1 edit
I was watching a documentary not long ago about the trial of Slobodan Milosevic. Quite much everyone seemed to think he was guilty (which he probably was). It is somehow funny how the western world so easily agrees that Hitler was evil, Milosevic was evil, Hussein was evil.. judge them, put them on trial, execute them if you can... but then when it comes to someone like the USA president George Bush, it is all silent. No trip to Haag there. How come we accept this? Is everything fine as long as he is on the "good" side? Are we truly so selfish that we do not judge whenever it does not benefit ourselves? It seems to me justice does not matter.
Originally posted by GolubSeems to me like you have a thin argument at best.
I was watching a documentary not long ago about the trial of Slobodan Milosevic. Quite much everyone seemed to think he was guilty (which he probably was). It is somehow funny how the western world so easily agrees that Hitler was evil, Milosevic was evil, Hussein was evil.. judge them, put them on trial, execute them if you can... but then when it comes to so ...[text shortened]... e do not judge whenever it does not benefit ourselves? It seems to me justice does not matter.
Trying to make a moral equivalency argument comparing bush with a couple of genocidal madmen or a man who murdered his political opponents and set up rape and torture centers for the rape and torture of his own people is going to be tough.
Good luck.
Originally posted by MerkGuantanamo Bay a good start?
Seems to me like you have a thin argument at best.
Trying to make a moral equivalency argument comparing bush with a couple of genocidal madmen or a man who murdered his political opponents and set up rape and torture centers for the rape and torture of his own people is going to be tough.
Good luck.
2 edits
Originally posted by mrstabbyA good start, perhaps, but hardly on the order of mass genocide or torturing your own people for sadistic thrills. And then, there's the matter of determining exactly what responsibility Bush had for torture in Gitmo, if any.
Guantanamo Bay a good start?
I hate to be in the position of defending a horrible leader like Bush, but I don't think you have a rational argument, and sort of have to play devil's advocate.
Originally posted by MerkWow. That makes it acceptable.
I guess if we were incinerating people there by the millions, or raping theme by the thousands, or torturing them by the hundreds of thousands.
But, no. We're not.
Keep hating America though. It will help keep your vision clouded.
even if bush were guilty(and he is), america will prefer to turn a blind eye than prosecute him. it is the whole president is infallible thingie. did nixon spend any time in jail(just visiting like monopoly)?
anyway, the case is different with bush. milosevic and hitler and hussein were all dictators and in most part they ruled with absolute power. so they are responsible for the deaths. but bush isn't the sole responsible, the congress, his advisors and in some small part even his voters are guilty. are you going to hang them all?
Originally posted by Merkbush is not america. bush is a maniac and a liar. if one hates bush, one doesn't have to hate america.
I guess if we were incinerating people there by the millions, or raping theme by the thousands, or torturing them by the hundreds of thousands.
But, no. We're not.
Keep hating America though. It will help keep your vision clouded.
Originally posted by ZahlanziAh yes. Bush is a dictator. Check into how many times he has used his veto, then compare it to previous presidents. I think you'll find congress hand a pretty free hand.
even if bush were guilty(and he is), america will prefer to turn a blind eye than prosecute him. it is the whole president is infallible thingie. did nixon spend any time in jail(just visiting like monopoly)?
anyway, the case is different with bush. milosevic and hitler and hussein were all dictators and in most part they ruled with absolute power. so th ...[text shortened]... his advisors and in some small part even his voters are guilty. are you going to hang them all?
Originally posted by ZahlanziI'd say punish those who are responsible for Guantanamo Bay, namely the Bush administration. I don't think that is too much to ask for.
even if bush were guilty(and he is), america will prefer to turn a blind eye than prosecute him. it is the whole president is infallible thingie. did nixon spend any time in jail(just visiting like monopoly)?
anyway, the case is different with bush. milosevic and hitler and hussein were all dictators and in most part they ruled with absolute power. so th ...[text shortened]... his advisors and in some small part even his voters are guilty. are you going to hang them all?
Originally posted by Merkoh i never said he is a dictator. the congress is much to blame. it is just the fact that he lied about the reasons to war iraq and he lied about the elections in 2000 and he lied about a bunch of other things.
Ah yes. Bush is a dictator. Check into how many times he has used his veto, then compare it to previous presidents. I think you'll find congress hand a pretty free hand.
personally i don't understand why his supporters try so hard to defend him. i mean, if you take away the wars, he is really a totally unremarkable president, kind of a lesser reagan. so why in the world would you deffend a totally common, mediocre president?
Originally posted by MerkIf you'd read the post you might have grasped that he was saying that Bush isn't a dictator
Ah yes. Bush is a dictator. Check into how many times he has used his veto, then compare it to previous presidents. I think you'll find congress hand a pretty free hand.
3 edits
Originally posted by ZahlanziAnd is this a big surprise? What leaders have been severely punished for anything without toppling the government on which they stand?
yes it is. bush will walk, just as nixon did.
It drives me nuts when the ignorant blame the American public. The majority of which hates and does not support George Bush, and is extremely critical of congressional leaders.
What, are we supposed to stockpile weapons and then ignite a civil war because we think Bush lied? I mean, that's all we have proof of, that Bush is a liar and a very horrible leader. But do we have legally strong evidence he committed a crime?
And, if we did, do you think this would make the world a better place? Would everyone in Iraq suddenly hold hands? Would Israelis start baking birthday cakes for the newly recognized palestinian state?
Drat... I knew i shouldn't get involved in this thread. This discussion is getting really old, but burns by bottom every time I engage in it.
Originally posted by ZahlanziWhat did he lie about in regards to the 2000 election?
oh i never said he is a dictator. the congress is much to blame. it is just the fact that he lied about the reasons to war iraq and he lied about the elections in 2000 and he lied about a bunch of other things.
personally i don't understand why his supporters try so hard to defend him. i mean, if you take away the wars, he is really a totally unremarkabl ...[text shortened]... of a lesser reagan. so why in the world would you deffend a totally common, mediocre president?
Most wartime presidents are are known mainly for the wars that happen during their administration. Wars tend to consume a lot of the Commander in Chiefs time.