100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Should **** Cheney be hung? | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Unknow
on
Sat 12/20/08 09:19 PM
|
|
I believe you need to look at a map. You let Iran into Iraq. Look at it!!! Was that not a fear of ours!!! We did support Iraq in the Iran Iraq war!! How much of the middle eastern oil travels through the Straits of Hormuz?
Can you say world wide disruption of oil! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
madisonman
on
Sat 12/20/08 09:26 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. 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. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: 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. 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How can I say this politely.. If you think that many families are facing a bleak Christmas because of the Bush policies, then name the policies that specifically caused it to happen. Gas prices rose because many countries like China, India are growing and using alot of oil to build the heavy industries that environmentalist have run out of your country. Food prices went higher because there was a rush to biodiesel and Hurricains( I'm sure you will blame them on Bush too) Families that are in foreclosure are mostly there because they either are living beyond their income level or they signed contracts without paying attention to the details of it, A lawyer would have prevented that. Congress in 1992 let see, who was the president then?? Past a law requiring money lenders to give loans to people who wouldn't normally qualify them..how come they didn't qualify..because they have bad credit. Liberals then wanted every to own a house, and they didn't care how many people would be hurt because of their bad policy. Does the threat of terrorism even matter...you would be singing a different tune if everytime you went to work or your children went to school, the mall or any group gathering, you would have to worry if they were going to make it there and back alive.. Everyperson in this country has a right to go to a hospital and receive care...even if they cannot afford it..and don't have to pay it back..that is the law. I am tired of whiners and complainers trying to handcuff our ability to defend and protect ourselves and others from BAD PEOPLE..Like TERRORISTS and blaming everything on Bush.. Remember is was the same people that were in office that really created this fiasco during the Clinton year, that Obama is now putting back in office..Who was it that allowed terrorists to bomb the world trade center, the barracks in Lebanon, and allowed intelligence to weaken to the point that we couldn't even determine what was going to happen before it happened. It is the same cry to complain about Iraq that complained about Vietnam..and to those I ask this question..Were the 3 million people that were killed after we pulled out of Vietnam better off dead?? Was it worth us getting out to find out that hundreds of thousand of people were tortured and killed when we shut the door in their faces and left their arms stretched out us as in those last pictures of our choppers leaveing?? Would the people of Iraq be better off with a mad man that killed people for the fun of it, tossed them off buildings to the pavement just because they didn't bow to their leader..Were the little girls better off being raped and killed a the whim of Saddams sons' just for thier pleasure..where the hundreds and thousands better off when we stood by and did nothing??? I think not If we lived in a perfect world, we could all stand in a big circle and sing songs and jump for joy and world peace..but the reality is that we live in a imperfect world, and terrorists are allow to kill people just because we don't share their ideology, millions of people are allowed to die in Darfur and Rowanda, and who will speak for them...who will defend the helpless, the impoverished and the oppressed...you don't know what that is here in America...you don't have a clue.. Well now some people don't want to be confused with facts. That's the truth. They are not called the COUNTER culture for no reason. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REALITY
--------A new congressional report is belatedly confirming what many have long known: that the White House and in particular then White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, lied to Congress in 2004 when he told them the Bush administration was not repeatedly warned by the CIA not to make the claim that Saddam had tried to buy uranium ore from Niger. What is astonishing about this report, which documents that the CIA at least four times tried to prevent Bush and other top officials from presenting that lie to Congress and the American public in the run-up to the Iraq invasion, is not that it documents what has long been known, but that Congress and the corporate media are still pretending that the claim itself was an acceptable justification for war. Set aside for the moment the fact that the claim that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy uranium ore (so-called yellowcake) from the desert nation of Niger was based upon forged documents which were almost certainly the work of Defense Department hacks in the Rumsfeld/Cheney-created Office of Special Plans (see my book "The Case for Impeachment"). Even if this fraudulent deal had been real, how on earth could it have been used as it was by President Bush and Vice President Cheney to justify an invasion of Iraq ------------------------------------------ http://www.democrats.com/node/18622 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe you need to look at a map. You let Iran into Iraq. Look at it!!! Was that not a fear of ours!!! We did support Iraq in the Iran Iraq war!! How much of the middle eastern oil travels through the Straits of Hormuz? Can you say world wide disruption of oil! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Unknow
on
Sun 12/21/08 07:11 PM
|
|
How can I say this politely.. If you think that many families are facing a bleak Christmas because of the Bush policies, then name the policies that specifically caused it to happen. Gas prices rose because many countries like China, India are growing and using alot of oil to build the heavy industries that environmentalist have run out of your country. Food prices went higher because there was a rush to biodiesel and Hurricains( I'm sure you will blame them on Bush too) Families that are in foreclosure are mostly there because they either are living beyond their income level or they signed contracts without paying attention to the details of it, A lawyer would have prevented that. Congress in 1992 let see, who was the president then?? Past a law requiring money lenders to give loans to people who wouldn't normally qualify them..how come they didn't qualify..because they have bad credit. Liberals then wanted every to own a house, and they didn't care how many people would be hurt because of their bad policy. Does the threat of terrorism even matter...you would be singing a different tune if everytime you went to work or your children went to school, the mall or any group gathering, you would have to worry if they were going to make it there and back alive.. Everyperson in this country has a right to go to a hospital and receive care...even if they cannot afford it..and don't have to pay it back..that is the law. I am tired of whiners and complainers trying to handcuff our ability to defend and protect ourselves and others from BAD PEOPLE..Like TERRORISTS and blaming everything on Bush.. Remember is was the same people that were in office that really created this fiasco during the Clinton year, that Obama is now putting back in office..Who was it that allowed terrorists to bomb the world trade center, the barracks in Lebanon, and allowed intelligence to weaken to the point that we couldn't even determine what was going to happen before it happened. It is the same cry to complain about Iraq that complained about Vietnam..and to those I ask this question..Were the 3 million people that were killed after we pulled out of Vietnam better off dead?? Was it worth us getting out to find out that hundreds of thousand of people were tortured and killed when we shut the door in their faces and left their arms stretched out us as in those last pictures of our choppers leaveing?? Would the people of Iraq be better off with a mad man that killed people for the fun of it, tossed them off buildings to the pavement just because they didn't bow to their leader..Were the little girls better off being raped and killed a the whim of Saddams sons' just for thier pleasure..where the hundreds and thousands better off when we stood by and did nothing??? I think not If we lived in a perfect world, we could all stand in a big circle and sing songs and jump for joy and world peace..but the reality is that we live in a imperfect world, and terrorists are allow to kill people just because we don't share their ideology, millions of people are allowed to die in Darfur and Rowanda, and who will speak for them...who will defend the helpless, the impoverished and the oppressed...you don't know what that is here in America...you don't have a clue.. Well now some people don't want to be confused with facts. That's the truth. They are not called the COUNTER culture for no reason. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess my friend didnt want to come back and debate why we cant pull out of Iraq! If he would he might understand we shouldnt have gone back in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
