Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Topic: Should **** Cheney be hung?
Melaschasm Joined Wed 12/10/08 Posts: 262	Sat 12/20/08 08:18 PM
Its verry simple despite the wanderings of this thread america is guilty of war crimes under the Nurenburg Laws, the laws that america helped write by the way. How did we sink so low in 8 short years? What violation of the Nurenburg Laws has occurred?

madisonman Joined Sun 12/23/07 Posts: 4573	Sat 12/20/08 08:27 PM
Its verry simple despite the wanderings of this thread america is guilty of war crimes under the Nurenburg Laws, the laws that america helped write by the way. How did we sink so low in 8 short years? What violation of the Nurenburg Laws has occurred? You can scroll back in this thread and see the article about the rape and murder of the 14 year old Iraqi girl by american troops for starters. I am suprised you would even ask that quistion.

quiet_2008 Joined Sat 08/30/08 Posts: 11138	Sat 12/20/08 08:28 PM
Its verry simple despite the wanderings of this thread america is guilty of war crimes under the Nurenburg Laws, the laws that america helped write by the way. How did we sink so low in 8 short years? What violation of the Nurenburg Laws has occurred? You can scroll back in this thread and see the article about the rape and murder of the 14 year old Iraqi girl by american troops for starters. I am suprised you would even ask that quistion. weren't they prosecuted already?

Melaschasm Joined Wed 12/10/08 Posts: 262	Sat 12/20/08 08:34 PM Edited by Melaschasm on Sat 12/20/08 08:34 PM
I know there has been a couple cases of soldiers being prosecuted for crimes. I thought your comment about the Nurenburg Laws being violated referred to Cheney and/or the US government.

madisonman Joined Sun 12/23/07 Posts: 4573	Sat 12/20/08 08:34 PM
Its verry simple despite the wanderings of this thread america is guilty of war crimes under the Nurenburg Laws, the laws that america helped write by the way. How did we sink so low in 8 short years? What violation of the Nurenburg Laws has occurred? You can scroll back in this thread and see the article about the rape and murder of the 14 year old Iraqi girl by american troops for starters. I am suprised you would even ask that quistion. weren't they prosecuted already? would the girl still be alive had we not invaded? Lets consider the war itself is illegal under the terms of nurenburg

Unknow Joined Fri 10/06/06 Posts: 4066	Sat 12/20/08 08:37 PM
I would like to know how we can leave. Simple question.

madisonman Joined Sun 12/23/07 Posts: 4573	Sat 12/20/08 08:39 PM
The "core" charge at Nuremburg was the "conspiracy to commit war" It has been well documented that Bush/Cheney did indeed conspire to commit war.

madisonman Joined Sun 12/23/07 Posts: 4573	Sat 12/20/08 08:40 PM
At Nuremberg, the prosecution defined crimes against the peace as the planning, preparation, initiation, and waging of wars of aggression, or a war in violation of existing treaties, agreements, and assurances. In other words, to be legal a war must be waged only in self-defense or in the defense of others, as greed to by international treaty. If it is true that the Bush administration did invade Iraq without any credible threat to the security of the United States or any other country, that this was neither a case of self-defense, nor one of defending another country in accordance with international treaty obligations, then the United States violated the very international treaties to which it is signatory, treaties that prohibit wars of aggression that are, by definition, crimes against the peace. http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/index.cfm/Page/Article/ID/5575

quiet_2008 Joined Sat 08/30/08 Posts: 11138	Sat 12/20/08 08:45 PM
Its verry simple despite the wanderings of this thread america is guilty of war crimes under the Nurenburg Laws, the laws that america helped write by the way. How did we sink so low in 8 short years? What violation of the Nurenburg Laws has occurred? You can scroll back in this thread and see the article about the rape and murder of the 14 year old Iraqi girl by american troops for starters. I am suprised you would even ask that quistion. weren't they prosecuted already? would the girl still be alive had we not invaded? Lets consider the war itself is illegal under the terms of nurenburg let's not let's consider it legal under the 2002 UN Resolution as Congress explicitly stated when authorizing force against Iraq, "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

Melaschasm Joined Wed 12/10/08 Posts: 262	Sat 12/20/08 08:48 PM
There are a variety of ways the US can leave Iraq. From what I understand the US has recently made an agreement that will result in troop reductions over the next couple years, and perhaps all the troops will be out of Iraq before the next presidential election. In a more general sense, there are several ways to exit a war. We can leave victoriously. We can leave in defeat. We can leave after installing a friendly government. Or we can follow the Vietnam precedent and leave with a peace agreement signed, but not enforce the agreement. It appears that the US will be leaving Iraq with a democratic government capable of defending itself.

madisonman Joined Sun 12/23/07 Posts: 4573	Sat 12/20/08 08:50 PM
Its verry simple despite the wanderings of this thread america is guilty of war crimes under the Nurenburg Laws, the laws that america helped write by the way. How did we sink so low in 8 short years? What violation of the Nurenburg Laws has occurred? You can scroll back in this thread and see the article about the rape and murder of the 14 year old Iraqi girl by american troops for starters. I am suprised you would even ask that quistion. weren't they prosecuted already? would the girl still be alive had we not invaded? Lets consider the war itself is illegal under the terms of nurenburg let's not let's consider it legal under the 2002 UN Resolution as Congress explicitly stated when authorizing force against Iraq, "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." These criminals are not stupid most of them are lawyers, they know they have to fabricate something to appear to make this war legal. I would suspect the reasone bush will slide is that yes some dems may also be held accountable. So they will scratch each others back and hope the issue just goes away.

Unknow Joined Fri 10/06/06 Posts: 4066	Sat 12/20/08 08:53 PM Edited by Unknow on Sat 12/20/08 09:07 PM
There are a variety of ways the US can leave Iraq. From what I understand the US has recently made an agreement that will result in troop reductions over the next couple years, and perhaps all the troops will be out of Iraq before the next presidential election. In a more general sense, there are several ways to exit a war. We can leave victoriously. We can leave in defeat. We can leave after installing a friendly government. Or we can follow the Vietnam precedent and leave with a peace agreement signed, but not enforce the agreement. It appears that the US will be leaving Iraq with a democratic government capable of defending itself. Aganist Iran? OK Let Iran contol how much of the oil supply plus the Straight of Hormus. The gate way to how much oil? Do you plan on taking them out too" Iraq couldnt beat them back fully armed with our support! The Iran Iraq war!!!!

Melaschasm Joined Wed 12/10/08 Posts: 262	Sat 12/20/08 08:55 PM
At Nuremberg, the prosecution defined crimes against the peace as the planning, preparation, initiation, and waging of wars of aggression, or a war in violation of existing treaties, agreements, and assurances. In other words, to be legal a war must be waged only in self-defense or in the defense of others, as greed to by international treaty. If it is true that the Bush administration did invade Iraq without any credible threat to the security of the United States or any other country, that this was neither a case of self-defense, nor one of defending another country in accordance with international treaty obligations, then the United States violated the very international treaties to which it is signatory, treaties that prohibit wars of aggression that are, by definition, crimes against the peace. http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/index.cfm/Page/Article/ID/5575 It is well known that Saddam was paying terrorists to attack Israel, an ally of the USA. That provides a legal excuse to go to war to defend others. Also the Kurds were being persecuted by Saddam's government, and so we can come to their defense. Additionally as previously mentioned Iraq violated many different UN resolutions, in addition to the terms of Iraq's surrender in the Persian Gulf War, both of which provide a legal basis for war. The war in Iraq may or may not have been the right thing to do, but it was legal.

madisonman Joined Sun 12/23/07 Posts: 4573	Sat 12/20/08 08:59 PM
At Nuremberg, the prosecution defined crimes against the peace as the planning, preparation, initiation, and waging of wars of aggression, or a war in violation of existing treaties, agreements, and assurances. In other words, to be legal a war must be waged only in self-defense or in the defense of others, as greed to by international treaty. If it is true that the Bush administration did invade Iraq without any credible threat to the security of the United States or any other country, that this was neither a case of self-defense, nor one of defending another country in accordance with international treaty obligations, then the United States violated the very international treaties to which it is signatory, treaties that prohibit wars of aggression that are, by definition, crimes against the peace. http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/index.cfm/Page/Article/ID/5575 It is well known that Saddam was paying terrorists to attack Israel, an ally of the USA. That provides a legal excuse to go to war to defend others. Also the Kurds were being persecuted by Saddam's government, and so we can come to their defense. Additionally as previously mentioned Iraq violated many different UN resolutions, in addition to the terms of Iraq's surrender in the Persian Gulf War, both of which provide a legal basis for war. The war in Iraq may or may not have been the right thing to do, but it was legal. Isaw alot of propaganda about Iraq in the run up to the war most of it turned out to be garbage and fables. Please provide a bit of proof about this Iraq thing paying terrorists to attack isreal. Oh just an FYI the main lawyer from Nuremburg, yes he is still alive, says the Iraq war violated the terms of Nurenburg, he should know he wrote it. Again I remind you these men are not foolish they knew they had to build some kind of case for the invasion. The problem is that most of the reasons turned out to be false after the fact

Melaschasm Joined Wed 12/10/08 Posts: 262	Sat 12/20/08 09:00 PM
There are a variety of ways the US can leave Iraq. From what I understand the US has recently made an agreement that will result in troop reductions over the next couple years, and perhaps all the troops will be out of Iraq before the next presidential election. In a more general sense, there are several ways to exit a war. We can leave victoriously. We can leave in defeat. We can leave after installing a friendly government. Or we can follow the Vietnam precedent and leave with a peace agreement signed, but not enforce the agreement. It appears that the US will be leaving Iraq with a democratic government capable of defending itself. Aganist Iran? OK Let Iran contol how much of the oil supply plus the Straight of Hormus. The gate way to how much oil? Do you plan on taking them out too" Iraq could beat them back fully armed with our support! The Iran Iraq war!!!! If I were cynical, I might suspect that Bush agreed to pull the troops out of Iraq so that we would have an excuse to attack Iran, if Iran were to attack Iraq. As far as my previous statement regarding our exit strategy I did not think you were referring to our overall middle east strategy. I think such a discussion should probably be an entirely different thread, and I do not have time to discuss that tonight.

madisonman Joined Sun 12/23/07 Posts: 4573	Sat 12/20/08 09:02 PM
AGENDA FOR THE “JUSTICE ROBERT H. JACKSON CONFERENCE”: PLANNING FOR THE PROSECUTION OF HIGH LEVEL AMERICAN WAR CRIMINALS http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/35849

Unknow Joined Fri 10/06/06 Posts: 4066	Sat 12/20/08 09:03 PM
There are a variety of ways the US can leave Iraq. From what I understand the US has recently made an agreement that will result in troop reductions over the next couple years, and perhaps all the troops will be out of Iraq before the next presidential election. In a more general sense, there are several ways to exit a war. We can leave victoriously. We can leave in defeat. We can leave after installing a friendly government. Or we can follow the Vietnam precedent and leave with a peace agreement signed, but not enforce the agreement. It appears that the US will be leaving Iraq with a democratic government capable of defending itself. Aganist Iran? OK Let Iran contol how much of the oil supply plus the Straight of Hormus. The gate way to how much oil? Do you plan on taking them out too" Iraq could beat them back fully armed with our support! The Iran Iraq war!!!! If I were cynical, I might suspect that Bush agreed to pull the troops out of Iraq so that we would have an excuse to attack Iran, if Iran were to attack Iraq. As far as my previous statement regarding our exit strategy I did not think you were referring to our overall middle east strategy. I think such a discussion should probably be an entirely different thread, and I do not have time to discuss that tonight. Did it ever occur to you we are there for another front on Iran. Who said a 100 yr commitment" Suppodably jokingly..If you think we can leave Iraq in the shape they are in you are cynical.

Unknow Joined Fri 10/06/06 Posts: 4066	Sat 12/20/08 09:03 PM
There are a variety of ways the US can leave Iraq. From what I understand the US has recently made an agreement that will result in troop reductions over the next couple years, and perhaps all the troops will be out of Iraq before the next presidential election. In a more general sense, there are several ways to exit a war. We can leave victoriously. We can leave in defeat. We can leave after installing a friendly government. Or we can follow the Vietnam precedent and leave with a peace agreement signed, but not enforce the agreement. It appears that the US will be leaving Iraq with a democratic government capable of defending itself. Aganist Iran? OK Let Iran contol how much of the oil supply plus the Straight of Hormus. The gate way to how much oil? Do you plan on taking them out too" Iraq could beat them back fully armed with our support! The Iran Iraq war!!!! If I were cynical, I might suspect that Bush agreed to pull the troops out of Iraq so that we would have an excuse to attack Iran, if Iran were to attack Iraq. As far as my previous statement regarding our exit strategy I did not think you were referring to our overall middle east strategy. I think such a discussion should probably be an entirely different thread, and I do not have time to discuss that tonight. Good one!

Unknow Joined Fri 10/06/06 Posts: 4066	Sat 12/20/08 09:05 PM Edited by Unknow on Sat 12/20/08 09:06 PM
It is on topic!!!! Its called being lied to..

Melaschasm Joined Wed 12/10/08 Posts: 262	Sat 12/20/08 09:05 PM
At Nuremberg, the prosecution defined crimes against the peace as the planning, preparation, initiation, and waging of wars of aggression, or a war in violation of existing treaties, agreements, and assurances. In other words, to be legal a war must be waged only in self-defense or in the defense of others, as greed to by international treaty. If it is true that the Bush administration did invade Iraq without any credible threat to the security of the United States or any other country, that this was neither a case of self-defense, nor one of defending another country in accordance with international treaty obligations, then the United States violated the very international treaties to which it is signatory, treaties that prohibit wars of aggression that are, by definition, crimes against the peace. http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/index.cfm/Page/Article/ID/5575 It is well known that Saddam was paying terrorists to attack Israel, an ally of the USA. That provides a legal excuse to go to war to defend others. Also the Kurds were being persecuted by Saddam's government, and so we can come to their defense. Additionally as previously mentioned Iraq violated many different UN resolutions, in addition to the terms of Iraq's surrender in the Persian Gulf War, both of which provide a legal basis for war. The war in Iraq may or may not have been the right thing to do, but it was legal. Isaw alot of propaganda about Iraq in the run up to the war most of it turned out to be garbage and fables. Please provide a bit of proof about this Iraq thing paying terrorists to attack isreal. Oh just an FYI the main lawyer from Nuremburg, yes he is still alive, says the Iraq war violated the terms of Nurenburg, he should know he wrote it. Again I remind you these men are not foolish they knew they had to build some kind of case for the invasion. The problem is that most of the reasons turned out to be false after the fact While it is possible that Bush, Clinton, CNN, a wide assortment of world leaders, many different members of the intelligence community, and an assortment of other international experts and media people were all lying about Saddam and Iraq, if the conspiracy is that big, there is no point in trying to fight it.