Obama's war crimes, Impeachment and Prosecution - Page 3 - GoFuckYourself.com

IllTestYourGirls · 02-21-2009, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

this is also a pretty funny point. the idea that "Bush lied". which is a position you are forced to adopt because of how many Democrats voted to go into Iraq. otherwise, it becomes a collective mistake with personal accountability... much easier to point the finger far off in the distance and say "the problem is over there"

did Bush lie? i don't know. don't care. Congress gave him authority and constantly gave him money to do it. all the bi-partisan intelligence committees and government agencies didn't seem to feel one guy was just making shit up. so at a minimum, you have to admit that the "lie" involved more than one political party and one person.

The left also forgets he lied using Clintons bad intel...

nation-x · 02-21-2009, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

Obamas war crimes in bold

# Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, such as:

1. Willful killing, or causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
2. Torture or inhumane treatment
3. Unlawful wanton destruction or appropriation of property
4. Forcing a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of a hostile power
5. Depriving a prisoner of war of a fair trial
6. Unlawful deportation, confinement or transfer
7. Taking hostages

# The following acts as part of an international conflict:

1. Directing attacks against civilians
2. Directing attacks against humanitarian workers or UN peacekeepers
3. Killing a surrendered combatant
4. Misusing a flag of truce
5. Settlement of occupied territory
6. Deportation of inhabitants of occupied territory
7. Using poison weapons
8. Using civilians as shields
9. Using child soldiers

The following acts as part of a non-international conflict:

1. Murder, cruel or degrading treatment and torture
2. Directing attacks against civilians, humanitarian workers or UN peacekeepers
3. Taking hostages
4. Summary execution
5. Pillage
6. Rape, sexual slavery, forced prostitution or forced pregnancy

So... using your tortured logic... because he inherited all of that shit and can't just drop the whole thing without causing even more chaos (not to mention he said for 2 years during the campaign that he would focus more on Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan)... he is guilty of War Crimes... something you never accused Bush of and certainly wouldn't have accused McCain of.

You are purely demonstrating the exact meaning of HYPOCRITE.

nation-x · 02-21-2009, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

The left also forgets he lied using Clintons bad intel...

WTF ever... I think you had better read about the history of that statement a little more.

pocketkangaroo · 02-21-2009, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

i think that on a subconscious level, people don't really believe anything. everyone was tired of Bush fumbling around like a retarded ape and just like when they voted Bush into office, they are concerned about the future. When terrorism was the primary concern, Bush got re-elected because he was able to better convey that he was going to protect everyone. Now the economy, jobs, homes etc are the issue a man with charisma, compassion and sincerity of a televangelist looks into the camera and says "i understand and i'm going to fix your life" and people buy into it. i don't really think it goes much deeper than that.

I also think that people don't realize how little power the President has over this mess. There is no magic wand that can fix things like this. It's just a natural part of the economy. Sure they can instill policies that may soften the blow, but that's about it. It doesn't matter if we elect the most brilliant man alive, he wouldn't be able to fix this mess we're in.

But I do think the persona of a President is important. I guarantee if you have a President get up in front of the country, look confident and self-assured, people may not panic as much. If you have a President get up in front of the country and look worried, scared, and nervous, the people notice.

Pleasurepays · 02-21-2009, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nation-x

So... using your tortured logic... because he inherited all of that shit and can't just drop the whole thing without causing even more chaos (not to mention he said for 2 years during the campaign that he would focus more on Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan)... he is guilty of War Crimes... something you never accused Bush of and certainly wouldn't have accused McCain of.

You are purely demonstrating the exact meaning of HYPOCRITE.

no... when you accidentally bomb a village and kill 20 innocent people, you are guilty of the same thing. that's the point. there is no good murder of innocents and bad murder of innocents and you can reason that someone inherited the direct need to murder innocents.

Pleasurepays · 02-21-2009, 07:40 AM

all i'm saying is lets give peace a chance.

nation-x · 02-21-2009, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

this is also a pretty funny point. the idea that "Bush lied". which is a position you are forced to adopt because of how many Democrats voted to go into Iraq. otherwise, it becomes a collective mistake with personal accountability... much easier to point the finger far off in the distance and say "the problem is over there"

did Bush lie? i don't know. don't care. Congress gave him authority and constantly gave him money to do it. all the bi-partisan intelligence committees and government agencies didn't seem to feel one guy was just making shit up. so at a minimum, you have to admit that the "lie" involved more than one political party and one person.

I agree with that... they DID vote to support him... but actual history and the real information says that the whole thing was cooked up by Cheney and his crew... even down to outing a CIA agent and producing fake documents. Bush is ultimately responsible for that because it happened on HIS watch and he actively worked to cover it up rather than being transparent and assisting investigation.

IllTestYourGirls · 02-21-2009, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nation-x

So... using your tortured logic... because he inherited all of that shit and can't just drop the whole thing without causing even more chaos (not to mention he said for 2 years during the campaign that he would focus more on Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan)... he is guilty of War Crimes... something you never accused Bush of and certainly wouldn't have accused McCain of.

You are purely demonstrating the exact meaning of HYPOCRITE.

I have accused Bush of war crimes and I would have accused McCain of them. And yes if he does not stop immediately he is guilty. And NEW bombing of a sovereign nation on civilian homes is a war crime.

nation-x · 02-21-2009, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

no... when you accidentally bomb a village and kill 20 innocent people, you are guilty of the same thing. that's the point. there is no good murder of innocents and bad murder of innocents and you can reason that someone inherited the direct need to murder innocents.

Umm... I am just saying... where was your outrage when Bush was doing the same thing?

pocketkangaroo · 02-21-2009, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

Most dont think we should attack Pakistan. And public opinion does not matter. The public supported Hitler when he invaded France.

The thread was about public opinion and calling those who support more troops in Afghanistan hypocrites. I'm pointing out that the war criminal stuff was over Iraq, not Afghanistan.

nation-x · 02-21-2009, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

I have accused Bush of war crimes and I would have accused McCain of them. And yes if he does not stop immediately he is guilty. And NEW bombing of a sovereign nation on civilian homes is a war crime.

Show me proof that that happened... you can't because it didn't. Do the Taliban have families in the camps they occupy? Yes... do they use civilians as shields... yes.

IllTestYourGirls · 02-21-2009, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

The thread was about public opinion and calling those who support more troops in Afghanistan hypocrites. I'm pointing out that the war criminal stuff was over Iraq, not Afghanistan.

Ok gotcha.

pocketkangaroo · 02-21-2009, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

this is also a pretty funny point. the idea that "Bush lied". which is a position you are forced to adopt because of how many Democrats voted to go into Iraq. otherwise, it becomes a collective mistake with personal accountability... much easier to point the finger far off in the distance and say "the problem is over there"

did Bush lie? i don't know. don't care. Congress gave him authority and constantly gave him money to do it. all the bi-partisan intelligence committees and government agencies didn't seem to feel one guy was just making shit up. so at a minimum, you have to admit that the "lie" involved more than one political party and one person.

To be that far off on what was going on in Iraq would either mean he lied or was grossly incompetent. Democrats who voted for it deserve just as much blame as the Republicans. Hillary can attest that she paid the price for her decision.

And while you can blame others, George Bush was the President and the man ultimately responsible for following through. He was the man who took in the intelligence and told the people something that blatantly false. The buck stops with him. While you may not care, a lot of parents, spouses, siblings, and friends lost people over in that war that was a giant mistake.

IllTestYourGirls · 02-21-2009, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nation-x

Show me proof that that happened... you can't because it didn't. Do the Taliban have families in the camps they occupy? Yes... do they use civilians as shields... yes.

Do you live under a fucking rock? Proof is all over the place. Obama ORDERED for more than one air strike on civilians HOMES in PAKISTAN. What dont you understand about that?

pocketkangaroo · 02-21-2009, 07:50 AM

And on the topic of who to go after, the three major players in the terror game are Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. If this country wants to deal with terror, they'd have done something with those 3 countries.

IllTestYourGirls · 02-21-2009, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

And on the topic of who to go after, the three major players in the terror game are Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. If this country wants to deal with terror, they'd have done something with those 3 countries.

War can not be the answer with Saudi or Pakistan. We will bankrupt ourselves and/or go into a depression. Just like the terrorist said they would make us do.

nation-x · 02-21-2009, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

Do you live under a fucking rock? Proof is all over the place. Obama ORDERED for more than one air strike on civilians HOMES in PAKISTAN. What dont you understand about that?

It's not true...

Quote:

The U.S. military has been using killer drones to take out enemies for years. But those strikes have ordinarily targeted small groups, or lone individuals. Last night, an American pilotless plane reportedly killed 20 people during an attack on a militant compound in Pakistan

Militant Compound...

pocketkangaroo · 02-21-2009, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

War can not be the answer with Saudi or Pakistan. We will bankrupt ourselves and/or go into a depression. Just like the terrorist said they would make us do.

I know, but something should have been done. Saudi Arabia is like a factory for terrorists and Pakistan has nukes. While going to war with them isn't viable, holding hands with them on the White House lawn is not the approach I'd take.

IllTestYourGirls · 02-21-2009, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nation-x

It's not true...

Militant Compound...

If China was invading the US they would call your house a "militant compound" too

nation-x · 02-21-2009, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

If China was invading the US they would call your house a "militant compound" too

Again... where was your outrage before... you are just arguing for the sake of arguing and not using logic at all in your arguments. I am not really surprised though... because you have proven yourself to be ignorant on alot of facts before and your posts on the subject are a litany of right wing talking points.

Pleasurepays · 02-21-2009, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nation-x

Umm... I am just saying... where was your outrage when Bush was doing the same thing?

Outrage? this shit was long overdue. I was pissed that Bush senior didn't go into Iraq. My view on should they or shouldn't they however, has nothing to do with the thread at all.

You can't reconcile your own hypocrisy on the issues, so you have to try to redirect the discussion. I understand... its all you can do at this point.

nation-x · 02-21-2009, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

You can't reconcile your own hypocrisy on the issues

Really? Show me my hypocrisy.

pocketkangaroo · 02-21-2009, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

Outrage? this shit was long overdue. I was pissed that Bush senior didn't go into Iraq. My view on should they or shouldn't they however, has nothing to do with the thread at all.

You can't reconcile your own hypocrisy on the issues, so you have to try to redirect the discussion. I understand... its all you can do at this point.

Long overdue? Come on. You go to war when your safety is threatened, not because you don't like another leader or want some access to some oil fields.

CyberHustler · 02-21-2009, 08:20 AM

IllTestYourGirls · 02-21-2009, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nation-x

Again... where was your outrage before... you are just arguing for the sake of arguing and not using logic at all in your arguments. I am not really surprised though... because you have proven yourself to be ignorant on alot of facts before and your posts on the subject are a litany of right wing talking points.

My outrage was all over the fucking place. Ive been calling Bush a war criminal for years now. You cant get past left/right bullshit. They are both fucking us, they are both using the same foreign policies.

Pleasurepays · 02-21-2009, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

Long overdue? Come on. You go to war when your safety is threatened, not because you don't like another leader or want some access to some oil fields.

"safety"?

you go to war when you are being attacked or vital national interests are threatened.

i'm not a pacifist. i would rather deal with the so called "outrage of the arab world" and have a few well stocked military bases in their back yards than continue through life hoping they don't wipe us off the earth because thats their stated goal.

the issues are insanely complicated. i don't think anyone can argue that point. i don't pretend to know what top level intelligence people know. i am satisfied that the area as a whole is the worlds largest exporter of extremism and terrorism and that the international community, the UN, diplomacy and sanctions do nothing to change that fact.

it all goes back to general world views. i don't believe hugs and flowers and rainbows are going to make people see things my way. i don't believe that all people are inherently good. i don't believe that "if we just did this... just did that and just stopped doing the other thing" that extremism would suddenly stop being a major threat to world security or fade away. it was always there. it has been growing over the last century and will continue to do so.

if the entire middle east with the exception of Dubai is fully dedicating themselves to total and complete implosion... as they have been for their entire history, then i think its necessary for someone to step up and get in the game and get on the offense.

its not about "today" - its about the world 50 and the region 50 years now when a bunch of backwards fucks don't have oil revenues anymore to fund the oppression of their people and their budgets and finally start imploding as they try to scratch a living from rocks and desert. as time wears on, i can't imagine their economic outlook being very bright and i can't imagine islamic extremism fading.

Pleasurepays · 02-21-2009, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

Long overdue? Come on. You go to war when your safety is threatened, not because you don't like another leader or want some access to some oil fields.

to address your specific remarks.

1) i seriously doubt "saddam hussein" played any more role in this other than the fact that he created opportunity and an excuse

2) oil fields? i don't think that was EVER a factor. is your gas cheaper? gas went up to over 4.00 a gallon years after going into Iraq... no sane person can argue that "cheap oil" was a factor.

minddust · 02-21-2009, 08:38 AM

He's just another puppet.

He won't bring any changes.

Who controls the past control the future.
Who controls the present controls the past.

Owner · 02-21-2009, 08:44 AM

Basically you like that were killing the Jawas and just started this thread to argue

pocketkangaroo · 02-21-2009, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

"safety"?

you go to war when you are being attacked or vital national interests are threatened.

i'm not a pacifist. i would rather deal with the so called "outrage of the arab world" and have a few well stocked military bases in their back yards than continue through life hoping they don't wipe us off the earth because thats their stated goal.

the issues are insanely complicated. i don't think anyone can argue that point. i don't pretend to know what top level intelligence people know. i am satisfied that the area as a whole is the worlds largest exporter of extremism and terrorism and that the international community, the UN, diplomacy and sanctions do nothing to change that fact.

it all goes back to general world views. i don't believe hugs and flowers and rainbows are going to make people see things my way. i don't believe that all people are inherently good. i don't believe that "if we just did this... just did that and just stopped doing the other thing" that extremism would suddenly stop being a major threat to world security or fade away. it was always there. it has been growing over the last century and will continue to do so.

if the entire middle east with the exception of Dubai is fully dedicating themselves to total and complete implosion... as they have been for their entire history, then i think its necessary for someone to step up and get in the game and get on the offense.

its not about "today" - its about the world 50 and the region 50 years now when a bunch of backwards fucks don't have oil revenues anymore to fund the oppression of their people and their budgets and finally start imploding as they try to scratch a living from rocks and desert. as time wears on, i can't imagine their economic outlook being very bright and i can't imagine islamic extremism fading.

Iraq was never a hotbed of Muslim extremism. In fact, it was one of the more tamer countries in the Middle East. The terrorists who target us hated Saddam. The complete opposite effect has now happened as we've turned the country into a terrorist hangout.

And I agree with your reasons for why we go to war. But Iraq doesn't even come close to matching them. They posed no threat our country or our people. They posed no real threat to our national interests. I don't think the decision to go to war should be taken lightly.

directfiesta · 02-21-2009, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

Iraq was never a hotbed of Muslim extremism. In fact, it was one of the more tamer countries in the Middle East. The terrorists who target us hated Saddam. The complete opposite effect has now happened as we've turned the country into a terrorist hangout.

And I agree with your reasons for why we go to war. But Iraq doesn't even come close to matching them. They posed no threat our country or our people. They posed no real threat to our national interests. I don't think the decision to go to war should be taken lightly.

oh ... W didn't agree ... so he got 4000 + Americans and 100K+ civilians killed to avenge:

.. not taking in consideration the financial suicide ...

topnotch, standup guy · 02-21-2009, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

i'm boggled... not one person can offer an answer as to how Obama killing people and escalating troop presence, combat deaths, innocent people's deaths and so on is different than Bush's "war crimes"

For one thing Obama is targeting the right people (i.e. those with ties to 911).

For another thing the people he's targeting don't represent a potential threat to Iran (i.e. Saddam's military).

Any more questions?

Pleasurepays · 02-21-2009, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

Iraq was never a hotbed of Muslim extremism. In fact, it was one of the more tamer countries in the Middle East. The terrorists who target us hated Saddam. The complete opposite effect has now happened as we've turned the country into a terrorist hangout.

correct. however, as i said, it was about opportunity to put a nice big base and friendly governent there using Saddams refusal to cooperate with UN / weapons inspectors as justification

what it is today is a matter of opinion by those who have no information to make such an opinion. without taking sides... it went from total collapse, no water, no electricity, no medicine etc etc etc to coming back together with radical clerics having tons of power to even those radical clerics joining the democratic process.

anyone suggesting that the situation is not fluid and not improving daily is not being very honest with themselves or anyone else.

Quote:

And I agree with your reasons for why we go to war. But Iraq doesn't even come close to matching them. They posed no threat our country or our people. They posed no real threat to our national interests. I don't think the decision to go to war should be taken lightly.

again... with respect to Iraq, i used the word opportunity. Saddam again gambled that he could thumb his nose at the world with impunity and after 12 or so UN Resolutions and continually kicking weapons inspectors out and refusing to account for weapons etc, he created opportunity.

the "threat" is the long term and widening instability of the region which can only deepen as the worlds dependence on fossil fuels decreases. every middle east government is barely clinging to power and its been that way forever and no economic forecaster is going to tell you the prospects is bright for the region. instability + predicted increased instability + fundamentalism/extremism + terrorism + nuclear weapons = threat to everyone in the region and world.

Pleasurepays · 02-21-2009, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by topnotch, standup guy

For one thing Obama is targeting the right people (i.e. those with ties to 911).

For another thing the people he's targeting don't represent a potential threat to Iran (i.e. Saddam's military).

Any more questions?

the "right people" are villagers in the mountains watching unmanned drones rain missiles down on them?

Iran? Saddam wasn't a threat to Iran. He fought them to a stalemate. Now Iran is surrounded with a US military presence. Who needs Saddam to balance out power in the region when "Saddams" come and go all the time.

DatingGameExpert · 02-21-2009, 01:24 PM

If we all keep bumping the thread Obama is sure to see it and act. Just like Bush acted when everyone bitched about what he was doing.

Nothing will change so stop crying and moaning.

who · 02-21-2009, 01:26 PM

Obama is a black muslim terrorist jew.

brassmonkey · 02-21-2009, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick Decker

white folkz want to jump the gun give him 12 months in office damn!!!

EthnicLover · 02-21-2009, 01:49 PM

Wow, this is a very long thread.

Aside from drone planes how about Obama and Biden stop subscribing to the idea that more police officers on U.S. streets means safer streets.

Why don't they have a press conference stating that more men and women with guns on the street is not helping keep streets safer so instead they are going to invest in community organizations (i.e. Harlem Children's Zone)in lower income areas that will cater to children and their parents?

Why doesn't Obama make "change we can believe in" by focusing the efforts of the U.S. government less on punishment and more on preparation and rehabilitation?

Loryn · 02-21-2009, 02:21 PM

If we can make fun of other President's then we can make fun of this one. To be bias is to be closed minded.

pornask · 02-21-2009, 03:34 PM

I was naive enough to think I was gonna register impeachbarackobama.com before it becomes a widespread issue, and I failed. That domain has been registered long time ago, along with most other extensions that have some merit. Damn... never been big into politics, will have to react faster next time.

02-21-2009, 08:38 AM	#128
minddust Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 2,438	He's just another puppet. He won't bring any changes. Who controls the past control the future. Who controls the present controls the past. Last edited by minddust; 02-21-2009 at 08:39 AM..

02-21-2009, 01:49 PM	#138
EthnicLover Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: S. California Posts: 1,584	Wow, this is a very long thread. Aside from drone planes how about Obama and Biden stop subscribing to the idea that more police officers on U.S. streets means safer streets. Why don't they have a press conference stating that more men and women with guns on the street is not helping keep streets safer so instead they are going to invest in community organizations (i.e. Harlem Children's Zone)in lower income areas that will cater to children and their parents? Why doesn't Obama make "change we can believe in" by focusing the efforts of the U.S. government less on punishment and more on preparation and rehabilitation? __________________ Honest adult reviews? - Adult Reviews Ethnic paysite owners? - Get reviewed Follow me? - Twitter Porn

02-21-2009, 02:21 PM	#139
Loryn Super Connector Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 12,853	If we can make fun of other President's then we can make fun of this one. To be bias is to be closed minded. __________________ ~ loryn@loryntaylor . com ~ RIP TD

02-21-2009, 07:40 AM	#106
Pleasurepays BANNED - SUPPORTING TUBES Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: I live in a pile of boogers Posts: 11,913	all i'm saying is lets give peace a chance.

02-21-2009, 07:50 AM	#115
pocketkangaroo Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 8,452	And on the topic of who to go after, the three major players in the terror game are Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. If this country wants to deal with terror, they'd have done something with those 3 countries.

02-21-2009, 08:20 AM	#124
CyberHustler Masterbaiter Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 26,221

02-21-2009, 08:44 AM	#129
Owner Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 905	Basically you like that were killing the Jawas and just started this thread to argue

02-21-2009, 01:24 PM	#135
DatingGameExpert Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: UK Posts: 1,089	If we all keep bumping the thread Obama is sure to see it and act. Just like Bush acted when everyone bitched about what he was doing. Nothing will change so stop crying and moaning.

02-21-2009, 01:26 PM	#136
who So Fucking Banned Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: ICQ #23642053 Posts: 19,593	Obama is a black muslim terrorist jew.

02-21-2009, 03:34 PM	#140
pornask So Fucking Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: 253-233-241 Posts: 6,518	I was naive enough to think I was gonna register impeachbarackobama.com before it becomes a widespread issue, and I failed. That domain has been registered long time ago, along with most other extensions that have some merit. Damn... never been big into politics, will have to react faster next time.