General Interest > Tacitus' Realm

Mission Accomplished

(1/4) > >>

ajax13:
"The Bush Administration Was an Ongoing Criminal Conspiracy Under International Law and U.S. Domestic Law

Depending upon the substantive issues involved, those international crimes typically included but were not limited to the Nuremberg offenses of crimes against peace: For example, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, and Pakistan, as well as their longstanding threatened war of aggression against Iran. Their criminal responsibility also concerned Nuremberg crimes against humanity and war crimes as well as grave breaches of the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and of the 1907 Hague Regulations on land warfare: For example, torture at Guantanamo, Bhagram, Abu Ghraib, and elsewhere; enforced disappearances, assassinations, murders, kidnappings, extraordinary renditions, “shock and awe,” depleted uranium, white phosphorous, cluster bombs, Fallujah, and the Guantanamo kangaroo courts. Notice that all of their victims were Muslims, Arabs, and Asians of Color.

Furthermore, various members of the Bush administration committed numerous inchoate crimes incidental to these substantive offences that under the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles as well as paragraph 500 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 were international crimes in their own right: planning and preparation, solicitation, incitement, conspiracy, complicity, attempt, aiding and abetting.

Finally, according to basic principles of international criminal law set forth in paragraph 501 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10, all high level civilian officials and military officers in the Bush administration who either knew or should have known that soldiers or civilians under their control -- such as the C.I.A. or private mercenary contractors -- committed or were about to commit international crimes and failed to take the measures necessary to stop them, or to punish them, or both, are likewise personally responsible for the commission of international crimes."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... &aid=27997

cmack:
Ah...okay, I'll admit to voting for Bush as the lesser of two evils. I'm glad he's out of office, but his replacement isn't any better. Rather than trying to re-fight past elections, who do you think would make the best President in 2012?

ajax13:
What do you suppose made Bush the lesser of two evils?  Your question about who would make the best President in 2012 is a loaded question.  In my opinion, a contest of far greater import is the potential battle between Bigfoot and the Abominable Snowman.

cmack:

--- Quote from: "ajax13" ---What do you suppose made Bush the lesser of two evils?  Your question about who would make the best President in 2012 is a loaded question.  In my opinion, a contest of far greater import is the potential battle between Bigfoot and the Abominable Snowman.
--- End quote ---

My personal political philosophy espouses limited government, free markets, individual rights, and individual responsibilities. I don't believe it is the governments place to protect people from themselves. Nor do I believe it is the place of government to rescue people from the consequences of their own bad decision making.

Given the above, I am predisposed to vote for Republicans over Democrats, though my personal belief system is more in line with the Libertarian party. At least the Republicans talk about smaller government. However, I will admit that once in office they don't really do anything about it, and some Republicans do have an authoritarian streak which undermines individual rights and freedoms.

I was never a big Bush fan, but in comparing him to Kerry or Gore I was at least hoping that some of the Bush advisors might be more sensible than their Democrat counterparts. In truth, I haven't cared much for any of the Presidential contenders since Reagan, and in considering twentieth century Presidents, I think my ideal model of what a President should be is Calvin Coolidge.

In regards to Bigfoot and the Abominable Snowman, what are their positions on the issues?

ajax13:
No question.  Reagan shrank government down to nothing, to the point where there was no more taxation, no defecits, no debt.  Clearly, if left to their own devices, elites will make only decisions that benefit themselves but in the end benefit all others who are serving their own self-interests.  I never understood why, in the era of industrial America, unions were necessary, nor regulations.  Unregulated and unopposed  by organized labor, capitalists created safe factories and mines, paid wages that permitted workers to then make enough money to become capitalists themselves, and war was unknown because the system, say about 1914 or so, worked great.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page