T Nation

George W Bush Is A War Criminal

Very simple;

  1. Gross Violations of Geneva Convention
    i.e. Torture, lack of legal representation, killing enemy soldier who was injured (Falluja), holding without just cause, etc.

  2. Illegal invasion of Iraq
    i.e. Act of aggression, same charges used at Nuremberg

  3. Use of Chemical Weapons
    i.e. Uranium shells

If America had any true moral courage we would be in the streets demanding the impeachment of Bush.
Flanker

I am kinda gitty thinking about all the flames this thread will get.

Bush isn’t a war criminal. What he is guilty of is falling for a bunch of crackheaded neo-conservatives who thought invading Iraq would cause the middle east to turn into one big happy democracy.

Democracy? no. Giant Al Qaeda recruitment poster? yes.

  1. Geneva Convention doesn’t apply to terrorists. They don’t play by the rules. If it was one country versus another country in a war, the GC would apply. With terrorists with no “home base” or any type of dignity, it doesn’t apply

2)Saddam violated the resolutions. If you are Pro-Saddam, go give money to his lawyers to help free him, you Nazi.

3)I have no idea what your talking about on that one. Maybe its liberal media.

I’m sick of people complaining about Bush. GTFO of America if you think its so bad. Stock market is going up, oil prices are dropping, and things are going good. Its okay to see good things with our economy. It doesn’t have to be bad. I know liberals love to see America fall (liberals = domestic terrorists) and bitch about everything, but you won’t win. Sorry.

Arnold in '08 (and yes, there will be an amendment to let a foreigner run for President. Lots of our founding fathers were foreign)

uranium isn’t a chemical.

Oh boy oh boy oh boy. Another nut to deal with. And yes I think you are a nut job.

First of all, naturalatlas82 was absolutely right that the Geneva Convention only applies to people who follow certain rules, like wearing a uniform, and fighting for a country. None of the terrorists qualify, and many if not all of the Iraqi forces, most of which were not even picked up.

Did you know that pretending to be dead violates the Geneva Convention, and therefore the “soldier” cannot be given Geneva Convention rights?

Now that you have made the accusation, you need to prove it, otherwise what I said about you being a nutcase is true. You must show that the Geneva Convention was violated, and where. Just saying it does not make it true.

Your second point about the “illegal” invasion does not hold up. We had the full authority based on the cease fire agreement of which Saddam violated every day simply by firing on American planes flying over Iraq. Again you will have to prove this, and you cannot with the cease fire agreement. (However I don?t think it is right for naturalatlas82 to call you a Nazi.)

On the third point, the Uranium shells are not chemical weapons, and should be called Depleted Uranium shells. Just calling them Uranium shells makes it sound worse then it actually is. The reason that Depleted Uranium material is used is because it is virtually free. Last I could find, 17 countries were using these Depleted Uranium shells, and that number was growing. The radiation is so week that it can be stopped by a piece of paper.

Exploding the material does release the radiation into the air as a dust, but I would not be worried about that.

Did you know that if you live in a stone, brick, or adobe home, you increase your exposure to radiation by 7 millirems per year? (1.94% increase) And you can get 2 millirems in an 8 hour period just by sleeping next to another person because of the radiation given off by the other person. (This is due to potasium

Now exactly why does it matter if they are killed by a bomb with a little more radiation in it? Either way they are dead.

(I searched to find out how much radiation was created by exploding a depleted shell, and while I found a whole bunch of anti war sites complaining about the radiation, and making a wide variety of claims about radiation produced, none would give the millirems. Evidence they didn?t even know, and their information is suspect.

This is not about “moral courage”, as you say, but a group of “useful idiots” spreading propaganda.

[quote]Soco wrote:

Bush isn’t a war criminal. What he is guilty of is falling for a bunch of crackheaded neo-conservatives who thought invading Iraq would cause the middle east to turn into one big happy democracy.

Democracy? no. Giant Al Qaeda recruitment poster? yes.

[/quote]

Moving past the original post in this thread…I agree with this statement. I think many of us with more common sense saw that coming a mile away. I am still waiting for the huge “We are the world” songs as we all hold hands across Iraq.

Flanker:

Let’s try to keep this in perspective. You are on the number one muscle building site in the world and you just wasted your 16th post by calling the President of the United States a war criminal.

Other than that I think “The Mage” summed it up quite nicely!

[quote]Soco wrote:
Bush isn’t a war criminal. What he is guilty of is falling for a bunch of crackheaded neo-conservatives who thought invading Iraq would cause the middle east to turn into one big happy democracy.
[/quote]

I don’t know exactly which ‘crackheaded neocon’ you were referring to, but I’d really like to see where ANYONE in favor of this war thinks that the democratization of Iraq will lead to “one big happy democracy.”

I don’t think Middle East will ever be a peaceful, it hasn’t been a peaceful place since, well…ever. I do think that we will teach them to pick on someone else besides the ‘Great Satan’.

  1. Geneva convention. BS. Your argument does not hold water. Try again.

  2. War Criminal…please. What about Sadaam? What’s your take on him. Nuremberg by the way was for “crimes against humanity”.

  3. Chemical weapons. Again you need to educate yourself. Depleted Uranium is a dense metal. It causes no “chemical reaction” The depleted uranium is contained in a penetrator that is a needle the size of flashlight, if fired from a tank. It pentetrates the armor using kinetic energy. The armor of the tanks spalls and kills the crew of the tank. It is an anti-tank round. It is used agaisnt other tanks not against civilians. Don’t want it used on you then don’t fuck with US armor.

War criminal or not, it is obvious that this administration has no f’ing clue as to how to invade a country.

I don’t mind people having their own opinion, but I just hate it when it seems like our own people (Americans) take the side of terrorists.

Even though I’m a bit mad at Bush for signing the Act to ban prohormones, thats just a small issue to me. Also, Congress did agree on the act, so its not like Bush acted alone on it.

Back on the topic, just like the war on drugs, the war will NEVER be won. There will always be that .01 percent that some moron will try and form a terrorist network. But since we are ripping the terrorist networks apart, no one will want to form anymore since they know the consequences of doing so. If we get 99.9% of them (just like those anti-bacterial kill 99.9% of germs) we’ll be a lot better off in this world.

[quote]oboffill wrote:
War criminal or not, it is obvious that this administration has no f’ing clue as to how to invade a country.[/quote]

LOL! You are funny. Maybe you should email GWB and give him your plan on how to invade a country :slight_smile:

Flanker have you ever been put in a situation of life or death?

If not, then I don’t think you have any business commenting on something you have never experienced.

I have been there, not to the extreme that our troops are facing, but as a former law enforcement officer. In 14+ years I was shot at (numerous times), stabbed once and hit by a stolen car (out of a car jacking) as well as other numerous bumps & bruises. I finally had to retire when the Doctors removed parts of 3 vertabrae in my neck, as a result of another altercation. I don’t ever remember in any of those instances the bad guy playing by or following any set rules. It was only after they were unsuccesful in evading capture that they were ever remorseful. And this is here in the USA, I can’t imagine what it is like in another country where “winner takes all”.

So unless you have walked in their footsteps I wouldn’t be so quick to judge the actions of the frontline troops.

Why is anyone even responding to flanker’s crap? This is one of the most asinine things I have ever seen posted here.(look back on a couple of this guy’s posts if you want to see other examples of naked ignorance).

Garbage like that doesnt deserve a reply, other than the standard “STFU”.

Political debate from different sides of the fence is great, but this was nothing more than inflamatory nonsense.

[quote]naturalatlas82 wrote:
so bad. Stock market is going up, oil prices are dropping, and things are going good. Its okay to see good things with our economy. It doesn’t have to be bad. I know liberals love to see America fall (liberals = domestic terrorists) and bitch about everything, but you won’t win. Sorry.
[/quote]

I think you forgot the huge deficit and the bad dollar exchange rate… the exodus of foreign investors who are selling their dollar assets. So things aren’t going that great.

America has courage…we just need more courage as a whole so we can turn the middle east into a parking lot… :slight_smile:

Semper FI !!!
F*ck Michael Moore

Hmmmm flanker I wonder where u are from?
Sympathizing with the enemy…sounds like someones angry with the US…Instead of complaining go to iraq (unarmed of course ) pass out some care packages and clothing
or something nice smile at everybody. BTW make sure u don’t lose ur head :slight_smile:

yeah…2 weeks to defeat the largest army in the region. Guess we’ll have to do it in a week when we go into Iran. That should quiet the doubters who …don’t think we know how to invade a country.

  1. Regarding the Geneva Convention is the United States the sole arbiter of who is a terrorist or not? Within the confines of international law we certainly are not. You cannot just invade a country and declare that all those who oppose you are terrorists and hence not protected by any kind of law. A large number of innocent people where tortured in Abu Ghraib. Furthermore, many of the prisoners in Guantanamo can be considered to have been part of an Afghani army and hence should be covered by the Geneva convention.

  2. I have not heard any good argument justifying the legality of our invasion of Iraq. If your going to use UN resolution 1441 as justification thats an interesting choice. First because the neocons despise the UN. Second, because the US has violated plenty of UN resolutions, World Court decisions, etc. Does that mean an invasion of the US is justified?

  3. Finally, I suggest that you investigate the role of Depleted Uranium shells in Gulf War Syndrome and in birth defects amidst Iraqi children. Here’s a link to the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/362484.stm

What I really do not understand is the belief of many posters that I need to fight in Iraq in order to have an opinion on the conflict. Wouldn’t it be hypocritical of me to fight in a war I consider illegal?

Lastly, here is quote from Tacitus that I think sums up the Falluja debacle.

“They made a desert and called it peace”

[quote]BigRJ wrote:
America has courage…we just need more courage as a whole so we can turn the middle east into a parking lot… :slight_smile:

Semper FI !!!
F*ck Michael Moore[/quote]

This is exactly the kind of facist mentality that makes the rest of the world hate America so much. Frankly, who can blame them.