Did George W Bush commit war crimes to the american standard

[Toontown]

Then you endorse a crime. We are not allowed, by law, to torutre criminal suspects, either, for damned good reasons.

That it does not work as advertised is the least of them. Whoever authorizes waterboarding should be in jail himself.

If Bush goes to jail for waterboarding, then a lot of your Democrat congressional heros should go with him as accessories. They knew about it, said nothing, and failed to initiate impeachment proceedings.

But we both know the reason the noble Democrat defenders of civilization did nothing was because they knew they couldn't make it stick.

 

[Toontown]

I'm curious as to what useful information came from detaining and torturing the thousands of other people detained by the US. I also like how you referred to yourself in the third person.

I'm curious to see you prove that thousands of people were tortured by the U.S.

You know, instead of merely inserting it as a given.

 

[Toontown]

I do. Because I believe I live in a civilisation where we value fundamental principles including the rule of law, equality, and democracy. I believe I live in a civilisation where these ideal are not merely a catch-phrase nor a guideline but the foundation principles upon which our entire society is built.

Right. And the rules of basketball are not merely guidelines, but are the actual rules by which the game of basketball is played, and are the foundation upon which the game of basketball is built.

But that doesn't mean basketball rules are applicable to football.

Come to think of it, how many wars have we actually brought to a successful conclusion since the Geneva conventions were written up? And how many of our enemies have found any use for the conventions except ass wipe?

I'm thinking zero and zero.

Right. Correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation. Still, the Geneva conventions have yet to prove themselves to be of any measurable value. And yet you want cling to them in every situation as if the future of civilization critically depends on every jot and tittle of them.

 

[Robrob]

Come to think of it, how many wars have we actually brought to a successful conclusion since the Geneva conventions were written up? And how many of our enemies have found any use for the conventions except ass wipe?

A lot of them actually, The four Geneva Convention treaties were signed in 1864, 1906, 1929 and 1949 respectively. Essentially they were updated and modified after each major conflict.

Still, the Geneva conventions have yet to prove themselves to be of any measurable value. And yet you want cling to them in every situation as if the future of civilization critically depends on every jot and tittle of them.

Would I be correct in guessing you have not served in the military? And none of your family or friends?

 

[leftysergeant]

If Bush goes to jail for waterboarding, then a lot of your Democrat congressional heros should go with him as accessories. They knew about it, said nothing, and failed to initiate impeachment proceedings.

Grover's punks had control of both houses for most of the shrub's interregnum. Impeachment would have died in the Senate.

That doesn't mean that he is not a criminal or that Rummy and his nosferatu sidekick and Gonzo and that piece of crap John Yoo should not burn in hell for muirdering people and degrading civilization to the point that supposedly sentient beings are willing to believe that a torture technique which is known to be WORTHLESS for intelligence-gather purposes is just playing rough with people who have it coming anyway.

Torture is and should remain illegal because it is used to pervert the law.

Think SALEM. Got the picture yet? How much more do I have to dumb-it-down?

 

[Virus]

I just don't think three terrorists getting water poured up their nose is that big a deal.

 

[Toontown]

A lot of them actually, The four Geneva Convention treaties were signed in 1864, 1906, 1929 and 1949 respectively. Essentially they were updated and modified after each major conflict.

The signing of various sheets of paper has no bearing on whether any of our enemies ever consistently observed any rules of war. I think we both know they have not done so to any significant extent.

Would I be correct in guessing you have not served in the military? And none of your family or friends?

You would be dead wrong. I'm a combat veteran. My opponents' attitude toward the Geneva conventions was such that I knew for a fact that allowing myself to be taken alive would be a very bad idea.

 

[Toontown]

Grover's punks had control of both houses for most of the shrub's interregnum. Impeachment would have died in the Senate.

So? You think that lets them off the hook? If Bush was committing war crimes, then the congress was obligated to bring charges, win, lose, or draw. Instead, they said nothing and did nothing until it became politically expedient to start making impotent accusations.

That doesn't mean that he is not a criminal or that Rummy and his nosferatu sidekick and Gonzo and that piece of crap John Yoo should not burn in hell for muirdering people and degrading civilization to the point that supposedly sentient beings are willing to believe that a torture technique which is known to be WORTHLESS for intelligence-gather purposes is just playing rough with people who have it coming anyway.

I see. So... based on your righteous anger on the subject of the horrific damage done by Bush to "civilization" by pouring water up some mass murderers' noses - am I correct to assume you were equally adamant that the tongue-chopping Saddam and his mass-torturing/murdering henchmen be brought to justice?

Or are you just playing silly little finger-pointing political hack games? I do hope you're not going to start lying to me now...or condemning me to hell...

Because on the last page of the Bible the words "...all liars shall have their place in the lake of fire" are as ominous as your man Jesus' blunt warning, "Judge not...for as you judge, so shall you be judged."

 

[leftysergeant]

So... based on your righteous anger on the subject of the horrific damage done by Bush to "civilization" by pouring water up some mass murderers' noses - am I correct to assume you were equally adamant that the tongue-chopping Saddam and his mass-torturing/murdering henchmen be brought to justice?

So, because we are special, it is okay with you that we commit criminal acts to gather ******** "intelligence" to use to justify going to war against a country which had not attacked us. *********** brilliant.

 

[bikerdruid]

So, because we are special, it is okay with you that we commit criminal acts to gather ******** "intelligence" to use to justify going to war against a country which had not attacked us. *********** brilliant.

weird how the 'f' word generates so many asterices, eh?

 

[Virus]

What do you care about three terrorists getting water poured up their nose? Didn't the Communists murder a hundred million people? Don't you advocate violent revolution?

 

[leftysergeant]

What do you care about three terrorists getting water poured up their nose? Didn't the Communists murder a hundred million people? Don't you advocate violent revolution?

So we have to fight communists because they are savages who torture people, and in order to fight communism we have to torture people, but that does not make us savages. I follow your logic perfectly.

Right down the old sewer.

 

[gumboot]

Right. And the rules of basketball are not merely guidelines, but are the actual rules by which the game of basketball is played, and are the foundation upon which the game of basketball is built.

But that doesn't mean basketball rules are applicable to football.

Did you just compare civilisation to a game of sport?

Come to think of it, how many wars have we actually brought to a successful conclusion since the Geneva conventions were written up? And how many of our enemies have found any use for the conventions except ass wipe?

I'm thinking zero and zero.

You would be wrong, in both cases. You don't appear to know your military history very well.

Right. Correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation. Still, the Geneva conventions have yet to prove themselves to be of any measurable value. And yet you want cling to them in every situation as if the future of civilization critically depends on every jot and tittle of them.

If you're former military and this is the sort of attitude you display towards the ILAC this actually explains a lot about why Iraq and Afghanistan is such a mess. I actually find it rather disturbing that military personnel would advocate ignoring the ILAC.

Perhaps more alarming is your disregard for the Rule of Law, because that has much greater implications for your society.

Best of luck, America. You're going to need it.

 

[Toontown]

So, because we are special, it is okay with you that we commit criminal acts to gather ******** "intelligence" to use to justify going to war against a country which had not attacked us. *********** brilliant.

I'll repeat the question. Maybe you didn't read it right the first time.

So... based on your righteous anger on the subject of the horrific damage done by Bush to "civilization" by pouring water up some mass murderers' noses - am I correct to assume you were equally adamant that the tongue-chopping Saddam and his mass-torturing/murdering henchmen be brought to justice?

Because it is clearly stated in the last book of your Bible, "If any man has an ear, let him hear; he who leads into captivity, goes into captivity. He who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword." I don't see a lot of caveats or exceptions there.

So I'm just assuming that, based on your clear moral superiority, informed by your Good Book, that the cup of your righeous wrath against the nose-watering Bush was poured out in double measure upon the seat of the beast, Saddam.

No, wait. That was Bush who did that. And you've never forgiven him for it.

Oh well. We could argue forever about the true meanings of seemingly obvious Bible verses. It will all be made clear on Judgement Day. Hopefully your transgressions will be chalked up to poor reading comprehension and you'll be forgiven.

Er...which, frankly, is more than you would do for that nose-watering bastard Bush. So I dunno, dude. It might be soul-searching time again.

 

[leftysergeant]

So... based on your righteous anger on the subject of the horrific damage done by Bush to "civilization" by pouring water up some mass murderers' noses - am I correct to assume you were equally adamant that the tongue-chopping Saddam and his mass-torturing/murdering henchmen be brought to justice?

How many times must you be told that this is an idiotic diversion from the main point, to wit, that Bush the Lesser and his merry morons are unfit to walk among decent human beings?

Iraq was never in the Shrub's jurisdiction, and they werte no immediate threat. Grover's punks just wanted the oil fields and a test bed for Friedman's idiotic ecconomic theories. Militarily, it was the most idiotic thing to do when there was a real enemy on our flanks waiting to capitalize on the anger that an illegal and unjustified invasion would cause.

The merry morons used waterboarding to manufacture false evidence to invade. The invasion is, because of that, even more a crime.

Did I mention that waterboarding does not get you objectgiuve truth about the enemy's positions and capabilities? It get you the answers you want, and the piece of crap from Texas wanted the answers that would make it look like he had an excuse to whack the man who tried to whack his daddy.

What a worthless, brutal, uncivilzed punk.

 

[Virus]

You would be wrong, in both cases. You don't appear to know your military history very well.

Name a war where both sides gave a fig about the Geneva conventions.

 

[Toontown]

Did you just compare civilisation to a game of sport?

Please don't be a drama queen. Drama-queeniness is not synonymous with civilized behavior, if that's what you're trying to do.

You would be wrong, in both cases. You don't appear to know your military history very well.

Oh? Then you will have no trouble explaining the starved, diseased soldiers in Confederate concentration camps, the poison gas used in WWI, the gas chambers and ovens of WWII, the horrific mistreatment American POW's endured at the hands of the Japanese, North Koreans, and North Vietnamese, etc, etc.

And I would also be grateful if you would inform me as to what wars we have been able to bring to successful conclusions since the 4th convention was written up in 1945. Because all I see are failures, quagmires, and endless deployments along eternally tense, hostile borders. Could it be that that 4th one was the final straw that finally made it a 'war crime' to win a war?

If you're former military and this is the sort of attitude you display towards the ILAC this actually explains a lot about why Iraq and Afghanistan is such a mess. I actually find it rather disturbing that military personnel would advocate ignoring the ILAC.

The Geneva conventions have been observed by the allies in Afghanistan and Iraq to a greater extent than any war in history. And yet, as you say, Afghanistan and Iraq are "a mess".

But that's all my fault, of course, even though I never harmed a civilian or POW, because I'm not getting on your overwrought bandwagon because a few terrorist kingpins got their noses watered.

Frankly, all the civilians who were harmed in my CAP village were done by the NVA, after we pulled out. About 250 of them, dead at the hands of their 'liberators'. You need to be careful about the way you carelessly hurl those assertions and accusations about. I'm beginning to see your debating tactics in a new and progressively less flattering light.

Perhaps more alarming is your disregard for the Rule of Law, because that has much greater implications for your society.

Rule of law? Oh, you mean the rule of law I always observed, but my enemies never did? Like the time a VC came into my village and tricked a child into exploding a grenade next to the village chief? As crazy old Colonel Kurtz would have said, "My god! The GENIUS of that! The clarity! The horror!"

The possibility you've apparently failed to take into account is that I don't necessarily have to agree with a law before I'll obey it. There are several laws I disagree with in principle, but I obey them.

Best of luck, America. You're going to need it.

Oh, the gripping drama of it all. I can hardly stand it. Amerika is going straight down the tube because watering Khalid Sheik-Mohammed's nose was the war crime of all war crimes. How will we ever recover our honor? The rule of law is gone forever!

Damn. That was one hell of a slippery-slope-butterfly-effect, watering those terrorists' noses. Who would have guessed the consequences would be so far-reaching?

 

[Toontown]

How many times must you be told that this is an idiotic diversion from the main point, to wit, that Bush the Lesser and his merry morons are unfit to walk among decent human beings?.

Clue: your "main point" is not THE main point.

You have your "main point". I have mine.

What a worthless, brutal, uncivilzed punk.

Yeah. Better rush out and buy more guns and ammo. We got brutal, uncivilized punks getting into the White House. That must be some kind of Biblical sign.

Still haven't seen any of those long-haired, woman-faced locusts though. But what really worries me is that giant hail out of heaven. Because men will bite their tongues and curse the God of heaven because of it. Because the plague thereof will be exceeding great.

Damn. Some of you people need to take a chill pill. You get all overwrought way too easy. Even your god is a big-assed drama queen.

 

[Robrob]

The signing of various sheets of paper has no bearing on whether any of our enemies ever consistently observed any rules of war. I think we both know they have not done so to any significant extent.

So because an enemy acts like an animal, that means we should as well? How very grade school of you. Luckily the US government and military all disagree with your POV.

You would be dead wrong. I'm a combat veteran. My opponents' attitude toward the Geneva conventions was such that I knew for a fact that allowing myself to be taken alive would be a very bad idea.

And do you think your opponent's knowledge of how you would treat him properly under the Geneva Convention might have been some encouragement for him to surrender rather than fight to the death? Out of curiosity, in your time in the military did they ever give you classes on the GC? Did you pay attention?

Name a war where both sides gave a fig about the Geneva conventions.

Amongst other things, the GC is to encourage proper treatment of our troops by the enemy as well as to ensure they are treated properly when taken captive by us. For example, while the Germans didn't exactly abide by the GC but they knew if they were taken captive by the allies they stood a pretty good chance of surviving the war. Taken by the Russians, not so much. Guess to whom they surrendered more? Which do you think resulted in fewer allied casualties, Germans surrendering or Germans fighting to the death?

What do you care about three terrorists getting water poured up their nose? Didn't the Communists murder a hundred million people? Don't you advocate violent revolution?

Hyperbole aside, so because one group of animals murdered people, that means it's OK for you to do bad things? How very grade school of you.

 

[leftysergeant]

Name a war where both sides gave a fig about the Geneva conventions.

Why does it matter? The good guys do. WE do, when the country is not being led by an utter moron and a cabinet full of uncivilized dirtbags.

That the other guys don't is usually part of our causus belli.

If torture were such a good idesa, Bush the Lesser would have been much more successful than Obama at meeting military and diplomatic objectives.

He wasn't.

Torture is a moron's pastime.