Gustavo Pinochet, Slobodan Milosevic, Hermann Goering, Rudolph Hess and many, many more have stood, or been called to trial for war crimes...when, or will, Goerge W. Bush?
Bush on trial
- Thread starter B_HappyHammer1977
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2004
- Posts
- 5,842
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 2,611
- Points
- 333
- Location
- Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
- Gender
- Male
The profoundly retarded are exempt from standing trial. George W. Bush has this precedent of law going in his favor.
kalipygian
Expert Member
How about a life sentence, solitary confinement at Guantanamo, or perhaps by extraordinary rendition to Uzbekistan?
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2004
- Posts
- 5,842
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 2,611
- Points
- 333
- Location
- Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
- Gender
- Male
I like Guantanamo. Bush has made such a big deal about how the facilities at Guantanamo meet all international standards and hafe such "wonderful" facilities, I would love to see george w. bush get a chance to check personally check it out and find out.
International standards?! I'm pretty sure international standards state that people are proven guilty first! Or is that just too easy George?!
dong20
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2006
- Posts
- 6,058
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 28
- Points
- 183
- Location
- The grey country
- Sexuality
- No Response
Very easily...illegal war + thousands civillians killed = war criminal.
Oh man, you just opened up a can of worms there... BTW, for the record, I understand what you mean and I even agree. While I don't like Bush, to compare him to genocidal freaks, dictators and high-ranking Nazi officials is absolutely ludicrous - it basically lessens the atrocities commited by those bastards. Bush may be an incompetent and an expert at mismanaging... well, everything, but let's not lose our shit, here. Besides, who the fuck would put him on trial? The Hague? The UN? Don't make me laugh - the United Nations couldn't handle my cock up its ass, much less the trial of an American President. Get real, people.
Oh, and don't forget current dictators and assholes who remain free: Robert Mugabe, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong-il, Muqtada al-Sadr, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and countless others.
HazelGod
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2006
- Posts
- 7,154
- Media
- 1
- Likes
- 31
- Points
- 183
- Location
- The Other Side of the Pillow
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
Not to burst your realist bubble, but which of these men perpetrated an illegal invasion of a foreign nation that precipitated the deaths of thousands of his own citizens as well as thousands of those in the invaded nation?
While we're talking about criminal accountability, I'd be happy to see our lameass Congress charge and impeach that sorry motherfucker for crimes against the US Constitution and the citizenry of this nation. Radical islamofascists, my ass...that sonofoabitch is the greatest threat to the security and well-being of this country.
EDIT:
The legality of a military invasion is not judged solely by the statutes of one nation. Despite popular misconception here in the USA, ours is not the supreme authority in this world. The UN specifically voted against military incursion into Iraq, and GWB chose to ignore the rule of law (sound familiar?) and made the unilateral decision to invade anyhow.
Funny, I thought the American Congress approved the war.... I guess we don't have the same definition of 'illegal'. And good luck trying to wage a war with no civilian casualties. By your definition, practically every man who has ever ordered an attack on anyone else is a war criminal. That's completely ridiculous.
BTW: yes, the Iraq War is still a massive foreign policy blunder, not to mention a catastrophe on a humanitarian level. I'm just pointing out how easy it is to bitch without a) substance and b) alternative solutions. So far, on this thread, I've yet to see a really intelligent discourse, just whining. That takes zero skills.
You know what, you're right - those guys are just sweeties. :bs2:
Gimme a fucking break - the conflict in Iraq right now is immensely complex. It's a sectarian religious proxy war, feuled by American incompetence and Iranian intervention. This is exactly like putting the entire blame of WW1 on Gavrilo Princip's shoulders.
Please, get real.
Rikter8
Expert Member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2005
- Posts
- 4,353
- Media
- 1
- Likes
- 131
- Points
- 283
- Location
- Ann Arbor (Michigan, United States)
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
HazelGod
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2006
- Posts
- 7,154
- Media
- 1
- Likes
- 31
- Points
- 183
- Location
- The Other Side of the Pillow
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
I'm as real as they come.
I made the point for two reasons...first, to illustrate the enormous difference in degree between the jackass who is responsible for thousands of deaths in an illegal armed conflict and the other guys whose death tolls aren't quite into the six-figure range yet. As invalid comparisons go, it's way beyond apples and oranges. And second, to point out the logical fallacy implicit in your ridiculous comparison: that just because one (or ten or a hundred) jackasses go unpunished, it does not diminsh the culpability of the next jackass who comes along and commits atrocities.
The Iraqi situation is complex? No shit...but who started it all? Stop being a fucking apologist for GWB, because you haven't got a leg to stand on.
Pfffffft, that made me laugh out loud.
You're a fucking moron if you think I'm an apologist for Bush - go read my fucking posts again, I even wrote that I don't like him. The comparison I did with the start of World War 1 and that Bosnian student is perfectly valid, you just chose to ignore it.
BTW, Mr As Real As They Come, if you wanna blame the first one who started it all, you might as well blame Clinton. Learn some fucking history before you start your bullshit, idiot.
kalipygian
Expert Member
War without UN approval is illegal, the rubber stamp of a lied-to congress does not change this.
Gavril Princip was responsible for assasinating Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand and Sophie Herzogin von Hohenburg, not for starting WWI, he was put up to it(and supplied with the guns) by a secret society largely within the Serbian government.
Chief of the Imperial General Staff, Graf Conrad von Hoetzendorff was responsible for the Austro-Hungarian declaration of war against Serbia, unjustified after the government of Serbia had agreed to meet all reasonable demands. Kaiser Franz Josef was responsible for agreeing to it.
Princip was treated relatively humanely, as he was a minor, he was not given the death sentence, but was imprisoned.
HazelGod
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2006
- Posts
- 7,154
- Media
- 1
- Likes
- 31
- Points
- 183
- Location
- The Other Side of the Pillow
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
You're kidding, right?
There's only one man who went against the will of the rest of the world to start this shitstorm. The buck stops there.
It's not that your WWI or Bosnian points aren't valid...it's that they're irrelevant. You're attempting to redirect the discussion to conflicts which you percieve to be similar with the hope of somehow mitigating GWB's responsibilty for the present fiasco. Typical apologist behavior. As I already stated, it's fallacious. It doesn't matter how other situations were mishandled...that does NOT lessen Bush's criminal culpability for his actions.
Address the topic at hand, or accept the apologist label. Your choice.
There's only one man who went against the will of the rest of the world to start this shitstorm. The buck stops there.
It's not that your WWI or Bosnian points aren't valid...it's that they're irrelevant. You're attempting to redirect the discussion to conflicts which you percieve to be similar with the hope of somehow mitigating GWB's responsibilty for the present fiasco. Typical apologist behavior. As I already stated, it's fallacious. It doesn't matter how other situations were mishandled...that does NOT lessen Bush's criminal culpability for his actions.
Address the topic at hand, or accept the apologist label. Your choice.
Wrong - there is nothing ILLEGAL by acting unilaterally without the U.N.'s approval. Plenty of military actions have been taken in the past without the blessing of that unelected world body. Besides, considering the U.N.'s piss-poor record on its interventions worldwide (almost as bad as the CIA's), it's probably for the better.
I'll give you the reasons for starting the war are out of wack, and now we know. But there is nothing 'illegal' (in a jurisprudence way) about going to war without the U.N.'s blessing. You have to remember that the United Nations aims to facilitate cooperation between countries and it's a platform to resolve disputes (in theory, certainly not in practice), it is NOT a body that has a legislative authority over its members.Of course, there was multiple reasons for the start of WW1, but most historians would probably agree that him killing Franz Ferdinand was the straw that broke the camel's back and it snowballed from there.
Are YOU?
Nice revisionist history. Better ask Tony Blair and John Howard and the rest of the Bush administration about that. The countries who were opposed to the Iraq invasion did so not to lose their lucrative oil contracts with Hussein's regime - you think for a second that France and Germany and Russia give a shit about the Iraqis? They were protecting their interests from the US, that's it.
I feel like I'm arguing with a wall. Only with less intelligence. You've completely misunderstood my previous posts. I'd tell you to go read them again, but it wouldn't probably make much of a difference.
If you think I'm gonna let myself be labeled by a pretentious asshole like you, you're even more full of shit than I thought you were. I can smell you from here.
I never should have replied to your post in the first place - you're obviously not open-minded enough to discuss politics with me. After all, I'm a typical Bush apologist, right? Don't bother replying, I'm through with you.
Similar threads
