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: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 09:09 PM
link   
For point of clarification, and since it comes up constantly, I have a question. I hear the term "Illegal War" quite often in reference to Iraq, and sometimes to Afghanistan.

* Who is the authority that has the jurisdiction to determine that the war is indeed illegal and what process did they go through to determine it?

* Or is it just a catchy little phrase that sounds good?

I don't want to bicker, I sincerely want to know the answer.




posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Muaddib
"Do you really want to give the power to the International Community to take charge over U.S. law? Do you want to give away our independence?.... You do know what independence means right?........ tell us, seriously, you really want to start a real NWO by giving power to the "international community" and hence losing our status as an independent nation? "

Charging the president with crimes against humanity will not result in the USA losing its independance.

thast a bit melodramatic mate, take off the crown of drama queen for a second.

The President of the USA does not have your best interests at heart.
Why are you defending him?
He couldnt even defend you against a terror attack.
He couldnt help the people at New orleans,
he mdae so many bloody huge errors according to some, that Iraq was merely a 'mistake'

Your president is either the biggest SCREWUP in history, or the most CURROPT person in History.

Either way, he deserves to be charged with INTENTIONAL murder, or murder through negligence.

I bet saddam is stroking the carpet nxt to him, saving it for president bush..
the two of them will have much to catch up on!



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 10:35 PM
link   
He's probably defending him because he doesn't buy into all of the negative rhetoric. To compare Bush with Saddam, Hitler, etc... just shows that those making those claims have lost touch with reality, and are poor students of history. Claiming something repeatedly doesn't make it so, and the evidence just isn't there to substantiate the hype.



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by GT100FV
He's probably defending him because he doesn't buy into all of the negative rhetoric.


Just because a leader doesn't mass murder his own people in his own nation doesn't mean that he may not be guilty of the death to others human beings due to the results of his actions because he has the power to do it.



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 10:47 PM
link   
So should FDR and Truman have been tried for crimes against humanity?



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 10:56 PM
link   
George and company will get their just deserts when the time is right and not a moment sooner.

I trust our lord on this one.



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by GT100FV
So should FDR and Truman have been tried for crimes against humanity?


Did they went into the middle east and targeted Iraq?


Dg I am sure that their time will come when the Innocent will get their justice.

What we do in this life we pay here in this life and in this earth.



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

Originally posted by GT100FV
So should FDR and Truman have been tried for crimes against humanity?


Did they went into the middle east and targeted Iraq?


Dg I am sure that their time will come when the Innocent will get their justice.

What we do in this life we pay here in this life and in this earth.



So........ are you saying that yes, FDR and Truman should have been tried for crimes against humanity? After all Truman did drop the A bombs right?



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 12:00 AM
link   
Pavil, unfortunatly for Bush, he's in the here and now as opposed to your dead examples.
If i said "yes" what would that accomplish?



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Pavil, unfortunatly for Bush, he's in the here and now as opposed to your dead examples.
If i said "yes" what would that accomplish?


One of the unfortunate consequences of a war is that collateral damage occcurs. Collateral damage in and of itself isn't a war crime. Bad intel isn't a war crime either(everyone else-(leaders/intel agencies) in the world believed the bad intel too, so spare me the notion that Bush knew any differently). The notion of civilians not getting hurt in war is unprecedented in the history of warfare. In WW2 there were plenty of non military targets, as the idea was to crush the will of the enemy and destroy his ability to continue to fight. We have gone to greater lengths than any military in the history of warfare to try to limit civilian casualties, but they're still gonna happen, and it's not a war crime. We take casualties because we can't always do the militarily expediant thing to do. We could just level cities, rather than have patrols through them if we wanted to have no risk to ourselves whatsoever. There are all sorts of draconian measures that we could take, if we were the butchers many here seem to think we are, that would quiet things down much more rapidly, and reduce our casualties.



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 01:08 AM
link   
Bush doesnt gas his own people. He doesnt MURDER his own people. You bleeding heart liberals need to get one thing straight. Saddam was filth! The Pres of Iran is Scum. The leader of Jordan is Trash. These people murder and cause chaos with every action and every thought..Think if saddam had a nuke he wouldnt use it? How bout Iran or jordan or syria. People get over this BSand open your eyes before its at your doorstep. Oh and for you people calling for Bush's head...My Mossberg says you can't have him....Peace man



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Pavil, unfortunatly for Bush, he's in the here and now as opposed to your dead examples.
If i said "yes" what would that accomplish?


Well for one it would give me your barometer of moral compass, especially with the hindsight aspect of it. It's pretty easy to say yes or no. Either you are outraged to the point of wanting Truman tried regardless or you accept that is was a necessary evil to limit the casulties on both sides. Why is that hard to state for you? It's easy to second guess after events play out.

Most governments at the time made the same assessment of Iraq in regards to WMD as the U.S. did.
Both houses of Congress made the same assessment of Iraq. In fact, two different administrations made the same assessment of Iraq.
The UN gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" and Iraq had not "fully accepted its obligation to disarm".
The US was not the only country supplying intelligence about Iraq. There were multiple countries supplying this information.

Difficult choices are to be made in wars. One has to go with the worst case assumptions when deciding your course of action. Given the cirmcumstances at the time, Saddam did not give us much assurance that he had fully disarmed, as per UN demands. It's not like he didn't have ample time and opportunities.



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by GiantPanda1979
Bush doesnt gas his own people. He doesnt MURDER his own people. You bleeding heart liberals need to get one thing straight. Saddam was filth! The Pres of Iran is Scum. The leader of Jordan is Trash. These people murder and cause chaos with every action and every thought..Think if saddam had a nuke he wouldnt use it? How bout Iran or jordan or syria. People get over this BSand open your eyes before its at your doorstep. Oh and for you people calling for Bush's head...My Mossberg says you can't have him....Peace man


hold the Phone,

Saddam wasnt executed in REVENGE for past acts.
he was tried, and executed for the murder of 148 people.

THAT IS WHY THEY EXECUTED HIM!

Why go flying off the deep end, bringign gassing and all that into the mix.
Yes he wsa a bad and ruthless man who committed crimes against people, much like MANY LEADERS HAVE!

just because President bush says its RIGHT, doesnt mean its right.

Why are you all so gullable?



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavil

Most governments at the time made the same assessment of Iraq in regards to WMD as the U.S. did..


Well,
When your pushing the same bs crap down the throats of ledaers who care not for facts, but for fame.. its quite easy to 'dupe' a country into following.

IE - Australia.

I mean, how the hell did australia have ANYTHING to support wmd's in Iraq.

The only reason we are in Iraq, is because our leader is that pathetic, he's willing to send his men and women into a war, just so he can have his photo taken with president bush, on the whitehouse lawn.
You only need too look at the photos of John Howard smiling ear to ear to see that..

As for the other small, minor countries that have no clout in the world, economimc and trade incentives were the only ' facts ' they needed to know about.. that why they joined.
the only 2 countries who had the ABILITY to have there own intel , was the UK and US.

being the US was lying, and using evidence it knew to be false, and it was also being led by the UK using evidence IT knew to be false.. well your left with a pretty pickle of a situation.

world leaders accusing a country of having wmd's, then invading and occupying them because of it.

yet, when that country turns out to have NO WMD'S, and the evidence used turns out being FALSE.. I cant understand how people can STILL, defend the ones stating the LIE!

How obvious does it need to be?



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

Originally posted by pavil

Most governments at the time made the same assessment of Iraq in regards to WMD as the U.S. did..


Well,
When your pushing the same bs crap down the throats of ledaers who care not for facts, but for fame.. its quite easy to 'dupe' a country into following.

IE - Australia.

I mean, how the hell did australia have ANYTHING to support wmd's in Iraq.

The only reason we are in Iraq, is because our leader is that pathetic, he's willing to send his men and women into a war, just so he can have his photo taken with president bush, on the whitehouse lawn.
You only need too look at the photos of John Howard smiling ear to ear to see that..

As for the other small, minor countries that have no clout in the world, economimc and trade incentives were the only ' facts ' they needed to know about.. that why they joined.
the only 2 countries who had the ABILITY to have there own intel , was the UK and US.

being the US was lying, and using evidence it knew to be false, and it was also being led by the UK using evidence IT knew to be false.. well your left with a pretty pickle of a situation.

world leaders accusing a country of having wmd's, then invading and occupying them because of it.

yet, when that country turns out to have NO WMD'S, and the evidence used turns out being FALSE.. I cant understand how people can STILL, defend the ones stating the LIE!

How obvious does it need to be?


Of course because global politics and economics plays no part in a leader's decision making. Yes...that's it, he must have just wanted to take a picture with Busheypoo instead of maintain the ANZUS alliance and Australia's position in the Commonwealth.

Moron.



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 02:40 AM
link   
Now now, personal attacks arent nessecary

and yes,

look at the way john howard is with bush in the photos.
He's his lapdog.

he would of said anything, and done anything as long as he could stay at that ranch on texas.

for christ sakes, bush admitted iraq was going badly BEFORE howard did.

Australia HAD NO PART in this war, like the french.

Iraq was not a threat to us
Iraq had not DONE anything to us,

our contribution of a few thousand men, IF THAT.. means absoltuely F-ALL to the 200,000 + internatioanl force that was used.

we were nothing, ABSOLUTLEY nothing but a NAME

John howard, i spit on you.
You have put us right in the middle of this s**t pile just so you could have a kodak moment with bush



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 02:44 AM
link   
And for the record,
NZ was smart enough to avoid this illegial war..
so the ANSUS alliance wasnt a factor.

its the AUS alliance.

But i mean, iraq's going so well, and the justification for invading and occupying.. well yeah.. if u think that still holds water good for you.

but australia lost some credability by joining iraq on this illegial endevour.
We had no proof, all we did was trumpet the lies of the bush admin.
it made australia look like a push over....



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Now now, personal attacks arent nessecary

and yes,

look at the way john howard is with bush in the photos.
He's his lapdog.

he would of said anything, and done anything as long as he could stay at that ranch on texas.

for christ sakes, bush admitted iraq was going badly BEFORE howard did.

Australia HAD NO PART in this war, like the french.

Iraq was not a threat to us
Iraq had not DONE anything to us,

our contribution of a few thousand men, IF THAT.. means absoltuely F-ALL to the 200,000 + internatioanl force that was used.

we were nothing, ABSOLUTLEY nothing but a NAME

John howard, i spit on you.
You have put us right in the middle of this s**t pile just so you could have a kodak moment with bush


Personal attacks are very necessary, a moron is a moron and must be called one.

Now I'm sorry you're some sad little hippy that doesn't want to fight but that's why Australia is the US's lap dog and not the other way around.

The US pimp slapped anyone that got in their way and never looked back, starting with the British and then the Native Americans. In case you hadn't looked around the Native Americans are so diluted that one is considered to be a Native American if they have only quarter of Indian blood in them.

And even then there is about 1 million of them, which is 4 million less than there were in 1840s.

So you can rant and rave about how illegal this war is...but there's a reason the US is number one ... a lot of reasons. But first and foremost is that it knows when to stuff it's boot and where.

You should just be thankful that the US also is first in humanitarianism - or perhaps your precious prime minister might have been more than a lap dog...he could have been a lamp shade.

Welcome to the real world.



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 02:54 AM
link   
Dood, where'd the indians come into it?

and the US being the most humantarian nation?

they contribute, yeah dont get me wrong.

But the boxing day tsunami proved how 'generous' they can be..

hell, even New ORLEANS proves how generous you can be, but thats not the point.


Im not aussie by the way!

Australia had NOTHING, NAARRTTTTHIIINNNNG to back up the US claims.

we simply listened ot the lies the americans said, and chose to trumpet them.



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 02:59 AM
link   
Please, can we refrain from personal attacks and baiting? I realize it's a sensitive subject, but reasonable gentlemen can disagree without lashing out.

Panda


Bush doesnt gas his own people. He doesnt MURDER his own people.


It's funny you should say that...

Bush oversaw and allowed the executions of more than 125 people during his time in Texas, if memory serves.

So I guess you're wrong, huh?



You bleeding heart liberals need to get one thing straight. Saddam was filth! The Pres of Iran is Scum. The leader of Jordan is Trash.


Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion about the relative worth of world leaders and domestic political institutions, but before spewing it on ATS again, I suggest you review our rules regarding political baiting. Please, no blanket attacks against your mortal enemies, the blues.


If you disagree with a policy, say so. If you disagree with a player, say so. If you just hate everyone who you think might be a Democrat, and you feel the need to attack them and speak ill of them because of their affiliation, take it outside (or to PTS).

Thanks.



These people murder and cause chaos with every action and every thought.


I think you've got them pegged wrong. They want what everyone in power wants - to stay in power. Do you believe, for one instant, that we don't have men with painted faces and guns sneaking through other countries right now, sowing chaos and destruction? Do you really think that we only do good, and our enemies only do evil?

The world is a fair sight more complex than that, and you do yourself a tremendous disservice when you boil everything down to black and white. Seriously, black and white is for old photographs, not international politics.



Think if saddam had a nuke he wouldnt use it? How bout Iran or jordan or syria.


I think that if they were thinking clearly they would hold on to it and use it to deter their enemies. Who knows if they're thinking clearly or not? Too much power tends to override and short-circuit the logic centers...



Oh and for you people calling for Bush's head...My Mossberg says you can't have him....


If the Secret Service lets you within a thousand yards of the president with a shotgun (to defend him, or whatever), they aren't doing their job. Let's try to keep the discussion civil - we don't need to whip out our guns just yet, do we?

[edit on 2-1-2007 by WyrdeOne]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join