H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Fri 3 Dec, 2010 11:18 am
@Advocate,
We all knew Iraq had WMDs and they will turn up in the area some day.
Bush didn't lie and he is no war criminal.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Dec, 2010 11:50 am
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

Bush recently said that his biggest regret as president was not finding WMD in Iraq. Presumably, he has no regrets on needlessly killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, having untold thousands of Americans killed or wounded, and largely destroying the country. As you know, he lied us into the war.

If he is not a war criminal, how can anyone else be a war criminal?


I asked the following question of CI and he refused to respond. Perhaps you have more gumption than he.

What is the magic number of dead innocents and American servicemen that moves someone from the status of statesman to war criminal?

Has president Obama crossed the line yet?

JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Dec, 2010 12:31 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
What is the magic number of dead innocents and American servicemen that moves someone from the status of statesman to war criminal?


That was answered, Finn. There is no magic number. As soon as there is an illegal invasion, ie. a war of aggression there is a war crime, which makes Bush and his merry band all war criminals.

You're joking about calling any of these incompetent boobs "statesmen", right?

Quote:
Has president Obama crossed the line yet?


Yes.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Dec, 2010 01:23 pm
@H2O MAN,
Oh, please, I suppose you expect to find Jimmy Haffa in your own backyard some day too.

Call it what you will, but I am not willing to go so far as to call the previous administration war criminals. However, there has been evidence presented where the administration ignored (cherry picked) evidence which went against their own preconceived notions of WMD because they were so determined to go to war.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Fri 3 Dec, 2010 01:29 pm
@revelette,
Quote:
Call it what you will, but I am not willing to go so far as to call the previous administration war criminals.


It most definitely was a war crime to launch the illegal invasions against both Iraq and Afghanistan. The list of war crimes only grew after that. There were war crimes before this latest invasion. Half a million Iraqi kids don't just die because they want to.
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Dec, 2010 02:29 pm
@JTT,
I have noticed you seem to have a bit of a beef with the US and wars and seem to think we are never justified in any war we have ever been involved in.

I agree there was not a justifiable reason to invade Iraq in March 2003. However, I disagree about Afghanistan. Although I do agree there was evidence enough to suggest that the previous administration justified torture and other detainee actions like that by their own made up legal reasoning. I don't know without an investigation where the real truth is actually all laid bare (fantasy) and a trial and judgement made to determine the truth and if their actions amounted to war crimes.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Fri 3 Dec, 2010 02:41 pm
@revelette,
Quote:
seem to think we are never justified in any war we have ever been involved in.


I don't know whether you've come to this erroneous consclusion on your own or you're just repeating it from others but that's completely false, Rev. There's a vast difference between justifiable wars and illegal invasions of sovereign nations.

Quote:
However, I disagree about Afghanistan.


But you provide no reasons. Afghanistan did not attack the US, nor did any Afghans attack the US. Not that there'd be any reason to attack Afghanistan had there been one.

Quote:
Although the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was as illegal as the invasion of Iraq, many Americans saw it as a justifiable response to the attacks of September 11, 2001. The cover of Time magazine called it "The Right War." Obama campaigned on ending the Iraq war but escalating the war in Afghanistan. But a majority of Americans now oppose that war as well.

The UN Charter provides that all member states must settle their international disputes by peaceful means, and no nation can use military force except in self-defense or when authorized by the Security Council. After the 9/11 attacks, the council passed two resolutions, neither of which authorized the use of military force in Afghanistan.

“Operation Enduring Freedom” was not legitimate self-defense under the charter because the 9/11 attacks were crimes against humanity, not “armed attacks” by another country. Afghanistan did not attack the United States. In fact, 15 of the 19 hijackers hailed from Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, there was not an imminent threat of an armed attack on the United States after 9/11, or President Bush would not have waited three weeks before initiating his October 2001 bombing campaign. The necessity for self-defense must be “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” This classic principle of self-defense in international law has been affirmed by the Nuremberg Tribunal and the UN General Assembly.

Bush's justification for attacking Afghanistan was that it was harboring Osama bin Laden and training terrorists, even though bin Laden did not claim responsibility for the 9/11 attacks until 2004. After Bush demanded that the Taliban turn over bin Laden to the United States, the Taliban’s ambassador to Pakistan said his government wanted proof that bin Laden was involved in the 9/11 attacks before deciding whether to extradite him, according to the Washington Post. That proof was not forthcoming, the Taliban did not deliver bin Laden, and Bush began bombing Afghanistan.

Bush’s rationale for attacking Afghanistan was spurious. Iranians could have made the same argument to attack the United States after they overthrew the vicious Shah Reza Pahlavi in 1979 and the U.S. gave him safe haven. If the new Iranian government had demanded that the U.S. turn over the Shah and we refused, would it have been lawful for Iran to invade the United States? Of course not.

When he announced his troop “surge” in Afghanistan, Obama invoked the 9/11 attacks. By continuing and escalating Bush’s war in Afghanistan, Obama, too, is violating the UN Charter. In his speech accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, Obama declared that he has the "right" to wage wars "unilaterally.” The unilateral use of military force, however, is illegal unless undertaken in self-defense.

Those who conspired to hijack airplanes and kill thousands of people on 9/11 are guilty of crimes against humanity. They must be identified and brought to justice in accordance with the law. But retaliation by invading Afghanistan was not the answer. It has lead to growing U.S. and Afghan casualties, and has incurred even more hatred against the United States.

http://www.marjoriecohn.com/2009/12/obamas-af-pak-war-is-illegal.html


rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Dec, 2010 04:10 pm
@JTT,
The afgan government of that time harbored and protected the people responsible for 9/11. Anyone who has the reading comprehension of a 4th grader can read the proof for this statement, and you do show much hatred for the U.S. which is why no one pays attention to you when you rant.
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Fri 3 Dec, 2010 04:24 pm
The wars are interlinked and justified.

America must never forget that we are fighting Islamic extremists and radical jihadists.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Fri 3 Dec, 2010 06:03 pm
@rabel22,
How can that be so, Rabel? Did these fellas fly out of the planes that hit the towers, jump on their flying carpets and head on back to Afghanistan?

Regarding Osama, he was supposedly there for years and the USA didn't seem to be in an all fired rush to get him. In fact, the Taliban offered to give him up; remember the Taliban were the US's chosen gang until they didn't want to go along with American plans to steal more resources.

Did you miss this, Rabel?

Quote:
Bush’s rationale for attacking Afghanistan was spurious. Iranians could have made the same argument to attack the United States after they overthrew the vicious Shah Reza Pahlavi in 1979 and the U.S. gave him safe haven. If the new Iranian government had demanded that the U.S. turn over the Shah and we refused, would it have been lawful for Iran to invade the United States? Of course not.


Cuba could make the same argument, Venezueal too and a host of other countries. The US harbors innumerable war criminals and criminals of all color. The CIA is full of terrorists who have performed illegal actions in many countrioes around the globe.

Pointing out war crimes hardly constitutes hatred.

You miss the important stuff and h2oboy just keeps on humming false mantras. The land of the deceived and the home of the cowards.
rabel22
 
  2  
Reply Sat 4 Dec, 2010 11:09 am
@JTT,
Bushes rational for attacking Iraq was spurious but the the afganistan government was protecting the taliban who planed and financed the 9/11 attack. Even an antiamerican ranter like you cant deny this.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Sat 4 Dec, 2010 11:13 am
@rabel22,
rabel22 wrote:

Even an antiamerican ranter like you cant deny this.


Just wait.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 4 Dec, 2010 01:26 pm
@rabel22,
Quote:
Bushes rational for attacking Iraq was spurious but the the afganistan government was protecting the taliban who planed and financed the 9/11 attack.


Even if they had been, the US still violated international law. There are thousands of terrorists walking the streets of the US.

Have you noticed any countries attacking the US?

Have you noticed any threats from other countries that they will attack the US unless those terrorists are given up?

What you might notice if you looked past the propaganda that is fed y'all on a daily basis is that there are countries that have followed international law and taken the US to the World Court.

I know what is wrong with Finn, Okie, Ican, h2oman, MM, Gob1 and a number of others but what the hell is wrong with the rest of you? This is a real question, Rabel.


Quote:
Give Him an "F" in the War on Terror

How Bush Was Offered Bin Laden and Blew It

By ALEXANDER COCKBURN
and JEFFREY ST. CLAIR

George Bush, the man whose prime campaign plank has been his ability to wage war on terror, could have had Osama bin Laden's head handed to him on a platter on his very first day in office, and the offer held good until February 2 of 2002. This is the charge leveled by an Afghan American who had been retained by the US government as an intermediary between the Taliban and both the Clinton and Bush administrations.

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11012004.html


Quote:

Diplomats Met With Taliban on Bin Laden
Some Contend U.S. Missed Its Chance

By David B.Ottaway and Joe Stephens
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, October 29, 2001; Page A01


Over three years and on as many continents, U.S. officials met in public and secret at least 20 times with Taliban representatives to discuss ways the regime could bring suspected terrorist Osama bin Laden to justice.

Talks continued until just days before the Sept. 11 attacks, and Taliban representatives repeatedly suggested they would hand over bin Laden if their conditions were met, sources close to the discussions said.

http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/US_met_taliban.htm


Quote:
Taliban told US it would give up Osama: report

Reuters | June 6 2004

United States and Taliban officials met secretly in Frankfurt almost a year before the September 11 attacks to discuss terms for the Afghans to hand over Osama bin Laden, according to a German television documentary.

No agreement was reached and no further negotiations took place before the suicide hijackings in 2001, which bin Laden subsequently hailed in a videotape as the work of his Al Qaeda network.

ZDF television quoted Kabir Mohabbat, an Afghan-American businessman, as saying he tried to broker a deal between the Americans and the purist Islamic Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, who were sheltering bin Laden.

He quoted Taliban foreign minister Mullah Wakil Ahmed Mutawakil as saying: "You can have him whenever the Americans are ready. Name us a country and we will extradite him".

A German member of the European Parliament, Elmar Brok, confirmed that he had helped Mr Mohabbat in 1999 to establish initial contact with the Americans.

"I was told [by Mohabbat] that the Taliban had certain ideas about handing over bin Laden, not to the United States but to a third country or to the Court of Justice in The Hague," Mr Brok said.

"The message was: 'There is willingness to talk about handing over bin Laden', and the aim of the Taliban was clearly to win the recognition of the American Government and the lifting of the boycott," he said, referring to the international isolation of the Taliban.

Mr Brok said he was not in a position to judge how credible the offer was but he passed it to the US ambassador to Germany, John Kornblum.

He said Mr Mohabbat was then summoned to Washington to be interviewed by US officials.

This led in turn to the German meeting, which ZDF said took place between Taliban ministers and US officials in a Frankfurt hotel in November 2000.

The documentary, broadcast on Thursday evening, said the Afghans put forward "several offers" and there was talk of holding further negotiations at the US embassy in Pakistan on where and when bin Laden would be handed over.

In fact, no more talks took place before September 11.

But negotiations did resume five days after the attacks, in the Pakistani city of Quetta, ZDF said. This meeting has been previously reported in US media.

Mr Mohabbat said the Americans pressed in Quetta for the handover of bin Laden within 24 hours, but the Taliban were unable to meet that demand.

Within weeks, US-led forces intervened in Afghanistan to drive the Taliban from power and kill, capture or disperse Al Qaeda fighters based in Afghan training camps.

Bin Laden still has not been captured.

Mr Brok said he had not personally taken part in either of the reported meetings between the Taliban and the United States but believed there had been a "political decision" not to pursue negotiations after the one in Frankfurt.

He told ZDF: "I have to say that I consider this offer [on bin Laden's handover] very much more seriously with hindsight than I did at the time".

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2004/060604giveuposama.htm


0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Dec, 2010 03:15 pm
@rabel22,
Quote:
but the the afganistan government was protecting the taliban who planed and financed the 9/11 attack.


I have to admit that I didn't read this as closely as I should have the first time.

This is truly amazing! How did that eagle-eyed, fair minded Finn miss it?

The Afghanistan government at that time was the Taliban, Rabel. And the Taliban hardly provided funds to those "who planed and financed the 9/11 attack".

Actually, it was the US itself that developed and at least partially financed that group. That is what is so ironic. It's natural to expect that there will be blowback just from badly mistreating people.

But to have provided the funds to train those same people and then have some of them involved in that blowback is, is, is ... hard to adequately describe.

Is it karma?
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Dec, 2010 07:31 am
We are not privy to all the details or even accuracy of those negotiations, JTT to know exactly what if anything all went down. In any event, after the attacks the Taliban who were sheltering AQ and Bin Laden in Afghanistan who was behind the attack on our country which left over 3000 dead in a single day, refused to hand Bin Laden or cooperate with the US. We would have been fools not to go after Bin Laden and AQ and the Taliban who were in charge of Afghanistan and who BTW were a harsh regime oppressing it's people to their own ideologues laws. Where we left off the high ground so to speak came in how we went about the war on terror and how we treated detainees and such like. And then topped it off with the who misdirection with Iraq with misleading justification in defiance of the UN. With this action, we let the ball drop on chasing Bin Laden and AQ and they regrouped in the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan and the Taliban more or less joined them there and now we are dealing with after effect of all this stuff. Maybe not perfectly and there has been deaths of civilians that perhaps might of been avoided without the use of drones and such things. However, I am hopeful, there is an end in sight if not a satisfactory one where there is any kind of victory for anyone.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Dec, 2010 07:42 am
Concering all this wikileaks I read an article this morning in Huffingspost where he articulated what I was trying to say the other day fairly well.

The Truth About Transparency - Why Wikileaks Is Bad for All of Us
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 May, 2017 07:04 am
Rape charges were dropped by Sweden today.

I don't think Assange will live long after leaving his current sanctuary. I think the US watches him daily and will execute him outright or take him into custody and never let him see the light of day.
timur
 
  2  
Reply Fri 19 May, 2017 07:26 am
@Lash,
Another possibility is that France grants him political asylum..
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 May, 2017 08:39 am
@timur,
I hadn't read anything about that, thanks!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Yes Or No?
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/16/2019 at 07:07:04