they are absolutely war crimes. if you would have actually read the information from within the huffington post article, you would know that. you know, debating by denying a source is not debating at all. you asked for information, i provided it. so if you want to have an honest debate, then debate the information in that piece, which outlines nicely how bush is a war crime by our very own war crimes legislation. if you don't like the source, then what would you like? un charters? geneva conventions? that quotes, verbatum, the american war crimes act of 1996.
Your source, like you, is a hack and thus while it does indeed quote laws and whatnot the conclusions drawn do not reconcile with what it uses as a "source." See my comment above. This is truther stuff, quoting something that X and Y and then pretending it actually said Z.
And something tells me you would not appreciate me using Fox News as a source, so spare us the Huffingtons (incidently, Fox News is infinetly more scholarly than Huffington's). What is next on the list, Soros?
i'm a girl. i'm on earth to please men right?
Don't project on me.
how does that not make bush a criminal? bushie is the commander in chief. he is responsible for everything that has transpired...(your an officer in the military you say? you should know about this),
You are absolutely right, I am, so read and learn. In the military nobody is responsible for your actions but you. If I decide to kill a civilian on a whim I alone am accountable for it. Even if I was ordered to do it, I am still accountable for it. If that order was illegal then the person who ordered me to do it is accountable for giving such an order (even if just passing it on), but I am still accountable for following an order I know to be illegal.
So, how many hundreds of thousands of troops of US troops do you think are complicit war criminals? Actually, we are probably into the millions by now.
he is responsible for overseeing the military and ensuring that it is not violating rules of war.
There is a difference between responsibility or accountability. You should really figure out the difference before making the claims you do. And btw, there is another body of government who is actually responsible for this to a greater degree.
he is responsible for legislation denying basic human rights to prisoners.
The president isn't responsible for ANY legeslation, Congress is. And if it is legeslated then it isn't illegal. You should know that for most of those prisoners it is perfectly legal to hang them after cursory legal proceedings for being partisains (a real war crime), so they are getting far more human rights than they should.
he is responsible for torturing prisoners.
Even if he was responsible, which he was not, he would stll not be accountable and thus not a war criminal.
ow about the battle of fallujah? how many war crimes were committed there under his lead?
What war crimes? And you should know that the only US president to lead troops in battle was George Washington. If something real did happen in Fallujah the head you will be wanting to chop is the general in charge.
and you know that bush knew everything that was going to be used in fallujah. they used white phosphorous as a direct weapon on a civilian population.
Really, you think GWB knows the exact load out of a DDG 5" mag off the top of his head? Wow, thats awesome, it took me months of studying to be able to do so. And you can do the same thing for a Marine battalion? AWESOME, they have literally thousands of different munitons available to them normally. You realize how ridiculous that is on the face of it?
And as for WP, you realize that has been in our inventory since the signing of the GC? You realize EVERY military has it? Do you think this reality has escaped the attention of decades of wannabe whisle blowers far more cabaple than yourself? Guess what, .50 cal ammunition is classified as illegal for use against personal in the GC. What military doesn't use it?
Tom: "Hey Ted, we got some infantry coming from the North, light em up!
Ted: "No can do Tom, I only got the .50 up here."
Tom: "Oh man, well I only have anti-tank rockets, what do we do!"
Ted: "Well Tom, back in the states there was this idealist forum poster named coutnrygrl who took the letter of the GC real serious like, so I think our best bet here is to just let the infanty kill us so we don't bring shame upon the good ol USA."
Tom: "Yeah, that makes perfect sense! Can I at least spit at them?"
Ted: "No Tom, that would be inhumane and humiliating treatment of the enemy, didn't you learn anything from that Abu Gharib trianing?"
As has been pointed out by EcoFarm, to be a war criminal you have to not only break the letter of the law, but also be convicted of it in a trial. Thats why we do NOT execute partisains on sight. It is also why the hundreds of thousands of troops using .50 cals are not war criminals.
And we did not use Willy Pete to target civilians. For one, if we really want to kill civilians we have far better weapons to do so. Second, what possible reason could we have had to do so? I mean, we have our bad apples, but I have never met anyone who enjoys buring the skin of families for the fun of it. I already know what the lame Huffington exaggerated and contextless retort is so spare us.
wanna place bets? i bet the day you die, bush is still laughed at and despised by the vast majority of america. i'll bet one of the family businesses. how's that sound?
I wanted to quote this for any other economics thread you might frequent. And you might want to ask your dad before betting his property.
