No Jail 4 Bush
Today I talked to an idiot who wants to give Bush the death penalty. Below is his reasons for why, and my replies.
"1. George W. Bush ordered a War of Aggression against Iraq. This constitutes a Crime Against Peace - for which Nazi leaders were prosecuted at the Nuremberg Trials - and violates the UN Charter."
this war was to get rid of Saddam and help the poor Iraqi people that got gassed by him.
I call that a war for peace. And the UN is not going to help anything, we captured Saddam,
and gave the Iraqis a democracy, That's more progress than the UN could make
in a century.
"Iraq never attacked the US or threatened an attack, so the US was not acting
legally in self-defense, which is permitted under the UN Charter."
We weren't attacking innocent Iraqi people. We attacked terrorists, Saddam,
Saddam lovers, terrorists from other countries, but not innocent Iraqis. What you're
saying is if a bully (Saddam) was beating up a kid (Kurds and Shiites) and
someone stepped in (America) and stopped them, they're wrong. No they are right,
you are wrong.
"Iraq played no role in the September 11, 2001 attack on the US and never
provided material support to any terrorist group that attacked the US, so
even the non-legal Bush doctrine of pre-emptive attack did not apply."
Oh really?
www.talktorusty.com
On the side bar you will see a link that says: Links between Saddam and Al-Qaeda.
"At the time of the US attack, Iraq was nearing full compliance with UN
Resolution 1441 and prior resolutions requiring disarmament, and the majority
of the Security Council believed UN inspectors should be given more time,
so the US was not enforcing UN resolutions, as it claims."
Obviously Saddam is going to hide his weapons when the UN comes over.
Agree or Disagree? So if we sat there and did nothing, the UN finished, and left,
we would have probably been attacked in the next week. Agree or Disagree?
"George W. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq in order to bring about a regime change,
which was never authorized by a UN resolution, and violates the UN Charter."
If taking down an evil dictator is wrong to the UN, then I don't care what they say anymore.
It was the right thing to do, if the UN doesn't like it, too bad. Maybe we should pull out of the UN.
"A Crime Against Peace is defined as "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a
war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements
or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the
accomplishment of any of the foregoing". By invading Iraq, Bush has
committed a Crime Against Peace."
That's all bullcrap. Maybe you would have been right if in fact this was a war against
peace. But it isn't.
"2. George W. Bush ordered the bombing of civilian areas like Baghdad
(with 5 million innocent civilians) and Basra. This resulted in the deaths of hundreds
of non-combatants, in violation of Geneva Convention (IV) Relative to the
Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949."
I saw the bombings on TV. They hit the buildings and that was it. If any
innocents died it was because they were too stupid to go to a different area after
getting informed by the president that this was going to happen. And it's pretty
hard to count the amount of bodies that got vaporized. People always exaggerate
the amount of deaths. Just with hurricane Katrina they said 100,000 people
would die when it's closer to 700. All this leads me to believe that there is no
way to prove your numbers, therefore they are wrong.
"Article 3(1): The following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time
and in any place whatsoever with respect to [non-combatants]: (a) violence
to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel
treatment and torture."
1) we did not kill civilians. Can you fit that into your thick skull?
2) why do you want us to be so nice to the enemies?
3) If you're talking about cruelty in Gitmo bay, it's completely wrong. Talk radio
host Rusty Humpries actually went to Gitmo bay and discovered that they each
get a copy of the Koran, they have a soccer field, ice cream on weekends,
capn' crunch in the morning, movies and popcorn, places to pray, and most of all,
no violent interrogations.
So that was the discussion, I thought it was important enough to deserve an
entire post to help clear up this stupid idea that Bush is killing civilians in
an anti-peace war.
"1. George W. Bush ordered a War of Aggression against Iraq. This constitutes a Crime Against Peace - for which Nazi leaders were prosecuted at the Nuremberg Trials - and violates the UN Charter."
this war was to get rid of Saddam and help the poor Iraqi people that got gassed by him.
I call that a war for peace. And the UN is not going to help anything, we captured Saddam,
and gave the Iraqis a democracy, That's more progress than the UN could make
in a century.
"Iraq never attacked the US or threatened an attack, so the US was not acting
legally in self-defense, which is permitted under the UN Charter."
We weren't attacking innocent Iraqi people. We attacked terrorists, Saddam,
Saddam lovers, terrorists from other countries, but not innocent Iraqis. What you're
saying is if a bully (Saddam) was beating up a kid (Kurds and Shiites) and
someone stepped in (America) and stopped them, they're wrong. No they are right,
you are wrong.
"Iraq played no role in the September 11, 2001 attack on the US and never
provided material support to any terrorist group that attacked the US, so
even the non-legal Bush doctrine of pre-emptive attack did not apply."
Oh really?
www.talktorusty.com
On the side bar you will see a link that says: Links between Saddam and Al-Qaeda.
"At the time of the US attack, Iraq was nearing full compliance with UN
Resolution 1441 and prior resolutions requiring disarmament, and the majority
of the Security Council believed UN inspectors should be given more time,
so the US was not enforcing UN resolutions, as it claims."
Obviously Saddam is going to hide his weapons when the UN comes over.
Agree or Disagree? So if we sat there and did nothing, the UN finished, and left,
we would have probably been attacked in the next week. Agree or Disagree?
"George W. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq in order to bring about a regime change,
which was never authorized by a UN resolution, and violates the UN Charter."
If taking down an evil dictator is wrong to the UN, then I don't care what they say anymore.
It was the right thing to do, if the UN doesn't like it, too bad. Maybe we should pull out of the UN.
"A Crime Against Peace is defined as "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a
war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements
or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the
accomplishment of any of the foregoing". By invading Iraq, Bush has
committed a Crime Against Peace."
That's all bullcrap. Maybe you would have been right if in fact this was a war against
peace. But it isn't.
"2. George W. Bush ordered the bombing of civilian areas like Baghdad
(with 5 million innocent civilians) and Basra. This resulted in the deaths of hundreds
of non-combatants, in violation of Geneva Convention (IV) Relative to the
Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949."
I saw the bombings on TV. They hit the buildings and that was it. If any
innocents died it was because they were too stupid to go to a different area after
getting informed by the president that this was going to happen. And it's pretty
hard to count the amount of bodies that got vaporized. People always exaggerate
the amount of deaths. Just with hurricane Katrina they said 100,000 people
would die when it's closer to 700. All this leads me to believe that there is no
way to prove your numbers, therefore they are wrong.
"Article 3(1): The following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time
and in any place whatsoever with respect to [non-combatants]: (a) violence
to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel
treatment and torture."
1) we did not kill civilians. Can you fit that into your thick skull?
2) why do you want us to be so nice to the enemies?
3) If you're talking about cruelty in Gitmo bay, it's completely wrong. Talk radio
host Rusty Humpries actually went to Gitmo bay and discovered that they each
get a copy of the Koran, they have a soccer field, ice cream on weekends,
capn' crunch in the morning, movies and popcorn, places to pray, and most of all,
no violent interrogations.
So that was the discussion, I thought it was important enough to deserve an
entire post to help clear up this stupid idea that Bush is killing civilians in
an anti-peace war.
posted by Cody O'Connor @ 3:59 PM
19 Comments:
At 21/9/05 5:23 PM,
Anonymous said…
This post looks like its been written by a fifteen year old kid. Oh yeah wait a minute....
At 21/9/05 5:42 PM,
Gayle said…
Cody, you should be flattered! When all anyone can do is throw insults at you it proves that you hit a nerve! Congratulations, kiddo. Keep up the good work. :)
Excellent post!
At 21/9/05 5:50 PM,
Cody O'Connor said…
Thanks!
Oops, I got some of mine and his parts mixed up! Fixed now.
At 21/9/05 5:59 PM,
Anonymous said…
Also, who cares about the UN? We should withdraw from that commie organazation and do things America's way, which is the best despite liberal anti-nationalist views.
At 21/9/05 6:35 PM,
Cody O'Connor said…
That might actually work. The UN are just holding us back from saving the world. And I hate the communist-ness of them. Saying things like "every country has the same amount of say in things". I think America needs more of a say in things then some country the size of Rhode Island that owns a whole of 4 dollars.
If we didn't have to listen to them we could save the world.
At 22/9/05 3:30 AM,
joe said…
I agree. The UN is full of socialist commmies! They are not effective. The US (or any other country) does not need permission from them to defend themselves. Well said darksaturos!
At 22/9/05 10:03 AM,
Gayle said…
Congratulataions Cody! You have drawn more conservatives to your blog. I mean, it does get tiresome arguing all the time, doesn't it!
At 22/9/05 1:01 PM,
Bushcheney08 said…
Coming out and saying "George Bush Deserves to die!!" Is about as radical as it gets. truly.
At 22/9/05 3:13 PM,
Cody O'Connor said…
"Congratulataions Cody! You have drawn more conservatives to your blog. I mean, it does get tiresome arguing all the time, doesn't it!"
It's a lot easier to talk to people that actually want to listen.
At 22/9/05 7:08 PM,
Allisoni Balloni said…
Now, I don't want to start a massive debate about Gitmo. But it IS part of the national high school debate topic this year, so I've been researching. I'd just like to throw out a little hypothetical scenario. Say a bunch of crazy Americans go over to China and start blowing things up. China gets all patriotic and security-obsessed, and starts a facility EXACTLY like Gitmo. The use the same justification, its located in the same type of area, and its detainees have no rights to seek legal help or contact family members. Any suspicious Americans get detained. Certainly they maybe get a few treats every once in a while, and each have their own bible. How is the U.S. government going to react to that? I really don't think that it's responable to say that they wouldnt GO BALLISTIC because of it. Respond, por favor.
At 22/9/05 8:11 PM,
Anonymous said…
Have you actually seen the cells? They're very nice. Far better than an enemy of the state deserves.
At 22/9/05 9:18 PM,
redsoxwinthisyear said…
allisoni, interesting analogy. I like the fact that you're obviously trying to be thoughtful about this. But I think the error in your logic is the assumption that men with links to/are members of Al-qaeda are just as innocent as U.S. citizens are until proven guilty. There are many U.S. citizens with no designs to harm the Chinese government. Therefore, until there is proof to the contrary, it would be wrong for China to detain them, and the U.S. (who has not declared war against China) would have reason to squawk. On the other hand, there are no Al-qaeda members who do not want to harm the U.S. Furthermore, as associates of terror, if not terrorists themselves, they have declared war against the U.S. You can't compare associates of an entity that is at war with the U.S. with citizens from a country (the U.S.) that is not at war with China. Now if the U.S. was to round up all Saudis in the country and throw them in jail just for being Saudi, that would clearly be wrong. But that's not happening.
This is not to say that an argument could be made against Gitmo. But if it's to be a good one, you need another analogy.
Sorry for the length of this!
At 22/9/05 11:43 PM,
Allisoni Balloni said…
Have I actually been to the cells? Well, no. But I'm pretty sure you haven't, either. I find it interesting that you think visitors are going to see what truly happens in a regular day.
What my analogy was really referring to was the assumption that all of these suspects truly have a background with al-queda. Not only that, but the twisting that the US government has done to make this technically "legal" to occur. If we had a terrorist network in the US, which I'm almost certain we already do, that decided to reak havok on another country, and the circumstances mimicked what we have done in Gitmo, our government would be furious. I am not talking about all the technicalities, but more so the basic concept. It can certainly be heavily debated on both sides of the spectrum, and I understand that there seems to be evidence supporting both sides. But looking at US history (does the name Michael Fay ring a bell?) it seems fairly contradictory to carry out these detainments when it would be simply not tolerated against Americans.
At 23/9/05 6:49 AM,
Cody O'Connor said…
If you want to read the rest of this debate you can do so here.
http://bushisnotantichrist.blogspot.com/2005/09/bush-is-better-man.html
At 24/9/05 10:38 AM,
Anonymous said…
Allisoni Balloni said...
Have I actually been to the cells? Well, no. But I'm pretty sure you haven't, either.
Go to my article about Gitmo and click on the link. The article is at http://darksaturos.blogspot.com
The cells are very nice. And another thing, terrorists do not fall under the Geneva Conventions. They have no rights.
At 24/9/05 3:28 PM,
Cody O'Connor said…
In 10 years from now when I'm a sydicated radio talk show host, I'll go to Guantanamo Bay myself and give you the truth.
At 24/9/05 4:50 PM,
Gayle said…
Cody, that's an awesome goal. I hope you make it!
At 24/9/05 7:55 PM,
Cody O'Connor said…
That would be cool, although I don't know if I would be outgoing enough for the job. But it's always been something I've wanted to do.
But I could do books, or columns, or something...
At 25/9/05 4:02 PM,
Gayle said…
Give yourself a break. If you want anything bad enough you can do it! Maybe you feel you are not "outgoing" enough now, but that may change over time. Get in front of an audience every chance you have and overcome your stagefright. (If you have stagefright, that is!) Good luck!
Post a Comment
<< Home