Do You believe Bush is a War Criminal?

[AROCES]

Serbia Accuses NATO of War Crimes

by Aleksandar Vasovic

BELGRADE, Yugoslavia –– A Belgrade court accused President Clinton and other leaders of NATO nations of war crimes Monday in a trial intended to resurrect memories of the alliance's bombing campaign ahead of elections in Yugoslavia.

Judge Veroljub Raketic faced a row of 14 empty chairs with plates bearing the names of the accused in a courtroom packed with 300 reporters and spectators. Diplomats from African countries, North Korea and Iran also attended.

What has this Belgrade court or any other World court done to rid of tyrants of the world? Nothing really., they just wag their fingers on them saying they are bad and then when someone else deals with them they cry War Crime.

Edited October 24, 2007 by AROCES

[AROCES]

well 68% of um members cant be wrong...hopefully someone stops bush before God tells him to move on Iran...he's definately not stable..

That only means that 68% of UM members are tabloid readers and believers.

[Unlimited]

And none of this is Saddams fault, right?

saddams fault for coercing with the US govt and CIA to procure these weapons...thats why bush was so sure they were there, his daddy and there gang sold them to saddam....someone disposed of them though behind the cia's back...so now they all look like criminals..next time the US arms an ally with chemical and biological weapons they should keep tabs on them...

[AROCES]

saddams fault for coercing with the US govt and CIA to procure these weapons...thats why bush was so sure they were there, his daddy and there gang sold them to saddam....someone disposed of them though behind the cia's back...so now they all look like criminals..next time the US arms an ally with chemical and biological weapons they should keep tabs on them...

Alright, that I can relate to and understand. Oh, by the way. Saddams chemical ingredients was obtained illegally, not thru any government or CIA. Edited October 24, 2007 by AROCES

[Mr Honeybadger]

For me it depends on if the Bush administration believed that the bad intel was accurate. Or if they sifted through it in order to find a justifiable cause to invade.

[Bob26003]

Yes, but it's not banned by the Chemical Weapons Convention. Nice try.

No Bruce, when used as a weapon it is. I cant believe you are defending the use of chemical weapons in a civilian area.

==============

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus</a>

However, the use against military targets outside civilian areas is not explicitly banned by any treaty. There is a debate on whether white phosphorus should be considered a chemical weapon and thus be outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) which went into effect in April of 1997. The convention is meant to prohibit weapons that are "dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare" (Article II, Definitions, 9, "Purposes not Prohibited" c.).

The convention defines a "toxic chemical" as a chemical "which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals".(CWC, II). An annex lists chemicals that fall under this definition.[31], but WP is not listed, possibly because its primary function was not seen to be chemical. However, today, legal opinion may be shifting, according to some: "there is potential for white phosphorus to fall under the classification of a chemical weapon[32]".

In an 2005 interview to RAI, Peter Kaiser, spokesman for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (an organization overseeing the CWC and reporting directly to the UN General Assembly), questioned whether the weapon should fall under the convention's provisions:

No it's not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement.

If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the convention legitimate use.

If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons"[5].

Edited October 24, 2007 by Bob26003

[Unlimited]

ya the white phospherous is no fun when it gets on you...just add it to the list..lies,deception,genocide,ethnic cleansing during the debaathification process,torture,....the list just grows..

[Bob26003]

ya the white phospherous is no fun when it gets on you...just add it to the list..lies,deception,genocide,ethnic cleansing during the debaathification process,torture,....the list just grows..

The sad part: They will get away with it.

They will bankrupt America, destroy our reputation, and attack our liberty in the process. But they will get away with it.

[Unlimited]

The sad part: They will get away with it.

They will bankrupt America, destroy our reputation, and attack our liberty in the process. But they will get away with it.

If it was 1776; i think we'd be loading our weapons and sending our militias after these freaks. before theres no america left...

[AROCES]

For me it depends on if the Bush administration believed that the bad intel was accurate. Or if they sifted through it in order to find a justifiable cause to invade.

It is up to George Tenet then to assure that whatever intelligence he passed on is accurate. If there was any doubt he should not even have made it available to the administration.

[Bob26003]

If it was 1776; i think we'd be loading our weapons and sending our militias after these freaks. before theres no america left...

Be careful, I'm sure homeland security is reading this.

[Bob26003]

It is up to George Tenet then to assure that whatever intelligence he passed on is accurate. If there was any doubt he should not even have made it available to the administration.

Tenet took his orders from Bush and Cheney.

[AROCES]

Tenet took his orders from Bush and Cheney.

But it is still up to him to present evidence. He can simply say there is no solid evidence, but he has been presenting them to Clinton too..

[BrucePrime]

No Bruce, when used as a weapon it is. I cant believe you are defending the use of chemical weapons in a civilian area. That is disgusting.

You and Saddam would have gotten along great.

==============

You are quoting just one section of the article, a lie through a distortion. Don't be fooled by Bob. Like Ripley, he feels the need to lie to make his point, even if it's a lie by distortion.

Kaiser was a staff spokesman for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.[33]. He is not listed as Director-General, or the head of any of the nine divisions listed for the OPCW secretariat. The OPCW, using member votes, creates Schedules of chemical weapons or dual-use chemicals of concern [34], and white phosphorus is not in any of these schedules.

The Chemical Weapons Convention, however, does not list WP in its Schedules of chemical weapons.

Bob, being a habitual liar, tries to paint the picture that the US was using it against civilian populations, or WP in-and-of-itself as a weapon. Notice what Kaiser says...

No it's not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement.

Now notice, from the same article that Bob is quoting, how the US used the weapon...

“WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE (High Explosive) Rounds. We fired ‘shake and bake’ missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out."

On November 30, 2005, General Peter Pace defended use of WP, declaring that WP munitions were a "legitimate tool of the military", used to illuminate targets and create smokescreens, and that there were better weapons for killing people:

it is well within the law of war to use those weapons as they're being used, for marking and for screening... A bullet goes through skin even faster than white phosphorus does"[7].

Were people hurt? Yes. But once again, notice what Kaiser says, there has to be the intent to use it as a chemical weapon. There was no such intent. Bob has once again been exposed for the liar he is.

[BrucePrime]

ya the white phospherous is no fun when it gets on you...just add it to the list..lies,deception,genocide,ethnic cleansing during the debaathification process,torture,....the list just grows..

The Ba'ath are a political party, not an ethnic group.

My god, Unlimited. Your ignorance is astonishing.

[Bob26003]

Sorry Bruce, but they admitted to using it as a weapon.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4440664.stm

US used white phosphorus in Iraq

US troops used white phosphorus as a weapon in last year's offensive in the Iraqi city of Falluja, the US has said.

"It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants," spokesman Lt Col Barry Venable told the BBC - though not against civilians, he said.

The US had earlier said the substance - which can cause burning of the flesh - had been used only for illumination.

===========

Pentagon Used White Phosphorous in Iraq

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5111600374.html

By ROBERT BURNS

The Associated Press

Wednesday, November 16, 2005; 5:49 AM

WASHINGTON -- Pentagon officials say white phosphorous was used as a weapon against insurgent strongholds during the battle of Fallujah last November, but deny an Italian television news report that it was used against civilians.

Lt. Col. Barry Venable, a Pentagon spokesman, said Tuesday that while white phosphorous is most frequently used to mark targets or obscure a position, it was used at times in Fallujah as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants.

Edited October 24, 2007 by Bob26003

[Unlimited]

The Ba'ath are a political party, not an ethnic group.

My god, Unlimited. Your ignorance is astonishing.

ya and they were eliminated systematically...they were muslims no?

[The Silver Thong]

You are quoting just one section of the article, a lie through a distortion. Don't be fooled by Bob. Like Ripley, he feels the need to lie to make his point, even if it's a lie by distortion.

Bob, being a habitual liar, tries to paint the picture that the US was using it against civilian populations, or WP in-and-of-itself as a weapon. Notice what Kaiser says...

Now notice, from the same article that Bob is quoting, how the US used the weapon...

Were people hurt? Yes. But once again, notice what Kaiser says, there has to be the intent to use it as a chemical weapon. There was no such intent. Bob has once again been exposed for the liar he is.

Did you even read this and if so this makes your post one big LIE !

Quote

"No it's not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement.

If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the convention legitimate use.

If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons"[5]. "

Edited October 24, 2007 by The Silver Thong

[Bob26003]

Id post some pictures of corpses ate up by the WP. But I dont think its allowed. Pretty gross.

[War Eagle]

Every douche-bag in charge during his reign should be held accountable, not just Bush.

I also think Blair and Howard should be charged as well.

Howard's just a follower a yes man even boot licker if ya like.

If he had any balls he should of just no, not my problem see ya later, end story. His only crime is stupidity imo.

[The Skeptic Eric Raven]

The sad part: They will get away with it.

They will bankrupt America, destroy our reputation, and attack our liberty in the process. But they will get away with it.

One of your flaming liberals will do no better. Thats a fact. Politicans all get corrupted and do a half as* job. Doesn't matter who is in. I guess you would like to see a dictator in like Chavez.

[Unlimited]

Howard's just a follower a yes man even boot licker if ya like.

If he had any balls he should of just no, not my problem see ya later, end story. His only crime is stupidity imo.

howard just believed whatever bush was saying...everyone believed him he's the great deciever...when your lying to people about their personal safety, and using fear as your weapon against their psyches...thats powerful stuff...just to get a war going for the cronies...bush will burn in hell no matter what..but id personally like to see him fry for what he's done..

[BrucePrime]

ya and they were eliminated systematically...they were muslims no?

Keep talking, Unlimited. Your ignorance shines through with every word.

They weren't systemically eliminated. De-Ba'athification means removing them from government, and not allowing them positions in government. It doesn't mean they were murdered. And Ba'athists weren't the only Muslims in the country. There are still Muslims, they are the majority.

[BrucePrime]

Sorry Bob, you are once again a liar.

It is not used to kill people...it is used to scare them.

And once again, it is not banned by the CWC. Sorry. You are a liar. Simple as that.

And thanks for the earlier comment about me and Saddam. I bet you and Albert Fish would have gotten along swimmingly.

Edited October 24, 2007 by BrucePrime

[Unlimited]

Keep talking, Unlimited. Your ignorance shines through with every word.

They weren't systemically eliminated. De-Ba'athification means removing them from government, and not allowing them positions in government. It doesn't mean they were murdered. And Ba'athists weren't the only Muslims in the country. There are still Muslims, they are the majority.

i saw them hanging them..removed ok..they were a sovreign nation.......bruce whatever you say your just digging a deeper hole for yourself..your in a minority that still has a bush/cheney sticker on his car...your as guilty as they are for supporting them you should be ashamed...and now bush is telling you what a threat Iran is everyday...do you really believe him again?...thats just crazy..