Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Edit: Additivefreesmokemaker- Why exactly would you like to see Bush brought before the War Crimes commission? To testify against whom?
I believe that the right of non-self incrimination does not automatically exist in other countries. In an international court, Bush might be compelled to testify against himself. Perhaps some of the kindly people at the Ministry of Love would be of service. They like the way you think
Seems you skipped answering my first question - oh well.
CkG
Well... briefly, Bush caused the US to go to war with an non-aggressor nation for dubious reasons. That's for starters.
Nice bit of revisionist history there addictivefreesmokemaker. The fact is that Iraq under Saddam was an aggressor state. Remember that little invasion of Kuwait? I wonder what that had to do with the Sanctions, rules, and "supervision" applied by us and the UN? Maybe the violation of those sanctions and rules led to our removal of Saddam from Iraq?
CkG
LOL at the revisionist history!
What you omitted is that Iraq WAS an aggressor state TWELVE YEARS AGO AND HAS NOT DONE A BLESSED THING TO ANOTHER COUNTRY SINCE THEN. I figured caps were harder for you to ignore. For 12 years, Saddam was a frustrated third world petty dictator who was harmless to anyone outside of his country. We did not "remove" Saddam. We had a goddam war. Next time you step in dog poop, shoot off your foot, and come here and tell us how you"removed" your shoe.
Ok, SimonBarSinister?
Him invading 12 years ago is WHY HE HAD SANCTIONS IMPOSED AND UN RESOLUTIONS TO COMPLY WITH(all caps for fun) So why were sactions not lifted if he wasn't a danger? Hmmm. Did he prove that he wasn't a danger like the UN said he had to in multiple Resolutions? No. He didn't comply with the resolutions and therefore was still a danger. The honus was on HIM to prove that he wasn't an aggressor and he could have done so by complying with terms HE AGREED TO.
Let me put it this way. If a person committed a crime and a judge put him on probation with the warning that if he violated the probation terms he would be punished, if then while he was still under probation, he broke the terms should he not be punished?
CkG
Well, for the 35,00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 time (it seems), the threshold for war was abysmally low. He was contained. He could have been contained for the rest of his life just the same, and if he stuck out his tongue at us, so be it. He was harmless, made that way, but someone needed their ego boosted, and decided war with Iraq was the way to go. Saddam hadnt the ability to do harm, and you know that, unless you have the battle plans, and can show the means he would have needed for invasion. Saddam wasnt allowed to send his planes where he wanted in his own country.
The measures we had in Iraq before the war were sufficient to keep Saddam in check. Now do you have evidence that he had the motivation, means and opportunity to wage war in the region? You have to demonstrate all three for him to be a threat. Wanting to piiss on the US hardly makes him a threat.
Good luck.
He was contained, but how long before who couldn't be contained?