Should George W Bush be arrested for war crimes?

Should Bush be arrested for war crimes?


  • Total voters
    58

medicineman

New Member
Illegal invasion? Are you serious? Read the fucking constitution!
The president is reserved the right to mobilize troops as long as he notifies and receives the go ahead from Congress within 48 hours.
He did just that. Congress approved. Had he not, he would've no doubt been impeached.

Did I ever say he didn't allow them in in 2003? Nope.

The point 420 was trying to make was that for years he barred inspectors access while the world stood on eggshells.


Why are people so dense to understand that even though we might have done it under false pretenses, the dethroning of Sadaam was a great move for the people.

I travelled to Bagdhad in 2001 and saw the devastation that goddamn bastard had done to his people for years. The people were fucking afraid of him, I mean petrified. I tried to interview a man in a Market in a Southeast Corner bazaar and he wouldn't even mention the dictator's name. The score in Iraq was: you speak out, they torture or kill you. I met three children (twins and a younger girl) who were taken into one of Hussein's dungeons and had their pinkies and ears cut off because they refused to give up their father (who had sadly fled the country to escape it, leaving behind his wife to be murdered in a Sunni/Shi'a street war).

An old teacher of mine went into service in the rebuilding of Iraq in 2005. His correspondence (reliable and I'd trust the man with my life) is more than promising, despite what BBC (Nice job quoting an even less reliable media you smart-mouth jackass) and FOX (or as you so hilariously call "Faux" News) say. He was on work detail that went around the countryside and helped to build schools and hospitals and has yet to even see conflict.

A carbomb goes off, "Good golly gee, Mistuh Bossman, that HAS GOT TO MEAN THE WAR IS A NO GO!!" A conflict takes place for 2 days (most of which are actually Sunni and Shi'a turf wars, which have gone on for decades and will continue to go on whether or not we're there), "Holy shit, IMPEACH, IMPEACH!!!"
Me thinks you need some re-programming~LOL~>.
 

420worshipper

Well-Known Member
Once again .... POLLY WANT TO SEE DUMMY DISPUTE THE FACTS ... you show your stupidity ... if you read the link you would have known they weren't someone's opinion but a report of the facts ... wow ..:roll:

David Kay led a group of 1500 investigators right up until the illegal invasion ...
The failure of the US-led Iraq Survey group to find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is proving a significant embarrassment to President George Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair.

For someone that watches too much fauxnews there's still no excuse for you not knowing inspectors were allowed in Iraq in 2003.
Inspector Optimistic About Iraq WMD Hunt

So ignorance is no longer an excuses ... you have been presented with the facts ... so you are just plan stupid.

Wow what an idiot. Both links above do not go to any factual reports or evidence grow. The do go to news reporters opinions and nothing more. It shows no evidence that you claim. But that is nothing new coming from a parrot like you. Seems everytime that I put facts and links to said facts you seem to do a lot of name calling. And when you put up links to so called facts, it turns out to be news reporters opinions. And no facts seem to show up in those reports. Why is that grow? Can't do a little research on the facts. Just like putting somebody elses opinion up and calling them facts?

So Again.......

POLLY WANT A SALTINE?
 

GrowRebel

Well-Known Member
Those are factual reports .... you're just far too stupid to see it ... and far too stupid to admit... There were inspectors in Iraq before the war... FACT .... wow ... you are really dumb.
 

420worshipper

Well-Known Member
Those are factual reports .... you're just far too stupid to see it ... and far too stupid to admit... There were inspectors in Iraq before the war... FACT .... wow ... you are really dumb.
And here we go with the name calling again! Wow not a suprise coming from you. But then factual reports don't have comments like these from the first link...

<QUOTE>
ARTICLE TITLE: "WMD report to raise new questions"

Mr Kay is expected to say that while no weapons have been found, there was an elaborate Iraqi deception operation to hide evidence of their programmes and that Saddam Hussein's own behaviour may have been part of a calculated bluff to persuade London and Washington that he really had weapons when he did not.
Were Iraq's weapons programmes part of an elaborate bluff by Saddam Hussein to try to persuade the British and Americans not just that he had the weapons, but that he would use them if attacked?
</QUOTE>

And the second link...

<QUOTE>
ARTICLE TITLE: "Inspector Optimistic About Iraq WMD Hunt"

According to the latest Fox News-Opinion Dynamics poll, nearly six out of 10 Americans approve of the president's job on Iraq, but that is down 17 percent from the high it reached during the war last April.
Another 59 percent approve of the president's overall job performance, with 31 percent disapproving. That's unchanged over the last two weeks, but down 32 percent since the height of the war.

Sources say Kay's goal is to build an understandable and indisputable case even without a smoking gun. But critical Democrats say Kay must do more to find stocks of chemical and biological weapons and convince them that the stockpiles presented an urgent threat.

Of those surveyed in the Fox News-Opinion Dynamics poll, only 12 percent said finding weapons of mass destruction was the top priority of the U.S. in Iraq. The largest majority, 41 percent, said establishing a government is the most important goal, while 25 percent said finding Saddam is the top priority.

</QUOTE>

QUESTION: What facts were you presenting?

ANSWER: Two articles from news reporters that had no links to any factual
evidence. Other than their opinions.

QUESTION: The war in Iraq began when?

ANSWER: 20 March 2003

QUESTION: When was the inspectors let into Iraq?

ANSWER: Refer back to my ealier post
https://www.rollitup.org/politics/20290-should-george-w-bush-arrested-7.html


<QUOTE>
29 October 1997: Iraq bars US weapons inspectors, provoking a diplomatic crisis which is defused with a Russian-brokered compromise.

13 January 1998: Iraq blocks an inspection by a US-dominated team and accuses its leader, Scott Ritter, of spying for America.

31 October 1998: The Iraqi leadership says it has ceased all co-operation with Unscom, the United Nations Special Commission set up for weapons inspections in Iraq.

16 December 1998: The UN orders weapons inspectors out of the country after Unscom chief Richard Butler issued a report saying the Iraqis were still refusing to co-operate. US air strikes on Iraq begin hours later.

17 December 1999: Unscom is replaced by the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (Unmovic). Iraq rejects the resolution.

5 July 2002: UN-Iraq talks end without agreement on inspections as Baghdad seeks assurances that sanctions will be lifted.

</QUOTE>

Now It looks like I showed you plenty of times factual evidence of Iraq not letting inspectors in their country prior to the war. And all you've shown is that you resort to name calling when my facts beat your two news reporters statements.

POLLY NEED A NAP, A BOWL OF SOMETHING... and oh yeah A DAMN SALTINE!
 

GrowRebel

Well-Known Member
Man you are an idiot .... you think it's someone's opinion that 1500 inspectors were in Iraq before the war!

Idiot.
 

420worshipper

Well-Known Member
Man you are an idiot .... you think it's someone's opinion that 1500 inspectors were in Iraq before the war!

Idiot.

Name calling again. Thats the true sign of a weak/small minded person. I have shown several times factual evidence by my links above that the U.N. inspectors were not being allowed in or being hindered from doing their jobs. Now show the evidence you find on your own, and not some news reports. You could try these places....
Google
Welcome to the UN. It's your world.

Or you could read a weapons inspectors testimony to the House.
CNN.com - Text of David Kay's unclassified statement - Oct. 2, 2003

<QUOTE>
Why are we having such difficulty in finding weapons or in reaching a confident conclusion that they do not exist or that they once existed but have been removed? Our search efforts are being hindered by six principal factors:
1. From birth, all of Iraq's WMD activities were highly compartmentalized within a regime that ruled and kept its secrets through fear and terror and with deception and denial built into each program;
2. Deliberate dispersal and destruction of material and documentation related to weapons programs began pre-conflict and ran trans-to-post conflict;
3. Post-OIF looting destroyed or dispersed important and easily collectable material and forensic evidence concerning Iraq's WMD program. As the report covers in detail, significant elements of this looting were carried out in a systematic and deliberate manner, with the clear aim of concealing pre-OIF activities of Saddam's regime;
4. Some WMD personnel crossed borders in the pre/trans conflict period and may have taken evidence and even weapons-related materials with them;
5. Any actual WMD weapons or material is likely to be small in relation to the total conventional armaments footprint and difficult to near impossible to identify with normal search procedures. It is important to keep in mind that even the bulkiest materials we are searching for, in the quantities we would expect to find, can be concealed in spaces not much larger than a two car garage;
6. The environment in Iraq remains far from permissive for our activities, with many Iraqis that we talk to reporting threats and overt acts of intimidation and our own personnel being the subject of threats and attacks. In September alone we have had three attacks on ISG facilities or teams: The ISG base in Irbil was bombed and four staff injured, two very seriously; a two person team had their vehicle blocked by gunmen and only escaped by firing back through their own windshield; and on Wednesday, 24 September, the ISG Headquarters in Baghdad again was subject to mortar attack.

We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:
· A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.
· A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.
· Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.
· New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.
· Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).
· A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.
· Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.
· Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km -- well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.
· Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment.
In addition to the discovery of extensive concealment efforts, we have been faced with a systematic sanitization of documentary and computer evidence in a wide range of offices, laboratories, and companies suspected of WMD work. The pattern of these efforts to erase evidence -- hard drives destroyed, specific files burned, equipment cleaned of all traces of use -- are ones of deliberate, rather than random, acts.
</QUOTE>

Wow, this is a weapons inspector that found all kinds of things in the country in 2002. I never said there were no inspectors before 2003. I said that Iraq had kept them out on numerous occasions and that is one reason they violated U.N. Resolution 1441 and others. You can find the resolution at this page since you like to let somebody else do research for you.
SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS - 2002

Look at resolution 1441, 1443, 1447, 1454. And this link as well

UN Security Council: Resolutions 2003

resolutions 1511, 1518. And here

UN Security Council: Resolutions 2004

resolutions 1538, 1546, 1557. And here

UN Security Council: Resolutions 2005

resolutions 1619, 1637. And here is another link for ya...

UN Security Council: Resolutions 2006

resolutions 1673, 1700, 1723, 1737. And one more link...

UN Security Council: Resolutions 2007

resolutions 1747, 1762.

Now this should be easy for you since I've done all the work. Now if you are smart enough to go and read any of what I put. Wait a minute I'm talking about you so I know that answer is no. You are not smart enough to go and read the evidence for yourself. You just want to parrot somebody elses work. Well I'm gonna let you read the evidence for yourself and finally come to your own opinion/conclusion. Without parroting somebody elses work.

POLLY NEEDS A NAP, A BOWL, AND A FREAKING SALTINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

GrowRebel

Well-Known Member
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
oh hell ... half the fun is calling you an asshole on facts:hump: ... especially people that support these war criminals ... the inspectors were allow into Iraq right before the illegal invasion FACT. Deal with it.


Folks I found this lovely video on YouTube that shows in layman terms that the war is indeed ILLEGAL. And beau kitty is so sweet ... 24 mins.

I dare anyone to come back and say the war is legal after seeing this video. And you best have the facts to back it up.

You post all these resolutions but you are wrong Iraq didn't violate UN resolution 1441 ... the illegitimate bush regime never when back for the second vote from the UN .... and what about the UN resolutions the US violated? ...
...Kofi Annan (1997-2007) UN secretary general stated "I have indicated [the invasion] was not in conformity with the UN Charter ... from the Charter point of view, it was illegal." the video explains those violation folks ... like the UN forbiding the use of force ... with two exceptions ... 1. Self defense ... and we all know it wasn't for that ... you can't legally start a war in order to prevent one ... it goes against the UN charter ... and did you know the constitution states that any contract sign by the US is the law of this land as well? Next exception ... 2.if the UN secuity council authorizes it ... and they didn't. The illegitmate bush was suppose to wait for a second vote, but he wouldn't because he knew the UN wouldn't approve.

The Iraq War: Legal or Illegal?


Naw .... polly having too much fun making you look like a dumbass. :-|
 

420worshipper

Well-Known Member
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
oh hell ... half the fun is calling you an asshole on facts:hump: ... especially people that support these war criminals ... the inspectors were allow into Iraq right before the illegal invasion FACT. Deal with it.


Folks I found this lovely video on YouTube that shows in layman terms that the war is indeed ILLEGAL. And beau kitty is so sweet ... 24 mins.

I dare anyone to come back and say the war is legal after seeing this video. And you best have the facts to back it up.

You post all these resolutions but you are wrong Iraq didn't violate UN resolution 1441 ... the illegitimate bush regime never when back for the second vote from the UN .... and what about the UN resolutions the US violated? ...
...Kofi Annan (1997-2007) UN secretary general stated "I have indicated [the invasion] was not in conformity with the UN Charter ... from the Charter point of view, it was illegal." the video explains those violation folks ... like the UN forbiding the use of force ... with two exceptions ... 1. Self defense ... and we all know it wasn't for that ... you can't legally start a war in order to prevent one ... it goes against the UN charter ... and did you know the constitution states that any contract sign by the US is the law of this land as well? Next exception ... 2.if the UN secuity council authorizes it ... and they didn't. The illegitmate bush was suppose to wait for a second vote, but he wouldn't because he knew the UN wouldn't approve.

The Iraq War: Legal or Illegal?


Naw .... polly having too much fun making you look like a dumbass. :-|

Only thing is, a little cat tells you things. And the constitutions states treaties not contracts. And you wouldn't know too much about the constitution for the simple reason you still put illegitimate Bush after I've continually showed you the truth. And the second vote didn't come until 2005 a good three years after the invasion. Read the facts don't have a cartoon cat tell you things.

Since you've probably never read the United Nations Charter I thought I'd put a link for it here.
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

The charter states and I quote that:
<QUOTE>
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter1.htm
  1. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
  2. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
</QUOTE>

<QUOTE>

CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS: Chapter VII

Article 41

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

</QUOTE>

So here is another instance I use facts to support something. And you are using a video with a cartoon cat. The first U.N. Security Council vote was a majority supporting actions against Sadaam and Iraq. The fact in 2005 that they wanted to vote again to leave Iraq is irrelevant to your argument that the U.N. didn't support the action. See in 2003, when the U.S. started the action against Iraq, the United Nations Security Council voted to ALLOW the actions.

Polly go let a cartoon cat tell you facts. Eat a SALTINE and go away DUMBASS!!!!
 

ViRedd

New Member
GrowRebel ...

I've got to hand it to ya, Man. 420 has driven you into the ground with a freaking jack hammer, ground you up in a coffee grinder, then flushed you down the garbage disposal ... and yet, you keep crawling out of the drain to spout your non-facts with renewed vigor. Its perseverance like that, that the country needs in its young people. Too bad your persistence isn't positively directed. :blsmoke:

Vi
 

GrowRebel

Well-Known Member
GrowRebel ...

I've got to hand it to ya, Man. 420 has driven you into the ground with a freaking jack hammer, ground you up in a coffee grinder, then flushed you down the garbage disposal ... and yet, you keep crawling out of the drain to spout your non-facts with renewed vigor. Its perseverance like that, that the country needs in its young people. Too bad your persistence isn't positively directed. :blsmoke:

Vi
That's only YOUR OPINION ... like the whole in your ass ... Only to another dumbass bushies like you would think I'm getting hammer .... the facts speak for themselves ... people who took the time to see the video knows that the US violated the UN Charter and the law. FACT.

So now we know there are two bushies dumbass. Who no one really give a damn about. :mrgreen:
 

GrowRebel

Well-Known Member
Only thing is, a little cat tells you things. And the constitutions states treaties not contracts. And you wouldn't know too much about the constitution for the simple reason you still put illegitimate Bush after I've continually showed you the truth. And the second vote didn't come until 2005 a good three years after the invasion. Read the facts don't have a cartoon cat tell you things.

Since you've probably never read the United Nations Charter I thought I'd put a link for it here.
Charter of the United Nations

The charter states and I quote that:
<QUOTE>
CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS: Chapter I
  1. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
  2. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
</QUOTE>

<QUOTE>

CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS: Chapter VII

Article 41

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

</QUOTE>

So here is another instance I use facts to support something. And you are using a video with a cartoon cat. The first U.N. Security Council vote was a majority supporting actions against Sadaam and Iraq. The fact in 2005 that they wanted to vote again to leave Iraq is irrelevant to your argument that the U.N. didn't support the action. See in 2003, when the U.S. started the action against Iraq, the United Nations Security Council voted to ALLOW the actions.

Polly go let a cartoon cat tell you facts. Eat a SALTINE and go away DUMBASS!!!!
My God are you THAT stupid! This is in regards to a LEGAL action ... Bullshit .... the UN DID NOT ALLOW the action ... if they did the friggin president wouldn't be calling it ILLEGAL ... wow you must be really fuck up on some strong shit ... it has already been CLEARLY astablish that the invasion and occupation is ILLEGAL! What a friggin dummy!:roll:

Bwaaa ha ha ha .... what an idiot! ... Bwaaa ha ha ha ... :hump:
 

420worshipper

Well-Known Member
if they did the friggin president wouldn't be calling it ILLEGAL
So you small minded ignorant parrot. When did the president call it ILLEGAL?
I'm sure you have some proof other than some news reporters opinion. You actually have a speech with the president calling it illegal. You don't, or you will put links to news reports done by reporters that state their opinions and not what the president actually said. But that is usually what a parrot does, copies somebody elses opinions and calls them facts. To the IGNORE LIST for you POLLY!!!!
 

GrowRebel

Well-Known Member
So you small minded ignorant parrot. When did the president call it ILLEGAL?
I'm sure you have some proof other than some news reporters opinion. You actually have a speech with the president calling it illegal. You don't, or you will put links to news reports done by reporters that state their opinions and not what the president actually said. But that is usually what a parrot does, copies somebody elses opinions and calls them facts. To the IGNORE LIST for you POLLY!!!!
Sorry .... should be very clear when dealing with idiots ... not a president but secretary general .... the head of the UN ...
...Kofi Annan (1997-2007) UN secretary general stated "I have indicated [the invasion] was not in conformity with the UN Charter ... from the Charter point of view, it was illegal."
Bwaaa ha ha ha ..... can't take the heat of the FACTS can you .... it's far easier the claim the FACTS are just opinions ... :roll:
But no ones see this dumbass addressing the so called opinions as to why they are and not FACTS. Know why? CAUSE HE CAN'T! hee hee hee ... :mrgreen:

So let that be a lesson to you ... FACTS are FACTS and bullshit ... is bullshit. The invasion was ILLEGAL. FACT.:-|
 

GreenHog

Active Member
War crimes? Not supporting Bush here, but if you remember, well some of you obviously don't, Bush has the authorization of Congress for the Iraq war. Most of those Congressmen/women in the Democrat Party who supported that authorization are now whining about defunding the war and withdrawing the troops in order to appease the Cindy Sheean wing of the Ultra-Liberal Whiner Party. Also remember, Bush had the U.N. sanction to take out Iraq.

So, where's the "unauthorized" war or the crimes?

And by the way, this entire poll is indicitive of the Whiner Party. Not fair and balanced at all ... just geared for the outcome they desire. How could it be otherwise? There is no place for a "No" vote. Whiner! :hump:
Vi
Bush actively and knowingly condoned torture. Violated the Geneva convention. World leaders are indicted at The Hague when they do theese things. There is your war crime.
 

GreenHog

Active Member
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Bush is a trained chimpanzee. Some of the facial expressions he makes. Or maybe Bush is the first example of a human-chimp hybred.
 

kronicsmurf

Well-Known Member
I don't give a damn about your statistics concerning bush it only takes common sense to see that he's a fucking bastard who is only looking out for his own interest and not the American people. and he damn sure doesn't give a fuck about the lives lost over there. to me any man who declares war on the basis of lies is a war criminal and should be treated as such. give him a trial and then hang him, he doesn't deserve to rule this country he deserves to die for his actions. just like soldiers are doing everyday because of those actions.
 
Top