You wanted to say...:

teri - 2003-07-05 01:11:28
what is it that bush really did 2 get accused of war crimes??
-------------------------------
xeriphism - 2003-07-05 04:05:28
ok, you and anyone who reads this will probably have a cry and slag me for this but i speak my mind and anyone who can't be a big enough person to perhaps try looking outside the square can bite me so.. i think sometimes some of the things you write maybe lack the bigger picture, focussing on small things. like, think about this, what would Japan love to do? lock down a US president, for any reason whatsoever, in fact most countries in the world would like to. i think it's hypocritical of the so called 'allies' to pull apart a mans actions which quite clearly ARE making changes in the world that are long overdue. That's the hard part about being a ruler/leader, There's just absolutely no way, that you are ever going to please EVERYONE. Dreamers never seem to realise this little fact, and people generally seem to overlook things like sept 11 atrocities just because something more brutal is on the TV. THE USA did about everything within their power to prevent a war that they could, but the problem is the rationale of the people they were dealing with is so far in the past that they would just keep pushing for it, i mean look at the iraqi minister of information, he'd rather see his people DIE than admit anything like defeat, what the? further, lets say iraq did have chem weapons etc, probably one of the few countries who's leader actually WOULD use them. If they didn't have them then why all the beaurocracy and HIDING for 13 years which if you research you will discover they had been ignoring the rules for about 12-13 years. I mean, if they had nothing to hide then why not go along with the rules, they broke the rules of the united nations, so it took the USA to be strong and say well, you want to keep this up you will be rewarded in a way that you will not like, we aren't going to risk the fact that you could have practically ANYthing at your disposal which you would more than happily use on us 'westerners' just because your stupid little religious principles will echo from the 12th century, come on, catch up people, there is no god. and if there were do you really think it'd be a racist god? ultimately any president would have to be thinking better the prevention than a cure.
-------------------------------
Nikita - 2003-07-05 05:51:55
I say it's about time he was indicted. He bought the election, all the while plotting the downfall of the Middle East. He and his staff have lied to the people who actually did vote for him as well as those of us who didn't. He's taken steps to rid us of our pesky rights and freedoms. I hope the Japanese actually can indict Bush for war crimes. If they can, I hope the trial is televised.
-------------------------------
tigerknight - 2003-07-05 07:15:16
Poetic justice is a rare, rare thing. The U.S. actually conferred the precedent upon the Japanese by creating the Tokyo Tribunal after WWII. Indeed, the Japanese would be within their rights to give Bush exactly the same kind of military trial we gave to them: after all, we executed one Japanese general for "negligence" (atrocities committed by troops under his command while the general himself was in Tokyo, and without any evidence that the general gave the order). Hey--Xeriphism: there is a word for one who makes "overdue" changes without obeying the law. It is called: "dictator." There's been quite a few of them in the world; so far, America has not produced one. I suggest you rethink your position and help the rest of us real patriots try to keep things that way.
-------------------------------
Ravyne - 2003-07-05 07:25:17
A little history lesson: Under the Reagan/Bush Administration, Donald Rumsfeld met with Saddam and helped to organize the sell of missles, chemical and biological weapons to Iraq to stave off Iran. Our Government *sold* those weapons to Saddam. Do you understand this Xeriphism and Teri? Okay, chemical and bio weapons have a very short shelf-life, approx. 5-10 years. The only way Saddam could still have effective bio and chem weapons was if he was making his own. With the sanctions placed on Iraq during those 12 years, there was probably (cannot say 100%) no way he could have been making more and by then, those he did have had expired. There have been reports from two Inspectors (one was Scott Ritter, cannot remember the other guy's name at the moment) after the 1st Gulf War who have sworn that they destroyed about 95% of Saddam's WMD including chem and bio. Also, most of Saddam's military weapons (aircraft, tanks, etc.) were also destroyed during the 1st Gulf war and due to the sanctions, he was unable to buy repairable parts. Now, as for the 1st Gulf War: Kuwait was side-drilling into Iraq's oil fields and Saddam, after talking to a diplomat from the US (who told Saddam that the US would not interfer in any squirmish he had with Kuwait) thought he had US approval to go into Kuwait and stop them from side-drilling. Imagine his surprise when the US, along with the UN, attacked him. Why? Because Kuwait supplied oil to Israel and Israel complained to the UN about Saddam's invasion. Suddenly Saddam is enemy #1. As for the mass murdering of his own people after the 1st Gulf War, these were the people that had joined the US and the UN troops to *oust* Saddam from Kuwait, with the promise that Saddam would also be removed from Iraq. Our troops pulled out before going that far and those who rose up against Saddam were killed by Saddam's military. Horrible, yes. But being a typical dictator, Saddam was not about to allow *traitors* to live in his country. This leads us up to the current war with Iraq: the biggest question is why? several reasons: 1)revenge for the humilation Bush's dad suffered from not finishing the job in Iraq; 2) oil; 3) to keep the US dollar from collapsing and being replaced with the Euro (Saddam had switched all of his assests over to the Euro and was making profits off of this - other Middle Eastern countries were about to follow suit); 4) strategic location for a military base in the Middle East; and 5) possibly control over the major waterways in that region. You see, there is a lot to do in the Middle East if the US is to remain the sole Super Power. I encourage you all to read a book called The Grand Chessboard by Zbigniew Brezezinski. This book was written in 1997 and gives detailed instructions on what needs to be done in the Middle East for the US to keep its Super Power status. Bush's Administration is following it almost to the letter. Everything I have written here can be easily found on your own by doing some research. You may also want to view the video clip I posted a couple of days ago called The Truth and Lies of 911 by Mike Ruppert. You can find it under WAR on my main page or by looking in Archives for the entry EXPOSED: The Lies We've Been Told.
-------------------------------
Ravyne - 2003-07-05 07:35:23
Oh, and Teri, here is the list of things Bush has done to be accused of war crimes: Lied to the American public about Saddam's imminent threat to the US and his neighbors; lied to Congress for the same reasons; produced false documents to the UN against Saddam and lied to them for the same reasons above; pre-emptively attacked a Soverign Country; attempted to murder a President of another country (that was what the first strike was supposed to do because of reports that Saddam was in a certain location at that time); and committed our troops for a mission that was illegal because it had not been approved by the UN. Okay, those are only a some of the reasons. I am sure there are more.
-------------------------------
minyoo - 2003-07-05 07:49:32
Haha yeah. I have a grudge on Japan, (there army that is not allowed in their constitution, their own denial of the atrocities they had committed, their fascist economic structure that is still supporting Japanese economy, etc) but it feels damn good to see that Japanese people does things like that. (I mean, it is a group of private lawyers, right?)
-------------------------------
nat - 2003-07-05 09:05:47
After reading all those comments.. I want to add in my two cents.. I think Bush is making too big a fuss of this.. I'm neutral on the war, but i don't like the way he says stuff like God is on our side and we shall destroy all evil.. I mean.. Er? Yeah so. Thats my opinion. =)
-------------------------------
jessica lovejoy - 2003-07-05 10:52:53
Yah, nat, that's what freaks me out too. Regardless of yr politics, everyone should be concerned by a guy who thinks he's doing God's Will. I'm having flashbacks of Constantine's vision of the flaming Chi/Rho before he "converted" the Roman Empire to Xianity. You just can't argue with someone one like that-- if Jebus told him that grapefruit is evil, the FDA would be working overtime to find carcinogens in my favorite breakfast fruit. Shudders!
-------------------------------
Pandionna - 2003-07-05 10:56:46
Anyone, at this late date, who thinks Saddam Hussein had anything to do with September 11 such that they have the gumption to imply that those against the war have "overlooked September 11 atrocities" needs a history lesson. Two words: Al Qaeda. Two more: Saudi Arabia.
-------------------------------
Beth - 2003-07-05 18:09:17
Hitler's death camps had Jews in them. Bush's do/will have Muslims (Guantanamo Bay).
-------------------------------
ExodusNights - 2003-07-05 23:49:51
Ravyne, I added this page to my "buddies" list. I'll certainly remove it if you ask me, but as I was with Pandionna, I am very impressed with your powerful political views and eloquence. Please, keep fighting the good fight.
-------------------------------
Haley - 2003-07-06 22:37:29
Ahh this is stupid. They just want to do something to make Bush look bad.
-------------------------------
Ravyne - 2003-07-06 22:47:24
Trust me Haley, Bush doesn't need anyone to make him look bad. He does that well enough on his own.
-------------------------------
anne - 2003-07-07 02:12:09
errrrrr i think bush is cool...
-------------------------------
Ravyne - 2003-07-07 03:32:56
Anne, someone can be "cool" if they are a rock star or an actor, but I think someone needs better qualifications than "cool" to be a President. I guess ruining the economy, breaking treaties, waging illegal wars, ignoring the enviroment, giving tax breaks to the rich and doing very little for the poor, ignoring healthcare concerns, our elderly, cutting back on benefits for our soldiers and God only knows what other atrocities are "cool" in your eyes. Well, if so, then you seriously need a new definition of "cool".
-------------------------------

so tell me...:

who are you?:
where can I email you?:
do you have a URL to share?:

Ahhhh...thanks, I needed that!

back to the entry - Diaryland