[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

[primitive]

Alpha Kodiak
The main reason I have not used any more immature names on GWB than "Moron" is my lack of skills with the English laguage

Moronic foreign policy:
Everybody is entitled to their own view. In my view it's very moronic. He has gained very little, and lost very much. Thats just plain bad maths to me.

War crimes:
GWB was a "suspected" war criminal even before this war due to the treatment of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. (this have been covered before, Dogscoff had a nice link that can be dug up again).
Starting a war all by himself without any justifiable reason does not speak well for him either.
If he really is innocent, he could have his name cleared easily by letting some unbiassed people look into the Guantanamo Base and at the war preparations. Until that happens, he will remain a "suspected" war criminal.
The old "the President got imunity" + the even older "the rules don't apply for Americans" rutines are not a great help either in freeing him from suspicion.

[Fyron]

The old "the President got imunity" + the even older "the rules don't apply for Americans" rutines are not a great help either in freeing him from suspicion.

Actually, I never used such things. I was just debasing your reasons for calling him a war criminal. And, I strongly suspect that Alpha Kodiak was doing the same. In fact, no one here has made such claims, and I don't think anyone here would.

[ April 24, 2003, 00:18: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[primitive]

Fyron:
Where does my post accuse you of saying anything.

Please bring something new into the discussion instead of the same old tedious "I didn't say that, but you said" routine. It's very boring.

The "the President got imunity" and the "the rules don't apply for Americans" are commonly used popular rewritings of official US policy. If you want to discuss the validity of those statements, then please go ahead.

[Fyron]

I was the one that started denouncing your claim, so it was implied that it related to me. And, I then went to say in no unclear terms that I am fairly certain that Alpha Kodiak was doing the same.

If people would stop making up things to respond to in other people's Posts, I would not have to do that "old tedious routine".

[Cyrien]

"the President got imunity" and the "the rules don't apply for Americans"

I have never heard anyone make those claims before now. Not anyone with any type of authority to act on anything like that.

[primitive]

Here is a link to an article from BBC on war crimes regarding Yugoslavia:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1420133.stm

For those who are lazy:
Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva convention defines war crimes as: "Wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including . . . wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial, . . . taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly."

I do not claim to be capable of judging GWB on those charges. But I would certaninly like to see an investigation.

But there won't be any, cause "the rules don't apply for Americans":
(Quote from the article) "In 1998, 120 countries signed up to a resolution in Rome calling for the formation of an International Criminal Court.
Only seven members of the United Nations voted against the resolution. The most prominent of these being the United States which argued that the court might be ineffective and become a tool for politically motivated prosecutions of Americans."

And AFAIK "the President got imunity", so its not possible to raise a civil case in the US either.

[tesco samoa]

Rex perhaps the US used Weapons of Mass Distraction.

[tesco samoa]

Some more background info on WMD
Countries that oppose resolutions to remove this threat from the world.

Resolution 57/57 expressed its opposition to an arms race in space; the United States, Israel, and Micronesia were the only no votes.

Resolution 57/58 called for nuclear weapons states to reduce their non-strategic nuclear arsenals; the United States joined with the UK and France in voting no. Resolution 57/59 urged a nuclear-free world; the six no votes all came from nuclear weapons states: the United States, Britain, France, India, Pakistan, and Israel.

Resolution 57/62 aimed to uphold the authority of the 1925 Geneva Protocols banning the use of chemical and biological weapons. The resolution called upon states which had signed the Protocols with reservations to withdraw their reservations. The only non-affirmative votes were the abstentions from the United States, Israel, and Micronesia. (The United States signed the Protocols with reservations.)

Resolution 57/71 called simply for the General Assembly to continue studying the question of missiles and their implications for world peace and security. The United States, along with Israel and Micronesia, voted no. Resolution 57/65 endorsed further consideration of the relationship between disarmament and development. Only the United States voted no. Resolution 57/73, which advocated a nuclear-weapons free southern hemisphere, received negative votes only from the United States, Britain, and France. Resolution 57/78 laid out a path to total nuclear disarmament - earning negative votes only from the United States and India. The United States, Israel, and Micronesia voted no on resolution 57/97, which dealt with nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. On resolution 57/100 on the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, the United States cast the sole no vote.

On four other resolutions dealing with nuclear weapons (57/79 on disarmament, 57/84 on reducing the nuclear danger, 57/85 on the legality of nuclear weapons, and 57/94 on the prohibition of nuclear weapons), the United States was one of several dozen nations to vote no. And on resolution 57/56, calling for international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, the United States was one of 55 abstainers.

Again some background information. Draw your own conculsions and then post it.

[geoschmo]

Damn Micronesians....

[tesco samoa]

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/rebu...iraq/index.asp

http://www.capitaleye.org/iraqchart.3.12.03.asp

Just some more fuel for the fire..... Then I should get back to the 12 hour work day.