Should George Bush be charged for commiting war crimes?
- Thread starter JonB2004
- Start date
JonB2004, that would be for a Court-like institution to decide. Whether or not we think that the President of the United States of America should be charged with such crimes, and whether or not we think he should be convicted, are two separate and unrelated questions. I would suggest that those who would recommend judge, jury and execution without presenting evidence one way or the other should, quite frankly, reserve their comments.
Re: RE: Should George Bush be
The truth is your posts on President Bush are part Conspriacy Theory and Part Anti-Bushie which = pointless drivel.JonB2004 said:
So according to Toro's logic, when we find people in a bank after hours with a schematic of the alarm system and a map of the vaults, we shouldn't just ASSUME they were going to rob it. Don't want to jump to conclusions, now....
Click
There's tons of documentation of this, and it's also about geopolitical control, sweetheart contracts for Halliburton and other Bush-friendly corporations. You'd really have to be dense to buy any humanitarian rationale, particularly from a regime that has consistently favoured the rich and powerful, hurt the poor and vulnerable and lied about everything they've ever done.
Click
There's tons of documentation of this, and it's also about geopolitical control, sweetheart contracts for Halliburton and other Bush-friendly corporations. You'd really have to be dense to buy any humanitarian rationale, particularly from a regime that has consistently favoured the rich and powerful, hurt the poor and vulnerable and lied about everything they've ever done.
RE: Should George Bush be
Oil is national security Toro, and since every excuse offered by the American administration has been discounted bigtime, what's left but the oil, energy supply is a matter of national security. Or will Bush try and tell us that Iraq was attacked because of the aliens Saddam was talking to? Take your pick, God, OIL, or ALIENS or if you like any combination of the three. But stop telling us that ducks don't quack.
Oil is national security Toro, and since every excuse offered by the American administration has been discounted bigtime, what's left but the oil, energy supply is a matter of national security. Or will Bush try and tell us that Iraq was attacked because of the aliens Saddam was talking to? Take your pick, God, OIL, or ALIENS or if you like any combination of the three. But stop telling us that ducks don't quack.
Perception's got nothing to do with it. It's a violation of the first war crime defined by the Nuremburg Tribunal.
Jeez, I can see all the great debates you must have, Toro: Did Saddam really torture people, or did they just perceive it that way?
Did Tim McVeigh commit a crime in Oklahoma, or was he a victim of....perception?
:roll:
Again with the Evil Halliburton nice of you to forget mentioning Halliburton was involved in the Clinton Administration and even the first Bush Administration. Facts are it doesn't matter what party is in the White House or who is President because Companies like Halliburton know it's good for business to be chummy with who ever is in the White House.pastafarian said:
So your Halliburton/Bush Conspiracy Theory falls flat.
That's a fantastic leap of logic Pasta. You're mixing up cause and effect.
Of course the US is going to award contracts to their own companies. They're the ones who spent hundreds of billions of dollars going in there. Did you really expect them to say, "Oh, I know that you tried to thwart us at every turn France and Russia, but its okay. Here you go. You guys benefit, even though our people died and we spent massive amounts of money."
Oh, certainly, that makes sense.
You still show no proof. Its all conjecture and theory about a nefarious worldview.
And I'm not arguing that intelligence was manipulated or that Bush planned to go into Iraq before they went public on the dangers of Saddam. Such facts do not provide any evidence of intent.
Of course the US is going to award contracts to their own companies. They're the ones who spent hundreds of billions of dollars going in there. Did you really expect them to say, "Oh, I know that you tried to thwart us at every turn France and Russia, but its okay. Here you go. You guys benefit, even though our people died and we spent massive amounts of money."
Oh, certainly, that makes sense.
You still show no proof. Its all conjecture and theory about a nefarious worldview.
And I'm not arguing that intelligence was manipulated or that Bush planned to go into Iraq before they went public on the dangers of Saddam. Such facts do not provide any evidence of intent.
Re: RE: Should George Bush be
Make sure you're sitting on the car at night with a shotgun DB! There's a neo-con waiting to steal the gas out of your tank somewhere!
darkbeaver said:
Make sure you're sitting on the car at night with a shotgun DB! There's a neo-con waiting to steal the gas out of your tank somewhere!
pastafarian said:
And some would argue that you are a traitor.
I wouldn't but some would.
That's their perception.
It's not up to the US to award or withold oil contracts, it's up to the Iraqis. You can be as deliberately obtuse as you want. Your logic dictates that unless we actually see the robbers removing cash from a vault, we can't know their intent.
The US intent was not self-defence, humanitarianism or security-related. There's only one other reason that countries attack other countries: theft.
The US intent was not self-defence, humanitarianism or security-related. There's only one other reason that countries attack other countries: theft.
They'd be wrong, no "perception" about it. Failure to invade Iraq was one of the few things Chretien did that I agreed with.
Saddam did indeed torture people.pastafarian said:
ALERT: Saddam’s Crimes Against Humanity **GRAPHIC VIDEO MATERIAL**
As the trial of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein resumes, the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies is posting 4 videos of actual torture and murder that took place under Saddam Hussein’s regime.
FDD President Cliff May notes: “Television news, understandably, will not broadcast such videos. But they are, nevertheless, an important record of Saddam Hussein’s crimes against humanity that should be available to the public as his trial resumes.”
http://fdd.typepad.com/fdd/2006/01/alert_saddams_c.html
Re: RE: Should George Bush be
poor guy. you just can't handle being told you're right by a "leftie", can you?:lol:
It says a lot more than that. good thing I didn't post it for your edification. What strikes me most about Production Sharing Agreements is the way the buyers are preaching the free-market gospel all the way to getting behind closed doors and tossing in every clause in the book they can get away with to protect themselves against it. In my estimation, very typical.
well
obviously you're capable of having that argument all by yourself but try curbing your enthusiasm a little, will you? its kind of scary.
Toro said:
BitWhys said:
poor guy. you just can't handle being told you're right by a "leftie", can you?:lol:
Toro said:
It says a lot more than that. good thing I didn't post it for your edification. What strikes me most about Production Sharing Agreements is the way the buyers are preaching the free-market gospel all the way to getting behind closed doors and tossing in every clause in the book they can get away with to protect themselves against it. In my estimation, very typical.
Toro said:
well
obviously you're capable of having that argument all by yourself but try curbing your enthusiasm a little, will you? its kind of scary.
Re: RE: Should George Bush be
I read it.
Long dated contracts are often structured so that the investor gets a return. So what? That's common in long-dated capital projects across many industries. Your Manitoba Hydro also tries to protect itself by making a specific return on equity.
Dude, notice how I haven't come out and said I supported this war. I have no opinion about it. Though I want the Americans to succeed, I'm not sure that it has been a particularly intelligent war. And I think the Americans are not succeeding
However, what I am arguing is that this is a war based on control over the Iraqi oil fields. It is not.
Ted Bell
BitWhys said:
I read it.
Long dated contracts are often structured so that the investor gets a return. So what? That's common in long-dated capital projects across many industries. Your Manitoba Hydro also tries to protect itself by making a specific return on equity.
BitWhys said:
Dude, notice how I haven't come out and said I supported this war. I have no opinion about it. Though I want the Americans to succeed, I'm not sure that it has been a particularly intelligent war. And I think the Americans are not succeeding
However, what I am arguing is that this is a war based on control over the Iraqi oil fields. It is not.
BitWhys said:
Ted Bell
RE: Should George Bush be
If you have no opinion about the war why are you attacking the other positions about the war?Your posts indicate rather conclusivly that you do have an opinion about the war.
If you have no opinion about the war why are you attacking the other positions about the war?Your posts indicate rather conclusivly that you do have an opinion about the war.
Re: RE: Should George Bush be
No, I'm attacking the position that the Americans invaded Iraq to take over the oil fields. And that George Bush is a war criminal.
Listen, I'm outspoken and opinionated. If I thought the war was great, I'd say so.
darkbeaver said:
No, I'm attacking the position that the Americans invaded Iraq to take over the oil fields. And that George Bush is a war criminal.
Listen, I'm outspoken and opinionated. If I thought the war was great, I'd say so.