War crimes case planned against U.S.

[elzmaddy]

Why the concern? If US committed war crimes, they should be uncovered and brought to trial. If no crimes were committed, that's all good. The US is part of the world community is it not? World = 6 billion, US = 300 million, right? Our actions should be held accountable before the rest of the world.

 

[Corn]

Why the concern?

Who's concerned? I'm certainly not. It's a joke.

Flavio seems pretty concerned though, LOL, this is serious like a heart attack!

 

[Corn]

Haha!!! Some of the comments at that site truely reflect the benevolent nature of the "give peace a chance" crowd:

Let Blair and co. face war crimes trial and execution!
àâòîð Strago guest â 17.04.2003 [11:25]
The real criminals such as English prime minister Blair and his pro-war lesbian dog of a wife Cherie Blair and English foreign secretary man of straw Jack Straw, together with Blairs spin-doctor Alastair Campbell and their 'new labor modernists' must not only face trial AND NOT IF BUT WHEN they are found guilty, they must be executed and HANGED FROM THE NEAREST LAMPOSTS !

LOL, these are your people flavio, your heart must swell with pride...........

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: Corn

Not how it works.

LOL, only in your narrowminded little world!!! Bwhahahahahaha!!!!!!!

Hey, I'm just going by the posted article!!! Bwahahahahahahaah!!!!!!!!

The whole premise of this idiotic legal "strategy" by these imbeciles borders on the incredible: The US is guilty of war crimes because the weapons used cannot differentiate between civilian and military targets? As rudder already pointed out, neither can a simple 9mm round distinguish innocent or valid targets..........

A 9mm round normally comes out of a gun which can be fired at civilian or military targets. A cluster bomb is quite a bit different.

I don't know if using cluster bombs constitute a war crime or not, but that's to be determined in the trial I suppose.



It's OK Corn, your blind support of anything spoonfed you by ShrubCo. You obviously let your emotions get the best of you, illustrated by the fact that you can't seem to string two posts together without a personal attack. But hey, you wouldn't be you if we couldn't count on you to come into any debate spewing insults and ignorance because you completely lack anything relevant to say[/quote]

 

[Tiger]

LOL, only in your narrowminded little world!!! Bwhahahahahaha!!!!!!!

Maybe not how it works in the sense that a group of gimps might attempt to lobby for charges of this sort, but dating as far back as the 1907 Hague Convention, as NesuD rightly states, require evidence of intentional targeting of civilians or plunder of territory for trial and eventually conviction.

Hell, it took the Hague years just to build what they thought to be a strong enough case against Milosovic--who blatantly targeted civilians in apparent acts of genocide. I would also point out that the munitions used in this war are the same we used in that war, as well as the first military action taken against Iraq--yet for some reason, the US was neither charged, nor found convicted of any war crimes.

The whole premise of this idiotic legal "strategy" by these imbeciles borders on the incredible: The US is guilty of war crimes because the weapons used cannot differentiate between civilian and military targets? As rudder already pointed out, neither can a simple 9mm round distinguish innocent or valid targets..........

It's OK flavio, your blind support of such ridiculous complaints is not anything we haven't come to accept from you and others of your ilk. You let your emotions get in the way history, fact, and precedent--all the while blindly accepting anything spoon fed to you from other simpletons with similar narrowminded sensibilities. But hey, you wouldn't be you if the otherwise was true.

Beautiful!

 

[Corn]

A 9mm round normally comes out of a gun which can be fired at civilian or military targets. A cluster bomb is quite a bit different.

Really, how so? Is a gun aimed? Are not cluster bombs likewise aimed? Will your average soldier have 100% accuracy with his handheld weapon? Not even at rest..........

A bullet can go astray, just as any other munition can, for a multitude of reasons.

But hey, you wouldn't be you if we couldn't count on you to come into any debate spewing insults and ignorance because you completely lack anything relevant to say.

While guilty of insulting the narrowminded emotion hucksters, my post clearly lacked any ignorance. I'll leave you to point out a single inaccuracy contained within, good luck.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: Corn

A 9mm round normally comes out of a gun which can be fired at civilian or military targets. A cluster bomb is quite a bit different.

Really, how so? Is a gun aimed? Are not cluster bombs likewise aimed? Will your average soldier have 100% accuracy with his handheld weapon? Not even at rest..........

A bullet can go astray, just as any other munition can, for a multitude of reasons.

Bullets can and do go astray, but I think your chances of hitting a civilian are greater with a cluster bom...don't you think?

But hey, you wouldn't be you if we couldn't count on you to come into any debate spewing insults and ignorance because you completely lack anything relevant to say.

While guilty of insulting the narrowminded emotion hucksters, my post clearly lacked any ignorance. I'll leave you to point out a single inaccuracy contained within, good luck.

How about I start with you using 7 exclamation points and as many insults in your first post and then somehow accusing me of letting my emotions get the best of me? .......ignorant and inaccurate.

...oh I seee, I'll add calling me "concerned". Where did you get that?

...and calling them "my people", since I knew nothing of them before reading this post that's going to be a hard one to explain.

 

[Tab]

Oh my god, Flavio is a part of the Axis of Ignorance.

 

[flavio]

Naw, but I do admit to being part of the Axle of Effervescence.

 

[Corn]

...oh I seee, I'll add calling me "concerned". Where did you get that?

I said no such thing, I merely speculated that you "seemed" concerned given the serious manner in which you addressed the ludicrous topic of this discussion.

Here are but a few examples:

The US was on shaky ground using these types of weapons and should have known this well beforehand.

Looks like they might have a case.

So you would expect them to overlook any war crimes?

whatever crimes are determined to have been committed.

I'm wondering why, in the absense of any trial yet to date, those last two quotes from you, you apparently have already come to some sort of conclusion, or implication of guilt..........anyway, back to your statements of apparent concern....

It would be folly for the US-World relations to not show up for a war crimes trial.

Gee, I wonder what it was that gave me the impression that you seemed concerned, and take seriously these "charges".........

Keep grasping, you'll draw the long straw eventually..........

 

[Raiden8]

this activist = a fundamentalist and delusional.

 

[SnapIT]

I get it, the US can do nothing wrong, it's ok for the US to commit war crimes as much as they please..... as an aggressive occupying force, it is their right, anyone want to be on the recieving end of a 5,56?

 

[Raiden8]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: DaiShan
It would be folly to attempt to bring war crimes charges against the US. Espescially for something as trivial as this. It will only diminish the authority of the Hague when we decide not to show up for the trial and do as we like. They would be giving us more power than the UN did by not allowing our millitary campaign, and our aggression thereafter.

It would be folly for the US-World relations to not show up for a war crimes trial.

Good luck finding the jolly green giant on US war crimes. The files are classified, I bet - at the ones from Kissinger days to present. US military are known to keep a tight lip. ICC does not have the political clout to enforce it on US.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: Corn

...oh I seee, I'll add calling me "concerned". Where did you get that?

I said no such thing, I merely speculated that you "seemed" concerned given the serious manner in which you addressed the ludicrous topic of this discussion.

So discussing the posted article translates into "concern"?

Here are but a few examples:

The US was on shaky ground using these types of weapons and should have known this well beforehand.

Looks like they might have a case.

So you would expect them to overlook any war crimes?

whatever crimes are determined to have been committed.

I'm wondering why, in the absense of any trial yet to date, those last two quotes from you, you apparently have already come to some sort of conclusion, or implication of guilt..........

Here, I'll simplify things for you on those last two quotes. The idea goes like this: If war crimes are determined to have been committed, would you expect them to be overlooked?

I do not imply guilt or any conclusion, that would be for the trial to decide.

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: SnapIT
I get it, the US can do nothing wrong, it's ok for the US to commit war crimes as much as they please..... as an aggressive occupying force, it is their right, anyone want to be on the recieving end of a 5,56?

No serious person would ever state that the US is exempt from responsibility should war crimes occur. What I see in this thread is people questioning the validity of accusing the US of having committed war crimes for the use of the weapons in question. And if said use should be considered a war crime, how many others will be in court along side the US for using weapons that cannot discriminate between civilian and foe?

 

[Corn]

I get it, the US can do nothing wrong, it's ok for the US to commit war crimes as much as they please.....

I'm sorry, I must have missed something, which "war crime" did we commit again?

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: SnapIT
I get it, the US can do nothing wrong, it's ok for the US to commit war crimes as much as they please..... as an aggressive occupying force, it is their right, anyone want to be on the recieving end of a 5,56?

No serious person would ever state that the US is exempt from responsibility should war crimes occur. What I see in this thread is people questioning the validity of accusing the US of having committed war crimes for the use of the weapons in question. And if said use should be considered a war crime, how many others will be in court along side the US for using weapons that cannot discriminate between civilian and foe?

So you are basically validating the accusation? but claim that the US as the only nation should never be held responsible?

Sh1t happens in war, yes, it does... the US soldiers are no better than anyone else, but should they be held responsible? yes, i think so...

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Corn

I get it, the US can do nothing wrong, it's ok for the US to commit war crimes as much as they please.....

I'm sorry, I must have missed something, which "war crime" did we commit again?

Well... duh....

STOP POSTING!

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: SnapIT
I get it, the US can do nothing wrong, it's ok for the US to commit war crimes as much as they please..... as an aggressive occupying force, it is their right, anyone want to be on the recieving end of a 5,56?

No serious person would ever state that the US is exempt from responsibility should war crimes occur. What I see in this thread is people questioning the validity of accusing the US of having committed war crimes for the use of the weapons in question. And if said use should be considered a war crime, how many others will be in court along side the US for using weapons that cannot discriminate between civilian and foe?

Indeed, name ONE nation that has actually dropped bombs on any nation except the US... Name ONE country which have had "collateral damage" except the US...

ONE will suffice....

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: SnapIT
I get it, the US can do nothing wrong, it's ok for the US to commit war crimes as much as they please..... as an aggressive occupying force, it is their right, anyone want to be on the recieving end of a 5,56?

No serious person would ever state that the US is exempt from responsibility should war crimes occur. What I see in this thread is people questioning the validity of accusing the US of having committed war crimes for the use of the weapons in question. And if said use should be considered a war crime, how many others will be in court along side the US for using weapons that cannot discriminate between civilian and foe?

Indeed, name ONE nation that has actually dropped bombs on any nation except the US... Name ONE country which have had "collateral damage" except the US...

ONE will suffice....

I think Iraq shelled Iran pretty good.
Syria has shelled its own population.
UK and Falklands
Russians and chechnia

Do I need to continue, or would it be easier for me to ship you a world history book.

 

[Corn]

The idea goes like this: If war crimes are determined to have been committed, would you expect them to be overlooked?

Heh, this isn't even fair.......

Flavio ol'e chump, you're getting way too far ahead of the game here. The above quote is as relevent as me saying: If you have been found guilty of molesting your brother, would you expect it to be overlooked?

Your statements I quoted in my prior post, as with the one quoted above lead the reader to certain conclusions, the main one being that any war crimes trial would even eventually take place, and that we would be found guilty.

Deny it all you want, but your tone rings of grave concern regarding this issue, you're just not concerned about "possible" accused........you're gonna root for the prosecution, and possibly protest if a trial never materializes! What, did I fall off the turnip truck today or something? :evil:

 

[Corn]

STOP POSTING!

I'll put as much thoughtful consideration into following your gentle suggestion as I did with the sh1t I took this morning.

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: SnapIT
I get it, the US can do nothing wrong, it's ok for the US to commit war crimes as much as they please..... as an aggressive occupying force, it is their right, anyone want to be on the recieving end of a 5,56?

No serious person would ever state that the US is exempt from responsibility should war crimes occur. What I see in this thread is people questioning the validity of accusing the US of having committed war crimes for the use of the weapons in question. And if said use should be considered a war crime, how many others will be in court along side the US for using weapons that cannot discriminate between civilian and foe?

Indeed, name ONE nation that has actually dropped bombs on any nation except the US... Name ONE country which have had "collateral damage" except the US...

ONE will suffice....

Are you kidding me? I thought you were serious. I should know better by now than to bother to reply to your posts.

 

[steell]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: SnapIT
I get it, the US can do nothing wrong, it's ok for the US to commit war crimes as much as they please..... as an aggressive occupying force, it is their right, anyone want to be on the recieving end of a 5,56?

No serious person would ever state that the US is exempt from responsibility should war crimes occur. What I see in this thread is people questioning the validity of accusing the US of having committed war crimes for the use of the weapons in question. And if said use should be considered a war crime, how many others will be in court along side the US for using weapons that cannot discriminate between civilian and foe?

Indeed, name ONE nation that has actually dropped bombs on any nation except the US... Name ONE country which have had "collateral damage" except the US...

ONE will suffice....

How about more than one?

Germany (Bombs and unguided rockets)
Great Britain
Japan
Soviet Union
Etc

And BTW, neither the US nor Iraq are within the jurisdiction of the ICC, so I really don't expect this to go very far.

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: SnapIT
I get it, the US can do nothing wrong, it's ok for the US to commit war crimes as much as they please..... as an aggressive occupying force, it is their right, anyone want to be on the recieving end of a 5,56?

No serious person would ever state that the US is exempt from responsibility should war crimes occur. What I see in this thread is people questioning the validity of accusing the US of having committed war crimes for the use of the weapons in question. And if said use should be considered a war crime, how many others will be in court along side the US for using weapons that cannot discriminate between civilian and foe?

So you are basically validating the accusation? but claim that the US as the only nation should never be held responsible?

Sh1t happens in war, yes, it does... the US soldiers are no better than anyone else, but should they be held responsible? yes, i think so...

I think you should re-read my post because it seems you haven't understood it at all.