• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Bush is a war criminal...

Should George W. Bush be impeached?

  • Yes

    Votes: 42 41.6%

  • No

    Votes: 59 58.4%
  • Total voters
    101
Status
Not open for further replies.
wrath said:
Well take a really good look at this check that was NEVER given to this Palestinian mother from Saddam for $10,000 because her son NEVER carried out a suicide attack NOT murdering Israeli civilians.

NO......you're not in denial.
saddam1.jpg
Click to expand...
I see a piece of paper. I don't see anything indicating it to be a check from Saddam, or anything, so that's rather lame.
 
First off, There was a major problem with WMD and the intelligence associated with them, but that is not Bush's fault. He does not do the surveillance the CIA does. I think he needs to do some reconfiguring in the intelligence agency. Saddam, regardless if you think he is secular, gave thousands of $$ to the families of suicide bombers that attacked Israel and American intrests. Doesn't sound secular to me. Also, did you miss the fact that the worthless, negative and pessimistic media never mentions anything about Bin Laden unless he makes a speech about hurricane Katrina being the death winds of Allah that kills the American's. BTW we still have almost the same amount of forces in Afghanistan that we do in Iraq. Osama's time is comming and he is going to die. Don't worry dems we will get him...
Click to expand...

you're not getting my point. im saying that there are countries that seemed a lot more relevant to our war on terror than sadaam. The reasons we have for invading Iraq just don't cut it because there are countries that are far more culpable.


Saddam, regardless if you think he is secular, gave thousands of $$ to the families of suicide bombers that attacked Israel and American intrests.
Click to expand...

Wow he gave checks to the families of suicide bombers. Pakistani and Suadi Arabian rulers give money to the actual fundmentalists who run terrorist training camps, the very camps that produced some of the terrorists who attacked us on 911. And what do we do? we give these countries money and support. These same countries are the ones that produced organizations like Al-Queda and the Taliban.

First off, There was a major problem with WMD and the intelligence associated with them, but that is not Bush's fault.
Click to expand...

Either way it was a mistake on part of the US government. And this mistake leads us to conclude that invading Iraq on the premise of WMD threats was false, whether intentional or not. Do you really think the public would have agreed to an Iraq war, if the WMD argument wasn't presented? I mean, we're recovering from 9-11, war on terror has begun in the US, and if Bush told us that we gotta get Sadaam just because he commited atrocities and is a bad dictator, do you think we'd support that? So basically we went into Iraq to eliminate a WMD threat that never existed at the cost of billions of dollars. Our fallback is that he was a bad guy and gave money to the mothers and wives of the suicide bombers in Palestine.

BTW we still have almost the same amount of forces in Afghanistan that we do in Iraq. Osama's time is comming and he is going to die. Don't worry dems we will get him...
Click to expand...

Considering that most believe that he is in Pakistan or Iran.. I don't see what the point is.
 
steen said:
I see a piece of paper. I don't see anything indicating it to be a check from Saddam, or anything, so that's rather lame.
Click to expand...

Are you really in that much of denial?
You don't believe the things that you see on TV and you don't believe the things you read on the interenet.
(Which is amazing because the amount of articles and or broadcasted news that is saying the same information should tell you that there is some truth behind it.)
Maybe we should all pitch in a few dollars and send you over there,hell we could even make a time machine and have you travel back to when everything started...oh wait,they'd still me lame little lies to you huh?
You're incredable,you really are...
 
Originally posted by ban.the.electoral.college:
Hey, that's for free cable tv and internet. What's up? Why are you trying to bait and switch on my thread!?

J/k, thanks for the info. I'll look around on the site to see if we can make it even easier for people.
Click to expand...
I couldn't find the "impeach Bush" link. So I settled on "Keep the Internet Free from Censorship" link.
 
wrath said:
Well take a really good look at this check that was NEVER given to this Palestinian mother from Saddam for $10,000 because her son NEVER carried out a suicide attack NOT murdering Israeli civilians.

NO......you're not in denial.
saddam1.jpg
Click to expand...

You're going to need to provide more sources rather than a highly biased Jewish website. The truth is that check could be for anything. And if your claims are true, I think it would have a) been reported in the mainstream media, and b) the same information would be found on multiple other news/blog sites, not just religious Jewish websites.
 
Chevalier said:
The issue of Bush being a war criminal is clearly completely off base. The world courts are wrong if that is truly their intent. I can see why the world community of Oil for Food profiteers wants Bush out and I understand their upset at his ending of their business. Is that the interest you support in advancing this notion that Bush is a war criminal? Or do you prefer to let the Iraqi people further slip into civil war as India experienced? To leave now serves no good end. The UN should have had the courage and fortitude to end the regime long ago, but they chose profit over justice. They cared not the slightest that the average Iraqis were dying as long as the profit came rolling in. After the French, Russians and Chinese were bought off the Security Council had a sudden case of nerves, funny how millions of barrels of oil can produce that effect.
Click to expand...
Welcome. Well said!
 
thoracle said:
Welcome. Well said!
Click to expand...

Sure. If you like reading opinion and consider he/she failed to ignore the facts:

Bush actually has been tried by several organizations of lawyers, and convicted of war crimes. Just look up the Afghan Tribunal or L.A.W. (lawyers against war) :

http://afghan-tribunal.3005.net/engl...ngaguement.htm

Here is a breakdown of the laws GWB has broken:

USC A4P2: Treaties adopted by the U.S. are the "law of the land". Thus, a breach of the U.N. Charter, Hague IV, Geneva Conventions, and Federal Law.

U.S. Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 2441, War Crimes Act of 1996: Makes committing war crimes illegal, defined as "a grave breach in any of the int'l conventions signed at Geneva 12, August 1949 or ANY convention to which the U.S. is a party...", punishable by fine, imprisonment or death.

The are signatories and party to the following treaties and charters which define wars of aggression as 1) a war crime 2) crime against peace 3) and crime against humanity:

1. Hague IV, Laws and customes of war on land
2. UN Genral Assembly Res. 3314
3. Nuremberg Tribunal Charter
4. Geneva Conventions
 
USC A4P2: Treaties adopted by the U.S. are the "law of the land". Thus, a breach of the U.N. Charter, Hague IV, Geneva Conventions, and Federal Law.

U.S. Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 2441, War Crimes Act of 1996: Makes committing war crimes illegal, defined as "a grave breach in any of the int'l conventions signed at Geneva 12, August 1949 or ANY convention to which the U.S. is a party...", punishable by fine, imprisonment or death.

The are signatories and party to the following treaties and charters which define wars of aggression as 1) a war crime 2) crime against peace 3) and crime against humanity:

1. Hague IV, Laws and customes of war on land
2. UN Genral Assembly Res. 3314
3. Nuremberg Tribunal Charter
4. Geneva Conventions
Click to expand...

Again you are going to put more trust into the UN? That is hypocrisy at its best defining moment.
 
ban.the.electoral.college said:
You're going to need to provide more sources rather than a highly biased Jewish website. The truth is that check could be for anything. And if your claims are true, I think it would have a) been reported in the mainstream media, and b) the same information would be found on multiple other news/blog sites, not just religious Jewish websites.
Click to expand...

I must admit, I didn't realize how deep this denial goes. If this was an op/ed article with no photographic evidence, I could see your skepticism but this is almost amusing!

and ----- IT WAS reported in the mainstream media. You need to pay more attention.
Is this more palatable for you? :roll:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/03/world/main505316.shtml
 
Last edited:
wrath said:
I must admit, I didn't realize how deep this denial goes. If this was an op/ed article with no photographic evidence, I could see your skepticism but this is almost amusing!

and ----- IT WAS reported in the mainstream media. You need to pay more attention.
Is this more palatable for you? :roll:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/03/world/main505316.shtml
Click to expand...

Heh, yeah. That's better.:smile:
 
That's the Bush Administration for ya. They define hypocricy.
Click to expand...

No it would be hypocrisy to put trust into the UN. The bush admin did not! The UN is supposed to stand up against genocides and tyrants and we simply went around them to do what they supposedly stand for. That my friend is noble not hyocrisy. Get your facts straight.

BTW welcome back again.
 
You know that you are simply offering a political perspective. You are wrong, there is no basis for such a charge beyond political gameplaying, and if the UN had done the morally responsible thing instead of taking the bribe money, we would have found a peaceful way of removing the real Butcher of Baghdad, Saddam Hussein. Yes UN signatores would say differently, they lost their cash cow in Saddam Hussein. They cared little for the 5000-6000 Iraqis that died each year in Iraq as long as they got their blood money. Run to their camp if you wish , but don't pretend it is anything more than politics and a group of people upset because the "spice" stopped flowing.
 
Chevalier said:
You know that you are simply offering a political perspective. You are wrong, there is no basis for such a charge beyond political gameplaying, and if the UN had done the morally responsible thing instead of taking the bribe money, we would have found a peaceful way of removing the real Butcher of Baghdad, Saddam Hussein. Yes UN signatores would say differently, they lost their cash cow in Saddam Hussein. They cared little for the 5000-6000 Iraqis that died each year in Iraq as long as they got their blood money. Run to their camp if you wish , but don't pretend it is anything more than politics and a group of people upset because the "spice" stopped flowing.
Click to expand...

I have heard every op-ed out there, but all it boils down to at the end of the day is an opinion. What all you dissenters fail to realize is that the Bush administration broke U.S. laws and international laws. If you had read any of the recent posts of mine, you would know this. Why not try to dispute the facts rather than adding your two cents to the commonplace arguments, that are as old as the day is long?
 
SKILMATIC said:
No it would be hypocrisy to put trust into the UN. The bush admin did not! The UN is supposed to stand up against genocides and tyrants and we simply went around them to do what they supposedly stand for. That my friend is noble not hyocrisy. Get your facts straight.

BTW welcome back again.
Click to expand...

Thank you, Glad to be back.

Backing the U.N. would help restore integrity to the U.S. and improve our badly tarnished international image. For, what is the purpose of being a signatory to a charter if we do not intend in adhering to it's principles? What is the point in having a constituion if it's merely ignored to further expediant foreign policy goals? Again, it is explicitly stated in the constitution, and you would know this if you had bothered to read my previous posts where I gave you the specific articles, that clearly states, treaties to which we are signatories are the "law of the land", and if broken carry the consequences of fines, imprisonment, or even death. :cool:
 
ban.the.electoral.college said:
Thank you, Glad to be back.

Backing the U.N. would help restore integrity to the U.S. and improve our badly tarnished international image. For, what is the purpose of being a signatory to a charter if we do not intend in adhering to it's principles? What is the point in having a constituion if it's merely ignored to further expediant foreign policy goals? Again, it is explicitly stated in the constitution, and you would know this if you had bothered to read my previous posts where I gave you the specific articles, that clearly states, treaties to which we are signatories are the "law of the land", and if broken carry the consequences of fines, imprisonment, or even death. :cool:
Click to expand...

But that does'nt apply to George Bush?:smile:
 
Sorry bud, your arguments are just political. No basis in jurisprudence, but they do demonstrate the racism inherent in the liberal side of the aisle. Ultimately, as long as you make money it's okay if Middle Easterners, Africans, Latin Americans, Asians and Polynesians suffer. Tell me, was your "moral outrage" the same when Clinton went into Bosnia in "violation" using your standard of jurisprudence? Did you have the same "moral outrage" when Rwandans, Sudanese, Tibetans, East Timorans, Panamanians, Salvadorans and many others died at the hands of American action and inaction? Why not my friend? Go look up UNESCO's 8 point peace-building plan, approved by the General Assembly, applied in Sierra Leone, and then let's talk about Bush's supposed (actually, I am apolitical "in toto" and I can see the only case against Bush is the political game) crimes. Where was your moral outrage Saddam was having people stuffed in plastic shredders and meat grinders (having the responsibility to document some of those crimes, I could instruct you on what true crime is), or draining the marsh and depriving people of their culture, another defined form of ethnic cleansing and genocide? Hmmmmm? What was your plan for ending those atrocities? Just let babies die for lack of medicine and incubators until Saddam died?
 
Chevalier said:
You know that you are simply offering a political perspective. You are wrong, there is no basis for such a charge beyond political gameplaying, and if the UN had done the morally responsible thing instead of taking the bribe money, we would have found a peaceful way of removing the real Butcher of Baghdad, Saddam Hussein. Yes UN signatores would say differently, they lost their cash cow in Saddam Hussein. They cared little for the 5000-6000 Iraqis that died each year in Iraq as long as they got their blood money. Run to their camp if you wish , but don't pretend it is anything more than politics and a group of people upset because the "spice" stopped flowing.
Click to expand...

Welcome to debate politics and well said. I couldnt have said it better myself. Nicely put.
 
ban.the.electoral.college said:
Thank you, Glad to be back.

Backing the U.N. would help restore integrity to the U.S. and improve our badly tarnished international image. For, what is the purpose of being a signatory to a charter if we do not intend in adhering to it's principles? What is the point in having a constituion if it's merely ignored to further expediant foreign policy goals? Again, it is explicitly stated in the constitution, and you would know this if you had bothered to read my previous posts where I gave you the specific articles, that clearly states, treaties to which we are signatories are the "law of the land", and if broken carry the consequences of fines, imprisonment, or even death. :cool:
Click to expand...

No it wouldnt the UN has been proven to be a failure all over the board. I can care less of the international image as the countries need to respect the fact that if we didnt bail them out twice they would all be speaking german. And our constitiution makes no reference in foreign affairs. Mabe you should read it sometime. The closest thing we have to foreign affairs is the Monroe Doctrine. And your references are waaay out of context my friend for it doesnt mean that which you think.
 
wrath said:
I must admit, I didn't realize how deep this denial goes. If this was an op/ed article with no photographic evidence, I could see your skepticism but this is almost amusing!

and ----- IT WAS reported in the mainstream media. You need to pay more attention.
Is this more palatable for you? :roll:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/03/world/main505316.shtml
Click to expand...
MUCH better. Interesting point at the bottom of that page:

But Saddam is not the only one giving money. Charities from Saudi Arabia and Qatar — both U.S. allies — pay money to families of Palestinians killed in the fighting, including suicide bombers.

Now, I must have missed the invasion plans for Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Did that happen in secret?
 
Originally posted by SKILMATIC:
...the UN has been proven to be a failure all over the board. I can care less of the international image as the countries need to respect the fact that if we didnt bail them out twice they would all be speaking german
Click to expand...
This is the reason the UN has problems. Because of attitudes that promote division instead of unity. Stop complaining about the UN if your not going to do anything to help fix it.
 
Billo_Really said:
This is the reason the UN has problems. Because of attitudes that promote division instead of unity. Stop complaining about the UN if your not going to do anything to help fix it.
Click to expand...

I agree. OMG!

Except by far the most divisive attitudes comes from religion.

Some more than others. The UNs most recent problems appear to stem from greed more than anything else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom