Should George Bush be charged for commiting war crimes?

Should George Bush be charged for commiting war crimes?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
RE: Should George Bush be

Aeon's the best, Aeon tell Toro about containment of China.
TORO, IT'S THE OIL!
CHECK OUT THE PRICE!
WATCH INFLATION!
SEE CONSUMERS PANIC!
SEE UNCLE SAM GO BALLISTIC!
SEE THE ROCKETS RED CLARE!
AND BOMBS BURSTING IN AIR!
 

Toro

Senate Member
May 24, 2005
5,468
109
63
Florida, Hurricane Central
aeon said:
Wrong, alquada and saddam hussein, werent friends,

I didn't say they were, now did I.

aeon said:
There was no crackdown on alquada after the us invaded by saudi arabia, in your dream maybe,

Wrong.

aeon said:
This argument worth abostly nothing,only speculation at his best.

How would you know?

aeon said:
This worth nothing again, since it was proved saddam wasnt a threat at all, for anyone in the world.

Well, except to his own people that is.

But that's besides the point. Nothing was "proved." What matters is what was perceived.

aeon said:
The saudis didnt cracked down on alquada after 9-11, cause the saudi are their main source of money and interest to alquada, actually the fbi was denied acces to 9-11 terrorist family by the saudis.

And that was a rationale for occupying a country in the Mid East, because the Saudis weren't doing much.

aeon said:
Democracy for who exactly?? for us coorporation or for the iraqi peoples?? according to iraqies, the invasion is more of an humiliation than anything else.

Now, aeon, tell me where I said this was the correct strategy?

aeon said:
do you remember pinochet coup during the 70s?? the cia helped to get rid of an elected leader to replace it with a dictator which was pinochet, so the democracy reason, is just to get support from people like you, who arent able to dig for the truth.

Who said I supported it? Point to where I said I thought the invasion was the correct thing to do. What I'm giving you is the rationale for the war, not the cartoonish seizing oil theory.
 

aeon

Council Member
Jan 17, 2006
1,348
0
36
Toro said:
I didn't say they were, now did I.

So you admit, that this reason is bogus, thankx.

Toro said:

Well there must be an article somewhere that talks about it, show it to me.


Toro said:
How would you know?

Alquada arent structure to do that. alquada is everywhere, and it became stronger when somebody called ""reagan"" helped them and of course their main source of money was and is from saudi arabia, you know the great friends of the bushes.


Toro said:
Well, except to his own people that is.

But that's besides the point. Nothing was "proved." What matters is what was perceived.

True, saddam was a threat to the kurd, and shiites,so as the 5 permanent members of the UN, which has persue a punishement policy that last 13 years, which killed more than 1 millions of peoples, half of them were children under 5 years old, you know even madelain abright which was under clinton, said this policy was worth it,so saying the US invaded because they cared about iraqies, is total bullstrawberry crap.

Toro said:
And that was a rationale for occupying a country in the Mid East, because the Saudis weren't doing much.

Since we all know for a fact the saudis are the mother of terrorism, since we all know for a fact that this us governement act like it isnt, show a lot of the credibility of the us officials , regarding 9-11 to everything they have done so far, regarding this suppose war on terror.


Toro said:
Now, aeon, tell me where I said this was the correct strategy?

True, i admit.



Toro said:
Who said I supported it? Point to where I said I thought the invasion was the correct thing to do. What I'm giving you is the rationale for the war, not the cartoonish seizing oil theory.


The oil theory is the only thing that makes sense to me, and the geopolitical strategy is another one also,both reason are well explained in Brzezinski Zbigniew's books called ""the grandchessboard"" written in 1997, which explain that the next world conflict will be where us and the whole coalition are right now, cause those who will control those region economy, will control 75% of the world economy, but for the american to support this imperial mobilization, USA needs another pearl harbor, and you know this book wasnt written by micheal moore fans or something like that,here is his bio.


Former US president Jimmy Carter's national security advisor and George Bush Sr.'s campaign advisor. - Counselor, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS ->) - Professor of American Foreign Policy, Johns Hopkins University (->) - National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter (1977-81) - Trustee and founder of the TrilateralCommission - International advisor of several major US/Global corporations - Associate of Henry Kissinger (->) - Under Ronald Reagan member of NSC-Defense Department Commission on Integrated Long-Term Strategy - Under Ronald Reagan member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board - Past member, Board of Directors, The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR->) - 1988 Co-chairman of the Bush National Security Advisory Task Force.
 

aeon

Council Member
Jan 17, 2006
1,348
0
36
Re: RE: Should George Bush be

darkbeaver said:
Aeon's the best, Aeon tell Toro about containment of China.
TORO, IT'S THE OIL!
CHECK OUT THE PRICE!
WATCH INFLATION!
SEE CONSUMERS PANIC!
SEE UNCLE SAM GO BALLISTIC!
SEE THE ROCKETS RED CLARE!
AND BOMBS BURSTING IN AIR!


I think you know more than me, about china . :wink:
 

Toro

Senate Member
May 24, 2005
5,468
109
63
Florida, Hurricane Central
aeon said:
Well there must be an article somewhere that talks about it, show it to me.

The most recent article. I have more.

Mar 30, 2006 2006 GMT...

Saudi security forces conducting a series of raids throughout the kingdom in March arrested 40 suspected militants, uncovered caches of explosives and weapons, and seized two vehicles rigged with explosives -- likely thwarting an imminent attack. The raids, in Riyadh, the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, and near the recently attacked Abqaiq oil processing facility, demonstrate Saudi success against al Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula. The fact that another attack was in the making, however, also indicates the significant threat the jihadist network continues to pose in the country.

The two vehicles seized March 28 near the facility bore the markings of the Saudi Arabian Oil Co. (Saudi Aramco), similar to the ones used in the Feb. 24 Abqaiq attack. The advanced stage of construction of the car bombs suggests that an attack was forthcoming, and the Saudi Aramco markings could indicate the target was another oil installation. Because Saudi Aramco vehicles arouse little suspicion in Saudi Arabia, however, the bombs could have been intended for any number of targets.

The swift Saudi response to the Abqaiq attack and the success of these latest raids are signs that the Saudis are making good use of their counterterrorism intelligence capabilities. Within days of the attack, Saudi security forces had conducted raids and arrested suspects in the plot. During one raid in suburban Riyadh on Feb. 27, security forces engaged militants in a two-hour shootout, killing five militants and uncovering weapons and explosives. These raids provided intelligence that led to the March raids. In addition, Saudi success in killing off a number of the country's al Qaeda leaders shows that Saudi intelligence has penetrated the jihadist network in the country at its highest levels.

...continued

Stratfor ($)
 

Sassylassie

House Member
Jan 31, 2006
2,976
7
38
I watched a documentry on The Space Channel yesterday and it was about Saudi Arabia's Role in Funding Terrorism. Pre-September 11 the Royals had a Secret meeting in Paris with Osma's top guns and they inked out an agreement to fund Osma to the tune of 55 million a year (The money was put in the books as road work and bridge building). This agreement was to ensure that Saudi Arabia would be free of any terrorist threats.
 

aeon

Council Member
Jan 17, 2006
1,348
0
36
Toro said:
aeon said:
Well there must be an article somewhere that talks about it, show it to me.

The most recent article. I have more.

Mar 30, 2006 2006 GMT...

Saudi security forces conducting a series of raids throughout the kingdom in March arrested 40 suspected militants, uncovered caches of explosives and weapons, and seized two vehicles rigged with explosives -- likely thwarting an imminent attack. The raids, in Riyadh, the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, and near the recently attacked Abqaiq oil processing facility, demonstrate Saudi success against al Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula. The fact that another attack was in the making, however, also indicates the significant threat the jihadist network continues to pose in the country.

The two vehicles seized March 28 near the facility bore the markings of the Saudi Arabian Oil Co. (Saudi Aramco), similar to the ones used in the Feb. 24 Abqaiq attack. The advanced stage of construction of the car bombs suggests that an attack was forthcoming, and the Saudi Aramco markings could indicate the target was another oil installation. Because Saudi Aramco vehicles arouse little suspicion in Saudi Arabia, however, the bombs could have been intended for any number of targets.

The swift Saudi response to the Abqaiq attack and the success of these latest raids are signs that the Saudis are making good use of their counterterrorism intelligence capabilities. Within days of the attack, Saudi security forces had conducted raids and arrested suspects in the plot. During one raid in suburban Riyadh on Feb. 27, security forces engaged militants in a two-hour shootout, killing five militants and uncovering weapons and explosives. These raids provided intelligence that led to the March raids. In addition, Saudi success in killing off a number of the country's al Qaeda leaders shows that Saudi intelligence has penetrated the jihadist network in the country at its highest levels.

...continued

Stratfor ($)



You said, saudi cracked down on alquada, after 9-11 and after us invaded iraq, this happened 3 weeks ago, do you want me to laugh or something??
 

Toro

Senate Member
May 24, 2005
5,468
109
63
Florida, Hurricane Central
aeon said:
You said, saudi cracked down on alquada, after 9-11 and after us invaded iraq, this happened 3 weeks ago, do you want me to laugh or something??

No, I said they did NOT crackdown on al-Qaeda after 9/11, but did so after the Iraqi invasion.

Let's remember what you said just above

aeon said:
There was no crackdown on alquada after the us invaded by saudi arabia, in your dream maybe, actually saudi arabia are the greatest alquada supporter.

Wrong, as I've just posted.

This is one of MANY incidents SINCE the Iraqi invasion. I chose to put this one up because it was the easiest to find.

But I know, that when you can only look through the prism of oil, you must deny all other possibilities. Otherwise, it discredits your theory.
 

Johnny Utah

Council Member
Mar 11, 2006
1,434
1
38
Should George Bush be charged for commiting war crimes?

:roll:
 

aeon

Council Member
Jan 17, 2006
1,348
0
36
Toro said:
aeon said:
You said, saudi cracked down on alquada, after 9-11 and after us invaded iraq, this happened 3 weeks ago, do you want me to laugh or something??

No, I said they did NOT crackdown on al-Qaeda after 9/11, but did so after the Iraqi invasion.

Let's remember what you said just above

aeon said:
There was no crackdown on alquada after the us invaded by saudi arabia, in your dream maybe, actually saudi arabia are the greatest alquada supporter.

Wrong, as I've just posted.

This is one of MANY incidents SINCE the Iraqi invasion. I chose to put this one up because it was the easiest to find.

But I know, that when you can only look through the prism of oil, you must deny all other possibilities. Otherwise, it discredits your theory.


Even if it is true, it doenst discredit my theory, what saudi cracking down on alquada, has to do with the reason for the war??

They cracked down on alquada, 3 years after the invasion, that is quite not impressive at all, the opposite i should say.

Here is some crazy thing that saudi arabia did after 9-11.



The report strongly criticized top Saudi officials for their ‘lack of cooperation’ before and after the Sept. 11 attacks, even when it became known that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis.…One top U.S. official told the joint inquiry staff that the Saudis since 1996 would not cooperate on matters relating to Osama bin Laden.* Robert Baer, a former CIA officer, said the Saudis blocked FBI agents from talking to relatives of the 15 hijackers and following other leads in the kingdom.” * Frank Davies, et al., “Bush rejects call to give more 9/11 data,” Philadelphia Inquirer, July 30, 2003.


http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/11/23/MN74744.DTL
 

JonB2004

Council Member
Mar 10, 2006
1,188
0
36
RE: Should George Bush be

There were never any WMDs in Iraq. It was all so Bush could have Iraq's oil.
 

JonB2004

Council Member
Mar 10, 2006
1,188
0
36
RE: Should George Bush be

Bush told everyone that he was going to Iraq to overturn Saddam and save from the world from the so-called WMDs. There wasn't any WMDs. There is only one other reason he invaded Iraq.
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Re: RE: Should George Bush be

JonB2004 said:
Bush told everyone that he was going to Iraq to overturn Saddam and save from the world from the so-called WMDs. There wasn't any WMDs. There is only one other reason he invaded Iraq.

You're making assumptions and jumping to conclusions, that is not evidence.
 

Claudius

Electoral Member
May 23, 2006
195
0
16
If you don't do what they say, they get pissed off at you. And nobody wants to get on the bad side of the U.S.

We didn't go to Iraq. We didn't do what they told us to. We're still here. What are they going to do? Punish us by a cutting off the new 24-hour "Simpsons" channel?


.