Tutu: Bush, Blair should face trial at the Hague!
- Thread starter signalmankenneth
- Start date
Disillusioned
New member
But not Obama and his organization? They've kept it all going. Done the same things, drones, invasions, occupations. And yet, no trial for them?
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Exactly.
Bush didn't do anything in Iraq that Obama didn't do in Libya .. and Tutu should be well aware of that.
I hate the way the USA is using drones. Why do we have the right to do this? Why isn't the UN screaming about drones? I do believe the Bush administration is guilty of what crimes, but I believe many of our past Presidents are guilty as well. Might does not make right.
Here's my take on drones.
They save the lives of thousands of our troops by identifying known terrorists and taking them out. Is it our fault those same terrorists use their fellow man, woman, and child as human shields? No.
Disillusioned
New member
And here's the reality. We're bombing countries who we are theoretically at peace with, we're splattering civilians and if we don't get any actual terrorists we just call any male arabs over 12 "terrorists"
I think it's interesting how the terrorists can be "using human shields" but just standing within a street of them. Seems to be if you're standing within a mile of a terrorist, or somebody who looks like a terrorist, there's a chance that the US gov might blow you up.
How is this moral again?
bushco started the iraq war based on lies and obama brought it to a halt
bushco persuaded nato to assist in the afghanistan war based on getting obl who the afghans refused to turn over to the nato forces
obama has set a time for the us to get out of afghanistan
the us never should have invaded iraq
and the us needs to get out of afghanistan as soon as physically possible
bushco persuaded nato to assist in the afghanistan war based on getting obl who the afghans refused to turn over to the nato forces
obama has set a time for the us to get out of afghanistan
the us never should have invaded iraq
and the us needs to get out of afghanistan as soon as physically possible
Disillusioned
New member
Agreed on the non intervention policy.
Don't see how Obama "setting a time" to leave is much on an improvement. He's leaving bases and troops behind even then. If he had been doing his job we'd have been gone from afghanistan three years ago.
politically, we needed to get obl
however, i am fed up with this nation building bs
the afghan leaders (men) do not want modern (western) ideas or ways, just our money
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
We're killing more innocent people, children and babies, then we are so-called terrorists.
When Bush did that democrats were losing their minds in outrage.
Disillusioned
New member
Essentially we found a bunch of people who were anti-taliban and put them in charge. What we didn't realize was that they were a bunch of warlords and corrupt business people. They're as bad, if not worse, for Afghanistan than the taliban were. Feels like the cold war all over again, find anybody who's anti communist and fund them.
Actually isn't that where most of these dictators came from? Interesting that.
signalmankenneth
Verified User
The Iraq War was started by the Bush administration under false pretenses, WMD's, I recall. There was no need for it! We lost over 4,400 troops and over 32,000 wounded, many of them maimed for life! Not to mention hundreds of thousands dead and wounded Iraqi's! There will be blood letting for decades to come in Iraq, due to the Bush War! No coalition troops died in Libya, Obama and NATO, should have stayed out of that conflict! The Bush war in Iraq, made Iran a power to be reckon with too! I was that oil thing, that got us and NATO involved in Libya?!!
Last edited:
i would like a cite/link that details that we are killing more civilians than terrorists with the drone attacks please
the so called arab spring has been a god send for the islamists and a disaster for democracy as was the iraq war and will be when the afghan war is over
all those soldiers and civilians killed, maimed and wounded for what...not to mention what those wars have done and will do to our national debt and military
we may have improved our military and surveillance capability, but then there is the usa patriot act and the degradation of world opinion of the u s of a, yet too many nations and our civilians think that we should be the world's police force
bushco were rectal orifices for starting the iraq and afghan wars and obama is politically trapped regarding the afghan war even though a majority of us citizens think that we should get out immediately
bah, lets stop 'nation building' in other nations and start doing so at home
oh expletive
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
You keep saying that Bush started a war in Iraq and I would like to have you make clear which Bush you keep referring to and when exactly you feel this "war" was started?
Unless you have nothing, except for your whiny assumptions.
Your choice which one it is.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
You seem to be forgetting that Libya had been sanctioned by the UN whereas Iraq was illegal under international law.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Lowaicue
英語在香港
Once again you have come late to the party. While the US and the UK have been under the misapprehension that the might of muscle will tell the fuzzy wuzzy who is boss, the Chinese have been building up nice little business alliances so they now have access to ports on every continent and in almost every country with a seaboard. Where there is no port possibility they have built and financed roads, railways and bridges. They have 'given' technology and built up special relationships. They have sent no troops and invited no press, they have banged no drums nor trumeted any trumpet , but they have won. They have won with a non-invasive policy (which politicians will always refer to as non interventionist).
You are right, the west needs a non interventionist policy...but it also needs a bloody great time machine to take them back twenty years to when the Chinese were sending bunches of little men to smile and be generally inscrutable at the black people, the brown people and other 'inferior' races.
At this rate I can see the time when America will have no one to invade. Then the economy will tank (that's a good choice of words, don't you agree?) because you need continued war to survive.
Lowaicue
英語在香港
Once again you have come late to the party. While the US and the UK have been under the misapprehension that the might of muscle will tell the fuzzy wuzzy who is boss, the Chinese have been building up nice little business alliances so they now have access to ports on every continent and in almost every country with a seaboard. Where there is no port possibility they have built and financed roads, railways and bridges. They have 'given' technology and built up special relationships. They have sent no troops and invited no press, they have banged no drums nor trumeted any trumpet , but they have won. They have won with a non-invasive policy (which politicians will always refer to as non interventionist).
You are right, the west needs a non interventionist policy...but it also needs a bloody great time machine to take them back twenty years to when the Chinese were sending bunches of little men to smile and be generally inscrutable at the black people, the brown people and other 'inferior' races.
At this rate I can see the time when America will have no one to invade. Then the economy will tank (that's a good choice of words, don't you agree?) because you need continued war to survive.
Lowaicue
英語在香港
Once again you have come late to the party. While the US and the UK have been under the misapprehension that the might of muscle will tell the fuzzy wuzzy who is boss, the Chinese have been building up nice little business alliances so they now have access to ports on every continent and in almost every country with a seaboard. Where there is no port possibility they have built and financed roads, railways and bridges. They have 'given' technology and built up special relationships. They have sent no troops and invited no press, they have banged no drums nor trumeted any trumpet , but they have won. They have won with a non-invasive policy (which politicians will always refer to as non interventionist).
You are right, the west needs a non interventionist policy...but it also needs a bloody great time machine to take them back twenty years to when the Chinese were sending bunches of little men to smile and be generally inscrutable at the black people, the brown people and other 'inferior' races.
At this rate I can see the time when America will have no one to invade. Then the economy will tank (that's a good choice of words, don't you agree?) because you need continued war to survive.