Impeach Obama Now!

faith guardian quote

I would dance for joy if he were put before the Hague tribunal. No matter the veredict. Just put him up there. Him AND several others from his administration.

Response

That statement just shows how much hate there was and still exists for President Bush.

There is still much to fear, because the War on Terror has not been won and the democrats have a reputation of cut and run. If America cuts and runs, Europe is in trouble.

I believe history will show President Bush did the right thing.

I believe that in four years, America will be back in Iraq.

I understand the concepts of the pacificist, but history and the Bible says there is always be wars.

There are a lot of things in life that you hope would be different, but then there is reality.

Man has a sin nature and that means there will always be evil. Evil will flourish if good men do nothing.

lol

Classic pot calling the kettle black.


Perhaps one day you will see just how much your attacks on democrats and liberals are perceived as hatred.

Clirus, you do believe that people who break the law should be held responsible for that right? No matter who they are, right? As far as this topic goes I don't care what other stuff Bush did, he committed several war-crimes and should be held responsible for those crimes.
As for hating Bush, I don't. I don't hate criminals.
But I do want there to be some consequences to breaking the law. No matter who breaks it, or why. I thought you as a conservative would appreciate the need for law-enforcement even in the top echelons of society.

So the fact is, I would not have cared if Bush ha invented a cure for cancer, or singlehandedly eliminated AIDS: He committed criminal acts and must be held responsible.

So why would I dance for joy if I don't hate him?
The reason is simple: I think it is past time the most powerful people were held accountable for their actions to a greater degree than they are today. If ex-president Bush would be tried at Hague it would be a very powerful signal to leaders in other countries that getting away with international crimes is no longer an option.



Granted, I do not like the Job Bush did as a president. But I don't go around neither hating nor wanting people I think does a bad job to be set before an international court just because I don't like them.

__________________

faith guardian quote

Clirus, you do believe that people who break the law should be held responsible for that right? No matter who they are, right? As far as this topic goes I don't care what other stuff Bush did, he committed several war-crimes and should be held responsible for those crimes.
As for hating Bush, I don't. I don't hate criminals.
But I do want there to be some consequences to breaking the law. No matter who breaks it, or why. I thought you as a conservative would appreciate the need for law-enforcement even in the top echelons of society.

So the fact is, I would not have cared if Bush ha invented a cure for cancer, or singlehandedly eliminated AIDS: He committed criminal acts and must be held responsible.

So why would I dance for joy if I don't hate him?
The reason is simple: I think it is past time the most powerful people were held accountable for their actions to a greater degree than they are today. If ex-president Bush would be tried at Hague it would be a very powerful signal to leaders in other countries that getting away with international crimes is no longer an option.

Granted, I do not like the Job Bush did as a president. But I don't go around neither hating nor wanting people I think does a bad job to be set before an international court just because I don't like them.

Response

What are the war crimes that President Bush committed?

What are the laws that President Bush broke?

I don't like what Obama is doing, and I would like to say he is breaking the law (at least God's Law), but a lot of that is just opinion.

What do you thing about Obama sending 17,000 troops to Afghanistan?

What do you think about Obamas continued use of drones in Pakistan in an undeclared and unauthorized war?

Are the actions being taken by Obama in conflict with the Geneva Convention?

Is water boarding any worse than firing a missile into a home?

Is Obama really any different than Bush when it comes to war?

Maybe you just do not understand war?

Should a unenforceable/unrealistic document such as the Geneva Convention be used to tie the hands of good people while letting evil people commit atrocities? Is beheading even mentioned in the Geneva Convention?

What laws? The UN Charter, US laws on war crimes. Human rights. The Geneve Convention...

Let's just look at a few points...
The war in Iraq was and is not a defensive war. And it did not receive approval by the UN. Both of which make it illegal.
In addition to this, there have been unlawful detention of civilians, torture, terrorized civilians, denied fod, water and medicine to Iraqi civilians as 'payback' for attacks on American troops, and also there is the matter of cultural genocide. All of which Bush is guilty of.

Hey, so did Bush. So do YOU, and so do I. We do because we are human. We all do. But the difference is when you do so premeditatedly and in full knowledge and when you slip and fall, you know? Yes yes I know what you mean, his abortion stance is somehow all important to you. And i wonder why you don't react just as strongly about regular murder, torture, war and despair Bush has caused. You know, many Christian pro-lifers use birth control pills - which basically is abortion. But they don't think about it. Also, as many as ten percent of abortions in the US happen because the mother cannot afford a birth, let alone a child. And then there's the issue of what the consequences of a ban would be - remember when the US tried to outlaw alcohol? It didn't really work, did it? And now you can get drinks in drive-thrus some places in the states. Hardly an improvement.

Also, while the pro-lifers shout for the need to reduce abortion rates, they maintain a strong stigmatization of those who do end up getting children outside wedlock. Some girls are kicked out of their parents homes if they get pregnant. Some are shunned at their churches. So, with that shame being present as a threat, how do you think many react? They have an abortion to avoid it.

At the same time, these one-issue voters will lash out at this one issue, ignoring issues like war, international justice, economic justice, universal healthcare (which could in fact reduce abortion rates by at least 10% if successfully implemented).
Some argue that they don't want to pay the extra taxes. Well, my question is, what would you rather, reduce the abortion rate at a little cost to yourself (and at the same time help the poor as Jesus commanded us to do, through the same tax) or let the babies die just to keep the money in your own pocket? Isn't it somewhat hypocritical to stigmatize the ones who get pregnant outside wedlock, lash out and say abortion is the sole deciding political issue while ignoring ways to actually reduce the abortion rates?

There is such a thing as a compromise. Getting drunk is bad, so we have employed a monopoly on alcohol in Norway which has pushed the drinking down somewhat. Not banned it, which we tried, only to have crime bloom. We also have universal healthcare which has pushed the abortion rate down. Something Americans are unwilling to do because in actuality it seems how much they pay in taxes is more important than how many children are killed in abortions.

While on the topic of conscience, what about economic justice? What about all the terrible things going on abroad to maintain our unsupportable consumption at home. What about war, torture or the death penalty? What about the penal system, which in the US is in dire need of a fix. What about increased military spending during a time of economic crisis? What about arms exporting, or WMD production? What about the environment? International relations? Covert operations? From what I have been able to tell from US history the choice of the "Christian right" (to which most of the traditional pro-lifers belong) tend to be responsible for the most heinous acts the US government has done. Including aiding genocide. No, not stopping it. Helping it along. And aiding oppression, overthrowing democracies and training death squads and secret police in totalitarian nations. All the while professing to be "good Christians" at home.

So I ask you, if Obama lacks a conscience because he opposes a ban on abortion while at the same time working to stop escalating mistrust and enmity on a global scale and also works to stop torture. Then what doesthat say of the leaders you are more likely to favor over him in your country's past?

The war in Afghanistan does have the UN's backing. It is an international effort which is legal. Unlike the Iraq war.

I don't know much about that to be honest. But as I said, this is not about Bush vs. Obama. It is about Bush vs. the law. And Bush should come up short. If Obama breaks the law, then he must be held accountable for it, just as Bush should be.

I don't know. And fail to see why it's relevant. If he does violate the convention he should face the consequences, otherwise, great!

Both are illegal, and both should be punished.

Bush started two wars, one illegal. Obama, so far, has not started any and has signed orders to stop torture. So far I'd say it points to Obama being the better one. What's more, the wars were both going on when Obama was elected. He could not just have the military drop everything and leave the next day. That would be criminally negligent. Bush left office after creating a LOT of mess which Obama is now in the middle of. Getting out of that is not a matter of pressing a button, it has consequences and must be carefully considered and planned.

Said the civilian to the veteran...

You know Clirus, I have been a civilian in one war, one civil war and a revolution. All mild, but definitely armed nevertheless. I have also served in the army where I attained the rank of Corporal, though I never saw actual action as a soldier.

So, you are saying that because they did bad things then it would be OK for you, who are supposed to be "the good guys" to do more bad things against other people? I fail to see the logic in that. Unless it's all arguments from a couple of kids who had a fight in the kindergarden.




I think you and I have differing understandings of this. You see, I don't care if I like the guy or not. Bush, Obama, St. Nicolas... I don't care. You break such laws, you need to be made to face the consequences, regardless of who you are.

__________________

Why is that a bad thing?

__________________
But there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.
-Bowers v. DeVito


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"Even as it stands, the Home Guard could only exist in a country where men feel themselves free. The totalitarian states can do great things, but there is one thing they cannot do: they cannot give the factory-worker a rifle and tell him to take it home and keep it in his bedroom. That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."
-George Orwell

"Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have."
-Barry Goldwater

"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence."
-Sir Robert Peel

Good point. If we could revise the political system sufficiently maybe we could avoid politicians making such promises in the first place. I do, however, think that it would only make them find other ways to grab and struggle for power. The game is dirty enough as it is.

But hey. I have an idea. Maybe we could just throw the entire thing in the dump and start over. Only this time give all the power either to ME or to SkyNET........

What a good idea!

__________________

The "Atheistic Liberal News and Entertainment Industry" (you never are going to actually get around to defining this shadowy cabal you blame all the world's problems on, are you?) didn't elect Obama. The American people did.

Get over it already.

faith guardian quote

What laws? The UN Charter, US laws on war crimes. Human rights. The Geneve Convention...

Response

First, I want to thank you for the video. I now understand a lot more about the bases for the war crimes charge against Bush.

There are a lot of international organizations like the UN, international red cross, amnesty international, etc., that take a very pious position, but I think that they can all be summed up in one word, "Observers".

The UN and other international organizations are observers. They watch a rape, but never get their hands dirty by doing anything to stop the rape. They keep statistics on rape and pass pious legislation that rape is horrible and should be outlawed, but then they watch the rapes occur.

The UN is always there to offer food, water and assistance to both the raper and the rape victom.

The UN and other international organizations never make a mistake because they never do anything.

Now, if you want to depend on the UN and other international organizations for your security, then you can do so, but for me, I reject the UN and other international organizations when they criticize America for doing what was necessary to provide security for America.

I am not afraid of the UN and other international organizations because I know they will do nothing, except run their mouths.

It is very unfortunate that democrats in America are using the UN and other international organizations to make sure they can maintain control of the government in order to implement Socialism and Atheism in America. The democrats voted for the war but then the democrats and the Atheistic Liberal New and Entertainment Industry became traitors when there were no WMDs found, and they saw that as an opportunity to get control of the government.

I do not care how you slice it or dice it, the Bible says adultery and fornication is a sin. You can make all the justifications that you want, but until a concept that is consistent with the Bible is established it is going to fail. Abortion is a bad solution for the problem of adultery and fornication. Socialism is also a bad solution for adultery and fornication.

I think you and I have differing understandings of this. You see, I believe the most important law is God's Law and if you break such laws, you need to be made to face the consequences, regardless of who you are.

The base is good, Clirus. He IS a war criminal.

Really? Hm.

You do need to learn more about the UN. The UN does seem paralyzed because of the reasons you give, but if you understood how it worked you would likely not bash it so.

What security? Iraq never posed a threat. They were in fact fighting against Al Quaeda. Which the US is claiming to want to do themselves. Good idea, that. Take out an enemy of your enemies. Very good call. What's more, they didn't have WMDs.

And what about us? Can we do what ever is necessary for our security, or are we subject to international laws and you are not? And if we are free to do whatever we please, then what about France? Or to pull it further, what about Russia? Or Iran? And who is to decide? You guys because you have the guns? China, because it owns the US? Europe, because we have the money?

I think Slobodan Miloseviç would disagree... But it is a fair point. And one of the main reason why I think Bush, Cheney etc. should be brought before the Hague, and tried. If so, then this would be a very clear signal to the less initiated - like yourself - that the UN does in fact work.

Socialism and atheism? The two are not synonymous. No more than capitalism and satanism is. Though there are some similarities there, namely the rights of the strong and the lack of rights for the weak.
Oh, and as I have pointed out - the first Christians were communists. So I am at a loss as to why you think socialism and atheism both synonymous when close to two thousand years ago there were some people who lived in communistic societies, the Christians. Who also, because of this loving behaviour were dubbed "little Christs". But I guess you're right. Love has been tried, measured and found want. Bombs and guns are so much better. Especially if you throw in some torture and the like as well.

Look, I never made this into a "Democrat vs. Republican" issue. You did. I merely said "You break the law, you face the bar". Pure and simple. I do not care for your biased squabbles between two very similar parties.

Apparently you see to want all sins to go unpunished and forgiven except one: Not wanting to ban abortion by law. Now, working in a way which will actually increase abortions is OK apparently, so long as you say you want it banned.

Well, with all due respect I doubt you know what socialism is. Once capitalism gained a hold in eastern Europe porn, prostitution and fornication all went through the roof.

What on earth does fornication have to do with breaking the laws of war? Should someone really be able to say "Sure I tortured those people, and sure I committed all those crimes. But I am against premarital sex, so you're just going to have to let all that killing and torture go"????

Yeah fornication is a sin. But that does not mean that nothing else is. It isn't the only sin you know.

I never claimed otherwise. In fact, by that statement alone you should wish to see Bush tried. Because sure, he may verbally say that he's against abortion, but he has not done much to avoid a plethora of other sins. Nor has he done all that much to reduce the abortion rate. Do you see a decrease or an increase in abortions in the US lately? Why do you think we have fewer abortions per capita than you do? Perhaps it is because we offer our women a viable option? But, I digress. Abortion is not the topic here.

So yes, Clirus. God's law is important.And I never claimed otherwise. But God's law is not ONLY about sex.




As far as I understand you, you do not say Bush did not commit any war crimes. You are saying that he cannot or will not be tried for them. You also say that this is good because Bush was against abortion. And you are saying that if the US government deems it necessary, it can and should break the international laws to suit it's own ends. Torture, cultural genocide, whatever. Just so long as the borders are safe... Right?

__________________