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: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
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.


First humanitarianism is America's first and greatest gift to the world. Unlike holier-than-thou Europeans and European wanna-bes like Australia, the US is humane and gives generously with no regards to its "soft power".

Europe seeks only to gain power in their humanitarianism it is even mentioned by the EU as the first leverage over developing nations in their analysis "What makes a super power".

So when it comes to humanitarianism - the US is legitimate, everyone seems to do it just to serve their own ends.

Second the US contributed the most to Tsunami relief - sending money is one thing, the US used their battle fleets which cost hundreds of billions of dollars to build and hundreds of millions a day to use. So next time you count the beans count who was over there...it wasn't Australia or the UK or Europe.

Third what you perceive as lies are not lies. Iraq had WMD in 1998 when they kicked out the inspectors and Clinton said this as well. WMD have been found including 2,000 tonnes of Sarin and 200 vials of Anthrax.

So the Nuclear bomb happend to be just the parts needed to make it (which were handed over to the US government August 2003 by they way and confirmed by Dr. Obeidi Iraq's leader in Nuclear armament) but still...

That's WMD.

And the simple answer why the US wants to keep it off the news? Because there's little that can be done about it and the last thing the US wants is for Muthansa (Iraq's Bio-Chem arms facility) to become the center of conflict.

It's bad enough to fight around drums of Sarin and Anthrax its worse to lose that fight and have terrorists get EXACTLY what the US doesn't want them to have.




posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 03:05 AM
link   
agit8ed,

I agree with you about the kodak moment


Unfortunately because the US has vested interests in Australia i.e Pine Gap and other "I can't divulge bases and projects of a military and scientific nature" and the uranium to create more weapons to ensure mutations of humans for generations to come.

Do not forget a sycophantic toady of a PM thrown into the mix who hangs on the President's very word, and whenever he returns to Oz from the Oval Office, he comes up with a new idea that will benefit Australians.
Like nuclear power...yeah who planted that dead, dried up expensive seed ? See the big spent uranium shipment leave Sydney two weeks ago for the US ?

It is a sad fact that we are allied to a deceptive, murdering big guy on the block.


I'll be busy dogding the barbs now I guess for daring to say all that...
que sera



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus

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.


Yeh Vietnam and Korea turned out real well and Iraq is heading the same way.


Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
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.


Whats so humane about thousands of innocent dead people.


I do agree that little johnny is a lap dog but don't mistake the rest of us being the same.



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by mojo4sale

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus

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.


Yeh Vietnam and Korea turned out real well and Iraq is heading the same way.


Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
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.


Whats so humane about thousands of innocent dead people.


I do agree that little johnny is a lap dog but don't mistake the rest of us being the same.


The sad truth of this world is there is no good outside individuals, only the strong and those who abuse it less. The US abuses it least of all.



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 03:27 AM
link   
Hands up everyone who thinks the US is number 1 ????





Going down baby !!!!!!



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 03:36 AM
link   
originally posted by Stratrf_Rus



First humanitarianism is America's first and greatest gift to the world.

Humanitarianism ?? Oh yeah... I remember. That is what the US gave the native Americans. That is what they give to the sick and homeless in their own country.

Remember that one girls and boys...humanitarianism.

Methinks you grand stand a tad too much and need a lesson in humility.




[edit on 2-1-2007 by resistancia]



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistancia
originally posted by Stratrf_Rus



First humanitarianism is America's first and greatest gift to the world.

Humanitarianism ?? Oh yeah... I remember. That is what the US gave the native Americans. That is what they give to the sick and homeless in their own country.

Remember that one girls and boys...humanitarianism.

Methinks you grand stand a tad too much and need a lesson in humility.




[edit on 2-1-2007 by resistancia]

Look at the failure that is South Africa...there was no way the Natives and Europeans could get along, the Native Americans knew this....and inevitably accepted their demise (read Chief Seattle).



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 03:45 AM
link   
accepting of their demise ??? Would you be willing to accept yours ?


More like almost hunted to extinction = fell short of genocide



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

Originally posted by resistancia
accepting of their demise ??? Would you be willing to accept yours ?


More like almost hunted to extinction = fell short of genocide



I'd expect after 200 years of devestation my great great great grandchildren would accept their demise as my ancestors have in Germany and South Africa.

So what kind of piddle question is that?? You know relatively little of this world which is why you believe a man like Bush to be "bad".

Perhaps you should spend some time in Zimbabwe or better, Uganda.

Bush isn't running around to orphanages to impress children in his army and kill the missionaries.



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 04:38 AM
link   
Thanks for the suggestion...I have a few of my own.

Maybe you need to spend time remembering that we do not all share the same opinion and this is what makes us unique.

You could also refrain from calling other members names like moron. Not all of us know everything but I am sure there are many of us that come here to be enlightened and seek out for themselves. Name calling makes it a bit uncomfortable for us, not to mention is not to be tolerated as part of one's membership.

You could stop being overbearing with your comments as to why the US is so great. Yes, yes, I am sure the US is great (you told me remember?)Everyone's country is great in their eyes.



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 06:22 AM
link   
Quote by GT100FV

"I don't take any one news source as Gospel truth, but if a story is way out of line with numerous other reports, and/or personal experience, I'm less inclined to view it as credible. I'm assuming the news sources that you like, present everything you need(and want ) to hear?"

I would venture to say when your talking about any kind of military news or information that is presented to the United States media......It is usually told from a speaker of the administration and you see all the news reporters from various news stations gathered around with microphones and such preparing their story they are about to release for their news station. So just because these news stations report what this speaker of the administartion has said, doesnt make it fact either. It is no different than someone going to prisonplanet or whatever so called conspiracy site and get their information.

You have to keep in mind that the gov of the United States will obviously only release very minimal negative news accounts about their wars to the United States people. And for obvious reasons. And usually the negative news from the wars are news about soldiers doing things wrong. And it is not just the bush administration. It has been all administrations throughout out all forms of gov. from all countries that practice this. And like i said for obvious reasons. The reasons being they WOULD be held accountable in a court somewhere along the line if the truth were to come out.

So just because the administration says its not true....doesnt mean it isnt true. Most of the bush supporters will believe mostly anything the administration says. and will back mostly anything the administration does because they feel the same way. bush supporters think it is alright to go into another country and take things that this administration thinks this country needs for survival(oil). Even if it means killing and MURDERING 1,000's upon 1,000's of innocent human beings to get what they want. It is really that simple.

I dont care what any laws say. When you murder someone for personal gain, it doesnt matter one iota if it is your own people or people of another country or race. It is called morals. And this is something bush and his administration obviously lack. The unproven but yet widely spoken crimes this administration has commited are more than enough to try this group for crimes against humanity. Will it ever happen? Most likely not. Should it happen? That quesiton might not be as simple as it looks. It is very tough to go after a decorated officer. I could only imagine how tough it would be to go after the president of the united states. If i was a lawyer, would i go after them if i thought for one second i could get convictions? You better believe i would. Even knowing i would have to sleep with 1 eye open. And always having to look over my shoulder.

This administration led by dick cheaney are big business men. they didnt get where they are today by not stepping on alot of people. There are so many conflicts of interest all throughout this administration......that they should be tried just on the basis of the gains their companies have made from this war.

Less and less american people are beliving that bush is honestly trying to protect us from terrorism. There has been terrorism and self created terrorism all throughout time. The c.i.a. has funded both sadam hussein and bin ladin during the cold war. there were incohoots and now all of a sudden they are the targets who threaten this country. Just seems fishy. If it smells like a fish it is usually a fish. it is common sense. It just seems to me like all the bush supporters are so quick to defend this administration no matter what they do. Would you still support them if it was revealed by a congress led investigation that bush and his administration have had their hands in a multitude of corruption? I would venture to say you just might


Hammer



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 07:25 AM
link   
Quote by Muaddib

You obviously do not even understand what you are saying.... Let me put it this way, maybe then you'll understand.

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?

Do you know what your talking about Muaddib? lmao. Im sorry but i had to laugh about this one. Who, why, when, where are the international courts going to take over U.S. Law. Where do you get this? How is the United States going to lose its independance if we were to sign onto the I.C.C. That is totally absurd to say. Just some more spin being used to try and get people to believe they would lose their independance. Im not 100% sure about this. But i would venture to say this administration has taken more of our independance than all the other administrations combined. With their rediculous acts they have passed into law. Such as the patriot act, military commisions act, department of defense appropriations act. etc, etc. just to name a few. All of the ratifications of the bill of rights and so on and so forth.

From what i take of the I.C.C. it is a court set up to trie people who are damn near untouchable(such as bush and his administration)from the courts of their country. The I.C.C. is mainly used to try people of crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. But the U.S. gov. has not signed onto this for obvious reasons.

The crooks who pose as advisors to the state would now have to answer to someone for the crimes they commit. There would be no more sweeping of lies under carpets. This is exactly what the American people should want the U.S. gov. to do. To sign on to the I.C.C. as should any other countries citizens. It seems to me it would help protect the people from its own gov. getting to powerful(which this administration has accomplished might i add).

The I.C.C. will not take over the American courts. I just wanted to clear that up for everyone. It will ensure that people who need to be tried for crimes on a grand scale, get tried for those crimes. If you are facing charges of bank fraud. The I.C.C. will not be the court trying you. If you are facing charges of assault, the I.C.C. will not be the court trying you. Nor will they have any say so in your trial. Like i said, the I.C.C. is set up to keep the higher ups in check. The so called untouchables. And honestly the I.C.C. only gets involved if the country's court of the suspected criminal does not prusue a case against the criminal or if the trial is thought to be tainted.

Quote by Muaddib
"You are given some poll and article which is obviously biased because it is being used as a political tool, and it's making claims that anyone who makes a little bit of research can find immediately that those claims are lies."

What about all of the terrorism talk the bush administration has been feeding us for the last 8 years. Wouldnt you consider that as being used as a political tool? I would imagine so. Like i have said. No matter what evidence or information is presented to you. You will just spit on it as being fake, made up or not credible because it came from a source other than the ones you use to get your news and information. And that works for both sides.

All i have to say is there will come a day when bush and his buddies will have to answer for things they have done. It is really that simple. Their will also be a day that You and I will have to answer for the immoral things we have done. But i will tell you this. I like my chances of getting through the white gates alot more than i like the chances of the whole bush family and this administration.


Hammer




[edit on 2-1-2007 by number1h

[edit on 2-1-2007 by number1hammer]



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Quote by Muaddib

"Do you even understand what you are trying to claim Heretic? The majority of people in Iraq, and in Baghdad are Shiites... One of the very same groups which Saddam, his sons and his regime was brutally torturing, and murdering members of a family in front of their entire family for speaking up against Saddam, and quite a few times just because they are Shiite, and Saddam and most of his regime was Sunni...."

Well if your statement is true. Then the poll has a large amount of significance. If the majority of the people in bahgdad are shiites. And the poll said that 90% of people polled said it was better under saddam than it is now under u.s. control. What does that tell you? That tells me that the group that sadam targeted the most by your aco#s, thinks they were better off under saddams control than the mess they are in now. It tells me they would rather take their chances with saddam than what is going on now. It also tells me that it must be pretty bad over there.

I have no clue personally how it is over there. but i have seen pictures. and i have read stories. and it cant be nothing short of chaos. that country is in a state of civil war. All you have to see is the death counts every day to realize that. everyone is fighting everyone. one big free for all. survival of the fittest and the innocent civilians are the ones that lose. civilians dont care which side the bombs are coming from. they just know they bring destruction to their lives. At least under saddams control all the citizens had to do was not question him. I know that is not right. i dont agree with it either. Not one bit. But at least they had some kind of normalcy. At least their towns werent blown to pieces.


hammer



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 08:03 AM
link   
He should be charged - but he wont.

Just like every single Western politician, who was responsible for thousands or millions of dead civilians. This is just the way our world today turns; the innocent die and the guilty are being left alive - probably enjoying their high life and talking to their fellow war criminals about dumb issues, like which marble did they use in their lobby for the 5th house on the vast land they own.

Seriously - did anybody of you even think that Bush&Co will EVER get accused of anything? That is a fools dream, since we all know who the bushies serve, and that the Global Elite, are protecting their minions very well. Just like Kissinger should be hanged already or at least decapitated. Or Augusto Pinochet - who died recently of old age, despite the issude that he was a wanted war criminal. And the list goes on and on and on......

Sorry my Friends - Halls of Justice are painted Green; Money talking.

Justice Is Lost.
Justice Is Raped.
Justice Is Gone.

And if you think that anything shall change now, that Saddam was executed you are wrong. Nothing shall change at all. The only way that things WOULD change, if the People took the power back and start hanging every single one of these corrupt politicians (who's names I shall not list right now). That would probably make a difference.

Hanging one man one day before new years is just stupid.

HANG EM ALL!

AND HANG EM HIGH!



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Quote by GT100fv

"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."

The evidence is there. It will take someone(s) to pull the carpet up and start pulling out all of the lies that are part of the corruption. Like i have said before. Murder is Murder. And bush has murdered 1,000's upon 1,000's of innocent people. Just because a group of men in suits call it casulties of war doesnt make it any less of a crime in god's eyes.

thats what totally ticks me off. that people justify the killings of innocent people by just calling them a casulty of war. because some book somewhere has a law stating that its excusable. How can people stand by that. these people get murdered for no reason and nothing is done about it. A guy murders another guy for molesting his daughter and he has to go to jail. And this guy obviously had just cause. but yet this administration had no just cause at all to go into iraq. but yet, they will most llikely walk scott free of any persecution.

Oh and if bush and his administration are convicted of these crimes. they will be in the same section of the history books as saddam and hitler. The section of evil dictators. it makes no difference if it was 100 people murdered or 5,000 murdered or 1.5 million murdered. It is still murder on a grand scale. If you ever feel the need to try and take over a country or the world just go buy the pc game civilization 4. It should cure your thirst for world domination. If all of these criminals posing as advisors to the state would play this game on the pc and not in real life. we just might have something to look foward to for our children.


hammer



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 08:12 AM
link   
Quote by GT100fv
"So should FDR and Truman have been tried for crimes against humanity?"

All people who commit these crimes should be tried. Would you not agree? I agree with that. Good observation.


hammer



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 08:19 AM
link   
Back to the topic with a little perspective.

Question.

What was the original reason the so called "Coalition of the Willing" went to War with Iraq for?

Lets stow the rhetoric. No one went into Iraq because of Saddam Husseins human rights record. We were all told that Iraq had WMD's that posed a clear and significant threat. If we were so concerned about Saddam Husseins human rights record we'd have gone into Iraq after the kurds were gassed in 1988, wouldn't we?

So lets drop all this guff about Saddam Husseins human rights record, because no one gave a stuff about it at all until it became clear that there were no real, substantial, about to be deployed WMD's in Iraq. No one cared in 1988, no one cared in 1991 (Bush Senior pulled back the troops despite the uprising in Southern Iraq against Hussein following the 1991 Kuwait invasion), and no one at all gave a toss until 9/11, and even then the impetous was put on terrorism and NOT Saddam Husseins human rights record.

So. These WMD's. The ones we were told about. The ones that Rumsfeld told us he knew where they were. The ones that this bad-ass filthy beast of a dictator Saddam didn't throw at any allied forces even though it was fairly bloody obvious that his army was screwed and he was going to get caught and probably killed for his actions. Where are they?

The answer is they didn't exist. Iraq lobbed its best Scuds at Israel in '91 and the UN mandated forces destroyed the rest. After 1991 Iraq became one of the most heavily surveilled countries on the planet, with constant pressure from UN weapons inspectors and the sanctions imposed on the country. And yet, in that time, they were supposed to have developed WMD's. They were supposed to have weapons that could wipe us out in 45 minutes of deployment. THAT is the basis of the second Iraq war and subsequent invasion.

So the question is this. Was the WMD claim a blatant fabrication?

IF it an be proved to be a fabrication (and there appears to be some compelling circumstantial evidence that it was) THEN Bush/Blair and whoever else went along those lines needs to be seriously looked over by an international court.

IF it can't be proved, then the leaders of the nations involved in the invasion have some grounds to claim that they were acting in their countries best interests for security. However - this is tenuous on the parts of Britain, the USA and Any country that didn't border Iraq quite simply because there was no IMMINENT threat. That caveat alone makes the wars legality highly dubious. The USA pushed that non-compliance with the UN weapons inspectors mandates and requirements provided enough evidence under international law to take military action, and that is how the war was justified without further recourse to the UN. The war itself was NOT UN mandated - that is to say it did not have the full backing of the UN Security Council.

Given that, the initial question "should GWB be chared with crimes against humanity" all hinges on the question of whether he knew Iraq had no WMD's, lied about it, and went to war anyway. If the answer to that is yes - and can be proved to be so - then he should be in the Hague, along with those who backed him.

If that can't be proved then he gets away with it on shaky legal ground. Just about.

The irony is that the prisoner abuses in Iraq by US forces, the tenuous legal grounds of removing "enemy combatants" from their own countries, the total illegitimacy of Guantanamo Bay and the refusal of the US to recognise that certain "interregation techniques" are classed elsewhere in the international community as torture is EXACTLY the kind of thing that the administration is now trying to focus public opinion on about Saddam Husseins rule in Iraq to fudge the WMD issue and justify his execution.

Its very shaky ground.



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 08:33 AM
link   
Quote by GT100fv
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,"

Yah, such as whole towns being carpet bombed by U.S. led forces. I have read accounts where the U.S. brought the carpet bombing into the war. This carpet bombing of these towns killed more people than both the A-bombs dropped in japan. And this is what turned the tides of the war. As you stated. Purposely targeting civilian towns. and yet you sit there and say we have gone to greater lengths than any other country to ensure low civilian casualty. You may be right about that. but who determines if the lengths are great enough. Yet obviously they purposely target civilians and towns. And with inhumane carpet bombing i might add. BURNING innocent people to death. Sure sounds like great lengths to me.

How about war back in the day of the gladiator. When armies would line up on a field and go to battle. Thats the way wars should be fought. But i understand that the u.s. military has to weed threw the towns on foot. I think there should be a ratification to the structure of the way wars can be fought. No country should be able to bomb any civilian target whatsoever. Even if they know for a fact that gov officials are there. They should be forced to go in on foot. This is for every country. And if they do so. They should be tried to the fullest for war crimes. If armies want to fight. dont do it at the expense of the innocents. does that not make sense to you? Noone should have to loose their life because of 2 governments cant get along or agree on things.

I dont understand if the u.s. really wanted saddam out of power. why couldnt they just send in their groups of sniper teams and take him and his whole corrupt party out with teh 1 shot 1 kill style? The U.S. is the biggest country for doing these assasinations if i am correct. So why not saddam to. They want to occupy Iraq that is why they are there. It is obvious. You dont launch billion dollar wars unless there is something to gain from it.


hammer



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Quote by GiantPanda
"Think if saddam had a nuke he wouldnt use it?"

Do you think he would use it? What do you think would happen if Saddam or Syria or Iran legitimately used a nuclear bomb against his own people or any other country for attacking purposes? I think i have a pretty good idea what would happen. I think saddam would know good and well that his reign on power would be just about over. As almost all countries would jump on ship as to removing him from power. It wouldnt just be a U.S. led invasion. hell the u.s. might not even have to get into it. but im sure they would so they could get their hands on a part of the oil that would be dispersed. people like saddam like to instill fear and are power lusting freaks. he wouldnt be so dumb to give up that power over using a nuke to attack with.


People get over this BSand open your eyes before its at your doorstep.

these terrorist attacks have been happening for 100's of years my friend. and will and would continue to happen no matter if bush was president or if it would have been kerry. All bush has done has gone into the middle east and stirred up a hornets nest. Instead of having to worry about a stray wasp stinging you. Now you have to worry about the whole damn hive. Bush fugged up. He has made threats to the U.S. more great than they were before.

These terrorists dont like the U.S. gov for some reason. Wouldnt you agree with that. Would you not agree that they are attacking us for a reason. As soon as that reason is figured out, all the lies will come out. and justice will truly be served. So you my friend need to open your eyes as well.

hammer



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
Given that, the initial question "should GWB be chared with crimes against humanity" all hinges on the question of whether he knew Iraq had no WMD's, lied about it, and went to war anyway.


Thus, the necessity for a trial. There's a plethora of evidence pointing to the possibility that he did lie. And a trial is the very best means we have to determine the real answer to that question once and for all.

Because if Bush knew Iraq didn't have WMDs and lied to Congress and the world -- and Congress made their decision to support him based on those lies, they would have supported him without knowledge and would be 'innocent' in their part in this action.

Just because Congress supported Bush, doesn't make the war legal. They could have acted in ignorance (like many did, I believe).



If the answer to that is yes - and can be proved to be so - then he should be in the Hague, along with those who backed him.


IF those who supported him also knew it was a lie, they should also pay for their crimes.



The irony is that the prisoner abuses in Iraq by US forces, the tenuous legal grounds of removing "enemy combatants" from their own countries, the total illegitimacy of Guantanamo Bay and the refusal of the US to recognise that certain "interregation techniques" are classed elsewhere in the international community as torture is EXACTLY the kind of thing that the administration is now trying to focus public opinion on about Saddam Husseins rule in Iraq to fudge the WMD issue and justify his execution.


HEAR! HEAR! Bravo!
And unfortunately, much of the public's attention is far too easily influenced to load their contempt on Saddam, while highly praising Bush for the same kind of actions. What has happened to people's objectivity?

Excellent post, neformore.



You have voted neformore for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.




top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join