Guthrie

I have actually been able to make a case against every nation, even the American's. So far you have made none, and haven't been able to back up any of your accusation's, thus your case is bogus. Actually it is applicable to the issue, since you want Bush charged in an international criminal tribunal. So that would have to include countless other nation's as well, that is applicable to the issue. Stop using Buschistas as well, since you don't even know what a Sandanista is... I don't need to make a defense for Bush, you still haven't provided any proof of anything. I have shown how limited your grasp is on what is a war crime, and a crime against humanity. first- you haven't made a case against anybody - you've presented some junior college presentation of what a charge presented to the Hague might look like --- second - the case against the Buschistas is not only in front of you but undisputed your conscientious ignorance, is not a defense - it is an abomination

not a single fact offered is applicable to the issue --- if you want to claim those gentlemen as guilty, that is your issue, but you cannot use an accusation against them as a defense of the Buschistas - that is just so very sad

"justice?" --- you don't offer an argument of justice, you offer a red herring --- the issue is the Bush administration -- and you want to muddy the waters with crap you have no idea of - WWII was not the brainchild of a demented frat boy seeking retribution for insults to his daddy - any effort to compare the two is nothing but buffoonery - your inability to see that speaks volumes and yes, the Buschista Junta was installed by a criminal coup - "Sandanistas?" - what have they to do with anything, you are in way over your head and now spewing proper nouns as if they were life savers

"brickload?" --- certainly, you meant, "pantload," - eh?

a boycott only works when there is an alternative are you proposing that, instead of bread trucks, industrial bakeries deliver to grocery stores on fleets of bicycles??

except, there is no issue of free speech in Exxon cutting the funding of pollution apologists and boycotting gasoline, in this day and age, is like boycotting electricity --- what kind of moron would even conceive of such a thing

buffoonery - I've never seen such incredulous buck passing as you clowns offer to defend the indefensible Buschista Junta 'they did it first,' is what I expect from a child caught in a playground scuffle - grow up!

as pathetic a pile of nonsense as one might imagine - nor any answer to the direct question - how sad

Exxon sponsored these faux science efforts to obscure the truth about their profitting from the destruction of the world. Free Speech???? where is this an issue of Free Speech -- there is no government shutting these clowns down, there are no protestors standing outside their offices --- there is only Exxon, knowing that the dodge no longer works and trying to quietly close up shop on that part of their image protection effort. free speech?

It is, 'technically,' a, 'crime against humanity.'

and you refer to them as, 'leadership in Great Britian, The Netherlands, Germany,...' because you don't have names? You want to put them on trial but you don't even know who they are? how sad George Bush authorized the use of chemical weapons against the civilian population of Falujah George Bush authorized the use of torture against citizens of Iraq and Afganistan George Bush authorized secretly transporting prisoners to be tortured in countries he, himself, identfied as violating human rights. George Bush took America to war based on lies. That, in itself, is a war crime. It was, in fact, one of the charges Bush made against Saddam, who invaded Kuwait. So tell me, what crimes specifically did José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero commit? or face reality

Twisting and squirming won't change the facts of Operation Allied Force (Kosovo). It won't bring back the innocent Grdelica train victims, or the Chinese nationals, or the other mumerous dead civilians from NATO's "illegal" action (never sanctioned by UNSC resolution). See, I can play the game just as well as you. But I do acknowledge your understanding of "war crimes" vs. "crimes against the peace". Bravo. Twisting and squirming?? I ask you to list your charges -- that isn't twisting, that's taking you down the middle, what crimes? How is Clinton responsible? --- either you have a case or not - so far, you've not shown anything, 'Chinese nationals?' -- 'Grdelica train?' -- I see a couple phrases, but where's the beef??? and further, why are you bringing them up only now, in light of Buschista war crimes, where were you back then, when you seem to think crimes were committed?

Not exactly a strident denial of "war crimes" by NATO (including Canadian sorties). Age before beauty...Chretien can go on trial before Clinton. Canada was buying nasty ordnance from the American depot at Aviano for their CF-18s using a credit card! Since the Iraq War was after 2002, please bring charges in the pretend ICC against Bush, Blair, and Howard. an utter crock - if you have charges against Clinton, list them - otherwise you are just another right winger hurling feces from behind your rock --- Bush engaged in torture, use of chemical weapons, targetting civillians, denying POW's the rights promised in the Geneva rules of war -- he and Cheney and Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld were all participants in these acts and should be held to account moreover, that other clown is talking about blaming or charging a, 'country,' with war crimes --- a demonstration of ignorance in the matter entirely -- war crimes are committed by people, no one sent Germany to jail for torturing and murdering Poles and Jews --- you guys can't really make an argument till you get on the right page - these meaningless eruptions of bile do not address even a single real legitimate point

Who called it... Try responding with more than "your thinking is severely muddled", as I made valid point's. It's just that you can't seem to respond with any fact's as you rarely ever respond with fact's. But then again the shitty thing about fact's is that they often get in the way of the truth from your gut. I responded in like kind. If you have so little to offer but insults, insults are what you can expect in return. and no, it is infantile to accuse the "Coalition of the Cajoled" for actions taken by American forces - trying to spread the blame in such fashion is worse than muddled -- get real

I think in conclusion that you probably wouldn't know international crimes if it slapped you in the face. your thinking is severely muddled

not even close - the Buschistas have committed real international crimes - they have used chemical weapons against civilian populations - retribution killing of innocents, torture and inhuman treatment of prisoners none of those charges can be levelled against most on your list

your source is incorrect

and so? and so? could you maybe rephrase this? it doesn't seem to make any sense - the impeachment case against Bush is very clear and the facts of his high crimes and misdemeanors are not in question - the only question is, 'does the US Congress have the courage to do what's right?'

Yeah, well the left wing rhetoric is the same, that's for sure. ... How so?, please explain. btw - China was never helping Viet Nam -- in fact, after America left, the Vietnamese had to fend off border attacks by the Chinese --- please get your history straight

It's time to take the French to account for what they did in Rwanada!!! feel better? btw - I never heard anything about making America pay for war crimes --- I want the Buschistas to stand for their war crimes but they aren't, 'America' - eh?

Yes because it's factuallu incorrect. Wood is a weapons component. It is also a furniture component. The correct and honest statement will read "Dual use materials can be also chemical/biological weapon components." But not without a lot of work and help from the french....... Not even close. The truth is, the rules of what could be sold to Saddam were changed under Reagan --- the administration knew what Saddam was doing with those weapons components - Reagan knew they were headed to a weapons arsenal and he sold them just the same. no pathetic apologies are going to convince anyone but those Martin Luther King referred to as, 'conscientiously stupid'

Iraq and Vietnam have way too much in common -- not just the right wing rhetoric, which is almost EXACTLY the same, but both are wars where nobody on either side really wants us there, there was in Vietnam, no way to win - just like there is no way to win in Iraq - The largest difference thus far is medical care of casualties in Iraq has cut the death rate dramatically --- and increased the disabled rate by that same number. The other difference is, veterans of Vietnam were unhappy with the VA medical treatment they got but it was 3 times better than what current vets get. certainly, I understand the rush to dismiss any comparison between the two wars, vietnam looks just so much more reasonable by comparison

So, your defense is, it wasn't specifically the weapons he got from America, used to kill the Kurds? That is just so very pathetic. Was he a madman? Yes Was he likely to wantonly use the weapons componants Reagan sold him against innocent people? Yes ----- is there any proof that he would do such things? Yes, he gassed those Kurds PRIOR to those US/Rumsfeld sales.

This, of course, is not true. The truth is, since the invasion of Iraq, terrorism throughout the world has more than quintupled. and maybe you missed this one, it was in this morning's paper W Post

I'd like to answer this point by noting it is the same nonsensical bullroar the right wing peddled about Viet Nam. The only Vietnamese fighting in the US are gang members whose parents were welcomed here at the end of the Viet Nam Fiasco. 'Terrorist,' is just the latest right wing bogeyman. The replacement for, the 'Communists,' under our beds in the 50's. It is a pathetic lying effort to peddle fear in exchange for liberties.