George W. Bush, war criminal

[Bismillah]

Saddam did quite a nice job of killing them on his own. You would have left him in possession of Kuwait? My goodness.

The West did a good job in supplying him the materials needed to build his chemical weapons to use on the Iranians and a better job in silencing all references to the suppression of Kurds until it became politically convenient to let out some public show of "sympathy".

Regardless you are a master of diverting the subject at hand. You made some irrational statements that Bush acted to the best of his intelligence, I posted several articles contradicting that statement.

Stop backtracking.

 

[Genuine Realist]

It is quite possible to be a head of state without waging an illegal and unnecessary war that has succeeded in breeding further animosity, death, and destruction.

As an aside: Could people please stop responding to Debunker's trolling? It's been going on for 20 pages now, I have seen no signs of improvement. Thanks.

It's questionable whether it is illegal. In any case, it shouldn't have been necessary, since Saddam should have been ousted without fanfare in the early 90's after he began to resist inspections. Blame Clinton for that. (The other Arab states would have been all for it at the time.)

FWIW, I don't see a war to remove Saddam as any more immoral than a war to remove Hitler. In fact, Saddam had a considerably worse record than Hitler did at the relevant time.

 

[Debunker]

It is incomprehensible to me how any, but the paranoid, puerile or guilty, could suppose that Courts of Law are constituted for the reason of persecution.
　
I'm an Australian; I had, and have, little interest in GWB as a man.
I merely ascribe to the idea of the rule of law.
　
If I am an heretic and 'apostrophy' as you charge then I will be judged by the competent authority for that breach.
My relationship with God is not subject to your judgement, I thank God for that fact.
　
I have no desire to touch GWB in any way,
I merely think that if a charge of criminality is current against a man then a Court of Law should be constituted to hear that charge.

How would you like to stand before Iran's court of law? Is just any court of law Ok with you or do you want a just court? Who gets to say which court is just, you or me?

I don't charge you of apostrophized behavior, it was just meant to be a comparison to your liberal ethics. I apologize for the wording. It was very poor of me. I do repent and I did not mean that personally.

 

[Debunker]

LOL! I think it's cute as hell how you write off anybody who doesn't take you seriously as a "liberal".

Of course you don't write off GWB or any other Conservatives, do you?

 

[Bismillah]

Stop backtracking.

 

[dmgdnooc]

You are not the People - nor does morality necessarily follow the law. I am not going to get into long sources here, but the legality of the Iraqi War is extremely debatable. You can make good arguments on both sides.

Bush has to answer to a higher authority. Was it the right thing to do? Was it a good thing to do? That also is not an easy question. The True Believers on this site forget that Saddam was an ogre, and exacted a price from the Iraqi people every day and every hour. Nice orderly violence, of the type that the royalists on this board approve. Whether you are aware of it or not, the real objection of most Bush opponents is not to the violence, but the disorder - for Saddam was even more violent, but within the mechanism of the state.

I'll pose you a different question. During the 90's, Milosevic announced ethnic cleansing on the Balkan peninsula. After all that had happened in the 20th Century, this was a scandal, and dangerous. But the European nations, despite all the prodding of Thacher, did absolutely nothing. None of the heads of the various states are ever going to be charged by some Swiss activist with crimes - but I'd suggest they behaved with considerably less morality than Bush.

I hope you have noticed the tenor of my posts. I am not so much making the case for Bush - that remains open - but the case against the reflexive True Believers and their jumble of half-digested facts, semi-articulated theories, and raw hatred.

You agree that there are valid questions of Law that need to be settled.
And you say that 'Bush has to answer to a higher authority'; if that 'higher authority' is not the people of the US through their duly constituted Legal Authorities then what is it?
　
I am not a 'Bush opponent', I am a supporter of the rule of law; that you cannot tell the difference says much about your stance.
　
Why do you keep proposing straw man arguments?
Are you incapable of dealing with the issue of GWB and the legality of his actions?
Milosovic is a criminal, that has been decided by a duly constituted legal authority.
And no one can be said to be, or not be, a criminal without the agency of Court proceedings.
I advocate that all those for whom the question arises should stand before the Courts and a due legal process should decide the question.
　
You seem to be arguing that the doings of a head-of-state are not subject to legal scrutiny and decisions. That stinks in my nostrils.
Courts of Law are the very places where the 'jumble of half-digested facts, semi-articulated theories' etc are best sorted out.

 

[Quagmire]

Of course you don't write off GWB or any other Conservatives, do you?

As what?

 

[Debunker]

It is quite possible to be a head of state without waging an illegal and unnecessary war that has succeeded in breeding further animosity, death, and destruction.

As an aside: Could people please stop responding to Debunker's trolling? It's been going on for 20 pages now, I have seen no signs of improvement. Thanks.

Would you care to list those head of states that were able to please everybody in the world? Or do you consider that question trolling too? You raise all these issues and you call the answers trolling. You having been around for 20 pages, is that trolling?

 

[Genuine Realist]

You agree that there are valid questions of Law that need to be settled.
And you say that 'Bush has to answer to a higher authority'; if that 'higher authority' is not the people of the US through their duly constituted Legal Authorities then what is it?
　
I am not a 'Bush opponent', I am a supporter of the rule of law; that you cannot tell the difference says much about your stance.
　
Why do you keep proposing straw man arguments?
Are you incapable of dealing with the issue of GWB and the legality of his actions?
Milosovic is a criminal, that has been decided by a duly constituted legal authority.
And no one can be said to be, or not be, a criminal without the agency of Court proceedings.
I advocate that all those for whom the question arises should stand before the Courts and a due legal process should decide the question.
　
You seem to be arguing that the doings of a head-of-state are not subject to legal scrutiny and decisions. That stinks in my nostrils.
Courts of Law are the very places where the 'jumble of half-digested facts, semi-articulated theories' etc are best sorted out.

I don't think the legality is determinable, or - this is the point - particularly important in murk as dense as this. What is important is the motive and the effect.

 

[dmgdnooc]

How would you like to stand before Iran's court of law? Is just any court of law Ok with you or do you want a just court? Who gets to say which court is just, you or me?

I don't charge you of apostrophized behavior, it was just meant to be a comparison to your liberal ethics. I apologize for the wording. It was very poor of me. I do repent and I did not mean that personally.

There is no suggestion that GWB be tried by Iranian courts.
The US has a fine legal system, I would think it sufficient to the task.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You haven't offered any ethics. You haven't offered any arguments. You haven't really addressed anything. You rant. Go ahead - the style seems to please you.

I posted some direct questions a few pages back, that you ignored. I'm not going to repeat them. Go back and answer them, if you feel like doing more justice to yourself.

What I meant by the head of state remark is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to be a modern head of state without affecting some human lives adversely. You can only hope that the lives you benefit outweigh the same.

Hmmm. I haven't offered any ethics....

I was remarking on yours, not mine. Yours. Focus.

 

[Genuine Realist]

Hmmm. I haven't offered any ethics....

I was remarking on yours, not mine. Yours. Focus.

Exactly. You've offered nothing. Except the True Believer's Creed.

As I keep pointing out.

 

[Debunker]

There is no suggestion that GWB be tried by Iranian courts.
The US has a fine legal system, I would think it sufficient to the task.

But most liberals as well as others are at peace with what GWB did and it is only the few here on this forum that can't forgive Bush for 2000 election. This forum is great for discussion but these particular liberal are a very small minority out there in the real political world. Here, IMO, they seem bigger than life but other places they represent the very extreme and the people of the USA do ignore them for the most part. You not living here, you would not know this fact but on the other hand, they do not still know this. The liberals are not usually in power here and they do over estimate their influence. They talk a good game but they just do not produce.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Exactly. You've offered nothing. Except the True Believer's Creed.

As I keep pointing out.

Yes, and you're embarrassing yourself.

You don't even know (I'm sure) how many logical fallacies you're indulging yourself in.

You just go on pretending that you know what you're doing, and the rest of us can observe your contempt for rational thought.

 

[Debunker]

Yes, and you're embarrassing yourself.

You don't even know (I'm sure) how many logical fallacies you're indulging yourself in.

You just go on pretending that you know what you're doing, and the rest of us can observe your contempt for rational thought.

I don't think you can bully him out of his position. He is too knowledgeable to fall for that old trick. You are going to have to use rational thought before he shows contempt for it. He can not show contempt for what you have not used. Take it from me, an objective observer, he has won this debate by default. By the way, did you ever take time to explain how we should have responded to the 9/11 misunderstanding with those harmless terrorist?

 

[Quagmire]

Your question:

Of course you don't write off GWB or any other Conservatives, do you?

My response:

as what?

Your clarification:

.....

 

[Genuine Realist]

Yes, and you're embarrassing yourself.

You don't even know (I'm sure) how many logical fallacies you're indulging yourself in.

You just go on pretending that you know what you're doing, and the rest of us can observe your contempt for rational thought.

Oh, please. Read what you've posted. Blah, blah, blah, I hate Bush.

Do you know, I think I guessed that?

 

[dust1n]

What would you say if I told you there has already been a dirty bomb found on American soil? Watch this little vid and get back with me.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...sg=AFQjCNEgfbkVUYa8MHN2aTSGgY_cQNktSw&cad=rja

There is nothing more frightening than an active ignorance. -Goethe

It's amazing how this never seemed to be an occurence before 9/11 and the wars that started immediately later, but after long periods of those wars, people occasionally send up bombs. Nothing new. Bombs happen.

 

[dust1n]

Glad to see I missed 30 more pages of trolling.

 

[dmgdnooc]

I don't think the legality is determinable, or - this is the point - particularly important in murk as dense as this. What is important is the motive and the effect.

I think that the legality of GWB's actions could be determined by a competent legal authority trying the case.
　
I do not accept that his motives are clear, too much mis-information and even downright lies issued from his office in regards the motives for these actions.
　
It may be that he was the victim of bad intelligence.
I could certainly accept almost anything about the CIA; who, with all the vast resources at the Agency's disposal firmly fixed upon the USSR, were blissfully unaware of its immanent demise.
　
You accept that GWB has a good heart, but I would say that only God knows the heart.
And my lifelong observations lead me to conclude that politicians are, in the main, professional liars.
My only further qualification on that would be that some are better liars than others.