Truth: What neo cons dont want America to know

[Dos Equis]

The UN isn't going to charge Bush officially with anything b/c the US does not recognize the jurisdiction of the World Court.  I didn't say that that would happen.  That's a clever restatement of our discussion.  I pointed out the fact that, under Res 1441, the UN Security Council did not authorize the use of force against Iraq yet Bush claimed to attack Iraq to enforce Res 1441.

How does that jibe with your common sense?

I would love to choose those votes for funding the war after the initial invasion.  B/c w/ each subsequent vote, the number of Nays grew to be almost veto-proof....almost.

Those nay voters (the guys not on trial) would comprise the deliberating body.  I would have a vote to impeach the president, VP, his cabinet, and all the supporting Congressmen.  Theoretically that could happen.

The same goes for war crimes charges.

Decker you first said "I'm talking about a war crimes trial at the World Court."  Now you're saying "The UN isn't going to charge Bush officially with anything b/c the US does not recognize the jurisdiction of the World Court."  So what exactly are we talking about?

My comments about who has the burden of proof were based on your assertion that Bush could be tried for war crimes by the UN and that "The onus to show compliance with 1441 is on the US and not the UN."  But if you're now saying a prosecution is not possible, then I guess we agree.    

Regarding the resolutions, I'm talking about the resolutions passed by the Senate after the war started.  Didn't the Senate pass at least one resolution after the war started supporting the use of force? 

[Decker]

Decker you first said "I'm talking about a war crimes trial at the World Court."  Now you're saying "The UN isn't going to charge Bush officially with anything b/c the US does not recognize the jurisdiction of the World Court."  So what exactly are we talking about?

My comments about who has the burden of proof were based on your assertion that Bush could be tried for war crimes by the UN and that "The onus to show compliance with 1441 is on the US and not the UN."  But if you're now saying a prosecution is not possible, then I guess we agree.    

Regarding the resolutions, I'm talking about the resolutions passed by the Senate after the war started.  Didn't the Senate pass at least one resolution after the war started supporting the use of force? 

I am talking about those things but as we know they will never come to pass b/c of the US's 'exceptions' to UN Jurisdiction when it suits the US's purposes.  My effort in this political sphere is to bring to light the Bush administration's criminal behavior.  Sometimes I don't preface my statements with the idea that my position(s) employ speculation/theorizing but I didn't think I'd have to.  The practical matter of official action being taken against Bush in my lifetime is zilch.  I've admitted that in one of these darn threads. 

So yeah, on that point we agree.   It's almost like discussing damnation after death and which behavior gets you consigned to what level of Hell. 

[Dos Equis]

I am talking about those things but as we know they will never come to pass b/c of the US's 'exceptions' to UN Jurisdiction when it suits the US's purposes.  My effort in this political sphere is to bring to light the Bush administration's criminal behavior.  Sometimes I don't preface my statements with the idea that my position(s) employ speculation/theorizing but I didn't think I'd have to.  The practical matter of official action being taken against Bush in my lifetime is zilch.  I've admitted that in one of these darn threads. 

So yeah, on that point we agree.   It's almost like discussing damnation after death and which behavior gets you consigned to what level of Hell. 

Understood. 

I'm going to look for this, but I believe they passed a near unanimous resolution supporting the war after it started. 

[24KT]

If they don't it is the peoples job to remove them from the post they hold.

Who do you really hold responsible? I personally hold the people who vote them in as the responsible party then. If I don't like my officials, I vote for the other guy... end of story.

In fair elections, that's what occurs. When you deal with rigged elections, whole other mechanisms are needed.

[drkaje]

BB,

How can the absence of attacks be any measure of the policy's effectiveness considering we've only had two attacks? I'm omitting the ones done by Americans.

You're not a dumbass (I think) but deliberately confusing the difference between relative and absolute risk is not going to make rational people believe bullshit, LOL!

The Soviet Union failed because their economy sucked ass and couldn't support the 'military industrial complex' in the absence of war.

[Dos Equis]

BB,

How can the absence of attacks be any measure of the policy's effectiveness considering we've only had two attacks? I'm omitting the ones done by Americans.

You're not a dumbass (I think) but deliberately confusing the difference between relative and absolute risk is not going to make rational people believe bullshit, LOL!

The Soviet Union failed because their economy sucked ass and couldn't support the 'military industrial complex' in the absence of war.

It is similar to a community's crime rate dropping after the police increase their presence. 

You might be under the mistaken impression that I'm trying to convince "rational people" like you to agree with my support for the war.  I'm not.  You asked how the war made us safer and I gave you my opinion.  It's okay if you disagree.   

Part of the reason the Soviet Union's economy tanked was they spent too much money on weapons trying to build the "military industrial complex" during the cold war.  They did this trying to keep up with us.   

[drkaje]

It is similar to a community's crime rate dropping after the police increase their presence. 

It's just the opposite, LOL! Their crime rate has increased and ours hasn't been affected at all.

You might be under the mistaken impression that I'm trying to convince "rational people" like you to agree with my support for the war.  I'm not.  You asked how the war made us safer and I gave you my opinion.  It's okay if you disagree.  

I appreciate your trying to give a reason. I just feel it is a leap of faith to associate two unrelated events.

Part of the reason the Soviet Union's economy tanked was they spent too much money on weapons trying to build the "military industrial complex" during the cold war.  They did this trying to keep up with us.  

At least you got one right.

[Dos Equis]

It's just the opposite, LOL! Their crime rate has increased and ours hasn't been affected at all.

I appreciate your trying to give a reason. I just feel it is a leap of faith to associate two unrelated events.

At least you got one right.

I have reached one half of my daily quota.   

[tu_holmes]

Part of the reason the Soviet Union's economy tanked was they spent too much money on weapons trying to build the "military industrial complex" during the cold war.  They did this trying to keep up with us.  

I disagree I miss the old Soviet Union... We could keep track of them, we can't keep track of the smaller guys... hence why Terrorism is up.

[headhuntersix]

I completely agree.