Bush is a criminal and an idiot

[River Studio]

Bush is a criminal and an idiot and how anyone can say he is even half way to being presidential material is way beyond me. The world laughs at Bush and no wonder, he is a complete waste of space and how on earth you americans can tolerate him and his hell-bound bunch of henchmen I don't know. These wars he has dragged us all into were only ever about oil and everyone knew it.

His 'crusade', as he put it, against terrorism has inflamed the whole world and the threat is greater now than before that ignorant goon managed to steal the presidency. Thank god he will soon be gone and as long as his alter image McCain doesn't get into the white house, the whole world will probably breathe a very big sigh of relief.

Bye bye George, I hope someone slams you on trial for what you have done and you rot in prison for the rest of your stupid life.

[zukdas]

Yes, very true, and Bush's approval rating is around 14% in the USA now and I'm surprised that it's even that high.

[River Studio]

Yes, very true, and Bush's approval rating is around 14% in the USA now and I'm surprised that it's even that high.

Oh well, at least he is more popular than our dear old gormless gordon brown! The labour party manipulate the statistics here so much that in reality his popularity ratings are sub-zero!

[My Winter Storm]

I wonder how George Bush feels, knowing he is the least popular guy in the US right now?;)

[pauli007001]

I wonder how George Bush feels, knowing he is the least popular guy in the US right now?;)

Wayyyyyyy more popular than HILARY!!!!!!!More so than mr Barack Hussain Obama id say also!
GWB is probably the best prez we have had since eisenhower!He looks after america first not evryone else!!!!!!!
Gormless could learn from him!

[zukdas]

I wonder how George Bush feels, knowing he is the least popular guy in the US right now?;)
yep! and the least popular guy in the world too.

[Spades]

yep! and the least popular guy in the world too.

Not in Africa. You people expect some magician to become our president don't you and make all the troubles go away?

[Spartacus]

Wayyyyyyy more popular than HILARY!!!!!!!More so than mr Barack Hussain Obama id say also!
GWB is probably the best prez we have had since eisenhower!He looks after america first not evryone else!!!!!!!
Gormless could learn from him!

Well he looks after rich Americans , ya know ,his corporate American friends while his brother Jeb is busying himself by denying poor Americans the vote.

I take it you must be a better off American or just one of those hopeless American patriots who doesn't mind losing his civil liberties in order to be protected from whatever Georgie boy considers to be a threat whether real , imagined or just plain invented.

America is a modern day fascist state and shows no signs of a change in course .

[Spades]

Well he looks after rich Americans , ya know ,his corporate American friends while his brother Jeb is busying himself by denying poor Americans the vote.

I take it you must be a better off American or just one of those hopeless American patriots who doesn't mind losing his civil liberties in order to be protected from whatever Georgie boy considers to be a threat whether real , imagined or just plain invented.

America is a modern day fascist state and shows no signs of a change in course .

Civil Liberties lost? As if? Israel has tighter security precautions and in fact laughs at ours because they are so lax. As if any of that is true. Stop making things up please.

[zukdas]

Stop making things up please.
maybe he's just trying his hardest for you to see the light. :D

[Citizen Smith]

Wayyyyyyy more popular than HILARY!!!!!!!More so than mr Barack Hussain Obama id say also!
GWB is probably the best prez we have had since eisenhower!He looks after america first not evryone else!!!!!!!
Gormless could learn from him!
Bush was awful- a real war criminal.

[Spartacus]

Civil Liberties lost? As if? Israel has tighter security precautions and in fact laughs at ours because they are so lax. As if any of that is true. Stop making things up please.

Maybe you should step out of the US indoctrinating mainstream bubble for a moment and familiarize yourself with the Patriot Acts 1 + 2

America still has much civil liberty but these are revisionist days and they are being eroded at a remarkable rate. If it's any consolation you are not on your own it is the same in Europe too.

[Spartacus]

Bush was awful- a real war criminal.

I agree , Bush is awful and a real war criminal ( like Bliar ) but he is not that different to what has preceded him. If you apply the same criteria for war criminality that was applied at the Nuremberg trials every post war US president would be charged with war crimes. We in the west just don't apply the same rulings to ourselves

[pauli007001]

Well he looks after rich Americans , ya know ,his corporate American friends while his brother Jeb is busying himself by denying poor Americans the vote.

I take it you must be a better off American or just one of those hopeless American patriots who doesn't mind losing his civil liberties in order to be protected from whatever Georgie boy considers to be a threat whether real , imagined or just plain invented.

America is a modern day fascist state and shows no signs of a change in course .
You dont know what civil liberties are living under the NULAB regime,they have spent the last 11 years takin em away.BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU,you have limited freedom of speech and no rights to life liberty or the persuit of happyness(you do have the PARTY to look after you though)!!!
Oh and by the way I am British!

[Spartacus]

You dont know what civil liberties are living under the NULAB regime,they have spent the last 11 years takin em away.BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU,you have limited freedom of speech and no rights to life liberty or the persuit of happyness(you do have the PARTY to look after you though)!!!
Oh and by the way I am British!

You are right about new labour ( old tory ) whatever people wish to call them ( I am an avid opponent of them ) but you are wrong if you believe the USA administration isn't dismantling the civil rights of its citizens.
As for the life , liberty and persuit of happiness jargon , to quote George Carlin " the thing is about the American dream is that you would have to be asleep to believe it.!!"

You don't sound British but having said that there are many wannabe Americans who are British so there's perhaps no surprise to any of this.

Try being a radical there and see how you get treated. Or find something out about say the US government flooding the streets of LA with crack cocaine ( as Garry Webb did ) and see what happens to you.

Even better watch the film " America. From freedom to Fascism. " available on google video..........let me know what you think

[pauli007001]

You are right about new labour ( old tory ) whatever people wish to call them ( I am an avid opponent of them ) but you are wrong if you believe the USA administration isn't dismantling the civil rights of its citizens.
As for the life , liberty and persuit of happiness jargon , to quote George Carlin " the thing is about the American dream is that you would have to be asleep to believe it.!!"

You don't sound British but having said that there are many wannabe Americans who are British so there's perhaps no surprise to any of this.

Try being a radical there and see how you get treated. Or find something out about say the US government flooding the streets of LA with crack cocaine ( as Garry Webb did ) and see what happens to you.

Even better watch the film " America. From freedom to Fascism. " available on google video..........let me know what you think

HEY you got the coolest tin foil hat!can i get one and we can talk about government conspiracys and shoot all our work collegues(who are spying on us)!!!!

By the way I am British,born and raised in happy HUDDERSFIELD,i attended Paddock junior school.all saints high school,until i knoched out the headmaster and then attended Salendine nook!
I Joined the Army in 1987 and was retires after 16 years in 2003!So i therefore am British(although my parents were not)But whatever,tin foil hats are so nineties!!!!

[Trouble43]

HEY you got the coolest tin foil hat!can i get one and we can talk about government conspiracys and shoot all our work collegues(who are spying on us)!!!!

By the way I am British,born and raised in happy HUDDERSFIELD,i attended Paddock junior school.all saints high school,until i knoched out the headmaster and then attended Salendine nook!
I Joined the Army in 1987 and was retires after 16 years in 2003!So i therefore am British(although my parents were not)But whatever,tin foil hats are so nineties!!!!

What are you on Paulie? Seriously, this is barely coherent. Come on, you can debate better than this surely?

However you also forgot to mention that your a yorkshireman and that you lost a leg to the British army. Also that you work in a stinking environment but that you pay the health insurance of ten people, love America (way too much I think), but don't think much of the UK (perhaps an understatement?).

[pauli007001]

:D:DWhat are you on Paulie? Seriously, this is barely coherent. Come on, you can debate better than this surely?

However you also forgot to mention that your a yorkshireman and that you lost a leg to the British army. Also that you work in a stinking environment but that you pay the health insurance of ten people, love America (way too much I think), but don't think much of the UK (perhaps an understatement?).

Incoherent?It clearly ststes my britishness!The idiot i responded to was accusing me of not being a brit,i didnt sound brainwashed enough!
Incoherent must be NEWSPEAK for fact(is saying that doublespeak ot doublethink)!!!!!!!!

[Spartacus]

Incoherent?It clearly ststes my britishness!The idiot i responded to was accusing me of not being a brit,i didnt sound brainwashed enough!
Incoherent must be NEWSPEAK for fact(is saying that doublespeak ot doublethink)!!!!!!!!

But the thread isn't about you or whether or not you are British. It doesn't matter ............. you are obviously on the US hegemony bandwagon . Seriously it is a sad person , imo , who can see George Bush as any sort of hero leader. The man doesn't know which end of a book to read and claims his favourite childhood book was a book that wasn't even published until Bush was and adult. I don't know maybe Rummy or Chenney read it to him at bedtime during his time in the oil business :D

All's I can say is some people are easily pleased ;)

You may have been from Hudderfield ( flat caps and whippets ) but you sound like your from Crawford , Texas ( cowboy hat and boots )

[pauli007001]

But the thread isn't about you or whether or not you are British. It doesn't matter ............. you are obviously on the US hegemony bandwagon . Seriously it is a sad person , imo , who can see George Bush as any sort of hero leader. The man doesn't know which end of a book to read and claims his favourite childhood book was a book that wasn't even published until Bush was and adult. I don't know maybe Rummy or Chenney read it to him at bedtime during his time in the oil business :D

All's I can say is some people are easily pleased ;)

You may have been from Hudderfield ( flat caps and whippets ) but you sound like your from Crawford , Texas ( cowboy hat and boots )

I regard that as racist stereotyping,yorkshire people are from the biggest county in England,texas is the Biggest state in the USA,perhaps your stereotyping is correct!
But anyway,if Bush is as dimwitted as you suggest(borderline learning disabled,having bedtime stories read to him)How could he be responsible for his actions,therefore incapable of being a criminal!
This would be the case under british and american law!!!!

[Trouble43]

:D

Incoherent?It clearly ststes my britishness!The idiot i responded to was accusing me of not being a brit,i didnt sound brainwashed enough!
Incoherent must be NEWSPEAK for fact(is saying that doublespeak ot doublethink)!!!!!!!!


What I meant Paulie, and I do apolgise for not being clear (please cut me some slack there, I am brain damaged you know :)), is that you are not aruging or debating a point, youre just ranting atr everyone.

It doesn'#t give anyone a point or opinion to respond to. If you read your posts again you will see what I mean.

You have very strong opinions and itd be brilliant to debate those with you, but I can't if you just rant at me and everyone else. I can't respond to this sort of reply (see above) in a debatable <sp?> way.

[Citizen Smith]

I regard that as racist stereotyping,yorkshire people are from the biggest county in England,texas is the Biggest state in the USA,perhaps your stereotyping is correct!
But anyway,if Bush is as dimwitted as you suggest(borderline learning disabled,having bedtime stories read to him)How could he be responsible for his actions,therefore incapable of being a criminal!
This would be the case under british and american law!!!!
I'm from Yorkshire and its weird to read your posts.

[Spartacus]

I regard that as racist stereotyping,yorkshire people are from the biggest county in England,texas is the Biggest state in the USA,perhaps your stereotyping is correct!
But anyway,if Bush is as dimwitted as you suggest(borderline learning disabled,having bedtime stories read to him)How could he be responsible for his actions,therefore incapable of being a criminal!
This would be the case under british and american law!!!!

It is stereotyping and I just thought I would have some fun with it.

If the same laws that were applied to the leaders of Nazi Germany after WW2 were applied to George Bush he would have to be found guilty. No doubt his mental capacity would be taken into account but that doesn't mean he could not be found guilty :D

[Spades]

It is stereotyping and I just thought I would have some fun with it.

If the same laws that were applied to the leaders of Nazi Germany after WW2 were applied to George Bush he would have to be found guilty. No doubt his mental capacity would be taken into account but that doesn't mean he could not be found guilty :D

These general statements make it hard to respond to because they don't prove anything. Be more specific instead of slandering and talking basic nonsense. I am not saying Bush is the best president ever but you are just being off base. You throw out comments as if they are the debate stopper like you did with me. If you are truly here to debate then give me something to debate.

[Spartacus]

These general statements make it hard to respond to because they don't prove anything. Be more specific instead of slandering and talking basic nonsense. I am not saying Bush is the best president ever but you are just being off base. You throw out comments as if they are the debate stopper like you did with me. If you are truly here to debate then give me something to debate.

Sorry you have confused a post i made in reply to Paulie ( unless you are one and the same )

Well I think that if you look at what the nazi leaders were actually found guilty of and subsequentely hung for you should have some idea why the claim is not so outlandish as it first reads.

It is a very contentious subject and because I am new , a little unsure as to whether or not , from a legal point of view , it would be bad for the forum to debate it publicly here.

Maybe a Moderator could throw some light on that , I don't know.

But if you look at the charges I mentioned ( easy google search ) just give it a little objective thought and see what you think.

If we are allowed to discuss it without bringing trouble to the board I am happy to discuss it charge by charge.

But for now I will see what the reply is to this post.

[zukdas]

If the same laws that were applied to the leaders of Nazi Germany after WW2 were applied to George Bush he would have to be found guilty. No doubt his mental capacity would be taken into account but that doesn't mean he could not be found guilty :D
I can't see anything to debate about your statement. I totally agree with it. :D

[SickBritain]

Ha Ha! Mark my words, may this post be time stamped for future reference. For those who think Bush is the real mad man today, wait until to you see who replaces him. You'll be forgetting all that you said about Bush and wishing he was back in power.

May you all stand testiment to this posting in around 3-4 years time. I'll be back here to gloat :cool:

Keep slagging off Bush and blaming him for the world's woes.

[Spades]

Well I think that if you look at what the nazi leaders were actually found guilty of and subsequentely hung for you should have some idea why the claim is not so outlandish as it first reads.

It is a very contentious subject and because I am new , a little unsure as to whether or not , from a legal point of view , it would be bad for the forum to debate it publicly here.

Maybe a Moderator could throw some light on that , I don't know.


I did google it and found plenty of holes and stupid methods of measurement in some of the questions. If you give specific instances of what Crime Bush committed than I can debate. One liners seemed to act like that the topic is already closed when its not. That was my point I was trying to make.

For example, that 'Red Cross report' while never citing it, they interviewed detainees at guantanamo. Yeah of course they are going to give a top notch rating to there captors. (Yes Sarcasm).

[zukdas]

Ha Ha! Mark my words, may this post be time stamped for future reference. For those who think Bush is the real mad man today, wait until to you see who replaces him. You'll be forgetting all that you said about Bush and wishing he was back in power.

May you all stand testiment to this posting in around 3-4 years time. I'll be back here to gloat :cool:

Keep slagging off Bush and blaming him for the world's woes.

I very much doubt that any American president could be as bad as Bush. But then again he's set a bad example for new presidents to follow......and they will.....because that's the american way.
If Obama wins ......he's already said he's going to put an end to Osama.......what a dill brain.

[Spartacus]

I did google it and found plenty of holes and stupid methods of measurement in some of the questions. If you give specific instances of what Crime Bush committed than I can debate. One liners seemed to act like that the topic is already closed when its not. That was my point I was trying to make.

For example, that 'Red Cross report' while never citing it, they interviewed detainees at guantanamo. Yeah of course they are going to give a top notch rating to there captors. (Yes Sarcasm).

Well I think the charge of " aggressive war " could certainly stand up against Bush( and Blair) regarding Iraq.
I think the world consensus on Gauntanamo Bay speaks for itself with regards to crimes against humanity ( detention without trial )
It's funny I was talking to another american about Cuba. He quickly , and predictably , started to talk about the crimes against humanity there. But when I said I agreed with him he became confused. When I told him that the human rights abuses commited in Cuba today are horrendous and Guantanamo Bay should be instantly shut down he saw where I was coming from and dropped the subject.

See that's the thing about the prosecution of international law is......... only the weak ( the losers ) are ever convicted by it.

Like the Nazis , Saddam , Milosevich ( had he lived )

If it is the US or Britain and whoever their friends may be at the time it doesn't apply. And if it is applied it is ignored like it was in the 1980's when the world court sided with Nicaragua that the US was waging an illegal aggressive war against them and called for it to stop.
They carried on regardless and ignored it............... after the death of a fair percentage of the population in Nicaragua did anyone in the US stand trial ? Not on your nelly. Why? Because International law is only administered by the powerful against the weak.

That needs to change , quick.

[pauli007001]

Well I think the charge of " aggressive war " could certainly stand up against Bush( and Blair) regarding Iraq.
I think the world consensus on Gauntanamo Bay speaks for itself with regards to crimes against humanity ( detention without trial )
It's funny I was talking to another american about Cuba. He quickly , and predictably , started to talk about the crimes against humanity there. But when I said I agreed with him he became confused. When I told him that the human rights abuses commited in Cuba today are horrendous and Guantanamo Bay should be instantly shut down he saw where I was coming from and dropped the subject.

See that's the thing about the prosecution of international law is......... only the weak ( the losers ) are ever convicted by it.

Like the Nazis , Saddam , Milosevich ( had he lived )

If it is the US or Britain and whoever their friends may be at the time it doesn't apply. And if it is applied it is ignored like it was in the 1980's when the world court sided with Nicaragua that the US was waging an illegal aggressive war against them and called for it to stop.
They carried on regardless and ignored it............... after the death of a fair percentage of the population in Nicaragua did anyone in the US stand trial ? Not on your nelly. Why? Because International law is only administered by the powerful against the weak.

That needs to change , quick.

Oh those nasty Americans persecuting the innocents,like Hitler.Saddam and that lovely angel of a man slobodan milosovice!
The existenc of Gitmo,and the prison situated there is to all a contetious subject.Those held there were people apprehended in Afghanistan fighting against US forces,who didnt belong to the Afghani/Taliban Army and were not afghans.On the strength of this the US decided that they would detain them indefinately(they could have Legally shot them on the Battlefield as they were in fact not part of a recognised national defence force,they were in fact terrorists!A non soldier armed on a battle field firing upon military forces is in fact devoid of any rights,he can be shot and killed without question.The US in their big hearted way allowed them to live(the Ultimate act of goodness)and all those in the world who hate the US whinge and whine and wring their hands and hate America and the Americans even more!For all its Badness the US is still the most popular destination for persons wishing to leave their homelands,from the UK,Eire,sweden,germany,south america,central america,europe,india,africa,,,,The whole world!
Perhaps this looking for the bad in the USA is in fact simply a green eyed monster raising its ugly head

[Spades]

Well I think the charge of " aggressive war " could certainly stand up against Bush( and Blair) regarding Iraq.
I think the world consensus on Gauntanamo Bay speaks for itself with regards to crimes against humanity ( detention without trial )
It's funny I was talking to another american about Cuba. He quickly , and predictably , started to talk about the crimes against humanity there. But when I said I agreed with him he became confused. When I told him that the human rights abuses commited in Cuba today are horrendous and Guantanamo Bay should be instantly shut down he saw where I was coming from and dropped the subject.


Aggressive war? Past wars were far more aggressive than the Iraq one so what war are you comparing the Iraq one to that will allow you to label it 'aggressive.'

What about Guantanamo bay that is horrendous. Besides the argument that inmates have there Habeus Corpus suspending (although a military tribunal still overseas them). When you use the war horrendous it feels as if you describing poor quality facility when in actuallity its not. Even Moore in sicko (I saw from a clip) wanted to know why Guantanamo by had better health care facilities then most of the US.



See that's the thing about the prosecution of international law is......... only the weak ( the losers ) are ever convicted by it.

Like the Nazis , Saddam , Milosevich ( had he lived )

If it is the US or Britain and whoever their friends may be at the time it doesn't apply. And if it is applied it is ignored like it was in the 1980's when the world court sided with Nicaragua that the US was waging an illegal aggressive war against them and called for it to stop.
They carried on regardless and ignored it............... after the death of a fair percentage of the population in Nicaragua did anyone in the US stand trial ? Not on your nelly. Why? Because International law is only administered by the powerful against the weak.

That needs to change , quick.

What I want to debate in this forum is Bush and his war crimes because for oen thing this war is anything but illegal. We had a cease-fire agreement with Saddam after the Gulf War that he never honored or lived up to. The war was never technically over, just a cease-fire. And Saddam broke that so the cease-fire contract was void and thus a legal war.

[Tete123]

Oh those nasty Americans persecuting the innocents,like Hitler.Saddam and that lovely angel of a man slobodan milosovice!
The existenc of Gitmo,and the prison situated there is to all a contetious subject.Those held there were people apprehended in Afghanistan fighting against US forces,who didnt belong to the Afghani/Taliban Army and were not afghans.On the strength of this the US decided that they would detain them indefinately(they could have Legally shot them on the Battlefield as they were in fact not part of a recognised national defence force,they were in fact terrorists!A non soldier armed on a battle field firing upon military forces is in fact devoid of any rights,he can be shot and killed without question.The US in their big hearted way allowed them to live(the Ultimate act of goodness)and all those in the world who hate the US whinge and whine and wring their hands and hate America and the Americans even more!For all its Badness the US is still the most popular destination for persons wishing to leave their homelands,from the UK,Eire,sweden,germany,south america,central america,europe,india,africa,,,,The whole world!
Perhaps this looking for the bad in the USA is in fact simply a green eyed monster raising its ugly head

I'm sorry Pauli but didn't the U.S Supreme Court rule on the 29th June 2006, that the classification 'enemy combatants' captured in Afghanistan and Iraq were still entitled to protection under the Geneva Conventions and furthermore did the Department of Defense not issue a memo on the 7th July 2006, stating the same?

Should we then assume that any prisoner prior to this date or since that has suffered torture, abuse or wrongful detainment, charged or otherwise will be adequately rewarded compensation and those responsible will be brought to justice by the international courts?

Its very easy to claim that envy is the cause of peoples opinion of America rather than they're policy of interventionism in world affairs. While I accept the moral reasoning for going to war with Iraq and overthrowing the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, what right have they got interfering in judicial matters now national governments have been recognized in both states?

Are we going to continue fighting wars against 'rogue states' (those that do not accept international judiciary) based purely on moral grounds? Could it be argued that interventionism actually creates the very terrorists the war on terror is attempting to wipe out? And what are the limitations for declaring war on a group (terrorists) that do not belong to a nation, was this an attempt to ignore the Geneva Conventions Act?

[Tete123]

What I want to debate in this forum is Bush and his war crimes because for oen thing this war is anything but illegal. We had a cease-fire agreement with Saddam after the Gulf War that he never honored or lived up to. The war was never technically over, just a cease-fire. And Saddam broke that so the cease-fire contract was void and thus a legal war.
I don't know if i'm right here but wasn't the UN resolution in 1990 only to liberate Kuwait? The U.S/British forces could not enter Iraq or sanction any requests (as they did with the Northen/Southern 'no fly zones') Therefore the ceasefire would only be broken if Iraq used force against another nation, no?

I am not sure about any of this so any info would be great.

[Spartacus]

I'm sorry Pauli but didn't the U.S Supreme Court rule on the 29th June 2006, that the classification 'enemy combatants' captured in Afghanistan and Iraq were still entitled to protection under the Geneva Conventions and furthermore did the Department of Defense not issue a memo on the 7th July 2006, stating the same?

I found this on the BBC website , which gives a brief history and the latest decisions of the battles between Bush and Co and the US Supreme Court over the detainees at Guantanamo and other places.
It seems accurate enough, though still feels the need to mention US credibility with regard to international law and standards of morality. Apparently they have lost some credibility since the War Against Terror but anybody who has studied American foreign policy/interventionism , certainly since the World War periods onwards , will know that that has long since been in question but they are not on their own . Anyway here's the latest according to the BBC...................




Foreign suspects held in Guantanamo Bay have the right to challenge their detention in US civilian courts, the US Supreme Court has ruled.
In a major legal setback for the Bush administration, the court overturned by five to four a ruling upholding a 2006 law which removed such rights.
It is not clear if the ruling will lead to prompt hearings for the detainees.
Some 270 men are held at the US naval base, on suspicion of terrorism or links to al-Qaeda and the Taleban.
US President George W Bush said he would abide by the court's ruling even if he did not agree with it. Human rights groups have welcomed the move, Amnesty International saying it was an "essential step forward towards the restoration of the rule of law".


full article.............BBC NEWS | Americas | Major Guantanamo setback for Bush (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7451139.stm)

The second emphasis in the above is mine............... and will go someway to answering the next question you raise.............. they could just dilly and dally between stances and laws indefinately

Should we then assume that any prisoner prior to this date or since that has suffered torture, abuse or wrongful detainment, charged or otherwise will be adequately rewarded compensation and those responsible will be brought to justice by the international courts?

Well I wouldn't hold my breathe waiting for it Tete123. As Madelaine Allbright said about UN decisions " we will act unilaterally if we have to. " and that kinda sets the whole tone
States that practise this model , if they don't conform to western wishes , are known as " Rogue States "



Its very easy to claim that envy is the cause of peoples opinion of America rather than they're policy of interventionism in world affairs. While I accept the moral reasoning for going to war with Iraq and overthrowing the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, what right have they got interfering in judicial matters now national governments have been recognized in both states?

I agree Tete , I don't buy the " envy " thing myself and think it has more to do with the US military presence and actions that have thrown petrol on the fire of anti American sentiment
It's the same with the Israelis using the allegation of anti-semite against any would be critics of Israeli policies.

The" national governments " (?) of Iraq and Afghanistan have been recognized only because they are western puppets that will submit to the business interests of the western countries. They would have more validity in my eyes if their own people recognized them which they don't.

I mean how farcical has tnternational law become if we are recognizing a government ( validating its actions/laws) that was formed whilst under a military occupation ?
Can we seriously believe that we would have recognized a French government , who the Nazis were happy with , whilst it was occupied by them during WW2?


Are we going to continue fighting wars against 'rogue states' (those that do not accept international judiciary) based purely on moral grounds? Could it be argued that interventionism actually creates the very terrorists the war on terror is attempting to wipe out? And what are the limitations for declaring war on a group (terrorists) that do not belong to a nation, was this an attempt to ignore the Geneva Conventions Act?



Well the intelligence agencies and experts of the Western nations all told their governments that invasions abroad increase the liklihood of terrorist attack at home. I mean that's not overly hard to grasp is it ?

But that is an acceptable risk for the powers that be and that's why that advice was acted upon. They chose to go to war knowing it would increase dangers to their own populations because that gives them the platform to bring about all the revisionist policies they have wanted to bring back since they were lost due to strong public opinion for social reforms and civil liberties. It's an old battle and will go on as long as we do , imho.

[pauli007001]

I'm sorry Pauli but didn't the U.S Supreme Court rule on the 29th June 2006, that the classification 'enemy combatants' captured in Afghanistan and Iraq were still entitled to protection under the Geneva Conventions and furthermore did the Department of Defense not issue a memo on the 7th July 2006, stating the same?

Should we then assume that any prisoner prior to this date or since that has suffered torture, abuse or wrongful detainment, charged or otherwise will be adequately rewarded compensation and those responsible will be brought to justice by the international courts?

Its very easy to claim that envy is the cause of peoples opinion of America rather than they're policy of interventionism in world affairs. While I accept the moral reasoning for going to war with Iraq and overthrowing the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, what right have they got interfering in judicial matters now national governments have been recognized in both states?

Are we going to continue fighting wars against 'rogue states' (those that do not accept international judiciary) based purely on moral grounds? Could it be argued that interventionism actually creates the very terrorists the war on terror is attempting to wipe out? And what are the limitations for declaring war on a group (terrorists) that do not belong to a nation, was this an attempt to ignore the Geneva Conventions Act?



Changes nothing,at the time of capture they didnt have status under the geneva convention as LEGAL combattents or as civillians the fact that they are still alive is testament to the better nature of the US and its people!
Under US law if there status changes it applies only from when the law is brought into being,the time prior to that is irrelivant(laws cannot be granfathered in by court action).

[Tete123]

Changes nothing,at the time of capture they didnt have status under the geneva convention as LEGAL combattents or as civillians the fact that they are still alive is testament to the better nature of the US and its people!
Under US law if there status changes it applies only from when the law is brought into being,the time prior to that is irrelivant(laws cannot be granfathered in by court action).

Pauli,

I fail to see in this instance where international law must be adhered that the Americans are acting in goodwill , my take on things seem to lead to the fact that the U.S government know, as do most , that a large percentage of those interned at Guantanamo are innocent.

The UN economic and social council report into the detainees at Guantanamo indicated that:



A. Deprivation of liberty at Guantánamo Bay
19. The fundamental proposition of the United States Government with regard to the deprivation of liberty of persons held at Guantánamo Bay is that “[t]he law of war allows the United States – and any other country engaged in combat – to hold enemy combatants without charges or access to counsel for the duration of hostilities. Detention is not an act of punishment but of security and military necessity. It serves the purpose of preventing combatants from continuing to take up arms against the United States”.19 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/report/2006/guantanamo-detainees-report_un_060216.htm#ftn19) While the Chairperson of the Working Group and the Special Rapporteur would not use the term “enemy combatant”, they share the understanding that any person having committed a belligerent act in the context of an international armed conflict and having fallen into the hands of one of the parties to the conflict (in this case, the United States) can be held for the duration of hostilities, as long as the detention serves the purpose of preventing combatants from continuing to take up arms against the United States. Indeed, this principle encapsulates a fundamental difference between the laws of war and human rights law with regard to deprivation of liberty. In the context of armed conflicts covered by international humanitarian law, this rule constitutes the lex specialis justifying deprivation of liberty which would otherwise, under human rights law as enshrined by article 9 of ICCPR, constitute a violation of the right to personal liberty.
20. The United States justifies the indeterminate detention of the men held at Guantánamo Bay and the denial of their right to challenge the legality of the deprivation of liberty by classifying them as “enemy combatants”. For the reasons the Chairperson of the Working Group and the Special Rapporteur will elaborate, to the extent permitted by the constraints of this report, the ongoing detention of the Guantánamo Bay detainees as “enemy combatants” does in fact constitute arbitrary deprivation of the right to personal liberty.
21. Because detention “without charges or access to counsel for the duration of hostilities” amounts to a radical departure from established principles of human rights law, it is particularly important to distinguish between the detainees captured by the United States in the course of an armed conflict and those captured under circumstances that did not involve an armed conflict. In this context, it is to be noted that the global struggle against international terrorism does not, as such, constitute an armed conflict for the purposes of the applicability of international humanitarian law



B. Detainees captured in the course of an armed conflict

22. The Third Geneva Convention provides that where, in the context of “cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties” (art. 2(1)), a person “having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy” may be detained as prisoner of war until the end of the hostilities. The Fourth Geneva Convention allows a party to the conflict to detain (“intern”) civilians because they constitute a threat to the security of the Party or intend to harm it (arts. 68, 78 and 79), or for the purposes of prosecution on war crimes charges (art. 70). Once the international armed conflict has come to an end, prisoners of war and internees must be released,21 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/report/2006/guantanamo-detainees-report_un_060216.htm#ftn21)although prisoners of war and civilian internees against whom criminal proceedings for an indictable offence are pending may be detained until the end of such proceedings.22 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/report/2006/guantanamo-detainees-report_un_060216.htm#ftn22) As the rationale for the detention of combatants not enjoying prisoner of war status is to prevent them from taking up arms against the detaining power again, the same rule should be applied to them. In other words, non-privileged belligerents must be released or charged once the international armed conflict is over.
23. The indefinite detention of prisoners of war and civilian internees for purposes of continued interrogation is inconsistent with the provisions of the Geneva Conventions 23 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/report/2006/guantanamo-detainees-report_un_060216.htm#ftn23). Information obtained from reliable sources and the interviews conducted by the special procedures mandate holders with former Guantánamo Bay detainees confirm, however, that the objective of the ongoing detention is not primarily to prevent combatants from taking up arms against the United States again, but to obtain information and gather intelligence on the Al-Qaeda network.
24. The Chairperson of the Working Group and the Special Rapporteur note that, while United States Armed Forces continue to be engaged in combat operations in Afghanistan as well as in other countries, they are not currently engaged in an international armed conflict between two Parties to the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions. In the ongoing non-international armed conflicts involving United States forces, the lex specialis authorizing detention without respect for the guarantees set forth in article 9 of ICCPR therefore can no longer serve as basis for that detention.


C. Detainees captured in the absence of an armed conflict

25. Many of the detainees held at Guantánamo Bay were captured in places where there was – at the time of their arrest – no armed conflict involving the United States. The case of the six men of Algerian origin detained in Bosnia and Herzegovina in October 2001 is a well-known and well-documented example,24 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/report/2006/guantanamo-detainees-report_un_060216.htm#ftn24) but also numerous other detainees have been arrested under similar circumstances where international humanitarian law did not apply. The legal provision allowing the United States to hold belligerents without charges or access to counsel for the duration of hostilities can therefore not be invoked to justify their detention.
26. This does not of course mean that none of the persons held at Guantánamo Bay should have been deprived of their liberty. Indeed, international obligations regarding the struggle against terrorism might make the apprehension and detention of some of these persons a duty for all States. Such deprivation of liberty is, however, governed by human rights law, and specifically articles 9 and 14 of ICCPR. This includes the right to challenge the legality of detention before a court in proceedings affording fundamental due process rights, such as guarantees of independence and impartiality, the right to be informed of the reasons for arrest, the right to be informed about the evidence underlying these reasons, the right to assistance by counsel and the right to a trial within a reasonable time or to release. Any person deprived of his or her liberty must enjoy continued and effective access to habeas corpus proceedings, and any limitations to this right should be viewed with utmost concern


D. The right to challenge legality of detention before a judicial body

27. The Chairperson of the Working Group and the Special Rapporteur recall that detainees at Guantánamo Bay were deprived of their right to challenge the lawfulness of their detention and of their right to legal counsel for several years, until a United States Supreme Court decision granted detainees access to federal courts. In June 2004, the Supreme Court, in Rasul v. Bush,25 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/report/2006/guantanamo-detainees-report_un_060216.htm#ftn25) held that United States courts have the jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals detained at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base. However, at the time of writing (i.e. more than four years after detention at Guantánamo Bay started), not a single habeas corpus petition has been decided on the merits by a United States Federal Court.
28. In light of the Rasul judgement, the Government, on 7 July 2004, created the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT), a body composed of three noncommissioned officers, to examine the legality of detentions. Thereafter, the United States District Court dealing with the habeas corpus petitions of the Guantánamo detainees ruled that the CSRT proceedings “deny [the detainees] a fair opportunity to challenge their incarceration” and thus fail to comply with the terms of the Supreme Court’s ruling26 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/report/2006/guantanamo-detainees-report_un_060216.htm#ftn26). According to information received from the Government, all persons currently held at Guantánamo Bay had their status reviewed by the CSRT.27 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/report/2006/guantanamo-detainees-report_un_060216.htm#ftn27) The United States further established, on 11 May 2004, Administrative Review Boards (ARBs) to provide an annual review of the detention of each detainee. These institutions do not satisfy the requirement in article 9 (3) of ICCPR that “[a]nyone … detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release”: the requirement in article 9 (4) of ICCPR that “[a]nyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful”, or the requirements of article 14 of ICCPR, as:
(a) The CSRTs and ARBs do not comprise the guarantees of independence essential to the notions of a “court” (art. 9 (4)) or “exercise of judicial power” (art. 9(3));
(b) Detainees’ defence counsel whom the mandate holders met raised serious concerns regarding CSRT and ARB procedural rules, which do not provide the detainees with a defence counsel.28 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/report/2006/guantanamo-detainees-report_un_060216.htm#ftn28) Moreover, the restrictions on detainees’ right to be present at hearings in their case and on their access to the information and evidence on which the allegation that they are unlawful belligerents is based undermine the legality and legitimacy of the process;
(c) The interviews conducted by the mandate holders with detainees corroborated allegations that the purpose of the detention of most of the detainees is not to bring criminal charges against them but to extract information from them on other terrorism suspects. Indeed, four years after the establishment of the detention facility, none of the inmates has been tried and the proceedings of only nine persons detained at Guantánamo Bay are close to the trial stage; 29 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/report/2006/guantanamo-detainees-report_un_060216.htm#ftn29)
(d) It would appear that in determining the status of detainees the CSRT has recourse to the concepts recently and unilaterally developed by the United States Government, and not to the existing international humanitarian law regarding belligerency and combatant status; and
(e) Even where the CSRT determines that the detainee is not an “enemy combatant” and should no longer be held, as in the case of the Uighurs held at Guantánamo Bay nine months after the CSRT determined that they should be freed, release might not ensue.30 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/report/2006/guantanamo-detainees-report_un_060216.htm#ftn30)
29. The concerns raised by the shortcomings of the CSRT and ARB procedures are aggravated by the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, which provides that “no court, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider (1) an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba”.31 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/report/2006/guantanamo-detainees-report_un_060216.htm#ftn31) The exception hereto is that the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia retains jurisdiction to determine the validity of any final decision of a CSRT. However, the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals only extends to examining whether the procedures were properly followed, and not to the merits of the CSRT decision

The U.S opposed this council at every stage of their reseach into Guantanamo and have acted against the very laws they proclaim to stand for. I don't care how patriotic you are , fact is fact and had a country such as Iran or Syria acted in this way , we would have a third front to the 'War on Terror'

[pauli007001]

One of those released from Gitmo was recently found to have been responsible for a suicide attack in Mosul that killed 24 innocents!
What method would you use of preserving the secutiy of your nation against these savage and murderous fanatics in alquiada,negotiation?
Remember it was the Islamic radicals that drew first blood,all is actually fair in love and war as the saying goes!
Whilst no one can completely agree with or disagree with what is happening in the world today,i must again point out that the cowardly madman,bin laden drew first blood,in a savage attack against the USA,George bush,love him or hate him introduced policies that prevented this from occuring again,wherher the rest of the world likes it or not.The primary goal of a government is the security of its people,not watching their every move or making the people feel dependant upon them.Bush has done what he feels is the best thing for America,that is his first responsibility,not pandering to forigners who will hate whatever he does!

[Trouble43]

For all its Badness the US is still the most popular destination for persons wishing to leave their homelands,from the UK,Eire,sweden,germany,south america,central america,europe,india,africa,,,,The whole world!

I must admit I am not one of those. I'd love to visit the US to visit my friends, as I don't get to see them that often as they can't afford to travel to the UK often.

But as for countries to emigrate to Eire is the first (I have a lot of family there and I love the country, the people and everything about it); next would Oz, have friends who live there and it sounds wonderful, third would be Canada (same reason as Oz) and finally NZ - its the most stunning country and I have a few people I know who've emigrated there too.


Perhaps this looking for the bad in the USA is in fact simply a green eyed monster raising its ugly head

No, I don't think so - I think its just that not everyone in the world agrees with various stances the US (and the UK for that matter) have taken on certain issues.

You can't expect the entire world to love the US, paulie - that's too many people to please all the time and it can't be done.

[Tete123]

One of those released from Gitmo was recently found to have been responsible for a suicide attack in Mosul that killed 24 innocents!
What method would you use of preserving the secutiy of your nation against these savage and murderous fanatics in alquiada,negotiation?
Remember it was the Islamic radicals that drew first blood,all is actually fair in love and war as the saying goes!
Whilst no one can completely agree with or disagree with what is happening in the world today,i must again point out that the cowardly madman,bin laden drew first blood,in a savage attack against the USA,George bush,love him or hate him introduced policies that prevented this from occuring again,wherher the rest of the world likes it or not.The primary goal of a government is the security of its people,not watching their every move or making the people feel dependant upon them.Bush has done what he feels is the best thing for America,that is his first responsibility,not pandering to forigners who will hate whatever he does!

If the U.S has evidence of terrorist activity , either in the planning of or the implementation stage then why do they hold without charge?? I am not saying that known terrorists should be let loose to return to their former ways , but the U.S need to act in accordance with international law , otherwise they themselves become nothing short than a 'rogue state'

To say that Islamic fundamentalists drew first blood is somewhat missing the point of 50+ years of American interventionism that created the apathy and ill feeling towards them. There have been many terror attacks , carried out by many organisations prior to 9/11 that the U.S did not feel necessary to condemn and battle with direct force.

I fail to see how Bush and Co have acted in a way to prevent another 9/11 , the fact that it hasn't occurred yet doesn't mean ruling out further attacks in the future. In fact they may have lit the fuse on radical Islam , giving the hate preaching clerics ammunition in churning out the next generation of suicide bombers and fundamentalists.

[pauli007001]

I must admit I am not one of those. I'd love to visit the US to visit my friends, as I don't get to see them that often as they can't afford to travel to the UK often.

But as for countries to emigrate to Eire is the first (I have a lot of family there and I love the country, the people and everything about it); next would Oz, have friends who live there and it sounds wonderful, third would be Canada (same reason as Oz) and finally NZ - its the most stunning country and I have a few people I know who've emigrated there too.




No, I don't think so - I think its just that not everyone in the world agrees with various stances the US (and the UK for that matter) have taken on certain issues.

You can't expect the entire world to love the US, paulie - that's too many people to please all the time and it can't be done.

I dont expect that,however the USA is still the most popular immigrant destination in the world,more people move here than other nations,legally or illegally!
I get tired of the constant Yank bashing that goes on here on this forum,and in the media in general,particulary in the UK,it seems that if you dont bash the yanks you will not be considered cool!We all know ho imporant it is to be cool,right,dosnt NULAB keep on telling us(and the BBC)?
Watched BBC America today and saw the Gloating of the presenter when he interviewed a finicial expert on the economic difficulties the US is having at the moment,of course they picked an expert with a negative view,i wonder why?
The fact is this slowdown is an excellent oppurtunity to generate wealth in the USA(during the depression more millionaires were made than any time before or since)!I hope i can break into the world of wealth that i was so obviously born to be a part of!:D

[Trouble43]

I dont expect that,however the USA is still the most popular immigrant destination in the world,more people move here than other nations,legally or illegally!

Im sure it is, its a nice country. Your president's an idiot, but then so our PM! :D

I get tired of the constant Yank bashing that goes on here on this forum,and in the media in general,particulary in the UK,it seems that if you dont bash the yanks you will not be considered cool!We all know ho imporant it is to be cool,right,dosnt NULAB keep on telling us(and the BBC)?

Well, the political views on this forum is very diversified so, again, not all the people are going to be happy or agreeing all the time (or even most of it!)

I don;t think being a Brit means we yank bash more than others - indeed Brown is, as Blair was before him, a very pro american supporter. As for the beeb, well they bash everyone don't they?

I think for the general public they don't like bush; so its not so much yank bashing as bush bashing. Thats certaily the case for me too.

Watched BBC America today and saw the Gloating of the presenter when he interviewed a finicial expert on the economic difficulties the US is having at the moment,of course they picked an expert with a negative view,i wonder why?

Oh theyre like that here too. They gloat on the beeb about how bad its getting in the UK. You can see them almost salivating over the fact that people are going without heat to put food on their table or are walking miles to the supermarket because they cant afford to use their car and heat their house. Thats just a beeb thing - never have understood it.

But I do have a theory; remember what they call rubber necking? Where people slow down to look at crashes, or gather ata murder scene? I think the beeb are like that - they shouldn't gloat at others misfortunes but, knowing how the public loathe paying the licence fee, they cant help it bigging up any misfortunes that befall the nation.

As for their 'yank bashing', well I dont think they only bash the yanks. But I also think the beeb are well known for their snobbery - you only have to read their past reviews of the commercial channels to see that.

The fact is this slowdown is an excellent oppurtunity to generate wealth in the USA(during the depression more millionaires were made than any time before or since)!I hope i can break into the world of wealth that i was so obviously born to be a part of!

Oh I agree. After all, for all the foreign holidays the Brits are not having (spelt out loud and clear by the beeb and others), there are millions holidaying in the UK and boosting our own trouist economy and the national economy too. Loads of B&B's and self catering places are doing really well (despite the weather). But you don't hear about that do you?:rolleyes:

As for your own wealth, you certainly seem to have the drive and determination to make it big so I wish you good luck and hope you do. (I really wish they had a thumbs up smilie!)

[pauli007001]

Just a little reported fact about Mr Bush,with regard to illegal immigration through mexican border,he has as a humanitarian ordered federal authorities to leave water in the desert (and even sunscreen) to protect illegals from dying of thirst/sun poisening(both very real dangers in the desert).He has pushed for what could be considered an amnesty for Illegals and has shown much respect for illeagl and legal immigrants at a time when immigration has been a hot button issue in the USA.He cirtanly is a compassionate man,but i am sure that this side of bush is never shown on the news through the rest of the world!Like i have said before i am not the biggest supporter of W but credit where credit is due!

[River Studio]

I dont expect that,however the USA is still the most popular immigrant destination in the world,more people move here than other nations,legally or illegally!
I get tired of the constant Yank bashing that goes on here on this forum,and in the media in general,particulary in the UK,it seems that if you dont bash the yanks you will not be considered cool!We all know ho imporant it is to be cool,right,dosnt NULAB keep on telling us(and the BBC)?
Watched BBC America today and saw the Gloating of the presenter when he interviewed a finicial expert on the economic difficulties the US is having at the moment,of course they picked an expert with a negative view,i wonder why?
The fact is this slowdown is an excellent oppurtunity to generate wealth in the USA(during the depression more millionaires were made than any time before or since)!I hope i can break into the world of wealth that i was so obviously born to be a part of!:D

It is so popular because 97% of all immigrants, even the very uneducated ones, feel they have a chance of a life but probably son't realise it will be with menial jobs as 'servants', which may be preferable to what they have at home.

'Yank bashing' has been brought about because basically most 'Americans' are insular, pretty dumb and extremely greedy. They think they have the right to live a life, the consequences of which the rest of the world has to pay for in terms of putting up with 'bully boy' tactics in all aspects of American foreign affair and trade.

Americans are mostly ignorant of what goes on outside their own borders.

Your reply seems to confirm that money/wealth and the like are what matters; it is not. What matters is a fair society (global) where everyone can live a decent life. Happiness, contentment and security do not depend on wealth. They depend on things the average American doesn't understand.

I am not anti-American but I am sick of the muscle flexing by an ill educated, morally bankrupt bunch of oil rich thugs who throw their weight around the world simply because they can. All bullies meet their nemesis and one day America, unless it changes, will also experience the same. That could be economic or militarily but one thing is for certain, no 'empire' lasts forever.

[pauli007001]

It is so popular because 97% of all immigrants, even the very uneducated ones, feel they have a chance of a life but probably son't realise it will be with menial jobs as 'servants', which may be preferable to what they have at home.

'Yank bashing' has been brought about because basically most 'Americans' are insular, pretty dumb and extremely greedy. They think they have the right to live a life, the consequences of which the rest of the world has to pay for in terms of putting up with 'bully boy' tactics in all aspects of American foreign affair and trade.

Americans are mostly ignorant of what goes on outside their own borders.

Your reply seems to confirm that money/wealth and the like are what matters; it is not. What matters is a fair society (global) where everyone can live a decent life. Happiness, contentment and security do not depend on wealth. They depend on things the average American doesn't understand.

I am not anti-American but I am sick of the muscle flexing by an ill educated, morally bankrupt bunch of oil rich thugs who throw their weight around the world simply because they can. All bullies meet their nemesis and one day America, unless it changes, will also experience the same. That could be economic or militarily but one thing is for certain, no 'empire' lasts forever.

Yup this guy realy hates America,river studio,i have said before that the americans are not the evil monsters you think they are,they are hard working people just like you,who are better educated than the average brit and understand more than money,but your hatred has you blinded so there is no point trying to tell you anything good about Americans!
Your hatred is simelar to a point of view held by al quaida,perhaps you should join them and attack the great satan?:D

[Trouble43]

Yup this guy realy hates America,river studio,i have said before that the americans are not the evil monsters you think they are,they are hard working people just like you,who are better educated than the average brit and understand more than money,but your hatred has you blinded so there is no point trying to tell you anything good about Americans!
Your hatred is simelar to a point of view held by al quaida,perhaps you should join them and attack the great satan?:D

I don't think he's saying that americans are evil monsters (though he could've put his point a little more....diplomatically shall we say?:))

However I think comments about the americans being better educated that the avergae brit is a bit off paulie, and probably why people respond with a knee jerk angry retort.

Your last comment is a bit nasty too; why do you do that? Putting a smilie at the end doesn't detract from the fact you've called a person you know nothing about a terrorist, purely because he doesn't agree with you.

[Spades]

I don't know if i'm right here but wasn't the UN resolution in 1990 only to liberate Kuwait? The U.S/British forces could not enter Iraq or sanction any requests (as they did with the Northen/Southern 'no fly zones') Therefore the ceasefire would only be broken if Iraq used force against another nation, no?

I am not sure about any of this so any info would be great.

Iraq's Weapons & The Road to War - article by Daniel Pipes (http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1116)


______________
Also,

Under that agreement, Iraq had agreed to abide by UNSC resolution #687, which states:

8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:
(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;
(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;
Section 9 of the same resolution set a time limit of 90 days for the completion of all the disclosure and destruction. The cease-fire was an agreement signed between sovereign nations, over which the United Nations has no power not granted it by the signatories. It devolved upon the United States to enforce its violation (declared by President Clinton in 1998), just as a violation of the 1953 cease-fire agreement with North Korea will be up to the United States to enforce after a violation is declared. The moment that 90-day time limit ran out, the United States was obligated to enforce its terms. The fact that we did nothing about it but impose sanctions for over a decade "proved" to the Arab world how weak we were. The fact that we stationed troops in Saudi Arabia to protect them and enforce the sanctions angered Osama bin Laden enough to attack us. In a May 1998 interview, Osama stated, "The call to wage war against America was made because America has spear-headed the crusade against the Islamic nation, sending tens of thousands of its troops to the land of the two Holy Mosques" [Mecca and Medina]. Keeping all those troops in Saudi Arabia was causing us problems, but we could not simply remove them without causing even more.
Records of the humanitarian crimes committed by Saddam's regime were kept for decades by Amnesty International, whose 2002 Iraq report begins:

In addition to these legal obligations to remove Saddam from power, regime change in Iraq became the aim of US foreign policy by law in 1998. Clinton signed Public Law 105-235, which declared Iraq "in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations", followed by the Iraq Liberation Act, which stated in Section 3:

SEC. 3. POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES.
It should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.


_____________________________

[Spades]

Yup this guy realy hates America,river studio,i have said before that the americans are not the evil monsters you think they are,they are hard working people just like you,who are better educated than the average brit and understand more than money,but your hatred has you blinded so there is no point trying to tell you anything good about Americans!
Your hatred is simelar to a point of view held by al quaida,perhaps you should join them and attack the great satan?:D

I concur pauli. As I do not enjoy being called stupid, greedy. His degrading insultive comments do not prove anything and without solid evidence or any citations it seems like nothing else but an attack on the US. All though River, how did you come up with that 97 percent figure? I find it rather high is why I ask.

Anyways, back to the topic.

Debate Over Guantanamo's Fate Intensifies (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/03/AR2008070303825_pf.html)

Hope this helps but to go along with that Supreme Court issue they do not necessarily have jurisdiction to make the decision they made. Often times, people with an agenda will stick to the mindset rather than hear reason. This causes them to sometimes cross their jurisidiction (which i believe they kind of did). Congress has the power to authorize war but the President has the power of how the war is conducted (Hence commander-in-chief). Especially, since no other time in history do you see prisoners of war getting the right to challenge their captures. It has been a general tradition that at the end of the War prisoners were then released. Why? So they do not get to join in the fighting anymore. The president is only going by what has normally been done and not doing anything that really warrants such hatred.
The Supreme Court doesnot really have any way to enforce their decisions for a reasons because otherwise they'd have to much power.

Now as the above article points out that they are trying to work out a plan and there have only been 40 new detainees at guantanamo since 2004. Hope this helps.

[claire]

It is so popular because 97% of all immigrants, even the very uneducated ones, feel they have a chance of a life but probably son't realise it will be with menial jobs as 'servants', which may be preferable to what they have at home.

'Yank bashing' has been brought about because basically most 'Americans' are insular, pretty dumb and extremely greedy. They think they have the right to live a life, the consequences of which the rest of the world has to pay for in terms of putting up with 'bully boy' tactics in all aspects of American foreign affair and trade.

Americans are mostly ignorant of what goes on outside their own borders.

Your reply seems to confirm that money/wealth and the like are what matters; it is not. What matters is a fair society (global) where everyone can live a decent life. Happiness, contentment and security do not depend on wealth. They depend on things the average American doesn't understand.

I am not anti-American but I am sick of the muscle flexing by an ill educated, morally bankrupt bunch of oil rich thugs who throw their weight around the world simply because they can. All bullies meet their nemesis and one day America, unless it changes, will also experience the same. That could be economic or militarily but one thing is for certain, no 'empire' lasts forever.

Well, I'm sorry but it does seem like you hate Americans lol. As far as uneducated goes, I'd say that is for the most part, correct. In our school systems we study United States history until the tenth/ninth grade. We barely recieve the history of umm...the rest of the world. It's incomplete and it makes understanding international politics (and our own) very very difficult. Because no matter how much reading I have time for. It seems like lost hours of learning about the industrial revolution in the class room...again. Plus, our education is definitely censored. In my whole education the amount of time we spent learning about the United States involvement in Cambodia-one paragraph. I'm already done with American history. Korea-give me a break, that was 30 minutes of reading. However, we spent about half a year on WWI. It's hard to study history when you don't know where to begin.

[pauli007001]

I don't think he's saying that americans are evil monsters (though he could've put his point a little more....diplomatically shall we say?:))

However I think comments about the americans being better educated that the avergae brit is a bit off paulie, and probably why people respond with a knee jerk angry retort.

Your last comment is a bit nasty too; why do you do that? Putting a smilie at the end doesn't detract from the fact you've called a person you know nothing about a terrorist, purely because he doesn't agree with you.

He wasnt responding to me,i responded to him!
However more Americans attend university(per capita)than any other nation in the world,how then can he claim that americans are uneducated?He is just a hate filled prejudiced jealous article.I didnt call him a terrorist,just pointed out that his point of view is the same as Osama bin ladins,US BAD,deserve to be killed,celebrate death of American!
911 ring any bells,how often do you hear it said that it served America right,or they deserved everything they got?I heard it in lockwood on 911,a st party on yews hill ave celebrating this great act,this i will never forget!911 i will never forget.The British people forgot soon enough what it was like waiting for the next IRA bomb to kill em i think!!!!The American Govnt have put in place methods to protect their own,why is that a bad thing?

[pauli007001]

It is so popular because 97% of all immigrants, even the very uneducated ones, feel they have a chance of a life but probably son't realise it will be with menial jobs as 'servants', which may be preferable to what they have at home.

'Yank bashing' has been brought about because basically most 'Americans' are insular, pretty dumb and extremely greedy. They think they have the right to live a life, the consequences of which the rest of the world has to pay for in terms of putting up with 'bully boy' tactics in all aspects of American foreign affair and trade.

Americans are mostly ignorant of what goes on outside their own borders.

Your reply seems to confirm that money/wealth and the like are what matters; it is not. What matters is a fair society (global) where everyone can live a decent life. Happiness, contentment and security do not depend on wealth. They depend on things the average American doesn't understand.

I am not anti-American but I am sick of the muscle flexing by an ill educated, morally bankrupt bunch of oil rich thugs who throw their weight around the world simply because they can. All bullies meet their nemesis and one day America, unless it changes, will also experience the same. That could be economic or militarily but one thing is for certain, no 'empire' lasts forever.

I am an immigrant and am not a servant,you are stereotyping again!You are such a bigot!
The USA is the fairest society in the world,also the most succesfull(reason for the hatred perhaps)!!

[claire]

He's thinking of the Cubans and Mexicans who jump the border because they are unskilled and therefor can not make a living. I can tell this is going to turn into a thread fight.

[pauli007001]

He's thinking of the Cubans and Mexicans who jump the border because they are unskilled and therefor can not make a living. I can tell this is going to turn into a thread fight.

I think you may be right,im going into ignore the bigot mode!:D

[Trouble43]

He wasnt responding to me,i responded to him!
However more Americans attend university(per capita)than any other nation in the world,how then can he claim that americans are uneducated?He is just a hate filled prejudiced jealous article.I didnt call him a terrorist,just pointed out that his point of view is the same as Osama bin ladins,US BAD,deserve to be killed,celebrate death of American!
911 ring any bells,how often do you hear it said that it served America right,or they deserved everything they got?I heard it in lockwood on 911,a st party on yews hill ave celebrating this great act,this i will never forget!911 i will never forget.The British people forgot soon enough what it was like waiting for the next IRA bomb to kill em i think!!!!The American Govnt have put in place methods to protect their own,why is that a bad thing?

Sadly Paulie we Brits dont have the disposable income to shove our kids through Uni. A friend works as a vet nurse and they recently took on a newly qualified vet; due to tutor fees and the like he is £35,000 in debt and his fiancee is somewhere in the region of £30,000 because her parents helped her out a bit more - oh and this is with them working holidays and the like or else it would've been a LOT more. This is why people wonder at the logic of a uni education and why we are having more and more middle aged people taking degrees (cant remember what they're called - senior students?)

I think people who say the US got what it deserved on 911 are very sick and need help. No one deserves what happened that day (and neither do I believe the conspiracy theoriests that say it was an 'inside job'). It wasn't only the US that suffered that day either - it was called the world trade centre for a reason, many nations lost nationals.

No Paulie the British haen't forgotten the Ira bombings, as a half Irish person I can safely say they havent and never will. But perhaps it is well to remember that an awful lot of Americans funded the IRA too. Noraid is a dirty word in Britain.

It isn't that the US wants to protect itself that's the problem. Its natural for a country to want to protect its citizens - well usually anyway. Here in the UK its different. The criminal's rights come before the victims.

Anyway, I wander off - I dont have a problem with the US protecting itself, I dont have a problem with them wanting to rid nations of their tyranical leaders; most people don't. Its just Bush's attitude that its his way or the highway that bugs the hell out of me. The man messes up speeches (Ive watched them on the satellite US news we get), wafles about nothing and I jsut dont trust him.

I don't know what the answer is - McCain seems alright I suppose; he's certainly a better bet than Obama. The latter candidate for the presidency is.....let me put it this way....I gt a bad feeling about that man. I cant say why, cant say what it is. He very nice, very polite, very all encompassing, very pro the world and yet still very pro American.

But.....there is still that but.....I see him on tv and I get a bad feeling. There's just something about him that makes me nervous. I hd the same feeling about Gordon Brown becoming our PM......

ANyway, jsut wanted you to know that when it comes to the American people, you have a whole hearted supporter here. They are good people, they are my friends (well two of them anyway) and I feel the people get a rough ride because of their government.

I also am very pro the US when it comes to 911. Just so's you know.:)

[pauli007001]

How many people has bush killed in 8 years? and for what?

www.viewmyviews.com (http://www.viewmyviews.com)

How many ,mmm absolutly none that i have heard of!

[Trouble43]

How many ,mmm absolutly none that i have heard of!


I don't think she meant him personally Paulie! :D

[claire]

I bet there's one or two in there!

[Spades]

I don't think she meant him personally Paulie! :D

Then she should explain what she means better. It's easy to say that about any president. After all, using the logic that she is probably intending then how many people did Johnson kill? How many people did Lincoln kill?

[Spartacus]

Then she should explain what she means better. It's easy to say that about any president. After all, using the logic that she is probably intending then how many people did Johnson kill? How many people did Lincoln kill?

I think most people would have known what she was implying and the spin off is just pure destraction. :D As you probably already know

I agree with you about the others too........... you could add Clinton , Kennedy , Reagan etc etc to it aswell

In fact some may start to see a common denominator developing ;)

[pauli007001]

I think most people would have known what she was implying and the spin off is just pure destraction. :D As you probably already know

I agree with you about the others too........... you could add Clinton , Kennedy , Reagan etc etc to it aswell

In fact some may start to see a common denominator developing ;)

What about b Liar wilson callaghan could be a pattern there too!
However your reference is to the war on terror,and Iraq,perhaps the million dead iraqis?Go and find out who killed em,reaserch it dont just say the americans ,you see that would not be the truth,would it?
The VAST majority of dead civvillians in Iraq were killed by forign Jihadists who went their to practise that which they enjoy most,Mass Murder!This is particulary true of al quaida who forllow the Sunni faith in the wahhibi tradition,they were known for cutting the throats of shia,shite and dervish moslem babies in afghanistan prior to the US invasion.They would also gouge out the eyes of any suspected of having read books no approoved by the Students(Talib)!Are you going to continue making things up to suit your anti American envy driven agenda or are you willing to look at the facts?

[Spades]

I think most people would have known what she was implying and the spin off is just pure destraction. :D As you probably already know

I agree with you about the others too........... you could add Clinton , Kennedy , Reagan etc etc to it aswell

In fact some may start to see a common denominator developing ;)

What about Saddam? What About Ahemdinajad? What about Putin? What about Blair? What about Churchill? What about various other leaders. If it can be said about all leaders, why single out Bush?

[Tete123]

Iraq's Weapons & The Road to War - article by Daniel Pipes (http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1116)


______________
Also,

Under that agreement, Iraq had agreed to abide by UNSC resolution #687, which states:

8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:
(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;
(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;
Section 9 of the same resolution set a time limit of 90 days for the completion of all the disclosure and destruction. The cease-fire was an agreement signed between sovereign nations, over which the United Nations has no power not granted it by the signatories. It devolved upon the United States to enforce its violation (declared by President Clinton in 1998), just as a violation of the 1953 cease-fire agreement with North Korea will be up to the United States to enforce after a violation is declared. The moment that 90-day time limit ran out, the United States was obligated to enforce its terms. The fact that we did nothing about it but impose sanctions for over a decade "proved" to the Arab world how weak we were. The fact that we stationed troops in Saudi Arabia to protect them and enforce the sanctions angered Osama bin Laden enough to attack us. In a May 1998 interview, Osama stated, "The call to wage war against America was made because America has spear-headed the crusade against the Islamic nation, sending tens of thousands of its troops to the land of the two Holy Mosques" [Mecca and Medina]. Keeping all those troops in Saudi Arabia was causing us problems, but we could not simply remove them without causing even more.
Records of the humanitarian crimes committed by Saddam's regime were kept for decades by Amnesty International, whose 2002 Iraq report begins:

In addition to these legal obligations to remove Saddam from power, regime change in Iraq became the aim of US foreign policy by law in 1998. Clinton signed Public Law 105-235, which declared Iraq "in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations", followed by the Iraq Liberation Act, which stated in Section 3:

SEC. 3. POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES.
It should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.


_____________________________


Can you explain to me how the U.S can pass a public law declaring intent to enforce a regime change in another sovereign state in which the government is recognized as lawful? This interventionism provokes anger towards the U.S from the Arabs (Muslims) and the world alike.

Resolution 687 (passed on 3 April 1991) imposed heavy sanctions on Iraq to force it to abandon its weapons programme but there was never any suggestion that this condition should be imposed by war.
It did insist that Iraq acknowledge the conditions laid out, at which point a ceasefire would come into force. Iraq accepted these terms in a letter to the UN Security General on 6th April 1991, at which point the ceasefire came legally into effect.
Resolution 1441, voted on 8th November 2002, did rule that Iraq was in breach of resolution 687, however, it did not conclude the ceasefire was no longer in force, as the U.S and British governments claimed, instead it reinforced that a UN weapons inspection team were to be sent to Iraq... Again at no point does resolution 1441 authorise war, instead it gave Iraq another chance to comply with 687, and therefore weapons inspection team were sent back in.
The U.S / British attack in March therefore far from being legal actually interrupted the weapons inspection mission that resolution 1441 reintroduced.
It was because resolution 1441 did NOT authorise war that the U.S and Britain attempted to introduce further Security Council resolutions in the Feb 2003. This was thwarted by Russian and French members who concluded that any resolution authorising war before the conclusion of the Weapons Inspection Mission would be vetoed. Its clear that the attack on Iraq which began on 20th March 2003, was illegal under the terms of the UN charter and therefore it was a criminal war of aggression.

Subsequent to the invasion, the failure to find any of the alleged WMD, the U.S and Britain fell back on the 'regime change' excuse to justify their actions. Regime change as you quite clearly pointed out by producing the Iraq Liberation Act passed in 1998 as evidence earlier was the U.S policy and preceded the 'War on Terror'. Also the U.S have failed to adhere Article 54 of the Geneva Convention 1949 in regards to the role of occupying forces and interference in the status of public officials and judges.

I fail to see then that the Iraq conflict can be classed as the continued 'War on Terror' and conclude that this is a completely separate engagement with a separate desired outcome.

Its tiresome that U.S citizens and pro U.S sympathisers continue to claim envy / jealousy as a means to deterre the ill feeling towards the U.S foreign policy. If we were only to look at the period since the end of WWII it's clear to see that the U.S in their efforts to remain a free and democratic society have continuely meddled in world affairs with direct military intervention and indirect funding and support to regimes that best match U.S interest. It is universally known that the U.S media is insular, biased and propagandist and therefore many Americans do not understand how the U.S is perceived by the world at large. I will also debate that American society isn't as free as claimed, particularly since the introduction of the Patriots Act in 2001 and other measures introduced after 9/11.

USA PATRIOT Act (H.R. 3162) (http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html)

ODS HOME PAGE (http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement) - Resolution 1441

[Tete123]

What about Saddam? What About Ahemdinajad? What about Putin? What about Blair? What about Churchill? What about various other leaders. If it can be said about all leaders, why single out Bush?

The thread is called ..... 'Bush is criminal and a idiot'

[Spades]

The thread is called ..... 'Bush is criminal and a idiot'


Whats the point you are trying to make here? Btw, it should be "Bush is a criminal.." I am asking why single him out.

[Spades]

First off, there was no termination of hostilities with Iraq. A cease-fire instead is a temporary cessation of hostilities and is not the same thing. There has to be a permanent peace agreement that has to be made. In this cease-fire Iraq has agreed to comply with ALL of the conditions. Which they did not. We just didn't choose to hoping we could Saddam to cooperate and have UN support. The UN can sit and play around with Saddam all they want in hopes that he would cooperate but thats not our problem nor our criminal war of aggression.


Also the U.S have failed to adhere Article 54 of the Geneva Convention 1949 in regards to the role of occupying forces and interference in the status of public officials and judges.


Clarify? Because if by helping them have elections is what you mean then I don't really see whats so wrong with that. Afterall, we helped rebuild you guys across the sea.


fail to see then that the Iraq conflict can be classed as the continued 'War on Terror' and conclude that this is a completely separate engagement with a separate desired outcome.


The Iraq War and the War on Terror are two entirely different things.



It is universally known that the U.S media is insular, biased and propagandist and therefore many Americans do not understand how the U.S is perceived by the world at large. I will also debate that American society isn't as free as claimed, particularly since the introduction of the Patriots Act in 2001 and other measures introduced after 9/11.


Give me an example of some 'better' media that isn't biased. That insular biased comment really has no justification or evidence.

Define what you believe to be 'free.' Because anyone that is not in the state of nature is not entirely free.

[Spartacus]

Whats the point you are trying to make here? Btw, it should be "Bush is a criminal.." I am asking why single him out.

Well that's the title of the thread as Tete123 has already stated.

Saddam has already been tried and convicted and hung for his crimes so I don't really understand why he made your list.

As far as I know the Iranian leader hasn't commited any and the picking off of Iran and Iranians is sheer propaganda. The US has sought to regain control over Iran ever since they overthrew the Shah.

Churchill has died so there's no real point in concerning ourselves with yesteryear when there are such vital modern day problems to solve . Of which Bush et al have been instrumental.

Putin ? , yeah why not , Chetchnya was fair game for criminal accusations against the Russian leadership.

China in Tibet shouldn't be discounted , imo.

Israeli policy in the occupied territories ?

I mean we can go on and on.

I think the reason why Bush has been singled out is because he has practically announced a world domination plan with no option of neutrality.

The American leadership has , imo , become the monster rogue state with a total disregard for international law and international organizations.

They spend more on the military than anyone else by a huge distance. They have military bases everywhere around the globe and they are isolated from the rest of the world on the militarization of space.

People are going to react to all of these things if survival is an instinct they possess.

The War against Terror is a sham and is raising the bar on State Terrorism. As it is a Washinton initiative US leaders will be the main focus for its opponents.

I don't think that is picking on them , as they have put themselves in that position.

[Spartacus]

What about b Liar wilson callaghan could be a pattern there too!
However your reference is to the war on terror,and Iraq,perhaps the million dead iraqis?Go and find out who killed em,reaserch it dont just say the americans ,you see that would not be the truth,would it?
The VAST majority of dead civvillians in Iraq were killed by forign Jihadists who went their to practise that which they enjoy most,Mass Murder!This is particulary true of al quaida who forllow the Sunni faith in the wahhibi tradition,they were known for cutting the throats of shia,shite and dervish moslem babies in afghanistan prior to the US invasion.They would also gouge out the eyes of any suspected of having read books no approoved by the Students(Talib)!Are you going to continue making things up to suit your anti American envy driven agenda or are you willing to look at the facts?

The vast majority of the deaths in Iraq since it has been bullied by the USA and her lapdogs have been caused through the sanctions which were only ended by military invasion. I don't think even you can blame the Jihadis for that Pauli.

If you want real horror stories you could look into the present day Columbian leadership. I mean you won't find too many references to it in the US mainstream because they are an oligarchic ally of the US and recieve vast amounts of US " aid ."

See what Human Rights Watch have to report on the despotic Columbian leadership and the paramilitary death squads they employ to carry out crimes akin to those you have already noted.

Or take another , Uzbekistan. Another ally of Washington whos nutjob leadership are known to systematically torture people to death. I mean they go real medieval like boiling people to death and have conviction rates of 99% :eek:

You may not be familiar with some of the real despots of the world simply because they are official allies of your adopted country. As a result you will only be familiar the crimes of the official enemies of the state. Welcome to conditioning :)

[Tete123]

First off, there was no termination of hostilities with Iraq. A cease-fire instead is a temporary cessation of hostilities and is not the same thing. There has to be a permanent peace agreement that has to be made. In this cease-fire Iraq has agreed to comply with ALL of the conditions. Which they did not. We just didn't choose to hoping we could Saddam to cooperate and have UN support. The UN can sit and play around with Saddam all they want in hopes that he would cooperate but thats not our problem nor our criminal war of aggression.

U.S justification for the war in Iraq rested on them being in breach of resolutions 678 and 687 (678 - 1990 and 687 - 1991) when in fact they were in breach of neither because they refered specifically to manufacturing of WMD's which it's now clear is not the case. Resolution 678 (29 Nov 1990) said that 'all necessary means' (meaning war) could be used to enforce Resolution 660 (2 Aug 1990) and other resolutions voted since then. Resolution 660 stated clearly that Iraq was to withdraw from Kuwait. Resolution 687, that authorised the use of military intervention did so with the single aim of liberating Kuwait, which happened in 1991. No UN resolution had or has authorised war to remove Saddam and his regime from power or even to invade Iraq (George Bush Sr if you remember had refused to go to Baghdad in 1991 for this reason) Resolution 1441 only refered back to resolution 678 and 687 but as you can see they themselves didn't justify or legalise an attack on Iraq for the purpose of regime change. Also just a point to note; Britain and the U.S had already used resolution 678 to justify their 1998 bombing campaign in which the UN weapons inspection team were told to withdraw regardless of the fact Iraq HAD complied with the disarmament requirements.

I'm sorry but you seem to be saying that the U.S can act outside of the UNSC: Would I be right in thinking this??


Clarify? Because if by helping them have elections is what you mean then I don't really see whats so wrong with that. Afterall, we helped rebuild you guys across the sea..

OK, Article 54 states

'The Occupying Power may not alter the status of public officials or judges in the occupied territories, or in any way apply sanctions to or take any measures of coercion or discrimination against them, should they abstain from fulfilling their functions for reasons of conscience'

America acted in direct violation to this in Iraq by conducting a complete purge of the whole judicial system, for the sole purpose of trying Saddam. You ask what was wrong with this; its against International Law. The U.S occupation of Iraq shows the contempt the U.S have for the UN and International Law as a whole, they clearly feel the are beyond reproach and act according to their Foreign Policy rather than genuine concern for world peace (or Humanitarian suffering as they would like the world to believe)

As for your 'we helped rebuild you guys across the sea' statement, I personally do not feel the need to respond to this. although it does go someway to showing the opinion the U.S people have of the UK.


The Iraq War and the War on Terror are two entirely different things..

I have clearly provided evidence that shows the Iraq War to be illegal.


Give me an example of some 'better' media that isn't biased. That insular biased comment really has no justification or evidence.

Define what you believe to be 'free.' Because anyone that is not in the state of nature is not entirely free.

I didn't say there was 'better' media; all media will be biased to some degree but the U.S rarely report in a way that provides the viewer with any information regarding the wider world. When 9/11 unfolded Americans were shocked, they didn't understand 'WHY' the Arab world perceived them with such hatred yet Osama Bin Laden had said as much in regards the U.S stationing several thousand troops in Saudi Arabia (This was an insult to Islam, according to Bin Laden) the 9/11 attacks were not a shock to the rest of the world. Please do not think that I am in anyway condoning these attacks, more just pointing out that at some point, someone was going to attack mainland America because of U.S foreign policy. This shows the U.S media to be insular in my opinion and its government to be arrogant. I also cite Claire in an earlier post in this thread regarding the history taught in U.S schools, again showing a effort to minimise the knowledge of its citizens regarding the wider world and again justifying my claim that the U.S is insular.

I am not claiming to be 'FREE' --- American's claim this!! Isn't it a line in your national anthem??
Therefore no definition required as you are more than capable of looking up the word in a dictionary.

[Tete123]

Whats the point you are trying to make here? Btw, it should be "Bush is a criminal.." I am asking why single him out.

I sincerely apologise for missing the 'A' out of the title.

'Bush is A criminal and an Idiot' - There is that better??

I know what your asking and my answer was pretty much to the point. You seem to not quite grasp the simplicity of my point though so;

As the thread is specifically about George W Bush and acts that may show criminality and or idiocy I believe it is fair game to 'single him out.'

That is my point and I hope you understand it better now.

[Spades]

I sincerely apologise for missing the 'A' out of the title.

'Bush is A criminal and an Idiot' - There is that better??

I know what your asking and my answer was pretty much to the point. You seem to not quite grasp the simplicity of my point though so;

As the thread is specifically about George W Bush and acts that may show criminality and or idiocy I believe it is fair game to 'single him out.'

That is my point and I hope you understand it better now.

Apparently, you are not grasping my point. If you are intending to prove someone is an idiot and a criminal, by saying that bush is to blame for something that pretty much every other leader could be blamed for as well is kind of stupid. Otherwise you must apply the same standards to them (including Churchill and FDR). Spartacus blames every leader which he can, its a logical point, do you agree with that then?

[Spades]

[I'm sorry but you seem to be saying that the U.S can act outside of the UNSC: Would I be right in thinking this??
I will address the UN resolution points after you address my original one about the cease-fire. Saddam broke it and like a contract it goes invalid. Or do you argue that he did not break it?

Now in certain circumstances any nation can act outside the UNSC. For example, the UNSC cannot take away nations right to self defense (just an example). Like the cease-fire agreement, the UN is just a treaty and while I don't think we really acted outside the UNSC, if you say that Iraq can do it then why not us. There is no teeth to the UN aggreement anyway. We've seen just how good there peace enforcing efforts have been and as you pointed out with your Human rights declaration, Iraq is just not living up to it.


OK, Article 54 states

'The Occupying Power may not alter the status of public officials or judges in the occupied territories, or in any way apply sanctions to or take any measures of coercion or discrimination against them, should they abstain from fulfilling their functions for reasons of conscience' America acted in direct violation to this in Iraq by conducting a complete purge of the whole judicial system, for the sole purpose of trying Saddam. You ask what was wrong with this; its against International Law. The U.S occupation of Iraq shows the contempt the U.S have for the UN and International Law as a whole, they clearly feel the are beyond reproach and act according to their Foreign Policy rather than genuine concern for world peace (or Humanitarian suffering as they would like the world to believe)
Are you saying that because we removed the Iraqi Judiciary... in other words we removed Saddams Regime and HIS judges that we were wrong? That we removed that wonderfully function Judiciary system that they had? Take a look at that last part. "Should they abstain from fulfilling their functions for reasons of consience. We removed the whole corrupt government like what happens when someone loses a war. Like we did with Hitler for example. We are not violating article 54 because of that last part in particular.


As for your 'we helped rebuild you guys across the sea' statement, I personally do not feel the need to respond to this. although it does go someway to showing the opinion the U.S people have of the UK.

Kind of like some of your comments? One in particular, "It is universally known that the U.S media is insular, biased and propagandist and therefore many Americans do not understand how the U.S is perceived by the world at large." Or the education for that matter.

Or the 'free' comment. I should go through the threads and look up more.

I have clearly provided evidence that shows the Iraq War to be illegal.
This is a conclusionary statement about something we are very well debating. It seems like you are trying to say that you are right because you say you are right.


the U.S rarely report in a way that provides the viewer with any information regarding the wider world. When 9/11 unfolded Americans were shocked, they didn't understand 'WHY' the Arab world perceived them with such hatred yet Osama Bin Laden had said as much in regards the U.S stationing several thousand troops in Saudi Arabia (This was an insult to Islam, according to Bin Laden) the 9/11 attacks were not a shock to the rest of the world. Please do not think that I am in anyway condoning these attacks, more just pointing out that at some point, someone was going to attack mainland America because of U.S foreign policy. This shows the U.S media to be insular in my opinion and its government to be arrogant. I also cite Claire in an earlier post in this thread regarding the history taught in U.S schools, again showing a effort to minimise the knowledge of its citizens regarding the wider world and again justifying my claim that the U.S is insular.
'Wider word.' Like we would of known about this because Osama Bin Laden said so. That he was the voice of feeling in the Arab World. Thanks for the information, you must have consulted a vast majority of Arabs. The reason we had troops in Saudia Arabia was becase Iraq Invaded Kuwait and we used them as the staging ground.

By the way, in high school in America, students have some lee-way when it comes to what clases they can take. They can take what they want or are interested in. Some just focus on the area they want to use to help them in the future, others take the easy road. The history about the wider world is usually less-attractive and sometimes are harder courses. Beyond that, there are other course that we HAVE to take like American Government and US history.

I am not claiming to be 'FREE' --- American's claim this!! Isn't it a line in your national anthem??
Therefore no definition required as you are more than capable of looking up the word in a dictionary.

What is your definition of being 'free.' because I can assure you I haven't felt the sting or having my liberties being taken away. From what I've heard, Israel laughs at our security because its too lax!

[Tiber]

What spades, did Saddam do something that america didn't like. But wait a second america didn't go to war with Iraq for the breaking of a cease fire. For what i remember they went to war for WMD's. Were there any WMD's, well they found some rusted barrels full of nuclear waste that had been left since the last golf war which hadn't been touched for the same amount of time.

Now Spades, on this forum tell us that your government said we're going to war over the breaking of a ceasefire agreement.

Also, you cannot use the freeing the Iraqi's for tyranny. One we didn't go to war for it. Secondly the iraqi's are now in more danger of dying from terrorists in a once terrorist free country.

If we were going to attack Iraq for breaking human rights and tyranny. Why aren't we in Zimbabwe, or in Tibet, or in most African countries.

Also, the helping us build our country back again. Well we had to pay off that debt, you didn't help you loaned. We finsihed paying last year. Also, in Europe we were in the firing line, America wasn't. It has 3000 miles of sea. If the United Kingdom fell how ever you would have also lost the war most probably.

In the UK we also pick our topics etc. But we have a better education system then america. From what i heard the American education system is meant to be really shoddy. You'd probably have a better one if you weren't fighting a very expensive war.

[Tete123]

Spades,

Saddam broke it and like a contract it goes invalid. Or do you argue that he did not break it?

Now in certain circumstances any nation can act outside the UNSC. For example, the UNSC cannot take away nations right to self defence (just an example). Like the cease-fire agreement, the UN is just a treaty and while I don't think we really acted outside the UNSC, if you say that Iraq can do it then why not us. There are no teeth to the UN agreements anyway. We've seen just how good their peace-enforcing efforts have been and as you pointed out with your Human rights declaration, Iraq is just not living up to it.


You know as well as I do that the U.S never went to war because the cease-fire agreement was broken and I have provided analysis of the resolutions to prove this and given details of the reason’s given by both the U.S and UK governments for waging war. I have also shown these reasons to be unlawful and in breach of the UN charter and can therefore determine the action against Iraq as a criminal war of aggression.

I agree in certain circumstances a nation may act outside the UNSC. Your example (and I know it was only an example) does nothing to support your case for U.S/UK military forces to act outside UN resolutions. I cannot say I always agree with the UN or how its run but the U.S, the very beacon of democracy and freedom should not be acting outside of International Law. I believe a reason for the UN’s weakness is the failure to enforce sanction against the United States for 50 years of interventionism and interference and in particular it’s refusal to condemn the NATO bombing campaign of Yugoslavia in 1999 and the CIA’s funding of paramilitary forces (namely the KLA)

You may now comment on the resolutions but little will change the facts laid out in this post and those in former post that quite clearly show the war in Iraq to be illegal.

‘Are you saying that because we removed the Iraqi Judiciary... in other words we removed Saddams Regime and HIS judges that we were wrong? That we removed that wonderfully functioning Judiciary system that they had? Take a look at that last part. "Should they abstain from fulfilling their functions for reasons of conscience? We removed the whole corrupt government like what happens when someone loses a war. Like we did with Hitler for example. We are not violating article 54 because of that last part in particular.’

‘Abstain’ means to refrain from something by one’s own choice, I therefore do not see how this develops or supports you argument; please explain? The judiciary and the government were separate entities; did the U.S ascertain that they were favourable to Saddam’s regime?? I’m afraid your mistaken young sir, the Occupation Authority led by Paul Bremer did violate article 54 as well as articles: 64, 65 and 67. The occupying authority cannot change the penal laws for any other reason than direct danger to the occupying force and not in particular to make it accord to their own legal conception. Article 65 specifically provides that any new penal laws brought in by the occupier should not be retroactive.


‘Kind of like some of your comments? One in particular, "It is universally known that the U.S media is insular, biased and propagandist and therefore many Americans do not understand how the U.S is perceived by the world at large." Or the education received for that matter. Or the 'free' comment. I should go through the threads and look up more.’.


Well Spades you seem at best to be implying that I have an anti US stance or worst I am a bigot; which is it?

This is a conclusionary statement about something we are very well debating. It seems like you are trying to say that you are right because you say you are right..


I apologise if I made a premature conclusion that this debate was over, of course you will now bring new evidence to the forum and we can resume, otherwise I feel maybe I was right to make such a statement. I will of course allow you time to confer with you father, brother, lecturer or whoever may have such evidence to move this debate forward.



'Wider word.' Like we would of known about this because Osama Bin Laden said so. That he was the voice of feeling in the Arab World. Thanks for the information, you must have consulted a vast majority of Arabs. The reason we had troops in Saudia Arabia was becase Iraq Invaded Kuwait and we used them as the staging ground.

By the way, in high school in America, students have some lee-way when it comes to what clases they can take. They can take what they want or are interested in. Some just focus on the area they want to use to help them in the future, others take the easy road. The history about the wider world is usually less-attractive and sometimes are harder courses. Beyond that, there are other course that we HAVE to take like American Government and US history.

Yes ‘wider world’ Spades, The opinions of the Arab world, Europe, Africa, Asia, I know these views will mean little to Americans but this is why the average American didn’t perceived the threat to them prior to 9/11. Muslims have always called for the destruction of the Western infidel. It didn’t start on a bright sunny morning in September in the year 2001. America have constantly been active in changing regimes, bringing down ideologies, determining other states foreign policies and you wonder why the ‘WORLDS’ opinion of the US is so poor.

Maybe the US government should have heeded Osama Bin Laden’s warning.. Was he not at the top of the CIA’s most wanted list back then? The war to liberate Kuwait ended in 1991, the US had tens of thousands of troops stationed in S.A and Bin Laden took offence, as did many other Muslims, I didn’t need to speak individually to them Spades, our media isn’t insular as it is in the U.S and I was able to ascertain this fact from News Stations and national press.

I am not debating freedom with you but read the US Patriots Act; which I linked into a previous post to see what your government can now do. Freedom isn’t just about what they do, it’s also about what they can do.

[Spades]

Spades,




You know as well as I do that the U.S never went to war because the cease-fire agreement was broken and I have