Poll: Should George Bush be tried for crimes against humanity/war crimes?

Recommended Videos

norsef

New member
Oct 22, 2008
27
0
0
Does he deserve it? Probably.
Will it happen? Probably not.
But really between election fraud and corporate shenanigans he should be looking at a nice long stretch.

In other news;
Should we have gone to war
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=by43joQLYj8

What threats do terrorists pose in the west
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=09277569E139124F&search_query=the power of nightmares cave

Were his motives entirely noble?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ipa8DuKyN6I

Wyatt said:
Bigsmith said:
Wyatt said:
you should actualy READ the things your responding too you know, might help you avoid looking foolish if nothing else *snicker*
impressive uberpost. No he wasn't the american president, he was the dictator of Iran (correct me if I am wrong you seem to be very good at that.)
*enters correction*

it was Iraq, not Iran.

another 3 or 4 posts at this rate and with my continued help and you will have managed to get your one simple statment almost 100% correct.
Well someones wearing their sassy pants today.
 

letsnoobtehpwns

New member
Dec 28, 2008
1,628
0
0
If you compare George Bush to Saddam Hussein then you need to pull your head out of your ass and stick in in a beehive!
 

Bobkat1252

The Psychotic Psyker
Mar 18, 2008
317
0
0
To quote Zack de la Rocha, lead singer for Rage Against the Machine-

"A good friend of ours (Noam Chomsky) once said that if the same laws were applied to U.S. presidents as were applied to the Nazis after World War II... every single one of them, every last rich white one of them from Truman on, would have been hung to death and shot ? and this current administration is no exception. They should be hung, and tried, and shot. As any war criminal should be."

While I personally think that this is taking it a bit too far, he has a point, we've been rather hypocritical with how we act and then condemn other nations for doing similar things.
 

mrhockey220

New member
Apr 20, 2009
258
0
0
In the torture memos there were only THREE cases in which people were actually waterboarded and thats only because they had information regarding the attacks on 9/11. Oh do we treat our prisoners too harsh? What do u want them to do treat them like their royalty and seve them fine wine and lobster for dinner? I thought we were supposed to have discipline in our prisons.
 

Bobkat1252

The Psychotic Psyker
Mar 18, 2008
317
0
0
mrhockey220 said:
In the torture memos there were only THREE cases in which people were actually waterboarded and thats only because they had information regarding the attacks on 9/11. Oh do we treat our prisoners too harsh? What do u want them to do treat them like their royalty and seve them fine wine and lobster for dinner? I thought we were supposed to have discipline in our prisons.
Discipline doesn't mean torture.

And seriously guys, while I can tell a lot of you hate the man, the level of violence many of you are preaching is rather gratuitous. I dislike the man and am very thankful he is out of office, but please tone down the threats, let's keep this civil.
 

VTSK

New member
Jun 3, 2008
242
0
0
Yegargeburble said:
Gashad said:
Yegargeburble said:
Onyx Oblivion said:
Yegargeburble said:
Onyx Oblivion said:
Gashad said:
(even if George Bush wasn't aware/didn't authorize the torture [which I at least believe he did/was]
I like the part where you use your opinion/belief as evidence.
That's a nice touch.

I voted no.
As did I...I seriously doubt he was aware of any possible war crimes.

Also, I don't think there should be such a thing as "war crimes." I thought that all's fair in war.
Not everything is fair. No hitting in the balls, and no hitting in the face.
Correction: almost everything is fair. :)
There is a very clear definition of war crimes dating back to the Hague conventions of 1899 and 1907(I think those were the dates at least), and especially the Geneva conventions, it was this many of the Nazis was tried for(Indeed it was probably the only things the allies had legal right to try anybody for, but thats another story...).

As the US has signed the Geneva conventions they have responsibility to abide by them. Also i believe the Geneva conventions stipulate that soldiers are required to know the laws of war(so not knowing is no excuse)
I wasn't saying that there are no laws of war today, I'm just saying that they shouldn't exist. War doesn't need restrictions and rules. I know that sounds crazy, but I hold that to be true, especially since some of a country's enemies may not follow them.

Of course, I have never accepted anything such as rules of combat to be useful at all, instead thinking that fighting "dirty" is the way to go, but maybe that's just me.

Also note that I am not defending Bush...I couldn't care less if anyone decides to try him.

EDIT:

Frank_Sinatra_ said:
Also international laws and "war laws" are a joke. In war there will be unwanted casualties, it happens thats why its called WAR!
This is pretty much what I am saying, but in a much shorter, probably better, way.
So you think torture, slaughter of civilians, and genocide are all fair game? I have to admit, I disagree completely. Let's not make war more horrific than it has to be.
 

Ignignokt

New member
May 7, 2009
100
0
0
Shycte said:
OH HELL NO!! Not another Bush-flaming mob.

I have no grudge against Bush. Sure he started an unwanted war, but if the Kongress didn't agree, there wouldn't be a war. I don't think that Bush is a criminal, he declared war against a poor country because he belived that it would be for the best.

Also, international laws and the UN are nothing short of a joke. Just look at China, the rape the human rights every single day and yet no-one is getting their thump out of their ass.
From now on, I say any Congress with a Democrat party majority be called the Donkey Kongress!

Also, there's a lot of bandwagoning going on in here. I'm guessing a majority of the "Arrest and kill Bush!" crowd is in high school and college.
 

sneakypenguin

Elite Member
Legacy
Jul 31, 2008
2,804
0
41
Country
usa
Ignignokt said:
Shycte said:
OH HELL NO!! Not another Bush-flaming mob.

I have no grudge against Bush. Sure he started an unwanted war, but if the Kongress didn't agree, there wouldn't be a war. I don't think that Bush is a criminal, he declared war against a poor country because he belived that it would be for the best.

Also, international laws and the UN are nothing short of a joke. Just look at China, the rape the human rights every single day and yet no-one is getting their thump out of their ass.
From now on, I say any Congress with a Democrat party majority be called the Donkey Kongress!

Also, there's a lot of bandwagoning going on in here. I'm guessing a majority of the "Arrest and kill Bush!" crowd is in high school and college.
Amen, I swear all the kids at my school who jump on an issue based solely on emotion get on my nerves.

Donkey kongress is offensive to apes, how dare we bring them down to the level of congressmen/women.
 

mrhockey220

New member
Apr 20, 2009
258
0
0
Omega 2521 said:
mrhockey220 said:
In the torture memos there were only THREE cases in which people were actually waterboarded and thats only because they had information regarding the attacks on 9/11. Oh do we treat our prisoners too harsh? What do u want them to do treat them like their royalty and seve them fine wine and lobster for dinner? I thought we were supposed to have discipline in our prisons.
Discipline doesn't mean torture.

And seriously guys, while I can tell a lot of you hate the man, the level of violence many of you are preaching is rather gratuitous. I dislike the man and am very thankful he is out of office, but please tone down the threats, let's keep this civil.
Of course discipline doesnt mean torture but Im just trying to make a point in saying that maybe prisoners are in Guantanimo Bay for a reason and should stay there instead of saying that oh they dont get enough rights and give them a free ride out when they did something horrible. I was also trying to point out that only under very extreme circumstances was torture ever considered being used.
 

Moormur

New member
Mar 24, 2009
168
0
0
rainman2203 said:
"If the President does it, it's not illegal!"
Yeah the guy was an ignorant douche with the lowest approval ratings EVAR, but he was still the President. Ex-presidents can't be expected to be held accountable for their actions in office. If he had been charged while in office, then it would be a completely different story. Besides, we all know he wasn't really calling the shots...
Actually, Obama's congress had lower approval ratings than Bush ever did.

And yet people still voted Obama into office....tells you something about the American people. We want a drug president to make us feel good. Why else are people clamoring for Obama to do more late-night televisions?

See, Obama was elected president of the United States with promises of ?Change.? That was the buzz word for months leading up to the election. ?Change.? Obama has completed his first 100 days in office and intelligent citizens are now evaluating how much ?change? Obama has brought to the White House. As he was inaugurated, before he even stepped foot in the White House as president, commentators and supporters were hailing him as a modern day Kennedy or Roosevelt. Before the man had even taken the oath of office, they were idolizing him.

Now that 100 days have passed, we can look back and reflect on what has transpired. One promise Obama emphatically espoused during his campaign was that he would end the War in Iraq. No sooner had he been elected, however, that he announced that he had a chance to evaluate the situation with further information and decided that instead of a withdrawal of forces, he would simply transfer them to Afghanistan (leaving tens of thousands of troops still stationed in Iraq). Hardly the image he painted during his election. During the election, he promised to stabilize the erratic economy he inherited from Clinton and Bush. Here he really had some tough choices to make. Really, there is no easy or ?happy? solution to the economic crisis. Obama used the crisis and the ?politics of fear? (that he attributed to Bush and promised to eradicate) that the economy would come to a total crisis if his stimulus packages were not passed to push through many programs that otherwise would have been shelved for several years, even until a second term should Obama achieve one. When Republican congressmen pointed out the millions upon millions of pork spending in the stimulus bills, they were accused of playing party politics and holding up important legislation (good propaganda for the Obama administration to shove all the woes of society on the opposing party). In addition, the Obama administration has quietly taken direct control of some of the United State?s largest companies such as GM. The president?s handpicked teams are in control of those companies now. They will do what he says.

Finally, as Obama?s 100 days came to a close, we were faced with swine flu. The US has been through several impending epidemics over the past 5 years?bird flu, SARS, etc. and we should know better than to fall into panic mentality when the latest ?life-threatening pandemic? comes our way. The Obama administration seems to have latched onto this non-issue and blown it into something Americans should fear. Obama has successfully sidetracked the American people from important issues by instilling fear in a disease less fatal than the seasonal influenza. Obama may be hoping that this fear will distract the public long enough that they will forget the first 100 days so that when re-election time comes, Obama can revise events that took place three years prior. There has been change, no doubt, even some positive changes. Indeed, I have highlighted some of the more negative aspects of Obama?s infant presidency. He has, for example, followed through on his promise for increasing accessibility (at least at face value) by broadcasting addresses on YouTube and taking advantage of modern communication technologies. But the positive changes seem to be minor. In 100 days, Obama has seized control of major industries, flooded the economy with millions upon millions of dollars, and continued using the politics of fear to make his policies more palatable to a public that adores him and only wants him to appear on late night television to joke around and ensure them that everything is all right.

Don't believe me? Look at the news' coverage of Obama. They talk about everything from the new dog in the White House to the fact that Obama and Michelle kissed on national television. Clearly these are pressing issues of great important to the United States...
 

CuddlyCombine

New member
Sep 12, 2007
1,142
0
0
I wish, but you can't persecute someone that far-removed from the battlefield. Also, this is completely unrealistic.

Though I'd fully be for trying him in the ICC.
 

Wyatt

New member
Feb 14, 2008
384
0
0
norsef said:
Wyatt said:
Bigsmith said:
Wyatt said:
you should actualy READ the things your responding too you know, might help you avoid looking foolish if nothing else *snicker*
impressive uberpost. No he wasn't the american president, he was the dictator of Iran (correct me if I am wrong you seem to be very good at that.)
*enters correction*

it was Iraq, not Iran.

another 3 or 4 posts at this rate and with my continued help and you will have managed to get your one simple statment almost 100% correct.
Well someones wearing their sassy pants today.
heh, well i assume he was joking so i thought id return the joke. the original comment that started it was kinda funny in itself after all, and the "correct me if im wrong" line was just begging for a responce given the line it followed wouldnt you agree?

he was either looking to have some fun in a sarcastic kind of way, or he was truly so stupid that he shouldnt be allowed in any thread with a topic more complex than 'whats your favorite color', i give him the benifit of the doubt and assume he was looking for some fun. im a nice guy that way.
 

Giovanto

New member
Jun 3, 2008
203
0
0
Mimsofthedawg said:
Giovanto said:
Let me put it this way...

We went to war with Iraq, HOWEVER, we never officially made a declaration of war.

So, that in itself is a war crime. We've been saying this for some time, he and Cheney need to be charged.
What the hell are you talking about? I watched Congress' declaration of war live on tv...??? Besides that, your buddies (the democrats) not only saw the exact same evidence as President Bush on the subject of Iraq (and it's various, theoretically flawed intelligence) but they also knew of the interrogation techniques while in control of congress and past NO resolution to stop it... OH BUT WAIT! Once elections roll around, they use it as cannon fodder, pretending there was nothing they could do (which they could've...). Nevermind the fact that we found 300 tons of depleted uranium in Iraq, or the fact we have satellite images of nuclear-weapons carrying trucks crossing the border into Syria, or anything else, apparently the democrats are either very, very stupid and don't know how to read, or the republicans are very very ignorant to think that the American people have the ability to think objectively anymore.

Either way, the fact that your facts are obviously, badly flawed could put a huge damper on any feasible debate I could hope to have with you...
I'm not going to even bother attempting to argue with you since you've evidently pledged loyalty to a political party and assumed that I am the opponent of said political party.

To be honest I stopped reading your reply around the "your buddies" bit. For a quick news flash, I am a Christian Conservative and I refuse to pledge loyalty to a political party because who they are and who they actually side with is always open to debate.

Good day to you.
 

HaloHappy

New member
Sep 7, 2008
342
0
0
YES!! This guy should be put on court for the 8 years of shit he put the U.S. through. He cheated to win the first time and we were dipshits to reelect him.