100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: War Crimes | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
If you want to prosecute Pres. Bush for war crimes, would you hold Bill Clinton to the same standard? A factory in the Sudan was blown apart by Tomahawks because Bill Clinton told us it was a factory that produced WMD's, while locals claimed it was an asprin factory. Also remember at least two strikes against Iraq ordered by Bill Clinton, one was to punish Saddam for kicking out UN Inspectors.
Your thoughts? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Clinton got more action.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Clinton got more action. I didn't ask about sex crimes... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There has been no more attacks here since we went to war so figure it out. Not that I'm for our ppl being in harms but we can't just be passive now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But u did ask for my thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Clinton got more action. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But u did ask for my thought. You are correct, I did. My apologies. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So what is your collation between a one time Tomahawk strike based on faulty information and a multi year war that places thousands of US soldiers in harms way? I mean do you think that they are somehow of equal value? Do you think that Clinton had to go around and drum up support for this strike? If he did not then how much intelligence could he lie to the American people about? I think he did this strike without discussing it with the people because it was covert. So he could not have lied to us, if he did not tell us, or the un, or Europe. Bush on the other hand just lied about it all. He wanted a war with Iraq and he was going to have one no mater what it took. So he lied to the people, to the UN, to Europe, etc.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So what is your collation between a one time Tomahawk strike based on faulty information and a multi year war that places thousands of US soldiers in harms way? I mean do you think that they are somehow of equal value? Do you think that Clinton had to go around and drum up support for this strike? If he did not then how much intelligence could he lie to the American people about? I think he did this strike without discussing it with the people because it was covert. So he could not have lied to us, if he did not tell us, or the un, or Europe. Bush on the other hand just lied about it all. He wanted a war with Iraq and he was going to have one no mater what it took. So he lied to the people, to the UN, to Europe, etc.. If one steals $1000 or $10,000, its still larceny. If you use a gun its armed robbery. Both Clinton and Bush ordered military action against a soveriegn nation. In the case of Iraq & the Sudan it was about WMD's. So one gets a pass and the other doesn't? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No. The only thing people from Sudan know how to make is problems for the rest of the world. Asprin. Ha.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So what is your collation between a one time Tomahawk strike based on faulty information and a multi year war that places thousands of US soldiers in harms way? I mean do you think that they are somehow of equal value? Do you think that Clinton had to go around and drum up support for this strike? If he did not then how much intelligence could he lie to the American people about? I think he did this strike without discussing it with the people because it was covert. So he could not have lied to us, if he did not tell us, or the un, or Europe. Bush on the other hand just lied about it all. He wanted a war with Iraq and he was going to have one no mater what it took. So he lied to the people, to the UN, to Europe, etc.. If one steals $1000 or $10,000, its still larceny. If you use a gun its armed robbery. Both Clinton and Bush ordered military action against a soveriegn nation. In the case of Iraq & the Sudan it was about WMD's. So one gets a pass and the other doesn't? I can only assume you can't read. No one cares if Bush used faulty info. It is that he lied his way into war. He was going to go to war before he had any intelligence. That is the problem l Oh, I can read. And I would appreciate if you would keep a civil tongue. But back to the point, if Bill Clinton can justify military action based on faulty intelligence you would prosecute Bush for doing likewise? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So what is your collation between a one time Tomahawk strike based on faulty information and a multi year war that places thousands of US soldiers in harms way? I mean do you think that they are somehow of equal value? Do you think that Clinton had to go around and drum up support for this strike? If he did not then how much intelligence could he lie to the American people about? I think he did this strike without discussing it with the people because it was covert. So he could not have lied to us, if he did not tell us, or the un, or Europe. Bush on the other hand just lied about it all. He wanted a war with Iraq and he was going to have one no mater what it took. So he lied to the people, to the UN, to Europe, etc.. If one steals $1000 or $10,000, its still larceny. If you use a gun its armed robbery. Both Clinton and Bush ordered military action against a soveriegn nation. In the case of Iraq & the Sudan it was about WMD's. So one gets a pass and the other doesn't? I can only assume you can't read. No one cares if Bush used faulty info. It is that he lied his way into war. He was going to go to war before he had any intelligence. That is the problem l Oh, I can read. And I would appreciate if you would keep a civil tongue. But back to the point, if Bill Clinton can justify military action based on faulty intelligence you would prosecute Bush for doing likewise? I have answered this question 2 times now. Since you have not got it I can only assume that you can't read. I state very clearly that no one cares that his intelligence is faulty. We are saying that he wanted to go to war with Iraq. Then 9/11 happened and he went to war with Iraq. The way he did that was by lying to everyone. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can write (or type), but I can't read. Intresting.
Or is it the fact that you're wanting to prosecute GW is based solely on politics and not about the rule of law. I thought as much. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can write (or type), but I can't read. Intresting. Or is it the fact that you're wanting to prosecute GW is based solely on politics and not about the rule of law. I thought as much. Ok I'v put it up there three times now. Tell me what part of GW lied Clinton did not. Is confusing you? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So you want to prosecute GW for lying. Yeah, take that to the world court, prosecute a politician for lying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So you want to prosecute GW for lying. Yeah, take that to the world court, prosecute a politician for lying. OK now we are making progress. Three times and you understand. The only relation to Clinton and Bush and the Information they used was that one lied. The one that lied may be tried in the us not the world courts. So there is nothing in your statement that would make it to the world court. The reason some people bring up the world court is for Water Boarding and other ways that the Geneva convention has been violated by this administration. It will never happen to Bush, but Cheney, or Alberto Gonzales, if I was them,maybe I would stay in the country. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So you want to prosecute GW for lying. Yeah, take that to the world court, prosecute a politician for lying. OK now we are making progress. Three times and you understand. The only relation to Clinton and Bush and the Information they used was that one lied. The one that lied may be tried in the us not the world courts. So there is nothing in your statement that would make it to the world court. The reason some people bring up the world court is for Water Boarding and other ways that the Geneva convention has been violated by this administration. It will never happen to Bush, but Cheney, or Alberto Gonzales, if I was them,maybe I would stay in the country. I actually got it the first time. It was so weak, I was making sure that you understood the question. Because I would love to see someone prosecute a politician for lying. The thought of such is quite funny. About the world court, true, I didn't specify world court. It's just that's generally where war crimes are prosecuted. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinton brought a lot of good to the United States, both with his ability to speak and his ability to manage the economy. Bush has nothing but shattered both of those, he couldn't manage money in his own pocket much less millions of dollars the people have to pay yearly in taxes. Clinton went in off intelligence gathered at the time, he layed off as soon as that intelligence failed. Bush has continued the war effort even after knowing full well the intelligence was flawed, which was years ago at a time it would of been more or less alright to pull out. We're in too deep now and have to finish the mess that was started, beit right or wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yzrabbit doesn't seem to know the definition of a lie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
no one cares that his intelligence is faulty. We are saying that he wanted to go to war with Iraq. you imply that you speak for everyone....please curtail your arrogance because you sure don't speak for me.... 
|
|
|
|
|
