VICTORY in Iraq now in sight

Guthrie · January 13, 2007

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

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?

bush_cheney2004 · January 13, 2007

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?

Inversion won't work...I am pointing out the inconsistency of peaceniks and truthers and human rights wonks. Clinton ignored Rwanda (technically no crime), but tried to make up for it by breaking international law in 1999, all while continuing a deadly military and economic policy for Iraq with PM Blair.

But George Bush is the bad guy? No, he is just a much poorer salesmen compared to President Clinton.

Charges have been filed by Serbs.

Black Dog · January 13, 2007

Inversion won't work...I am pointing out the inconsistency of peaceniks and truthers and human rights wonks. Clinton ignored Rwanda (technically no crime), but tried to make up for it by breaking international law in 1999, all while continuing a deadly military and economic policy for Iraq with PM Blair.
But George Bush is the bad guy? No, he is just a much poorer salesmen compared to President Clinton.

Earlier, you were saying Iraq 2003 was a continuation of policy. So, if Clinton/Blair's policy wrt Iraq (and btw, you'll find very few on the left with any knowledge of that policy who endorsed it) is, in your words, " a deadly military and economic policy" (the clear implication being it was a war crime), then how can you support a continuation of said policy?

Seem like there's plenty of inconsistency to go around.

bush_cheney2004 · January 13, 2007

Earlier, you were saying Iraq 2003 was a continuation of policy. So, if Clinton/Blair's policy wrt Iraq (and btw, you'll find very few on the left with any knowledge of that policy who endorsed it) is, in your words, " a deadly military and economic policy" (the clear implication being it was a war crime), then how can you support a continuation of said policy?
Seem like there's plenty of inconsistency to go around.

Because I am not interested in the fickle condemnations of the left or right, preferring the amoral position that is geopolitics and economics. "War crimes" convictions are for the losers, and "inconsistencies" are for the victorious leaders. The enlightened "left" nevertheless embraced Clinton/Gore for their own selfish motives. General Dallaire called Clinton on Rwanda and a direct assault on Canadian values....yet he still gets a pass.

Iraq has always been a sales job, going back at least to Ronald Reagan. Ironically, Clinton lied about sex under oath and was impeached, but he still got to kill Serbs and Iraqis with impunity. Bush "lied" about the same WMD as Clinton, wanting and able to execute the stated policy of the US after 9/11, but will not be impeached.

George W. Bush is the president, and he has done what US presidents have done for over 100 years. Sometimes that means a high body count.

Canadian Blue · January 13, 2007

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 ---

When did Bush engage in the use of chemical weapon's and targeting civilian's. As well Bush didn't deny POW's rights, because enemy combatant's legally aren't considered POW's. However I believe that will change soon.

I'm not a clown, I'm talking about the leadership numpty. So do you want to put the leadership in Great Britian, The Netherlands, Germany, France, Italy, the Warsaw Pact countries, etc. all on trial?

Besides, their are people who are more deserving of getting tried with crimes against humanity than George Bush. Than Shwe, Omar al-Bashir, and Kim Jong Il, hell even Vladmir Putin.

What's George Bush guilty of, being one of the most incompetent president's in American history.

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???

The pot calling the kettle black.

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 ---

Well, look at the one who can't seem to see the world outside of North America, and come to grips with the fact America isn't the only evil nation in the world.

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?

I doubt you even know what a war crime is, and as far as I can tell Bush hasn't committed any war crimes. Some American soldier's have, however they were not under orders from the leadership to kill civilian's. As well we saw people who did commit war crimes charged by the courts.

Why do you call them Buschista's, how is the Bush family like the Sandanista's?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandanistas

Guthrie · January 14, 2007

...
So do you want to put the leadership in Great Britian, The Netherlands, Germany, France, Italy, the Warsaw Pact countries, etc. all on trial?

...

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

Canadian Blue · January 14, 2007

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

Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac, François Mitterrand, Ruud Lubbers, Wim Kok, Gerhard Schröder, etc.

Satisfied numpty.

George Bush authorized the use of chemical weapons against the civilian population of Falujah

Back it up Sherlock, what did he use. Anyone can say that, but it won't hold up in court unless you can show proof.

George Bush authorized the use of torture against citizens of Iraq and Afganistan

Back it up with a link sherlock, and please refrain from using some marxist peace site.

George Bush authorized secretly transporting prisoners to be tortured in countries he, himself, identfied as violating human rights.

If it's such a secret, then how do you know about it?

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.

No it isn't, war crime is one of the most misused words of today. Here is a link to what war crimes are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Crime

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_c...73:_Vietnam_War

As well Bush could say that it was based on faulty intelligence, since Saddam admitted to lying in order to protect his own ass from possible uprisings.

On 14 December Saddam Hussein was captured by U.S. forces. Time Online Edition reports that in his first interrogation he was asked whether Iraq had any WMDs. According to an official, his reply was: "'No, of course not, the U.S. dreamed them up itself to have a reason to go to war with us.' The interrogator continued along this line, said the official, asking: 'if you had no weapons of mass destruction then why not let the U.N. inspectors into your facilities?' Saddam’s reply: 'We didn’t want them to go into the presidential areas and intrude on our privacy.'"

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,561472,00.html

So tell me, what crimes specifically did José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero commit? or face reality

Your talking about the PM of Spain who was elected in 2004. None, however government's before him have apparently.

So I think only one person needs to face reality here. When you can only respond with one sentence, yet not back it up with any fact's it show's how irrational you are.

Canadian Blue · January 14, 2007

Here are some war crimes as well.

Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, such as:
Willful killing, or causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health

Torture or inhumane treatment

Unlawful wanton destruction or appropriation of property

Forcing a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of a hostile power

Depriving a prisoner of war of a fair trial

Unlawful deportation, confinement or transfer

Taking hostages

The following acts as part of an international conflict:

Directing attacks against civilians

Directing attacks against humanitarian workers or UN peacekeepers

Killing a surrendered combatant

Misusing a flag of truce

Settlement of occupied territory

Deportation of inhabitants of occupied territory

Using poison weapons

Using civilian shields

Using child soldiers

The following acts as part of a non-international conflict:

Murder, cruel or degrading treatment and torture

Directing attacks against civilians, humanitarian workers or UN peacekeepers

Taking hostages

Summary execution

Pillage

Rape, sexual slavery, forced prostitution or forced pregnancy

Besides that, why would we focus on Bush, when their is a part of the world which has seen genocide, and a civilian death toll reaching 250,000. Shouldn't we be focused on that, instead of trying to build a case against a president who was simply incompetent, yet not a war criminal.

Canadian Blue · January 14, 2007

Iraq's army was primarily armed with weaponry it had purchased from the Soviet Union and its satellites in the preceding decade. During the war, it purchased billions of dollars worth of advanced equipment from the Soviet Union, France,[27] as well as from the People's Republic of China, Egypt, Germany, and other sources (including Europe and facilities for making and/or enhancing chemical weapons). Germany[28] along with other Western countries (among them United Kingdom, France, Spain (Explosivos Alaveses), Canada, Italy and the United States) provided Iraq with biological and chemical weapons technology and the precursors to nuclear capabilities (see below).
The sources of Iraqi arms purchases between 1970 and 1990 (10% of the world market during this period) are estimated to be:

Suppliers in Billions (1985 $US) % of total
Soviet Union 19.2 61

France 5.5 18

People's Republic of China 1.7 5

Brazil 1.1 4

Egypt 1.1 4

Other countries 2.9 6

Total 31.5 98.0

The U.S. sold Iraq $200 million in helicopters, which were used by the Iraqi military in the war. These were the only direct U.S.-Iraqi military sales and were valued to be about 0.6% of Iraq's conventional weapons imports during the war.[29] Ted Koppel of ABC Nightline reported the following, however, on June 9, 1992: "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush Sr., operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into [an aggressive power]" and “Reagan/Bush administrations permitted — and frequently encouraged — the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq.” The Reagan Administration secretly began to allow Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt to transfer to Iraq American howitzers, helicopters, bombs and other weapons. These shipments were done without the approval of the U.S. Congress and were in clear violation of the Arms Export Control Act as well as international law.[30] Reagan personally asked Italy’s Prime Minister Guilio Andreotti to channel arms to Iraq.[31]
The United States, United Kingdom, and Germany also provided "dual use" technology (computers, engines, etc.) that allowed Iraq to expand its missile program and radar defenses. The U.S. Commerce Department, in violation of procedure, gave out licenses to companies for $1.5 billion in dual-use items to be sent to Iraq. The State Department was not informed of this. Over 1 billion of these authorized items were trucks that were never delivered. The rest consisted of advanced technology. Iraq's Soviet-made Scuds had their ranges expanded as a result.[32]

Yugoslavia sold weapons to both countries for the entire duration of the conflict. Portugal helped both countries: it was not unusual seeing Iranian- and Iraqi-flagged ships side-by-side in Sines (a town with a deep-sea port).[citation needed]

See, no one is innocent.

Canadian Blue · January 14, 2007

Here are some more articles on the rest of the world's involvement in Iraq.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,716376,00.html

Iraq’s declaration of its weapons programs contains explosive news for Germany, a Berlin paper has reported. The dossier is said to detail covert arms deals between German defense firms and Iraq.
Just as the heated debates within the German government over the role of German troops and equipment in a possible war against Iraq seem to be cooling down, another potential bombshell threatens to reignite the fires.

On Tuesday, the Berlin-based left-wing paper, Tageszeitung reported that aspects of the 12,000-page Iraqi report on Iraq's weapons programs, submitted to the U.N last week, could prove highly embarrassing for Germany.

The newspaper - believed to be the first to have access to the top-secret dossier - has written that the Iraqi declaration contains the names of 80 German firms, research laboratories and people, who are said to have helped Iraq develop its weapons program.

Germany, Iraq’s number one arms supplier?

The most contentious piece of news for Germany is that the report names it as the number one supplier of weapons supplies to Iraq. German firms are supposed to easily outnumber the firms from other countries who have been exporting to Iraq.

They have delivered technical know-how, components, basic substances and even entire technical facilities for the development of atomic, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction to Iraq right since 1975.

In some cases, conventional military and technical dealings between Germany and Iraq are said to date till 2001, ten years after the second Gulf war and a time when international sanctions against Saddam Hussein are still in place.

The paper reports that the dossier contains several indications of cases, where German authorities right up to the Finance Ministry tolerated the illegal arms cooperation and also promoted to it to an extent.

Wait and watch says German Finance Ministry

The German Finance Ministry has said that it will react to the report only once it has studied the Iraqi declaration.

"We’ll first wait till the report is in our hands," a spokesman from the ministry said on Tuesday.

The spokesman however said that the German government of the time in 1990 had informed the parliament about such German supplies to Iraq.

Ever since Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, there has been a strict embargo against the country. The spokesman said that there have been a few cases of violation of the embargo and the government has initiated investigations.

German military exports to Iraq nothing new

Explosive as the newspaper report may appear, it’s not the first of its kind.

For months rumors have been circulating in the German media of murky deals between German arms companies and businessmen with Iraq despite the rigid embargoes in place.

In October this year, a magazine of the German radio channel, Südwestrundfunk reported that electronics giant Siemens had delivered specialized technical equipment to Iraq for the treatment of kidney stones, but which could also under certain circumstances be used as a detonator for atom bombs.

Siemens insisted that the device could not be misused because it had commissioned an Iraqi company to regularly monitor the equipment. In fact the delivery was even sanctioned by the sanctions council of the U.N. and the Federal Office of Economics and Export Control (BAFA).

The latest newspaper report also touches upon the gray zone between medicine and armaments and writes of so-called dual-use goods that can be used for developing weapons as well as for civilian purposes.

The German government was apparently informed in 1999 of the delivery of such dual-use goods to Iraq, but is said to have turned a blind eye.

German defense firms conduct roaring trade with Baghdad

German arms companies in the meantime have been conducting booming business with Iraq in recent years. According to the German Federal Statistics Office, German military exports to Iraq have been steadily rising from year to year.

From annual exports amounting to 21,7 million euro in 1997, the volume of exports for the following year shot to some 76,4 million euro. The trend continued in 2001 with exports to Iraq bringing German firms profits in the range of 336,5 million euro.

German goods worth 226,2 million euro have already been shipped to Iraq in the first half of this year. Some of the official heavyweights in the export scene are the German electronics firm Siemens with medical equipment and energy distribution systems and carmaker DaimlerChrysler. Both are reported to rake in revenues worth double digit figures in the millions.

Chancellor Schröder in precarious situation

Though the German government has not officially reacted to the Iraqi declaration detailing its role in supplying Iraq with arms, there is little doubt that the issue is bound to stoke passions.

Ever since Chancellor Gerhard Schröder refused to be part of any military action in Iraq before the German general elections in September, Berlin’s relation to Washington has been a strained one.

Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder

With Schröder sticking to his pacifist line, but dithering over the level of cooperation with the U.S. in the case of a war against Iraq, the latest report is guaranteed to provide ammunition to the opposition who have strongly criticized Schröder’s policy towards America.

Another real fear is that Schröder’s image as a staunch pacifist might now be sullied if it emerges that Germany has all along been helping the very leader who it has been unwilling to topple, to stockpile his weapons.

The report could also provide the U.S. with an excuse to step up the pressure on Germany to give in to American military demands for deployment of German troops and use of German military equipment in the case of a military attack on Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3324053.stm

A trial of Saddam Hussein would primarily bring forth evidence of his crimes, but he might also use the forum to remind the world that he once had his supporters outside Iraq - in the former Soviet Union, in the Gulf States and in the West.
Saddam Hussein must still face his responsibilities

The trial might turn into more than an account of genocide, invasion, murder and massacre, dominant though that would be.

It could become a political event tinged with some embarrassment for countries and individuals who were once close to him.

Saddam Hussein's egocentric sense of history, largely centred around a vision of himself leading the Arab world as Saladin led it against the Crusaders, would surely tempt him to play to the gallery of Arab opinion.

In the process, he might raise the question as to why those who later opposed him once supplied him with technical, military and diplomatic muscle.

Two current Western leaders in particular might find their names in the frame - the French President Jacques Chirac and the US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

But before considering their role, it is important to remember that Saddam Hussein's main supplier was the Soviet Union. He was sent its best equipment - Mig 29s, T 72 tanks, artillery, gunboats and Scud missiles.

And he did not pay for it all. Russia, the Soviet Union's successor state, is still owed billions of dollars.

French role

France, however, was also a major supplier. When he was prime minister in 1974, Jacques Chirac went to Baghdad to see Saddam Hussein, then the power in Iraq, though not yet the president.

The following year, Saddam Hussein went to France and Prime Minister Chirac showed him round a nuclear plant.

They negotiated the sale to Iraq of two French nuclear reactors. One of them was destroyed in an air raid by the Israelis in 1981 amid fears that Iraq was developing a nuclear weapon.

France also agreed to provide Iraq with 133 Mirage F1 jet fighters over a 10-year period. It is reckoned that during the 1980s, 40% of France's arms exports went to Iraq.

'My dear friend'

In 1987, a French paper published a letter written to Saddam Hussein by Jacques Chirac a few months previously. It began: " My dear friend."

It refers obliquely to "the negotiation which you know about" and to the "co-operation launched more than 12 years ago under our personal joint initiative, in this capital district for the sovereignty, independence and security of your country."

The French president has since said that, at the time, many governments supported Iraq in its war against Iran

Mr Chirac denied that the "negotiation" meant a discussion about repairing Iraq's nuclear reactors.

The French president has since said that, at the time, many governments supported Iraq in its war against Iran and that Iraq was seen as "progressive".

Indeed many other Western countries - including the United States, Britain, West Germany and Italy - also helped Iraq with equipment and expertise, both civilian and military, and with finance.

Iraq's Arab neighbours in the Gulf, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia among them saw revolutionary Iran as a threat and poured money into Baghdad.

US diplomacy

The role played by the United States turned out to be important diplomatically. And this is where Mr Rumsfeld came in.

Saddam Hussein was once courted by the West

In the early 1980s, the bogeyman for the Americans was Ayatollah Khomeini. He had come to power in Iran during the 1979 Islamic revolution.

The United States had been humiliated by the seizure of its embassy and the holding of its staff as hostages for more than a year. This helped Jimmy Carter lose the presidency to Ronald Reagan in 1980.

With Iran seen as the danger, Washington turned to Iraq as the bulwark.

Iraq had invaded Iran in 1980 but the Iranians had held the advance and were striking back with human wave attacks. Iraq was known, by 1983, to have used chemical weapons to stop these.

A US State Department memorandum in 1983 stated: "We have recently received additional information confirming Iraqi use of chemical weapons."

President Reagan determined nevertheless that Iraq should be supported and he sent Mr Rumsfeld to Baghdad with a personal letter from himself to Saddam Hussein.

Mr Rumsfeld had been defence secretary under President Ford and was then head of a private pharmaceutical company.

Minutes of their meeting in December 1983 were taken by an American diplomat and later released in edited form under the Freedom of Information Act. They were published by the National Security Archive, a private research group.

Iran the motive

It is clear from the account that Mr Rumsfeld was concerned about Iran and that this was the motive for the American approach.

Saddam Hussein showed obvious pleasure with the president's letter and Rumsfeld's visit

US State Dept memo

The minutes state: "Rumsfeld told Saddam that the US and Iraq shared interests in preventing Iranian and Syrian expansion."

There is a lot of talk about stopping Iranian oil exports.

The report also sums up Saddam Hussein's reaction: "Saddam Hussein showed obvious pleasure with the President's letter and Rumsfeld's visit."

There is no mention of Mr Rumsfeld having raised the issue of chemical weapons with Saddam Hussein, though he said he did in an interview with CNN in 2002.

A report on another meeting, recorded that he did raise it with the Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, saying that "our efforts to assist were inhibited by certain things that make it difficult for us, citing the use of chemical weapons".

Diplomatic relations between the US and Iraq were restored in 1984.

Past alliances often embarrass governments.

If Saddam Hussein chooses to do so, he could use them to embarrass some of his current enemies.

Real point of trial

Not that it would diminish his own responsibilities. The London based organisation Indict, which has gathered evidence against Saddam Hussein and his associates, has published one eyewitness account of the dictator's personal behaviour.

It is a reminder of what the trial will really be about:

"One of the president's bodyguards brought 30 prisoners out. They were Kurds. The president himself shot them one after another with a Browning pistol.

"Another 30 prisoners were brought and the process was repeated. Saddam Hussein was laughing and obviously enjoying himself. There was blood everywhere - it was like an abattoir...

"Those who were still alive were eventually finished off by the security officers."

So in conclusion, if you are to charge Bush with "war crimes", then you will have to charge many, many, many more people.

bush_cheney2004 · January 14, 2007

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

Ok....lots of names here, including Canada's henchmen:

http://www.counterpunch.org/complaint.html

Bush and Blair can beat any rap based on the 1991 Gulf War surrender instruments, violated by the late Saddam Hussein.

Guthrie · January 14, 2007

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

Canadian Blue · January 14, 2007

So tell me, what crimes specifically did José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero commit? or face reality

Are you talking about the above question, because I answered it:

Your talking about the PM of Spain who was elected in 2004. None, however government's before him have apparently.

What was your response:

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

Yeah it's pretty sad when a brickload of fact's hit's a person in the face and they can't come up with a reasonable response. See look the facts unfortunately got in the way of the truth that comes from your gut, it was pretty ugly.

Tsk tsk

Guthrie · January 14, 2007

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

Canadian Blue · January 14, 2007

No Guthrie, a load of brick [aka facts] hit you in the face. Now that you can't respond you are resorting to a debate over semantics, and will continue making post's with only a few sentences which don't really back up any of the point's you made.

I hold out hope that someday you'll be able to debate though...

Guthrie · January 14, 2007

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

Canadian Blue · January 14, 2007

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

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.

Canadian Blue · January 14, 2007

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

What is so very sad is that you haven't even been able to make a case against Bush. Yet somehow when I make a better case against many western countries including the US, you can't come up with anything to say.

The only thing sad here, is somebody who is blind to the world outside of them, and who have an extremely ignorant view of the world, and current issues affecting the world.

Guthrie · January 14, 2007

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

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

sharkman · January 14, 2007

You hear that, Cdn blue? Junior college man! And an abomination to boot! Wow, we got a bored guy with an overacitve imagination here I think. Guthrie, maybe you should up your meds.

Guthrie · January 14, 2007

You hear that, Cdn blue? Junior college man! And an abomination to boot! Wow, we got a bored guy with an overacitve imagination here I think. Guthrie, maybe you should up your meds.

What I'd like to know, aside where Judy Fudge got her name, is what makes you pathetic morons think that a page of charges printed up and signed by a college club in Canada is equal to a made case???

meds? you folks have the cheap ones, yall should get started on them right away - not that they'll make you any smarter

PolyNewbie · January 14, 2007

Guthrie:(to CanadianBlue)your conscientious ignorance, is not a defense - it is an abomination

Absolutely true.

PolyNewbie · January 14, 2007

CanadianBlue:When did Bush engage in the use of chemical weapon's and targeting civilian's.

You need to stop watching TV NOW !! There are videos of burned civilians in Falluja. They sold Saddam his chemical weapons.

They also used phosphorus on civilians in Falluja which is used to burn people alive as well as light up areas.

You did know that John Woo thinks its OK to torture children in front of their parents by manipulating their genitalia with pliars right ?

Canadian Blue · January 15, 2007

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 ---

What have you provided, two sentence responses with no backing, that's preschool.

second - the case against the Buschistas is not only in front of you but undisputed

Strange how I looked up Buschista yet couldn't find any links. Who are the Buschista's, and what do they believe in?

I think the fact you can't back up any of your argument's show that the case can be disputed.

Ignorant...

your conscientious ignorance, is not a defense - it is an abomination

No it's called being rational, and using logic. Since you haven't provided any actual proof your case is bogus.

What I'd like to know, aside where Judy Fudge got her name, is what makes you pathetic morons think that a page of charges printed up and signed by a college club in Canada is equal to a made case???

If it's a made case then why can't you seem to show it on here. As well so far the "college" charges have more merit than the verbal diarrhea you have been spewing at us.

meds? you folks have the cheap ones, yall should get started on them right away - not that they'll make you any smarter

Keep it up, I'll show the mods how you have consistently failed to back up your arguments with little more than partisan ranting.

You hear that, Cdn blue? Junior college man! And an abomination to boot! Wow, we got a bored guy with an overacitve imagination here I think. Guthrie, maybe you should up your meds.

I wish I was in university, but fall can't come soon enough. I know, apparently only an abomination can make a case backed up with facts which were researched and studied, what an abomination. :rolleyes:

Absolutely true.

Hey Polynewbie, I'm thinking of becoming a lawyer once I finish my Bachelor of Education, so does that mean that I should start worshipping lucifer, wear the robes of Saturn, and laugh about how corrupt I am.

You need to stop watching TV NOW !! There are videos of burned civilians in Falluja. They sold Saddam his chemical weapons.

Well, I don't want to live in a cellar for the rest of my life. But, I think that you definitely should keep on doing it, as long as your mom is still feeding you.

You did know that John Woo thinks its OK to torture children in front of their parents by manipulating their genitalia with pliars right ?

John Woo, the film director?

Get's crazier and crazier by the day.

Guthrie · January 15, 2007

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 ---

What have you provided, two sentence responses with no backing, that's preschool.

...

gee, I try to avoid repeating the obvious and previous headline news

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ro...e_of_bush_s.htm

... The last time our troops were directed to launch a major offensive in Fallujah, for example, it developed into little more than a massacre of those civilians who were left in the way of the imperious assault by the U.S. forces and their compromised Iraqi counterparts. Lockheed AC-130 'Spectres' were used to drop bombs and fire indiscriminately into the residential areas of the city in a vain attempt to intimidate the insurgents there into compliance. Cobra helicopter gunships were directed to attack the town's population center. White phosphorus, a napalm-like substance which burns the skin, was reportedly used by the U.S. against Iraqis in the assault, including against women and children....

here is a military response, a year after the first reports, and as noted in the last sentence, nearly a year after initial complete denials of the incidents

...The Pentagon on Wednesday acknowledged using incendiary white-phosphorus munitions in a
2004 counterinsurgency offensive in the Iraqi city of Fallujah...

It then shows a series of photographs from Fallujah of corpses with the flesh burnt off but

clothes still intact - which it says is consistent with the effects of white phosphorus on humans.

Jeff Englehart, described as a former U.S. soldier who served in Fallujah, tells of how he heard

orders for white phosphorus to be deployed over military radio - and saw the results.

"Burned bodies, burned women, burned children; white phosphorus kills indiscriminately...

When it makes contact with skin, then it's absolutely irreversible damage, burning flesh to the

bone," he says.

Last December, the U.S. state department issued a denial of what it called "widespread myths"

about the use of illegal weapons in Fallujah. ...

http://dtirp.dtra.mil/tic/WTR/wtr_17nov05.pdf

But this is old news, everybody who reads the papers should know this already -- so, the ignorance you guys display is from not reading the paper? or dedication to ignorance? or blindness to anything not spoon fed you by your fascist propagandists?