George W. Bush, war criminal

[ninerbuff]

Debunker is kinda in denial like that of a person who refuses to believe their spouse/partner had an affair on them.

[Debunker]

Originally Posted by ninerbuff

Dude think about it. If you came into my home and tried to forcefully instill your beliefs on myself and my family, there would be retaliation. If you left myself and my family alone to do what we want, then there would be peace.
Cultures are different and though we may not agree with how they treat their own country, that's for them to try to fix. We need to fix what's broken here.

You are really correct and I agree with you. The fact remains that on 9/11, the enemy came into our home.

[LuisDantas]

And your leader then used that as an excuse to engage into war with an unrelated country.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Genuine Realist

See my post. If the French, Germans, or Russians had different estimates, you would have heard it after the Powell speech. You didn't.

That's what I mean by critical thinking.

Critical thinkers can provide proof.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by ninerbuff

Debunker is kinda in denial like that of a person who refuses to believe their spouse/partner had an affair on them.

haha - the Realist is falling in right after him under the pretense of "critical thinking."

[Debunker]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

It seems to me that America stopped caring about 'making countries in our image' when we started supporting dictators. We use the ideals of democracy to trick people into joining the army to fight the same dictators that we supported (Saddam, for instance) if they try to cut the puppet strings. Heck, we even supported Mubarak.

Are you say the that you are against Democracy? I don't think you are saying that. Democracy is never easy. The support for Mubarak goes back 30 years and covers several Presidential and Congressional terms. If we credit GWB's idealism for Egypt today, will your dislike for Bush lessen?

[Jacksnyte]

Originally Posted by Debunker

Are you say the that you are against Democracy? I don't think you are saying that. Democracy is never easy. The support for Mubarak goes back 30 years and covers several Presidential and Congressional terms. If we credit GWB's idealism for Egypt today, will your dislike for Bush lessen?

I would rather say that it was an opressed people's idealism that is moving Egypt into a new era. It has nothing to do with GWB. GWB's form of "Democracy" is nothing more than veiled imperialism from what I have seen!

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Genuine Realist

See my post. If the French, Germans, or Russians had different estimates, you would have heard it after the Powell speech. You didn't.

That's what I mean by critical thinking.

Here ya go, Mr. Critical Thinker. By the way, critical thinkers don't base their opinions on silence. I was wondering why you couldn't provide proof until I read your post again.

United Nations Security Council and the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States - The U.S. maintained that Iraq was not cooperating with UN inspectors and had not met its obligations to 17 UN resolutions. The U.S. felt that Resolution 1441 called for the immediate, total unilateral disarmament of Iraq and continued to show frustration at the fact that months after the resolution was passed Iraq was still not, in its view, disarming. Language in Resolution 1441 recalled that the use of "all means necessary" was still authorized and in effect from Resolution 678, and therefore maintained that if Iraq failed to comply with the "one final chance to comply" provision of Resolution 1441, then military action would be the result.

United Kingdom - Within the Security Council, the UK was the primary supporter of the U.S. plan to invade Iraq. Prime Minister Tony Blair publicly and vigorously supported U.S. policy on Iraq, and portrayed himself as exerting a moderating influence on Bush. British public opinion polls in late January showed that the public support for the war was deteriorating. It had fallen from 50 percent to 30 percent by March.

France - On 20 January 2003, Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said, "We think that military intervention would be the worst possible solution," although France believed that Iraq may have had an ongoing chemical and nuclear weapons program. Villepin went on to say that he believed the presence of UN weapons inspectors had frozen Iraq's weapons programs. France also suggested that it would veto any resolution allowing military intervention offered by the US or Britain. The most important French speech during the crisis was made by De Villepin at the Security Council on the 14 February 2003, after Hans Blix presented his detailed report (see below). De Villepin detailed the three major risks of a "premature recourse to the military option", especially the "incalculable consequences for the stability of this scarred and fragile region". He said that "the option of war might seem a priori to be the swiftest, but let us not forget that having won the war, one has to build peace", words which proved to be very prescient. He emphasized that "real progress is beginning to be apparent" through the inspections, and that, "given the present state of our research and intelligence, in liaison with our allies", the alleged links between al-Qaeda and the regime in Baghdad explained by Colin Powell were not established. He concluded by referring to the dramatic experience of "old Europe" during World War II. This "impassioned" speech "against war on Iraq, or immediate war on Iraq", won "an unprecedented applause", reported the BBC's Sir David Frost (BBC News). The complete text is available at the Embassy of France in the United States. Britain and the US sharply criticized France for this position in March 2003.[citation needed]

Russia - On the same day, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said that "Russia deems that there is no evidence that would justify a war in Iraq." On January 28, however, Russia's opinion had begun to shift following a report the previous day by UN inspectors which stated that Iraq had cooperated on a practical level with monitors, but had not demonstrated a "genuine acceptance" of the need to disarm. Russian President Vladimir Putin indicated that he would support a US-led war if things did not change and Iraq continued to show a reluctance to completely cooperate with inspection teams. However, Putin continued to stress that the US must not go alone in any such military endeavor, but instead must work through the UN Security Council. He also stressed the need for giving the UN inspectors more time. Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov also garnered unusual applause inside the chamber with his speech against the war.[citation needed]

China - The People's Republic of China supported continued weapons inspections. On January 23, the Washington Post reported that the Chinese position was "extremely close" to that of France.[citation needed]

Germany - On January 22, German chancellor Gerhard Schröder, at a meeting with French president Jacques Chirac, said that he and Chirac would do all they could to avert war. At the time, Germany was presiding over the Security Council.

Angola - Angola supported continued inspections, but had not taken a stand on disarmament by military action.

Bulgaria - Bulgaria suggested that it would support the use of military force to disarm Iraq, even without UN backing.

Cameroon - Cameroon encouraged the continued inspections, but had not taken a firm stand on whether the country would support a US led strike to invade Iraq.

Chile - Chile indicated that it would like inspections to continue, but had not taken a position on the use of military force to disarm Iraq.

Guinea - Guinea supported further inspections, but had not taken a position on the use of military force to disarm Iraq.

Mexico - Mexico supported further inspections, and hinted that it would support a US-led military campaign if it were backed by the UN. The country also hinted that it might consider supporting a military campaign without UN backing as well. President Vicente Fox heavily criticized the war when it started and Mexican diplomats described their conversations with U.S. officials as hostile in tone and that Washington was demonstrating little concern for the constraints of the Mexican government whose people were overwhelmingly opposed to the war with Iraq. (USA Today)

Pakistan - Pakistan supported continued inspections.

Syria - Syria felt that Iraq was cooperating and meeting its obligations under UN resolutions. Syria would have liked to see the crippling UN sanctions on Iraq lifted.

Spain - Spain supported the US's position on Iraq and supported the use of force to disarm Iraq, even without UN approval.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Debunker

Are you say the that you are against Democracy? I don't think you are saying that. Democracy is never easy. The support for Mubarak goes back 30 years and covers several Presidential and Congressional terms. If we credit GWB's idealism for Egypt today, will your dislike for Bush lessen?

Well, it would be intellectually dishonest to attribute GWB's idealism to Egypt. It's likely that they hate his guts and especially is ideals.

The only hypothetical situation that would make me consider liking Bush was if he didn't double the national debt and murder 1.2 million people. You know, that's more than 1/6th the amount of Jews killed by Hitler. WWI was his 9/11 and I'll never like him.

But even if Bush wasn't a colossal failure, I still wouldn't want a Republican President. But if he had a shred of dignity and integrity [assuming he didn't commit the aforementioned crimes], I would at least have respect for the man.

I used to wish that he would not be arrested, and now I hope to God that he does.

[Debunker]

Originally Posted by tumbleweed41

Ah the good old "were better than anybody else" mantra.
Come-on Debunker. This country was initiated by Liberals wanting a new way of life.
Not Empire Building or "spreading Democracy" to the rest of the world.
Of course we want others to enjoy the freedoms and liberties we have, and should actively encourage it out of shear humanity.
But in the process we should not force Democracy down the throats of those not ready for it. Nor should we, in the process, give up our own essential liberties.
Democracy in America grew, it was not forced upon us by another nation. (Unless one counts the tragic forced takeover of Native American society.)
Where Democracy has taken seed and grown, it has evolved into many various forms. Not one of them exactly like the other.
Democracy should fit the people, not a preconceived ideal.

And when our leaders use patriotism and "spreading democracy" as an excuse to force American will on another nation, they are truly guilty of jingoism and, at times, crimes against humanity.

America is a great nation. But it can surely be better. I am one of those that believes their are many improvements yet to be made, and find ultra-conservatism to be a stagnation upon our nation. And while I lean pretty far to the Left, I also find ultra-Liberalism to be a danger to a Democratic society.

If you have followed my thinking, you know I reject extremism on all sides. You hold to extremism when your political philosophy will not allow you to concede one good thing about a man that protected our country in a brave but forceful way against a foe that is relentless. Most of the things you fault GWB for happened after 9/11 and if he has been such a failure as you guys say, you should be able to tell the American people what that course of action would should have been taken.

You will not or can not do this and that is why we the people re-elected GWB for a second term. People of the USA are not extreme and like you say, they recognize the dangers of extremism. The liberals in the USA are about 20% of the voting population and at this time being, the total population does not trust the liberal will protect our well being. The liberals posting on this thread see themselves as middle of the road IMO but the rest of Americans see the political philosophy of these liberals as very extreme.

Obama may be the last president ever elected from the extreme left. If he does not move to the right, he will not be re-elected. The future of America does not rest on the left. The left is too apologetic, too weak, too anti-conservative for the majority of our country. Those are the real facts that really count and if you guys don't get off this hate Bush thing, the people will see through your animosity and never vote for you. They did vote for Bush you know, and that is a fact your criticism will not change.

Hate is extremism and there is no reason to not believe that any conservative that we the people elect, the liberals will hate him also. The American people are more fair than the liberals think and they are not going to vote for the extreme and the liberals on this thread are extreme.