SkyDekker 1,465 #151 July 17, 2003 QuoteIt kind of insinuates that we want everyone to be accountable for their actions except us. ain't that the truth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scoby 0 #152 July 17, 2003 Quote>There is no actual proof of this, of course, but the two of them, > (saddam and bin laden) were at the very least in contact with each > other before and directly after the bombing. Hmm. Perhaps we could also claim that Hussein did not allow inspectors into Iraq a few months before we attacked him. I mean, there's no proof of that either, but it makes him sound bad. Are you referring to this quote: Bush: "The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region." You can find it on the Whitehouse's web site at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030714-3.html. There is also a video, in which he gestures at a baffled Kofi Annan as he says it. I don't know if that is what you are referring to, but either Bush is confused, lying, or both. Or am I getting the meaning somehow wrong? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #153 July 17, 2003 Quote And will he even run after bush? I don't believe that I would run after bush, but I believe that bush can be handled effectively. My motto is "Lick bush in '04'..." Bumper stickers should sell briskly. Whenever I mention it, there seems to be a consensus that it is something that should be done. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #154 July 17, 2003 QuoteQuoteWhy would the US want to submit itself to that? It has no advantage for us. Well, that's kind of the point. We want and expect others to be tried for war crimes, but don't want to be subjected to it ourselves. It kind of insinuates that we want everyone to be accountable for their actions except us. I think there's a difference between a military official sanctioning rape, murder followed by mass graves and chemical attacks than what those idiots would be trying to do right now to Tommy Franks, given the chance. The US won't put itself in a position of being second guessed for its policies. -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #155 July 17, 2003 Quote Not sure exactly what you mean by that, but historically it was Hitler that declared war on the US, not the other way around 1941 . Generally speaking a country goes to war when war is declared on it. And I guess Hitler is Russian? You conveniently and selectively snipped what you wrote originally and which gave context to my comments. Russia was our ally during both WWs. Quote Until then, the US did not provide a great deal of help beyond normal trade, and what about the flying tigers? Your original comments were about Europe. The Flying Tigers didn't operate in Europe. I guess I do have better books than you. Quote I thought they wer helping china combat japs before 12/07/41. Maybe you got a book I don't got. and thanks to Joe Kennedy and Prescott Bush the US also did a whole lot of trade with Nazi Germany.Quote and what about Chamberlain and Halifax attitude, regardless, Kennedy was removed in fact, after that fiasco and due to this he never ran for president, don't forget the essays his OWN SON wrote about the hitlerization of Germany.....Hmmmm? What do Chamberlain and Halifax have to do with US help for anyone in the period 1939-41? You are getting off topic. Quote So I guess I making this all up that even though there were great warnings and France and Britain let Germany build up, and refuse to stand up against the take over the czech republic, no, lets wait, I think we see this happening again. The US Treaty with Germany of 1921 imposed the same responsibilities on the US with respect to German aggression as did the Treaty of Versailles on France and Britain. If France and Britain failed to live up to their obligations, so did the US. Britain had no treaty obligation to Czechoslovakia anyway. Britain had a treaty with Poland, and on Sept 3 1939 Britain fulfilled its obligation under that treaty. All the while Prescott Bush was dealing with the Nazis.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites w4p2 0 #156 July 17, 2003 Those few points are just one more indication that Bush has lost his touch with reality and history. I give full credit of the current policy drift between the world and US to this single individual. The debate is less about the jurisdiction of the actions, than on pretex and banners under which the actions were undertaken. It is also very much about the treatment of prisoners. To alter a well known quote slightly, I would say, that it is seldom that actions on so few, have altered the opinions of so many. UK is not being bashed around on its actions on Iraq, why? I think it is to be credited to Mr. Blair and his reasonable presentation and argumentation over the issues. No religion needed. The ones that saw his performance is US Congress today know what I mean. The best thing Mr.Bush can do to his country and world in crises is to turn in his letter of resignition. Maybe it is time to demand it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,116 #157 July 17, 2003 >Why would the US want to submit itself to that? It has no advantage for us. Might be nice to be able to prosecute, say, Hussein's generals for their crimes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,116 #158 July 17, 2003 >maybe the world is a safer place because of what we did? Just maybe. And maybe there are now thousands of Iraqis who lost their wives and children to US bombs, and will form the backbone of Al Qaeda II. The more people we kill, the more that hate us - and the more that will be willing to be in the cockpit of that 767 when it hits the Sears Tower, or even the delivery truck when it blows up in the Midtown Tunnel. That's safer? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,116 #159 July 17, 2003 >The US won't put itself in a position of being second guessed for its policies. Then we have no right to second guess other countries for their policies. Treat others as you would be treated and all that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jib 0 #160 July 17, 2003 Quote>Why would the US want to submit itself to that? It has no advantage for us. Might be nice to be able to prosecute, say, Hussein's generals for their crimes. Let Iraq try its own criminals in its own courts rather than allow the UN to exceed the scope of its charter in an effort to become the government of the world at the expense of the US' sovereignty. -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Scoby 0 #161 July 17, 2003 To be perfectly honest, I can't see how Tony Blair is looking any better for any of this. Blair, like Bush, is a religious loon who was so convinced that justification would be found on the ground that he went to war on the thinnest of intelligence. Ultimately, that is the real damnation of the pair. Had there been WMD, as they so feverishly imagined, we wouldn't be having this conversation. They bet that there would be, and they lost big. Blair is more likely to lose his job than Bush because of this, but they certainly both deserve it richly. But that's not really my concern at the moment. I'm asking how when Bush displays a reality distortion field of that magnitude, how come he isn't being called upon it? I mean, read the quote! Look at the video (right near the end)! How can this be explained other than Bush has lost it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jib 0 #162 July 17, 2003 Quote>maybe the world is a safer place because of what we did? Just maybe. And maybe there are now thousands of Iraqis who lost their wives and children to US bombs, and will form the backbone of Al Qaeda II. The more people we kill, the more that hate us - and the more that will be willing to be in the cockpit of that 767 when it hits the Sears Tower, or even the delivery truck when it blows up in the Midtown Tunnel. That's safer? Maybe... I have no idea what Iraq is like right now, but as I recall people were rather happy when Saddam's regime fell. How many people died at the hands of Saddam? -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jib 0 #163 July 17, 2003 Quote>The US won't put itself in a position of being second guessed for its policies. Then we have no right to second guess other countries for their policies. Treat others as you would be treated and all that. What policies are you referring to? -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,116 #164 July 17, 2003 >Let Iraq try its own criminals in its own courts . . . Like Milosevic was tried by his own courts? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,116 #165 July 17, 2003 >but as I recall people were rather happy when Saddam's regime fell. Have you read the papers lately? People in Iraq are generally miserable due to the lack of power, water and fuel. They're protesting our involvement there and we're shooting the protesters. They, in turn, are killing US servicemen and women. That doesn't sound that happy to me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,116 #166 July 17, 2003 >>>The US won't put itself in a position of being second guessed for its policies. >>Then we have no right to second guess other countries for their >> policies. Treat others as you would be treated and all that. >What policies are you referring to? Same ones you were. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jib 0 #167 July 17, 2003 Quote>Let Iraq try its own criminals in its own courts . . . Like Milosevic was tried by his own courts? More like US citizens in US courts under US laws and Constitution. -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jib 0 #168 July 17, 2003 Quote>>>The US won't put itself in a position of being second guessed for its policies. >>Then we have no right to second guess other countries for their >> policies. Treat others as you would be treated and all that. >What policies are you referring to? Same ones you were. I don't think we're on the same page. Do you think the Criminal Court has authority over a single murder? Or just genocide? Would they have authority over the US' decisions re: Iraq? Or bomb an aspirin factory? -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #169 July 17, 2003 QuoteMore like US citizens in US courts under US laws and Constitution. Like the US citizens being held indefinitely without being charged with a crime and with no access to an attorney because they are suspected terrorists?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites w4p2 0 #170 July 17, 2003 QUOTE: I'm asking how when Bush displays a reality distortion field of that magnitude, how come he isn't being called upon it? I mean, read the quote! Look at the video (right near the end)! How can this be explained other than Bush has lost it? __________________________________________________ That is also my question. And when combined with ongoing crises in North Korea, it becomes really serious. A matter of vendetta is one thing.... potential for nuclear exchange is something else. I am not a big fan of Mr.Blair, but at least he has maintained his rationality and is debating the matter with more elegance and reality than Mr. Bush. I think that is one of the main reasons UK has not faced international bashing to the extent that US has. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jib 0 #171 July 17, 2003 QuoteQuoteMore like US citizens in US courts under US laws and Constitution. Like the US citizens being held indefinitely without being charged with a crime and with no access to an attorney because they are suspected terrorists?? I can't condone that, but it's not the same as having a trial for someone formally ACCUSED of crimes, which is what we're talking about. -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nigel99 616 #172 July 18, 2003 thanks PhillyKev, also it adds credibility is the US submits itself to international law rather than saying they are always going to be "good boys" and don't need it. I think G Bush has shown the US is quite cabable of commiting war crimes (Iraq was is thought to be illegal by many lawyers, and I see Blair said yesterday they might never find any weapons). That could get really interesting they could have a joint trial (Blair and Saddam!Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #173 July 18, 2003 "That could get really interesting they could have a joint trial (Blair and Saddam)" They'd have to catch Saddam first, do you really think that is going to happen? And where would the trial be held, under what jurisdiction?-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Tonto 1 #174 July 18, 2003 "Britain AND FRANCE" Well if you're going to be silly about it.... Britain, France, Australia and New Zealand tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Tonto 1 #175 July 18, 2003 "murder followed by mass graves" Tommy Franks should be tried for this. 6000 civilians died in an unprovoked attack on another country. If he says "I was following orders" then they can do the same thing to him as they did to the people who said that at Nuremberg. 6000 civilians died. That's a war crime. tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next Page 7 of 8 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
w4p2 0 #156 July 17, 2003 Those few points are just one more indication that Bush has lost his touch with reality and history. I give full credit of the current policy drift between the world and US to this single individual. The debate is less about the jurisdiction of the actions, than on pretex and banners under which the actions were undertaken. It is also very much about the treatment of prisoners. To alter a well known quote slightly, I would say, that it is seldom that actions on so few, have altered the opinions of so many. UK is not being bashed around on its actions on Iraq, why? I think it is to be credited to Mr. Blair and his reasonable presentation and argumentation over the issues. No religion needed. The ones that saw his performance is US Congress today know what I mean. The best thing Mr.Bush can do to his country and world in crises is to turn in his letter of resignition. Maybe it is time to demand it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #157 July 17, 2003 >Why would the US want to submit itself to that? It has no advantage for us. Might be nice to be able to prosecute, say, Hussein's generals for their crimes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #158 July 17, 2003 >maybe the world is a safer place because of what we did? Just maybe. And maybe there are now thousands of Iraqis who lost their wives and children to US bombs, and will form the backbone of Al Qaeda II. The more people we kill, the more that hate us - and the more that will be willing to be in the cockpit of that 767 when it hits the Sears Tower, or even the delivery truck when it blows up in the Midtown Tunnel. That's safer? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #159 July 17, 2003 >The US won't put itself in a position of being second guessed for its policies. Then we have no right to second guess other countries for their policies. Treat others as you would be treated and all that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #160 July 17, 2003 Quote>Why would the US want to submit itself to that? It has no advantage for us. Might be nice to be able to prosecute, say, Hussein's generals for their crimes. Let Iraq try its own criminals in its own courts rather than allow the UN to exceed the scope of its charter in an effort to become the government of the world at the expense of the US' sovereignty. -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scoby 0 #161 July 17, 2003 To be perfectly honest, I can't see how Tony Blair is looking any better for any of this. Blair, like Bush, is a religious loon who was so convinced that justification would be found on the ground that he went to war on the thinnest of intelligence. Ultimately, that is the real damnation of the pair. Had there been WMD, as they so feverishly imagined, we wouldn't be having this conversation. They bet that there would be, and they lost big. Blair is more likely to lose his job than Bush because of this, but they certainly both deserve it richly. But that's not really my concern at the moment. I'm asking how when Bush displays a reality distortion field of that magnitude, how come he isn't being called upon it? I mean, read the quote! Look at the video (right near the end)! How can this be explained other than Bush has lost it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #162 July 17, 2003 Quote>maybe the world is a safer place because of what we did? Just maybe. And maybe there are now thousands of Iraqis who lost their wives and children to US bombs, and will form the backbone of Al Qaeda II. The more people we kill, the more that hate us - and the more that will be willing to be in the cockpit of that 767 when it hits the Sears Tower, or even the delivery truck when it blows up in the Midtown Tunnel. That's safer? Maybe... I have no idea what Iraq is like right now, but as I recall people were rather happy when Saddam's regime fell. How many people died at the hands of Saddam? -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #163 July 17, 2003 Quote>The US won't put itself in a position of being second guessed for its policies. Then we have no right to second guess other countries for their policies. Treat others as you would be treated and all that. What policies are you referring to? -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #164 July 17, 2003 >Let Iraq try its own criminals in its own courts . . . Like Milosevic was tried by his own courts? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #165 July 17, 2003 >but as I recall people were rather happy when Saddam's regime fell. Have you read the papers lately? People in Iraq are generally miserable due to the lack of power, water and fuel. They're protesting our involvement there and we're shooting the protesters. They, in turn, are killing US servicemen and women. That doesn't sound that happy to me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #166 July 17, 2003 >>>The US won't put itself in a position of being second guessed for its policies. >>Then we have no right to second guess other countries for their >> policies. Treat others as you would be treated and all that. >What policies are you referring to? Same ones you were. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #167 July 17, 2003 Quote>Let Iraq try its own criminals in its own courts . . . Like Milosevic was tried by his own courts? More like US citizens in US courts under US laws and Constitution. -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #168 July 17, 2003 Quote>>>The US won't put itself in a position of being second guessed for its policies. >>Then we have no right to second guess other countries for their >> policies. Treat others as you would be treated and all that. >What policies are you referring to? Same ones you were. I don't think we're on the same page. Do you think the Criminal Court has authority over a single murder? Or just genocide? Would they have authority over the US' decisions re: Iraq? Or bomb an aspirin factory? -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #169 July 17, 2003 QuoteMore like US citizens in US courts under US laws and Constitution. Like the US citizens being held indefinitely without being charged with a crime and with no access to an attorney because they are suspected terrorists?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
w4p2 0 #170 July 17, 2003 QUOTE: I'm asking how when Bush displays a reality distortion field of that magnitude, how come he isn't being called upon it? I mean, read the quote! Look at the video (right near the end)! How can this be explained other than Bush has lost it? __________________________________________________ That is also my question. And when combined with ongoing crises in North Korea, it becomes really serious. A matter of vendetta is one thing.... potential for nuclear exchange is something else. I am not a big fan of Mr.Blair, but at least he has maintained his rationality and is debating the matter with more elegance and reality than Mr. Bush. I think that is one of the main reasons UK has not faced international bashing to the extent that US has. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #171 July 17, 2003 QuoteQuoteMore like US citizens in US courts under US laws and Constitution. Like the US citizens being held indefinitely without being charged with a crime and with no access to an attorney because they are suspected terrorists?? I can't condone that, but it's not the same as having a trial for someone formally ACCUSED of crimes, which is what we're talking about. -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nigel99 616 #172 July 18, 2003 thanks PhillyKev, also it adds credibility is the US submits itself to international law rather than saying they are always going to be "good boys" and don't need it. I think G Bush has shown the US is quite cabable of commiting war crimes (Iraq was is thought to be illegal by many lawyers, and I see Blair said yesterday they might never find any weapons). That could get really interesting they could have a joint trial (Blair and Saddam!Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #173 July 18, 2003 "That could get really interesting they could have a joint trial (Blair and Saddam)" They'd have to catch Saddam first, do you really think that is going to happen? And where would the trial be held, under what jurisdiction?-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonto 1 #174 July 18, 2003 "Britain AND FRANCE" Well if you're going to be silly about it.... Britain, France, Australia and New Zealand tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonto 1 #175 July 18, 2003 "murder followed by mass graves" Tommy Franks should be tried for this. 6000 civilians died in an unprovoked attack on another country. If he says "I was following orders" then they can do the same thing to him as they did to the people who said that at Nuremberg. 6000 civilians died. That's a war crime. tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)