quite the retort.

__________________
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

I'm just posting my opinion. Bush invaded Iraq for no reason other than hubris and has killed 100,000 civiliians. That qualifies him as a war criminal. He also lied to congress and the people about his reasons for invading Iraq. Did you vote for Bush?

"I'm just posting my opinion." Now? I was responding to what you posted initially?

Your actual words where:

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Considering the post it was in response to, it's more than adequate!

It is a fact, and not mine, that Bush has killed 100,000 civilians. That, and other facts, make him a war criminal. You did vote for Bush, dincha?

you seem incapable of engaging in any sort of rational, logical debate. i was merely pointing that out. perhaps i should resort to name calling - "oliver stone"? - but facts always seem a better way of making a point. or not.

__________________
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

Certainly a crazy mixed up world you live in....

Couple newspapers call the White House, say "We got some dude with classified documents, and we would like you to review them and tell us which ones are important..." That seems like what the offer boils down to, no veto power, no ability to affect what gets printed, just an opportunity to point out the juiciest portions, and get your name all over it as well.

Jeez, I wonder why they declined....

__________________
On some nights I still believe that a car with the fuel gauge on empty can run about fifty more miles if you have the right music very loud on the radio. - HST

1983 300SD - 305000
1984 Toyota Landcruiser - 190000
1994 GMC Jimmy - 203000

https://media.giphy.com/media/X3nnss8PAj5aU/giphy.gif

Spare everyone! You exhibited no interest or capacity for rationality or logic.

The issue at hand which you chose to interject yourself into was the unsupported claim made by another poster that That poster has subsequently acknowledged that there only exists his opinion that GW Bush is a bona fide war criminal.

You then offer two “statements” such that they are:

Regarding what one can only be describe as rather vague personal opinion without either basis in fact or corroborative support regarding war criminality, the issue at hand and in dispute. Then you dismissively “anyway”, offer your further opinion regarding the fate of “this empire ( the u.s.)”

Nowhere in either of your statements do you provide a single fact, no rational or logical explanation to support your opinions.

In sympathy I indulged you, as evidence by the fact that still no other person has seen fit to respond to these merit-less postings you’ve offered, your un-supported opinions such that they are in truth unworthy of response, and are no more than oft regurgitated pabulum of those intoxicated on liberal hater-aid.

My reference to Oliver Stone was un-deserved and for that I apologize, Mr. Stone should never have been besmirched by such an association. You can consider that my mea culpa.

Selective interpetaion or deficient comprehension?

The issue I’ve raised is summarized in the last sentence of the post you’ve quoted.

In direct reference to the quoted post of another

In light of the subsequent made and quoted here statements of the “Hero” in this sordid tale

In your statement you appear to have attributed greater credence to interactions as you have imagined them, than to the public statements of some of the parties actually involved.

Based on what is nothing more than your own imagined/fabricated dialogue, you conclude:
”That seems like what the offer boils down to, no veto power, no ability to affect what gets printed, just an opportunity to point out the juiciest portions, and get your name all over it as well.”

Despite the exact words in the public statement of the “Hero”

”WikiLeaks and several media groups contacted the White House prior to releasing the documents for assistance in reviewing them to make sure innocent names were not released”

The stated purpose of the outreach to the White House was to avoid the release of the names of innocents precisely to prevent the scenario described:

The willingness to imagine and fabricate unreality in an attempt to explain away an uncomfortable reality is I’m certain noted by all.

That the White House would decline an opportunity to apprise themselves of the nature and extent of the information prior to its release is unconscionable, if only viewed from the perspective of the Afghan informants at potential risk.

Properly contextualized, this inaction is not inconsistent with the Obama Doctrine of Preemptive Capitulation and the Dear Leader’s ultimate goal of reducing the status and ability of the US to affect global outcomes.

Whichever one you suffer from too...

Stated purpose does not mean actual purpose.

Either way the documents were coming out, and not putting a White House stamp on it is certainly a wise political position.

I believe you are assuming that we are in possesion of the entire story. My imaginative interpretation is just one of many possible realities, the real one is unknown at this point.

__________________
On some nights I still believe that a car with the fuel gauge on empty can run about fifty more miles if you have the right music very loud on the radio. - HST

1983 300SD - 305000
1984 Toyota Landcruiser - 190000
1994 GMC Jimmy - 203000

https://media.giphy.com/media/X3nnss8PAj5aU/giphy.gif

so, you checked out the geneva convention, united nations charter, etc.?

i thought not. never let the facts get in the way of your opinion. be strong. show resolve. never say die!

__________________
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

The subjects of the Geneva Convention and the UN Charter and their applicability to any allegation of war crimes have been discussed and debated ad infinitum on this forum long before you graced us with your "wisdom"; and I'm sure they have been on many other forums.

It is incumbent on any accuser; in this case you, to substantiate your accusations.

The facts remain to this day; no competent adjudicatory body has ever been convened to hear charges of war crimes committed by GW Bush, GW Bush has never been charged in front of any competent adjudicatory body of any war crime, GW Bush has never been afforded the oppurtunity to defended himself before any competent adjudicatory body, and last and most importantly no competent adjudicatory body has ever pronounced GW Bush guilty of any war crime. Those are the undisputable facts.

Your layman’s interpretation of both the acts of GW Bush and the applicability of any Geneva Convention or UN Charter elements are nothing more than your own uninformed opinion. It may in fact be an opinion shared by people who are infinitely more educated, knowledgeable, and informed on the matter, but the consensus remains that GW Bush is not a war criminal in any way as evidence by the complete lack of action by any competent adjudicatory body in the world and there exists not a single fact proving otherwise.

You ought to take the opportunity to do little self education on the subject you appear to be confused about.

The Geneva Convention refers to the 1949 Agreement and protocols, the term used in its plural construction Geneva Conventions refers to all four separate conventions and attendant Protocols. All of these agreements relate to the treatment of combatants and non-combatant populations “the humanitarian treatment of the victims of war”.

Invading countries, attacking countries, making war against countries, and achieving victory over defeated countries is in no way prohibited or even addressed by the Geneva Conventions et al.

The Geneva conventions do not address the cause or the act of war making.

I challenge you to back up your previously stated claim that “invading several nations is illegal; doing it under false pretenses…” is a violation of any element of the Geneva Conventions of 1864, 1906, 1929, 1949 or the subsequent Protocols I of 1977, II of 1977, and II of 2005.

With regard to any violation specific U. N. Charter provisions we all await your learned analysis and documentary substantiation. As has been stated previously the factual record remains indisputable thus far.

newsflash: not every crime is prosecuted. that's doesn't mean it wasn't a crime.

here's the learned scholars.. seven years ago.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/feb2003/law-f27.shtml

__________________
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

Wow an entire 43 attention seeking socialist pacifist moonbats declared it so in a letter the extreme majority of publication's wouldn't be embarrased by publishing! No wonder you're convinced!

Keep us all posted on how that's working out for you and your fellow travelers, after seven years I'd expect there ought to be an update pretty soon!

I agree with you that the U.S.Empire will fall..Obama was on TV today talking about pulling out of Iraq..and now he has his nose stuck into the Korean trouble..the Iranian trouble..and who knows what else. Does anyone think that invadeing other countrys..and putting your nose where it doesnt belong..and being war-mongers is a good way to continue to survive.? I am totally sick of it all...Talk about terrorism against the United States..what about Nagasaki..Hiroshima...Thats about as sick as a human mind can be..Hitler didnt have anything on American Generals/Politicians..