Do you support War Crimes Trials for Bush & Co? (invasion, how much)

[djacques]

Originally Posted by monkeywrenching

if you truly want to try either the potus or the veep, then maybe history should be changed to have fdr's name reading as a war criminal as well.

It should. Roosevelt was an evil warmongering scumbag who should be reviled.

[schtyk]

Originally Posted by djacques

Actually I've never been considered a person of the left until Bush happened. I echo John Dean's remark, "I'm a Goldwater conservative, which makes me left of center these days."

AHhaaaaaaaaaaa! He fancies himself a rebel without a cause. A Goldwater conservative? The guy that thought nukes was the answer to any global conflict that involved the loss of more than one american against our enemies. Hey man I am having some influence on you, it must be some subliminal miracle work. Second thought naaa.
Hey guys, it's been real and it's been fun but it ain't been real fun. I just wanted to remind a couple of you chums. Tomorrow is hug a retard day. Now don't go gettin all crazy like you did last year. No one is trying to steal your helmit. Good night dear friends.

[djacques]

If Goldwater's policies were followed, we wouldn't be collecting enemies left and right in the first place.

[mcmastersteve]

Any president that misleads its citizens into a war should be tried for treason. Bush's administration and war for control of oil fits the definition of fascism as described by professor emeritus of Colombia University's Robert Paxton.
The real concern should be; is the government planning to alter or eliminate the posse comitatus act, which restricts the use of the army and navy from performing civilian police duties. Soldiers are trained to kill first, defend its ass second, and protect liberties last.
Any politician who supports this act of treason deserves a John Hinckley surprise.

[Fleet]

Originally Posted by djacques

The UN resolutions did not give the U.S. free reign in determining whether and how the cease fire was broken, or how to respond.

Glad you brought that up... if the UN enforced the resolutions against Iraq they passed, maybe Iraq would not have been invaded.

And I suggest you read the Cease Fire agreement (and resolution 1441). It did give the U.S. authority to resume military action against Iraq.

[djacques]

Originally Posted by Fleet

Glad you brought that up... if the UN enforced the resolutions against Iraq they passed, maybe Iraq would not have been invaded.

Is that an example of pathetic, juvenile buck-passing or what?

"Gee mom, if you hadn't grounded me I wouldn't have been forced to sneak out."

The UN Security Council decides when and how UN resolutions are enforced. Period.

And I suggest you read the Cease Fire agreement (and resolution 1441). It did give the U.S. authority to resume military action against Iraq.

Res. 1441 said the Security Council "will remain seized of the matter." That was not an invitation to the United States to invade.

[monkeywrenching]

Originally Posted by schtyk

I just wanted to remind a couple of you chums. Tomorrow is hug a retard day.

then liberals and neocons should have real fun hugging obama, biden, hilary, bush, cheney, powell and a whole slew of other retards in both democrat and neo-con parties.

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by Fleet

And I suggest you read the Cease Fire agreement (and resolution 1441). It did give the U.S. authority to resume military action against Iraq.

Exactly right. 1441 did give such authority

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by djacques

The UN resolutions did not give the U.S. free reign in determining whether and how the cease fire was broken, or how to respond.

Perhaps a read of 1441 would be helpful to you:

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

[sickofnyc]

Originally Posted by schtyk

I watched all I could stand, about 3 min. worth which was enough to see all there was t see. Pretty elementary. What grade are you In?

You never watched any of it.