Germany anounced it is investigating Rumsfield for crimal war crimes. I don't understand for what reason they are investigating him. Everything he has done is legal or the UN would have stopped the United States. Even though i don't agree with the war i can't find any reason why he would be charged guilty. What do you guess think about this entire issue.[/url]
Rumsfield being investigated for War Crimes
This must be a joke that Germany would be looking at anyone for war crimes with their checkered past. Rumsfield doesn't need to be worried about this investigation. (if this post is even valid).
Where's the source on this post? All kidding aside, I don't know why they would be investigating him. Maybe France will join in!
Where's the source on this post? All kidding aside, I don't know why they would be investigating him. Maybe France will join in!
| afriot wrote: |
| This must be a joke that Germany would be looking at anyone for war crimes with their checkered past. Rumsfield doesn't need to be worried about this investigation. (if this post is even valid).
Where's the source on this post? All kidding aside, I don't know why they would be investigating him. Maybe France will join in! |
Agreed. How hypocritical. I suspect the Dems will put anyone up they can to 'investigate' anyone and everyone associated with GWB. BTW, don't expect any help from France, Rummy will send the Girl Scouts in to take out their military.
Well I too would like the source, and I want to know why they are investigating him, it doesn't make much sense, lol. He never did anything against UN sanctions, or like jumpbox said, they would have stopped him.
| afriot wrote: |
| This must be a joke that Germany would be looking at anyone for war crimes with their checkered past. Rumsfield doesn't need to be worried about this investigation. (if this post is even valid).
Where's the source on this post? All kidding aside, I don't know why they would be investigating him. Maybe France will join in! |
How checkered is Germany's past, really? How many wars have they started in their entire history as a country, compared to the number of wars started by Britain, France or the USA?
In the past century, Germany has been the aggressor in only one war, and in the past sixty years, none at all. Nor has it ever projected its power through proxy wars. Can Rummy's home country match that?
| BruceThePainter wrote: |
|
How checkered is Germany's past, really? How many wars have they started in their entire history as a country, compared to the number of wars started by Britain, France or the USA? In the past century, Germany has been the aggressor in only one war, and in the past sixty years, none at all. Nor has it ever projected its power through proxy wars. Can Rummy's home country match that? |
That's clasic kool-aid right thar!
There's a reason Germany hasn't started any shit in the last 60 years, and it's the same reason that Japan hasn't either. They got their ****** asses stopmed for being stupid and their ability to make war removed, just like Radical Islam needs to have done. Otherwise, we're right back in the same boat we were in in 1938.
It's funny how the Pres of Iran, on one side of his face says he doesn't believe in the Jewish Holocaust, and on the other side of his face, say's he's getting ready to start a Holocause against the Jews.
Nice thing, if you leave aside the usual snafu by the always present forum class retards.
The real news here is that someone, no matter how dirty his pants are, managed to begin due process against the bastard. Even if he doesn't deserve it, it's awesome!. Let's see what happens.
Last edited by polarBear on Thu Nov 16, 2006 7:52 pm; edited 1 time in total
The real news here is that someone, no matter how dirty his pants are, managed to begin due process against the bastard. Even if he doesn't deserve it, it's awesome!. Let's see what happens.
Last edited by polarBear on Thu Nov 16, 2006 7:52 pm; edited 1 time in total
| jumpbox wrote: |
| Germany anounced it is investigating Rumsfield for crimal war crimes. I don't understand for what reason they are investigating him. Everything he has done is legal or the UN would have stopped the United States. Even though i don't agree with the war i can't find any reason why he would be charged guilty. What do you guess think about this entire issue.[/url] |
Ermmmm...how would the UN have stopped the US ? They refused to vote for the action, what else could the UN have done ? Kofi Annan has said many times that he believes the war is and was illegal and has been saying so since early 2004. The US were actually anxious at first to completely avoid the UN route since they wanted it understood that they needed no permission. Blair persuadeed them to try for a resolution authorising force and Bush reluctantly went along. They tried to bribe two African countries to support the vote but France let it be known that it would veto the resolution and the US/UK dropped the resolution forethwith....
http://www.politinfo.com/articles/article_2004_09_16_4815.html
| polarBear wrote: |
| Nice thing, if you leave aside the usual snafu by the always present forum class retards.
|
Quoted for posterity.
This is from democrats.com, stating the "top ten reasons to impeach bush and cheney"
And here's why those ten reasons are stupid, false and/or idiotic as anything the democrats have done in relation to GW
So, if you get a chance, go to Democrats.com and check out their "aggressive progressive" movement. You'll find it similar to other types of movements, which are brown and rather smelly. While you're there, feel free (or at least feel cheap) to send them your comments and suggestions regarding what you think of them, their site, their politics, and the horse they rode in on.[/quote]
| dumb-o-crats.com wrote: |
| Ten Reasons to Impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney
I ask Congress to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney for the following reasons: 1. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal "War of Aggression" against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization, and subjecting our military personnel to unnecessary harm, debilitating injuries, and deaths. 2. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross. 3. Violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel. 4. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm. 5. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant. 6. Violating the Constitution by using "signing statements" to defy hundreds of laws passed by Congress. 7. Violating U.S. and state law by obstructing honest elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006. 8. Violating U.S. law by using paid propaganda and disinformation, selectively and misleadingly leaking classified information, and exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative working on sensitive WMD proliferation for political retribution. 9. Subverting the Constitution and abusing Presidential power by asserting a "Unitary Executive Theory" giving unlimited powers to the President, by obstructing efforts by Congress and the Courts to review and restrict Presidential actions, and by promoting and signing legislation negating the Bill of Rights and the Writ of Habeas Corpus. 10. Gross negligence in failing to assist New Orleans residents after Hurricane Katrina, in ignoring urgent warnings of an Al Qaeda attack prior to Sept. 11, 2001, and in increasing air pollution causing global warming. |
And here's why those ten reasons are stupid, false and/or idiotic as anything the democrats have done in relation to GW
- 1. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal "War of Aggression" against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, and misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization.
- 2. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.
- 3. Violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel.
- 4. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.
- 5. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant.
- 6. Violating the Constitution by using "signing statements" to defy hundreds of laws passed by Congress.
- 7. Violating U.S. and state law by obstructing honest elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006.
- 8. Violating U.S. law by using paid propaganda and disinformation, selectively and misleadingly leaking classified information, and exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative working on sensitive WMD proliferation for political retribution.
- 9. Subverting the Constitution and abusing Presidential power by asserting a "Unitary Executive Theory" giving unlimited powers to the President, by obstructing efforts by Congress and the Courts to review and restrict Presidential actions, and by promoting and signing legislation negating the Bill of Rights and the Writ of Habeas Corpus.
- 10. Gross negligence in failing to assist New Orleans residents after Hurricane Katrina, in ignoring urgent warnings of an Al Qaeda attack prior to Sept. 11, 2001, and in increasing air pollution causing global warming.
So, if you get a chance, go to Democrats.com and check out their "aggressive progressive" movement. You'll find it similar to other types of movements, which are brown and rather smelly. While you're there, feel free (or at least feel cheap) to send them your comments and suggestions regarding what you think of them, their site, their politics, and the horse they rode in on.[/quote]
| S3nd K3ys wrote: |
This is from democrats.com, stating the "top ten reasons to impeach bush and cheney".................
|
Where to start........OK..I'll deal with the major disagreements in separate postings to do them justice. Let's start at the 1st contention. Let's deal with who knew what and when.
Here's the Carnegie Peace Foundation report into this matter. I trust that this is impartial enough for everyone ? Alkthough the foundation is a peace campaigner it's bona-fides are surely beyond reasonable doubt and it can hardly be said to represent an anti-establishment left wing/liberal tool or revcolution
You can check the foundation out to decide for yourself here :
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/about/
Here is the report in full:
http://camres.frih.net/resources/politics/iraqWMD.pdf
I'll now list the important conclusions for those who wish to skim....
Iraq’s WMD programs represented a long-term threat that could not be ignored. They did not, however, pose an immediate threat to the United States, to the region, or to global security.
With respect to nuclear and chemical weapons, the extent of the threat was largely knowable at the time. Iraq’s nuclear program had been dismantled and there was no convincing evidence of its reconstitution. Regarding chemical weapons, UNSCOM discovered that Iraqi nerve agents had lost most of their lethality as early as 1991. Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, and UN inspections and sanctions effectively destroyed Iraq’s large-scale chemical weapon production capabilities. For both reasons, it appears that thereafter Iraq focused on preserving a latent, dual-use capability, rather than on weapons production.
The uncertainties were much greater with regard to biological weapons. However, the real threat lay in what could be achieved in the future rather than in what had been produced in the past or existed in the present. The biological weapons program may also have been converted to dual-use facilities designed to quickly start weapons production in time of war, rather than making and storing these weapons in advance.
The missile program appears to have been the one program in active development in 2002. Iraq was expanding its capability to build missiles whose ranges exceeded UN limits. It is unlikely that Iraq could have destroyed, hidden, or sent out of the country the hundreds of tons of chemical and biological weapons, dozens of Scud missiles and facilities engaged in the ongoing production of chemical and biological weapons that offi cials claimed were present without the United States detecting some sign of this activity before, during, or after the major combat period of the war.
How much radioactive and biological material have been lost and whether they have fallen into the wrong hands remain crucial unknowns. Prior to 2002, the intelligence community appears to have overestimated the chemical and biological weapons in Iraq but had a generally accurate picture of the nuclear and missile programs. The dramatic shift between prior intelligence assessments and the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), together with the creation of an independent intelligence entity at the Pentagon and other steps, suggest that the intelligence community began to be unduly infl uenced by policymakers’ views sometime in 2002.
There was and is no solid evidence of a cooperative relationship between Saddam’s government and Al Qaeda. There was no evidence to support the claim that Iraq would have transferred WMD to Al Qaeda and much evidence to counter it. people it could not control in order to achieve its own political aims is highly dubious.
Today, the most likely source of a nuclear terrorist threat would be from theft or purchase of fissile material or tactical nuclear weapons from poorly guarded stockpiles in Russia and other former Soviet states, including Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine. The security of Pakistan’s nuclear assets, including technology and know how, is also a major concern.
Administration officials systematically misrepresented the threat from Iraq’s WMD and ballistic missile programs, beyond the intelligence failures noted above, by:
i.........Treating nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons as a single “WMD threat.” The conflation of three distinct threats, very different in the danger they pose, distorted the cost/benefit analysis of the war.
ii........Insisting without evidence—yet treating as a given truth—that Saddam Hussein would give whatever WMD he possessed to terrorists.
iii.......Routinely dropping caveats, probabilities, and expressions of uncertainty present in intelligence assessments from public tatements.
iii.......Misrepresenting inspectors’ findings in ways that turned threats from minor to dire.
While worst case planning is valid and vital, acting on worst case assumptions is neither safe nor wise. The assertion that the threat that became visible on 9/11 invalidated deterrence against states does not stand up to close scrutiny. Saddam’s responses to international pressure and international weakness from the 1991 war onward show that while unpredictable he was not undeterrable.
The UN inspection process appears to have been much more successful than recognized before the war. Nine months of exhaustive searches by the U.S. and coalition forces suggest that inspectors were actually in the process of fi nding what was there. Thus, the choice was never between war and doing nothing about Iraq’s WMD. In addition to inspections, a combination of international constraints— sanctions, procurement investigations, and the export/import control mechanism—also appears to have been considerably more effective than was thought. The knowledge, prior experience in Iraq, relationships with Iraqi scientists and officials, and credibility of UNMOVIC experts represent a vital resource that has been ignored when it should be being fully exploited.
To reconstruct an accurate history of Iraq’s WMD programs, the data from the seven years of UNSCOM/IAEA inspections are absolutely essential. The involvement of the inspectors and scientists who compiled the more-than-30-million-page record is needed to effectively mine it.
Considering all the costs and benefits, there were at least two options clearly preferable to a war undertaken without international support: allowing the UNMOVIC/IAEA inspections to continue until obstructed or completed, or imposing a tougher program of “coercive inspections” backed by a specially designed international force.
Even a war successful on other counts could leave behind three signifi cant WMD threats: lost material, “loose” scientists, and the message that only nuclear weapons could protect a state from foreign invasion.
The National Security Strategy’s new doctrine of preemptive military action is actually a loose standard for preventive war under the cloak of legitimate preemption.
In the Iraqi case, the world’s three best intelligence services proved unable to provide the accurate information necessary for acting in the absence of imminent threat.
Regards
Chris
^So, to prove the war was wrong with an objective source, you get a peace organization which is no doubt against all wars?
They might not have a liberal bias, but they certainly have an anti-war bias and will denounce nearly any war.
They might not have a liberal bias, but they certainly have an anti-war bias and will denounce nearly any war.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| ^So, to prove the war was wrong with an objective source, you get a peace organization which is no doubt against all wars?
They might not have a liberal bias, but they certainly have an anti-war bias and will denounce nearly any war. |
But but but!!!
He said:
| Quote: |
| . I trust that this is impartial enough for everyone ? |
so you can't say they'er biased!
Even though they ARE liberal talking points...
By the way, Chris - no one in the administration ever said that Iraq was an imminent threat. What was said was that we should deal with them before they became an imminent threat because in the age of WMD's waiting until they became an imminent threat was too late.
| S3nd K3ys wrote: |
| By the way, Chris - no one in the administration ever said that Iraq was an imminent threat. What was said was that we should deal with them before they became an imminent threat because in the age of WMD's waiting until they became an imminent threat was too late. |
Again I can only give the UK perspective. Here, the dodgy dossier claimed that Saddam could launch chemical weapons within 45 minutes - fairly imminent. I'm happy to accept that the politics were different in the US - I expected they would be. I'm not, however, conceding that the war was :
a) Legal b) Justified in any possible moral or legal sense c) Expendient d) Properly thought out e) Humane and f) Sane
Regards
Chris
| Bikerman wrote: | ||
Again I can only give the UK perspective. Here, the dodgy dossier claimed that Saddam could launch chemical weapons within 45 minutes - fairly imminent. I'm happy to accept that the politics were different in the US - I expected they would be. I'm not, however, conceding that the war was : a) Legal b) Justified in any possible moral or legal sense c) Expendient d) Properly thought out e) Humane and f) Sane Regards Chris |
I guess legality and justification are geographically controlled issues. However, it WAS expedient in that the initial goal was achieved quite quickly. Unfortunately, it was not thought out, as the aftermath was not expected, (meaning the continued fight for power postitions left open by the removal of Saddam and the need for Iraq to be secured by radical Islamics for their calaphate). Humane? Absolutely, unless you consider what the radical islamics are doing, then yes, that's inhumane. The US forces, however, have gone out of their way, to the point of being shot, to protect innocent lives. Those that haven't are being delt with. Sane? Hmm, that's tough. You'd have to be insane to think the US could win? Yes, perhaps. But that's not going to stop us from trying to win this fight for our freedom.
[quote="S3nd K3ys"]
I guess legality and justification are geographically controlled issues. However, it WAS expedient in that the initial goal was achieved quite quickly.
[quote]
OK - the goal, you said, was to deal with Iraq before it became an imminent threat. You say that this has been achieved ? Interesting. Since it is now known that Iraq never was a threat and that the future of Iraq and the region is now deeply uncertain I find the assertion that the objectives were met to be puzzling. The UK perspective was that it was about WMD, clear and present threat from Iraq and stability. Given the results on WMD, the fact that the Iraqis had no significant ordnance capable of reaching, let alone threatening the west and the huge instability now engendered, I would question whether any objectives have been met, let alone all of them.
An analyst at the MOD put it like this :
#If the objective was removal of WMD, there were none so that could not be accomplished.
#If the objective was to sever the links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the opposite has happened as a result of the war, with Al Qaeda now firmly implanted in Iraqi soil.
#If the objective was to remove a rogue state that endangered the region, the opposite has been accomplished in that the ever increasing instability in Iraq spreads further instability throughout the region.
#If the objective was to bring democracy to Iraq, the country’s burgeoning civil war and ineffective central government belie that goal, despite the several rounds of elections. (And elections themselves cannot be an objective, since they are only a means to an end, in this case representative government. But elections do not always produce such a government and therefore cannot be an end in themselves.)
#If the objective was to show the world the power of the U.S. military and reinforce its might as a tool for effecting change, the opposite has been accomplished by showing that the U.S., despite its might, cannot produce a stable situation in Iraq, and furthermore, is now bogged down and cannot even project military power as before.
#If the objective was to weaken potential rivals such as Iran, we have instead strengthened them.
#If the objective was to win the hearts and minds of the Muslim world, we have accomplished the opposite, and are now more reviled throughout the world, both Muslim and non-Muslim, than we have ever been before.
#If the objective was to reduce the level of violent terrorism in the world, we have instead increased it, and we have increased the numbers of recruits to terrorist ideologies throughout the world, including among native born Europeans.
http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/cost_of_war_in_iraq.pdf
That just doesn't fit in with reality I'm afraid. The stats don't bear it out - fatalities number anywhere from 50,000 - 650,000 (I include a link to the Iraq Body Count which is undoubtedly guilty of huge under-reporting but even that source tells a tale). The choice of weaponry and tactics don't bear it out - the use of high level and long range bombing, the use of mines (both anti-personnel and antivehicular), use of depleted uranium ordnance and cluster bombs, rumoured use of Napalm and similar weapons, documented and witnessed accounts of US military actions - these all tell a different tale. As do some returning military personnel.
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/iraqfalluja/
http://www.eoslifework.co.uk/u23.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Body_Count
http://www.islamonline.net/english/In_Depth/Iraq_Aftermath/2003/08/article_03.shtml
http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/opin/pr_sjm.html
I'd be interested to see the chain of reasoning that leads to a conclusion that the Iraq war is a fight for freedom by the US. To me that sounds not only wrong but peverse. This has nothing to do with US freedom apart from the freedom to attack whosoever and for whatever reason it likes.
Chris
I guess legality and justification are geographically controlled issues. However, it WAS expedient in that the initial goal was achieved quite quickly.
[quote]
OK - the goal, you said, was to deal with Iraq before it became an imminent threat. You say that this has been achieved ? Interesting. Since it is now known that Iraq never was a threat and that the future of Iraq and the region is now deeply uncertain I find the assertion that the objectives were met to be puzzling. The UK perspective was that it was about WMD, clear and present threat from Iraq and stability. Given the results on WMD, the fact that the Iraqis had no significant ordnance capable of reaching, let alone threatening the west and the huge instability now engendered, I would question whether any objectives have been met, let alone all of them.
An analyst at the MOD put it like this :
#If the objective was removal of WMD, there were none so that could not be accomplished.
#If the objective was to sever the links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the opposite has happened as a result of the war, with Al Qaeda now firmly implanted in Iraqi soil.
#If the objective was to remove a rogue state that endangered the region, the opposite has been accomplished in that the ever increasing instability in Iraq spreads further instability throughout the region.
#If the objective was to bring democracy to Iraq, the country’s burgeoning civil war and ineffective central government belie that goal, despite the several rounds of elections. (And elections themselves cannot be an objective, since they are only a means to an end, in this case representative government. But elections do not always produce such a government and therefore cannot be an end in themselves.)
#If the objective was to show the world the power of the U.S. military and reinforce its might as a tool for effecting change, the opposite has been accomplished by showing that the U.S., despite its might, cannot produce a stable situation in Iraq, and furthermore, is now bogged down and cannot even project military power as before.
#If the objective was to weaken potential rivals such as Iran, we have instead strengthened them.
#If the objective was to win the hearts and minds of the Muslim world, we have accomplished the opposite, and are now more reviled throughout the world, both Muslim and non-Muslim, than we have ever been before.
#If the objective was to reduce the level of violent terrorism in the world, we have instead increased it, and we have increased the numbers of recruits to terrorist ideologies throughout the world, including among native born Europeans.
http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/cost_of_war_in_iraq.pdf
| Quote: |
|
Humane? Absolutely, unless you consider what the radical islamics are doing, then yes, that's inhumane. The US forces, however, have gone out of their way, to the point of being shot, to protect innocent lives. |
That just doesn't fit in with reality I'm afraid. The stats don't bear it out - fatalities number anywhere from 50,000 - 650,000 (I include a link to the Iraq Body Count which is undoubtedly guilty of huge under-reporting but even that source tells a tale). The choice of weaponry and tactics don't bear it out - the use of high level and long range bombing, the use of mines (both anti-personnel and antivehicular), use of depleted uranium ordnance and cluster bombs, rumoured use of Napalm and similar weapons, documented and witnessed accounts of US military actions - these all tell a different tale. As do some returning military personnel.
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/iraqfalluja/
http://www.eoslifework.co.uk/u23.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Body_Count
http://www.islamonline.net/english/In_Depth/Iraq_Aftermath/2003/08/article_03.shtml
http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/opin/pr_sjm.html
| Quote: |
|
Sane? Hmm, that's tough. You'd have to be insane to think the US could win? Yes, perhaps. But that's not going to stop us from trying to win this fight for our freedom. |
I'd be interested to see the chain of reasoning that leads to a conclusion that the Iraq war is a fight for freedom by the US. To me that sounds not only wrong but peverse. This has nothing to do with US freedom apart from the freedom to attack whosoever and for whatever reason it likes.
Chris
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| ^So, to prove the war was wrong with an objective source, you get a peace organization which is no doubt against all wars?
They might not have a liberal bias, but they certainly have an anti-war bias and will denounce nearly any war. |
No...I used the report to look at the specific issue raised - what was known and when. I did not use it to make an overal case or to draw an overal conclusion.....your criticism is unwarranted.
The Foundation certainly have an anti-war bias. Doesn't any sane person ? Show me someone with a pro-war bias and I'll show you a very disturbed person.
Chris
^ I could ask for a source with no bias in regards to wars...
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| ^ I could ask for a source with no bias in regards to wars... |
You could indeed...that's the beauty of a free society. You might first want to point out which bits of the quoted source you think are bias or inaccurate.
You could even go mad and do something totally uncharacteristic - like maybe provide the odd source or reference of your own....the world is your oyster...
Chris
^I never give sources!
Also, I don't like oysters.
Also, I don't like oysters.
Ahh...so you post no references but expect others to not only post them but ensure their impartiality....hmmmm.....shurely shome mishtake,,,,
Well, you're free to post sources or not do so, but if you're going to post one and call it impartial, I reserve the right to criticize it on the basis of bias.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Well, you're free to post sources or not do so, but if you're going to post one and call it impartial, I reserve the right to criticize it on the basis of bias. |
You do like to misrepresent me don't you.
I gave a thorough background for the link - which is why you know as much as you do about it - including the fact that it was a peace foundation and also including a link to the site's own description, policies, sponsors and POV.
I said not that it was impartial but that I hoped it was impartial ENOUGH for people.
I take a lot of time and effort to try and ensure that I post accurate and properly referenced material and it really yanks my chain when people make inaccurate and ill-considered comments without either reading what I posted properly or checking the site references correctly.
You are welcome to criticise me anytime, of course. I would prefer it, though, if you would try to do so on the basis of what I actually post and not on your instant opinion of what it might say......
Still...free country, do what you like....
Chris
Chris
People are calling it the investigation of Rumsfield for prison abuse. But when i heard it it was called war crimes. All of us know that prison abuse was going on in the first place so i am sure they are goign to find that. But i don't know id Rumsfield had anything to do with it. But here are some links to imformation sources.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1557842,00.html
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/09/1444246
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/111006O.shtml
But in the bottom two they are calling it War crimes so i wonder if there are other issues.
Well thanks for your participation
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1557842,00.html
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/09/1444246
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/111006O.shtml
But in the bottom two they are calling it War crimes so i wonder if there are other issues.
Well thanks for your participation
Related topics
 |