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 Bush and Other's To Face War Crime Charges on Augest 26th 2004

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 10:53 PM
link   
First of all, I never said all war was good. To claim such would be preposterous. Wars are fought between opposing sides. The war effort of one side is necessarily bad if the other is good. Furthermore, I consider most of America's recent military activities to be stunning failures on multiple levels. Most of them were only minimally useful at all, and had obtained that level of priority only due to the failure of US intelligence, foreign policy, and above all, economic vision.


Second, I am a firm believer in democracy. Whatever my personal beliefs, I believe that once the issue is decided by the people it is my duty to the nation to either accept it and support it against any non-democratic resistance, or to leave. I find facism ridiculous and would never live peacefully under a government which openly and habitually disregarded the will of the people. (I realize America is getting there, but it would be premature to declare that the case simply because our opinions may be on the losing side at this juncture. The Patriot act in particular is an issue which will certainly come to a head though, and may indeed eventually justify an enforcement of the people's rights.
I say this later, but I am inserting it here as well: I believe that voting, war, and every other form of assertion of ones views are equal. This makes my idea the more democractic one, and yours the facist, because a court strips those outside the establishment of their ability to assert themselves.


I have no stake in Halliburton and believe that the corruption associated with that company and others should be investigated. I acknowledge that this would likely result in valid charges against American government officials, especially Dick Cheney, and that if these resulted in impeachment it would then be perfectly acceptable for the offenders to be tried and punished.

Because of my belief in nation's rights I do not support prosecution by a world court for war crimes. If the people take him down, they can punish him. If outsiders take him down, they can punish him. If you won't fight for it you don't believe in it enough, and if you can't gather the forces to win you probably don't represent the broader interest.

It has been mentioned that this doctrine is very costly. It is the only doctrine though. All rule is by force. Your court is nothing unless it is enforceable. Any forceful input, vote or otherwise, is still force. Your way proposes that a court wield non-violent force over the people, and that they should not fight back. This will never happen- the people will demand a forceful outlet to stand for their own rights, and if they are not given one they will take the one which you can't deprive them of- violence. All rule is by force. Voting is fighting. Fighting a war is like casting your vote, and losing the war is losing the election. Between the two of us, I support the more democratic idea, because I believe in acknowledging the rights of both sides to cast their forceful vote in whatever form necessary. You believe that those outside the establishment should be deprived of any avenue.



I am not concerned by the fact that this next point is going to draw fire: Up until this century, exterminating people by race or otherwise was considered a sad but sometimes necessary part of geo-political manuevering and the founding of nations. I'm not a racist, but I am a pragmatist. Who are you to say if a genocide is in the legit interest of a nation or not?
Isn't it funny how nations came to be defined along racial lines at an early point in time? I wonder where England and France got their names- it sure sounds a lot like the names of the founding races, don't it?
When you see a genocide in Africa and feel that it needs to be stopped, realize that you're watching exactly how your nations were founded, and that if somebody had stopped it you'd probably still be in the sticks taking turns burning down eachother's villages.
In the end, developing nations especially, (Africa in particular), may be advanced by genocides, the quarantine and non-treatment of AIDS, the invasion or coerced annexation of neighbors, etc. It is absolutely neccesary to the development of nations that internal conflicts be squelched, resource bearing areas be acquired, and threats to existence such as diseases be eliminated.




posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 08:07 AM
link   
The Vagabond,

I see your reasoning and I will have to agree with you. I also believe that administrations should be accountable for lose of life in conflicts that were not really necessary.

We can argue about this but at the end like any other wars money will be exchange for silent.

All this brings me to conclusions that as long as the genocide goes on certain ethnic groups the powerful nations will turn their faces to the other side.

Does anybody have seen the video about the convoy of the death from Afghanistan? It shows you how countries like US that call themselves fair and compassioned turn their heads to the other side when it comes to killing and massacre of others. If they did it in Afghanistan they will do it in Iraq and any other country.



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by falcon
Ramsey Clark [and others] have charged the admistration's of the u.s. both current and past of 14 year's of war for oil among other charge's. The confrence will be held on augest 26 2004 for those wishing to registure and or attend


So how is this being charged with war crimes? This isn't a court. This meeting has no jurisdiction or authority. Its a protest, a demonstration.

[edited to add:]

aelita:
In one elegant move of your quill, you justified the perpetrators of WWII, among others. Sure, Hitler had the right to annex Chezchoslovakia etc.



There was no need for any 'elegant moves'. War is simply not a crime. Its not illegal. The united nations has sanctioned war in the past, and has no law making it illegal. Every nation has the right to engage in it. The war crimes that occured in wwii weren't the invasion of chech, they were the mass executions and attempted extermination of a people.


aelita:
The German nation perceived ridding its territory of Jews as advancement of its interests. To this end, they contructed concentration camps and gas chambers. You, of course, endorse all of that. They were just trying to "get its way", the way you put it.


Hmm, I allways get mixed it, is this slander or libel?


jamuhn:
Anyway, I think it's interesting to note that Bush is already a war criminal in Japan. He has long been convicted with some of the same charges.


Where in the world did you hear that?


I applaud this war crimes tribunal

Its not a war crimes tribunal. Its a confernce. A meeting. It has no legal standing, jurisdiction, or authority. It doesn't even have any precedent or laws on which to base its decisions. Sure, it can co-opt existing laws from different countries, but it hasn't passed any laws of its own to even say clinton or either bush has broken.


drfunk:
I personally think the Bush Administration and US soldiers who commit these crimes should face the International War Crimes Court in The Hague, but would the US ever let any US soldier or US citizen subject to a "inquisition" by those damn socialist Europeans?


Why should anyone? That international court has no jurisdiction over the united states or its citizens and soldiers. People prosecuted there wouldn't be protected by the constitution. And that court has already been used for political purposes, even the people running it have noted that the charges its been receiving are frivolous and ludicrous. They've been offered to try the current administration and have steadfastly refused, prefering instead to focus on -acutal- war criminals.


gradyphilpott:
Regardless of how ridiculous it all is, the freedom to do so is to be applauded


Good call on that. This sort of thign obviously couldn't happen in almost any middle eastern country, (except perhaps israel). THere are a very limited number of countries where this sort of thing can happen at all.


vagabond:
In defense against several libelous remarks

I would just like to note that its deplorable the way some people have reacted to your expressing your opinions. Its terribly ironic that someone should label you a facist for noting that nations have a right to go to war.

[edit on 18-8-2004 by Nygdan]



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Nygdan,

That is the whole idea even if nobody really gets charge for anything it will bring awareness of how politics has been play when it comes to forcing conflicts and war on other countries and the result of unnecessary deaths of the innocent.



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Marg,
it seems to me that inteliigent, aware folks interested in current affairs already know how political game is played.
Since this is a demostration, just who is gaining from this?

Most folks that do not already know how things work in the real world will not care about this or any demonstration.



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Regardless of how ridiculous it all is, the freedom to do so is to be applauded and this kind of freedom to assail ones leaders is not widely enjoyed in the world. It most assuredly could not have happened in Iraq. It could not happen in Vietnam, China, North Korea, Cuba, to name but a few.

Instead of constantly denigrating the US, the world should take notice of our model of democracy. We haven't reached perfection yet, but we've got the playbook.


If we want to continue to enjoy these freedoms in the future, we better start taking advantage of them while we still can. I firmly believe that we are quickly approaching the time when we will no longer have these freedoms. These are scary time in the US of A.



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 09:17 AM
link   
This is a waste of time.

A body assembles that already has a clearly known standpoint on a situation and reiterates that standpoint.

Why is such reiteration seen by all of you as anything noteworthy? This is hardly a neutral body by any standards. Mr. Clark is not exactly someone who's thoughts we do not know.

So, there are people that disagree with the Bush administration. That's great, that's democracy. Why do we make it into a major event every time each group says that they don't like Bush... again.

As for war crimes, stop deluding yourself into thinking that some "international authority" is going to cart bush to waffleville and make him stand trial and throw him in jail. A little realism goes a long way. Which authority would that be, the UN that America pays for most of?

I'm not saying who's right or wrong, just suggesting a more realistic point of view. You may like or dislike whoever you want, but at least keep your feet on the ground and understand what can and can not be.



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Ramsey Clark is a lunatic.

Yep... and obviously a useful idiot for the extreme left.



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 09:43 AM
link   
He maybe a lunatic and idiot and bush and others will never get their day in court, but one thing is for sure it has us debating about him and others so his purpose of spreading awareness is getting across and people is reading and talking about it.

At least we still have some freedom of speech in this country.



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Debating is wonderful, as is addressing issues, as is awareness in general. But there are those who are disillusioned and naive enough to think that a room in the Hague matters on the grand stage, and think that an American Administration would answer to "some international power" in a Trial of the Century.

I'll have what they're having.



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
it will bring awareness of how politics has been play when it comes to forcing conflicts and war on other countries and the result of unnecessary deaths of the innocent.


How poltics comes into play? You mean like having a rally/demonstration/protest that will pretend to be some sort of kangaroo court that sentences multiple presidents of the US as 'war criminals'? How much more poltical can such a thing get?



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Nygdan,

hey you got it, everything is this country is about politics, political games and political gain, it is about money the rich and powerful and big corporations it is not about the people anymore we are just numbers in the income tax returns.

So when somebody get out there with stupid ideas that person is making a statement and is using his freedom of speech something that we are going to lose one of this days.



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 09:48 PM
link   


In the end, developing nations especially, (Africa in particular), may be advanced by genocides, the quarantine and non-treatment of AIDS, the invasion or coerced annexation of neighbors, etc. It is absolutely neccesary to the development of nations that internal conflicts be squelched, resource bearing areas be acquired, and threats to existence such as diseases be eliminated.


You would change your tune quickly if it was your race that was being exterminated.

As for me, coming from a land where we believe "all men are created equal"
I believe that it is our obligation to use all of our medical advancements to help these people. IMHO thats the humaine thing to do.

As for the charges against Bush and company, I can't tell you how thrilled I am to see someone standing up for the Iraqi people. Even tho it's not going to lead to any kind of conviction or punishment, Its great to see democracy still has some hold over the fat cats on capital hill. This was an unjustified war against an enemy who did not provoke ( spell?) us and was, obviously, no threat to us. It was the oil we were after, and this trial, protest, demonstration, whathaveyou will show the "leaders" of our country that the american people are not as blind as theyd like us to be.



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tr33stump



In the end, developing nations especially, (Africa in particular), may be advanced by genocides, the quarantine and non-treatment of AIDS, the invasion or coerced annexation of neighbors, etc. It is absolutely neccesary to the development of nations that internal conflicts be squelched, resource bearing areas be acquired, and threats to existence such as diseases be eliminated.


You would change your tune quickly if it was your race that was being exterminated.


Actually my opinion would be even stronger if there was a genocide against my race. I would be SUPREMELY convinced that one race or the other had to go, and I would do everything in my power to see that the other race went instead of mine.

My point isn't that any race "deserves" to be eliminated. My point is that distinct and non-cooperating groups can not coexist in a successful country. You merge, you drive one side out, or you kill them.

Just for example: The land currently called Israel will never be the home of a great nation, nor a good place for people to live, until one side or the other in that conflict is wiped out, driven away, or successfully integrated with the other side. One of these things is nice but impossible, the other two are unpleasant and just dang difficult.



As for me, coming from a land where we believe "all men are created equal"
I believe that it is our obligation to use all of our medical advancements to help these people. IMHO thats the humaine thing to do.

You come from a land where the founding fathers owned black people and wouldn't let their wives vote.
I believe that it is our obligation to better the world to the utmost of our ability. In this case that means to quarantine and eliminate the horrible disease AIDS before it completely depopulates Africa. We should help them become viable nations because in the long run that's whats going to stop the suffering over there. It's OK if that is a painful or "incorrect" process.



As for the charges against Bush and company, I can't tell you how thrilled I am to see someone standing up for the Iraqi people. Even tho it's not going to lead to any kind of conviction or punishment, Its great to see democracy still has some hold over the fat cats on capital hill. This was an unjustified war against an enemy who did not provoke ( spell?) us and was, obviously, no threat to us.


OK Howard Dean, slow down. Everything you said was at least arguably true until you said it was an unprovked war against a country that was no threat to us.

Read Jayna Davis' book "The Third Terrorist". It shows the link between Al Qaida, Iraq, and Tim McVeigh (who had always told army buddies he wanted to be a mercinary). Marines who I've known personally for years have actually been inside terrorist camps in Northern Iraq- Answar Al Islam or something like that I think the group was called?

Furthermore, Iraq not only possessed but USED biological weapons during this most recent war just as during the 1991 gulf war. See my research project on Gulf War Syndrome for details.

Most importantly, Saddam had everything to gain by transparently disposing of his weapons, but instead he claims he did it in a way he can't prove- when he had everything to lose and nothing to gain from that?

A guy who loves those WMDs so much that they call one of his relatives "Chemical Ali" knew that his nation would profit if he proved the weapons were gone. So he came out and said "the weapons are gone, but I did it in a way that i can't prove". Maybe his dog ate the proof?
Perhaps that's what he was doing when he kicked the weapons inspectors out time and again- he was destroying his weapons and he didn't want the inspectors to see him cry?



It was the oil we were after, and this trial, protest, demonstration, whathaveyou will show the "leaders" of our country that the american people are not as blind as theyd like us to be.


Of course we were after the oil! Are you -INSANE-?
The price of gasoline was just shy of DOUBLE what it had been at low points in the previous years. I've actually paid as much as 2.49/gallon. But we didn't steal it!
We did not steal oil from Iraq- Bash that against against your cranium's thick shell of leftist rhetoric until it penetrates, then put your data-process abilities to task on it. (that is to say, consider it objectively for a moment).

The oil supply has been artificially reduced because of the sanctions on a large oil supplier. After YEARS of this, somebody had the bright idea "why doesn't somebody put in a government that can be trusted with income, instead of letting one man bind the fate of a whole nation?" We paid BILLIONS to open up trade with Iraq for the entire world- and we're not getting enough free oil out of it to lube my truck. We're paying for it.


By the way- there'd be nothing wrong with colonizing Afghanistan or Iraq. These nations so far have failed to govern and develop themselves, and they've done nothing but bite the hand that feeds them. To my knowledge, this is only the second time in history that a power could have subjegated vast lands full of resources but refused to do it for moral reasons. (the first was Britain when they halted westward expansion of the colonies).

I really just dont understand where this way of thinking has come from. Since when does might make wrong? I've never heard of a self-hating American before. Did somebody mix up a few of the cliches in the dictionaries you people read?



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
You come from a land where the founding fathers owned black people and wouldn't let their wives vote.


When the Founding Father's founded this nation, they had inherited slavery and most made arrangements to free their slaves, if they owned them at all. When the nation was founded no one else in the world had the right to vote and it was the accepted practice of the day that men held these responsibilities.

The foundation of this nation was a bold move forward into territory that had never been entered and to fault the Founder's for the mores of their time is beyond ignorant, it is arrogant and stupid.

Every free nation on the planet has taken a page from our playbook and don't you forget it!


[edit on 04/8/19 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 04:59 PM
link   
I'm not going to fathom Saddam's logic. After all, he made stupid things like invading Kuwait (which any sane person could imagine would cause intervention by the West).

The sad state of Saddam's military'2002 is known. The UN inspectors were making progress and their chief Hans Blix was pretty much sure no WMD existed. It's not clear how much Saddam had in the first place, but the rusty shell discovered lately demostrate that it was a rudimentary amount and way past its shelf life.

Saddam'2002 had no means to produce, and even less means to deliver the WMD on any significant scale.

The Japanese sect Aum Shinrikyo was much more successful than this loser, and even their massive attack in the subway resulted in like dosen deaths.

The WMD argument doesn't hold water.

As for "colonization" of Afghanistan, as our neofascist friend Vagabond has suggested... Good luck. The British and the Soviets tried...





[edit on 19-8-2004 by Aelita]



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Aelita

Maybe you would do well to just grant your adopted country the benefit of the doubt this time around.



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Allright! Bush is going outlaw! Now if you are truly against the establishment, you have to vote Bush.

Don't forget to visit the gift shop on your way out.




posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Aelita

Maybe you would do well to just grant your adopted country the benefit of the doubt this time around.


Grady,

I' not sure what you are referring to. If this concerns Afghanistan, you must know pretty well that most of the country is not controlled by Karzai and by the US forces for that matter. Mountain warfare must be a real nightmare I can imagine. By the way my highschool friend school got killed in Afghanistan doing exactly that.

If you meant something else... I'll be more than happy to give the US any benefit I can think of, but I do think that Bush does a great disservice to this wonderful country.



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita
By the way my highschool friend school got killed in Afghanistan doing exactly that.


I'm sorry about the loss of your friend, but he died for a good cause and his memory is to be held in high esteem. You can help to immortalize him by mentioning his name every chance you get and giving to causes in his name.

I mention the name of my friend, LCpl Dennis James Kane, USMC, every chance I get so that it will be a long time before his name and his sacrifice are forgotten.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join