Republican National Convention

[Leshy]

Page 2 brought to you by the LIBERTARIAN PARTY

[Event_Horizon]

I am not sure if you guys have already brought this up but,

www.jibjab.com

has a hilarious parody of both Bush and Kerry. Americans may get all of the little nuances in it and enjoy a bit more, but i still recommend it for you "up to date" Europeans.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

My point was that international trials are currently the accepted method of trying "war criminals".

I wouldn't rate bin Laden as a war criminal. He's not the leader of a country or a member of the armed forces of any country. He's not even fighting to take over any country; he's just a terrorist. In any case, you have to capture someone before you can put them on trial and I seriously doubt the Taliban ever had bin Laden in custody, ever intended to seriously try to capture him, and probably would not have been able to capture him even in the unlikely event they had ever wanted to. The Taliban had already been under UN sanctions for nearly two years prior to 9/11 for refusing to hand over bin Laden for trial. If the Taliban had actually had bin Laden in custody (and surely the US indictments, charges and UN Security Council resolutions warranted that much) then perhaps their demands could have been given some consideration. However, they consistently prevaricated--alternately declaring they didn't know where he was, that they needed more proof of his guilt, and that they wouldn't hand him over to the US anyway. In this regard, their tactics didn't change after 9/11.

Milosevic isn't being tried in Bosnia, he's being tried in the Hague. You are always expected to play by international rules if you expect the global community to accept, and respect, the concept of national sovereignty (a rather core value of the US judging by it's disdain towards some international institutions).

In no way would I consider Milosevic comparable to bin Laden (in terms of legal standing).

[Smudge]

Republican National Convention = an insult to Madison Square Garden

[IncubusGod]

Firstly,some of you keep pointing out that Bin Laden wasn't being sought by other countries.

Hang on, so the warrants for his arrest in Saudi Arabia before all this dont count.
Then he was responsible for the US embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, leaving 258 people dead and more than 5,000 injured. Most of which were not americans but citizens of those countries.
So both these countried wanted his head. The U.S. wanted his head then ofc.

Also, you point out matter of factly, that the Taliban were sheltering Bin Laden.

Their leader Mullah Mohammed Omar didn't want Bin Laden or his organization in his country. He saw Bin Laden as a threat to his leadership and to his country. Before 9/11 Omar's men had repeatidly demanded Bin Laden leave the country. Negotitations between the men were ongoing when the embassy bombings occured. Bin Laden went into hiding. Then 9/11 happened. The U.S. needed blood. It couldn't stand by and not kill someone. It had to have someone to blame and clearly locating and bombing a handful of terrorists that are hard to find would not do. It wouldn't sate the publics appetite for vengance.

They wanted Bin Laden, but they wanted an excuse to go to war with someone.
The old favourites were lined up. Iraq, Afganistan, Sudan, Somalia.]

Omar simply refused to hand over a fellow Muslim to the U.S. for a show trial and a hanging.

The U.S. saw their oppertunity to have their blood. They were never going to catch Bin Laden so they needed to make a show of someone.
They sent in a small force, and yes it was small, to Afganistan. Big media event, showed several B-52 attacks etc. There really wasn't that much of a deployment. Especially compared to Iraq.
In the end they failed to make any real impact.
The taliban were "destroyed"...hah! Their rule of Kabul and other areas was ended and replaced with war lords. The Taliban simply left for the other 90% of the country and bided their time. They now pretty much control the country again.
No "better government" was installed as the puppet one that's there has no power. U.S. and British forces will not patrol outside of the Kabul area. You cant travel on the main roads. Bandits are everywhere, the election is coming up but half the country wont be able to vote as they election registrars wont venture into 'Bandit Country' which is pretty much everywhere outside of the main Allied controlled towns and cities.


Why was the U.S.'s claim on Bin Laden stronger than Tanzania's or Kenyas? Sheer weight of casualties? That has never been a deciding factor in any one juristictions claim over another.


So they killed about as many civilians in Afgansitan as died in the World Trade Centre attack. But it doesn't matter, none of them were Americans.

Then it was plainly obvious that Bush was going after Iraq, they saw an oppertunity to finish the regime that was such a thorn in his fathers side.

It was said that British and American intellegence knew there was WMD there. (Someone mentioned Russian intelligence did too...what? Link me to that! Russia never indicated that Iraq was a threat and was against the war)
Rumsfeld said on TV "We know where they are...they are in the area around Tikrit and Bagdad"

Well then. That was your case for war. They couldn't link Bagdad to 9/11 so they needed this "threat".
It WASNT about Sadam being a dictator. It WASNT about regime change. They would never get support. So they made up this story that Sadam will supply bio weapons to terrorists to kill all you Americans. He's trying to get nukes to nuke you.
Clearly this would make no sence, but NO! It must be true. They said it on TV.

Thats why you all went to war. Thats why you forced the issue. You decided that if your going to rule the world, to hell with the rules.

So how many civilians died in Afganistan and Iraq? How much money did it cost you? How many more US lives did it cost?

The reason there is such a hatred of Bush and the republicans is becuase they bring nothing but death to the rest of the world.

So long as no americans die, then it doesnt matter.

Never mind that your pretext for war was WRONG. That you went and murdered thousands of people. That you've ****ed up two countried worse than they were before.

You say we all should be grateful becuase you've gotten rid of tyrants. That we shouldnt care about the lies.

If in the U.S., the cops got a tip off that some guy was dealing drugs from his house. So they raided the house, killed the guy and one of his kids (by "accident") but found no drugs, then said that it's ok cause he was a nasty guy, there'd be uproar (or there should be).
That's precicely what happened in Iraq.

When you sit there, supporting your republican party, claiming that murderer is a good president, just remember all these points.
That before 9/11 he was considered a useless president.
That 3000 civilian deaths ment he was transformed to a great president that deserves your support without having to do a thing.
That he ordered the invasion of a soveregin country (afgansitan) resulting in several thousand dead and injured.
That he, by ordering this stike, killed more people (that had nothing to do with 9/11) than Bin Laden did by ordering the 9/11 attacks.
That he held to world to his will by economic blackmail and ultimatims.
He disregarded treatys on Nuclear Weapons then lambasts countries like Iran and N.Korea for the same.
That he made a case for war, presenting the intelligence as fool proof and committed thousands of troops and personell to combat.
That he ignored the rest of the worlds voice on Iraq and disregarded the will of the U.N., something he invades Iraq for doing.
That he ordered the invasion of a soveregin country again (Iraq) resulting in several thousand dead and injured.
That both Afgansitan and Iraq are worse off now than ever before. They are both just a step away from full on civil war. Their infrastrucure is ruined. There is no rule of law. There are soldiers dying every day. Religious fanatics are gaining hold. Iraq never supported religious fundamentalism before, now there is an entire country of fundamentalist about to emerge who hate america.


Thousands and thousands of people are dead, but its ok, they aren't all americans.

All this doesn't matter. You think he was "doing his best". Well his best isn't good enough.

If a doctor ****s up and kills a patient by neglect. You cant say "he did his best" and let him off.

Remember, that since America has decided to take a hand in running the world and other countires, your vote doesn't just affect America.

It affects everyone else in the world.

[IncubusGod]

Actually I don't know why I bothered to write all that. It'll make no difference to Bush supporters. It'll make no difference to anyone here on the boards.

Anyone know of a portal to a parallel universe where all disputes are settled with a pie eating contest and not with high explosives?

[Embroglio]

idimmu's world

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

I wouldn't rate bin Laden as a war criminal. He's not the leader of a country or a member of the armed forces of any country. He's not even fighting to take over any country; he's just a terrorist.

In no way would I consider Milosevic comparable to bin Laden (in terms of legal standing).

I think we should all be considering at this point that the nation state paradigm is a fairly outmoded one to still be following in the 21st century.

Originally Posted by Tactitus

In any case, you have to capture someone before you can put them on trial and I seriously doubt the Taliban ever had bin Laden in custody, ever intended to seriously try to capture him, and probably would not have been able to capture him even in the unlikely event they had ever wanted to. The Taliban had already been under UN sanctions for nearly two years prior to 9/11 for refusing to hand over bin Laden for trial. If the Taliban had actually had bin Laden in custody (and surely the US indictments, charges and UN Security Council resolutions warranted that much) then perhaps their demands could have been given some consideration. However, they consistently prevaricated--alternately declaring they didn't know where he was, that they needed more proof of his guilt, and that they wouldn't hand him over to the US anyway. In this regard, their tactics didn't change after 9/11.

I'm pretty sure they did declare they were willing to try him. The fact they hadn't found him is kind of silly considering the US hasn't exactly been spectacularly successful in that department either. Perhaps a co-operative effort utilising their knowledge and American rapid movement would have been a better idea if the objective was in fact to capture Ossama Bin Laden?

[Sandsnake]

Originally Posted by IncubusGod

Actually I don't know why I bothered to write all that. It'll make no difference to Bush supporters. It'll make no difference to anyone here on the boards.

You mean about like what disputing any of that would do for you? :P That's a definate case of the pot calling the kettle black.

[IncubusGod]

Dispute it, if your points are valid fine.
To be honest my opinons have shifted over U.S. politics in the past two weeks, I know the issue isn't black and white.
I doubt I will ever be convinced Bush is a good guy or that he's a good president, but that doesn't mean my opinons wont be softened. The more informed on an issue you are, the more your opinons change.

Kerry certainly has started to worry me. We don't know much about him here and from what I'm picking up...there do seem to be some dodgey things about.

But thats just enforcing my opinons on politics in general than anything.

But yes, I would be a hippocrite if I accused others of not listening to my points, then ignoring yours. But you haven't made any.

Not that I'm demanding you make any. Clearly that would mean a long read and I'm swamped in work hehe.

If you just post "Boo politicans, you all smell of monkey feces" then I'll love you for ever and smile and nod when you post anything.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I think we should all be considering at this point that the nation state paradigm is a fairly outmoded one to still be following in the 21st century.

Quite possibly, but the nation state is the basis of existing international law. I don't see how you can claim the US is not observing international laws on the one hand while simultaneously suggesting its paradigms are outmoded and should not be followed on the other.

I'm pretty sure they did declare they were willing to try him.

They had ample opportunity to do so, had they so wanted. He'd been under indictment and wanted for extradition by several countries since the mid 1990s. They had years to try--or at least indict--him.

The fact they hadn't found him is kind of silly considering the US hasn't exactly been spectacularly successful in that department either. Perhaps a co-operative effort utilising their knowledge and American rapid movement would have been a better idea if the objective was in fact to capture Ossama Bin Laden?

I believe that was the essence of our demands: turn over bin Laden or help us find him (or at least, don't hinder us).

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Quite possibly, but the nation state is the basis of existing international law. I don't see how you can claim the US is not observing international laws on the one hand while simultaneously suggesting its paradigms are outmoded and should not be followed on the other.

Frankly I'd be delighted if the US acknowledged that the nation-state is an entirely ridiculous concept and moved to set up an alternative political system. I was merely pointing out that it's hypocrisy of the highest order to declare your contempt for institutions such as the UN which seek to impose "higher" standards of international law while infringing on another nation's sovereignty.

They had ample opportunity to do so, had they so wanted. He'd been under indictment and wanted for extradition by several countries since the mid 1990s. They had years to try--or at least indict--him.

Perhaps they had higher priorities? If so I'd imagine these would have changed substantially after 9/11 in response to the massive shift in US foreign policy.

I believe that was the essence of our demands: turn over bin Laden or help us find him (or at least, don't hinder us).

Those types of demands are not symptomatic of a peaceful state. If the Spanish government announced tomorrow that certain individuals responsible for the madrid train bombings (probably not the best example actually so imagine a terrorist group which posed little to no threat to the US, perhaps the IRA?) were almost certainly in hiding in the US and demanded that their intelligence and military services be allowed free reign to find them do you imagine the US government would comply?

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Frankly I'd be delighted if the US acknowledged that the nation-state is an entirely ridiculous concept and moved to set up an alternative political system. I was merely pointing out that it's hypocrisy of the highest order to declare your contempt for institutions such as the UN which seek to impose "higher" standards of international law while infringing on another nation's sovereignty.

If countries harbor terrorists who attack other countries then, yeah, somebody's going to get their sovereignty infringed. bin Laden/al Qaeda had been attacking us for years--we just got fed up with having our sovereignty stepped on.

Perhaps they had higher priorities? If so I'd imagine these would have changed substantially after 9/11 in response to the massive shift in US foreign policy.

I never got the impression that the Taliban cared one whit about US foreign policy.

Those types of demands are not symptomatic of a peaceful state.

Dude, didn't you get the memo? There's a war on.

If the Spanish government announced tomorrow that certain individuals responsible for the madrid train bombings (probably not the best example actually so imagine a terrorist group which posed little to no threat to the US, perhaps the IRA?) were almost certainly in hiding in the US and demanded that their intelligence and military services be allowed free reign to find them do you imagine the US government would comply?

Probably not, but I would expect and hope we would do everything short of that to arrest and extradict those people. If they felt that wasn't satisfactory and they were still being attacked then yeah, they might have to contemplate force. If sovereignty means anything then it means you have the right to defend yourself.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Dude, didn't you get the memo? There's a war on.

A war which will apparently may never end. Great.

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

A war which will apparently may never end. Great.

I wonder what more they can use 9/11 to justify..

Just untill now, we got
1) Setting up a us-controlled puppet regime in Afganistan.
2) A war in Iraq for oil and control.
3) Patriot Act I (bye bye civil liberties)
4) Increased spending on military hardware, CIA and "inteligence".
5) Cuts in soscial spending etc in the federal states.

[Event_Horizon]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

I wonder what more they can use 9/11 to justify..

Just untill now, we got
1) Setting up a us-controlled puppet regime in Afganistan.
2) A war in Iraq for oil and control.
3) Patriot Act I (bye bye civil liberties)
4) Increased spending on military hardware, CIA and "inteligence".
5) Cuts in soscial spending etc in the federal states.

1) Well currently the situation is so screwed up in Afghanistan that there is no regime but war lord leaders around the country. When is DOES get settled out how could we estalish a puppet regime when we are embracing free elections?

2) For oil? Well I guess thats true if you consider we will be buying it from them like the rest of the world.

3) 99.9999999999% of ppl will never be affected by this. Of course I am sure that the patriot will wrongly incriminate a small number of ppl (it is inevitable) but that is the price we pay to remain safer.

4) We are using 9/11 as an excuse to spend more on military issues? well of course we have to spend more when we are at war with the terrorists.

5) Well this is inevitable. It is the classic guns vs butter thereom.

[ben0013]

vote bush or eat shit you ****ing dickheads. Or you can vote for a stupid ****er who shoots off a rocket laucher and injures himself and gets a ****ing purple heart for that shit. Dig a little deaper and see what a cock sucker kerry is. History has proved that the republican party dominates and always will.
Vote Bush.

[Phang]

okay, proof. there are just a string of shite gimmicks at present. phew.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

If countries harbor terrorists who attack other countries then, yeah, somebody's going to get their sovereignty infringed. bin Laden/al Qaeda had been attacking us for years--we just got fed up with having our sovereignty stepped on.

I don't think the US is exactly "blame-free" in the harboring criminals desired by other countries for trial area.

I never got the impression that the Taliban cared one whit about US foreign policy.

I'm sure they did once they realised the threat of invasion was real. Often threats work far better than actions, especially when the general populace isn't exactly thrilled with the idea of constant casualties on the ground.

Probably not, but I would expect and hope we would do everything short of that to arrest and extradict those people. If they felt that wasn't satisfactory and they were still being attacked then yeah, they might have to contemplate force. If sovereignty means anything then it means you have the right to defend yourself.

Realistically, I don't think you attempted anything even vaguely approaching a diplomatic/peaceful solution to extraditing Ossama for a fair trial.


PS If sovereignty means anything it means total and utter independence.

[Boogster]

Well, it seems to me that the voters are faced with a simple problem.

Neither candidate is really focussing on any policy contrasts. Neither wishes to address popular issues of concern. Tthe election is centred upon the candidates themselves.

The American public has a choice.

Kerry: a man who loves to get bogged down in the wrong war. His vice-presidential candidate has a wide smile.
Bush: a 'monkey' who cannot justify the cause of war. His pa owns some companies.

The cynical view.

[Event_Horizon]

Bono was just on the O'Reilly Factor and he praised the Bush administration for their fight against aids. Just thought you would like to know....

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Realistically, I don't think you attempted anything even vaguely approaching a diplomatic/peaceful solution to extraditing Ossama for a fair trial.

We did the diplomatic/peaceful/UN sthick for five years (1996-2001) trying to extradite bin Laden. But yeah, after 9/11, we were pretty much done. I wonder how many more years we would have had to have spent in order to 'vaguely approach' a diplomatic/peaceful solution?

The mind boggles.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by ben0013

History has proved that the republican party dominates and always will.

Dominates what? The Presidency? That's hardly been a uniform trend for the last century has it?

[Rumad]

I saw some bits from cheney's speech last night and it was pretty good, he was powerful and eloquent and very cutting about Kerry's stance of only intervening when the UN wished it to be so.

I did see an interesting response on BBC breakfast news regarding bush for four more years. A economist pointed out that the US are borrowing $2bn a day from other countries to support itself. If that continues apparently within 3 years the US will be broke.

Whoever wins power has to stop that haemmoraging of money. The question for me is who will be the most unpopular president in US history to stop this?

[IncubusGod]

Originally Posted by Rumad

I saw some bits from cheney's speech last night and it was pretty good, he was powerful and eloquent and very cutting about Kerry's stance of only intervening when the UN wished it to be so.

I did see an interesting response on BBC breakfast news regarding bush for four more years. A economist pointed out that the US are borrowing $2bn a day from other countries to support itself. If that continues apparently within 3 years the US will be broke.

Whoever wins power has to stop that haemmoraging of money. The question for me is who will be the most unpopular president in US history to stop this?

Or, who will be the President who makes a grab for other countries resources? Either way, it's going to be a rocky 4 years.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by ben0013

vote bush or eat shit you ****ing dickheads. Or you can vote for a stupid ****er who shoots off a rocket laucher and injures himself and gets a ****ing purple heart for that shit. Dig a little deaper and see what a cock sucker kerry is. History has proved that the republican party dominates and always will.
Vote Bush.

Is this a Brahm I see before me?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

We did the diplomatic/peaceful/UN sthick for five years (1996-2001) trying to extradite bin Laden. But yeah, after 9/11, we were pretty much done. I wonder how many more years we would have had to have spent in order to 'vaguely approach' a diplomatic/peaceful solution?

Yes, but at that point they knew you weren't serious and they could pretty much effectively ignore the US and it's demands.


PS Does anyone think we should ban these ridiculous new accounts?

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

PS Does anyone think we should ban these ridiculous new accounts?

I was going to ban them all later.

Go ahead and press ma button, babe.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

PS Does anyone think we should ban these ridiculous new accounts?

As long as no one considers me to a new account ban them..... BAN THEM ALL!!!!

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Yes, but at that point they knew you weren't serious and they could pretty much effectively ignore the US and it's demands.

Not serious?! If UN Security Council resolutions and international sanctions aren't taken seriously then what's the point of the whole diplomacy/peaceful/UN process?
</rhetorical question>

PS Does anyone think we should ban these ridiculous new accounts?

I don't think you've attempted anything even vaguely approaching a diplomatic/peaceful solution.

[JonnyBGood]

Obviously given my aforementioned distaste for the nation-state I view the UN as an institution of the utmost pointlessness.



Actually I have, I sent out private messages detailing how one can be a better poster!