from every part of his body.


[edit on 30-12-2006 by Agit8dChop]

Man you are full of BS. Always spouting off with never a link to back you up.

He was responsible for 9-11? You are now a joke as far as I am concerned.

Im glad you think im a joke, because when the 'next' attack occurs, and your president ONCE AGAIN fails to STOP IT before it happens, even though he has an UNBELIEVEABLE amount of evidence PRIOR... ill again ask you if your still in the joking mood.

Should something major occur, are you really that confident in your president making the correct decision?
Based on his record thus far, are you confident your president has YOUR best intentions at mind?
To be TECHNICAL, Saddam was tried and executed for the murder of the 148 people. That is what the court was trying him for, and thats why they decided to execute him FOR.
Saddam didnt do it himself, he sent his men to do it, he signed papers ordering them to do it.
So how is that different from your leader signing and sending HIS men, to invade and occupy another country, ending in the deaths of hundereds of thousands, using PROOF he KNEW TO BE FALSE, stating facts he was TOLD WERNT TRUE?

Why is it fair to order the death of saddam over the deaths of 148 people who tried to assinate him, yet Bush can lie, thus sending troops into a foreign land to murder a number MUCH LARGER than 148 and have it be labeled fair and just?

politics.abovetopsecret.com...

There's some juicy links and extracts in the opening post that SHOW president bush KNEW about the intent of alqaeda to use planes as missles,
It shows how he KNEW there were men inside the US training,
It shows how FOREIGN governments had ALSO WARNED him,
and it shows how he wanted to go into IRAQ before sept11 even occured.

HE allowed, 911 to happen, becuase it would give him a REASON to invade Iraq, and he knew the public would follow him.
Its so bloody obvious, that even blind patriotic'ness shouldnt be blocking the truth from you bush-believers.

How the hell, do you STILL equate, GWBush with being honest and worthy, after everything that has happened ?

NOTHING adds up in the way he's stating it, NOTHING.

How the hell, were so many errors made, by the world SUPER-POWER on basic INTELLEGENCE?
You dont make those sort of mistakes, when you have Satellites in the sky

Bush illegially INVADED Iraq, and occupied it to create business for the corporate world he was so involved with.

How can anyone defend this man, when he sacrificed 3000 of your FELLOW citizens to create a REASON to get in, and then he killed 3000 of your own DEFENDERS just so moeny could be made.

Its GOD DAMN SICK!



[edit on 1-1-2007 by Agit8dChop]

The hardest decision the president ever has to make is to send our men and women into harm's way," White House deputy spokesman Scott Stanzel said in a statement released Sunday.

www.cnn.com...

What a crock,







Look at this man, then look at the press release from the whitehouse.

He can smirk and smile on camera while trying to dupe the people into following him into this war.
THIS IS NOT the most difficult decision the president had to make, obviously.. invading and occupying iraq wasnt a diffficult decision for the president.. he actually looked like he was enjoying it.

He was smirking, using evidence he KNEW to be false thinking to himself:


'' look at these suckers, they are hand picked to be here in front of me, because they'll clap and cheer anything I say, even though its total horse manure... and in the end it doesnt matter.. because no matter how many americans disagree with me, or think what im saying is false.. no matter what the UN Says, we are still going to go into IRaq... ive already made my mind up, this is all just for the camera's... so smile georgie... keep reading the cue cards.. your doing great... "


Reep what you sow I suppose,
Its just sad that its your troops dying on the battlefields..
Its sad its innocent Iraqi's dying too.....
the people who support this war should be the ones on the battlefield spilling blood, bcause your the ONLY ONES who still belive in this total FARSE!

And when your president is HUNG for war crimes, and trust me.. the day will come... your going to be the only ones left who thought that it was nessecary, even tho the world KNEW it was illegial.

And finally,

Do you remmeber the looks on your faces when you turned the TV on and found the trade centre's burning?
Do you remember the looks on the people on the street?

Total dis-belief.
Absolute shock and fear and what just happened..
that was a justified look, they had no clue what had just happened.

explain this look on the president



President bush wasnt SHOCKED, he was worried, because he was thinking:

'' if they find out I knew it was coming, im a deadman! ''




[edit on 1-1-2007 by Agit8dChop]

[edit on 1-1-2007 by Agit8dChop]

[edit on 1-1-2007 by Agit8dChop]

The Taliban warned the US government of an attack by Al Qaeda? Come on now. Bush wanted to invade Iraq when he was still governor of Texas, and was just waiting to get into the Presidency so he could allow 3000 innocents be murdered? It's getting deep. As for the so called hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead- there's one report out of countless that makes that assertion. Let's assume that there were 600,000 dead. That's 548 everyday for 3yrs. I'd think somebody might notice that, and say hey WTF? Out of the Iraqis that have been killed, how many are by insurgents, and sectarian violence vs. US Forces. I hear about 40 here and there in sectarian bombings/shootings, maybe even per day(that'd be 43,800 in 3 yrs), but I don't hear about mass civilian casualties with any sort of regularity when US/Allied forces are concerned. I'd say that the news sources you've been listening to have an agenda(every bit as much as you'd say FOX does).

As far as I can determine, we could argue about this all year. There are definitely 2 sides (at least) to this story and one side isn't going to convince the other no matter what we say.

I do want to be clear that I realize that the poll posted isn't a completely accurate assessment of the way that ALL Iraqis feel. HOWEVER, since Baghdad is where most of the mess is, and it's the most populous city in Iraq, I think it's fair to say that 90% if not all of them are worse off under Bush than under Saddam. And that means something to me, even if it doesn't mean anything to my formidable opponents here.

OF course if you ask the people we're not bombing if their life is worse under Bush, they're going to so no. It's not so bad. We're not bombing and killing them...

It's a BIG DEAL that Baghdad's 6-7 million people want us to go away. It says something to me. Does it mean ANYTHING to you guys? Or would you just rather argue abut the poll and keep the attention off of what the poll means?

Back to the subject of this thread...

What's so scary about Bush being tried? If you're all right, he'll be found innocent. But with so many Americans agreeing that he should be tried, why shouldn't he? Why shouldn't our legal system apply to him, too?

What are you afraid of?

Originally posted by GT100FV
but I don't hear about mass civilian casualties with any sort of regularity when US/Allied forces are concerned. I'd say that the news sources you've been listening to have an agenda(every bit as much as you'd say FOX does).

I suggest that you start consulting some non-american news sources. All of the american media is complicit with the government to prevent the public from seeing atrocities being committed by the US in the ME. Most democrats are neck deep in the ME pit of manure along with most republicans. Both serve the same master, the corporate oil interests, at the expense of the american people

You don't want to hear about mass civilian casualties, because taking your head out of the sand would force you to confront the ugly truth that our government is a bunch of war criminals.
.