George Bush is a war criminal

[jaguar75]

As a point of interest, North Korea fired another of its missiles over Japan the other day, upsetting the Americans, Chinese and Japanese. China, as we all know, doesn't want North Korea to further develop its missile program as such a policy would lead to a modification of the Japanese military.
I guess it all boils down to the implications of the Bush Administration's Axis Of Evil policy. North Korea no longer feels secure enough not to develop its missile systems (due to concers over Bush's speeches) and is determined to bolster its defences. But this could trigger a South East Asian cold war as Japan feels forced to take counter measures.
Meantime, the Chinese are becoming ever more militant towards the Japanese.
It was predicted some months back that the Iraq war would push other countries forward to go nuclear in order to prevent the fate that befell Iraq.

Here we go...Slinging **** about Bush...That's right fellas it was only a matter of time before all of the worlds problems were placed on the Bush Administration's shoulders...I love how you can actually rationalize comparing bush to the likes of a war criminal. I mean come on...Do ya'll really think that Bush is the reason that Southeast Asia is a time bomb? Great there were no WMD in Iraq so I guess it's not feasable that Saddam dug a hole in the desert and buried them...because the last time I checked the Army corps of engineers actually un-earthed an entire air force base that had aircraft and all of it was buried under tons of sand and all very well preserved...but no because people WANT to hate Bush its not possible!!!

Keep slinging more **** fellas and if you keep telling yourself you might even start to believe it...The other day I saw the easter bunny driving a Ferrari...I swear, he was on his way to a KKK meeting to discuss the impact the potato farmers in Idaho have had on coastal erosion in the UK...I swear

 

[Carrera]

It wasn't me specifically who compared Bush to a war criminal and I suppose the reasons U.S. troops are now in Iraq are more complicated to explain.
The way I understand it is the Bush Administration came up with the conviction that if they could somehow displace Saddam Hussein and create a genuine democracy out of Iraq, other Middle Eastern countries would ditch their mullah leaders and convert to democracy too.
So, I suppose neo conservative think-tanks were urging Bush in that direction.
My own personal opinion is that Bush now possibly regrets having listened to that advice but this is hard to know for sure.
As for the oil and WMD scenario, again I have no real idea how the ground lay. Did oil companies and business men push Bush into war and did the CIA swear blind that Iraq definitely posed a serious threat? Did the Administration genuinely believe Saddam had some kind of link to the 9/11 attacks?
Is Europe exaggerating when some European politicians claim Bush was simply after control of the oil? It may well be they are exaggerating on that score.
The only thing I do feel for sure is that Kerry was right when he said Bush rushed into war, took the advice that was offered him and then jumped in, convinced everything would turn out rosy in the long run. I also agree with Kerry it was a mistake to put ground troops in.
But having said all that, those folks who predicted a second Bush term might be a more sober affair, could have gotten it right. Just maybe Bush has started to consider that you can't force democracy so easily on a complex country such as Iraq and hopefully he'll be a touch more cautious in future.

Here we go...Slinging **** about Bush...That's right fellas it was only a matter of time before all of the worlds problems were placed on the Bush Administration's shoulders...I love how you can actually rationalize comparing bush to the likes of a war criminal. I mean come on...Do ya'll really think that Bush is the reason that Southeast Asia is a time bomb? Great there were no WMD in Iraq so I guess it's not feasable that Saddam dug a hole in the desert and buried them...because the last time I checked the Army corps of engineers actually un-earthed an entire air force base that had aircraft and all of it was buried under tons of sand and all very well preserved...but no because people WANT to hate Bush its not possible!!!

Keep slinging more **** fellas and if you keep telling yourself you might even start to believe it...The other day I saw the easter bunny driving a Ferrari...I swear, he was on his way to a KKK meeting to discuss the impact the potato farmers in Idaho have had on coastal erosion in the UK...I swear

 

[jaguar75]

It wasn't me specifically who compared Bush to a war criminal and I suppose the reasons U.S. troops are now in Iraq are more complicated to explain.
The way I understand it is the Bush Administration came up with the conviction that if they could somehow displace Saddam Hussein and create a genuine democracy out of Iraq, other Middle Eastern countries would ditch their mullah leaders and convert to democracy too.
So, I suppose neo conservative think-tanks were urging Bush in that direction.
My own personal opinion is that Bush now possibly regrets having listened to that advice but this is hard to know for sure.
As for the oil and WMD scenario, again I have no real idea how the ground lay. Did oil companies and business men push Bush into war and did the CIA swear blind that Iraq definitely posed a serious threat? Did the Administration genuinely believe Saddam had some kind of link to the 9/11 attacks?
Is Europe exaggerating when some European politicians claim Bush was simply after control of the oil? It may well be they are exaggerating on that score.
The only thing I do feel for sure is that Kerry was right when he said Bush rushed into war, took the advice that was offered him and then jumped in, convinced everything would turn out rosy in the long run. I also agree with Kerry it was a mistake to put ground troops in.
But having said all that, those folks who predicted a second Bush term might be a more sober affair, could have gotten it right. Just maybe Bush has started to consider that you can't force democracy so easily on a complex country such as Iraq and hopefully he'll be a touch more cautious in future.

The goals in Iraq were not to create a democracy but to allow the people of Iraq to rule themselves without opression.

 

[darkboong]

The goals in Iraq were not to create a democracy but to allow the people of Iraq to rule themselves without opression.

Huh ? The Commander in Chief of the USA has repeatedly stated that a goal in Iraq was to bring Democracy to Iraq (and he has since broadened it to include the whole Middle East). Let's face it : He's the guy who gave the order to invade, so I figure he's the one who knows what the goals are. If "bringing Democracy" wasn't one of the goals then you have a bunch of unappetizing possibilities to choose from.

* Bush is unfit to be Commander in Chief because he is a congenital liar.
* Bush is unfit to be Commander in Chief because he is too retarded.
* Bush is unfit to be Commander in Chief because he is too irresponsible.
* Bush is unfit to be Commander in Chief because he is deluded.
* Bush is unfit to be Commander in Chief because he is an ego-maniac.
... etc ...

America has the most destructive military force the world has ever seen. Bush is *rapidly* expanding the size and scope of that force in the face of practically *zero* *military* opposition. China doesn't even count, lots of folks, yes, but it's military power is miniscule by comparison with America and the gap is widening *rapidly* at the moment (in America's favour). America already has the largest Nuclear weapon capability, and it's *growing* despite the fact the Cold War ended years ago.

All that begs the question : WTF are you gonna do with all that overkill ? Sit at home and polish your rockets ? Doubt that somehow.

 

[FredC]

Huh ? The Commander in Chief of the USA has repeatedly stated that a goal in Iraq was to bring Democracy to Iraq (and he has since broadened it to include the whole Middle East). Let's face it : He's the guy who gave the order to invade, so I figure he's the one who knows what the goals are. If "bringing Democracy" wasn't one of the goals then you have a bunch of unappetizing possibilities to choose from.

* Bush is unfit to be Commander in Chief because he is a congenital liar.
* Bush is unfit to be Commander in Chief because he is too retarded.
* Bush is unfit to be Commander in Chief because he is too irresponsible.
* Bush is unfit to be Commander in Chief because he is deluded.
* Bush is unfit to be Commander in Chief because he is an ego-maniac.
... etc ...

America has the most destructive military force the world has ever seen. Bush is *rapidly* expanding the size and scope of that force in the face of practically *zero* *military* opposition. China doesn't even count, lots of folks, yes, but it's military power is miniscule by comparison with America and the gap is widening *rapidly* at the moment (in America's favour). America already has the largest Nuclear weapon capability, and it's *growing* despite the fact the Cold War ended years ago.

All that begs the question : WTF are you gonna do with all that overkill ? Sit at home and polish your rockets ? Doubt that somehow.

That's why subversive attacks are de rigour, and will be for a long, long time to come.

 

[limerickman]

The goals in Iraq were not to create a democracy but to allow the people of Iraq to rule themselves without opression.

Is that the new excuse ?

Bush told us it was WMD and that SH had a part in 9/11.
That was the old excuse.

Which script are we meant to be reading ?

 

[roadhog]

Bush is *rapidly* expanding the size and scope of that force in the face of practically *zero* *military* opposition.

What is rapidly expanding? How so? I'd certainly welcome the help if this were true! Our military force is not big enough for our foreign policy right now. Forget what Rumsfeld says, the Army and Marines (active and reserves) are *tapped out*! I'm not advocating any specific size or capabillity for our force, but I believe strongly it must match our foreign policy - whatever the people smarter than me on those things determine that should be, and for about 14 years now it has not mtached, the current administration is only one link in that long chain.

All that begs the question : WTF are you gonna do with all that overkill ? Sit at home and polish your rockets ? Doubt that somehow.

You're right. You're on to us. Our country is secretly plotting to take over the world. That makes sense. Perfectly sensible implication there...


As a side note reference jaguar's comments about the Iraqi air base under sand... Yeah, I saw that site first hand from the air many times. Crazy stuff. The air base itself is still intact (we use it now) but entire airplanes and all associated equipment literally buried in the desert. No protective things around them or anything. Just like uncovering something in a huge sand box. Obviously they were chalked up as losses whenever they did it. Weird stuff.

 

[FredC]

Is that the new excuse ?

Bush told us it was WMD and that SH had a part in 9/11.
That was the old excuse.

Which script are we meant to be reading ?

Odd isn't it, I accused Ariel Sharon along with Bush as being complicit in the war crimes issue in toto. Not heard a peep yet.

 

[roadhog]

I guess it all boils down to the implications of the Bush Administration's Axis Of Evil policy. North Korea no longer feels secure enough not to develop its missile systems (due to concers over Bush's speeches) ...

While I certainly agree that the "axis of evil" propoganda was not the most deft application of foreign relations, I'm quite certain N Korea's nuclear ambitions - whatever they may be - did not commence following that state of the union address. This is a very simplistic argument. SE Asia has centuries of problems still boiling at the surface. There is much more to this than a couple speeches. And there is no denying that N Korea's leader is a total wack job. For all we know he took it as a complement (that's a joke - except for the wack job part).

 

[roadhog]

America has the most destructive military force the world has ever seen.

Have we been destructive in the Balkans for the past 10 years? Have we been destructive on the Korean peninsula in the past 40 years? Have we been destructive in Haiti? In Europe during the cold war? In Japan? In Honduras? In Sri Lanka following the tsunami? In the Phillipines? In Kuwait? In countless other places I can't remember right now that have welcomed our help in countless natural disasters and destabilizing and bloody cultural conflicts?

There is quite a bit more behind that destructive capability.

 

[tbobby]

Congress gave Bush permission to invade Iraq and topple Hussein. Bush did not have the authority to do it on his own. According to the Constitution, the US is a sovereign nation and can ignore the United Nations. Simply look to the east and look to the west to find out why we took out Iraq. Geographic strategy is the most important reason we did it. More will follow, and lefty extremists like Noam Chomsky will continue to howl.

 

[tbobby]

Ryan

If you did not know about it already, www.democraticunderground.com is a political forum that will make you feel right at home. It is kind of silly talking politics on a cycling forum.

 

[davidmc]

A draw...... well we can choose up sides and move the war to a new location.
It's been done before.

Thats funnier than something FredC would've come up with

 

[davidmc]

Bush is *rapidly* expanding the size and scope of that force in the face of practically *zero* *military* opposition.

Don't forget, the production of armaments are good for our economy whether or not it is good for humanity. Who excel's us in the quality of armament's produced No one. We may be increasing our production but, Bush will need robots to use them as the youth have been shown to be too smart to enlist (#'s consistently down all the way around, weren't you aware of this fact ). We are working on developing a robot army but it is a decade or so off. Then we will conquer the world, I tell you Moo hoo ha ha ha ha...

 

[ryan_velo.]

It’s only obvious that the US led occupation’s legality should be questioned. For one thing its obvious that these "intelligence failures" were just reasons conjured up by the politicians, to justify going to war. Thousands, upon thousands of innocent peoples have been killed, have been removed from their homes, which have been destroyed by our aggression. We took their petroleum, in which they could be using to rebuild their country which has been destroyed, [by our aggression]. King Fred, I come forth to you to say one thing: This is wrong. To see normal people being "liberated" like this tears me up inside. Am I prepared to call my president a war criminal? Yes. G’ day

 

[jhuskey]

Thats funnier than something FredC would've come up with

Your gonna get Fred all riled up.

 

[Wurm]

Maybe fans of the Man-Ape like roadhog & jaguar75 ought to read Michael C. Ruppert's book "Crossing the Rubicon". You'll see the real facts behing the neo-con's complicity and guilt. It is very well researched and documented.

No wait - you're not supposed to look behind the curtain.

 

[zapper]

Bush will need robots to use them as the youth have been shown to be too smart to enlist (#'s consistently down all the way around, weren't you aware of this fact )

Yes, thank you for molding our youth... So when we are old and grey sittin on our front porch and we are attacked, thanks to you, our youth will be too busy trying to lynch the president to come to our defense.

Perhaps young ryan wouldn't get picked on if he stopped listening to ridiculous statements such as calling our President a "war criminal" If this is so, throw Clinton in the brigg as well...

 

[davidmc]

Yes, thank you for molding our youth... So when we are old and grey sittin on our front porch and we are attacked, thanks to you, our youth will be too busy trying to lynch the president to come to our defense.

Perhaps young ryan wouldn't get picked on if he stopped listening to ridiculous statements such as calling our President a "war criminal" If this is so, throw Clinton in the brigg as well...

I should have quantified my statement to read: "...too smart to enlist-UNDER THIS ADMINISTRATION." Bush has been too blustery/cavalier in his statements, e.g.-"Bring it on !!!", especially since Bush or his daughters, for that matter, aren't the one's over there doing the fighting. Well, they "brought it on" alright. I would hope that Bush saw the inappropriateness of that remark due to the daily death toll. http://icasualties.org/oif/ This, not to mention the "sexed up" intelligence reports prior to the war.

 

[Carrera]

You're totally correct, Ryan, on all counts.
These days it's not customary to study ancient history in class, but there is an interesting comparison between the U.S. under Bush and Imperial Athens around 400 B.C. Athens led a powerful coalition of democracies.
But the Athenians became arrogant, war-hungry, greedy and imperialistic (trying to force democracy on other countries they invaded). Former allies eventually got fed up with them and began to ditch the alliance and the biggest mistake that cost them their alliances was to invade Sicily (for tin instead of oil).
When Bush invaded Iraq, he successfully turned Iraq into a convenience petrol depot in the Middle East but he's paid a high price for his arrogance and greed.
First of all, the resistance in Iraq is far more organized than was assumed at the beginning and grows by the day and more and more former allies are pulling their troops out of Iraq and disagree with the whole policy Bush put forward for the region. This means the U.S. taxpayer will have to foot the bill for the military presence in Iraq.
Another important factor is the old NATO alliance that seems like becoming a historical dinosaur as European countries move towards a more stable alliance under European lines. The simple reality is that Europeans don't want to be led by a religious right-wing bully who believes in a doctrine of pre-emptive strikes and imperialism in the Third World. Europe will never swallow or follow such an outlook (now consigned to the dust bin of European history) but is moving in a totally different direction (whether Bush likes it or not).
This situation in the U.S. was totally different around 1997 under Clinton. At that time the dollar was booming, the American economy was strong and Clinton was much admired throughout Europe and the rest of the world. You can knock the democrats on many scores, but I think Americans never had it so good under Clinton and it baffles me how Bush ever got into office.

It’s only obvious that the US led occupation’s legality should be questioned. For one thing its obvious that these "intelligence failures" were just reasons conjured up by the politicians, to justify going to war. Thousands, upon thousands of innocent peoples have been killed, have been removed from their homes, which have been destroyed by our aggression. We took their petroleum, in which they could be using to rebuild their country which has been destroyed, [by our aggression]. King Fred, I come forth to you to say one thing: This is wrong. To see normal people being "liberated" like this tears me up inside. Am I prepared to call my president a war criminal? Yes. G’ day