Bingo! That's what the world believes about Bush.
When Hitler did invade he did kill or enslave those considered undesirable and even the favored local groups (such as those of German decent living in the conquered countries) where less free than before the invasion.
I don't even thing "the world" thinks that Iraqis are less free now, or that Bush invaded with a plan to kill or enslave all Iraqis from "undesirable" ethnic groups. If "the world" does believe that then they are seriously in error.
Besides, those comments are coming from people very close to Bush.....people in his Cabinet, in his administration, and in Congress.
Bush's "minions" aren't causing people to got ostracized either. As for calling people un-American for the sole reason that they didn't support the war in Iraq, to my knowledge no administration official has publicly done this. Can you be specific about who you are calling "Bush's minions", and what they said to who, under what circumstances?
You're arguing semantics.
Not at all. I an saying what he said. He specifically said that we are bound by the limitations of the Geneva convention. Then he apparently had a different interpretation of the requirements of the convention than you do. To the extent that we are talking about what was said, rather than what was done, I am on very solid ground here. As for what was done I'll get to that in a moment.
in fact we did not follow the Conventions at his gulags in Cuba and Afghanistan.
There were abuses, which were against the conventions, against regulations, and against standing orders. However there is no solid publicly available evidence that these abuses where order by Rumsfeld or anyone else in a very senior position. Should evidence emerge that Rumsfeld ordered torture and illegal abuse than I would call for his resignation, and if the evidence is solid and severe enough perhaps his prosecution, but absent the evidence I'm not prepared to charge him or Bush even rhetorically. I would not have charged Clinton in a similar circumstance, or Kerry should he have been elected. As for gulags in Cuba and Afghanistan that's a pretty inaccurate term. The real Gulags where very different, and for the most part much worse. The abuse was not only the result of lack of proper controls (although you did have that as well) but also a matter of official policy). The gulags where also an integrated system created to enforce repression, not a place where you put members of an armed an violent insurrection because you didn't wish to just kill them out of hand.
I said quit, not violate. We quit the anti ballistic missile treaty.....period.
Nothing wrong with quitting a treaty that allows you to quit.
Hitler began to withdraw from treaties which limited him militaristically.
Hitler violated treaties that limited him. There is a big difference between violating a treaty and exercising a previously agreed upon opt out clause.
Tim, go play with your navel!
"I guess you can't find any such statement."
No, because you are being very silly and immature.
Thank you for providing further confirmation of my statement.
You directly said "The Nazis said that the rest of the world was jealous of Germany and wanted to keep it from realizing its full potential by limiting it through treaties and other global legislation. The GOP/Bush makes a similar argument..."
I ask you to back it up, and you back it up with "go play with your navel", and "you are being very silly and immature", because you have nothing solid with which to back up the actual charge. I've heard that law students are taught "if you have the law on your side, pound the law; if you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; if neither the law nor the facts are on you side pound the table." You are pounding the table.
Tim |
