Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

George Bush, Dick Cheney. War Crimes.

lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2013 9:17:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The fact that there are rules to war is pretty funny.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2013 9:51:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/13/2013 9:17:13 PM, lewis20 wrote:
The fact that there are rules to war is pretty funny.

I don't find nuclear warfare funny, and without some type of agreements someone may have used one.

If war crimes were committed they need to be brought to light in accordance with whatever agreement the crimes would accommodate to.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2013 10:33:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/13/2013 9:51:52 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 3/13/2013 9:17:13 PM, lewis20 wrote:
The fact that there are rules to war is pretty funny.

I don't find nuclear warfare funny, and without some type of agreements someone may have used one.

If war crimes were committed they need to be brought to light in accordance with whatever agreement the crimes would accommodate to.

What's a gentleman's agreement not to use nukes have to do with the idea that there being rules to warfare is absurd?

As if somehow one form of human is slaughter is acceptable while a different form is not.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 12:50:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/13/2013 9:06:21 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/13/2013 9:00:41 PM, pozessed wrote:
Are they provably guilty of any?

No.

Currently, that is correct. However, if Congress didn't openly and notoriously refuse to do their jobs in this instance, as demonstrated by then Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi's statement that Congress wasn't even going to look into it because they didn't want Republicans to impeach Democratic Party Presidents, there would likely be enough evidence to convict both Bush and Cheney (maybe...he was a sneaky little b@stard), as well as Rumsfeld and Yee.

Ashcroft, as it turns out, was actually doing his best to obey the law, and they almost got him to sign something while he was in a drugged state after a surgery that would have been a violation of law.

He luckily had enough of his wits about him not to do it, but whatever...they just found someone else.

Still, I was surprised by this, and I respect Ashcroft much more now than I did previously (i.e. I now respect him a lot, and previously didn't at all).
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 12:56:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The so called "rules" of war are a relic of a more civilized time. To quote Chomsky: "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged."

Which "rules" are going to be enforced and on whom is a matter decided by the victors. Bush will not be tried for any crime, no matter what the evidence may or may not be against him.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 1:04:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/14/2013 12:56:49 AM, thett3 wrote:
The so called "rules" of war are a relic of a more civilized time. To quote Chomsky: "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged."

Which "rules" are going to be enforced and on whom is a matter decided by the victors. Bush will not be tried for any crime, no matter what the evidence may or may not be against him.

The "Rules of War" are not what I was referencing. I was speaking of the Rule of Law and the obligations of Congress when I was talking about this, though you may not have been responding to me.

Plus, were we the victors? If so, we need to find a new game, because winning this one sucks.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 1:07:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/14/2013 12:56:49 AM, thett3 wrote:
The so called "rules" of war are a relic of a more civilized time. To quote Chomsky: "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged."

Chomsky, if he said that, was full of sh!t.

The Laws of War are complicated, subjective, almost impossible to enforce and grey at best. They exist, nevertheless, for a purpose -by having limits in war we make peace a potentiality.

Which "rules" are going to be enforced and on whom is a matter decided by the victors.

Depends on who is fighting the war. International war criminal trials are not uncommon, but Americans don't participate in the ICC.

Bush will not be tried for any crime, no matter what the evidence may or may not be against him.

That is true, but I still want to point out that there is no evidence which makes him a war criminal.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 1:07:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/14/2013 12:50:01 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/13/2013 9:06:21 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/13/2013 9:00:41 PM, pozessed wrote:
Are they provably guilty of any?

No.

Currently, that is correct. However, if Congress didn't openly and notoriously refuse to do their jobs in this instance, as demonstrated by then Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi's statement that Congress wasn't even going to look into it because they didn't want Republicans to impeach Democratic Party Presidents, there would likely be enough evidence to convict both Bush and Cheney (maybe...he was a sneaky little b@stard), as well as Rumsfeld and Yee.

Ashcroft, as it turns out, was actually doing his best to obey the law, and they almost got him to sign something while he was in a drugged state after a surgery that would have been a violation of law.

He luckily had enough of his wits about him not to do it, but whatever...they just found someone else.

Still, I was surprised by this, and I respect Ashcroft much more now than I did previously (i.e. I now respect him a lot, and previously didn't at all).

Awesome.
Tsar of DDO
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 1:08:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/14/2013 1:04:44 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/14/2013 12:56:49 AM, thett3 wrote:
The so called "rules" of war are a relic of a more civilized time. To quote Chomsky: "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged."

Which "rules" are going to be enforced and on whom is a matter decided by the victors. Bush will not be tried for any crime, no matter what the evidence may or may not be against him.

The "Rules of War" are not what I was referencing. I was speaking of the Rule of Law and the obligations of Congress when I was talking about this, though you may not have been responding to me.

Plus, were we the victors? If so, we need to find a new game, because winning this one sucks.

I wasnt talking to you, I agree with your post. And you're right, victors is probably a bad word to use for that...the US still has overwhelming military and cultural power so its unlikely any real standard of justice will be applied to US leaders any time soon, but we shall she I've been wrong many times before
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 1:11:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/14/2013 1:07:09 AM, YYW wrote:
At 3/14/2013 12:56:49 AM, thett3 wrote:
The so called "rules" of war are a relic of a more civilized time. To quote Chomsky: "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged."

Chomsky, if he said that, was full of sh!t.

The Laws of War are complicated, subjective, almost impossible to enforce and grey at best. They exist, nevertheless, for a purpose -by having limits in war we make peace a potentiality.

What limits do you speak of and who enforces them?

Which "rules" are going to be enforced and on whom is a matter decided by the victors.

Depends on who is fighting the war. International war criminal trials are not uncommon, but Americans don't participate in the ICC.

Right but how often are these war criminals from the side of the victors? Rarely if ever, and I doubt any of them would have caused as much death as, say, Bush would have if we presume (not saying I do) that the deaths caused by his war were war crimes

Bush will not be tried for any crime, no matter what the evidence may or may not be against him.

That is true, but I still want to point out that there is no evidence which makes him a war criminal.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 1:22:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/14/2013 1:11:45 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/14/2013 1:07:09 AM, YYW wrote:
At 3/14/2013 12:56:49 AM, thett3 wrote:
The so called "rules" of war are a relic of a more civilized time. To quote Chomsky: "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged."

Chomsky, if he said that, was full of sh!t.

The Laws of War are complicated, subjective, almost impossible to enforce and grey at best. They exist, nevertheless, for a purpose -by having limits in war we make peace a potentiality.

What limits do you speak of and who enforces them?

Limits are self observed, and theoretically their continuance depends on mutual self restraint. I know it's sketchy, and not all military leaders abide by this paradigm -but in the western tradition of war, we do.


Which "rules" are going to be enforced and on whom is a matter decided by the victors.

Depends on who is fighting the war. International war criminal trials are not uncommon, but Americans don't participate in the ICC.

Right but how often are these war criminals from the side of the victors? Rarely if ever, and I doubt any of them would have caused as much death as, say, Bush would have if we presume (not saying I do) that the deaths caused by his war were war crimes

Some background:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

It depends on the circumstance, the countries in question, and the compliance of victor nations for the ICC -but the United States courtmarshals its own offenders (who are technically war criminals), as does the UK and many other nations.

More background: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Leaders of victor nations, however, are rarely indicted -but that is not to say that they should be, or that they are equally guilty, or that they merit being subjected to prosecution, trial or other proceedings of that nature.


Bush will not be tried for any crime, no matter what the evidence may or may not be against him.

That is true, but I still want to point out that there is no evidence which makes him a war criminal.
Tsar of DDO
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 1:30:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/14/2013 1:07:09 AM, YYW wrote:
At 3/14/2013 12:56:49 AM, thett3 wrote:
The so called "rules" of war are a relic of a more civilized time. To quote Chomsky: "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged."

Chomsky, if he said that, was full of sh!t.

Are you sure you know who Chomsky is, YYW?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 1:31:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/14/2013 1:22:20 AM, YYW wrote:
At 3/14/2013 1:11:45 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/14/2013 1:07:09 AM, YYW wrote:
At 3/14/2013 12:56:49 AM, thett3 wrote:
The so called "rules" of war are a relic of a more civilized time. To quote Chomsky: "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged."

Chomsky, if he said that, was full of sh!t.

The Laws of War are complicated, subjective, almost impossible to enforce and grey at best. They exist, nevertheless, for a purpose -by having limits in war we make peace a potentiality.

What limits do you speak of and who enforces them?

Limits are self observed, and theoretically their continuance depends on mutual self restraint. I know it's sketchy, and not all military leaders abide by this paradigm -but in the western tradition of war, we do.

But those limits were almost entirely ignored in the most recent big western conflicts (most notably WWII but Vietnam as well)...


Which "rules" are going to be enforced and on whom is a matter decided by the victors.

Depends on who is fighting the war. International war criminal trials are not uncommon, but Americans don't participate in the ICC.

Right but how often are these war criminals from the side of the victors? Rarely if ever, and I doubt any of them would have caused as much death as, say, Bush would have if we presume (not saying I do) that the deaths caused by his war were war crimes

Some background:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

It depends on the circumstance, the countries in question, and the compliance of victor nations for the ICC -but the United States courtmarshals its own offenders (who are technically war criminals), as does the UK and many other nations.

More background: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Thanks :)

Leaders of victor nations, however, are rarely indicted -but that is not to say that they should be, or that they are equally guilty, or that they merit being subjected to prosecution, trial or other proceedings of that nature.

I would disagree but we'll leave it at that (too tired)


Bush will not be tried for any crime, no matter what the evidence may or may not be against him.

That is true, but I still want to point out that there is no evidence which makes him a war criminal.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
yogazone
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 1:34:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It would seem to me that George Bush and/or Dick Cheney should be tried for war crimes. They took us into a war in Iraq due to false pretenses and as a result of the increased instability we caused in that country, over a million Iraqis have already perished. Shouldn't this be considered war crimes? Wasn't Hitler tried for war crimes? Why shouldn't Bush and Cheney be also?
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 1:49:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/14/2013 1:31:56 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/14/2013 1:22:20 AM, YYW wrote:
At 3/14/2013 1:11:45 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/14/2013 1:07:09 AM, YYW wrote:
At 3/14/2013 12:56:49 AM, thett3 wrote:
The so called "rules" of war are a relic of a more civilized time. To quote Chomsky: "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged."

Chomsky, if he said that, was full of sh!t.

The Laws of War are complicated, subjective, almost impossible to enforce and grey at best. They exist, nevertheless, for a purpose -by having limits in war we make peace a potentiality.

What limits do you speak of and who enforces them?

Limits are self observed, and theoretically their continuance depends on mutual self restraint. I know it's sketchy, and not all military leaders abide by this paradigm -but in the western tradition of war, we do.

But those limits were almost entirely ignored in the most recent big western conflicts (most notably WWII but Vietnam as well)...

Not necessarily in WWII. Even the terror bombing of Germany by Churchill was still within the limits of jus in bello (or at least I think it was). Vietnam, though, is another matter... the logic of "burning a village to save it" will remain forever in infamy.



Which "rules" are going to be enforced and on whom is a matter decided by the victors.

Depends on who is fighting the war. International war criminal trials are not uncommon, but Americans don't participate in the ICC.

Right but how often are these war criminals from the side of the victors? Rarely if ever, and I doubt any of them would have caused as much death as, say, Bush would have if we presume (not saying I do) that the deaths caused by his war were war crimes

Some background:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

It depends on the circumstance, the countries in question, and the compliance of victor nations for the ICC -but the United States courtmarshals its own offenders (who are technically war criminals), as does the UK and many other nations.

More background: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Thanks :)

Leaders of victor nations, however, are rarely indicted -but that is not to say that they should be, or that they are equally guilty, or that they merit being subjected to prosecution, trial or other proceedings of that nature.

I would disagree but we'll leave it at that (too tired)

Leaders of nations who loose wars sometimes die before they could be made the subject of a trial too. That is worth taking into account as well.



Bush will not be tried for any crime, no matter what the evidence may or may not be against him.

That is true, but I still want to point out that there is no evidence which makes him a war criminal.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 2:06:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/14/2013 1:30:34 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 3/14/2013 1:07:09 AM, YYW wrote:
At 3/14/2013 12:56:49 AM, thett3 wrote:
The so called "rules" of war are a relic of a more civilized time. To quote Chomsky: "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged."

Chomsky, if he said that, was full of sh!t.

Are you sure you know who Chomsky is, YYW?

Clearly I have no idea who the man is. I have never heard him speak, NEVER read his critique of American involvement in Vietnam, never heard of his work in linguistics at MIT, never heard one of his numerous guest lectures, and etc. This is of course, because I am quite dim, dull and insular in every conceivable way. Pardon me while I go bash my head into a wall like the fool I most certainly am.

(Hint: Just because a Ph.D. who is widely published says it, does not make it the case. Granted, there is more credibility to be had from... say... Noam Chomsky than some jack off of the street, but he is not always right -and in this case he is just factually wrong.)
Tsar of DDO
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 6:34:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Maybe I should ask this.

Do you feel George Bush or Dick Cheney or both committed any type of unrighteous acts towards the people of America or Afghanistan during their terms in office that should have been considered unlawful?
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 8:53:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/14/2013 6:34:26 AM, pozessed wrote:
Maybe I should ask this.

Do you feel George Bush or Dick Cheney or both committed any type of unrighteous acts towards the people of America or Afghanistan during their terms in office that should have been considered unlawful?

What laws did they break? As the sole superpower the US doesn't abide by any international laws, it's people aren't subject to any national authority. Plenty of presidents have committed 'unrighteous acts' but they aren't bound by kind of international law. Just the restrictions placed on them by the Constitution, which isn't followed, and the American people, who don't seem to care.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 9:10:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/14/2013 8:53:40 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/14/2013 6:34:26 AM, pozessed wrote:
Maybe I should ask this.

Do you feel George Bush or Dick Cheney or both committed any type of unrighteous acts towards the people of America or Afghanistan during their terms in office that should have been considered unlawful?

What laws did they break?

IDK, I'm not knowledgeable enough to answer that. All I can say is I feel like the war in Afghanistan was more for their personal gain and not as much for the people of our nation or the Afghan nation. If that is true then I feel like they committed a crime to some level of degree.

As the sole superpower the US doesn't abide by any international laws, it's people aren't subject to any national authority.

A slave owner was the superpower of a household, would that make slavery unobjectionable to our social authority?(I'm not saying were slaves, just using it as an example.)
I also want to note that we don't have "social authority" because we gave that to the leaders of our government even though it rightfully belongs to the people of the government.

Plenty of presidents have committed 'unrighteous acts' but they aren't bound by kind of international law. Just the restrictions placed on them by the Constitution, which isn't followed, and the American people, who don't seem to care.

We live in a world of societies and governments that have different views than ours. Assuming we shouldn't adhere to their wishes because were a super power is counter productive to world peace.

Americans stand up for equal rights daily, to say they don't care is contrary to their every day actions.
Maybe they just don't know about the allegations that have been made or should be made?
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 9:14:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/14/2013 8:53:40 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/14/2013 6:34:26 AM, pozessed wrote:
Maybe I should ask this.

Do you feel George Bush or Dick Cheney or both committed any type of unrighteous acts towards the people of America or Afghanistan during their terms in office that should have been considered unlawful?

What laws did they break? As the sole superpower the US doesn't abide by any international laws, it's people aren't subject to any national authority.

perhaps, but once we enter into a treaty, such as the Geneva Convention, those laws become American law (constitution...check it out some time)

Plenty of presidents have committed 'unrighteous acts' but they aren't bound by kind of international law. Just the restrictions placed on them by the Constitution, which isn't followed, and the American people, who don't seem to care.

The president receives no special protection of law in the constitution.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 9:44:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/13/2013 9:51:52 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 3/13/2013 9:17:13 PM, lewis20 wrote:
The fact that there are rules to war is pretty funny.

I don't find nuclear warfare funny, and without some type of agreements someone may have used one.

If war crimes were committed they need to be brought to light in accordance with whatever agreement the crimes would accommodate to.

You misread lewis20. He did not say that nuclear war is funny, but that imposing rules on nuclear warfare is funny. I agree with him.

It was much less the agreements in place that prevented nuclear warfare but the underlying calculus of utilizing such weapons (MAD). The agreements merely formalized the de facto state of affairs that nuclear weapons predicated. Without the reciprocal potential of MAD, more than likely we (or someone else with nukes) would have used them a long time ago. This is why the US continually spends on missile defense.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 10:13:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/14/2013 1:34:10 AM, yogazone wrote:
It would seem to me that George Bush and/or Dick Cheney should be tried for war crimes. They took us into a war in Iraq due to false pretenses and as a result of the increased instability we caused in that country, over a million Iraqis have already perished. Shouldn't this be considered war crimes? Wasn't Hitler tried for war crimes? Why shouldn't Bush and Cheney be also?

Hitler lost the war. That's why he would have been tried for war crimes.

General Curtis LeMay on the firebombing of Japan:

"Killing Japanese didn't bother me very much at that time... I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal."

http://www.nationalcoldwarexhibition.org...

LeMay was never tried.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 10:46:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/14/2013 6:34:26 AM, pozessed wrote:
Maybe I should ask this.

Do you feel George Bush or Dick Cheney or both committed any type of unrighteous acts towards the people of America or Afghanistan during their terms in office that should have been considered unlawful?

No.
Tsar of DDO
MichaelGonzales
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 11:59:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/14/2013 10:46:02 AM, YYW wrote:
At 3/14/2013 6:34:26 AM, pozessed wrote:
Maybe I should ask this.

Do you feel George Bush or Dick Cheney or both committed any type of unrighteous acts towards the people of America or Afghanistan during their terms in office that should have been considered unlawful?

No.

I never understood why spying on Americans is considered righteous and lawful.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2013 10:13:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/14/2013 11:59:32 AM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 3/14/2013 10:46:02 AM, YYW wrote:
At 3/14/2013 6:34:26 AM, pozessed wrote:
Maybe I should ask this.

Do you feel George Bush or Dick Cheney or both committed any type of unrighteous acts towards the people of America or Afghanistan during their terms in office that should have been considered unlawful?

No.

I never understood why spying on Americans is considered righteous and lawful.

Martial law.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?