who is the biggest war criminal?



Colorado Ryder said:
Tell us which is more democratic? When Iranians are allowed to vote who the Supreme Ayatollah is then they will be considered "democratic".
Just on a side note, CR : Whilst you would be happy to accept Iranian choice as democratic were they able to vote for the Supreme Leader Ayatollah, are you sure that your Government would be as egalitarian? What if the people of Iran were to choose the same Supreme Leader Ayatollah as they have now? Would your Government find that acceptable? Even with a limited choice, the people of Iran have chosen a conservative President over a reformist one.
From where I sit, I believe the US Government (as opposed to yourself), is more concerned with economic and tactical alliances than it is with democracy. The word 'democracy' is a furphy when used by the US Government to explain foreign policy. The US Government (I don't break this down into Democrat vs. Republican levels) was quite happy to do business with a non-elected Shah who managed to squander the wealth of Iran, just as it was happy to do business with the wonderful Mr Pinochet of Chile. They have been very selective as to when democracy is and is not a factor.
I am pleased to see that democracy is important to you, CR. I am a little more sceptical of how important it is to the various Governments that your Nation has produced over the course of time.
 
Good points Eoin.

I am always slightly alarmed when I hear USA gov making pronouncements about democracy because their own country isn't truly democratic.
But leaving that point aside : the USA has supported some truly despicable "democrats" like Marcos, Saddam, Pinochet, The Shah.
Ronald Reagan called the Afghan Mujahdeen "freedom fighters" in the 1980's.

I find it a bit rich that Americans try to score points about unelected Ayotollahs when there own goverment contains people who were never elected by "we the people".
 
Colorado Ryder said:
Looks like Wurm has returned from the conspiracy sites. Read any good conspiracy books lately?
We know that you certainly haven't, don't we?

Oh, you mean the "conspiracies" such as:

~ WMD's in Iraq?
~ Going to war as a last resort?
~ Lying to Congress and the UN?
~ Living up to the Supreme Law of the land as mandated by the U.S. Constitution, as in international treaties ie: Geneva Conventions, etc?


Now, would you like to take any bets on how long it's going to take for the Neo Con's to be exposed on their 9/11 complicity??

You're an idiot CR, plain and simple.
 
limerickman said:
It's ironic however that we have an American (CR) here criticising another country (Iran) for having unelected people ruling that country, when the USA itself has unelected people running it's country !
It is also true that the candidate can win the popular (people's) vote & lose the election due to his/her opponent gathering more electoral votes than the other candidate. This has happened at least 2X., I believe.
 
Wurm said:
the most important issue, that being the fact that by any reasonable measure, the Bushite's are war criminals and need to be prosecuted as such immediately.
Would not PM Tony Blair be (Br) almost equally complicit, given thier intelligence service's insight's inre: Bush's pre-congressional, authorization intent's :confused:
 
limerickman said:
The appointtees in the US cabinet have access to taxpayers money and can spend that money as they choose.
Rumsfeld's portolio includes the Pentagon - how's the Pentagon funded ?
Taxpayers money.
Or are you telling us that the pentagon is not funded by taxpayers ?

Instead of pointing the finger at Khamenei - look at Perle, Wolfowitz and Freeh and look at how they've got access to taxpayers money.
That's the trouble with unelected people : they're accountable to no one.
Thier budget's must be approved by the appropriate committee. They don't have open rein to a cornucopia of cash. The congressional members will be held accountable for appropriations that they sign off on, such as the $280 billion (U.S.) for iraq.
 
limerickman said:
Your country's political system isn't democratic -
Correct, it is a "Representative Republic" based on democratic principles. One major point is we have laws against "titles" other than "Mr." or "Mrs" (other than educational titles). We have no "lord's" or Dukes" ect...
 
interesting responses.

the 400,000 Iraqis in mass graves probably have a different take than most of the "enlightened" members of the list.

if the dead had been Jews, I think the Al Franken types out there would be calling for nuke strikes.

maybe a few calls to family members whose loved ones died in the WTC might help us understand?

don't love George - just can't understand the seething hatred.
 
rkcohen said:
interesting responses.

the 400,000 Iraqis in mass graves probably have a different take than most of the "enlightened" members of the list.

if the dead had been Jews, I think the Al Franken types out there would be calling for nuke strikes.

maybe a few calls to family members whose loved ones died in the WTC might help us understand?

don't love George - just can't understand the seething hatred.
I'm not quite sure who you are referring to there (not being enlightened means that I probably don't qualify). I don't think there are many people here who have any love of Saddam Hussein. I personally haven't seen the deal on the 400,000 Iraqi's in mass graves, nor the connection with the WTC, and so I'm not in a position to be able to comment on these claims.
I do, however have a number of very good friends who are Iraqi refugees (Assyrians as it happens) from Saddam Hussein. Whilst they could be counted amongst the front row of those who had a bone to pick with Saddam, they are extremely unhappy with the way that their Country is being 'liberated'. Agreeing with the ends (end of Saddam's reign) does not necessarily mean agreeing with the means (war and occupation based on premises which seem to be constantly changing).
I, personally, do not distinguish between dead people.
 
davidmc said:
It is also true that the candidate can win the popular (people's) vote & lose the election due to his/her opponent gathering more electoral votes than the other candidate. This has happened at least 2X., I believe.

Dave : I hadn't even considered that point of view.
I was trying to keep the discussion limited to countering CR's allegations about other countries form of goverment.
He slags off the Iranians and their "unelected" Ayotollahs and yet he can bring himself to deal with his countries cabinet members who are unelected by "we the people".

In most European countries, all cabinet ministers must first be elected as members of parliament by "we the people".
 
rkcohen said:
interesting responses.

the 400,000 Iraqis in mass graves probably have a different take than most of the "enlightened" members of the list.

if the dead had been Jews, I think the Al Franken types out there would be calling for nuke strikes.

maybe a few calls to family members whose loved ones died in the WTC might help us understand?

don't love George - just can't understand the seething hatred.

I think you're trying to muddy the waters here.
And your attempt to link 9/11 to Iraq is duly noted too.
Nice try, Mr Cohen.

The fact of the matter is that the USA purports to be democratic.
Purports being the operative word.

No one here suggested that SH is a good guy.

The USA if it is a democracy - as you clearly feel it is - should not be engaged in regime change or keeping people locked up without charge.
After all isn't that what Saddam used to do ?
 
davidmc said:
Would not PM Tony Blair be (Br) almost equally complicit, given thier intelligence service's insight's inre: Bush's pre-congressional, authorization intent's :confused:
IMO, Blair should be held accountable as well. But that would be England and Parliament's business, since I live in the US.

Where are those UK Social Dem's when you need them?
 
Wurm said:
IMO, Blair should be held accountable as well. But that would be England and Parliament's business, since I live in the US.

Where are those UK Social Dem's when you need them?

No poster from the UK or Britain is disingenuous enough to try to justify the invasion of Iraq, here.

Some American posters are - and have been trying to justify the illegal invasion of Iraq, here.
 
Wurm said:
We know that you certainly haven't, don't we?

Oh, you mean the "conspiracies" such as:

~ WMD's in Iraq?
~ Going to war as a last resort?
~ Lying to Congress and the UN?
~ Living up to the Supreme Law of the land as mandated by the U.S. Constitution, as in international treaties ie: Geneva Conventions, etc?


Now, would you like to take any bets on how long it's going to take for the Neo Con's to be exposed on their 9/11 complicity??

You're an idiot CR, plain and simple.
Got any info on the shadowy figure on the grassy knoll? Any new info on the Afghan pipeline? Been watching the skies for those dreaded chemtrails? Been hunting the Boeing lately? Read any good books lately?

You're a nutcase Wurmy, plain and simple.
 
limerickman said:
Only people ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE can hold political office in the country.

Unlike your country - where cronies are appointed and NOT ELECTED BY WE THE PEOPLE.



positions of meaning ? a.k.a. cronies.



The unelected crony is appointed by the President to manage and control goverment departments.
Goverment departments funded solely by the taxpayer.

And you claim that these cronies don't have access to taxpayers money ?

Or are these goverment departments funded privately ?
Or are the cronies not in control of those departments ?
Or..........????????????????????????





Rumsfeld got ZERO VOTES FROM "WE THE PEOPLE".



He got the same number of votes as Bush?????????????????????? ?

I thought that Cheney was on the ballot ?
Where was Rumsfeld's name on the ballot ?
Which state did he run in ?????


I think Rumsfeld is an unaccountable, as an Iranian Ayotollah !
Apparently you are unable to educate yourself on the US system. Or is it just your hidden anti-Americanism rising to the surface. You can just keep telling yourself how much more democratic Ireland is. When you voted in Ireland's last election did you vote for the guy from N Dublin to be PM? I'm still puzzled how a man from N Dublin is elected to PM without a direct vote from voters in Ireland. Oh thats right the Dail elects the PM not the PEOPLE.
The PM then chooses cronies from his own party to be ministers. Gotta keep the power in the party, eh?
Remember under your system Clinton would never have been president.
 
limerickman said:
I think you're trying to muddy the waters here.
And your attempt to link 9/11 to Iraq is duly noted too.
Nice try, Mr Cohen.

The fact of the matter is that the USA purports to be democratic.
Purports being the operative word.

No one here suggested that SH is a good guy.

The USA if it is a democracy - as you clearly feel it is - should not be engaged in regime change or keeping people locked up without charge.
After all isn't that what Saddam used to do ?
The rules were changed on 9/11 when para-militant's/non-official combatant's attacked this country. They didn't observe war's protocol's e.g.-wearing a uniform to I.D. themselves. Conventional method's, on our part, are no longer relevant. Terrorist's can dress as doctor's. nurse's, ect... This isn't "fair" in war. In England it would be said that they weren't "sporting". The U.S. military cannot take many chances "culling" the illegal combatant's one by one. Our military doctrine has been, I believe, to utilize overwhelming power backed up w/ the latest technology to dissuade the terrorist's/criminal's from even toying w/ the idea of resistance. One problem, however, is the never ending flow of arm's & fighter's across Iran's & Syria's border's. Iraq has turned into a proxy war & every young upstart who want's to cut his teeth, goes to Iraq to fight the American's in the central part of Iraq. I do, although, have sympathy for the inhabitant's. It would help if they cooperated & fingered the rebel's.
 
Colorado Ryder said:
Remember under your system Clinton would never have been president.

I never contended that Bush wasn't elected - or Clinton for that matter.

I contended that people - unelected by the people - are appointed to cabinet
positions, position of policymaking, positions of power and positions which gives them access to taxpayers money, in your country's "democracy".

Colorado Ryder said:
Apparently you are unable to educate yourself on the US system. Or is it just your hidden anti-Americanism rising to the surface.

I don't believe that the American political system is democratic - if that is Anti-American, then I'm anti-American.

Colorado Ryder said:
. You can just keep telling yourself how much more democratic Ireland is. When you voted in Ireland's last election did you vote for the guy from N Dublin to be PM? I'm still puzzled how a man from N Dublin is elected to PM without a direct vote from voters in Ireland. Oh thats right the Dail elects the PM not the PEOPLE.
The PM then chooses cronies from his own party to be ministers. Gotta keep the power in the party, eh?

I didn't vote in the North Dublin constituency - as I don't have a vote in that constituency.

But let me tell you how it works : members of parliament are elected by the
people eligible to vote
The party gaining the most votes (seats) forms a goverment and the Ministers are appointed by the goverment.

If members aren't elected by the people they cannot become ministers.

Unlike your country.
 
davidmc said:
The rules were changed on 9/11 when para-militant's/non-official combatant's attacked this country. They didn't observe war's protocol's e.g.-wearing a uniform to I.D. themselves. Conventional method's, on our part, are no longer relevant. Terrorist's can dress as doctor's. nurse's, ect... This isn't "fair" in war. In England it would be said that they weren't "sporting". The U.S. military cannot take many chances "culling" the illegal combatant's one by one. Our military doctrine has been, I believe, to utilize overwhelming power backed up w/ the latest technology to dissuade the terrorist's/criminal's from even toying w/ the idea of resistance. One problem, however, is the never ending flow of arm's & fighter's across Iran's & Syria's border's. Iraq has turned into a proxy war & every young upstart who want's to cut his teeth, goes to Iraq to fight the American's in the central part of Iraq. I do, although, have sympathy for the inhabitant's. It would help if they cooperated & fingered the rebel's.

That's a fantastic diatribe there, Dave.
Except it misses a few salient points :
What is your country doing in Iraq ? It has no right to be in Iraq.

And like your friend, you make the analogy that Iraq had something to do with
9/11.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 - your own Senate confirmed this.
 
limerickman said:
I never contended that Bush wasn't elected - or Clinton for that matter.

I contended that people - unelected by the people - are appointed to cabinet
positions, position of policymaking, positions of power and positions which gives them access to taxpayers money, in your country's "democracy".



I don't believe that the American political system is democratic - if that is Anti-American, then I'm anti-American.



I didn't vote in the North Dublin constituency - as I don't have a vote in that constituency.

But let me tell you how it works : members of parliament are elected by the
people eligible to vote
The party gaining the most votes (seats) forms a goverment and the Ministers are appointed by the goverment.

If members aren't elected by the people they cannot become ministers.

Unlike your country.
So you didn't really get to vote for the PM position?
I never said you didn't think Bush or Clinton wasn't elected. I said that under the 'democratic' Irish system Clinton would never have been president. If the US had your 'democratic' system, the House of Representatives or in your terms the "Dail", would have chosen a member of its own party to lead. Hence a republican would have been president. In Ireland they don't trust the people to decide who the PM should be. Again Democracy - European style!
 

Similar threads