interesting thought about Bush

[KickMcCann]

So now that everyone knows there were no WMD's in Iraq, the US government is still justifying the war like this:


Ashcroft: War Justified Even Without WMD
Mon Jan 26, 8:16 AM ET

By WILLIAM J. KOLE, Associated Press Writer

VIENNA, Austria - Saddam Hussein's past use of "evil chemistry" and "evil biology" and the threats they posed justified the war in Iraq even if no weapons of mass destruction are ever found, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft said Monday.


Hmmmmmmm........Does this mean we could throw Bush in jail for his past use of Cocaine and past drunk-driving offenses? He may not drive drunk or snort 8-balls now, but he used to and he could start again if he wanted, so lets take a preventive action and lock him for the rest of his life. :lol:

cheers

[Commie Girl]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 12:43 PM
Hmmmmmmm........Does this mean we could throw Bush in jail for his past use of Cocaine and past drunk-driving offenses? He may not drive drunk or snort 8-balls now, but he used to and he could start again if he wanted, so lets take a preventive action and lock him for the rest of his life. :lol:

cheers
Excellent topic....he should be tried as a war criminal....One thing I don not understand, is how the U$ government says these ludicrous things, yet they ARMED and STOOD-BY Saddam Hussein when he carried out these "evil" acts.

Too little too late, to use that argument....


You created the monster....

[Don't Change Your Name]

That's true. And the most unbeleivable thing is that while the yanks have thousands of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, they used the argument that Saddam was a threat because he "had" those weapons, while he didn't have any and the yanks can take over the world in any second. They are pathetic.

[LSD]

Hmmmm, so the US is acting dishonestly and imperialistically....

And we're what, surprised?

[monkeydust]

It's interesting to see the double standards that the dominant Western powers have. For example.

Guantanamo bay-breaking the Geneva convention, yes I know they're claiming they're not POW's but the way I see it, by definition if you wage war on terrorists a captured terrorist is a prisoner of war. However it's OK, it's the US after all.


The Falklands war:- Argentina waned to take back territory which was previusly hers, Thatcher however says that's not OK and took the territory back with force which had only been British for a few hundred years at most.


It's a shame those who make the rules feel they can break them.

[cubist]

left
iagree although

guantanamo is interesting as its not protected by the geneva convention so they technically have broken nothing, but ethically they are acting very wrong.

[monkeydust]

As far as I was aware the Geneva convention was a convention issuing the rules of warfare to the world, at very least those in the UN. As the US is inthe UN and Guantanamo is occupied by it's forces, they should follow these rules.

There excuse is that 'they're illegal combatants not prisoners of war' it's petty, as a war on terro by definition means that 'terrorist' prisoners should be prisoners of war. However, America by it's domination is allowed to twist and break these rules, whilst condemning any other nation who violates them as 'evil.

Madness don't you think?

[LSD]

Guantanamo is interesting as its not protected by the geneva convention so they technically have broken nothing

Guantanamo is very much protected by Geneva, it's just that no one gives a damn.
If the soldiers defending Afghanistan were "illegal combatants", what the hell were the people invading it?!?!?

Geneva applies to the US as much as Versailles applied to Germany.
Isn't it good to know that things never really change?

[cubist]

yes but i was of the understanding cuba didn't sign up to the geneva convention and guantanamo is on cuba.

[Commie Girl]

<_< Looks like there might be a congressional inquiry into the LIES told by the Bush Admin. about their justification for going to war against Iraq....FINALLY....David Kay is looking for an Independant bi-partisan review, since he realizes you can not review yourself.....



?

CBC (http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/01/28/kay_testifies040128)