Would You Care?

[longfisher]

With about 5,000 U.S. dead servicemen and somewhere between 60,000 - 100,000 seriously injured from the Iraq war would you even care if Bush carried out a war of aggression, the supreme war crime, against Iraq and if it could be proven?

As it turns out, the Chilcot Inquiry in Britain is about to expose evidence that Colin Powel told the then Secretary of Justice Jack Straw that Bush had decided to attack Iraq even if Iraq complied with U.N. nuclear inspectors. If so, Bush is a war criminal of the highest order.

If our casualties turned out to be the result of one man's megalomania and if they died and were wounded without justifiable cause WOULD YOU EVEN CARE?

[BarryTurano]

I don't give a crap who is president. There is no reason fror war unless we are attacked.

How many wars or conflicts have we been involved with in which we had/have no part in?

To many!!!

The despots and dictators that we are intent on getting rid of were all put in power or funded and helped by a US president or government.
Brief list(please excuse the spelling)

Castro
Pol Pot (Cambodia)
Ho Che Min
The Sha of Iran
Saddam Huessein
Osama Bin Ladin
Manuel Noreaga
President Marcos (Phillipines)

These are just the few that come to mind. I'm sure there are plenty more.
We put them into a position of power for our own gain. But they always seem to turn against us. We then go to war with them. Bomb the crap out them kill hundreds and thousands of there people. Thousands of our own. Then give them money and technology to rebuild. WTF!!!

Before any of you start calling me a unpatriotic asshole please know that I served in the military from 67 through 73.

Just my opinion.

[NY Bearhunter]

With about 5,000 U.S. dead servicemen and somewhere between 60,000 - 100,000 seriously injured from the Iraq war would you even care if Bush carried out a war of aggression, the supreme war crime, against Iraq and if it could be proven?

As it turns out, the Chilcot Inquiry in Britain is about to expose evidence that Colin Powel told the then Secretary of Justice Jack Straw that Bush had decided to attack Iraq even if Iraq complied with U.N. nuclear inspectors. If so, Bush is a war criminal of the highest order.

If our casualties turned out to be the result of one man's megalomania and if they died and were wounded without justifiable cause WOULD YOU EVEN CARE?

JUST WHAT ARE YOU REALLY TRYING TO SAY HERE...

WHAT ABOUT; JFK, JOHNSON, NIXON, THE CONTRAS,THE CIA, THE GULF OF TONKIN, THE BAY OF PIGS, ARE THESE PRESIDENTS AND ACTIONS ANY DIFFERENT.

[scattered_grass]

With about 5,000 U.S. dead servicemen and somewhere between 60,000 - 100,000 seriously injured from the Iraq war would you even care if Bush carried out a war of aggression, the supreme war crime, against Iraq and if it could be proven?

As it turns out, the Chilcot Inquiry in Britain is about to expose evidence that Colin Powel told the then Secretary of Justice Jack Straw that Bush had decided to attack Iraq even if Iraq complied with U.N. nuclear inspectors. If so, Bush is a war criminal of the highest order.

If our casualties turned out to be the result of one man's megalomania and if they died and were wounded without justifiable cause WOULD YOU EVEN CARE?

Every other word outta your mouth is war-criminal, or civilian casualties, or some other type of liberal propaganda..........go catch a fish or get laid or something like that

shit gets old after a while

[longfisher]

JUST WHAT ARE YOU REALLY TRYING TO SAY HERE...

WHAT ABOUT; JFK, JOHNSON, NIXON, THE CONTRAS,THE CIA, THE GULF OF TONKIN, THE BAY OF PIGS, ARE THESE PRESIDENTS AND ACTIONS ANY DIFFERENT.

Actually, my question was restricted to Bush II. But all the Presidents and organizations you cite above, IMHO, also engaged in war crimes of on form or another, especially the CIA.

Oh, NYBH, you left out Clinton. He bombed Yugoslavia illegally. That few Americans were killed makes no difference to the nature of the crime. At least, it doesn't make any difference outside of America. It's viewed as a war crime in the rest of the world. The only place it makes very little difference is here and to some extent Britain.

But please elaborate. I get the sense, perhaps erroneously, that you're suggesting that because many presidents and many U.S. organizations have committed war crimes that each successor president and each successor organization has then secured the right to do similarly, to squander the lifes and bodies of our military personnel without purpose. Is that right? If so, I don't agree.

If that is your point, it sounds much like the Democrats who when confronted with Clinton's philandering, and illegal sexual harrassment of a White House page, Monica Lewinsky, and his lying under oath about it and, in the process obstructing justice, said, essentially, that all men do that sort of thing. I didn't buy that either. He should have been removed from office after he was impeached by the House.

But let's not get too far off topic here. As the Chilcot Inquiry may well expose the boldfaced nature of the war crimes committed by Bush let's focus on him, for now anyway.

The question remains, do you care if Bush initiated that war unnecessarily and without regard to the incredible damage the resulting confilt to our service personnel. Remember, there's about 5,000 dead servicemen and servicewomen and upward to 100,000 maimed beyond the point that they could continue to serve.

Does any president have the right to do that much damage to our military? Please vote, on the record.

LongFisher

[longfisher]

Every other word outta your mouth is war-criminal, or civilian casualties, or some other type of liberal propaganda..........go catch a fish or get laid or something like that

shit gets old after a while

Now, now. I understand that Admin frowns on profanity. Or, didn't you see the sticky?

In the end, I'd just like you to vote on the poll, SC32. Do you care if 5,000 American servicemen's and sevicewomen's lives were squandered by a war criminal who in his megelomania simply chose to toss them away like old rag dolls for his entertainment?

Please vote, on the record.

LongFisher

[Deep C]

Violating just one UN Sanction was enough justification... Just how many were there? No WMD... I recall a scud landing at the movie theater in Kuwait city just before round two commenced. Just one is a wmd and violation...
Then....

Nuff said... I'll give him a pass...

[longfisher]

Violating just one UN Sanction was enough justification... Just how many were there? No WMD... I recall a scud landing at the movie theater in Kuwait city just before round two commenced. Just one is a wmd and violation...
Then....

Nuff said... I'll give him a pass...

I'd prefer to not engage in a discussion of widely discredited theories of Saddam's collusion with Al Queda or that high explosives constitute weapons of mass destruction or that the violation of U.N. sanctions in the absence of an authorization to use force by the U.N. constitutes sanction to use force. You know absolutely that those things are canards.

Remember, there's 5,000 dead and upwards to 100,000 Americans maimed. Are you sure you'll give him a pass?

If so, may I humbly ask at what number of dead and maimed American service personnel you might draw the line and condemn a president for squandering their lives? Is it 10,000? Is it 100,000? Or, is there no limit to the lives you'd silently allow a president to squander even if their lives could have been saved if that president had acted lawfully?

I see you've voted. And, you voted that you don't care. Thank you for your vote.

LongFisher

[Deep C]

If for a second I felt the wars we are currently engaged in were not justified I would not accept a single causalty. However I feel that 100% being there engaged in disruption of further terrorist activity is justified. You have your opinion and I have mine...

[longfisher]

Thank you for your vote, Reefraft.

LongFisher