Is George W. a War criminal [Archive]

Dr. Ransom

11-14-2002, 08:52 PM

Dr. Ransom to the rescue again of course :-)
Ok, once again I'm rather shocked at the thought that thread as had any votes "yes."

International law is not more sovereign than the nations that make it up. Ok, to say this another way: the remote tutu tribe does not get the same law writing ability that say the US, or England has. Considering the fact that the America STARTED the UN, and the fact that America FUNDS the UN, they do not have any sovereignty over America AT ALL. Now, that's not to say that America can do exactly whatever she wants, certainly evil is evil, regardless of who is most powerful... i.e. Nazi Germany. But, that is to say, that you people have NO RIGHT whatever to accuse Bush of being a war criminal for retaliating militarily against a CIVILIAN attack!! Ok, let me say it again: INTERNATIONAL LAW IS NOT SOVERIEGN. The UN has no "SOVERIENGTY" over America, though I do not question that it has and should have influence over the US. Thousands of men from my state and country died in the last hundred years just to give a punk like me the ability to say that. I will never forget.

George has definitely broken international law, like his holding Taliban fighters as non-lawful combatants instead of criminals of war, even though he INVADED their country.

You know? You might actually have a point, except for the fact that I don't remember the Taliban declaring war on the US before killling >3,000 innecent civillians. Technically, the US has the "RIGHT" to not to only hold, but to execute many of them as murderers. That would not be very fair, since most of these peons did not have anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. But it would still not make Bush a "war" criminal.

Ciryaher, I have no idea where you're from, but thanks for sticking up to all this anti-american "stuff" going around. There are two things that are really getting on my nerves right now. 1# All the Anti-Americanism, and 2# All the LOTR movie bashing :-) I personally concider myself a LOTR purist, but I still think that the movies were awsome.

Ciryaher

11-14-2002, 09:05 PM

Born in Virginia, raised in Indiana, and now living in New Mexico!

I was shocked to see that I was the first person to vote "No" when there were 5 for "Yes"...we apparently had both anti-Americans and uninformed people voting here...

How can you possibly twist and pervert the designation of War Criminal to slap on Bush's forehead? I am in utter disbelief that any "intelligent" human being could say that he is, in utter disregard of the facts that he is not the ruler of this country by any means, and that he has done anything to constituted a war crime.

Proudfoots

11-14-2002, 09:17 PM

There is a difference between Anti-American and Anti-Bush

About the comment that a war criminal has to order mass murder, well the lines there are a bit blurry, since it is always the winner who decides who the guilty are.

Lets not forget that there have been civilian targets in Afganistan that have been destroyed, also Iraq, and lets not forget the Chinese embassy that was destroyed in Bosnia...there are always innocent victims of war.

The Taliban never declared war on the US, the attacks were not perpetrated by them but by al-Queda (sp?), who are not a government and cannot declare war. And most wars begin with surprise attacks, in fact it is a foolish country that declares war without attacking first.

You are right, of course, Ciyahar, i must be a stupid person to not support the US governments threats and attacks against any or every country that has embarassed them in the past (why Iran and N. Korea?)

and Dr. Ransom, you, too, are correct, since the US partially funds the UN they SHOULD be allowed to do anything they want around the world. and read you history, the US was not the Founders of the UN, they were a founding member, but the reason the League of Nations failed was because the US refused to join... If the UN was going to work, it needed both the US and the USSR on board. But, then, as previously stated, i must not be an intelligent person, so i will let your unbiased views of history previal.

i appologise for thinking something different than George Bush... if i had paid closer attention i would have known that he was the second coming and infallible...

'foots

DGoeij

11-14-2002, 09:38 PM

These kind of questions are sure to destroy the possibility of discussing US foreign policies in a serious and civil manner. I have my own doubts about it, but any US civilian willingly to explain their point of view, will now refrain from comment. All that you will get now, will be a lot of foam on the lower lip and lousy rhetoric. But maybe that's just what you were aiming for, just to prove yourself right?

JanitorofAngmar

11-14-2002, 09:53 PM

Dr. Ransom,

Perhaps your above rant is where the anti-americanism is coming from.

It comes off as a "don't you dare critizise us!" attitude. I think the american govt. needs to eat a little "humble pie".

Sorry, but IMHO your rant is a perfect example of ethnocentric behavior in print.

But what do I know anyway - I'm not american.

George W. may not be a "war criminal" but he sure as heck is a war monger. No doubt about that.

Just wanted to point that out.

Ciryaher

11-14-2002, 10:02 PM

I don't recall us attacking a country because it embarrased us. Not Korea, not Vietnam (the embarrasment came after), not Iraq, and not Afghanistan. If you call almost three thousand people being massacred by fanatics an embarrasment, well I suppose attacking a nation that supports and harbours those who slew 3000 innocent lives isn't justified, then. And if a country is going to build nuclear weapons and refuse to stop developing more, then, by gum, they should be threatened! Are you saying that it is perfectly fine for North Korea to have weapons of mass destruction when they won't even feed their own people?

Destroying those powers that wish to kill innocent people and develop weapons with which to kill large numbers of people is perfectly justified, in my opinion.

Húrin Thalion

11-14-2002, 10:05 PM

My point was that you here could discuss war criminals at a whole and as I see it interesting to discuss Bush I set that as a title, OK to everybody?

I am shocked to see Dr. Ransom's post. Are you serious when saying that America has the right to execute any of the prisoners? Then I suggest you go to the U.N. declaration of human rights, the Geneva convention and those documents to read up on prisoners rights. POWs may not be executed, tortured and so on. Now Bush is saying that they are not POWs but criminals and thus he is breaking your 2nd amendment. The reason I selected Bush is that I think it is an important symbol to prosecute heads of state like we are doing with Milosevic now.

The war in Afghanistan was illegal from the begining since you attacked a state that had technically not attacked you. Moreover in the Geneva convention edition from 1972 bombings were civilians are killed is a war crime and must be stopped. I will write more tomorrow but I've gotta fix my Avathar now.

Elen

Proudfoots

11-14-2002, 10:06 PM

Don't start with nuclear weapons.

YOU INVENTED THEM
YOU'VE USED THEM
you have them,
britain has them,
france has them (and tests them too much!),
Russia has them,
India has them,
Pakistan has them,
China has them,

why can't north korea have them?
why can't everybody have them?

American's have bombed more countries in the 1990s then anyone else
do you think it is a coincidence that both Kofi Annan (sec. gen. UN) and Nelson Mandella have called the US a 'threat to world peace'?

Just stop bombing other countries, they'll stop bombing you, everyone can go back to killing their neighbours.

I do not support international terrorism, sponsored by them or the US

'foots

Parrot

11-14-2002, 10:43 PM

why can't north korea have them?
why can't everybody have them?

Finally, somebody's talking some sense around here. If this idea of “since India and Pakistan and blah, blah, blah have them there is no reason Iraq and North Korea shouldn’t” really holds water then shouldn’t we just take it to its logical conclusion right now? Why have all of these already poor nations investing billions of dollars to duplicate science that is already yesterday’s news in much of the world?

Rather than dismantling our old weapons, we should just sell them off to anyone who can raise the necessary bucks. We can put a hefty price tag on them and it will still be cheaper than building their own. Hell, Let’s run a couple up the old E-bay flagpole and see what we get. Can you pay a couple billion dollars with Pay Pal? “Great News, you’re pre-approved for the New Visa Plutonium Card!” We will have a truly level playing field, a more efficient use of the world’s resources, everyone can have their own bomb and not have to suffer the ignominy of being the only ones without, the U.S. can make some MAJOR bank, and, last but certainly not least, we won’t have these Mr. High-and-Mighty Nuclear Powers thinking they can tell everyone how to act. Of course we will run the risk of every chump-change, border squabble becoming the first flakes of full-blown Nuclear-Winter, but hey, that's a small price to pay for the warm fuzzies we'll get from knowing everyone is being treated fairly. We can all sleep better! Welcome to Nirvana; Enjoy your (brief) stay! :)

Dr. Ransom

11-14-2002, 11:12 PM

The Taliban never declared war on the US, the attacks were not perpetrated by them but by al-Queda (sp?), who are not a government and cannot declare war. And most wars begin with surprise attacks, in fact it is a foolish country that declares war without attacking first.

Um... Using this argument, Bush is exactly right to not treat the prisoners as POW's.

POA, I admit to, and understand that I am ethno-centric. In fact, I keep getting mad at a textbook that I have to read in school right now. The textbook constantly claims that "all cultures are equal" and blah blah blah. And to some extent, it is exactly right. The interesting part about it is that whenever they want to find a good example of a "good" cultural trait, they look to asia. When they want to find a bad example, they look to America. Now, I personally am very saddend about lot of the stuff that America is involved with. But I concider the American goverment to be the greatest human experment ever. And maybe it's just my ethno-centrism, but I think it has been a success. For 200 years our country has been a free people. We saved europe twice in the last century. America is the new Roman empire, yet we conqure no one. We do not ask tribute from europe, instead, we free give them millions of dollers. America is more capable of "taking over the world" than Rome or Germany ever was... and yet we attack one little group of terrorist who killed 3,000 men, woman, and children. Than we are called all sorts of evil names like war mongers, war criminals, and the like.

I am shocked to see Dr. Ransom's post. Are you serious when saying that America has the right to execute any of the prisoners? Then I suggest you go to the U.N. declaration of human rights, the Geneva convention and those documents to read up on prisoners rights. POWs may not be executed, tortured and so on.

You're own friends argued that they are not a nation, but one terrorist group. If that is true, than they are NOT POW's, but simple everyday murderers. And I'm not saying that we should kill them, in fact, I would be horrified if we did. But you guys are talking about "Rights", not what is "right." There is a difference. But really? I don't get it, why not have this thread on how evil the terrorist are? Or God forbid, maybe your media should let you guys know about the terrorist bombers in palistine. Instead, you talk about how the palistinian bombings are ok since Isreal is "oppressing" them. Than, you turn around and rip apart America for "holding" terrorist on a somewhat debatable premise. I sence some hypocracy here...

Dr. Ransom

11-14-2002, 11:19 PM

Thank-you Parrot, I love your sence of sattire. But you're exactly right, if the human nature is so good, and everybody just needs to "get together" more. Than I think your idea is exelent. Fact is everybody, we Americans will be hated no matter what we do, it's the classic catch 22. If somewhere in europe is bombed by iraqi terrorist in the next year or so, america would be evil for not doing something. And yet, if we try, we will be "war mongers." I really don't care. But I'd rather stop an evil country like Iraq, than let the free world be terrorized by nutcases like Osama. Ok, heres a question for you. If America catches Osama, is he a terrorist, or a POW. Chose carefully, because it makes all the difference.

JanitorofAngmar

11-14-2002, 11:23 PM

Ransom,

Oh my God! I don't even know where to begin.

I would almost think that you are attempting to be funny in your post.

Unfortunately I doubt if there is anything I could say...oh never mind!

Oh my God!:rolleyes:

Dr. Ransom

11-14-2002, 11:44 PM

I think I'm going to make a little cheapshot at your own country. Unfortunently I don't remember the exact numbers, so these could be way off, but the point remains the same. The Canadian Millitary was at about 80,000 total employees during the gulf war, and even then, this was concidered a disgrace. Now, due to the all the funding cutback since their socialist programs started, the Canadian Milltary is down to something like (I could be waaaayyy wrong, but whatever the numbers were, it was amazing) 20,000 total imployees. They could not even find enough people to relieve their 800 people strong unit that went to Afganistan. This is why America is accused of being a war monger. Free nations like Canada think they owe nothing to the free world. And than we get all this bashing from somebody like JOA who just doesn't get it that America has been such a great neighbor to Canada that they don't even need a standing army to protect them! Instead, we take all the hits, like 9/11 and such. And basically, my high taxes that get taken out of my paycheck at work every week and going to protect JOA since his own nation can't protect themselves. And than he has the guts to call us "War" mongers. If it was not for free nations like Germany, Britain and America and even Isreal, the rest of the free world would actually have to deal with some of these issues that America is dealing with right now. But I really don't care, I will help my country and the rest of the free (and sometimes not free) world as long as I can. Regardless of getting thanks for it. We were mad fun of before WWII, we will be mocked again, and we might even end up saving the world again a time or two before my own nation collapes from within.

Ciryaher

11-15-2002, 12:02 AM

Quick info. Here's an interview that pertains to the Canadian Military.

Interview (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,63882,00.html)

Thorin

11-15-2002, 12:41 AM

Was Bush right to go into Afghanistan? I think so. The Taliban are not only an oppressive regime to its people, but they were harboring a terrorist fugitive. By any laws, that person needs to be brought to justice and anyone who stands in the way is obstructing justice. The Taliban were not only warned to give him up, but were given a time limit. They refused because they view America as the enemy. They deserved the consequences...Whether Afghanistan is a better nation now is another discussion.

Why is Bush going into Iraq? I think there are many ulterior motives other than the "Saddam is manufacturing weapons of mass destruction" What communist/tolitarian country isn't? Bush wants to finish what daddy started and let's face it folks...OIL=MONEY.

The scary thing is Bush was going to go into Iraq without the UN's support. That is scary. What was he going to do? Bomb it and kill more millions of civilians? That obviously hasn't worked in the past. Send in ground troops? They couldn't even pull off Afghanistan with that.

Parrot

11-15-2002, 01:01 AM

Except that he DIDN'T go in without the U.N. and now it looks like the pressure is working and Saddam is going to play ball. Maybe, this was G-Dub's end-game all along?

Thorin

11-15-2002, 01:12 AM

Originally posted by Parrot
Except that he DIDN'T go in without the U.N. and now it looks like the pressure is working and Saddam is going to play ball. Maybe, this was G-Dub's end-game all along?

I think that it was by happy chance the UN decided to see the light. If they hadn't, Bush WOULD have gone in alone with both gloves off and really made a shambles of things. To say that this was his game along is to either give him too much credit, or to basically make him someone who strong arms and pressures the UN to get his way.

I believe he would have done it regardless with or without the UN's help.

Ciryaher

11-15-2002, 01:13 AM

If you own a motor vehicle or purchase anything made of non-100% recycled plastic, you are an oil consumer. Until the other forms of energy are seriously advocated, we will continue to be under oil's stranglehold.

The scary thing is Bush was going to go into Iraq without the UN's support. That is scary. What was he going to do? Bomb it and kill more millions of civilians?

Bush was going to go into Iraq if the UN wouldn't do something about Hussein's weapons programmes that the UN failed to eradicate due to their lack of initiative. Now that we're (the US and the UN) finally laying down the law, maybe something will be done about this recurrent problem.

Proudfoots

11-15-2002, 02:27 AM

Just a moment, Oh mighty US military, who is responisble for the deaths of canadian soldiers in Afganistan, the taliban, no, al-quada, no, the USAF? right

there were more reasons for pulling Canadian troops off of combat duty in afganistan than the fact that we didn't want any more of our boys dying...

Ransom, have you ever been to Canada?

Bush is a bully with his own agenda, he feels like he can throw the weight of the US around the world like it is a kid threatening to get his dad to beat them up.

This is why the US gets attacked

Plain and simple.

Why would Canada get attacked, what message would that send, yes, we can kill canadians, they have a bad military, yippee

You attack a powerful nation to make them appear weak

You don't attack a weak nation to make it look weaker

It is strength against strength, crazy fundamentalist against well...whoever they feel like, they are crazy

But if the Americans keep going around threatening the little guy (and Ransom certainly is threatening everybody around, even little old canada it seems) then you are going to have more people side against you...

and by the way, Osama declared a holy war on the US before the US lauched the cruise missile attacks against Sudan and Afganistan back in 99. who is attacking who first?

'foots for President

Dr. Ransom

11-15-2002, 02:56 AM

Just a thought;

For all of you interested in judging the credibility of this debate. You might want to go read all the former post and see if I EVER threatend anybody. Especially "Old Canada." So maybe Proudfootie you might want to actually READ my post before you comment. I think it might make your post a little more credible IMHO.

Ransom

Edit: Yes, in fact I've been to Canada several times. I have some friends from Canada too. In fact, my Grandpa lived in Canada for quite a while. I concider Canada a great friend, like England. I personally love Canada, but I'm pointing out that it's easy to bash the US when we have to do most of Canada's dirty work for them. Many countries are starting to see this, and I think it's very embaressing for Old Canada.

Thorin

11-15-2002, 03:08 AM

Originally posted by Dr. Ransom
I personally love Canada, but I'm pointing out that it's easy to bash the US when we have to do most of Canada's dirty work for them. Many countries are starting to see this, and I think it's very embaressing for Old Canada.

No, its easy to bash the US (and by the US, I mean the government and military, not the people as a whole) because they follow their own agenda, not do Canada's dirty work for them. Jean Chretien gave his full support to Bush concerning the terrorist war. Bush pretty much laughed Canada off and clung to Britain like a baby to his mother. Bush has showed many times that he doesn't take Canada seriously (in his campaign, he didn't even know the Prime Minister's name for crying out loud!). Chretien said no to Bush's Iraq-attack-without-UN support because it was a ludicrous idea even to Bush's aides. Who was more the fool in that case suffering embrassement? Canada? I doubt it.

The US doesn't do Canada's dirty work for them. They do their own dirty work and act like the rest of the world should get down on their knees and kiss their feet for doing it....That's why 3 quarters of Asia hates the US.

Dr. Ransom

11-15-2002, 03:11 AM

Tar-Elenion

11-15-2002, 03:16 AM

The Taliban was not the 'legitimate' government of Afghanistan, (it was recognized by only 3 countries and was not even recognized by the UN).
The Taliban was sheltering a terrorist organization and would not extradite UBL et.al.

The Taliban fighters are not being detained illegally under international law or otherwise. They were not legitimate soldiers under international law.

Saying that OIL is the reason Mr Bush wants to go into Iraq is ridiculous. If it was simply oil then that could be had by getting the UN to lift its sanctions (something that oil companies and UPI have pressed for for years). Saddam would be more than happy to sell his oil.

Thorin

11-15-2002, 03:17 AM

But I don't think you should bash a nation when they are protecting your borders for you. Sure, the US is going after it's own interest, but it's our own interest that is allowing Canada to get away with only having a 20,000 strong millitary.

Canada doesn't have any real need in protecting its borders, because we haven't ticked half the world off. The only reason why we need our borders protected is because of "guilt by association" being on the US's borders. The US has brought alot of heat down on North America in general and pretty soon it won't matter when Canadians travel overseas with the maple leaf on their back pack to try and distinguish themselves from Americans due to their reputation, because we'll be lumped in all together.

And last time I checked, our problems with our borders and free trade was only with the US, not the rest of the world.

Dr. Ransom

11-15-2002, 03:21 AM

Ok, England hasn't "ticked" the whole world off... and neither has Germany... but they still feel that they owe the free world a debt of having a standing millitary ready for when trouble stikes. Canada just relies on its wonderful neighbors to the south to protect them. :-) (ok, maybe that was a little biased lol) BTW, it was a Canadian that I first heard this argument from. And I thought... good point. I'm really not smart enough to make this up myself...

Ransom

Proudfoots

11-15-2002, 03:43 AM

the Dr. isn't a doctor in history is it?

There are plenty of people who are ****ed of with Britain... do you remember that they had an EMPIRE for hundreds of years?

They used to be in Afganistan in fact.

As to the charge that the US is allowed to hold taliban fighters as unlawful combatants, what is your definition of lawful, and wait a minute, i am not defending these guys. But, lets face facts...first off, these guys are extremely religious, they are quite likely not even literate, they ahve been fighting as the Mujahadeen since 1978 and the Russian invasion (the Mujahadeen were supported by the US, watch rambo 3 for instance), they only know how to fight.

a bunch of new white guys show up, they fight, they are told to fight, they believe that they are defending not only their culture, but their country and their families. Just like the British have held Irish freedom fighters (watch 'inthe name of hte father'), the americans are using a loop hole in the Geneva Convention to get away with what ever they want.

and as to the US getting support from the UN to do what they want, they got support from Russia because they are giving the Russians a free handin Chechnya, the Chinese a free hand against the chinese Turkmen's in the west and France a free hand against their basques and algeria.

everyone has terrorist in the closet
but no one has the right to treat them like animals

if we support them we call them 'freedom fighters' if we are against them we call them terrorists.

what do you think the british called the yankees inthe war for independence?

at length

and Germany has tried to take over Europe twice in the last 100 years, i think they could find a few enemies
'foots

Dr. Ransom

11-15-2002, 03:51 AM

Actually, I am a amature historian. My favorite class in college right now is a Junior level history class, but whatever...

My point was that do we have a thread here at TTF bashing England? France? Germany? China? The remote Tutu tribe? No, bashing the US is popular and classy ever since the "Cold Peace."

For the sake of catching up on stuying while I have a free day, I am unfortuently going to have to pull myself out of this debate. But remember, you all love to talk about fairness and equality, and yet, we are the ONLY evil nation worth talking about... Of course I'm going to defend America. Anyway, thanks for a debate.

Ransom

Tar-Elenion

11-15-2002, 04:39 AM

Originally posted by Proudfoots
As to the charge that the US is allowed to hold taliban fighters as unlawful combatants, what is your definition of lawful...
<snip>
the americans are using a loop hole in the Geneva Convention to get away with what ever they want.

What _my_ definition of 'lawful' is, is not important.
What is important is that you stated initially: "George has definitely broken international law". This is, of course, innaccurate, as you in your later statements quoted above seem to acknowledge.

and as to the US getting support from the UN to do what they want, they got support from Russia because they are giving the Russians a free handin Chechnya, the Chinese a free hand against the chinese Turkmen's in the west and France a free hand against their basques and algeria.

We are giving them a "free hand"?
Well lets presume we did not give them "a free hand", but rather insisted they stop. Would we then fall under this characterization: "Bush is a bully with his own agenda, he feels like he can throw the weight of the US around the world like it is a kid threatening to get his dad to beat them up."?

We did not give Milosevich a "free hand", and put an end to his 'reign of terror', but we get derided for that with comments like "American's have bombed more countries in the 1990s ".

everyone has terrorist in the closet
but no one has the right to treat them like animals

They have no right to hijack and fly planes into buildings, walk into cafes or passover seder or pizza parlors and blow themselves up killing multitudes of innocents or take over theatres and hold those in attendance hostage.

Ciryaher

11-15-2002, 04:47 AM

Bush is NOT responsible for the attacks of 9/11. If anyone, it was those three presidents before him. It took a long time for the proverbial feces to hit the proverbial fan, and Bush is dealing with it as well as anyone could.

Saying that the Taliban is/was fighting to protect their families and country isn't a worthy answer, in my opinion. They treat their women in a subhuman manner, and they ruled their country through oppression. Not exactly the scattered remains of a great cause...

If you want to accuse people of being war criminals, look for the real ones who torture prisoners, sack villages, and try to eliminate parts of their population.

Húrin Thalion

11-15-2002, 03:27 PM

The Taliban fighters are not being detained illegally under international law or otherwise. They were not legitimate soldiers under international law.

If a man is captured in combat and with any uniform he is a POW.
Moreover most of the prisoners kept at Guantanamo knew very little of 9/11 before it. It is a perfect example of many Americans ignorance of rthe world, you selct some group guilty and then they remain guilty until they are dead. The CIA created the Taliban government and did not care if anyone was treated subhuman, but of course they weren't americans. Now they think they have the right to murder anyone you want, even chiefs of state. Of course I think 9/11 was horrible but it did not come close to the war in Afghanistan. It seems like America thinks it has the right to choose waht is best for a country or the world. "Nah that president is a social democrat, kill him." "We fought that nation before, they haven't got the right to have those horrible weapons we have."

About oil, we all know that Saudi Arabia is on the brink of revolution and bush then wants to SECURE the oil in Iraq. I know why America was attacked, you have given all these peoples promises and failed them forso long that they fight back. That does not justify it but we must face facts.

A very furious and interesting discussion this.

Elen

Parrot

11-15-2002, 05:25 PM

Posted by Thorin
To say that this was his game along is to either give him too much credit, or to basically make him someone who strong arms and pressures the UN to get his way.

I don't believe I am giving him too much credit at all, as this stage in the confrontation has been a foregone conclusion for some time, and I posted as much a month or two ago. Saddam is a savvy self-preservationist above all and he knows a repeat of Desert Storm would be nothing short of suicide. Wasn't going to happen, he knew it, we knew it. His best hope for survival is not through his military but through his political gamesmanship and playing the UN members against each other.

As for "strong arms" the UN, you may have a point there, except that "his (Bush's) way" just happens to be an expectation that the UN will have the sauce to enforce the valid resolutions they have pending against violating countries. Not really that extreme a position to hold, IMO. If the UN will not enforce its resolutions then they mean nothing and we may as well disband the whole thing right now. Every time they turn a blind eye to this kind of open defiance, they are losing credibility and any power of infuence and intimidation they have built to this point. Not only does it let Hussein off the hook, but it sets a sorry precedent. Bottom line is it never should have gotten to this point. If the UN had help up its end from the beginning, we wouldn't have had to come off as looking like such cowboys in demanding compliance. It's a lot easier to ignore a barking dog if you know he don't bite.

You know, nobody posts a "Is Saddam a War Criminal?" poll, because everyone knows the answer to that one; yet there is no call for his head, only Bush's. Wonder why that is?

Proudfoots

11-15-2002, 05:43 PM

Is Saddam a war criminal?

yes... there is no fun debating it, firstly because it is irrefutably true, and secondly because there are few to no iraqis who are on the internet at this sight to support him (as if any would)

besides, bating Americans is one of the few fun things left to do...

Húrin Thalion

11-15-2002, 05:44 PM

And that is exactly why I posted this Parrot! Who would be interested in discussing Saddam? I posted this for it seemed an interesting issue with the prospect of developing, not to throw **** on Bush. Earlier someone said that I did not agree with my friends. Ransom this is not a worldwide conspiracy against you, I have necer discussed this topic in a PM and I am not as stupid as agreeing with anyone that thinks I'm right on the whole.

Elen

Parrot

11-15-2002, 05:54 PM

I understand the "baiting" Americans thing and I kick myself everytime I take the bait, but to discuss Bush's actions while completely ignoring the Saddam half of the equation is disingenuous to say the least.

Elen, in regards to these types of questions, I would refer to DGoeij's post on the first page, probably the most sensible one on the whole thread. If you really want some meaningful interplay on these things it might be better to frame them in a way that does not inspire angry rhetoric and complete polarization from the outset. It's a tip. Welcome to fourteen. :)

Proudfoots

11-15-2002, 06:41 PM

This will be my finaly posting in the thread, i apologise if i have every angered anyone here...

Bush is not a war criminal...if this attachment works it will explain why i am retracting my previous statements (and if it doesn't work, i will look like an idiot)

Gloer

11-15-2002, 08:05 PM

I really thought you ment George Washington.

I don't think there is justice in war.
War has no laws nor can there be war crimes.

War is absence of order between two systems of order.

War is definately devastating to any justice. Justice can not be done only revenge. The weaker, losing side is always pushed to ground.

Legally A. Hitler and germany should have held the borders of 1938 and the nazi government.

Tar-Elenion

11-16-2002, 12:53 AM

Originally posted by Elen Carnë
[B]If a man is captured in combat and with any uniform he is a POW.
Moreover most of the prisoners kept at Guantanamo knew very little of 9/11 before it. It is a perfect example of many Americans ignorance of rthe world, you selct some group guilty and then they remain guilty until they are dead.

The men fighting for the Taliban were not legitimate soldiers, the Taliban was not the internationally recognized government of Afghanistan, their fighters did not wear uniforms, they wore their normal tribal/civilian dress. Under international law they are considered illegal combatants and can be held as battlefield detainees, not as POWs. Before making claims about the ignorance of others do some research on the subject.

The CIA created the Taliban government and did not care if anyone was treated subhuman, but of course they weren't americans. Now they think they have the right to murder anyone you want, even chiefs of state.
The CIA did not create the Taliban. The US had been uninvolved in Afghan affairs for some years after the Mujahideen had driven the Soviets out, well before the Taliban took over from what became the 'Northern Alliance'.

Of course I think 9/11 was horrible but it did not come close to the war in Afghanistan.
Specious attempt at moral equivilence.

It seems like America thinks it has the right to choose waht is best for a country or the world. "Nah that president is a social democrat, kill him."
We have had an Executive Order in effect 25 years or so preventing that.

"We fought that nation before, they haven't got the right to have those horrible weapons we have."
Are you suggesting that Saddam should have nuclear weapons?
And besides Iraq does not have that right, after losing the Gulf War Saddam agreed to not have any.

About oil, we all know that Saudi Arabia is on the brink of revolution and bush then wants to SECURE the oil in Iraq.
Specious reasoning. If it were simply about oil then there would be no need to go through this. Saddam would be more than happy to sell the world all the oil it wants. All that need happen is for the United Nations to lift the sanctions.

I know why America was attacked, you have given all these peoples promises and failed them forso long that they fight back. That does not justify it but we must face facts.
What promises did we make to these people who attacked us (Al Qaeda/Usama bin Ladin)? And how did we fail these people who attacked us?

Húrin Thalion

11-16-2002, 04:02 PM

You don't seem to understand my post so I'll explain some things that most Europeans know clear.

Tar Elenion is using the same rethorics as Hitler, "I do not recognize the Taliban as a state so I can do whatever I wnat with them." Germany's Führer said that because Soviet had not signed the Geneva convention he did not have to follow it in a war with them. The ignorance was about many seeing every single Taliban foot soldier guilty of murdering 2980 civilians. Don't think that 9/11 was an only american tragedy, one fourth of them killed were foreigners and I have met one of them who were killed.

If CIA didn't create the Taliban why did they have American equipment, for example Stingers. All the Q'ran schools in Pakistan in which the Taliban were trained were financed by your taxes.

Let me take an example of a people America failed: The Kurds in northern Iraq. They had been oppressed for many years by Saddam Hussein when the Gulf war came. Your president did the same as his son is doing today, encouraged them to revolt against the government. When they did so after the war Bush refused to help them and let Saddam slaughter and drive them away from their homes. I have many friends that had their families killed that day and they remember seeing seeing American choppers flying over but doing nothing when Iraqi helicopters attacked refugees.

If I am not wrong you are going to tgake the right to murder any foreign national now. Remember Allende and Pinochet. Bush supported the failed coup against Hugo Chavez by the military.

Come on the whole world knows that you want more oil, even American Generals have said that you're now getting yourself another petrol station to set whatever prices you want. Do you know that oil costs about a dollar a litre in the rest of the world? Your average price is 35 cents.

It seems that the 9/11 wound is to fresh for you to debate foreign politics in a serious way.

E.C

Ciryaher

11-16-2002, 06:58 PM

Come on the whole world knows that you want more oil, even American Generals have said that you're now getting yourself another petrol station to set whatever prices you want.

Of course we want more oil, because our nation depends on it. Too many automobiles here, but there's nothing that the minority against gasoline-powered cars can do until we become the screaming majority.

And Tar-Elenion is correct. The Taliban was not the recognized government of Afghanistan. That's not the US's sole decision, it was also that of the UN. The Taliban is not responsible for 9/11 to any major degree other than supporting Al Qaeda and giving them a place to build up their strength. The Taliban IS responsible for oppressing their own people, and for that deserved to be taken apart.

No, we are not taking the right to murder any foreign leader. Our own, self-initiated order to refrain from assassination prevents that.

Tar-Elenion

11-16-2002, 09:12 PM

Originally posted by Elen Carnë
[B]You don't seem to understand my post so I'll explain some things that most Europeans know clear.
I understand your post. Your post is simply wrong.
A lot of Europeans also 'know' that the WTC attacks were a Jewish plot, that the attack on the Pentagon never happened, that President Bush knew in advance and allowed the attacks to go ahead anyway, that Usama bin Laden is a CIA operative etc. I don't give any particular credence to 'things that most Europeans know clear'.

Tar Elenion is using the same rethorics as Hitler,
First I'm ignorant, and now I'm like Hitler (a genocidal, left wing, socialist, madman). Interesting way to debate. Perhaps you should refrain from the slanderous insults.

"I do not recognize the Taliban as a state so I can do whatever I wnat with them." Germany's Führer said that because Soviet had not signed the Geneva convention he did not have to follow it in a war with them.
Under international law the Taliban was not the recognized government of Afghanistan. This includes by your government. This includes by the UN. This includes by every government in Europe, and throughout the world (except Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and one other gulf state (Qatar? or maybe the UAE?).

The ignorance was about many seeing every single Taliban foot soldier guilty of murdering 2980 civilians.
Really? Who said that every single Taliban foot soldier was guilty of the attacks? Where are most of the Taliban foot soldiers? They are still in Afghanistan.

Don't think that 9/11 was an only american tragedy, one fourth of them killed were foreigners and I have met one of them who were killed.
I never said that it was only an American tragedy.
You seem to be under some misperceptions about me; or are you deliberately attempting to put words in my mouth?

If CIA didn't create the Taliban why did they have American equipment, for example Stingers. All the Q'ran schools in Pakistan in which the Taliban were trained were financed by your taxes.
Why did they have Soviet equipment? Why did they have Chinese equipment? Perhaps the CIA created the Taliban in conjuction with our good friends the Soviets and Communist Chinese?
The Stingers were given to the Mujahideen in the 80's when they were fighting the USSR. The Taliban are from the 90's, when the US was not involved in Afghanistan. The Taliban took the equipment when they took over Afghanistan.
The Madrassas (religious schools) were not financed by my taxes (any more than by yours). They were financed and set up by Saudis (who have a long history of setting up Islamic institutions (mosques etc) around the world and they have their own funds to do that).

Let me take an example of a people America failed: The Kurds in northern Iraq. They had been oppressed for many years by Saddam Hussein when the Gulf war came. Your president did the same as his son is doing today, encouraged them to revolt against the government. When they did so after the war Bush refused to help them and let Saddam slaughter and drive them away from their homes. I have many friends that had their families killed that day and they remember seeing seeing American choppers flying over but doing nothing when Iraqi helicopters attacked refugees.

We should have eliminated or removed Saddam and his regime in the Gulf War. It was a mistake not to. Unfortunately it was not done because of the agreements made with the UN and coalition members, that it could not be done. However the US (and Britain) have protected the Kurds by establishing a 'no fly zone' and the Kurds now have a fledging democracy, an increasing middle class, and a free press.
It was not the Kurds that attacked us. You said, and I quote: "I know why America was attacked, you have given all these peoples promises and failed them forso long that they fight back. That does not justify it but we must face facts."
Again I ask: what promises did we make to Al Qaeda/UBL that caused them to attack us?

Come on the whole world knows that you want more oil, even American Generals have said that you're now getting yourself another petrol station to set whatever prices you want.
Again, if we simply wanted the oil from Iraq all that would have to happen is the UN would have to lift its sanctions and the oil companies would be more than willing to buy Iraqi oil (which is something the oil companies have advocated for years).
Do you know that oil costs about a dollar a litre in the rest of the world? Your average price is 35 cents.
I presume by 'oil', in this case, you actually mean 'gasoline' (which is probably averaging around 35 to 40 cents a liter).
(The "rest of the world" is a rather broad brush to paint with (unless you are thinking that Europe is the "rest of the world").)
35 cents compared a dollar. That is horrible. Those governments (yours included) tax the fuel way to much, but I guess you can't expect much more from socialist welfare states (and 35 cents is too high as well).
[QUOTE]
It seems that the 9/11 wound is to fresh for you to debate foreign politics in a serious way.[QUOTE]
A serious way? So calling people ignorant and comparing them to Hitler is 'debating politics in a serious way'?

Húrin Thalion

11-16-2002, 10:35 PM

I would like to say that I never called YOU ignorant or compared YOU to Hitler. You'll have to read my posts again. Moreover I accept that you snd I have differnet points of view and that either of us (or both) have misunderstood facts. It has been nice debating with you and I will agree upon disagreeing if you do. I do not retract any of the things I have written though.

Elen

daisy

11-17-2002, 04:10 AM

Uh...why is Canada in this debate? Also remember that we have one tenth of your population...also, it is true that our military is in a pretty sad state - years of peace and military budget cuts have put us where we are - but we have always come to support the U.S - I was very proud of my countrypeople who went to Afghanistan as a show of solidarity with the States although it was like a little brother going to his big brother's shoot out armed with a pea shooter - and we died there too remember - and Canadians also died in the WTC. Did any other nation lose as many soldiers in Afghanistan, aside from the States itself? I don't know...
We have put a lot of our energy into peacekeeping initiatives throughout the world as opposed to taking an aggressive offensive against countries with whom we do not agree - that would be stupid due to our military limitations.
And the biggest threat to our national identity and liberty is the U.S. in terms of free trade and border policies. If the States wanted us, they could just march in and take us, regardless of how much money we pumped into our military at this late date. No other country would really try an invasion on Canada simply because geographically we are hard to access, we are damn cold and uninhabitable over most of our area and the area where people live is along the border with the States, who would not stand for a foreign invader being that close.
I think it is important for Americans to understand that when the States makes a move militarily, everyone is at risk, especially since some of the countries mentioned as threats have nuclear weapons or chemical weapons. There have been other terrorist attacks in countries that are connected to September 11th and the invasion of Afghanistan - re: Bali.
When you make a move that involves others, those others will have dissenting and different views fueled by nervousness, fear and anxiety for the future.
War sucks. Civilian casualites suck. These things are hard to deal with - I have got kids in my class who are terrified about what is going to happen, even if it is a world away. They may grow up in a world where a world war is being fought. That has not been the reality for those of us born since 1945. I think we need to understand the ramifications of the American decisions on the rest of the world. Sometimes a dialogue is mistaken for an attack. It shouldn't be. And how come a few of the Americna posters haven't stopped and said, " Why do people feel the way they do about Bush and the States?" instead of going to defense immediately?

FREEDOM!

11-17-2002, 04:29 AM

Originally posted by Dr. Ransom
Dr. Ransom to the rescue again of course :-)
Ok, once again I'm rather shocked at the thought that thread as had any votes "yes."

International law is not more sovereign than the nations that make it up. Ok, to say this another way: the remote tutu tribe does not get the same law writing ability that say the US, or England has. Considering the fact that the America STARTED the UN, and the fact that America FUNDS the UN, they do not have any sovereignty over America AT ALL. Now, that's not to say that America can do exactly whatever she wants, certainly evil is evil, regardless of who is most powerful... i.e. Nazi Germany. But, that is to say, that you people have NO RIGHT whatever to accuse Bush of being a war criminal for retaliating militarily against a CIVILIAN attack!! Ok, let me say it again: INTERNATIONAL LAW IS NOT SOVERIEGN. The UN has no "SOVERIENGTY" over America, though I do not question that it has and should have influence over the US. Thousands of men from my state and country died in the last hundred years just to give a punk like me the ability to say that. I will never forget.

You know? You might actually have a point, except for the fact that I don't remember the Taliban declaring war on the US before killling >3,000 innecent civillians. Technically, the US has the "RIGHT" to not to only hold, but to execute many of them as murderers. That would not be very fair, since most of these peons did not have anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. But it would still not make Bush a "war" criminal.

Ciryaher, I have no idea where you're from, but thanks for sticking up to all this anti-american "stuff" going around. There are two things that are really getting on my nerves right now. 1# All the Anti-Americanism, and 2# All the LOTR movie bashing :-) I personally concider myself a LOTR purist, but I still think that the movies were awsome.

You are my new best friend!! How in the world can u come up with Bush being a "War Criminal"????

We (Americans) were attacked, and being the victims of a war crime we are entitled to do anything in to bring those responsible (even those remotely responsible) to justice!

And your poll is screwed up!

Ciryaher

11-17-2002, 05:24 AM

We (Americans) were attacked, and being the victims of a war crime we are entitled to do anything in to bring those responsible (even those remotely responsible) to justice!

Non-Americans, please don't think that that sort of idea is the consensus in America. We are only entitled to seek out justice justly, and only reasonable measures should be taken. Every effort to bring about a peaceful solution should be made, and only when the conflicting sides cannot come to a peaceful and reasonable agreement should military action be taken, and even then, only in the most minimal amount needed to succeed.

Tar-Elenion

11-17-2002, 06:45 AM

Originally posted by daisy
And how come a few of the Americna posters haven't stopped and said, " Why do people feel the way they do about Bush and the States?" instead of going to defense immediately?

This is a transcript of a radio broadcast by (the Canadian) Gordon Sinclair from some years ago. It is still pertinent even today.

The Americans
The United States dollar took another pounding on German, French and British exchanges this morning, hitting the lowest point ever known in West Germany. It has declined there by 41% since 1971 and this Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous and possibly the least-appreciated people in all the earth.

As long as sixty years ago, when I first started to read newspapers, I read of floods on the Yellow River and the Yangtse. Who rushed in with men and money to help? The Americans did.

They have helped control floods on the Nile, the Amazon, the Ganges and the Niger. Today, the rich bottom land of the Mississippi is under water and no foreign land has sent a dollar to help. Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy, were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of those countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States.

When the franc was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it.

When distant cities are hit by earthquakes, it is the United States that hurries into help... Managua Nicaragua is one of the most recent examples. So far this spring, 59 American communities have been flattened by tornadoes. Nobody has helped.

The Marshall Plan .. the Truman Policy .. all pumped billions upon billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now, newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent war-mongering Americans.

I'd like to see one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplanes.

Come on... let's hear it! Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tristar or the Douglas 107? If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all international lines except Russia fly American planes? Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or women on the moon?

You talk about Japanese technocracy and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy and you find men on the moon, not once, but several times ... and safely home again. You talk about scandals and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everyone to look at. Even the draft dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, most of them ... unless they are breaking Canadian laws .. are getting American dollars from Ma and Pa at home to spend here.

When the Americans get out of this bind ... as they will... who could blame them if they said 'the hell with the rest of the world'. Let someone else buy the Israel bonds, Let someone else build or repair foreign dams or design foreign buildings that won't shake apart in earthquakes.

When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke. I can name to you 5,000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble.

Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.

Our neighbours have faced it alone and I am one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles.

I hope Canada is not one of these. But there are many smug, self-righteous Canadians. And finally, the American Red Cross was told at its 48th Annual meeting in New Orleans this morning that it was broke.

This year's disasters .. with the year less than half-over… has taken it all and nobody...but nobody... has helped.

Proudfoots

11-18-2002, 03:50 PM

Congrats Tar-Elenion, the United States is filled with great people, the country has done a lot of good around the world.

Now stop screwing in the internal affairs of other countries.

You are not allowed to prop up one dictatorship and then destroy another.

Saddam was instituted by the CIA to fight Iran...oops

And what, exactly, does Iraq have to do with 9/11?

'foots

Ciryaher

11-18-2002, 11:41 PM

Actually, Saddam was supported by the CIA, not instituted by them.

What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? Does it matter? They don't have much of anything to do with 9/11, just terrorism to a small degree, and totalitarianism to a large degree. That reason enough?

Tar-Elenion

11-19-2002, 12:57 AM

Originally posted by Proudfoots
Congrats Tar-Elenion, the United States is filled with great people, the country has done a lot of good around the world.
Thanks.

Now stop screwing in the internal affairs of other countries.
Works both ways.

You are not allowed to prop up one dictatorship and then destroy another.
Why not?

Saddam was instituted by the CIA to fight Iran...oops
Inaccurate. Saddam came into power without our assistance. We were not particularly friendly with the socialist Baath party that has been in control of Iraq since the 1950's (Iraq had closer ties with the USSR). We did provide them with some aide when they were fighting Iran, which was a greater threat at the time.

And what, exactly, does Iraq have to do with 9/11?
I don't recall saying that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, so why do you ask?

FREEDOM!

11-19-2002, 05:36 AM

Originally posted by Proudfoots
Congrats Tar-Elenion, the United States is filled with great people, the country has done a lot of good around the world.

Now stop screwing in the internal affairs of other countries.

You are not allowed to prop up one dictatorship and then destroy another.

Saddam was instituted by the CIA to fight Iran...oops

And what, exactly, does Iraq have to do with 9/11?

'foots

Sadaam helped pay for the terrorist attacks and helped recruit some of the terrorists from Suadi Arabia.

Gloer

11-19-2002, 10:43 AM

But he is an enemy of USA and especially George Bush.
There are plenty of reasons to invade and overthrow Saddam.

It is unneccessary to connect secular tyrrant like Saddam to any fanatic muslim organisation. He actually attacked Iran, the home of islamic revolution.

But I am more suspicious of one fellow: Attorney General John Ashcroft

--------
The special appeals court, which consisted of three federal appellate judges named by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, ruled Monday that the expanded powers sought in the USA Patriot Act are "constitutional because the surveillances it authorizes are reasonable."
Attorney General John Ashcroft called the decision "a victory for liberty, safety and the security of the American people."

http://www.arizonarepublic.com/news/articles/1119spycourt19.html
---------

Ascroft is an imminent threat to American liberty. He has a lot of influence and possibilities to harm the very basic foundations of your constitutional civil liberties as well as enhance them.

USA now has legalized "Watergate" style methods. USA has internal security police as did DDR.

We should expect the Attorney General to be very sorry for having to introduce these methods in USA. This is a SAD DAY after all. It is sad that USA needs such an institution and such methods.
Even sadder is that your officials see any reason for celebration in this.

Proudfoots

11-20-2002, 05:34 PM

Mr Wallace, where is your evidence that Saddam supported/recruited agents for the attacks on 9/11?

rhetoric is not evidence.

I am sure that you could find more evidence that points to Canada than points to Iraq. I mean the terrorists are all thought to have gained access to the US through CAnada, some of them lived there and trained there and were supported by extremists in the community.

Lets haul off and bomb Ottawa too...

actually, that is not a bad idea, damn sarcasm...

Sure Saddam is a dictator, sure, he kills thousands of his own people and hundreds of thousands of Kurds. But, why is his evil regime any different than any other dictator around the world, or any regime that kills innocents.

If the US is now a Super peace keeper, dictating to the UN, then why don't they step in with thousands of troops and occupy the west bank?

Why don't they head deeper into asia and stop the fighting in Russia and in China?

Have any of you Americans considered that the world might not want you to act as our big brother?

'foots

Thorin

11-20-2002, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by Proudfoots
I mean the terrorists are all thought to have gained access to the US through CAnada, some of them lived there and trained there and were supported by extremists in the community.

Lets haul off and bomb Ottawa too...actually, that is not a bad idea, damn sarcasm...

I'm sorry, but I believe that the terrorists who flew the planes into the towers were well trained in YOUR country in Florida, if I'm not mistaken. Don't try and blame Canada for your poor immigration laws (though Canada does have them as well).

Near the end of 2000, a terrorist was caught trying to smuggle a bomb over the Surrey border into Washington to try and blow up part of Los Angeles on the eve of the new year. However, terrorists will try and get across both sides of the border considering how lax and long the border between the two countries is.

We both have our share of terrorists hidden in our cities but don't try and blame Canada for the US's problems. They create their own quite nicely.

I will ignore your last comment, sarcasm or not...