Would you like to see George W. Bush and Company tried for war crimes?

[Mustard]

I just have to ask because I want to know where everybody stands on this issue. It is a pretty straightforward question really, but then again, is it? War crimes are gererally accepted as this:

War crimes are "violations of the laws or customs of war", including but not limited to "murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_camps)", "the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_of_war)", the killing of hostages, "the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military necessity".[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes#cite_note-black_book-0)[
So, if it can be proven in a court of law that the Bush Administration lied and deceived the UN and the United States to invade Iraq, thereby satisfying the clause "any devastation not justified by military necessity", does that mean it is a war crime? Lots of "ifs" about questions like this, so even if the various deceitful acts can be proven to be true, like I said before, does that make them war crimes? Or are they something else? If they are not war crimes, and it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that these things did take place, what types of crimes would they be? Would they be crimes at all, for that matter?

Obviously if it was proven that these acts are not criminal at all, then this whole issue is moot, and it shouldn't be discussed further. But that raises another question: Who would hold the jurisdiction in this matter? The Supreme Court of the US? Congress of the US? The Hague? The UN? Some other legal body? So many questions...

I think everybody on GMF knows I have contempt for the Bush Administration and the entire Iraq war fiasco that it is. But I must ask, because I do not know, is what the Bush Admin did leading up to the Iraq war, and is what the Bush Admin did during the Iraq war, possibly war crimes? Or is it something else?

So, if you feel that what the Bush Admin has done constitutes war crimes, please state what charges should be brought, when they should be brought, and why?

If not, please make your case as to why you think the Bush Administration's acts do not constitute war crimes, and/or why you think the Bush Administration are innocent.

[Claydon]

What exactly are his war crimes? I will of course agree that mismangement was all over the place on the iraq endeavor. However the US investigated and prosecuted the abu gharib guards, and the gitmo issue has worked its way through the courts, so what exactly is the war crime?

[Mustard]

What exactly are his war crimes?

Way to not read the thread Claydon.

So, if you feel that what the Bush Admin has done constitutes war crimes, please state what charges should be brought, when they should be brought, and why?

If not, please make your case as to why you think the Bush Administration's acts do not constitute war crimes, and/or why you think the Bush Administration are innocent.

[Archetype]

Denny Crane taught me that Clinton did all that too, he was just more sneaky about it.

[Mustard]

What exactly are his war crimes? I will of course agree that mismangement was all over the place on the iraq endeavor. However the US investigated and prosecuted the abu gharib guards, and the gitmo issue has worked its way through the courts, so what exactly is the war crime?
First, that was a really fast edit. Props to that, I had to edit my post accordingly.

Ok, so just for shits and giggles, how about this:

Say some organization found evidence of the CIA using torture on prisoners that would effectively make the Bush administration guilty of war crimes. Of course, the Bush admin would only be guilty of war crimes if it was determined that the culpability of the Bush administration in this endeavor was understood after interviewing prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and other locations where the alleged torture had taken place.

Just for starters. ;)

[Feng]

What exactly are his war crimes? I will of course agree that mismangement was all over the place on the iraq endeavor. However the US investigated and prosecuted the abu gharib guards, and the gitmo issue has worked its way through the courts, so what exactly is the war crime?

Oh you know, invading a foreign country, unprovoked. Wait, we gave them ultimatums to show us their WMDs, they didn't, so we invaded them, and they didn't have any... Yet we were told, convincingly, that they did have them and that we'd find them, and that it is for the safety of the world that Iraq must be invaded. Now we are policing a country that is part civil war, part militia versus foreign occupiers part Christians vs. Muslims... But at the same time, we are trying to profit off our time there as much as possible with such fun things like Blackwater and Haliburton.

If any Eastern European or Middle Eastern nation did exactly what we have done, we would have tried their leaders and put them up at the Hague in a heart beat.... fool!

[Bizz]

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l231/jakesface/I-am-the-law.jpg

[Mustard]

Badass

[Hanover Fist]

Oh you know, invading a foreign country, unprovoked. Wait, we gave them ultimatums to show us their WMDs, they didn't, so we invaded them, and they didn't have any... Yet we were told, convincingly, that they did have them and that we'd find them, and that it is for the safety of the world that Iraq must be invaded. Now we are policing a country that is part civil war, part militia versus foreign occupiers part Christians vs. Muslims... But at the same time, we are trying to profit off our time there as much as possible with such fun things like Blackwater and Haliburton.

If any Eastern European or Middle Eastern nation did exactly what we have done, we would have tried their leaders and put them up at the Hague in a heart beat.... fool!

First of all it was a condition of the ceasefire agreement from the first gulf war that he account for his WMD stocks. They were inventoried and he had them, then after he kicked out inspectors he couldn't account for them.

Secondly, congress was privy to the same information as the president and voted to authorize military action. The president himself cannot authorize military action beyond 30 days.
While some people may not accept the fact that Saddams violation of the ceasefire was enough of a reason to attack Iraq, legally it was more than enough.

They could try and charge him with war crimes, but all he would have to do is use the documents that the UN themselves approved to prove what idiots they are. According to international law, he had more than enough legal justification to attack Iraq, on the simple reason that it was merely an extension of the first gulf war.

[Gary_Busey]

This poll is stupid.

[Stax]

No. The only truly potential criminal act would be the original justification for war, and between the AUMF/Iraq War Resolution and his secondary calls to war for spreading democracy (though WMD was clearly the primary one) even that would be difficult to prove (and I'm not sure you could say it was criminal).

If you can prove a direct command chain to GitMo or something that's one thing, but beyond that he's at most acting unconstitutionally.

[Claydon]

No. The only truly potential criminal act would be the original justification for war, and between the AUMF/Iraq War Resolution and his secondary calls to war for spreading democracy (though WMD was clearly the primary one) even that would be difficult to prove (and I'm not sure you could say it was criminal).

If you can prove a direct command chain to GitMo or something that's one thing, but beyond that he's at most acting unconstitutionally.

Again, based on the cease fire agreement of iraq from the 1991 war, the congressional ok for hostilities, and the multiple violations of the UN bush was legally authorized to take action. You want to bitch slap him for mismangement, take a number because I am first.

[Stax]

Again, based on the cease fire agreement of iraq from the 1991 war, the congressional ok for hostilities, and the multiple violations of the UN bush was legally authorized to take action. You want to bitch slap him for mismangement, take a number because I am first.

I completely agree. The ONLY really arguably criminal act would be if you could prove:

1. He had false information on WMD
2. He knew it to be false or he recklessly did not check said information (using the logical structure the Supreme Court laid out for libel by newspapers)

And that wouldn't be a war crime, that'd just be a high crimes/misdemeanor type reason to impeach him (which at this point would be silly). Plus it'd be a nearly impossible case to prove.

[Mustard]

Will nobody take a crack at this?

Say some organization found evidence of the CIA using torture on prisoners that would effectively make the Bush administration guilty of war crimes. Of course, the Bush admin would only be guilty of war crimes if it was determined that the culpability of the Bush administration in this endeavor was understood after interviewing prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and other locations where the alleged torture had taken place.

[vasili denisov]

Even if deception was a war crime, this was a case of an administration engaged in self-deception. They had a mixture of information and put deliberate emphasis on some of it, not just for public consumption, but in their own consideration.

Say some organization found evidence of the CIA using torture on prisoners that would effectively make the Bush administration guilty of war crimes. Of course, the Bush admin would only be guilty of war crimes if it was determined that the culpability of the Bush administration in this endeavor was understood after interviewing prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and other locations where the alleged torture had taken place.

There's already some strong evidence that official authourization was given for torture in both Abu Ghraib and Gitmo; if necessary, I'll look it up. There's at least written authourization from Rumsfeld, as well as accounts both on- and off- that use of torture was widespread, that Ghraib was not an aberation, and that the hearing chaired by McCain barely went to the problem.

However, one difficulty with such an indictment is that torture is so widespread, employed in the past by the US (though through proxies) as well as allies, that there's an inertia working against it. This was, however, the most widespread direct involvement of americans in torture, in contrast to both Clinton and Reagan. So, though this was an awful episode and a case could be made, practically, it won't happen.

[The Batman]

Again, based on the cease fire agreement of iraq from the 1991 war, the congressional ok for hostilities, and the multiple violations of the UN bush was legally authorized to take action. You want to bitch slap him for mismangement, take a number because I am first.

There seems to be a consensus that the war is obviously mismanaged and I agree that is true, so what can we do about that if no war crime was committed? There has to be some kind of accountablity considering how many mistakes were made.

[Morfin]

The accountability comes, in part, with the Republican party losing the presidency and losing power in Congress.

[WET HOT MESS]

What? I don't see myself rooting for Bush, but this is just silly.

[The Batman]

The accountability comes, in part, with the Republican party losing the presidency and losing power in Congress.
But considering how many mistakes were made, there has to be some individual accountablity. Thats the one thing where the Republican party has excelled at in the last 8 years. Absolutely no accountablity for anything. ANYTHING.

[Morfin]

Part of my problem with it all is, as Claydon, I believe, pointed out, the President doesn't authorize a war, Congress does. And this claim by the Congress that "Oh, Bush lied" angers me to a degree because 1) very few of the legislators even read the materials provided; and 2) the Congress did not do further investigation into the materials and CIA information and sources. Congress cannot just lie back and say, "Bush lied," because it is Congress' duty to investigate, get the information, and then make an informed decision.

Now, with that said, the whole torture thing and potential Geneva convention (yes, I know the argument that it doesn't apply here) is another kettle of fish, but I still do not agree that we are dealing with "war crimes."

[Morfin]

But considering how many mistakes were made, there has to be some individual accountablity. Thats the one thing where the Republican party has excelled at in the last 8 years. Absolutely no accountablity for anything. ANYTHING.

There is this little thing called "immunity" for governmental actions. Short of a crime being committed, you can't sue the President or a governmental official because something was "mismanaged."

[The Batman]

There is this little thing called "immunity" for governmental actions. Short of a crime being committed, you can't sue the President or a governmental official because something was "mismanaged."

Fuck.

[Yelram]

There is this little thing called "immunity" for governmental actions. Short of a crime being committed, you can't sue the President or a governmental official because something was "mismanaged."

Has there ever been a well managed war? Seriously.

Oh and I guess there was no WMDs just a bunch of Yellowcake, they were probably having it for Saddams birthday party or something.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/

[kareyn01]

Has there ever been a well managed war? Seriously.

Oh and I guess there was no WMDs just a bunch of Yellowcake, they were probably having it for Saddams birthday party or something.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/

No, it was left over from Iraq's failed attempts to become a nuclear power. Yellowcake uranium is not a weapon of mass destruction, so stop using that as evidence that there were, in fact, WMDs in Iraq. Even the Bush administration, which would have trumpeted any such discovery endlessly to cover their own asses, have admitted that there were no WMDs in Iraq at the time of the invasion.

[Pharon]

This poll is stupid.

[Yelram]

No, it was left over from Iraq's failed attempts to become a nuclear power. Yellowcake uranium is not a weapon of mass destruction, so stop using that as evidence that there were, in fact, WMDs in Iraq. Even the Bush administration, which would have trumpeted any such discovery endlessly to cover their own asses, have admitted that there were no WMDs in Iraq at the time of the invasion.

So in otherwords, he had the pre-cursor materials to produce nuclear weapons, but didnt have a functional nuclear weapon. NO FUCKING SHIT. It wasnt about getting weapons that already existed, but PREVENTING HIM from completing his weapons. Its total morons like you that are going to undermine our national security to the point where our country is as anemic as France. And by that way, that "admission" was LONG BEFORE THEY FOUND THIS YELLOWCAKE. That was AUGUST 2006. This was JUST A COUPLE MONTHS AGO.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Security/Default.aspx?id=203686
The yellowcake was there from much earlier, prior to 1991, but there have been many WMDs found during the invasion of Iraq.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1520691/posts
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918

[Stax]

So in otherwords, he had the pre-cursor materials to produce nuclear weapons, but didnt have a functional nuclear weapon. NO FUCKING SHIT. It wasnt about getting weapons that already existed, but PREVENTING HIM from completing his weapons. Its total morons like you that are going to undermine our national security to the point where our country is as anemic as France. And by that way, that "admission" was LONG BEFORE THEY FOUND THIS YELLOWCAKE. That was AUGUST 2006. This was JUST A COUPLE MONTHS AGO.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Security/Default.aspx?id=203686
The yellowcake was there from much earlier, prior to 1991, but there have been many WMDs found during the invasion of Iraq.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1520691/posts
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918

A. Lulz at citing onenewsnow and wordnetdaily.
B. Even the Bush administration admits the WMD intel was false. Cmon man, get the proper lie.

[Pharon]

Anyone who thinks the Bush administration is savvy enough to deceive anyone into starting a war is a fucking moron.

This is simply gross incompetence. Which isn't a crime.

Sometimes, people, the simplest explanation is the correct one.

Or, put more clearly, what's the more likely scenario here? That Bush deceived Congress and 300 million Americans or that someone at the CIA fucked up and Bush didn't err on the side of caution?

Exactly.

[BIG PIZZLE]

Assassination > war crime.

[Yelram]

Anyone who thinks the Bush administration is savvy enough to deceive anyone into starting a war is a fucking moron.

This is simply gross incompetence. Which isn't a crime.

Sometimes, people, the simplest explanation is the correct one.

Or, put more clearly, what's the more likely scenario here? That Bush deceived Congress and 300 million Americans or that someone at the CIA fucked up and Bush didn't err on the side of caution?

Exactly.

Then the question would be, was there any prevalent slashes in the intelligence agency budgets during the years prior, and who would be to blame for that....

[BIG PIZZLE]

Well if the intelligence wasnt good enough, then they should have waited until they got it right. Plus I think a better question would be was there any secretary of state arrogant enought to think it would be a good idea to invade a country with about 50% of the necessary troops?So in otherwords, he had the pre-cursor materials to produce nuclear weapons, but didnt have a functional nuclear weapon. NO FUCKING SHIT. It wasnt about getting weapons that already existed, but PREVENTING HIM from completing his weapons. Its total morons like you that are going to undermine our national security to the point where our country is as anemic as France. And by that way, that "admission" was LONG BEFORE THEY FOUND THIS YELLOWCAKE. That was AUGUST 2006. This was JUST A COUPLE MONTHS AGO.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Security/Default.aspx?id=203686
The yellowcake was there from much earlier, prior to 1991, but there have been many WMDs found during the invasion of Iraq.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1520691/posts
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918

I think you're the only ignoramus that's still slurping down this cool-aid.

[Yelram]

Well if the intelligence wasnt good enough, then they should have waited until they got it right. Plus I think a better question would be was there any secretary of state arrogant enought to think it would be a good idea to invade a country with about 50% of the necessary troops?

I think you're the only ignoramus that's still slurping down this

cool-aid.

Iraq is currently being returned to the Iraqis, we didnt steal the oil, we didnt stay there forever, we didnt institute the draft,all of you fucking libs were WRONG. And you wont admit it, you want to go back to the propaganda of 2004.

[BIG PIZZLE]

I'm not a liberal. What's going on right now doesnt change the fact that HUGE mistakes were made, the chief mistake being the fact that so few troops were used to secure the country. The war didnt take a few weeks and the US wasnt treated like liberators like promissed. The US thought they could just "shock and awe" a country into submission which was wrong and egregiously arrogant. But that's for making an irrelevant point.

[Claydon]

Yah, and we didn't even get $1 gasoline out of this deal.

fail!

although with the way oil is plummeting due to oversupply we may get that yet!

[Yelram]

I'm not a liberal. What's going on right now doesnt change the fact that HUGE mistakes were made, the chief mistake being the fact that so few troops were used to secure the country. The war didnt take a few weeks and the US wasnt treated like liberators like promissed. The US thought they could just "shock and awe" a country into submission which was wrong and egregiously arrogant. But that's for making an irrelevant point.

Oh so it didnt take a few weeks, so we lost? How about we set up some sort of ideal, strawman war to prove wrong? We completely kicked ass during the initial invasion, which is the part I assume you are refering to. I dont see how MORE troops, initially, are going to subdue a population that you claim "hates us". Its going to give more targets, and therefor more media coverage of attacks against us, more resentment of American occupation. I would like you to tell me the perfect, ideal way to liberate a country, so next time, we can just follow your magic plan, that will overthrow the dictator, restore the peace, and lose less than 5000 american lives in less than 5 years, OH WAIT, THAT HAPPENED!!

[Claydon]

More troops would have been nice to basically establish a martial law kind of thing in the large population centers. The pentagon's and the white house refusal to come to the realization that there was a massive insurgency going on for a couple of years boggles my mind. However, I do give the administration and specifically the current SoD major kudos for taking on these issues in 2006 and they did a fantastic job. 30,000 more troops did help, but it was technology NOT pure man power that brought iraq to a more stable place.

[Archangel]

Iraq is currently being returned to the Iraqis, we didnt steal the oil, we didnt stay there forever, we didnt institute the draft,all of you fucking libs were WRONG. And you wont admit it, you want to go back to the propaganda of 2004.

Mate.


People fucking DIED. Does nobody care for the fucking fact that a hundred thousand or more people are DEAD as a result of incompetency and ignorance? "Petrol prices didn't go down" "Iraq's being returned to the Iraqis"; is that what you people care about? Is untold human suffering and misery a quantité négligeable for you people? You actually put politics and economics before not just human life, but thousands and thousands of them? Or, since they are smelly brown heathens, do their lives simply not count?

Are you out of your bloody minds?

When you kill people that are not attacking or threatening you or others, it's murder. Plain and bloody simple.

Anybody who calls himself a Christian should be fucking ashamed for even trying to justify this obscene shit. I would like to see Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz hung, sure, but there is no basis for that except the fact that I have something called ethics.

[Claydon]

Mate.


People fucking DIED. Does nobody care for the fucking fact that a hundred thousand or more people are DEAD as a result of incompetency and ignorance? "Petrol prices didn't go down" "Iraq's being returned to the Iraqis"; is that what you people care about? Is untold human suffering and misery a quantité negligéable for you people? You actually put politics and economics before not just human life, but thousands and thousands of them? Or, since they are smelly brown heathens, do their lives simply not count?

Are you out of your bloody minds?

When you kill people that are not attacking or threatening you or others, it's murder. Plain and bloody simple.

Anybody who calls himself a Christian should be fucking ashamed for even trying to justify this obscene shit. I would like to see Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz hung, sure, but there is no basis for that except the fact that I have something called ethics.


Yes, thousands did die, the majority of which were at the hand of their fellow countrymen in the name of their god. It was not the US or the Brits who dumped thousands of people boung, gagged and shot in the back of the head. I concur huge errors were made, however you are the one who goes on and on and on how arabs/muslims are invading the rest of the world and yet it was the US and the British who had the balls to actually attempt to do something about it. Did it work? Time will tell, again I would rather there be a corrupt democratic arab government vs a corrupt authoritarian government in the middle east.

[BIG PIZZLE]

Oh so it didnt take a few weeks, so we lost? How about we set up some sort of ideal, strawman war to prove wrong? We completely kicked ass during the initial invasion, which is the part I assume you are refering to. I dont see how MORE troops, initially, are going to subdue a population that you claim "hates us". Its going to give more targets, and therefor more media coverage of attacks against us, more resentment of American occupation. I would like you to tell me the perfect, ideal way to liberate a country, so next time, we can just follow your magic plan, that will overthrow the dictator, restore the peace, and lose less than 5000 american lives in less than 5 years, OH WAIT, THAT HAPPENED!!

No that hasnt happened. Dude, you're talking like the war is over. Even if the US gets out, it is going to be many years before people can piece their lives back together. But you're right, Iraq is totally stable and 5 years not that long a time to be at war. Please clarify, how is Iraq liberated? Because from what I hear, people cant even leave their homes. Is it because they dont have running water and they have to shit outdoors? Because I guess that can be liberating... I guess you're truely free when you're dead. Here's my plan (not that it's my FUCKING JOB to run a war): instead of lying to the american public and explicitly stating that the insurgency is in its final days (which was said back in 2005), man-up and realize that there needs to be a change of course. But I guess you enjoy being lied to. So just so we're clear, the surge worked or was that a bad idea? Or was it a good idea to invade, fall asleep and then pour in more troops only after you've had a chance to swallow your pride?

[Archangel]

George W Bush and his administration are directly and indirectly responsible for people dying. The Iraq war is a far bigger crime than 9/11. 100,000 dead Iraqis are worse than 3,000 dead Americans.

Get it into your fucking heads.

[Yelram]

Mate.


People fucking DIED. Does nobody care for the fucking fact that a hundred thousand or more people are DEAD as a result of incompetency and ignorance? "Petrol prices didn't go down" "Iraq's being returned to the Iraqis"; is that what you people care about? Is untold human suffering and misery a quantité negligéable for you people? You actually put politics and economics before not just human life, but thousands and thousands of them? Or, since they are smelly brown heathens, do their lives simply not count?

Are you out of your bloody minds?

When you kill people that are not attacking or threatening you or others, it's murder. Plain and bloody simple.

Anybody who calls himself a Christian should be fucking ashamed for even trying to justify this obscene shit. I would like to see Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz hung, sure, but there is no basis for that except the fact that I have something called ethics.

People died during the liberation of a country from the stranglehold of a dictators rule. We liberated those "smelly brown heathens" and AT A COST TO AMERICANS, in life, and money. While at the same time establishing a democratic ally in the middle east. I guess 30 million people freed means nothing? Better to live under a tyrants rule than fight for your own freedom? Its not as black and white as "people died". You know how many people die everyday for reasons that arent as lofty as the liberation of an oppressed peoples?

[Claydon]

Iraqs infrastructure was shit before the US came in, in fact US forces were stunned at the complete disaster of the iraqi infrastructure. Furthermore it was only Baghdad and the Sunni areas that enjoyed electricity 24/7 and water etc, all the shiite areas got screwed. There is a lot yet to do, and the corruption of the nascent government is greatly hindering progress. I do have to agree with obama on one thing, the central government has 80 billion plus, time to kick that shit down and start to employ people to building power lines, sewers etc.

[hatepoppy]

Anyone who thinks the Bush administration is savvy enough to deceive anyone into starting a war is a fucking moron.

This is simply gross incompetence. Which isn't a crime.

Sometimes, people, the simplest explanation is the correct one.

Or, put more clearly, what's the more likely scenario here? That Bush deceived Congress and 300 million Americans or that someone at the CIA fucked up and Bush didn't err on the side of caution?

Exactly.

i rambled a bit below, but just so the point isnt lost: the simplest answer is not always the best, especially in cases with missing/incomplete information or disinformation.

it is my personal opinion that we were deceived, and in accordance with that belief, that a more thorough investigation is necessary to determine culpability. considering those in power have already done a "thorough" investigation, it is unlikely we will ever know the facts.

the level of deceit necessary to get us to this day with the common perception of 9/11 and the war in iraq intact is so great and prevalent that any notion of this going to trial is laughable. if oj was acquitted based on a racist and a glove, theres no chance in fucking hell a jury would convict anyone actually responsible for 9/11.



to say the simplest explanation is the correct one is not decisive; who decides the definition of simplest? there is more to the story than we (as peons) know, and without that information we cannot perform an adequate assessment of the events in question.



and, more importantly, whats the motivation? cui bono (who benefits)?

to say the simplest explanation is most likely, consider a simple scenario.
- woman falls down stairs to her death.
simplest explanation: she tripped.

now consider the same situation with more information:
- woman falls down stairs to her death.
- woman's husband opens $1M life insurance policy that covers accidental death two weeks prior to 'accident.'

the additional piece of information paints an entirely new picture. are we to believe the opening of an insurance policy is mere coincidence? what's the odds? sure, this is circumstantial evidence, but it muddies the water enough that your simplest explanation is no longer practical. there IS no simple conclusion.



as an example of some things to muddy the water a bit:

how did the buildings fall at freefall speeds, perfectly vertically? this suggests controlled demolition, not a cascade collapse.

the 9/11 commision report, in the face of all physics and engineering, claims the towers fell bc of fire. if this is the case, how did three sky scrapers (WTC 1,2,7) fall as a result of fire in one day, when this has never happened once in HISTORY?

if the buildings fell bc of controlled demolition, why were we told otherwise? what is the reason for the lie? who would benefit? these are not questions i have complete answers to.

one piece of the story is that we have reason to go to war within a year of one of our highest executives (cheney) being elected into office when he was CEO of halliburton (a mulitinational energy conglomerate) for the 5 years prior to his election. what does it mean that the stock at halliburton has more than quadrupled since the cheney presidency (i mean vice presidency) began?

Facts:
- Larry Silverstein purchases WTC lease 6 months prior to 9/11/2001 for $3.2B
- The towers needed $200M in Rehab done to remove asbestos etc (NYC Port Authority attempted several times to obtain permits to demolish the towers, but were denied due to asbestos content. this left floor-by-floor deconstruction, which was far too costly. it is arguable that the only reason the towers existed on 9/11/2001 is because the Port Authority was legally prohibited from demolishing the buildings explosively).
- $200M roughly = 1yr Revenue from WTC Towers
- Silverstein purchased an insurance policy, covering terrorism specifically, in the amount of $3.55B.
- Silversten filed TWO claims on this policy, claiming each plane as a distinctly separate act of terrorism.
- In 2004, Manhattan US District court finds there were two acts of terrorism that day, agrees on sum of $4.6B payout.

Speculation:
how likely is it that a net profit of $1.6B ($4.6B Payout - $3.2B Purchase + $0.2B Rehab Savings) would just HAPPEN to be a result of this unforeseeable attack? if you'd agree that's unlikely, how did it happen? is silverstein connected w al qaeda? not likely. did he know about it ahead of time? more likely.

if he knew about it ahead of time, who told him?

like i said before, some of this is just speculation that requires assumptive incrimination. some of it is fact, and could be related to chance.

the fact that there is such opacity regarding what happened on 9/11 and since suggests deceit, and we'll never know the truth. shit we still dont 'know' what happened to either jack or bobby kennedy, or even marilyn monroe.

assuming, as alex jones so ridiculously and sensationally does, that '911 was an inside job!', those responsible are not impotent or stupid. look how thoroughly theyve got you (through the media) believeing their story. with that level of control over the media, how can anything else be argued as truth in a court of law? how likely is it that even ONE juror would even be receptive to an explanation of the events surrounding 9/11 and the iraq invasion (it's never been a war)? does one in 12 of the people reading this post even consider a conspiracy as a viable explanation? has even ONE PERSON (anybodyz?!? archz even???) given these ideas enough credit as to finish reading this post?

no? then what the fuck good would any trial do?

i voted yes, as i would like further investigation. but have no doubt it would not result in a conviction of anyone not currently incriminated.

[BIG PIZZLE]

Yes, thousands did die, the majority of which were at the hand of their fellow countrymen in the name of their god. It was not the US or the Brits who dumped thousands of people boung, gagged and shot in the back of the head. I concur huge errors were made, however you are the one who goes on and on and on how arabs/muslims are invading the rest of the world and yet it was the US and the British who had the balls to actually attempt to do something about it. Did it work? Time will tell, again I would rather there be a corrupt democratic arab government vs a corrupt authoritarian government in the middle east.

Time will tell? How many years? 50? 500? That's like saying only time will tell if contracting herpes is a good idea, because nobody likes a promiscuous husband. The fact of the matter is that it didnt work. Sure all will be forgotten when we're dead and gone but the Middle East, and one can argue the entire world, is much less stable because of this invasion and it is not going to get any better. But hey, Saddam Hussein and his sons are dead.

[Archangel]

Yes, thousands did die, the majority of which were at the hand of their fellow countrymen in the name of their god.

Hmm, yet those countrymen were not killing each other before you destroyed the country's infrastructure and let it fall into anarchy.

It was not the US or the Brits who dumped thousands of people boung, gagged and shot in the back of the head.

Yeah, you just created the conditions in which murderers could go about their business. If I open the lion cage, and the lions kill all the people in the zoo, it's not only the lions' fault.

I concur huge errors were made, however you are the one who goes on and on and on how arabs/muslims are invading the rest of the world and yet it was the US and the British who had the balls to actually attempt to do something about it.

So what exactly does Blackwater murdering women and children and US soldiers torturing people at Abu Ghraib "do about" the fact that millions of Muslims are moving to Europe, sucking our system dry and not integrating?

This, I'd love to hear. This is like saying that letting black people starve in Africa helps decrease teh crime rate in America's black ghettoes.

Not to mention the fact that the Muslims hate the West more than ever now BECAUSE of GI George's little cowboy stunt.

Did it work? Time will tell, again I would rather there be a corrupt democratic arab government vs a corrupt authoritarian government in the middle east.

The problem being that with the radicalisation of Islam, which, lest we forget, has increased tenfold since the invasion, a democratic Arab government is even more of a pipe dream than ever.

[Claydon]

Time will tell? How many years? 50? 500? That's like saying only time will tell if contracting herpes is a good idea, because nobody likes a promiscuous husband. The fact of the matter is that it didnt work. Sure all will be forgotten when we're dead and gone but the Middle East, and one can argue the entire world, is much less stable because of this invasion and it is not going to get any better. But hey, Saddam Hussein and his sons are dead.

yes time will tell, lets see if it failed in 10 to 20 years from now. If the government implodes and a massive civil war breaks out and another shiite government like iran is established than it did indeed fail.

[Claydon]

arch, the infrastructure was fucked before we rolled in. A combo of cheap oil, a massive embargo agreed to BY the UN since the early 90s, and saddam using his billions to make gold plated palaces. Iraq has two refineries all with very 1970s technology. Their main export oil terminal is straight out of the 1970s. The infrastructure was a COMPLETE disaster before US forces rolled into Iraq.

[redsox39]

This Whole thread:

FAIL

[Archangel]

People died during the liberation of a country from the stranglehold of a dictators rule. We liberated those "smelly brown heathens" and AT A COST TO AMERICANS, in life, and money. While at the same time establishing a democratic ally in the middle east. I guess 30 million people freed means nothing? Better to live under a tyrants rule than fight for your own freedom? Its not as black and white as "people died". You know how many people die everyday for reasons that arent as lofty as the liberation of an oppressed peoples?

You didn't liberate jack fucking shit. You built a viceroy's satrapial fucking palace fortress in their capital that is lit up like a Christmas tree while the rest of Baghdad has problems getting water and electricity. And trust me, they don't want your "freedom". Hardly anybody does, anymore.

Do you honestly believe the world falls for the notion that some jackass like Bush would sacrifice American lives for lofty ideals and the greateer good of all?
If that were the case, about 1/4 of the money that the Iraq war cost could have eradicated hunger and illiteracy in the world, and thus the main reasons for radicalism and corruption.

[Yelram]

No that hasnt happened. Dude, you're talking like the war is over. Even if the US gets out, it is going to be many years before people can piece their lives back together. But you're right, Iraq is totally stable and 5 years not that long a time to be at war. Please clarify, how is Iraq liberated? Because from what I hear, people cant even leave their homes. Is it because they dont have running water and they have to shit outdoors? Because I guess that can be liberating... I guess you're truely free when you're dead. Here's my plan (not that it's my FUCKING JOB to run a war): instead of lying to the american public and explicitly stating that the insurgency is in its final days (which was said back in 2005), man-up and realize that there needs to be a change of course. But I guess you enjoy being lied to. So just so we're clear, the surge worked or was that a bad idea? Or was it a good idea to invade, fall asleep and then pour in more troops only after you've had a chance to swallow your pride?

Where do you "hear" from? I cant find an Iraq war story after jan 2008. Cant leave their homes? No running water? Where are you getting this shit? Atleast post some sort of link. I swear everyone in the US is becoming a fucking ADDtard. He did change strategy, he "manned up", and everyone said he was dumb, and that it was "escalating" the war. War is always imperfect, there has never been an invasion/regime change as successful as this one.

[Archangel]

yes time will tell, lets see if it failed in 10 to 20 years from now. If the government implodes and a massive civil war breaks out and another shiite government like iran is established than it did indeed fail.
Oh, so let's roll the dice, and if 100,000 people died for nothing, hey, tough luck.

I thought I was a cynicist, but you people astonish even me.

arch, the infrastructure was fucked before we rolled in. A combo of cheap oil, a massive embargo agreed to BY the UN since the early 90s, and saddam using his billions to make gold plated palaces. Iraq has two refineries all with very 1970s technology. Their main export oil terminal is straight out of the 1970s. The infrastructure was a COMPLETE disaster before US forces rolled into Iraq.

Yeah, the fact that you bombed the country's communication centres, power stations, bridges, railways etc, TWICE, had NOTHING to do with it.

[Archangel]

Where do you "hear" from? I cant find an Iraq war story after jan 2008. Cant leave their homes? No running water? Where are you getting this shit? Atleast post some sort of link. I swear everyone in the US is becoming a fucking ADDtard. He did change strategy, he "manned up", and everyone said he was dumb, and that it was "escalating" the war. War is always imperfect, there has never been an invasion/regime change as successful as this one.

Seriously, get your head checked.


History goes back more than the founding of your fucking country. Just because you fucked up everything in foreign policy with the exception of WWII, does not mean that Iraq was anything less than a total disaster.

[Claydon]

Oh, so let's roll the dice, and if 100,000 people died for nothing, hey, tough luck.

I thought I was a cynicist, but you people astonish even me.



Yeah, the fact that you bombed the country's communication centres, power stations, bridges, railways etc, TWICE, had NOTHING to do with it.

As a person who supposedly served in the armed forces and is well versed in military tactics I am sure even your arrogant, thick headed european brain understands that you take out bridges etc to hinder the movement of enemy forces, and their means of communication.

[Claydon]

hahaha, yah arch, europe's history of foreign policy is fucking STELLAR!

that is SOOOOO rich!

[Archetype]

This Whole thread:

FAIL
No less fail than every fucking thread you start.

[Archangel]

As a person who supposedly served in the armed forces and is well versed in military tactics I am sure even your arrogant, thick headed european brain understands that you take out bridges etc to hinder the movement of enemy forces, and their means of communication.

Listen, you little nekulturny wannabe élitist retard, stop trying to fucking lecture me with your half-known factoids that you think makes you some expert.

You said that the US wasn't responsible for the destruction of Iraqi infrastructure. I told you it was, at least partly. I never said that it wasn't strategically expedient, for the sake of warfare, to do so: But what the fuck does that change for the fucking people living there WHY their roads are shot to shit?

[Archangel]

But yeah, it's a great success, the Iraqis who survived are dancing happy dances in the streets, the world is a safer place, and everybody loves America, which, as we all know, does no wrong.


What do they put in your water, over there?

[Archangel]

And when people die, hey, that's the cost of doing business. You know, at least Stalin and Hitler had a fucking purpose. I can't imagine the hatred I would feel if someone in my family died for some bumbling incompetent retard's half-baked bullshit.

[Archetype]

hahaha, yah arch, europe's history of foreign policy is fucking STELLAR!

that is SOOOOO rich!
Europe? Like all of Europe? Throughout it's history? Odd comparison.

[Yelram]

You didn't liberate jack fucking shit. You built a viceroy's satrapial fucking palace fortress in their capital that is lit up like a Christmas tree while the rest of Baghdad has problems getting water and electricity. And trust me, they don't want your "freedom". Hardly anybody does, anymore.

Do you honestly believe the world falls for the notion that some jackass like Bush would sacrifice American lives for lofty ideals and the greateer good of all?
If that were the case, about 1/4 of the money that the Iraq war cost could have eradicated hunger and illiteracy in the world, and thus the main reasons for radicalism and corruption.


So what exactly did we do this for? Mr "Russia is just protecting fucking russia". You sound like a fucking propaganda reel. You should just go to the mosque right now, and cut out the middle man. We went into Iraq, to insure that the spread of Radical Islam does not go unmatched. Eradicated hunger and illiteracy? ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED? 500 billion? Maybe for hunger for a week. illiteracy? We spend trillions on our education system, and you tell me how dumb all americans are. You think 500 billion would put a scratch in educating the muslim world? If we didnt do this for all the free oil we were going to steal, what did we do it for? Oh power right? Thats why we want to spread Nato, and have a missle defense shield right? To undermine mother russia?

[Titus_Pullo]

So should Clinton be tried for ordering bombings in Iraq because they refused to allow the UN weapons inspectors to enter the country and do their job?

[BIG PIZZLE]

Where do you "hear" from? I cant find an Iraq war story after jan 2008. Cant leave their homes? No running water? Where are you getting this shit? Atleast post some sort of link. I swear everyone in the US is becoming a fucking ADDtard. He did change strategy, he "manned up", and everyone said he was dumb, and that it was "escalating" the war. War is always imperfect, there has never been an invasion/regime change as successful as this one.

Take a look, if you have the chance to wipe cheney's man-goo out of your eyes.http://www.brookings.edu/saban/iraq-index.aspx
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/05/21/services/
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/04/11/redcross-iraq-070411.html
http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?ReportId=77455
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=42304
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/opinion/11zorpette.html
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/94781/iran_stepping_in_to_bring_electricity_to_iraq/

[Archangel]

It's funny how when Yelram runs out of arguments, he always brings out the "you're under the influence of propaganda" rubbish, as if we were living under Khrushchev here, and as if nobody knew that American media are at least as biased as ours.

[Yelram]

Seriously, get your head checked.


History goes back more than the founding of your fucking country. Just because you fucked up everything in foreign policy with the exception of WWII, does not mean that Iraq was anything less than a total disaster.

Your fucking country is not the same country as 500 fucking years ago toolbag. Get the lead out we bought, and rebuilt your "superior" country. First of all, a little more than 60 years ago, they would have killed you for being half Korean. But I guess they did broker that great foreign policy deal with Russia right? And then more recently they exchanged support for lifting sanctions on Iraq for oil. I suppose that was just to feed the poor starving Iraqi children. You are a child with a better vocabulary. I swear you've got a bad case of penis envy. As profitable as war may seem, we want a safe world, its better for business, and if we have to spend a shitload of money, and risk lives to do it, we will.

[Archangel]

Oh, and it's for another thread, but yes, the ONLY reason for your retarded missile shield which no one with any sense wants is to keep the Poles' lips firmly attached to your dicks.

[BIG PIZZLE]

Here's one with pictures.http://www.warphotographer.org/

[Archangel]

Your fucking country is not the same country as 500 fucking years ago toolbag. Get the lead out we bought, and rebuilt your "superior" country. First of all, a little more than 60 years ago, they would have killed you for being half Korean. But I guess they did broker that great foreign policy deal with Russia right? And then more recently they exchanged support for lifting sanctions for oil. I suppose that was just to feed the poor starving Iraqi children. You are a child with a better vocabulary. I swear you've got a bad case of penis envy. As profitable as war may seem, we want a safe world, its better for business, and if we have to spend a shitload of money, and risk lives to do it, we will.

Um, actually, your knowledge of history sucks. Seeing as how Korea was part of the Japanese Empire - Hitler's ally - until 1945, and I am not mentally infirm, nobody would have killed me.

Except maybe your bombs.

And I laugh at you telling me how you want peace and love for the world. Seriously. And my penis envy, which doesn't exist because you don't impress me at all, is nothing compared to the envy you SHOULD feel for the fact that none of our people go on camera and talk about "woo-hoo, Obama's a terr'st, man! Bomb them there terr'sts in Irelan!!!"

[Kilgore]

I really don't think the country needs this. Besides I really think that he worked in the gray areas of the law, and maybe bent some rules but didn't break any and if he did not on the level of war crimes. This is coming from a very liberal person.

Besides in 2019 who is going to run the hurricane relieve with Obama when HW and Bill are gone?

[redsox39]

So should Clinton be tried for ordering bombings in Iraq because they refused to allow the UN weapons inspectors to enter the country and do their job?


If Goes Bush, then goes Clinton...

[Yelram]

Take a look, if you have the chance to wipe cheney's man-goo out of your eyes.http://www.brookings.edu/saban/iraq-index.aspx
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/05/21/services/
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/04/11/redcross-iraq-070411.html
http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?ReportId=77455
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=42304
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/opinion/11zorpette.html
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/94781/iran_stepping_in_to_bring_electricity_to_iraq/

http://www.brookings.edu/saban/~/media/Files/Centers/Saban/Iraq%20Index/index20080828.pdf

You didnt read it though did you? Because there is now MORE electricity available MORE often than BEFORE THE US EVER ENTERED THE COUNTRY YOU FUCKING TOOL.

Heres telephone connection and internet use
http://www.brookings.edu/saban/~/media/Files/Centers/Saban/Iraq%20Index/index20080828.pdf

Pay attention, stop being manipulated by the media.

[Archangel]

The ONE THING America cares about is American interests. If democracy in the world benefits you, cool.
But if, say, the destruction of Paris would get the Dow back to 12k tomorrow, the French had better wear some sunblock.


The thing is, that's fine. Everybody should look out for themselves. But don't make it sound like you're the fucking Messiah.

[Archangel]

Pay attention, stop being manipulated by the media.

Yeah, be manipulated by Cheney instead!

[Phil Theehor]

We went into Iraq, to insure that the spread of Radical Islam does not go unmatched.

Not to gang up on you, Yelram, but I think you are off base here.

Sadaam was a bad guy, but to say that we were fighting radical Islam by toppling him is silly. He was a thoroughly secular leader who, through brutal measures, actually kept the radical Islamists in line within his borders.

When he stirred up trouble, it was largely for economic gain or to bolster his standing within his region, not because Allah told him to.

Removing Sadaam has actually stirred up radical islamists moreso than they already were.

[Yelram]

Um, actually, your knowledge of history sucks. Seeing as how Korea was part of the Japanese Empire - Hitler's ally - until 1945, and I am not mentally infirm, nobody would have killed me.

Except maybe your bombs.

And I laugh at you telling me how you want peace and love for the world. Seriously. And my penis envy, which doesn't exist because you don't impress me at all, is nothing compared to the envy you SHOULD feel for the fact that none of our people go on camera and talk about "woo-hoo, Obama's a terr'st, man! Bomb them there terr'sts in Irelan!!!"

Noone wants to talk to your people, hence the penis envy. The fact that you use shit like that to determine what people in the US are like is fucking pathetic, and it emphasizes my point about how easily manipulated you are.

[Archangel]

No one wants to talk to whom? About what?

Is making sense always optional to you when you're discussing things?

[Phil Theehor]

The ONE THING America cares about is American interests. If democracy in the world benefits you, cool.
But if, say, the destruction of Paris would get the Dow back to 12k tomorrow, the French had better wear some sunblock.


Do you think that would work? Sounds like a win-win.

[Yelram]

The ONE THING America cares about is American interests. If democracy in the world benefits you, cool.
But if, say, the destruction of Paris would get the Dow back to 12k tomorrow, the French had better wear some sunblock.


The thing is, that's fine. Everybody should look out for themselves. But don't make it sound like you're the fucking Messiah.

And please show me how we benefitted from the last several wars we've been in. If you cant, shut the fuck up, because you are talking out of your ass.

[Yelram]

Not to gang up on you, Yelram, but I think you are off base here.

Sadaam was a bad guy, but to say that we were fighting radical Islam by toppling him is silly. He was a thoroughly secular leader who, through brutal measures, actually kept the radical Islamists in line within his borders.

When he stirred up trouble, it was largely for economic gain or to bolster his standing within his region, not because Allah told him to.

Removing Sadaam has actually stirred up radical islamists moreso than they already were.

Do I have to get out a map? Okay, the problem with radical islam, is that it is not restrained to one flag, so typical war strategies do not work, the key is to get your opponent WHERE YOU WANT THEM.
http://www.lonelyplanet.com/maps/middle-east/iraq/map_of_iraq.jpg

[Archangel]

And please show me how we benefitted from the last several wars we've been in. If you cant, shut the fuck up, because you are talking out of your ass.

Permanent troop staging in Qatar and the Kingdom, for one. Or the extension of your influence sphere into Japan and Korea. It's not their fault that you never saw them overtaking you industrially.
As for Vietnam, hey, you probably thought you could get a shitload of cheap papayas when your puppet regime won. Too bad they had other ideas.

[Archangel]

Do I have to get out a map? Okay, the problem with radical islam, is that it is not restrained to one flag, so typical war strategies do not work, the key is to get your opponent WHERE YOU WANT THEM.
http://www.lonelyplanet.com/maps/middle-east/iraq/map_of_iraq.jpg

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...


Because the bombings in London

http://www.bedandbreakfasts.co.uk/maps/london-postcode-map.gif

and Madrid

http://www.gomadrid.com/images/madrid-comm.jpg

didn't come AFTER the invasion, or anything.

Seriously, great job, guys.

You know, when you wanna play World Police, it might be a good idea not to have the Keystone fucking Kops run the show.

[hatepoppy]

If Goes Bush, then goes Clinton...
the irony is that your statement is more representative of the truth than your intention.

[Yelram]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...


Because the bombings in London

http://www.bedandbreakfasts.co.uk/maps/london-postcode-map.gif

and Madrid

http://www.gomadrid.com/images/madrid-comm.jpg

didn't come AFTER the invasion, or anything.

Seriously, great job, guys.

You know, when you wanna play World Police, it might be a good idea not to have the Keystone fucking Kops run the show.

And why did they happen? Because those countries supported a war, that the extremists saw as a THREAT. I suppose when you wage a war against someone, they are supposed to be real nice to you, right?

[Archangel]

This is your mistake.


Not a threat.

A blasphemy.




BIG difference.

[Yelram]

Permanent troop staging in Qatar and the Kingdom, for one. Or the extension of your influence sphere into Japan and Korea. It's not their fault that you never saw them overtaking you industrially.
As for Vietnam, hey, you probably thought you could get a shitload of cheap papayas when your puppet regime won. Too bad they had other ideas.


Right, exactly, when we play diplomacy, we're the bad guys, when we fight a war, we're the bad guys. You just need someone to blame, and if we do that for you, and let you sleep better at night, so be it.

[Archangel]

When did you play diplomacy without gunboats?

[Yelram]

When did you play diplomacy without gunboats?

Show me where Qatar did not want us there

[BIG PIZZLE]

http://www.brookings.edu/saban/~/media/Files/Centers/Saban/Iraq%20Index/index20080828.pdf

You didnt read it though did you? Because there is now MORE electricity available MORE often than BEFORE THE US EVER ENTERED THE COUNTRY YOU FUCKING TOOL.

Heres telephone connection and internet use
http://www.brookings.edu/saban/~/media/Files/Centers/Saban/Iraq%20Index/index20080828.pdf

Pay attention, stop being manipulated by the media.


That's great. Now this kid can watch 2 hours of MTV a night. I'm sure he's stoked!
http://www.appletreeblog.com/wp-content/2007/07/amputee.jpg

[hatepoppy]

And please show me how we benefitted from the last several wars we've been in. If you cant, shut the fuck up, because you are talking out of your ass.
you've got to consider who 'we' are. you and everyone you know may not have benefitted, but as is clear from your stance on this subject, you and everyone you know was not involved in the deceit.

look at the stock portfolios of multinational corporations in the energy and military-industrial fields. ask yourself if dick cheney or david rockefeller lost money in the past decade. as stated earlier, when developing a list of suspects in a crime, look for who benefits the most (or who had the greatest motivation). it's circumstantial, but a damned good place to start.

all your assertion that it is unthinkable that anyone benefitted from 9/11 or the iraq invasion suggests is that you have no knowledge of said benefit or the means through which it was obtained.

arch, you have to understand that the vast goddamned majority of people are incapable of uncomfortable thought.
"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists."

hoover is one person i'd consider an american authority on the possibility of deceit, propaganda, and misinformation.

[Archangel]

arch, you have to understand that the vast goddamned majority of people are incapable of uncomfortable thought.

I'm German, remember? Uncomfortable thoughts have been our bread and butter for, oh, 84 years now...

[Claydon]

That's great. Now this kid can watch 2 hours of MTV a night. I'm sure he's stoked!
http://www.appletreeblog.com/wp-content/2007/07/amputee.jpg

nice, clap clap... so was it by US forces or some ass fuck with c4 and ball bearings strapped to his chest.

would you like to see pics of the mass graves under sadaam when he eliminated 500,000+?

[Archangel]

Because there is absolutely no corellation whatsoever between the US invasion, the collapse of the country, and the hundreds of "ass fucks" running around with Semtex jackets.

[Claydon]

Because there is absolutely no corellation whatsoever between the US invasion, the collapse of the country, and the hundreds of "ass fucks" running around with Semtex jackets.

actually there is, hence I say bush should be bitch slapped for mismanagement. You assume incorrectly that i am a flag waving american that says "AMERICA! FUCK YAH!!" Bush fucked this thing royally until about 2 years ago, and finally got on the right track. He and the administration actually believed that they would be done with Iraq in a little under 6 months. I remember hearing that in 2003 thinking...yah right.

[Archangel]

Well, as successful as the surge was, it still took potential money and troops away from where they were actually needed: Afghanistan.

[Pharon]

actually there is, hence I say bush should be bitch slapped for mismanagement. You assume incorrectly that i am a flag waving american that says "AMERICA! FUCK YAH!!" Bush fucked this thing royally until about 2 years ago, and finally got on the right track. He and the administration actually believed that they would be done with Iraq in a little under 6 months. I remember hearing that in 2003 thinking...yah right.
Just because they managed to not continue this colossal fuck up doesn't mean they are "on the right track" -- it still does not justify going in there in the first place. Reminds me of that old Harry Browne quote:
Government is good at one thing: It knows how to break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say, "See, if it weren't for the government, you wouldn't be able to walk."

[Claydon]

I disagree, the problem is pakistan. Do we dare send forces into pakistan? Wouldn't you and the rest of your euro douchebags rape us for sending forces into pakistan's territory? Marines are currently deploying in large numbers to afghanistan. A kid who works at my office has 2 tours under his belt in iraq and has been recalled now for afghanistan. He leaves with the marines out of 29 palms middle of next month for a 13 month deployment in afghanistan.

[Axel]

you've got to consider who 'we' are. you and everyone you know may not have benefitted, but as is clear from your stance on this subject, you and everyone you know was not involved in the deceit.

look at the stock portfolios of multinational corporations in the energy and military-industrial fields. ask yourself if dick cheney or david rockefeller lost money in the past decade. as stated earlier, when developing a list of suspects in a crime, look for who benefits the most (or who had the greatest motivation).My thoughts exactly: “follow the money”

By some weird coincidence energy and war industry lobbies, which profited the most, were those who largely founded Bush election campaigns.

For instance, Exxon made a huge profit only out of increase of oil prices - a foreseen collateral effect of the 2nd Gulf War. A kind of reverse social transfer out of every American’s pocket.

And now Obama wants to take that back? Communist!

[Archangel]

Wasn't your fearless leader chums with that Musharraf fellow, always extolling him as a great ally in the fight against terror?


Oh, and us Euro douchebags are primarily pissed off these days about Dubya actually shooting up Syria.

[hatepoppy]

I'm German, remember? Uncomfortable thoughts have been our bread and butter for, oh, 84 years now...
what if someone suggested it was actually an underground nazi organization in germany that concocted the scheme to get america to invade the middle east. american occupation in the eyes of a muslim extremist is quite similar to jewish occupation, considering the west's relationship with teh j00z. the occupation was designed to push iran to strike in israel and wipem the fuck out, so the bushz (i mean nazis) can wipe out the dirty arabs once and for all?

now, i know i made that all up on the spot, and its damned retarded. but the difference is your uncomfortable thoughts are public knowledge. fuck, dont you get arrested for publicly denying the holocaust over there?

what i'm talking about is the fact that most people see something like the list of inconsistencies provided by the Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth (shown at right (http://www.ae911truth.org/)), and are simply unable to accept the possibility of truth therein because it's just too big for them. their life is predicated upon certain truths, and for some, those truths are baseball, apple pai, chevrolet, and their political party. anything in direct contradiction of the reality with which theyve built their lives simply cannot be true.

see if yelram doesnt call me some variation of a retarded fucking douchebag for calling him closed minded.

the violent, ignorant defense of the new normalcy in america (patriot act, $4/gal gasoline, 900% foreclosure rate, billion dollar bailouts of INTERNATIONAL BANKERS AND GAMBLERS) is what those pulling the strings are counting on. and theyre getting it hand over fist.

[Claydon]

Wasn't your fearless leader chums with that Musharraf fellow, always extolling him as a great ally in the fight against terror?


Oh, and us Euro douchebags are primarily pissed off these days about Dubya actually shootin up Syria.

Syria threatens the progress in Iraq, so yah, fuck them.

Yes, bush was chums with him for far too long. He even declared pakistan to be our best ally, which is such bullshit. I believe it was the brits who who had men and equipment in iraq and afghanistan. I believe it was the brits that currently has what 8,000 or more troops in afghanistan.

Germans....not so much (with regards to afghanistan)

[Archangel]

Um, actually, Germany is the third largest troop contingent in Afghanistan; also, our parliament just voted on prolonging the mission until 2010, and increasing the number of troops to 4,500. The Brits are at around 6,500, I think.

[Distortion]

Heres 10 good reasons to impeach him, take your pick


1. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal "War of Aggression" against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization, and subjecting our military personnel to unnecessary harm, debilitating injuries, and deaths.

2. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

3. Violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel.

4. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.

5. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant.

6. Violating the Constitution by using "signing statements" to defy hundreds of laws passed by Congress.

7. Violating U.S. and state law by obstructing honest elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006.

8. Violating U.S. law by using paid propaganda and disinformation, selectively and misleadingly leaking classified information, and exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative working on sensitive WMD proliferation for political retribution.

9. Subverting the Constitution and abusing Presidential power by asserting a "Unitary Executive Theory" giving unlimited powers to the President, by obstructing efforts by Congress and the Courts to review and restrict Presidential actions, and by promoting and signing legislation negating the Bill of Rights and the Writ of Habeas Corpus.
10. Gross negligence in failing to assist New Orleans residents after Hurricane Katrina, in ignoring urgent warnings of an Al Qaeda attack prior to Sept. 11, 2001, and in increasing air pollution causing global warming.

He's the biggest piece of shit to ever hold office, he's a disgrace to our country. And anyone still backing him up and supporting what he's done because you don't want to admit your an idiot for backing him up in the first place, is an even bigger disgrace and piece of shit and shouldn't vote this election because obviously you have shit for judgement

[hatepoppy]

He's the biggest piece of shit to ever hold office, he's a disgrace to our country. And anyone still backing him up and supporting what he's done because you don't want to admit your an idiot for backing him up in the first place, is an even bigger disgrace and piece of shit


impeachment is a whole separate argument. this is a discussion of war crimes, which could result in far more dire consequences than simple removal from office.

whether he's the biggest piece of shit to ever hold office is up for debate. i think youre grossly overestimating most of his predecessors.

[Mustard]

impeachment is a whole separate argument. this is a discussion of war crimes, which could result in far more dire consequences than simple removal from office.
Almost exactly what I was gonna say.

Now, I would have been giddy if Pelosi had drafted impeachment proceedings, but it didn't happen, boo hoo, waahh, oh fucking well. So thats why I brought up the idea of war crimes instead of impeachment. Bush can't be impeached when he's out of office, but he can still be charged with war crimes even after he leaves office.

It will be interesting to hear what Bush says on his final address as POTUS. Will Obama if elected have a little chat with him saying, "come clean and admit your full responsibility for all of your fuck ups, or I'm gonna lay the wood on your candy ass."? I recall a sort of similar discussion that Bush had with Clinton as Clintion was about to leave office a little over 8 years ago, and Clniton did make a statement something akin to admitting responsibility for his transgressions. I just wonder if the same thing would happen again? I guess we will see in the next 3 months.

[Phil Theehor]

Do I have to get out a map? Okay, the problem with radical islam, is that it is not restrained to one flag, so typical war strategies do not work, the key is to get your opponent WHERE YOU WANT THEM.
http://www.lonelyplanet.com/maps/middle-east/iraq/map_of_iraq.jpg

I'm not sure I get where you are going with that. From a strictly pragmatic standpoint, we would want a brutal, secular Sadaam-like dictator running every mideast country. They would then serve as the primary target of all of the region's anger. And all the little Sadaams would fight each other. And they would keep their little Mullahs in line.

And, we would buy oil at a fair market price from whomever is in power. We're the world's biggest oil market (for now). The oil would find its way here, trust me on that.

I see nothing but wins here. In fact, that's something that Dutch <bows head> did so well. If you were an evil dictator but you kept a proper lid on all of your country's assholes, Dutch didn't fuck with you.

Now, many of you will start weeping at the thought of playing live and let live on international stage ("But, Phil, dictators are mean to their people").

What do I say to that? Fuck that. What goes in within your borders is your business. You, the citizens of Lowrentistan, are responsible for your own destiny. We are not.

And do you know why not? Because we don't know what's best for your country. What we have works here. It works beautifully. But who the fuck are we to say that we know better than you how you should run your country?

The only time we should have a say in what goes on outside of our borders is when someone is pointing a gun at us. In that case, we should disarm them. If it is a repeat offender, immolate them. With that said, if we stayed the fuck out of other people's business, we might find less guns pointing at us over time.

[Feng]

Why was Clinton seriously considered for impeachment because he got a blow job in the oval office, yet impeachment has never been considered for Bush? I'm guessing it's because America still has a much greater fondness for war and violence than sex and orgasm.

[Claydon]

Why was Clinton seriously considered for impeachment because he got a blow job in the oval office, yet impeachment has never been considered for Bush? I'm guessing it's because America still has a much greater fondness for war and violence than sex and orgasm.

Blow job no, perjury in a court of law, yes.

[hatepoppy]

I'm not sure I get where you are going with that. From a strictly pragmatic standpoint, we would want a brutal, secular Sadaam-like dictator running every mideast country. They would then serve as the primary target of all of the region's anger. And all the little Sadaams would fight each other. And they would keep their little Mullahs in line.

And, we would buy oil at a fair market price from whomever is in power. We're the world's biggest oil market (for now). The oil would find its way here, trust me on that.

I see nothing but wins here. In fact, that's something that Dutch <bows head> did so well. If you were an evil dictator but you kept a proper lid on all of your country's assholes, Dutch didn't fuck with you.

Now, many of you will start weeping at the thought of playing live and let live on international stage ("But, Phil, dictators are mean to their people").

What do I say to that? Fuck that. What goes in within your borders is your business. You, the citizens of Lowrentistan, are responsible for your own destiny. We are not.

And do you know why not? Because we don't know what's best for your country. What we have works here. It works beautifully. But who the fuck are we to say that we know better than you how you should run your country?

The only time we should have a say in what goes on outside of our borders is when someone is pointing a gun at us. In that case, we should disarm them. If it is a repeat offender, immolate them. With that said, if we stayed the fuck out of other people's business, we might find less guns pointing at us over time.

the real idea is to
- break their shit.
- loan them money to fix it
- loan thm more money to build industry
- call in our loans like a shark by forcibly occupying, placing military bases, or enforcing 'conditionalities' - like oil 50% off!

[CarsyCarsten]

I disagree, the problem is pakistan. Do we dare send forces into pakistan? Wouldn't you and the rest of your euro douchebags rape us for sending forces into pakistan's territory? Marines are currently deploying in large numbers to afghanistan. A kid who works at my office has 2 tours under his belt in iraq and has been recalled now for afghanistan. He leaves with the marines out of 29 palms middle of next month for a 13 month deployment in afghanistan.Don't they send you to abu ghraib for giving such information in public? Or Guantanamo Bay?

[Archangel]

It's pretty bad fucking OPSEC, that much is for certain.

[Feng]

Blow job no, perjury in a court of law, yes.

And what was he in a "court of law" for???

[Claydon]

And what was he in a "court of law" for???

sexual harassment of a state employee while he was governor of arkansas.

[Feng]

Exactly...

And what court was Bush in for invading a foreign country under false pretense? Or for condoning torture and throwing out the Geneva conventions? Now check out this drive.

[Morfin]

Exactly...

And what court was Bush in for invading a foreign country under false pretense? Or for condoning torture and throwing out the Geneva conventions? Now check out this drive.

Holy Non Sequitur, Batman! Someone forgot to take his rationality pills today. The voices are strong in this one's head.

[Limp]

fuld?

[fuldstændigamok]

fuld?

Mongo always agree with me. Whatever the issue. I think that he has a secret crush on me.

[redsox39]

Almost exactly what I was gonna say.

Now, I would have been giddy if Pelosi had drafted impeachment proceedings, but it didn't happen, boo hoo, waahh, oh fucking well. So thats why I brought up the idea of war crimes instead of impeachment. Bush can't be impeached when he's out of office, but he can still be charged with war crimes even after he leaves office.

It will be interesting to hear what Bush says on his final address as POTUS. Will Obama if elected have a little chat with him saying, "come clean and admit your full responsibility for all of your fuck ups, or I'm gonna lay the wood on your candy ass."? I recall a sort of similar discussion that Bush had with Clinton as Clintion was about to leave office a little over 8 years ago, and Clniton did make a statement something akin to admitting responsibility for his transgressions. I just wonder if the same thing would happen again? I guess we will see in the next 3 months.

Damn, you are one vengeful Fatty!

[The Batman]

Blow job no, perjury in a court of law, yes.

Come on. We all know its really about the BJ. Yes, perjury was the "reason" for the impeachment, but its because he got a BJ and everyone else didn't. And you also know if anyone deserves an impeachment its Bush.

[The Batman]

Holy Non Sequitur, Batman! Someone forgot to take his rationality pills today. The voices are strong in this one's head.

But, didn't bush invade a foreign country under false pretense? Whether he knew it or not? And didn't we torture people which basically threw out the Geneva convention? I don't see where he is off. Please explain.

[Pharon]

But, didn't bush invade a foreign country under false pretense? Whether he knew it or not?
If he didn't know it then, by definition, it's not false pretense. You need intent for that.

[The Batman]

If he didn't know it then, by definition, it's not false pretense. You need intent for that.

But it was gross incompetence that created this false pretense. That’s a big problem, but your right, being dumb is not necessarily intent, but it doesn't mean you should get away with things.

[Morfin]

Blow job no, perjury in a court of law, yes.

And what was he in a "court of law" for???

sexual harassment of a state employee while he was governor of arkansas.

Exactly...

And what court was Bush in for invading a foreign country under false pretense? Or for condoning torture and throwing out the Geneva conventions? Now check out this drive.

Holy Non Sequitur, Batman! Someone forgot to take his rationality pills today. The voices are strong in this one's head.

But, didn't bush invade a foreign country under false pretense? Whether he knew it or not? And didn't we torture people which basically threw out the Geneva convention? I don't see where he is off. Please explain.

If I must, here you go. 1) "Exactly" does not logically follow the answer to the question.

2) "This sentence makes no sense whatsoever."

3) After apparently listening Bush's "war crimes," he suddenly writes, "Now check out this drive." Non sequitur extraordinaire. So, I followed with the mudane (but amusing to me) Batman reference.

4) You looked at the substance of the post, I looked at the writing.

[Distortion]

Director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction. Bush dismissed this as worthless information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted. Bush suppressed vital information and knowingly misled congress and the american people into a war under false pretense that cost the lives of thousands of american soldiers. Not only should he be tried for war crimes for the invasion and the way he conducted the war, the mother fucker should be tried for treason and hanged

[Rover]

Almost exactly what I was gonna say.

Now, I would have been giddy if Pelosi had drafted impeachment proceedings, but it didn't happen, boo hoo, waahh, oh fucking well. So thats why I brought up the idea of war crimes instead of impeachment. Bush can't be impeached when he's out of office, but he can still be charged with war crimes even after he leaves office.

It will be interesting to hear what Bush says on his final address as POTUS. Will Obama if elected have a little chat with him saying, "come clean and admit your full responsibility for all of your fuck ups, or I'm gonna lay the wood on your candy ass."? I recall a sort of similar discussion that Bush had with Clinton as Clintion was about to leave office a little over 8 years ago, and Clniton did make a statement something akin to admitting responsibility for his transgressions. I just wonder if the same thing would happen again? I guess we will see in the next 3 months.Impeachment? You must be letting your hate cloud your judgement. On what high crime or treason would you want this impeachment based? Whether you want to admit it or not, most of the stuff you hate the President for doing was rubber stamped by a Congress that is afraid of it's own shadow. Democrats just as much as Republicans went along for George W. Bush's wild west Texas rodeo.

Bush wasn't acting alone. Congress was with him lock step.

Bush: We need to attack Iraq and Afghanistan.
Congress: Finally! We should have attacked sooner. We're bigger Hawks than you are. The People love Hawks.

Congress: We hate FISA and think it takes away civil liberties.
Bush: Pass FISA.
Congress: Yessa massa Bush.

The only time we should have a say in what goes on outside of our borders is when someone is pointing a gun at us. In that case, we should disarm them. If it is a repeat offender, immolate them. With that said, if we stayed the fuck out of other people's business, we might find less guns pointing at us over time.
This mindset might work in whatever Utopia you currently find yourself in, but here in the real world there are dangerous countries and people, who would just as soon kill you.

At what point should the UK have interacted with Germany? Because according to your philosophy, they should have ignored Germany, until the air raids started.

[Yelram]

Director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction. Bush dismissed this as worthless information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted. Bush suppressed vital information and knowingly misled congress and the american people into a war under false pretense that cost the lives of thousands of american soldiers. Not only should he be tried for war crimes for the invasion and the way he conducted the war, the mother fucker should be tried for treason and hanged

You are DUMB!!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/18/woodward.book/index.html

And during the 9/11 commission, tenet said he didnt even MEET with Bush prior to 9/11 a blatant lie.. I mean mispeak on his part.

[Morfin]

Director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction. Bush dismissed this as worthless information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted. Bush suppressed vital information and knowingly misled congress and the american people into a war under false pretense that cost the lives of thousands of american soldiers. Not only should he be tried for war crimes for the invasion and the way he conducted the war, the mother fucker should be tried for treason and hanged

Okay. Not trying to be a troll here, but answer me a question that I would like to know the answer to: Let's assume that Bush did ignore the Tenet info. Didn't Congress have the duty and the ability to check what it is being told, to be briefed by Tenet and whomever else it needs to be briefed by? I'm not saying that I believe Bush is blameless -- far from it. What I am considering is Congress' responsibility as well.

It is well-documented how few of the congresspersons even took the time to read the report. That, in and of itself, is a gross dereliction of their duty. But they, or at least a committee, also has the oversight in intelligence to receive the same briefing that Bush received, didn't it?

[Distortion]

Okay. Not trying to be a troll here, but answer me a question that I would like to know the answer to: Let's assume that Bush did ignore the Tenet info. Didn't Congress have the duty and the ability to check what it is being told, to be briefed by Tenet and whomever else it needs to be briefed by? I'm not saying that I believe Bush is blameless -- far from it. What I am considering is Congress' responsibility as well.

It is well-documented how few of the congresspersons even took the time to read the report. That, in and of itself, is a gross dereliction of their duty. But they, or at least a committee, also has the oversight in intelligence to receive the same briefing that Bush received, didn't it?

I'd have to agree, it's there responsibility to know whats going on and get the correct info, but all they go off of is what is presented to them, they don't go digging. So if all they get is manufactured intelligence then of course they're job is pointless. But should they have to go digging? They shouldn't be getting biased intelligence reports and people on the presidents staff refusing to testify or answer questions about whats really happenings. Congress doesn't necessarily hear all the things that bush hears. Bush's staff reports to him not congress. Theres no oversight committee that deals with overseeing what bush knows.

When did we get to the point that lieing and deceit is so common among the leaders of our country that we're completely ok with it and even defend them as long as too many lines aren't crossed. These are suppose to be the people who lead us and run our country, there should be zero tolerance for corruption on any level.

[Yelram]

I'd have to agree, it's there responsibility to know whats going on and get the correct info, but all they go off of is what is presented to them, they don't go digging. So if all they get is manufactured intelligence then of course they're job is pointless. But should they have to go digging? They shoulding be getting biased intelligence reports and people on the presidents staff refusing to testify or answer questions about whats really happenings. Congress doesn't necessarily hear all the things that bush hears. Bush's staff reports to him not congress. Theres no oversight committee that deals with overseeing what bush knows.

Did you not notice that what you posted has been proven, BY CNN nonetheless, to be an absolute pile of crap? Or do you not care?

http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv

And what about this??

[VoxAngelikus]

George Bush is trying to pardon....

himself?

9RwoFcLgxA0&

[Distortion]

Did you not notice that what you posted has been proven, BY CNN nonetheless, to be an absolute pile of crap? Or do you not care?

http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv

And what about this??


and show me where cnn completely disproves this...

that video proves about as much as a michael moore movie, good job

[Lone Wolf]

There are crimes all over the administration, but I'm not sure how many of them are war crimes.

[kid_vidrio]

If you see someone beating the shit out of someone, and you could go in and lay a whipping on the asshole, would you?
My issue was not with kicking Saddam's ass, it is with the deception.
I could get behind the idea of changing the rules. No longer would we have to wait until engaged by others in war, we could just go and set things right.
But to make up the big story, then get encumbered and go pear shaped....it's a travesty.
Seriously, if W had just said 'what do you think America, shall we kick Saddam's ass just for the hell of it?' he'd have had unmitigated support. But all the yellow cake and WMD's and such. What a drag.