A tale of two war criminals: Bush and Clinton do Toronto

25 posts / 0 new
Last post
Krystalline Kraus Krystalline Kraus's picture
A tale of two war criminals: Bush and Clinton do Toronto

 

A tale of two war criminals: Bush and Clinton do Toronto

June 2, 2009

By Krystalline Kraus

>http://www.rabble.ca/news/2009/06/torontonians-gave-standing-ovation-war...

 

 

"War Criminal! It's a serious charge, something that sits heavily on our psyche as fragile human beings who generally tend to disbelieve that any one could be capable of committing crimes against humanity, especially if they have elected him president.

 

But can we as Canadians sit so smugly with the notion that we did not invade Iraq, or that it was the progressive Left that kept Canada out of Iraq and therefore we have clean hands and the permission to look the other way. Can we point to Bush and Clinton, two American presidents, and declare their country the new international fixture of Evil while in contrast considering ourselves the good guys?"

Stephen Gordon

Out of curiosity, has there ever been a US President who should not be considered a war criminal?

Or a Canadian Prime Minister, come to that?

Fidel

My aunt in Michigan thought Jimmy Carter was a wimp, and what America really needed then was for a president to kick the asses of America's enemies for good measure. She made great apple pie and was very knowledgable about many other things though. And this was at a time when Zbigniew Brzezinski was Carter's advisor and helping to stir up a few Muslims in Central Asia.

Lord Palmerston

Stephen Gordon wrote:

Out of curiosity, has there ever been a US President who should not be considered a war criminal?

Or a Canadian Prime Minister, come to that?

William Henry Harrison? John Turner?

Frmrsldr

Hey Statica,

Afghanistan is the "good war" then?

Fidel

Donald Rumsfeld recently went to the White House Correspondents Dinner (9th of May 2009). So did the Code Pink ladies

 

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDmRdfyAUio]Rumsfeld greeted by Code Pink ladies[/url] YouTube

Krystalline Kraus Krystalline Kraus's picture

Frmrsldr wrote:
Hey Statica, Afghanistan is the "good war" then?

The issue presented here is not about "good" or "bad", but about legal and illegal as we are discussing such things are breaching the Geneva Conventions and international law.

I say this because I know detractors can easily dismiss cases where someone declares something as "wrong", but only when morality is codified into law that you have a better chance as prosecution.

 

Krystalline Kraus Krystalline Kraus's picture
thorin_bane

Even afghnaistan can be considered illegal, esp at this point. We have always been at war with eurasia. We never were at war with BinLaden

Benjamin

thorin_bane wrote:

Even afghnaistan can be considered illegal, esp at this point. We have always been at war with eurasia. We never were at war with BinLaden

While the original invasion of Afghanistan can arguably be considered illegal, it is much more difficult to argue that the current presence of international troops is illegal.  TB, why do you say, "especially at this point".  The troops are there at the behest of the Afghan government.  There are obviously major problems with how that government came to be, but I'm not sure you can call the current presence of troops illegal under international law.

altima415

if you are looking for a site where you can report local news and be paid for it, visit [link deleted] really good site that i found for news all over the globe

remind remind's picture

Of note I have reported the spammer

Maysie Maysie's picture

I've banned the spammer and am now hunting down each thread s/he spammed and deleting the spammy posts.

remind remind's picture

Thanks maysie, it was a bit much!

Frmrsldr

The Bonn Conference was hosted by the Pentagon. Hamid Karzai and his appointed ministers in Transitional Afghan Government in Exhile were selected Pentagon sock puppets. At the behest of the U.S. government (the Pentagon) NATO assembled ISAF and sent troops to Kabul on December 20, 2001 then handed this feat over to the U.N. as a fait accompli. Contrary to the U.N.'s Charter, the U.N. accepted this action. The Afghan Transitional Government in Exhile arrived in Kabul on Christmas Day (December 25, 2001) and swept aside the Afghan Transitional Government that the Afghan people had formed. If you look at the chronology of events, the Afghan people and a representative Afghan government did not ask us to be there. Where is the U.N. Headquarters located? In New York City, New York state, U.S.A. What is the executive body of the U.N.? The five member Permanent Security Council. Who are the Permanent Security council? The U.S.A, the U.K., France, Russia and China. Is it any surprise that the U.S.A was able to cajole, bully, bribe, etc. the Security Council into giving the U.S. what it wanted in Afghanistan just as the U.S. got Gulf War I in 1990-1991, inaction over Rwanda in 1994, the illegal bombing and invasion of Kosovo in 1999, Gulf War II 2003 - ? The fact the U.N. has mandated the Afghan War does not make it legal - it's Realpolitik 101. Remember, the U.N. also mandated the Iraq War. Also, according to the U.N. Charter, the only "legal" war is a defensive war when one has been invaded. Both according to the U.N. Charter, the Nuremberg Principles and other international laws, to "defend" oneself by waging an offensive war of aggression is illegal. In ancient Rome, when a mastermind plotted an assassination, he made sure that all his co-conspirators plunged the knife into the victim. That way everyone involved had 'moral' blood on their hands. When you start talking about the Afghan War and our participation in it being legal, watch out. You have fallen for the 'spin' the government, the military and the mainstream sold out media have put on the war. Who benefits from war? The arms industry, the government, the military and warfiteers. Certainly not Afghans and Canadian (and all soldiers).

NDPP

Peter Van Loan Sidesteps Bush Banning Question:

http://www.straight.com/article-242729/peter-van-loan-sidesteps-question...

"In a July 7 letter to Gail Davidson, a cofounder of the group Lawyers Against the War, Van Loan wrote that he cannot comment on the matter "as it concerns personal information about other individuals.."

Big Daddy

It's no surprise that people don't take the far left seriously when such extreme statements are made.  Clinton a war criminal?  Give me a break...

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

I suppose you consider [url=http://www.ornery.org/essays/2000-10-25-3.html]Orson Scott Card[/url] to be "far left"?

Of course, knowing your politics as we do, the majority of the world must seem "far left" to you.

Big Daddy

Don't know much about him though his writings are the ravings of a crazy and bitter man.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

I can't believe you'd give people that good of a set-up, "Daddy".

NDPP

Barring George W Bush From Canada: Time for the Law to Step In

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15733

"Why bother doing this is a question often asked of efforts to have George W Bush barred from Canada or prosecuted for torture once he arrives..."

Frmrsldr

Notice how Bush's current tour of Canada isn't getting much coverage from the media?

Here is a link to media coverage of his stop in Edmonton. Interesting in that it covers more the protest than it does Bush and his speech.

http://www.metronews.ca/calgary/canada/article/345633--bush-belongs-in-p...

ReeferMadness

Stephen Gordon wrote:

Out of curiosity, has there ever been a US President who should not be considered a war criminal?

Or a Canadian Prime Minister, come to that?

Kim Campbell?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

William Henry Harrison died after a month in office.  I don't think he had time to be a war criminal.

Warren G. Harding was too drunk to start any wars, from what I've heard.

 

NDPP

Pressure Mounts on Canadian Law Enforcement to Arrest George Bush

http://www.facebook.com/notes.php?subj=540115852