Chosun
|
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 26 | |
| |
| Rumsfeld again facing charges as a war criminal
Posted: 12/17/2006 12:52:06 AM | Just to give an idea of some of the stuff that happened in abu ghraib.
http://www.salon.com/news/abu_ghraib/2006/03/14/introduction/index.html
As far as saddam ....
A few posts back mentioned he is a boyscout compared to GW. Erase that from your head.
Do some research on Saddam. By his own hand he tortued thousands of people. GW has alot to answer for, but GW did not tortue people, watch with his own eyes as the life went out of them with a smile on his face. GW did not electrocute people and watch, he did not strangle and torture small children with his own hands, he did not gas his people and watch as they died by the thousands, he did not rip innocent people from their homes because he considered them a threat then imprison them for years and starve them to death. He did not have his children run around and also commit crimes against humanity.
Saddam could easily be equated to the likes of hitler.
There is a huge difference in someone like GW being a general idiot, And someone like Saddam. You are delusional to think otherwise.
As far as rumsfeld, or anyone else that is responsible for the torture of people, they will get what they deserve. | |
|
e-wok
|
Joined: 9/25/2006
Msg: 28 | |
| Rumsfeld again facing charges as a war criminal
Posted: 12/17/2006 12:58:55 AM | There is a huge difference in someone like GW being a general idiot, And someone like Saddam. You are delusional to think otherwise.
So, you want to demote GW to a mere village idiot status?
Why is it when people are facing judgement they always
contrast themselves with people more evil than themselves.
"Your honour, sure I killed a dozen women or directed others to kill
600,000 innocents, but at least I'm no Hitler!!"
GW orchestrated the entire thing. He is ultimately responsible just as
Regan is responsible for handing the WMD to Saddam in the
first place.
And never forget, if Saddam hadn't screwed around with the oil supplies, he'd
be your best buddy today. The love affair with Saddam DIDN'T end
after he gassed the Kurds. It ended when he screwed with oil. So, let's
stop the bs.
| |
|
| Rumsfeld again facing charges as a war criminal
Posted: 12/17/2006 12:59:15 AM |
As for America pulling out of Iraq they cant. If america leaves then the country will turn into civil war. The Saudis will back one side and Iran the other.
....Sadly the latest idea is to threaten the Iraq govt into taking greater control. They have NO control and yet this new report comes out and says that if the Iraqis cant get things under control the US will have to pull out. Like its the Iraqis fault for the mess they are in.
Sad to say it but its onlty going to get worse over there until they completely change their way of thinking.
I strongly disagree. There's already a civil war in Iraq and staying there will be impossible. We'll wind up destroying our own military. We're on the verge of having done that already. Unless the Saudis, Turkey, Russia and other nations in the area who want to stabilize the region will help us reduce our forces NOW it's going to happen. We're going deeply into debt. The dollar is still the most stable currency in the world, but if the balance of trade due to interest paid out on bonds gets worse, that could change... and that's what all this borrowing to pay for the war in Iraq is doing.
If the US can't control Iraq, how will anyone else?
We don't really need Iraq. The whole idea was military adventurism authored by the little group that was pulling Bush's strings and financing his presidential campaign. Before they came into office, the price of oil was so cheap, the Clinton administration didn't even think it was worth doing what Bush did.
Nobody's going to come after us... especially if we're not over there. They might stop selling oil to us, but we get the majority of our oil from Venezuela and Mexico now anyway and if they want to starve to death or sell it to China at a cheaper rate, they'll do it eventually because we can't make them do any different.
People believe the mainstream media and the Bush administration too much when they talk about "threats" anyway... that's how they got us to back them when they started this mess. Don't believe what you hear... and only half of what you see, because they falsified satellite photos to even start the FIRST gulf war. | |
|
| |
e-wok
|
Joined: 9/25/2006
Msg: 31 | |
| Rumsfeld again facing charges as a war criminal
Posted: 12/17/2006 2:53:42 AM | Ok, fine. But many evil dictators never personally killed a soul or tortured
anyone personally, but they are responsible for the deaths and
tortures by their own people. When you are the PRESIDENT and you
invoke executive privilege and dictate beyond the control of
congress, you allow yourself to be held accountable in the severest
consequences. You can not pass the buck....who else would be accountable??
Rumsfeld in front of the world announced torture is a "no brainer" and
GW allowed him this discretion. Oh yeah, GW had thought the geneva
convention was too vague about torture so what does he do: GW creates a law to protect
people like Rumsfeld - RETROACTIVELY. Why retroactive? Is it because he
broke the existing laws and GW had to scramble to protect Rumsfelds
ass?? YES!
600,000 died because of GW and I don't know how many w/ Saddam but
it's not important. They are evil men....each and every one of them. | |
|
| Rumsfeld again facing charges as a war criminal
Posted: 12/17/2006 2:56:06 PM |
600,000 died because of GW and I don't know how many w/ Saddam but
it's not important. They are evil men....each and every one of them.
Ah, the end result of relativism. Nothing is better or worse than anything else. Just different.
Not all crimes are equal. Not all evil is equal. Some are clearly worse than others. A man who authorizes the torture of a few people because he thinks (wrongly or not) it is in the best interest of the nation is not the same as one who PERSONALLY tortures hundreds to death because he thinks they threaten his personal hold on power, and then drops chemical weapons on his subjects for the same reason. *
Also, lets not forget the Iran-Iraq War. Hussein was directly responsible for that one, and there were about 1,000,000 casualties, chemical warfare, etc.
*this is an tangental aside
"well Bush dropped bombs on people, isn't that the same?" I assure, it is not. Chemical warfare is an exceptionally evil thing. There is a special place in Hell for those who use chemical warfare. The Russians and Germans didn't even use it on the battlefield in WWII against each other, even though each side was committing innumerable other atrocities, because chemical weapons were over the line. | |
|
e-wok
|
Joined: 9/25/2006
Msg: 33 | |
| Rumsfeld again facing charges as a war criminal
Posted: 12/17/2006 3:03:33 PM |
A man who authorizes the torture of a few people because he thinks (wrongly or not) it is in the best interest of the nation is not the same as one who PERSONALLY tortures hundreds to death because he thinks they threaten his personal hold on power, and then drops chemical weapons on his subjects for the same reason.
That could easily be alluding to Ronald Reagan. He needed to keep Saddam in
power so he hands him WMD to drop chemical weapons on those that
threatened his personal hold on power. Does that make Reagan the Secretary of State of
Iraq?
Chemical warfare is an exceptionally evil thing.
Oh SHIT it's EXCEPTIONALLY evil....I think Reagan handed to him to make apple pie.
Ah, the end result of relativism. Nothing is better or worse than anything else. Just different.
 Exatamondo. I'm glad we share the same opinions. | |
|
| Rumsfeld again facing charges as a war criminal
Posted: 12/17/2006 3:06:20 PM | >bolo, Ok maybe saddam actually used his own hands to harm and kill. BUT bush has harmed and killed far more people than saddam could ever have dreamed of. Bush has suspended human rights, broken the geneva convention, with drawn from the international courts, even trampled on the rights of his own people. He may not have tortured prisoners himself but HE IS responsible. Hitler didnt go about killing anyone personally yet we all know he was RESPONSIBLE. Or Maybe you think he was just like Bush and not responsible. You might also want to know that the holding of prisoners for years on end in guantonamo is also against international law and a human rights violation. The only difference you have noted between the two is that saddam was "hands on". You can forgive your president for lying to you and violating your rights but he also lied to the entire world and tried to bring them into his war.
As for the US getting out soon and there being no threat, I still say thats false. Iraq will be complete chaos. Everyone will be blaming the US for having caused the situation. Forget that bush has painted EVERYONE as a terrorist. There are terrorists that will go after american targets just as they did before 9/11. All bush has done is make the region unstable, increased the power and influence of Iran and syria and pissed of the Israelis by increasing the threat to them. Its led to the growing power of Hamas and Hezbolah. Leaving it in a mess and blaming the Iraqis for not being able to gain control is foolish on many levels. It isnt the Iraqis fault that it is a mess. Blame that on Bush and Rumsfeld. Problem is bush calls everyone a terrorist. there are only a few in Iraq. the rest are insurgents, or from their point of view, they are freedom fighters fighting an occupying army. When america leaves there wont be anyone bothering to stop groups from training and planning terrorist attacks. The country will end up imploding and pulling in other countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia and could turn into a sunni-shiite war throughout the middle east.
America might still get oil from Venezeula but for how long? Bush can only call him an enemy of the US for so long before he decides to turn off the tap.
Forget turkey and Russia coming to help america out of Iraq. Why the hell would they? Powel warned Bush and the american people that if you break it you have bought it. Well its broken and theres no running to other countries for help. Bush had his great coalition of the willing at the start. But when the coalition of the willing realized that they were the coalition of the deceived they all started pulling out. Even the offering of billions of dollars is not enticing them to remain. Turkey is trying to join the EU and they aree not going to jump into this mess and blow there future. The Russians have NO interest in Iraq and have their own internal problems to deal with. Bush will never, ever fool another nation into believing a word he says. There is no nation that would go into Iraq now. Its an american mess. Bush created it and he IS responsible for cleaning it up.
Bush is a compulsive liar that has caused the deaths of more people than any other this century. Just because he doesnt actually do the killing in person he is responsible. I never said saddam was a nice guy, just not the liar Bush is.  | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 35 | |
| Rumsfeld again facing charges as a war criminal
Posted: 12/17/2006 3:09:58 PM | Not all crimes are equal. Not all evil is equal. Some are clearly worse than others. A man who authorizes the torture of a few people because he thinks (wrongly or not) it is in the best interest of the nation is not the same as one who PERSONALLY tortures hundreds to death because he thinks they threaten his personal hold on power, and then drops chemical weapons on his subjects for the same reason. *
Then why isn't *Winston Churchill held in the same regard as Saddam? He used poison gas on Iraqis before Saddam was born, And, the Iran - Iraq war? Didn't the US via Reagan play both sides of that one?
There is also a picture of Rumsfeld and Saddam that lifts a few eyebrows, not to mention that there seemed to be tacit approval of Saddam's actions at the time.
Lets do an objective tally on who is guilty of what, ....how many deaths via foreign policy, invasions, occupations, etc. since 2001?
Do the math, follow the money. | |
|
Jemue
|
Joined: 1/26/2005
Msg: 36 | |
| Rumsfeld again facing charges as a war criminal
Posted: 12/17/2006 3:31:36 PM |
As for America pulling out of Iraq they cant. If america leaves then the country will turn into civil war.
As soon as america decided to invade, the only out come is to stay and occupy indefinably or civil war when the finally get out. | |
|
| Rumsfeld again facing charges as a war criminal
Posted: 12/17/2006 3:33:20 PM | Reagan might have played some role in that war, but he wasn't the dictator of the country that launched the opening salvo of the war. Do you see the difference?
Winston Churchill might have written a memo about using poison gas, but he wasn't a dictator that actually researched, manufactured, and delievered chemical weapons onto his own people. Do you see the difference?
Churchill had ample opportunity and motivation to use chemical weapons - Hell, the Brits firebombed some cities knowing full well what would happen - but he never did use them.
So basically you are arguing this: morally objectionable memo = causing the horrible death of thousands? One is line of thought that was never carried out. The other is clearly a war crime. Both bad. Not equal.
I'm not trying to argue about Bush. Its a more general point. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 38 | |
| Rumsfeld again facing charges as a war criminal
Posted: 12/17/2006 3:56:52 PM |
Reagan might have played some role in that war, but he wasn't the dictator of the country that launched the opening salvo of the war. Do you see the difference?
No, I think it was a continuation of the meddling that put Saddam in place from the start.
Winston Churchill might have written a memo about using poison gas, but he wasn't a dictator that actually researched, manufactured, and delievered chemical weapons onto his own people. Do you see the difference?
He was the viceroy of the region at the time, they were all "his own people" at that point by proxy. And, it's the idiocy of colonialism that started all this BS in the region, ..yes, I see the difference, one is root causality, the other is effect.
So basically you are arguing this: morally objectionable memo = causing the horrible death of thousands? One is line of thought that was never carried out. The other is clearly a war crime. Both bad. Not equal.
One was complicit in creating the problem, the other was put in place via western interference, ...definitely not equal.
Best enemies money can buy. | |
|
| Rumsfeld again facing charges as a war criminal
Posted: 12/18/2006 11:00:33 AM | | Well, at this point I don't nessecarily disagree with you. I don't know enough about British colonial history to argue one way or another in these specific cases. And I'm agnostic on the whole line of reasoning based on the after-effects of colonialism. But we agree that not all bad is equal. | |
|
Ealig
|
Joined: 9/21/2006
Msg: 40 | |
| Rumsfeld again facing charges as a war criminal
Posted: 12/26/2006 1:41:37 PM | I feel sad there are people on this earth such as you.
On the one hand you condone murder; may I remind you the US have committed in many countries murder and rape of the peopel and the national wealth and you hold Bushy up as a sign of humanity, I don't think the Iraqi people would agree with you - how many people died in December alone at the hands of people who lied and cheated to their own people to make money out of oil, Bush and Blair. No they did not in most cases pull the trigger but the invadors left a vacuum into which flowed hate and repression.
Maybe Saddam was cruel in your eyes but he is not better or worse than many an other Dictator who say they are dictators and be done with it.
At least they don't win elections by fraudulent means - the US condems a country's politics when they don't agree with the country regime i.e. the side they have been funding with arms and money.
I seem to remember that the USA assited Saddam with arms and moneyespecially during the Iran Iraq war.
Why didn't the US go into Iraq after the first "Gulf War" to sort out Saddam, maybe becasue they saw him as a balancing influence against Iran- surely that is condonign his actions in the region.
The Kurds are a lovely people so why has Irag, Iran and Turkey been murdering them, maybe its because they live in a region of prime Oil Fields, with Sweet light oil gets a premium.
Did the US go in to save those people who were being murdered by three countries, you bet your bottom dollar they did not - maybe because they didn't want to protect the people as they felt it was better to stand back - who is the murderer then - makes you think doesn't it.
Do not judge the book by its cover is a motto I have always held true.
Your final comment shows a lack of compassion human life - I woudl pity a bigot as you obviously showed yourself to be. | |
|
| Rumsfeld again facing charges as a war criminal
Posted: 12/26/2006 2:11:52 PM | But we agree that not all bad is equal.
True that, brother! Therefore... since Hussein gassed the Kurds, I should be able to go out and rob a bank and be exempt from jail time because I'm not as bad as Saddam. Hell, why waste the time of even putting me on trial? Only the (what was the word you used? Oh yeah) exceptionally evil people should be subject to pay the consequences of their actions.
But really, I wouldn't actually rob a bank. However, perhaps the next time I am speeding and the cops try to pull me over I will just evade them, because what I'm doing isn't exceptionally evil. Could you please write to law enforcement officials and ask them to not pursue me in such an event? It's not that I'm running from them because I'm afraid of being tried as a war criminal, I'm just not exceptionally breaking the law.
This arguement sounds like that woman on one of those cop shows who thought the cops had to let her go because she "protest(ed) this arrest"! The law doesn't give a f*ck what you think. If you break it, there are consequences. | |
|
| Rumsfeld again facing charges as a war criminal
Posted: 12/26/2006 2:13:47 PM | "I believe that most of the decent Iraqis think of Bush as a Hero and will probably have a Bush day as a holiday."
You've gotta be kidding; right?
Under Saddam Iraqis were tortured; under the US Iraqis are tortured.
Under Saddam Iraqis were impisoned; under the US more Iraqis are imprisoned.
Under Saddam Iraqis had a reliable supply of safe drinking water; under the US it's "hit or miss"
Under Saddam Iraqis had security; under the US Iraqis can't walk down the street.
Under Saddam Iraqis had jobs; under the US most are unemployed.
Under Saddam Iraq was a secular society; under the US it's ruled by Islamic clerics.
Under Saddam Iraqis had a reliable supply of electricity; the US can't keep the lights on.
Under Saddam Iraq was one of the most developed countries in the middle east where the average Iraqi could enjoy a good life provided they didn't skeak out against the government. Not perfect but paradise compared to life in Iraq today.
George Bush a Hero?
I think war criminal sounds much better. Like the saying goes; if the shoe fits............. | |
|
e-wok
|
Joined: 9/25/2006
Msg: 43 | |
| Rumsfeld again facing charges as a war criminal
Posted: 12/26/2006 3:36:37 PM | "I believe that most of the decent Iraqis think of Bush as a Hero and will probably have a Bush day as a holiday."
....somehow that sounds crazy. I don't think you even
believe that.
Dude, there will be no candy's, no flowers, & no damn parades honouring
George Bush.
| |
|
| Rumsfeld again facing charges as a war criminal
Posted: 12/26/2006 4:15:07 PM | the question that caught my eye was... 'is rumsfelt responsible?' are you kidding me. we are all responsible. we own the fact that our government acted in our behalf without us stepping in to stop them.
we own this dissaster. rumsfeld needs to get tried, and we need to get real. | |
|
| Rumsfeld again facing charges as a war criminal
Posted: 12/26/2006 4:27:11 PM |
falldownfunny wrote:
msg. 2
The Bush Administration has rejected adherence to the International Criminal Court (ICC) on grounds that it could be used to unjustly prosecute U.S. officials. The ICC is the first permanent tribunal established to prosecute war crimes, genocide and other crimes against humanity.
That was the right decision
If the "Bush Administration is innocent of war crimes, then they will not be found guilty of any ... right? So what's the problem?
AND
falldownfunny wrote:
msg 4
Who's morals are we talking about?...and who's morals are the right morals to consider? Is the job of the American President to protect American interests or to submit to a world body? If it is to submit then what are the goals of that body and what type of agenda does it push?
Exactly what "American interests" was the American President (and his administration) protecting while committing such crimes that would eventually be tried before the ICC? Again, if they are innocent of war crimes, then they will not be found guilty ... right?
| |
|
Home
login 
