You think bush is a war criminal? What are you going to do about it?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 04:13 AM
link   
The number of people on this site who believe that bush is a war criminal because of the invasion of Iraq is huge. Personally I think you are wrong but thats not what this post is about. My question is this, what are you going to do about it? lets just say for the purpose of this discussion that he is a war criminal, lets say the world court rules he is guilty of war crimes, so what? Is the world court going to put out a warrant for his arrest? Are they gong to send troops into washington? In short is there any way whatsoever for the world court or the U.N. or any other body to enforce such a ruling? If not do these bodies then have any relevance or purpose beyond empty words? kofi Anan has stated that the U.S. invasion of Iraq is illegal, so what? Is the U.N. going to sanction the U.S.? Is it going to send blue-hats to U.S. soil? Lets assume that the U.S. invasion was illegal. If the U.N. and the world court can not enforce international law then do they serve any purpose whatsoever?




posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 05:12 AM
link   
I thought the U.S. President is imune to prosecution regarding War crimes according to U.S. law, so if that was the case even if the U.N had that balls to indite President Bush, and for that matter Toni Blair , for War crimes then the President is protected. The U.N. is , imo, going the same way as the old League of Nations. No one really takes any notice of it anymore, thats if they ever did, and i think that sooner or later the U.N. will cease to exist as an international orginisation.
I find Kofi Annan a hypocrite and ineffectual leader of an institution like the U.N. and i question why any nation would want to be a part of the U.N anymore.
Kofi has said the War in Iraq is illegal, so if that is what he thinks then he should indite. But he wont because the U.N is unable to enforce international law on a nation as powerful as the U.S. So i think he should have kept his mouth shut because by not Inditing Bush or Blair all he is doing is proving what we already know, the U.N. is a sham orginisation with no power to enforce international law.



posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
The number of people on this site who believe that bush is a war criminal because of the invasion of Iraq is huge. Personally I think you are wrong but thats not what this post is about.


This is not a matter of belief or of opinion. It is a binding consequence of international law, the geneva conventions and the statutes of the United Nations. Attacking another country without approval by the security council and without acting in self defense is, technically, a war crime. Hence Bush is a war criminal. There is no room for disputation of that fact.


My question is this, what are you going to do about it?


Your psychology is akin to that of the DPRK leader, Kim Jong Il : "And yes, we have nuclear weapons, what are you going to do about it? hihi" A last ditch defender of a morally drowned position that is trying to get his conscience clean by total negation of everything that is good or could force him to aknowledge moral principles. Severely psychopathic, like Bush.


lets just say for the purpose of this discussion that he is a war criminal, lets say the world court rules he is guilty of war crimes, so what? Is the world court going to put out a warrant for his arrest?


Yes. The ICC is going to sentence Bush and the other #-stirrers to a life in prison. The sooner the better.


Are they gong to send troops into washington? In short is there any way whatsoever for the world court or the U.N. or any other body to enforce such a ruling? If not do these bodies then have any relevance or purpose beyond empty words?


America is going to reintegrate the international community at some point in history, perhaps already during the next presidency, and sign the ICC agreement. Bush will be delivered to the Hague by the US itself, as soon as the mental sickness called neoconservatism (aka american-zionist plan for world leadership) will be eradicated from the US. This is just a matter of time since the US industry is already ruined and the euro will soon replace the dollar as the world currency. That will deal the death blow to the speculative bubble called US financial economy and with economic doom will come a harsh awakening.

Humanity has left the law of the jungle in coffins everywhere. The same will happen in the united states.



posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 07:13 AM
link   



Attacking another country without approval by the security council and without acting in self defense is, technically, a war crime. Hence Bush is a war criminal. There is no room for disputation of that fact.





Yes. The ICC is going to sentence Bush and the other #-stirrers to a life in prison. The sooner the better.





America is going to reintegrate the international community at some point in history, perhaps already during the next presidency, and sign the ICC agreement. Bush will be delivered to the Hague by the US itself, as soon as the mental sickness called neoconservatism (aka american-zionist plan for world leadership) will be eradicated from the US. This is just a matter of time since the US industry is already ruined and the euro will soon replace the dollar as the world currency. That will deal the death blow to the speculative bubble called US financial economy and with economic doom will come a harsh awakening.





Thanks for the chuckle now let me inject a lttle reality.
1) The U.N. has no authority over the U.S.
2) The Euro will never become the worlds dominant currency, If you don't realise that the dollar has been intentionally depressed by the U.S. government to punish the E.U. for thier opposition to the war I feel sorry for you.
3) The point I was making was that the ICC and the UN are paper tigers. They have neither the will nor the ability to enforce thier judgements. The cannot sanction the US without killing the global economy and they don't have the power to enforce thier rulings militarily.

I really did enjoy that though I haven't laughed that hard in ages.



posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 07:45 AM
link   
War crimes and tens of thousands of dead are not really a laughing subject. You are extremely immature, which also explains your closeness to your psycho-in-chief GWB.



posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 08:00 AM
link   
War crimes are no laughing matter I agree, but the ICC and the UN are.



posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi
This is not a matter of belief or of opinion. It is a binding consequence of international law, the geneva conventions and the statutes of the United Nations. Attacking another country without approval by the security council and without acting in self defense is, technically, a war crime. Hence Bush is a war criminal. There is no room for disputation of that fact.




Well said. I think that the current administration in America should be in court defending their illegal actions right now, tis good idea. Doubt it will happen though.



posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 08:07 AM
link   
As a matter of fact the U.N has no authority whatsoever.



posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 08:10 AM
link   
What because governments like Bush and co. undermine their authority by going into unauthorized war?



posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 08:11 AM
link   
Excatly earthtone because they have no abillity to enforce thier authority. Without that they have none.

[edit on 17-9-2004 by mwm1331]



posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 08:20 AM
link   
Yeh the UN is stupid, but if it is going to work it has to be exactely what it says in the title, "united" i.e Major 'freedom loving' governments within it should adhere to the democratic system it tries to uphold, the same democracy that Bush and co. seem to want to spread around the world (near the oil) This administration rushed into a war quickly under false pretenses so that the truth would come out after they had invaded, which it did (even though we knew along). They should be punished.



posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Earthtone I believe this war was just but that it hd nothing to do with WMD's OR oil.

Its about a long term plan to restructure the whole of the middle east.

But thats a topic for another thread.

My basic queston is this, if neither the UN or the ICC have the ability to enforce thier authority or judgments do they serve any useful purpose?



posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 08:33 AM
link   


May 17 - The White House's top lawyer warned more than two years ago that U.S. officials could be prosecuted for "war crimes" as a result of new and unorthodox measures used by the Bush administration in the war on terrorism, according to an internal White House memo and interviews with participants in the debate over the issue.
MSNBC


Bush is worried about it. I remember reading that he hired some law firm to protect him. And isn't that why Bremer stepped-down early? If he was there past a certain date, he wouldn't be protected against warcimes prosecution?



posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 08:44 AM
link   
You all misunderstand me, I have no doubts the ICC could CHARGE Bush and maybe even CONVICT him. Then what? Can they ENFORCE the conviction?



posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 08:54 AM
link   
He's not a war criminal. One of the presidents powers is that he has free reign over the troops, meaning he can send them anywhere to fight anyone for 40 days. After those 40 days, he must withdraw the troops or declare war. If he was a war criminal, then I'm pretty damned sure someone credible would have brought it up. And I'm really sure it would have been some kind of news story on "60 minutes" or something. The idea that our troops should be controlled only by the U.N. is absurd.



posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 05:32 PM
link   
The UN is a joke and a scam. It's top level officials, including Annan, are corrupt. Just look at the infamous "Oil for Food" program.

The very thought of asking their permission to send troops anywhere is absurd. Our good friends France and Germany would have vetoed any such resolution; they were too invoved in their own corruption and bribery with Saddam.

I would love to see the UN HQ leave NYC. Let them go to France - or maybe to Nobble.

And to answer your question, mwm, no they cannot enforce their judgements, in the same way that a judge cannot and will not enforce an illegal drug deal.




posted on Sep, 20 2004 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
You all misunderstand me, I have no doubts the ICC could CHARGE Bush and maybe even CONVICT him. Then what? Can they ENFORCE the conviction?


If's not really a question of "can" or "if". It's a question of "when".



posted on Sep, 20 2004 @ 10:48 PM
link   
I wonder how they are going to appease them to jail.....

actually there is no chance that we will find out during this or the next administration...Kerry won't sign ICC not that he would have the chance...but, as an admitted war criminal I think the UN would be more interested in a slam dunk to bolster their power. With Kerry being a lawyer he would understand that he is more likely to face prosecution than bush and he isnt even stupid enough to sign himself into prison.


[edit on 20-9-2004 by keholmes]



posted on Sep, 20 2004 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Your right bush wouldnt go to The Hague to sit in front of a war crimes tribunal... which just shows that the word of the USA is crap! They are willing to go with the UN when it is in their intesrests to do so, but as soon as the UN says something against them they dont want anything to do with it. The same goes in many other treatys the USA has signed into but ignored, here are two examples

The Kyoto Treaty
The non-proliferation treaty.

And i'm sure i've read of times where the US has been ordered to pay compensation to people in sth american countries they've interfered in but refised to pay and never did (but dont quote me on that, i dont have any sources to back it up)

Basically what i'm saying is the USA cannot be trusted, they will stab anyone in the back to further their own agenda, and your right, there is nothing anyone can do about it... reminds you of the playground bully doesnt it?



posted on Sep, 20 2004 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Well, for starters, I will not vote for Bush. That's one less vote.
Secondly, I wouldnt
too hard at the world and how it plans to judge Bush & co. It seems to me some of you think we're invinvible and that nobody would dare touch us.
There's a joke.
Ol' Bush better watch out, they'll be here before we know it.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join