Political Crossfire Forums

[ChaseNorth]

Boondoggle wrote: ChaseNorth wrote: Of course, Bush will not be arrested because of the stipulations of the 1991 cease fire: complete disarmament with verification which Hussein refused to do for 12 years.

That's irrelevant. What is relevant is that by international law, you either have to be acting in self-defense or with a UN resolution that clearly authorizes the use of force to go to war. The US had neither for the second war, and it's a widely shared view among lawyers, law professors, the UN, and other countries that the war is illegal. Further, you also have US violations of the Geneva Convention outside of Iraq.

It's not irrelevant - its also not a second war but a continuation of the first. And an armed Iraq is a threat to our allies in the region. Hussein had demonstrated his contempt for international law. He invaded two countries at the cost of millions of lives (Iran - Iraq War, Kuwait Invasion), he launched Scud missiles into two more (Saudi Arabia and Israel), used chemical weapons on the Kurds and committed large scale massacres against the Shi'ites. This is documented by both the UN and human rights groups.

And name me the violations outside of Iraq.
Guantanamo is not in breach because the detainees are considered illegal combatants - not prisoners of war.

Boondoggle wrote: ChaseNorth wrote: In addition to this he fired on coalition forces (and weapons inspectors) and in 1998, kicked the UN out of the country.

That is completely wrong. The US, and they admitted to this, used the weapons inspectors to spy on Saddam to try and gather information to overthrow him in violation of the UN mandate, which was to disarm not regime change. This undermined the inspections process because you cannot expect someone to be very cooperative with inspections of security sites when your objective is regime change.


You have any evidence to back that up?


Boondoggle wrote: ChaseNorth wrote: So validity of the war cannot be measure in terms of it meeting the standards of a war crime; it merely failed to garner international public support.

Validity of war is determined by treaties that are entered. Once a treaty is signed and ratified by the US it is the supreme law of the land according to article 6 of the US constitution. As stated above, the war is in violation of such treaties.

I seem to remember Iraq signing a treaty saying they would verifiable disarm and then they didn't...
And regardless of your claims about US spies....the terms of the cease required verifiable proof of the absence of chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons. The threat these types of weapons present (especially in the hands of someone like Hussein, who's already used some of them) overrides any "secrecy" issues that concern Iraq. They lost the war therefore, they do not set the terms of the peace.


Boondoggle wrote: ChaseNorth wrote: If Canada were to arrest Bush without charge under the ICC and without due process to that charge (ie the US either says it prosecute Bush on US soil or not) then Canada would be the committing an act of war and the US would react in kind. Considering the pathetic state of Canada's forces, the rout would be quicker than Iraq's. I also doubt we'd be in any hurry to leave.

First I think some people fail to see the point that the article points out a double standard; it does not state that Canada will do it. I'd be happy if Canada just said: sorry, but we don't want your kind here. I'm sure the protestors will deliver that message.

What point are you referring to exactly?
All I see is some Canadian on his high horse pretending to be making some all important speech.

Boondoggle wrote: Military supremacy...blah blah blah... The US spends as much on its military as the rest of the world combined, and has a hard time fighting wars in developing countries. Not to mention Canada is far bigger than Iraq. Good luck trying to occupy that much land with the troops you don't have enough of for Iraq.

Should another country illegally (in the eyes of the US) detain an American president with the intention of prosecuting him for supposed war crimes, the American military would not plan a hearts and minds campaign. There would be no rebuilding. The air force along with special forces would take care of the problem very quickly.

[timmtc]

I dont even know why this is even being discussed. The new Prime Minister Paul Martin is trying to rebuild relations with the US, unlike our worthless previous prime minister. Dispite our outspoken liberals, Canada would be the last place to do such a thing to our allies.

[ChaseNorth]

The US, in spite of feelings of betrayal and anger, would have a hard time responding with violence to our neighbors in the north. Americans would be torn but if push came to shove, our President would come first.

That is why articles that make propositions such as this, are so dangerous and dumb...

You are creating a scenario that would likely end in the invasion of Canada and death of thousands (if not more) of people.

WHY?

Why ruin a relationship that has stood the test of time?

No nation (nor the UN) is seriously considering actually charging Bush with anything.

1441 warned of serious consequences. The cease fire was based on verifiable disarmament. How many treaties has Iraq already broken? Where is the almighty ICC?

And what about the French? They just blew up the Ivory Coast's entire air force because of the death's of 9 French soldiers? Where's the posturing on that?

Double standards?

[URallIgnorant]

Relax Chase North, it's not really going to happen.

[SpartanPhalanx]

ChaseNorth wrote: Bush would have to be charged with a crime FIRST
Then, the US would have to make a formal response to that charge THEN Canada could issue a warrant and THEN they could arrest him.

Of course, Bush will not be arrested because of the stipulations of the 1991 cease fire: complete disarmament with verification which Hussein refused to do for 12 years. In addition to this he fired on coalition forces (and weapons inspectors) and in 1998, kicked the UN out of the country.

So validity of the war cannot be measure in terms of it meeting the standards of a war crime; it merely failed to garner international public support.

If Canada were to arrest Bush without charge under the ICC and without due process to that charge (ie the US either says it prosecute Bush on US soil or not) then Canada would be the committing an act of war and the US would react in kind. Considering the pathetic state of Canada's forces, the rout would be quicker than Iraq's. I also doubt we'd be in any hurry to leave.

Well, Canada had better hurry up and charge him then . He's going there on a state visit and will address the Canadian parliament on 30Nov....then
they can slap the cuffs on him right after his speech......:-)

[D@N]

One of our MP's (Carolyn Parrish) Was kicked out of the liberal party today for steeping on a George bush doll

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/11/18/carolynparrish041118.html

We might not have our prime minister for long because the government and the opposition have an equal amount of seats, and there are 2 wild card independent MPs.

The NDP told all its MP's not to harriase Bush when he is here, all but 1 agreed. So there are 3 MP's that can insult Bush if he address Parliament.

[SpartanPhalanx]

angry leftist wrote: A military leader is supposed to take responsibility for everything that happens under his command. Now as Bush is fond of reminding everyone that he is the US commander-in-chief that would make him responsible for the attrocities committed at Abu-Ghraib. Thus Bush = War Criminal.

But everyone already knows that Americans don't play by their own rules.

Exactly. Even after Fallujah has been reduced to a parking lot will Bush stop on his soapbox and spout how it was done in the name of freedom and democracy.

We still don't have any idea of the civilian cost in that city.

But we do regarding the tens of thousands of dead during the U.S invasion last year. Bush has that blood on his hands and should be accountable for it just how Saddam will be when he is brought to justice...(if that ever happens....)

[SpartanPhalanx]

Quote: If Canada were to arrest Bush without charge under the ICC and without due process to that charge (ie the US either says it prosecute Bush on US soil or not) then Canada would be the committing an act of war and the US would react in kind. Considering the pathetic state of Canada's forces, the rout would be quicker than Iraq's. I also doubt we'd be in any hurry to leave.


Um.....They wouldn't even have to do that.....most of Canadian business is owned by the U.S anyway.....all the U.S would have to do is turn off the switch and Canada would be begging for the borders to open quicker than you can say Take off eh??

[CrossfireBear]

Better late than never. Canada should have indicted Bush long ago. If world leaders had taken a stand against Bush, he might not have stolen another election.

Sadly, Hitler apparently didn't teach any of today's leaders any lessons about appeasement.

[DEFCON 1]

CrossfireBear wrote: Better late than never. Canada should have indicted Bush long ago. If world leaders had taken a stand against Bush, he might not have stolen another election.

Sadly, Hitler apparently didn't teach any of today's leaders any lessons about appeasement.

Oh please! Are you doing acid?

[CrossfireBear]

DEFCON 1 wrote: CrossfireBear wrote: Better late than never. Canada should have indicted Bush long ago. If world leaders had taken a stand against Bush, he might not have stolen another election.

Sadly, Hitler apparently didn't teach any of today's leaders any lessons about appeasement.

Oh please! Are you doing acid?

I'm not the one with three animated images screaming for attention. What's the matter - don't your parents love you?

[timmtc]

You're retarded crossfirebear. Yeah, Canada is going to arrest the President on the United States, really good logic.


Why do idiots like yourself even feel the need to express your opinions, nobody ever listens to you.

[CrossfireBear]

timmtc wrote: You're retarded crossfirebear. Yeah, Canada is going to arrest the President on the United States, really good logic.


Why do idiots like yourself even feel the need to express your opinions, nobody ever listens to you.

They don't have to arrest him. Symbolism alone can be a potent weapon.

[DEFCON 1]

CrossfireBear wrote: timmtc wrote: You're retarded crossfirebear. Yeah, Canada is going to arrest the President on the United States, really good logic.


Why do idiots like yourself even feel the need to express your opinions, nobody ever listens to you.

They don't have to arrest him. Symbolism alone can be a potent weapon.

Yep, another liberal concept :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Golddave]

CrossfireBear wrote: timmtc wrote: You're retarded crossfirebear. Yeah, Canada is going to arrest the President on the United States, really good logic.


Why do idiots like yourself even feel the need to express your opinions, nobody ever listens to you.

They don't have to arrest him. Symbolism alone can be a potent weapon.

YOU IDIOT STIMPY.

[ChaseNorth]

CrossfireBear wrote: timmtc wrote: You're retarded crossfirebear. Yeah, Canada is going to arrest the President on the United States, really good logic.


Why do idiots like yourself even feel the need to express your opinions, nobody ever listens to you.

They don't have to arrest him. Symbolism alone can be a potent weapon.
Symoblism?

And what would you do about people who ACTUALLY target and slaughter the innocent by the millions?

You're just going to leave them alone?
Pol pot, Hilter, Ida Amin, Ceausescu...

What is it, exactly, that liberals do when they aren't giving stern lectures to the leader of the free world in the name of symbolism?

Do liberals actual try to make the world a better place? Or do they just sit around and talk about how everyone else is doing it wrong?

[CrossfireBear]

ChaseNorth wrote: Symoblism?

And what would you do about people who ACTUALLY target and slaughter the innocent by the millions?

You're just going to leave them alone?
Pol pot, Hilter, Ida Amin, Ceausescu...

What is it, exactly, that liberals do when they aren't giving stern lectures to the leader of the free world in the name of symbolism?

Do liberals actual try to make the world a better place? Or do they just sit around and talk about how everyone else is doing it wrong?

Most of the people you mentioned are dead. As far as I know the biggest living butcher is George W. Bush. He's only killed a few hundred thousand so far, but wait until he gets his nuclear arsenal primed.

[ChaseNorth]

CrossfireBear wrote: ChaseNorth wrote: Symoblism?

And what would you do about people who ACTUALLY target and slaughter the innocent by the millions?

You're just going to leave them alone?
Pol pot, Hilter, Ida Amin, Ceausescu...

What is it, exactly, that liberals do when they aren't giving stern lectures to the leader of the free world in the name of symbolism?

Do liberals actual try to make the world a better place? Or do they just sit around and talk about how everyone else is doing it wrong?

Most of the people you mentioned are dead. As far as I know the biggest living butcher is George W. Bush. He's only killed a few hundred thousand so far, but wait until he gets his nuclear arsenal primed.

Biggest living butcher?

You have any evidence to back that up?

[CrossfireBear]

ChaseNorth wrote: CrossfireBear wrote: ChaseNorth wrote: Symoblism?

And what would you do about people who ACTUALLY target and slaughter the innocent by the millions?

You're just going to leave them alone?
Pol pot, Hilter, Ida Amin, Ceausescu...

What is it, exactly, that liberals do when they aren't giving stern lectures to the leader of the free world in the name of symbolism?

Do liberals actual try to make the world a better place? Or do they just sit around and talk about how everyone else is doing it wrong?

Most of the people you mentioned are dead. As far as I know the biggest living butcher is George W. Bush. He's only killed a few hundred thousand so far, but wait until he gets his nuclear arsenal primed.

Biggest living butcher?

You have any evidence to back that up?

Well tens of thousands of civilians in Iraq alone. God knows how many we killed in Afghanistan. Name some LIVING individuals who have killed more.

[wieno]

CrossfireBear wrote: ChaseNorth wrote: CrossfireBear wrote: ChaseNorth wrote: Symoblism?

And what would you do about people who ACTUALLY target and slaughter the innocent by the millions?

You're just going to leave them alone?
Pol pot, Hilter, Ida Amin, Ceausescu...

What is it, exactly, that liberals do when they aren't giving stern lectures to the leader of the free world in the name of symbolism?

Do liberals actual try to make the world a better place? Or do they just sit around and talk about how everyone else is doing it wrong?

Most of the people you mentioned are dead. As far as I know the biggest living butcher is George W. Bush. He's only killed a few hundred thousand so far, but wait until he gets his nuclear arsenal primed.

Biggest living butcher?

You have any evidence to back that up?

Well tens of thousands of civilians in Iraq alone. God knows how many we killed in Afghanistan. Name some LIVING individuals who have killed more.

Most civilians killed in Iraq were killed by terrorists from outside of Iraq. And please don't try and be witty by saying "outside terrorists? You mean George Bush?" It makes you look bad.