If Bush Used Nuclear Weapons On Iran Should He Be Tried As A War Criminal?

by frankiespeakin 119 Replies latest jw friends

frankiespeakin

Ty,
So in keep with the theme of this topic, do I understand you correctly, that basically the point you are making is that he should not be tried as a war criminal if he nukes Iran because, if he ever does it it would be for a good cause?
Tyrone van leyen

The question is simple. Anyone who uses this weapon for agression rather than defense should be tried as a war criminal. In defending civiliztion as we know it and as a last resort for the greater good of humanity as responsible stewards that might have to make that decision, history has shown that trying a President for this lesser evil is not an issue.
Frank, if I saw someone beating your kid up and threatening passerbys with a rifle and I walked up behind him with a baseball bat and crushed his skull, am I a murderer or a hero. Are you going to put me on trial after I just saved your kid and the passerbys from a certain death. On a larger scale it gets uglier but it's the same pricipal. If however this person wasn't being violent and just blowing off steam then I would be a murderer.
We then have to ask ourselves what we are dealing with in terms of a country, and what threat it poses to the world. We do this by looking at how they treat their own people and how they react to a nation that is trying to help society and we listen to what they say very seriously as a potential threat.
If someone threatened your son and looked like they meant it would you give them the benefit of the doubt and try to be decent to that person. No, you would take action to see that this person does not carry out their threat. I am not a warmoger Frank I hate it! but this is how I see it. Just by seeing how people like yourself are so concerned about others rights tells me you live in a country that cares.
I don't think all Iranians are evil, nor do they deserve to die. I don't want war like anyone else but I am not convinced that radical islamist hold the same values as ourselves and we must protect ourselves and try to help them at the same time. Only when push comes to shove, Frank, wer'e not the bad guys and must protect the world from greater evil if the lesser evil is necesary, the same way you would protect your kid.
Tyrone van leyen

Well the sun is rising again. I must be heading back to my coffin.
Who are you?

Ty,
You call this logic?

I don't know Frank. Should Harry Truman be tried as a war criminal for ending the second world war. Should he be tried for making Japan, Germany, Italy and Russia better countreis to live in for the betterment of humankind in it's totality.
It's a little late to trial HT don't you think? And what this nonsense about making these better countries, the US faught a war the US was the winner.
Frankie,
The ignorance you display on the above post is embarrassing. Even revisionists don't question the positive effects of the US instituted Marshall Plan in rebuilding Europe and Japan post WWII.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan
For an actual intelligent lecture by qualified MIT professors regarding the Marshall Plan and present day Iraq, here is a link and short synopsis.
http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/255/
John Dower sees a world of difference between a shattered Japan that accepted U.S. occupation, and fractious Iraq, which continues to buck under American leadership. The U.S. did succeed in Japan, in ways that seem improbable in Iraq. For instance, an intact Japanese government surrendered unconditionally to America, lending legitimacy to the occupiers. The Japanese had suffered war since 1937, and were “liberated from death.” Going in, says Dower, the U.S. clearly explained its goals of demilitarization and democratization, and changed national laws within two years. Plus, there was no appearance or reality of profiteering by Americans. The Japanese were expected to pick themselves up by their bootstraps. Human resources once directed against the enemy were redirected toward industrial and commercial ends, such that “Japan emerges as a sophisticated country technologically and technocratically.”

Charles Maier describes how the Marshall Plan arose as a way of dealing with the threat of Communism in Western Europe: “It was a battle for the hearts, minds and votes of the European working class.” With America’s peace dividend, the Marshall Plan helped 16 countries emerge from war debt, and rebuild their economies. “We did no carpet bagging in the Marshall Plan,” says Maier. “There was no Bechtel or Halliburton.” The notion was that “healthy economies will resist Communism.” Unlike contemporary Iraq, Europe did not suffer from religious or cultural divisions, but from class and party conflict. There was also little energy left for “polarizing violence.” Says Maier, “Prosperity has its virtues and can dissolve a lot.” He’s not sure whether Iraq, or an entire Middle East made prosperous, can smooth over “age-old hatreds.”
Maybe is time to start looking outside of the National Enquirer University website.
Its interesting that the US was critisized pre WWII for being isolationist and now is critisized for the opposite.
Tyrone van leyen

One more point I'd like to make about gauging what wer'e dealing with here in terms of rational people.
Somewhere in the tiny little country of Denmark, some fella printed a cartoon with Mohamed having a bomb under his turban. It created the most vile display of hatred across the Muslim world of effigy burning, death to America chants and violence over a frickin cartoon somewhere in Denmark. If anyone thinks that these radicals like us, or think that that is normal behaviour, your missing a screw in your head.
The fear that prevailed and acts of violence that were incurred by those radicals were almost enough to paralize the media and free speech without even being attacked. Everyone stoped for a minute and realized how serious that threat was. The public has a very short memory.
I bring this up in relation to the topic, to clarify the mindset which you seem to favour and protect over western values. Good night all.
NotaNess

Hey Humper, here's a cold Corona on me bud. It's truly amazing how the left gets caught up in "hear-say", siding with opinions out of anger or hatred for someone that doesn't believe the nonsense they do and amazing how most of what they've posted here proves they are so easily swayed by the likes of the anti-bush media, and would make pals with Michael Mooron.
Some people see acts that the US has taken in the past and current as Proof, that they are liers, evil, criminals, torturers, where others see the US as having good reason for doing certain things, or having certain policies.
Holding back aid money to foreign countries? Are you kidding me? What are we the International Bank & Trust? We've given so much money to countries for decades for human rights purposes and to help smaller countries. To point at us for holding back a little money is foolish to me. We've given and given and given and given and given. We are a dominant country for reason.....we have SENSE! We know the best ways at keeping people at peace, the best ways at making economies thrive, and so on. We're hardly gonna do much negative abroad out of just wanting our way and to bully anyone. It's always for good purpose, either for the US, and it's citizens, or for the betterment of the world as a whole. We don't know all the stories behind closed doors. Don't make assumptions because others are in a frenzy and foaming at the mouth. "Conspiracy Theorists Un-unite".
I hope outside this topic, we can all leave the boxing gloves here guys and gals. I apologize for anything that has upset anyone.
frankiespeakin
Who,
OK you got me, hey I'm no history schollar, Hey I like to let you guys get one right and me wrong once in a while, that's how we learn.
Anyway click on the stream to get a fuller story:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/06/1451239&mode=thread&tid=25
Friday, January 6th, 2006An Imperial President? Bush Claims Right To Ignore New Law Banning Torture
Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3
Watch 128k stream Watch 256k stream Read Transcript
Help Printer-friendly version Email to a friend Purchase Video/CD
Five years after President Bush joked, "If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator,” we look at the growing controversy over presidential power and how it relates to many of today’s biggest stories: the Senate ban on torture, the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, domestic surveillance and the jailing of U.S. citizens as enemy combatants. Earlier this week three influential Republicans Senators condemned Bush for claiming he has the authority to ignore a new law banning the torture of prisoners during interrogations. [includes rush transcript]
Three influential Republicans Senators are condemning President Bush for claiming he has the authority to ignore a new law banning the torture of prisoners during interrogations. Bush signed the torture ban just last week. But he also quietly issued what is known as a signing statement in which he lays out his interpretation of the new law. In this document Bush declared that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. Legal experts say this means Bush believes he can waive the anti-torture restrictions. This is not sitting well with some Republican Senators, including John Warner, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, John McCain and Lindsey Graham.
Graham told the Boston Globe, "I do not believe that any political figure in the country has the ability to set aside any law of armed conflict that we have adopted or treaties that we have ratified."
This marks the latest example of a growing divide between Congress and the White House over the extent of the president’s power. This question has factored into the debates on a number of key issues: the president’s order for the National Security Agency to conduct domestic spying operations without legally required warrants; the administration’s covert program of kidnapping wanted individuals overseas known as extraordinary rendition; the president’s policy of detaining U.S. citizens without charges claiming they are enemy combatants; and the president’s declaration that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to suspected members of Al Qaeda. Last month President Bush defended bypassing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance or FISA Court to directly order the NSA to eavesdrop on phone and email conversations inside the country.
- President Bush: "We use FISA still -- you're referring to the FISA court in your question -- of course, we use FISAs. But FISA is for long-term monitoring. What is needed in order to protect the American people is the ability to move quickly to detect. Now, having suggested this idea, I then, obviously, went to the question, is it legal to do so? I am -- I swore to uphold the laws. Do I have the legal authority to do this? And the answer is, absolutely."
Vice President Dick Cheney and others have long defended such executive power. Cheney told reporters earlier this week ""I believe in a strong, robust executive authority, and I think that the world we live in demands it."
Ever since the Sept. 11 attacks, legal experts within the Justice Department have claimed the president has near imperial powers. Shortly after the attacks Justice Department attorney John Yoo wrote that Congress could not place "limits on the president’s determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing and nature of the response." Yoo went on to write "These decisions under our Constitution, are for the president alone to make."
At the time Yoo was the deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department. He is now a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley.
But on several occasions the courts have expressed reservations about the president seizing such powers.
Last year Sandra Day O’Connor said "A state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation’s citizens."
As for President Bush he once suggested in jest that it would be easier if he were a dictator. This is what the President-elect said five years ago during his first visit to Capitol Hill following the 2000 election.
- President Bush: “If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator."
Today we are going to examine the issue of presidential powers with two guests:
- David Golove, New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues.
- Scott Horton, chairman of the International Law Committee of the New York City Bar Association and adjunct Professor at Columbia University.
Tyrone van leyen

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/american-al-qaida-member-issues-threat/20070529221509990001?cid=2194 Here's something from your Fellow American Azzam Frank. He thinks a lot like you. This was just released today. These are the nice people who's rights you are fighting for.
Highlander

Umm, what exactly fuels nuclear power plants again? Hint: It's very warm and radioactive. It is well known(publically) that Iran will be running low on oil reserves in the very near future. Unless they can figure out a way to burn sand and make electricity, nuclear is the easiest alternative.
thankyou Jourles for mentioning this.
It is a topic that is rarely mentioned, yet it is a fact that Iran's oil reserves have been on the decline for decades. Iraq on the other hand, has not fully exploited it's own reserves.
In my opinion, it is the only country left in the middle east that has the capacity to increase it's oil production as opposed to the other countries that are on the decline.
And yes,, I'm in full agreement that Iran needs nuclear power in order to take care of their future energy needs.
Tyrone van leyen

Oh really fellas, what about the fact that they have the world second largest natural gas reserves of 23 trillion cubic meters as well as being the worlds 5th largset oil producer

If Bush Used Nuclear Weapons On Iran Should He Be Tried As A War Criminal?

Share this