# Spanish government considers legal actions against US officials



## JimH52 (Mar 28, 2009)

Spanish court considers trying former US officials

The first of many?  But is there any merit in such actions or another waste of time and tax payer money.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Mar 28, 2009)

They really need to stop doing that. They are trying to claim jurisdiction to prosecute elected officials for alleged crimes that happened on non-spanish soil. I would consider such an exercise a potential act of war.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Mar 28, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> Spanish court considers trying former US officials
> 
> The first of many?  But is there any merit in such actions or another waste of time and tax payer money.



I believe the US Courts should retaliate and bring charges of harrassment and denial of human rights on those lawyers, any judges and any prosecutors that bring the charges to court.

We should threaten Spain with legal retaliation and threaten to seize assets of the Spanish Government and expel their Diplomats.


----------



## garyd (Mar 29, 2009)

Exactly gunny.


----------



## Xenophon (Mar 29, 2009)

It would be fun to try Spain for crimes against humanity, based on their monumentaly huge record of human rights abuses going back to the Visigoths.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Mar 29, 2009)

Looks like we just found a place to send all those former residents of Gitmo.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 29, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> It would be fun to try Spain for crimes against humanity, based on their monumentaly huge record of human rights abuses going back to the Visigoths.


yeah, we could have a field day just on the Inquisition


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 29, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> Spanish court considers trying former US officials
> 
> The first of many?  But is there any merit in such actions or another waste of time and tax payer money.


Jim, do you really want to open that pandoras box?
you really don't want to go there


----------



## editec (Mar 29, 2009)

I suspect that as America's superpower status fades, and that is inevitable as our economy continues its decline, the security of former officials who are thought by other nations to be war criminals will continue to decline.

There are already a lot of Bush administration officials who probably should NOT visit Europe.

War criminals will not find safe haven in civilized nations, folks.

If the rest of the world in retrspect decides that what Bush II's people did constiuted war crimes?

Well then those people had best keep their asses in America where they'll be safe from the clutches of the rest of the world.

Their safety depends on American continuing to be a superpower.

And that superpower status isn't looking so good right now, is it?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Mar 29, 2009)

editec said:


> I suspect that as America's superpower status fades, and that is inevitable as our economy continues its decline, the security of former officials who are thought by other nations to be war criminals will continue to decline.
> 
> There are already a lot of Bush administration officials who probably should NOT visit Europe.
> 
> ...



Only when one lies and twists the truth. NONE of those Officials are criminals. And Spain has no Jurisdiction. We should retaliate but Obama will kiss their ass.


----------



## 007 (Mar 29, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > Spanish court considers trying former US officials
> ...


That should include Mexico. That could turn out to be a great solution to many of our problems.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Mar 29, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Only when one lies and twists the truth. NONE of those Officials are criminals. And Spain has no Jurisdiction. We should retaliate but Obama will kiss their ass.



And how do you know that?



> *Spanish law allows courts to reach beyond national borders in cases of torture or war crimes under a doctrine of universal justice,* though the government has recently said it hopes to limit the scope of the legal process.
> 
> Garzon became famous for bringing charges against former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in 1998, and he and other Spanish judges have agreed to investigate alleged abuses everywhere from Tibet to Argentina's "dirty war," El Salvador and Rwanda.
> Still, the country's record in prosecuting such cases has been spotty at best, with only one suspect extradited to Spain so far.
> ...


----------



## editec (Mar 29, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > I suspect that as America's superpower status fades, and that is inevitable as our economy continues its decline, the security of former officials who are thought by other nations to be war criminals will continue to decline.
> ...


 
Jurisdiction preumes that war criminals have a safe haven.

If it becomes the mindset of the world that some American official is a war criminal then jurisdiction becomes irrelevant.

When it comes to the raw application of power, jurisdiction depends on who has ithe power.

Jesus...you're a lifer in the military and you don't understand that?

If the world actually truly cared about legal nicities, there's be no military anywhere on earth.


----------



## 007 (Mar 29, 2009)

Who gives a shit about spains courts jurisdiction. They DON'T have jurisdiction in AMERICA.  Let 'em play their little game, then they can go fuck themselves.


----------



## auditor0007 (Mar 29, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> They really need to stop doing that. They are trying to claim jurisdiction to prosecute elected officials for alleged crimes that happened on non-spanish soil. I would consider such an exercise a potential act of war.



They need to be bitch slapped.


----------



## editec (Mar 29, 2009)

Yes, I am quite sure we are ALL impressed by those of you who feel the need to remeind us all what tough guys you are, and how patriotically American, too.

So noted.

Now back the issue of war criminals?

IF it becomes the mindset of ANY nation that an American official was a WAR CRIMINAL, then guess what?

If they set foot on their soil they will be put on trial.

JUST AS ...

American would do if it got its hands on a WAR criminal.

Jesus...is that so fucking hard to understand?


----------



## Indiana Oracle (Mar 29, 2009)

There is one particular jackass in the Spanish system who has a history of this and I am certain this started with him.  Cannot recall his name.  All attempts to date have failed.  If the UN gets away with its desire to have banana republics run the globe, he will probably win the Nobel Prize at some point.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 29, 2009)

editec said:


> I suspect that as America's superpower status fades, and that is inevitable as our economy continues its decline, the security of former officials who are thought by other nations to be war criminals will continue to decline.
> 
> There are already a lot of Bush administration officials who probably should NOT visit Europe.
> 
> ...


you are one sick perverted person
you really want American citizens to be held to laws of another country that they never did anything in?
you REALLY want to go down THAT road?
no fucking way do i


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 29, 2009)

Epsilon Delta said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Only when one lies and twists the truth. NONE of those Officials are criminals. And Spain has no Jurisdiction. We should retaliate but Obama will kiss their ass.
> ...


i dont give a rats ass what their laws state
they have ZERO jusidiction HERE
unless you want to submit yourself to American law in Canada


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 29, 2009)

editec said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...


again, there are no war criminals here
you can stick that partisan BULLSHIT up your ass


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 29, 2009)

editec said:


> Yes, I am quite sure we are ALL impressed by those of you who feel the need to remeind us all what tough guys you are, and how patriotically American, too.
> 
> So noted.
> 
> ...


just wait till another country claims the same thing and starts prosecuting YOU in absentia and convicts you of a crime you never commited


----------



## thanatos144 (Mar 29, 2009)

editec said:


> Yes, I am quite sure we are ALL impressed by those of you who feel the need to remeind us all what tough guys you are, and how patriotically American, too.
> 
> So noted.
> 
> ...



This kind of stupid shit makes me want to puke. you hate the US so much that you would allow people to be tried for crimes they did not commit just cause you are a ignorant hippie?  God I hope you don't procreate.


----------



## Xenophon (Mar 29, 2009)

editec said:


> I suspect that as America's superpower status fades, and that is inevitable as our economy continues its decline, the security of former officials who are thought by other nations to be war criminals will continue to decline.
> 
> There are already a lot of Bush administration officials who probably should NOT visit Europe.
> 
> ...


You want to start WWIII this is the way to do it.

You start letting assholes grab americans based on their systems we did not agree too, the USA will have no choice but to retaliate, probaly by seizing all assets of such contries until the Americans are released, and it could quickly escalte to detaining nationals as hostages for those Americans imprisoned.

Thing carefully before you go through this door, i don't care what Bush did or didn't do, no euro-cocksucker is going to try my people in their system, this i would fight for.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 29, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > I suspect that as America's superpower status fades, and that is inevitable as our economy continues its decline, the security of former officials who are thought by other nations to be war criminals will continue to decline.
> ...


he has no clue the pandoras box it would open


----------



## Xenophon (Mar 29, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> he has no clue the pandoras box it would open


They seem to also forget it's illeagal under interational law to try people from countries that do not give you jurisdiction, unless they committed said acts against you.

The fact is, the Nuremberg trials would be ILLEAGAL under the UN charter.

Go ahead and let Spain try this, or grab Kissinger or any other American, and they will be in violation of the UN Charter.


----------



## thanatos144 (Mar 29, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > he has no clue the pandoras box it would open
> ...



that wouldnt matter much now would it?


----------



## JimH52 (Mar 30, 2009)

All interesting but...I would suggest that George II and Laura not plan a Spanish vacation in the near future.



> IF it becomes the mindset of ANY nation that an American official was a WAR CRIMINAL, then guess what?
> 
> If they set foot on their soil they will be put on trial.



The US would not hesitate to nap a "so called" criminal and neither would Spain.  Personally, I think the Spanish are blowing sunshine up their arses, but so goes life.


----------



## WillowTree (Mar 30, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > I suspect that as America's superpower status fades, and that is inevitable as our economy continues its decline, the security of former officials who are thought by other nations to be war criminals will continue to decline.
> ...





Course he does. He's a member blame America first crowd!


----------



## JimH52 (Mar 30, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



and yuo are a member of the "NO" party.  Congrats!


----------



## WillowTree (Mar 30, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...






No! is good sometimes. it sure was good when you blind assholes signed a stimulus bonus granting AIG the right to pay bonus money wasn't it?? I mock your ass.


----------



## JimH52 (Mar 30, 2009)

...and you lose.  You voted for an idiot with double digit IQ twice enabling eight years of a regressive administration that made the US the most hated country in the world.  You deserve whatever this administration gives you.  Congrats again!


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 30, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


when you see a child about to burn themselves on a hot stove, don't you yell NO?


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 30, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> ...and you lose.  You voted for an idiot with double digit IQ twice enabling eight years of a regressive administration that made the US the most hated country in the world.  You deserve whatever this administration gives you.  Congrats again!


actually, Bush's IQ was higher than both Gore and Kerry

another myth defeated


----------



## WillowTree (Mar 30, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> ...and you lose.  You voted for an idiot with double digit IQ twice enabling eight years of a regressive administration that made the US the most hated country in the world.  You deserve whatever this administration gives you.  Congrats again!






We still mock your azz! And your regime!


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 30, 2009)

If Bush was so fucking smart, then answer me this bright boy......

Why did we invade THE WRONG FUCKING COUNTRY?


----------



## Tech_Esq (Mar 30, 2009)

editec said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



Our power may fade, but we will never be insignificant. A country like Spain will never have parity. Their relations with a powerful country will suffer. But if they want to go that route, let'em. We'll see if they think it was a good idea in 20 years.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 30, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> If Bush was so fucking smart, then answer me this bright boy......
> 
> Why did we invade THE WRONG FUCKING COUNTRY?


he didnt
next stupid question


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 30, 2009)

Iraq had absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11!

The only reason that we went into Iraq was for oil.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Mar 30, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Iraq had absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11!
> 
> The only reason that we went into Iraq was for oil.



Let's assume you're right. Ok...we won. Where's the fucking oil?


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 30, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Iraq had absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11!
> 
> The only reason that we went into Iraq was for oil.


who said they had anything to do with 9/11?

and if thats so, where is my oil?


----------



## WillowTree (Mar 30, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Iraq had absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11!
> 
> The only reason that we went into Iraq was for oil.






And how much oil have we received libtard? How much?>??


----------



## manu1959 (Mar 30, 2009)

editec said:


> I suspect that as America's superpower status fades, and that is inevitable as our economy continues its decline, the security of former officials who are thought by other nations to be war criminals will continue to decline.
> 
> There are already a lot of Bush administration officials who probably should NOT visit Europe.
> 
> ...



are not most of these "war criminals" on us soil.....would spain need to send troops to america to capture them.....


----------



## WillowTree (Mar 30, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Iraq had absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11!
> ...





God! these folks have their needles stuck on stupid..


----------



## manu1959 (Mar 30, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> ...and you lose.  You voted for an idiot with double digit IQ twice enabling eight years of a regressive administration that made the US the most hated country in the world.  You deserve whatever this administration gives you.  Congrats again!



when our troops were killed in somalia, rawanda, the balkans, on the cole, in us embassies and the wtc was attacked the firsy yime.....did the world love us then......how about when the us marines barracks was blown up.....the us embassy in iran overrun....

when were we once loved by the world.....


----------



## Tech_Esq (Mar 30, 2009)

manu1959 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > I suspect that as America's superpower status fades, and that is inevitable as our economy continues its decline, the security of former officials who are thought by other nations to be war criminals will continue to decline.
> ...



Extreme Rendition? Could you just fucking imagine?


----------



## manu1959 (Mar 30, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> If Bush was so fucking smart, then answer me this bright boy......
> 
> Why did we invade THE WRONG FUCKING COUNTRY?



if i recall we invaded afganistan for 911....then invaded iraq based on un resolutions ....

or are you refering to another country you want invaded....


----------



## Tech_Esq (Mar 30, 2009)

manu1959 said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > ...and you lose.  You voted for an idiot with double digit IQ twice enabling eight years of a regressive administration that made the US the most hated country in the world.  You deserve whatever this administration gives you.  Congrats again!
> ...



The WORLD loves the US when the US is weak. And the corollary is, when the US is weak, the world attacks and starts nipping at us like hyenas nip at an injured lion.

When the US is strong, the world hates us and cowers lest the hyenas attract the attention of the lion. Then, they do just enough to stay out of the line of fire while secretly plotting and planning the next opportunity to nip.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Mar 30, 2009)

Damn, did the Navy sail away?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 30, 2009)

When the WTC was first hit?  Bush Jr. said that he was going to get OBL "dead or alive".  Then?  He started to tell us that Saddam and the Taliban were working together, which is why they were able to crash the planes into the WTC.

Then, when the bloom started to wear off that lie, we were told about WMD's, and all that other crap, as well as being told that now it was Saddam who was responsible.

And......if you ask Greenspan why we went to Iraq, he'll tell you it was for the oil.

Remember when we were told that the savings in oil that we would get would pay for the Iraq war?

Bush lied.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 30, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> When the WTC was first hit? Bush Jr. said that he was going to get OBL "dead or alive". Then? He started to tell us that Saddam and the Taliban were working together, which is why they were able to crash the planes into the WTC.
> 
> Then, when the bloom started to wear off that lie, we were told about WMD's, and all that other crap, as well as being told that now it was Saddam who was responsible.
> 
> ...


uh, when the WTC was fist hit, Clinton was POTUS


and as for that last moronic bullshit, yet you cant prove a single lie, but you will continue to claim he lied


----------



## Yurt (Mar 30, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > When the WTC was first hit? Bush Jr. said that he was going to get OBL "dead or alive". Then? He started to tell us that Saddam and the Taliban were working together, which is why they were able to crash the planes into the WTC.
> ...



please don't use facts, it hurts my head


----------



## Tech_Esq (Mar 30, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> When the WTC was first hit?  Bush Jr. said that he was going to get OBL "dead or alive".  Then?  He started to tell us that Saddam and the Taliban were working together, which is why they were able to crash the planes into the WTC.
> 
> Then, when the bloom started to wear off that lie, we were told about WMD's, and all that other crap, as well as being told that now it was Saddam who was responsible.
> 
> ...



Yeah, cuz Greenspan has a lot of credibility about now.

So you are bitching and moaning because politicians told you things that turned out to be wrong? How old are you? Don't you know that if a politicians mouth is moving, he's lying to you. I don't care what side your on, you are responsible for finding out about policies and either agreeing with them because they are a good idea or disagreeing because they are a bad idea on their merits, not sitting there like some goose buried up to its neck and having bullshit shoveled down its gullet.

Iraq was the right thing to do for exactly none of the reasons ever put forward to support the action. But, I've explained that here and specifically to you before. So I won't go through it unless you want me too.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 30, 2009)

Yurt said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


stop lying


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 30, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > When the WTC was first hit?  Bush Jr. said that he was going to get OBL "dead or alive".  Then?  He started to tell us that Saddam and the Taliban were working together, which is why they were able to crash the planes into the WTC.
> ...


exactly, and it should have been done back in 1991 when we had 500K troops already there and half way to Baghdad


----------



## Tech_Esq (Mar 30, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Watch me while I step on some toes.

Actually, we wouldn't have needed to go to Baghdad if stupid Colin Powell had just STFU!

Another 1-2 days and there wouldn't have been enough Republican Guards left to put down and uprising of girl scouts. The 24th ID, 3rd AD, 1 ID et al. were ripping through the RG like a hot knife through butter. So what does Colin Powell do? "Let's stop this before it gets out of hand, its beginning to look gratuitous." Fucking moron!

If we'd pinned the RG against the river for just 2 days and cut them up, the Shiite uprising that followed would have worked and none of this bullshit would have been necessary. Powell's stupid ass decision cost us hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives.


----------



## WillowTree (Mar 30, 2009)

Well, all I really wanna know is: did the purveryor of the bald faced lie "we went to war with Iraq because of oil" ever come forth with how much oil the US has received from Iraq??? 


Thought Not!


----------



## WillowTree (Mar 30, 2009)

*hello??? How much oil did we get from iraq??? If you know the talking points surely you know how much???????? *


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 30, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Tech_Esq said:
> ...


thats basicly my point, it was ended way too soon in 91


----------



## Xenophon (Mar 30, 2009)

thanatos144 said:


> that wouldnt matter much now would it?


It would to Spain when they leagally see their assets seized.


----------



## WillowTree (Mar 30, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> Spanish court considers trying former US officials
> 
> The first of many?  But is there any merit in such actions or another waste of time and tax payer money.





> Gonzalo Boye, one of the lawyers who brought the charges, told The Associated Press.






And so,, the O'Reilly Factor brings to light that this Gonzalo Boye spent 8 years in prison for consorting with terrorists.. Fuck Spain and their stupid court.


----------



## Peejay (Mar 30, 2009)

*We* don't get the oil. We, as in,  We The people of the United States of America.  It isn't in your daily headlines but do a little poking around and you'll see who is getting the oil.  The bidding for the oil,  under the new privatized Iraqi oil law,  is well underway.  

We paid for the battle and to the crooked politicians and their oily friends,  go the spoils.

And you guys are actually asking a VERY GOOD QUESTION,  although I don't think you are asking the right people.  WHERE THE FUCK,  INDEED,  IS THE OIL ?


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 30, 2009)

Peejay said:


> *We* don't get the oil. We, as in,  We The people of the United States of America.  It isn't in your daily headlines but do a little poking around and you'll see who is getting the oil.  The bidding for the oil,  under the new privatized Iraqi oil law,  is well underway.
> 
> We paid for the battle and to the crooked politicians and their oily friends,  go the spoils.
> 
> And you guys are actually asking a VERY GOOD QUESTION,  although I don't think you are asking the right people.  WHERE THE FUCK,  INDEED,  IS THE OIL ?


gee, you mean the Iraqi government is controling that oil?


----------



## Peejay (Mar 30, 2009)

Consortiumnews.com

Who gets Iraq&#039;s oil? | Center for Investigative Reporting

The Washington Independent » All The Oil Companies Got Iraq for Its Birthday Was a 25 Percent Stake in Its Own Oil

Asia Times Online :: Middle East News - The Iraq oil grab that went awry

Nieman Watchdog > Ask This > The privatization of Iraq's oil reserves

How Bush&#39;s Iraqi Oil Grab Went Awry


Where is the oil ?  We got it.  What ?  Did you think the US would offer free oil to every American or something ?  We have taken Iraq's primary national resource and privatized it to the benefit of private oil corporations.  It's about profit for big oil.  Surprise, surpirse.  Big oil man wins presidency and hooks up big,  BIG TIME.

Again,  you didn't think that oil was for us,  personally did you ?


----------



## Peejay (Mar 30, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Peejay said:
> 
> 
> > *We* don't get the oil. We, as in,  We The people of the United States of America.  It isn't in your daily headlines but do a little poking around and you'll see who is getting the oil.  The bidding for the oil,  under the new privatized Iraqi oil law,  is well underway.
> ...




No dear,  the once national wealth of Iraq is now up for private bids.  They no longer control the majority of their own oil.  We fixed that.  And not an all bad thing.  Wed get ours at the pump for the next few decades.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 30, 2009)

Peejay said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Peejay said:
> ...


if people are bidding for the oil, then they are PAYING Iraq for the oil
thus Iraq is in control of it
you just defeated your own premise


----------



## Peejay (Mar 30, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Peejay said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




They aren't bidding for the actual oil.  That's not the way to really think about it.  They are bidding for development rights.  Sure,  Iraq gets a 25% cut of it's own oil.  

But, in any case,  you can bicker all you want.  That's where the oil went.  Sweet, even secret and closed oil deals for western oil companies.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 30, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> Spanish court considers trying former US officials
> 
> The first of many?  But is there any merit in such actions or another waste of time and tax payer money.



Nope.  I'd ignore them.  I think even Obama isn't whacky enough to allow that precedent to be set.  Spain has no legal jurisdiction in the US or Cuba.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 30, 2009)

Peejay said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Peejay said:
> ...


did not the Iraqi represenitive agree to these terms in the bidding process?


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 30, 2009)

btw, Peejay, i'm stating the FACTS
while you are stating YOUR opinion


----------



## Yukon (Mar 30, 2009)

They should be put on trial in the International Court and if found guilty of war crimes they should be hanged just like the Americans hanged Germans at the end of WWII in the Nuremburg Farce.


----------



## Peejay (Mar 30, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> btw, Peejay, i'm stating the FACTS
> while you are stating YOUR opinion



Sweety pie,  the facts are that by means of war,  we converted a nationalized oil industry into a private oil industry.


I'm not calling it right or wrong,  I'm just answering your question as to where the oil went.  We didn't nationalize it,  so that the US government could capitalize,  we opened it for private bid so oil corporations could get at the reserves in Iraq.


----------



## editec (Mar 30, 2009)

manu1959 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > I suspect that as America's superpower status fades, and that is inevitable as our economy continues its decline, the security of former officials who are thought by other nations to be war criminals will continue to decline.
> ...


 
Obviously

I don't quite understand why some of you are failing to understand the significance of this sort of thing, or misinterpreting my point about why this is a pain in somebody's ass, either.

Still, if you were some former master of the the universe, how would you feel discovering that you cannot go to Europe because you might get whisked to trial because some nation decided you were a war criminal?

It's not about whether or not Spain (or wherever) is going to invade the USA, it's the diplomatic message they're sending to the USA.

These events are political theater, folks.

That's their point.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 30, 2009)

Peejay said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > btw, Peejay, i'm stating the FACTS
> ...


we did no such thing
the Iraqis did what they did


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 30, 2009)

editec said:


> manu1959 said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...


sionce it is just onme moron in sapin and not the whole country, i dont think anyone has to worry about that
and, to have a trial they would need to have proof, which they LACK


----------



## Peejay (Mar 30, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Peejay said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Sure thing.

How is happy land these days ?


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 30, 2009)

Peejay said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Peejay said:
> ...


you should know
you live there


----------



## Peejay (Mar 30, 2009)

I know your reading level is on the low end of the scale but take your time.



> If the Iraqi Parliament refuses to pass the privatization legislation, the US Congress will withhold US reconstruction funds promised to the Iraqis to rebuild what the United States has destroyed in Iraq. The privatization law, written by American oil company consultants hired by the Bush administration, would leave the control of only 17 of 80 known oil fields with the Iraq National Oil Company. The remainder (two-thirds) of known oil fields and all yet undiscovered oil fields would be up for grabs by the private oil companies of the world (but guess how many would go to the United States firms given to them by the compliant Iraqi government.)
> 
> Source:  Ann Wright, US Army Colonel, retired.





> The Bush administration and Congress have made adoption of the oil law one of the "benchmarks" of "progress" and Iraqi "cooperation."  The law has been unanimously and strongly condemned and rejected by all of Iraqi's major labor federations.  If adopted, it would allow foreign oil corporations to obtain contracts to exploit up to 2/3 of Iraqi oil reserves for as long as 30 years and to reap the lion's share of the profits earned on that oil.  It makes a mockery of the notion of Iraqi sovereignty and would deprive the Iraqi people of the resources they require to rebuild their shattered nation.
> 
> The leadership of the Democratic Party has embraced this oil law and put it into the supplemental funding bill as one of the benchmarks by which the Iraqi government will be measured.  In doing so, they have become complicit in a backdoor effort to privatize Iraq's publicly owned oil resources - second largest in the world.
> for web-5/14 SF Emergency Protest Againt Iraq Oil Law Privatizing Oil





> Iraqis oppose plans to open the countrys oilfields to foreign investment by a factor of two to one, according to a poll released today. Iraqis are united in this view: there are no ethnic, sectarian or geographical groups that prefer foreign companies.
> 
> 
> The poll also finds that most Iraqis feel kept in the dark about the oil plans  with fewer than a quarter feeling adequately informed about a proposed new law to govern Iraqs oil sector.
> ...




The privatization of Iraqi oil isn't the product of any sort of democracy,  in fact,  it is quite the opposite.  It's the result of an American backed government under near extortion of reconstruction funds.......US tax payer funds,  to hand over it's oil to private exploration.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 30, 2009)

you had no link for the first, and the last two sources lack credibility


----------



## WillowTree (Mar 30, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Peejay said:
> 
> 
> > *We* don't get the oil. We, as in,  We The people of the United States of America.  It isn't in your daily headlines but do a little poking around and you'll see who is getting the oil.  The bidding for the oil,  under the new privatized Iraqi oil law,  is well underway.
> ...







OOps


----------



## Peejay (Mar 30, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Peejay said:
> ...



Gee....you mean the US is not controlling Iraq ?  Some folks are going to be sorely disappointed.

Conman,  name me a source you find credible.

Fox News ?  

What ?  

Just give me an outlet.  The dreaded BBC ?

Everyone has reported on this.  Just tell me where you want to hear it from.


----------



## Peejay (Mar 30, 2009)

Here is the BBC report,  a full 4 years before the Oil fields rights were put up for privatization. 

You think they were just that lucky to get this EXACTLY right 4 years out ?  


BBC NEWS | Programmes | Newsnight | Secret US plans for Iraq's oil


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 30, 2009)

Peejay said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


no, the US does NOT control Iraq
the elected represenitives of Iraq do


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 30, 2009)

Peejay said:


> Here is the BBC report, a full 4 years before the Oil fields rights were put up for privatization.
> 
> You think they were just that lucky to get this EXACTLY right 4 years out ?
> 
> ...


you realize that is a 4 year old story and was proven FALSE, right?


----------



## Peejay (Mar 30, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Peejay said:
> 
> 
> > Here is the BBC report, a full 4 years before the Oil fields rights were put up for privatization.
> ...




Um....what part of the number 4 do you not understand ?  See where I said "4 years" twice ?  But for the sake of conversation,  let's say I thought that story was written 4 years _from_ now and I went into the future,  retrieved it and brought it back just for you.

Whatever may have been proven false,  the reality of events have transpired to support the story.  The oil fields have been privatized and given up for bids to the oil companies.  Wonder how they knew ?


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 30, 2009)

Peejay said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Peejay said:
> ...


no they havent
you think you know, but you are a complete fucking IDIOT
you make shit up and then look for wacky and debunked stories to back it up
the Iraqi's are in control of their oil and their country


----------



## Peejay (Mar 30, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Peejay said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




Well stop the god damned presses and let's get these boys home !!

Shit......does the military have this prized information ?  If the Iraqis are in control,  those boys probably want to come home.  

You got anything besides "no it's not" to offer ?  Got any cites ?  Any facts ?  Brains ?


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 30, 2009)

Peejay said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Peejay said:
> ...


you are one ignorant troll


----------



## garyd (Mar 30, 2009)

You do realize people that historically trying to enforce your laws in someone else's country is considered and act of war?


----------



## Peejay (Mar 31, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Peejay said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




No,  you are an ignorant troll.  I have posted actual information.  You have not.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 31, 2009)

Peejay said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Peejay said:
> ...


no, you havent


----------



## Peejay (Mar 31, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Peejay said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Yes,  I have.  You say small words.  That's all.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 31, 2009)

Peejay said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Peejay said:
> ...


thats all your worth, asshole


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Mar 31, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> *hello??? How much oil did we get from iraq??? If you know the talking points surely you know how much???????? *



Oh my god, are all of you guys serious??? I suggest we all get acquainted with this tool: it's called the INTERNET, with which you can access information from this little thing called the STATE?? You see, one of the things that they do often is COLLECT DATA, and then you can now LOOK IT UP, from the comfort of your own home:



			
				Energy Information Administration said:
			
		

> Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)
> (Thousand Barrels per *Day*)
> 
> Country	Dec-08	Nov-08	*YTD 2008*	Dec-07	*YTD 2007*
> ...



Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries

Hahaha, I don't understand, where you guys expecting it to be like the lottery? Bet you would've just taken the large payout, but no no no. You get these things in daily installments. 

"WHERE'S ALL THE OIL THEN!?!?!??!?!?" 

Well..... uh..... do you have a car? In that case it might be in your garage. Gone to the grocery store lately? Got lots of plastic bags? Hmmmm, well, might wanna check there. I dunno, I could go on, but I think you get the picture. 

Seriously, I mean, it looks as though you guys wanted it to just start flowing on the streets and out of fountains; as though now every gas station was gonna just have hundreds of barrels of oil sitting around. Jeez, where's Iraqs oil? Look in your driveway, people!

Exxon Mobil posts record 4Q profit of $10.7 billion - Earnings- msnbc.com

TheStar.com | Business | Exxon Mobil's US$10.9B Q1 profit nears record

Exxon Mobil shatters US record for annual profit: US$45.2 billion - Yahoo! Canada Finance

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/business/01cnd-exxon.html

Shell's record profits branded 'obscene' | Business | guardian.co.uk

BBC NEWS | Business | Shell reports record UK profits

Shell announces huge rise in profits - Business News, Business - The Independent

BP profits soar by 148 per cent, triggering calls for windfall tax - Telegraph

BP quarterly profit hits record $10bn | Business | The Guardian

Chevron profit tops Wall St., spending seen steady | Markets | Hot Stocks | Reuters

Chevron posts record $18.7 billion profit

WHERE'S THE OIL?! Ahahahaha!!! You guys must be being cynical!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html?_r=1


----------



## Peejay (Mar 31, 2009)

In this thread,  divecon has posted 28 times.  He averages 16 words per post.  He has quoted no sources and posted no information other than his own word.  

In message board terms,  you are worthless.  You can prove nothing you say.  Worthless, garbage talk.  Oppositional speech with the sole intent of provoking response,  without merit,  support or proof.  The definition of a troll.  

But you are the resident troll,  kind of like a mascot.  I guess everyone needs a cheer leader.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 31, 2009)

Peejay said:


> In this thread,  divecon has posted 28 times.  He averages 16 words per post.  he has quoted no sources and posted no information other than his own word.
> 
> In message board terms,  you are worthless.  You can prove nothing you say.  Worthless, garbage talk.  Oppositional speech with the sole intent of provoking response,  without merit,  support or proof.  The definition of a troll.
> 
> But you are the resident troll,  kind of like a mascot.  I guess everyone needs a cheer leader.


fuck off asshole


----------



## Peejay (Mar 31, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Peejay said:
> 
> 
> > In this thread,  divecon has posted 28 times.  He averages 16 words per post.  he has quoted no sources and posted no information other than his own word.
> ...



Careful,  your words per post average is shrinking.  It'll match your IQ if you let it hit 12.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 31, 2009)

Epsilon Delta said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > *hello??? How much oil did we get from iraq??? If you know the talking points surely you know how much???????? *
> ...


uh, that doesnt prove a damn thing


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 31, 2009)

Peejay said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Peejay said:
> ...


fuck off asshole


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Mar 31, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Peejay said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Ahahaha, look at this guy. Once again, he's his own worst enemy. 

Props on calling out his blatant idiocy.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Mar 31, 2009)

WAIT, lemme guess...



			
				DiveCon said:
			
		

> Epsilon Delta said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 31, 2009)

Epsilon Delta said:


> WAIT, lemme guess...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


yeah, fuck off asshole
thats what you get when you are a fucking ignorant asshole
dont like it, dont be one


----------



## Agnapostate (Mar 31, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I believe the US Courts should retaliate and bring charges of harrassment and denial of human rights on those lawyers, any judges and any prosecutors that bring the charges to court.
> 
> We should threaten Spain with legal retaliation and threaten to seize assets of the Spanish Government and expel their Diplomats.



Yeah yeah! Those damn European socialists are imposing their Marxist Muslim ACLU atheism on the leader of the free world, democracy, and free markets again, damn it! Who the hell are Mossadeq, Arbenz, and Allende anyway?!


----------



## Peejay (Mar 31, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Epsilon Delta said:
> 
> 
> > WAIT, lemme guess...
> ...




Feel free to provide a single word of support for anything you have said here.

You got nothing.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Mar 31, 2009)

Peejay said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Epsilon Delta said:
> ...



Nah, man, we can't expect anything from him. He can barely understand sentences and has some difficulty reproducing them- nevermind PARAGRAPHS or something as daunting and monolithic as the internet. Sometimes there's no alternative but to let complete morons be complete morons like our friend DiveCon here. An epic failure poster. = \ It's very sad, but what can you do against something as insane and well thought-out as "fuck off asshole"!? *Flinches* Whoa, he _really_ showed me the fallacy in my posts with that one!! Now I realize my mistakes!


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Mar 31, 2009)

DiveCon said:
			
		

> fuck off asshole



.


----------



## Yukon (Apr 1, 2009)

Bush Junior is a war criminal guilty of crimes against humanity. He should be executed in Texas.


----------



## thanatos144 (Apr 1, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Bush Junior is a war criminal guilty of crimes against humanity. He should be executed in Texas.



should Obama follow for his crimes on bombing those poor defenseless terrorists? You are such a dumbass.


----------



## Yukon (Apr 1, 2009)

I say again: Bush Junior is a war criminal guilty of crimes against humanity. He should be executed in Texas.


----------



## thanatos144 (Apr 1, 2009)

Yukon said:


> I say again: Bush Junior is a war criminal guilty of crimes against humanity. He should be executed in Texas.



and I say again you are a dumb ass. Why dont you go force a woman in to having an abortion and leave the rest of us thinking people alone.


----------



## Yukon (Apr 1, 2009)

Abortion is the only thing you can think of ?


----------



## Tech_Esq (Apr 1, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Bush Junior is a war criminal guilty of crimes against humanity. He should be executed in Texas.



Dumbass troll. Have you ever said anything even mildly intelligent?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 1, 2009)

Yukon can't say anything intelligent.......

The jizz of the choir boys has clogged his brain.


----------



## mightypeon (Apr 1, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Iraq had abso
> ...



Who said that you won? 
I mean yes, you won the conventional war (truth to be told, Bush 2 would have been replaced with a mentally retarded Chimpanzee, the US would have won he conventional war anyway, there is no way the US could possibly loose a conventional confrontation with an embargoed 3rd world country), but a lot of things went wrong with the buisness of installing the appropriate vasalls or the process of turning Iraq into a nice satellite.
I see the point of invading Iraq from a Machiaviellian PoV. Irak was secular (so it should be easier to hold on for a non Muslim occupier), fairly educated (more exploitable human ressources), in a strategic position (always nice, means more competition though), rich in resources and split amog ethnic lines (should make divide and conquer much more feasable).
From a power point of view, Iraq can be seen as one of the better place to invade (one just has to fake a Casus Belli, whoops FAIL), what amazed me was the amount of trouble it made/makes.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Apr 2, 2009)

mightypeon said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



I think any objective observer would count it as a win now. It was actually a win before the civil war etc. If our sole objective was simply to defeat a potential enemy, we should have left when Bush was on the "Mission Accomplished" carrier. Granted, we would have left a broken country, but technically it would have been a victory.

Having said that, our objectives went beyond simply removing Saddam and his capacity to make war. Especially for the neo-cons, the ultimate wet dream of a plan was that they flip Iraq to a going concern as a democratic country to be a "shining beacon on a hill" in the muslim world which would, by its very presence, foment home grown revolution or at least democratic reform in the region by the Iraqis showing how great it is living in a democracy. (Ok, I think they were smoking some really good weed when they thought that up, but.... I think that was their ultimate plan).

I agree with your "Real Politick" analysis of why we did it. That's pretty much what I've been saying since the beginning of this adventure. I NEVER EVER bought the WMD cassus belli. I don't want to be too harsh on those that did, but really you'd have to be dumb as a post, not so much to think that he did have them (since he used WMD on his own people), but that they posed any kind of a significant threat to the US.

We attacked them because of the reasons you state and because the coalition from the first Gulf War was about to break down completely. Aside from the corruption in the Oil for Food program which has been well documented, the French were desperately trying to get contracts back in Iraq, if I'm not mistaken Germany and Russia were also trying to get various contracts. In any case, the members of the coalition were putting pressure on the US and Britain to end the sanctions. Basically, the US had to shit or get off the pot. They chose to shit. Revisionists who now claim that there was an option to just keep the sanctions up are not dealing in historical fact. That was no longer an option by 2003.


----------



## mightypeon (Apr 3, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> mightypeon said:
> 
> 
> > Tech_Esq said:
> ...



Trying to get back contracts? Of course, precisly when did "moral considerations" ever stopped major powers like Russia or medium powers like Germany and France from doing buisness.
From Russia, Sadam could have been a potential asset against the more or less US satellites of Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia too, and having Iraq as a satellite would be an immense help to reestablish Russian control of the Caucasus.

Mind you, if the US goal would have been a bit more realistic, like "set up another random dictator with some token democratic legitimation as a puppet, hope that you wont have to invade again soon, make funny faces at Iran, than the whole thing may have worked.

The only examples were "forced democratisations" worked were Germany and Japan, and both had scores of differences.
To name some:
-The former gouverment systems of Germany and Japan were "univerisally reviled" after WW2. Iraqs Mudschahedin are at least morally supported by a significant part of the world.
-In the bipolar world following WW2, there was the common threat of the Soviet Union, today, the only threat potentially big enough would be the USA itself.
-At least Germany had a democratic tradition, several ancient Germanic tribes used democratic decision making processes, and German city states were republics nominally subservient to the Emperor. Bismarks Prussia also had democratic elements, as did the German Empire pre WW1, some individual counties like Baden also had significant democratic elements in their constitution.

I am no expert on Iraqi history, but I do know that no Empire in the area ever had something like "Free cities", and at least the Ottomans were, although quite tolerant in religious terms, hugely adversed to democratic ideas.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Apr 3, 2009)

mightypeon said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > mightypeon said:
> ...



Moral considerations? Never (which was part of the point) It was more political considerations that stopped them from "overtly" flouting the sanctions even though it was patently obvious to everyone that by 2003 underground trade was occurring.

Oh, I agree, there were other countries, not the least of which Russia, that had geo-political interests in Iraq. And, the US didn't just step on some toes, but stomped on a good many toes by occupying Iraq. A good measure of why the US had such trouble there is just because of that reason. From a US prospective, pouting "also rans" we going to make the US suffer the results of its adventurism alone. (And see how we like it). From a more political prospective, it suited the rest of the world, especially in the beginning France and China, but later Russia to have the US pinned down and over-stretched fully engaged in two long-term and seemingly interminable wars. It's hard for the "remaining super power" to act too tough when they are essentially, militarily paralyzed. (As we saw with the Georgia affair.)

I would argue that Saddam's Ba'athist government was also reviled. Where it exists in Syria it is still reviled. Certainly, it does not compare to the level of the end years of the Nazi regime, but it does bare some the earmarks of the earlier Nazi era. I won't dispute you on your own country's history. I do wonder if perhaps in political-economic terms you overstate the importance of democratic traditions and institutions in pre-Wiemar Republic Germany. 

In Japan, it seems clear, there were no democratic traditions. Further, it seems that Middle-Eastern culture has more in common with far-eastern culture than western culture. Especially in the fighting tactics and willingness to partake in suicidal missions. (ie Human wave attacks so common in the Iran-Iraq war, as well as the by the Japanese in WW II and the Chinese in the Korean war and of course Kamikaze attack of the Japanese and suicide bombers currently).

Leaving that discussion aside for a moment, I don't think it would be correct to say that some peoples of the Earth don't desire/deserve to live in a free society. At some point, each society was despotic or authoritarian. Each society that is no longer that evolved or revolted to become something else. The Shi'ites revolted against Saddam after the 1991 war. They were suppressed. 

I look at this in the long tradition of the US encouraging revolution against tyranny, but not so much helping when it comes about (see 1956 Hungary and 1968 Czechoslovakia and the rest). So the question in my mind is, if the US had instead successfully helped the Hungarians, Czechs and Shi'ites, would we still be seen as "imposing" democracy? I think not. So, why should the "freedom," though it happens 12 years later, be considered less desired by the Iraqis? After all freedom came to the Hungarians 33 years later and 21 years later for the Czechs. 

As to installing a puppet regime. I think we did that in 1952 and it came back to bite our ass in 1979. So, maybe we're past that stage now. I think a lot of the puppet installation was done in the perceived "emergency" of the Cold War. Some of it was the ham-fisted actions of a new world power unused to power politics on the world stage. Some of it was simply the desire to block the Soviets at any cost. I think in retrospect people here have looked back and said, if it needs to be done, it should only be done like Germany and Japan were done. Long-term commitments to develop true allies and not mere puppets with penetrated processes that the CIA runs as field office. The list of disasters where that was done is too long to deny.


----------



## mightypeon (Apr 3, 2009)

Apart from that, the whole "democratisation" thingy is more or less equivalent to earlier attempts at religious force conversion.

There were several ways under which "conversion" attempts worked:

Take 1: The Charlemange approach: Kill everyone who does not agree, repeat until no non agreers left. Not advisable if you dont have the total Public relations superiority that Charlemange enjoyed. I seriously doubt that the US wants to do this, I also doubt that it could comit such atrocities while beeing a democracy.

Take 2: The Protestant approach: Convince and convert the leaders.
It is an interesting question how Protestantism was able to become dominant force in European politics. The most direct awnser: The ones already in power saw it as benificial to convert to Protestantism, after they converted, the masses followed. Conversion of Rulers to Protestantism were usually motivated by the wish of gaining the church monasteries/lands etc. which sometimes made up half of the county in question.

Concerning Irak, well, the "leaders" were a bit pissed about the "DeBaathification" (Its not as if Denazification really happened in Germany, yes, some got exekuted, some more got into a prison, but the only ones who gave a damn about Nazi Pasts after 1950 were the Soviets)I assume, besides that, anyone will have a hard time of selling "democracy" (which is in theory less power to the rulers) to those already in power.
However, this part apperantly worked decently in Northern Irak, which seems to be the real estate with the most value.

Another approach that worked were the Spanish, even the target population beliefs you are a god, you naturaly have an easier time of converting them. 
Unfortunatly, I doubt Obama can convince Osama that he is a God/The Mahdi/The Flying Spagetti Monster. 
Although, one could try something like: "listen Al-Quaida, Obama is the Mahdi and works to destroy the big Satan from within! Support him by only attacking Russia and China and evil Republicans!"


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 3, 2009)

"a man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still"

source unknown


----------



## CRKNERR (Apr 14, 2009)

The evidence is overwhelming that the "W" CROWD -- UP TO AND INCLUDING "W" -- authorized war crimes . . 


Americans wish to ignore thiis reality . . . WELL . .  THE WORLD IS ANGRY . . .




 Report: The "Bush Six" to Be Indicted by Spanish Prosecutors 
ABC News - &#8206;15 hours ago&#8206;
Spain has no jurisdiction. If they attempt to act on their little game-playing, it should be considered an act of war. Given that both Democratic and ...
Spain to indict the "Bush Six" over torture Foreign Policy 
Decision likely in US torture case in Spain Fort Mills Times 
Bush Six To Be Indicted For War Crimes OpEdNews 
all 131 news articles »  [/I][/I]


----------



## Sinatra (Apr 15, 2009)

The leftists running Spain can go to hell.

Hopefully the Spanish people will wise up and return some degree of normalcy to their chaotic political environment.  Hell, even the French shake their heads at Spain and declare, "Those people are nutters."


----------



## krotchdog (Apr 15, 2009)

I am in spain, I am in madrid, I am a conservative, I love the spanish people, they are no different than us, most would rather not talk politics, I will bring this up with them but I already know what they will say, "the judge is an idiot".

Demonize and divide the nation, can I point out that clinton actually commited much worst offenses than bush, easily but that is to miss the point.

Point being is Bush supposedly behaves above the fray, he has humility, dont try and debate me on that point, I wont, I do not pretend to know exactly why bush does or did the things he did. 

What is relevant is that Bush did reach out, he took the middle of the road, he doesnt attack clinton, he doesnt point out the bias in media, he has humility. Bush was not a true conservative, he met the enemy half way, he gave in and comprimised conservative priniciples, he did not try and sway the public opinion, he thought he could make everyone happy. 

That is his screw up, and now that he is out of office, he may have to suffer, doubtful, this story is already old, most of the media ignored it.

I hate to say it but if anymore becomes of this I hope other politicians who where call themselves Republicans will be conservatives, not middle of the road conservatives which is not conservative at all. 

Bush could of united the country, instead he divided it by not showing the world true conservatism.

Its the left filled with hate, its the left that wont compromise, conservatives should not ask them to, not if that means meeting in the middle of road. 

We will not see Obama meet halfway.

True conservatism is good for all people, its not evil, its not bad, true conservatism would bring back all the jobs we lost, it would bring back our heavy industry, it would bring back our use of our natural resources, we would not deal with the tyrants of the world nor would we allow anyone else to, we would take in the refugees, legally, and than the defeat the tyrants they fled.

Our economy would grow so fast, faster than any other time in the world, I could promise 350,000,000 new jobs in one year, and I would deliver.

Jobs of all sorts, low paying and high, a true conservative would get rid of all taxes but one. 

A true conservative would get rid of all the carpet baggers. 

We would use all the resources of the world, for we would take the refugees of the those countries, and with them the resources.

We are the good of the world, we gave the industry to china, albiet because the democrats want cheap labor but its there and it was ours

We gave the electronic industry to Japan,

We ensured all of europe got rebuilt after WW II

so much good we have done, all with oil, our technology.

Now the statists are destroying us, faster year after year.

conservatives never had control of the government, we had turncoats like mccain is our party, you see uglyness in our party, I agree, we have liberals in our party, you dont think when we won in the 90's the power that be did not make sure they stacked the deck on both sides.

This is not about us against you.

This is about you othe americans waking up and realizing both parties have sold our future to foriegn lands.

NOW THANK ME, I EDUCATED YOU


----------



## rayboyusmc (Apr 15, 2009)

> clinton actually commited much worst offenses than bush,



You may be in Spain, but you are still full of right wing shit.


----------



## del (Apr 15, 2009)

rayboyusmc said:


> > clinton actually commited much worst offenses than bush,
> 
> 
> 
> You may be in Spain, but you are still full of right wing shit.



brilliant riposte.


----------



## WillowTree (Apr 15, 2009)

Talking Points was right on point last night.

Listen up!





Bill O'Reilly | The O'Reilly Factor - FOXNews.com


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 15, 2009)

del said:


> rayboyusmc said:
> 
> 
> > > clinton actually commited much worst offenses than bush,
> ...



And dead accurate.


----------



## del (Apr 15, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > rayboyusmc said:
> ...



of course it was, feldspar.


----------



## krotchdog (Apr 15, 2009)

rayboyusmc said:


> > clinton actually commited much worst offenses than bush,
> 
> 
> 
> You may be in Spain, but you are still full of right wing shit.



eekey moekey


----------



## krotchdog (Apr 15, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > rayboyusmc said:
> ...



O, look, its the greenee meanee, he is sniffing the krotchdog, he misses me, you no worry old greenee meanee, I come find you, I no forget. you no need sniff my posts, last time I saw you, you had problem, you got depends on now, I no see big mess, you be careful old greenee meanee, I come find you, no worry.


----------



## krotchdog (Apr 15, 2009)

rayboyusmc said:


> > clinton actually commited much worst offenses than bush,
> 
> 
> 
> You may be in Spain, but you are still full of right wing shit.



Yes but I wipe with my left wing and flush it down the rayboy

You got more for me?????


----------



## Xenophon (Apr 17, 2009)

It appears the Spanish government chose not to procede with this.

Smart choice.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 17, 2009)

You know......with the release of the GITMO memos by Obama, there isn't really gonna be a way for Bush Jr. and Cheney to avoid prosecution.

Hell.......Cheney even admitted that he authorized torture.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 17, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> You know......with the release of the GITMO memos by Obama, there isn't really gonna be a way for Bush Jr. and Cheney to avoid prosecution.
> 
> Hell.......Cheney even admitted that he authorized torture.



You are incredible stupid. Stop doing drugs, save what few brain cells you still have left.

Ohh and to repeat, Spain is NOT going through with any Prosecution.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 17, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > You know......with the release of the GITMO memos by Obama, there isn't really gonna be a way for Bush Jr. and Cheney to avoid prosecution.
> ...



RGS get fucked you Marine cocksmoker.  You are the one who is full of shit asshole.  I can't help it if you are too stupid to actually watch the news sometime......

Here colon jouster, lemmie help ya out........

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pLpcYV27tM[/ame]

Cheney DID ADMIT TO TORTURE ON NATIONAL TV.

Ya fucking 'tard.  You're proof of the knuckle dragger stories that everyone tells about Marines.

Go back out in the field prick, your services are no longer required here.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 17, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


no, he did not
you are reading that out from something else he said
he never said he authorized torture so you are LYING


----------



## Political Junky (May 27, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > Spanish court considers trying former US officials
> ...


Any particular charges or you just feel like it?


----------

