Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Tenet, others to be tried for war crimes

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Nov 11 2006, 01:34 PM) [snapback]347495[/snapback]</div>

The fed used to be able to influence the economy. It may not influence the big picture, whatever that is, but they've hiked the rate far more than a few times, 17 times so far, and it has done nothing. The global economy has changed the world more than we care to think and the American government hasn't changed with it. We the people are blind to what's really going on in the world because the American government doesn't know how to measure it any longer.

The foreclosures are due primarily to the adjustable rate mortgages that have suckered a lot of people in to buying more house than they can afford with no down payment. Some 70% of people with ARMs make the minimum payment. Stupidity to be sure but the banks and the brokers, the real estate agents, anybody involved except the poor sucker who signed on the dotted line is protected from the fallout when the so-called homeowner loses his or her home. BusinessWeek in its 10/23/06 issue tells us that CLOs are basically propping up our economy. The wave of foreclosures hasn't even crested yet. This will make the S&L bailout seem paltry in comparison. Now on top of that, by the time the bushies are chased out of the white house, we'll have pumped a trillion dollars in to a war that they started. And, we continue to send billions of dollars every year out of this country for the oil that we guzzle. Millions of Americans have $8,000 credit card balances that they can't pay off, huge SUVs that they say that they can't live without but they owe more on their five and six year loans than the SUV is worth. The people own nothing, owe tremendous amounts of money and have nothing to show for it all. Don't downplay this, our country is in serious trouble.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Nov 11 2006, 05:01 PM) [snapback]347619[/snapback]</div>

And because Americans refuse to recognize that we are part of the world, and refuse to learn about the rest of the world and our place in it. Witness the number of people in Pinto Girl's thread, who say they don't want to learn about other cultures because they see no point in it. I've talked to fundamentalist Christians who say they see no point in learning about other religions because their own is the "only true" one.

Xenophobia has an economic impact and a price in dollars.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 12 2006, 07:57 AM) [snapback]347813[/snapback]</div>

Here here... When I hear those exact sentiments reiterated over and over by the ignorant and apathetic in our country it makes me sick to be associated with such a large majority. I get those same responses when talking about my environmental studies except then its anthropocentrism. Arogance is deadly. Apathy is unwise. Put the two together and I forecast our downfall.

Daron,

Hang ourselves and save the Germans the effort? That is probably one of the least intelligent replies I've seen in this forum. lol Godiva pretty much summed it up.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 11 2006, 03:51 PM) [snapback]347560[/snapback]</div>

I love it when you say crap like this. No facts to back up such an idiotic statement, but you put it out there and everyone sucks it up and nods their mindless head. Illegal in what way? Do we have a law that says we can't go to war ever and someone went to war, clearly breaking some law? Illegal in that it disagrees with you? Are you the law, and anyone in disagreement is doing something illegal?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 11 2006, 03:51 PM) [snapback]347560[/snapback]</div>

Let's talk illegal here. Probably there were some workplace laws broken here because of his position of power and her position of servatude. If not for those laws being broken, let's discuss the laws we actually have in this country about lieing to the grand jury. CLINTON LIED TO THE GRAND JURY. CLINTON WAS IMPEACHED FOR LIEING TO THE GRAND JURY.

Just thought I'd try to bring the facts back into another idiotic statement that you made.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Nov 11 2006, 12:34 PM) [snapback]347495[/snapback]</div>

By definition in democracy, we all vote. The winner is our elected representative whether or not you voted for the winner, and until that person's term is over, that person represents everyone in the district/city/state/nation that was participating in the election.

Turns out they have this new thing in America. It's a 4 year term for the winner of the presidential election. The guy that won is president for the whole country for 4 years. Not just until you see him do something you didn't like.

A leader who needs to take an opinion poll every time he needs to make a decision is not a leader, but a follower. Yes, Clinton was a follower.

Have you spent the last 6 years thinking you had no president? Whoops...



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Nov 12 2006, 09:44 PM) [snapback]348024[/snapback]</div>

It was meant to be an idiotic statement, glad you noticed. It fits accordingly with anyone stating that Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush and the bunch have anything to answer for in a criminal court regarding the war on terror.

Glad you can see it when it's put in type.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Nov 11 2006, 01:34 PM) [snapback]347495[/snapback]</div>

War Crimes of a few?? You are kidding me? Actually the fact that you are not is what is sickening. Lets see - how many innocent neighbors of 6 million Jews did anything to save them? How many were involved in actively identfying their Jewish neighbors? How many stood by when they were rounded up and sent to the Ghetto's? How many moved into their abandoned homes - took all their posessions? How many lived next to the camps and did nothing? A few? Yes - A few MILLION! How many pulled the trigger? ...

I am sickened.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Nov 13 2006, 09:22 AM) [snapback]348132[/snapback]</div>

Represents, yes. Votes in the best interests of? No. They vote in the interests of the majority that elected them or in whatever interests it will take to get them re-elected. Why do you think there were Republicans distancing themselves from the President? They were afraid his approval ratings would sink them. They didn't have sudden changes of heart. They were afraid of losing their jobs.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Nov 13 2006, 09:22 AM) [snapback]348132[/snapback]</div>

Unless he gets impeached & convicted. Or resigns in disgrace. Just saying.

We also have something new here called Freedom of Speech. Maybe you read about it. One of the rights it gives us is the right to question --without recriminations-- our elected officials and say they're doing a horrible job . Regardless of how long their term is, if I feel that the President or my Congressional representatives are not representing me, then I have a right to say so.

If Representative Pallone (my Congressman) votes against a piece of legislation that I agree with (or vice-versa), in that instance he is NOT representing me. If he shows a history of voting opposite of what I support, then he no longer represents me at all. And I have the right to say so. Same for the President. Just because they are elected by the people, doesn't mean they actually represent "the people".

Your words seem to suggest that anyone who disagrees with the present ruling party just shut their mouths and go along. I truly hope that's not how you feel. Because if it is, then I expect to hear no complaints about whatever Congress does in 2007 & 2008. After all, they will be your elected officials and they will be doing the will of the people. Right?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Nov 13 2006, 06:06 AM) [snapback]348129[/snapback]</div>

The Constitution of the United States says that treaties made by the U.S. and ratified by the Senate become, along with laws passed by Congress and either signed by the president or if the Congress overrides his veto, become the law of the land.

Various treaties, including the Geneva Conventions (which, though you may not like it are the law of the land) prohibit targeting non-combatant civilians and the use of weapons which cannot distinguish between combatants and non-combatants, or which kill indiscriminately, including, for example, nuclear weapons and land mines.

Since the targeting of civilians and the use of weapons which cannot distinguish between combatants and non-combatants are part of every war, all wars are illegal. Supporters of war brush this off by saying that such weapons are "necessary" and the civilian deaths are "unavoidable" and the laws are "unrealistic." But they cannot escape the fact that such weapons are illegal.

I am, however, guilty of using redundant language. Saying "illegal war" is like saying "greedy politician" or "self-serving religion." The adjective would not be necessary except that so many people pretend that wars can be otherwise than illegal.

Item: The A-bombs dropped on two non-military, civilian cities in Japan.

Item: The fire-bombing of Dresden.

Item: The use of napalm on villages in Vietnam.

Item: The dropping on Vietman of small brightly-colored land mines, designed to appeal to children, which would explode when picked up, killing and maiming countless children. If there was ever an acceptable use of the death penalty, it would be for the presidents (of both parties) who authorized the use of such devices and the CEOs of the companies that made them.

Item: The bombing of the slums of Panama City.

Item: The systematic slaughter of women and children throughout the Indian wars.

And the U.S. is not alone: Every country that goes to war uses similar tactics. Every war is illegal. And your use of obscene language to criticize my arguments does not change the fact.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Proco @ Nov 13 2006, 09:01 AM) [snapback]348152[/snapback]</div>

Who is your representative to congress for the 10 minutes that Pallone is voting on a bill in a way you disagree? Are you saying you have no representative? Is it someone else? Or, is Pallone doing something Illegal by not calling your cell phone before he pushes the button?

In any case, if you live within the boundries of the district that Pallone is the serving elected congressman, then he is your representative to congress for the term he is in office.

You might not like it... but that doesn't change the fact that he is your representative. If you move out of the district, then he is no longer your rep.

I'm not sure what your logic is. Just because Bush was elected by the people, it doesn't mean he actually represents them. Ok, you go right on ahead and change what you think it means. When America has a policy or action in the world, or sends cash to some country, that's all of America. Not a gift from 41% of America. When Bush votes for or against something based on his administration policy, it's not a 39% for, 33% against and 28% other... it's a single act for all of us.

You don't have to agree with a single thing the guy does. He's still president of the United States of America. As long as you live here, he's your president.

Cool how that works!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Nov 10 2006, 11:04 PM) [snapback]347271[/snapback]</div>

:lol:

Wishing the Germans best of luck.... :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Nov 11 2006, 07:24 AM) [snapback]347386[/snapback]</div>

It all politics. They want to usurp control over everyone.

Where were they with some real bad guys - Arafat? Saddam? Kim of NoKo? Rowanda? Darfur? Mugabe? Castro? Whats the name of the guy from I think Bosnia or Kosavo who was on trial there for 10 years and finally died before they came down with a verdict?

What a freaken joke.

They want to try Americans for enacting policy/public will. Tell me, are they also looking for OBL - to try him to - is he on their list - just wondering - if not - sit down Jack