NOBODY can make Saddam look good. But Bush seems to be the ONLY one who can make him look less

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

We all know how terrible Saddam is. It almost hurts to write that an American president could be worse. He obviously doesn't personally care how many Americans and Iraqis he's killing over there. He doesn't care that he's created a huge deficit that didn't exist before he showed up. I thought Republicans were supposed to be in favor of no deficits and less government. He cares more about stem cells that are about to be thrown in the garbage than he does about living, breathing human Americans who are already here.

He's abrasive and arrogant, and I actually feel sorry for Tony Blair, who I think has stayed with Bush out of a sense of intense loyalty to America. Bush has put Blair's career on shaky ground.

As far as war crimes, it isn't over yet. This whole war might be deemed to be illegal. Wouldn't surprise me one bit. That is, if we all live long enough to see it and aren't killed first by terrorists as a result of his neglect in securing his own country.

Seems to me if there's a WMD anywhere, it's in Crawford, and it's George W. Bush.

Aaron Glantz, OneWorld USFri Aug 25, 8:57 AM ET

SAN FRANCISCO, Aug 25 (OneWorld) - A chief prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg has said George W. Bush should be tried for war crimes along with Saddam Hussein. Benjamin Ferenccz, who secured convictions for 22 Nazi officers for their work in orchestrating the death squads that killed more than 1 million people, told OneWorld both Bush and Saddam should be tried for starting aggressive wars--Saddam for his 1990 attack on Kuwait and Bush for his 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Nuremberg declared that aggressive war is the supreme international crime, the 87-year-old Ferenccz told OneWorld from his home in New York. He said the United Nations charter, which was written after the carnage of World War II, contains a provision that no nation can use armed force without the permission of the UN Security Council.

Ferenccz said that after Nuremberg the international community realized that every war results in violations by both sides, meaning the primary objective should be preventing any war from occurring in the first place.

He said the atrocities of the Iraq war--from the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and the massacre of dozens of civilians by U.S. forces in Haditha to the high number of civilian casualties caused by insurgent car bombs--were highly predictable at the start of the war.

Which wars should be prosecuted? Every war will lead to attacks on civilians, he said. Crimes against humanity, destruction beyond the needs of military necessity, rape of civilians, plunder--that always happens in wartime. So my answer personally, after working for 60 years on this problem and [as someone] who hates to see all these young people get killed no matter what their nationality, is that you've got to stop using warfare as a means of settling your disputes.

Ferenccz believes the most important development toward that end would be the effective implementation of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which is located in the Hague, Netherlands.

The court was established in 2002 and has been ratified by more than 100 countries. It is currently being used to adjudicate cases stemming from conflict in Darfur, Sudan and civil wars in Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

But on May 6, 2002--less than a year before the invasion of Iraq--the Bush administration withdrew the United States' signature on the treaty and began pressuring other countries to approve bilateral agreements requiring them not to surrender U.S. nationals to the ICC.

Three months later, George W. Bush signed a new law prohibiting any U.S. cooperation with the International Criminal Court. The law went so far as to include a provision authorizing the president to use all means necessary and appropriate, including a military invasion of the Netherlands, to free U.S. personnel detained or imprisoned by the ICC.

That's too bad, according to Ferenccz. If the United States showed more of an interest in building an international justice system, they could have put Saddam Hussein on trial for his 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

The United Nations authorized the first Gulf War and authorized all nations to take whatever steps necessary to keep peace in the area, he said. They could have stretched that a bit by seizing the person for causing the harm. Of course, they didn't do that and ever since then I've been bemoaning the fact that we didn't have an International Criminal Court at that time.

Ferenccz is glad that Saddam Hussein is now on trial.

Saddam Hussein. � Radio Netherlands Wereldomroep This week, the Iraqi government began to try the former dictator for crimes connected to his ethnic cleansing campaign against the Kurds. According to Human Rights Watch, which has done extensive on-the-ground documentation, Saddam's Ba'athist regime deliberately and systematically killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds over a six-month period in 1988.

Kurdish authorities put the number even higher, saying 182,000 Kurdish civilians were killed in a matter of months.

Everyone agrees innumerable villages were bombed and some were gassed. The surviving residents were rounded up, taken to detention centers, and eventually executed at remote sites, sometimes by being stripped and shot in the back so they would fall naked into trenches.

In his defense, Saddam Hussein has disputed the extent of the killings and maintained they were justified because he was fighting a counter-insurgency operation against Kurdish separatists allied with Iran. When asked to enter a plea, the former president said that would require volumes of books.

Ferenccz said whatever Saddam's reasons, nothing can justify the mass killing of innocents.

The offenses attributable to ex-President Hussein since he came to power range from the supreme international crime of aggression to a wide variety of crimes against humanity, he wrote after Saddam was ousted in 2003. A fair trial will achieve many goals. The victims would find some satisfaction in knowing that their victimizer was called to account and could no longer be immune from punishment for his evil deeds. Wounds can begin to heal. The historical facts can be confirmed beyond doubt. Similar crimes by other dictators might be discouraged or deterred in future. The process of justice through law, on which the safety of humankind depends, would be reinforced.

one more nervous, but visualize this scenario, McCain falls down and breaks a hip. The vice president who has stated "I have not thought much about foreign policy" (despite having HER OWN SON going to Iraq soon) has to make a crucial decision that does not involve a rogue moose, her brother-in-law's behavior, or what to wear at a beauty pageant. Scary. Since she has not thought much about foreign policy, what group of Washington people are going to be instructing her on foreign policy soon? The Karl Rove group who is advising them on all issues. If you have enjoyed the last 8 years, you're gonna l-o-v-e the next 4 if McCain wins.

mind. If you are curous as to what he studied, you can look that up. Why ask some stranger to get that info for you? He was a constitutional law professor, but as for specific classes, I don't know. I like him for his ideas, his honesty, his humor, his obvious love for his family, his unique time spent in both the black and white communities. His past has been thoroughly reviewed and shows only integrity. The fact that he is attacked only for people he has known actually shows me that he has an immaculate record. I don't know many who could stand up to that kind of scrutiny. I think he is a once-in-a-lifetime leader - he has the ability to inspire and the humbleness to listen to different views about issues along with a brillant intellect. His life shows his principals and I can find not one false note. That is my opinion of him. I am sure to be attacked over silly stuff for this post, but I can give it right back, so that's okay.

I've said before that it's not only Valerie Plame who he endangered, but everyone who has worked with her during her work with WMDs. We're in the middle of a WAR, but this "good ol' boy" administration doesn't care what they do or don't do in that respect. They don't care whose lives they endanger. They don't THANK these people for their service and for putting their lives in danger to try to make this country a better place. No, instead they see a man who has dared to disagree with King George, and they target his wife for potential danger, to get even with her husband for disagreeing with Almighty George Dumbya Bush. They act like a redneck version of the Mafia. The CIA deserve more respect than this administration gives it, but this administration doesn't think much of respect. Bush blatantly doesn't care who in the world respects us, and he offers no respect to anyone else in this world. He is perfect, and he makes no mistakes, and if you don't believe me, just ask him or one of his aids or one of his flunkies on this board. They'll all tell you how perfect he is.

I've seen Larry Johnson on different programs, and the views he expressed in this letter absolutely reflect what he said on TV. How in the world could any CIA source trust the CIA to protect his or her identity when the president of this country makes it clear that everything is "fair" in this good ol' boy Mafia-type game played in Washington.

Rove definitely should have his security clearance yanked. He clearly doesn't deserve it. Neither does Bush.

This issue is not funny. It could be deadly for us all. There are certain Christians who will defend Israel no matter what Israel does. I think a legitimate question is why. Jewish people obviously do not accept Jesus Christ as their savior. So why do some Christians have such undying loyalty to these people? Is it because they truly put them on a pedestal (again, if so, why?), or is it because of the real estate inhabited by Israel, which just happens to contain the holiest of cities? Or is it because the Bible says they must not turn their back on Israel or they won't get into heaven? Some of them are very excited about the prospect of the Rapture. Coincidentally, these people also represent Bush's base. Do they believe the Jews are worthy of heaven only if they convert to a certain form of Christianity? And what happened to Pat Robertson's theme park plans in Israel, and why did it happen? How does Jerry Fallwell feel about Jews' entrance into heaven? And can't anyone else see how this could be interpreted as the Jewish religion being inferior to the views of certain Christians?

I personally feel the Jews are entitled to gain entrance to heaven as much as anyone else of any other religion is. Why don't you?

These people don't represent all Christians, as Starcat pointed out in this thread. I can't help but find it fascinating that when either Israel or the concept of loyalty to Israel is brought up, a nerve is struck, and attacks against posters asking the questions ensue, without any answers ever being provided to the questions that were asked.

This is not a religious forum, and religious comments really shouldn't be posted here. Unfortunately, we have a President who has mixed religion and politics so intrinsically during his administration that they can't be separated now.

I have full respect for anyone's religious beliefs, and what they believe is none of my business, but if the entire world is about to end because its end was assisted by those of a certain religion to self-fulfill a prophecy they and the American President believe, then it becomes my business, as well as the business of every person in the world who may be harmed as a result of the religious beliefs of some - not all or even the majority in the world.

I apologize if you feel I made fun of anyone's religion. That was not my goal. I admit that sometimes my words don't come out right and what are questions may seem like confrontations. I apologize for that.