Tweet
As if the Islamic Revolution in Iran backed by Carter didn't kill 148 innocents 
-
I will never understand why some people on Apolyton find you so clever. You're predictable, mundane, and a google-whore and the most observant of us all know this. Your battles of "wits" rely on obscurity and whenever you fail to find something sufficiently obscure, like this, you just act like a 5 year old. Congratulations, molly.
Asher on molly bloom -
Don't you guys know that war crimes charges are for the losing side?
USA! USA!
If you look around and think everyone else is an *******, you're the *******.Comment
-
Carter didn't back the Islamic revolution, he simply refused to give the Shah a carte blanche to abuse his own people. When the insurrection started Kohmeini wasn't even in Iran and wasn't initially involved."I say shoot'em all and let God sort it out in the end!Comment
-
Carte blanche? That's soooo 1914. What was PEanut Jimmy doing then?Comment
-
Has the International Court even begun the preliminary process towards bringing charges against Bush?Originally posted by Uncle Sparky
Gerry Ford ?
I suspect that Dubbya may find it a tad more difficult to travel abroad at the end of his term compared to most the others."I say shoot'em all and let God sort it out in the end!Comment
-
Just wait until they're out of office.Comment
-
**** you, I was going to post the exact same thing!Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
All this has already been said by Noam Chomsky (not a person I admire or agree with, but anyway). Every American president since Roosevelt, democrat or republican, would have been hanged, if put against a war crime court with the same standards as the Nuremberg trials.
Comment
-
Most warcrimes trials are basically winner's justice. That's not to say the people being tried don't deserve punishment, it just means that only the people on the losing side end up getting tried. The Bosnian War is a good example, there was plenty of butchery on all three sides, but it is mostly Serbia getting blamed. What happened to the Croatian butcher Tudjman (sp?) anyway?Comment
-
Because he was more busy dealing with Killer Rabbits than with threats to Americans.Originally posted by Geronimo
Carter
I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator RubioComment
-
Nah, come on mate. Thats a good, solid 8/10 troll!!Originally posted by C0ckney
0.1/10.Comment
-
Er, the Rome Statute only provides for investigations and trials regarding crimes commited A) by states party or B) within the territory of states party. Neither the U.S. nor Iraq qualify, so the ICC is certainly out of the question.Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Has the International Court even begun the preliminary process towards bringing charges against Bush?
The universal jurisdiction provided for by Article 146 of Geneva V and Articles 5-7 of the Torture Convention could arguably be applied in this case, but it sure doesn't seem likely. IIRC Belgium repealed its landmark universal jurisdiction law when the U.S. threatened to move the NATO headquarters out of Brussels, and I doubt the Spanish would have the cojones to try a U.S. president in absentia. What other countries have harmonized their domestic laws with universal jurisdiction?Comment
-
The US was a party to an agreement to cease hostilities with Iraq. Saddam broke said agreement, many times.Originally posted by General Ludd
I said, regardless of what supposedly lead to it (according to legal semantics) Particularily when you consider that Iraq was not even capable of attacking the united states itself. Are you equating Iraq kicking out weapons inspectors to germany's attempted conquest of europe?
Would you be all for prosecuting the leaders of France had they had the stones to stand up to Hilter upon the remiliterisation of the Rhineland, or any of the many other violations of Versailles?
Of course, at the time Hitler couldn't have been a real threat to peace, could he?Last edited by notyoueither; January 1, 2007, 23:05.(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.Comment
-
He ordered reprisal killings in a village for the actions of people from/in that village.Originally posted by Victor Galis
Well, the thing to keep in mind is that Saddam's trial set the bar really low. He was hanged for killing 148 people. Yes, he obviously did far more, but the court found that to be enough. I think there's a lot more world leaders, not widely to be mass murders that have ordered attacks that have caused similar numbers of casualties.
If you mean to say that a lot of world leaders would have looked good with totenkopf on their hats, then you'd have a point. Otherwise...Last edited by notyoueither; January 1, 2007, 23:09.(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.Comment
-
Actually, the U.N. was the party, not the U.S.Originally posted by notyoueither
The US was a party to an agreement to cease hostilities with Iraq. Saddam broke said agreement, many times.
And itt was U.N. resolutions which were violated by Saddam, not U.S. resolutions.
Of course, the U.S. has the right to defend itself under the U.N. charter, but Iraq wasn't threatening the U.S.Comment
-
Why the hell not? We prosecuted Germans and Japanese for doing those very same things. Either we were wrong to prosecute those Germans and Japanese after WWII, or we're wrong to not do them to Bush administration officials now. You can't have it both ways."It's great to be known, but it's even better to be known as strange." --Takeshi KagaComment
Comment