You people that called Bush a liar what do you call


But you venerate and praise the people that did this??? You are happy these kids were used by terrorists to bomb our soldiers who were simply handing out candy to them?
pictures of children used as suicide bombers - Bing Images
$Screen Shot 2014-03-14 at 10.17.19 AM.png
 
Bush dropped WP on falughia as a weapon.

That is a clear war crime.


He denied it until he was forced by the evidence to ADMITT IT.


the right wing congress REFUSED to do anything about it

Obama dropped missiles in sovereign nations without any declaration of war and killed and maimed innocent civilians.

The left wing congress refuses to do anything about it.

and obama is killing American citizens with drones without so much as a trial; even a trial in absentia

the left-wing congress refuses to do anything about it
 
White phosphorus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Arms control status and military regulations[edit]

There are multiple international laws that could be seen to regulate white phosphorus use.[92] Article 1 of Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons defines an incendiary weapon as "any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target". The same protocol prohibits the use of said incendiary weapons against civilians (already forbidden by the Geneva Conventions) or in civilian areas. The convention also defines weapons which are not to be considered to be incendiary weapons.

Examples are:

(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;(ii) Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect.
Weapons containing white phosphorus, but are not incendiary weapons, are not regulated by the above protocol.

However, the use against military targets outside civilian areas is not explicitly banned by any treaty. The convention is meant to prohibit weapons that are "dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare" (Article II, Definitions, 9, "Purposes not Prohibited" c.).

The convention defines a "toxic chemical" as a chemical "which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals" (CWC, II). An annex lists chemicals that fall under this definition and WP is not listed in the Schedules of chemical weapons or precursors.[93]

In an 2005 interview with RAI, Peter Kaiser, spokesman for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (an organization overseeing the CWC and reporting directly to the UN General Assembly), questioned whether the weapon should fall under the convention's provisions:

they want to kill you too idiot
 
U.S. official admits phosphorus used as weapon in Iraq - World - CBC News


A spokesman for the U.S. military has admitted that soldiers used white phosphorus as an "incendiary weapon" while trying to flush out insurgents in the northern Iraqi city of Fallujah last year.

"White phosphorus is a conventional munition," Lt.-Col. Barry Venable told the British Broadcasting Corporation. "It is not a chemical weapon. They are not outlawed or illegal."

He added that though used mostly to provide smokescreens and flashes of light, in the Fallujah battle, "it was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants."

High-ranking U.S. officials had earlier insisted that the substance, which can burn skin to the bone, was used only to help illuminate battle scenes.

"U.S. forces do not use napalm or white phosphorus as weapons," the American ambassador to London, Robert Tuttle, wrote in a letter to the Independent newspaper.

■FROM NOV. 8, 2004: 'We will be successful,' Rumsfeld warns Fallujah insurgents


An unknown number of Iraqi women and children died of phosphorus burns during the hostilities, Italian documentary makers covering the battle for Fallujah have claimed.

Nov 16, 2005 5:26 AM ET|
 
I seem to think lying to start a war is not the same as misrepresenting the possible outcomes of a healthcare bill

"The Smoking Gun will be a Mushroom Cloud"
 
I seem to think lying to start a war is not the same as misrepresenting the possible outcomes of a healthcare bill

"The Smoking Gun will be a Mushroom Cloud"



more crying about a war the Left funded for a cecade

YAWN
 
This was a clear war crime.

Bush and the entire republican government at the time LIED about it UNTIL they were FORCED by the world to admit it.



You voted for a war criminal for your partys sake
 
This was a clear war crime.

Bush and the entire republican government at the time LIED about it UNTIL they were FORCED by the world to admit it.



You voted for a war criminal for your partys sake



like i said dolt; where is the war crimes trial?

it's only been 11 years


lol
 
Bish commited a war crime in like 2004.


The world knew it.


You didn't?



if the world knew it why isnt he in prison leftard?

because of his power and people like the koch brothers you fucking dolt.


BUSH ADMITTED IT.

there is NO doubt they dropped WP on fallughia



Bush admitted it asshole



translation:


waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!1

cant you morons ever stop making excuses?
 
if the person who kills you never gets tried does that make you alive again?
 
I seem to think lying to start a war is not the same as misrepresenting the possible outcomes of a healthcare bill

"The Smoking Gun will be a Mushroom Cloud"

I love it was a lie when Bush did it, but misrepresentation when Obama did it. You're a Holy troller hack, fella.
 
Okay lets say that the both lied on purpose to get what they wanted.

Which lie caused the most human suffering? An illegitimate war where tens of thousands of lost their lives, were maimed or, forcing insurances companies to comply with the new rules and making some people choose a new plan? A war that shifted the balance of power in the ME to Iran, or a policy that will cost some people a little more for their insurance? A war the eroded the Good Will of the USA throughout the world or, a Health Care policy that covers previous conditions and has no benefit caps?

Did they both know they were lying or did they both believe what the were selling?

Lying is lying. Compare and contrast them all you want, the reality is both men lied. one gets a pass, one doesn't.

One was justification for an ill advised invasion an occupation of another country. The other was not justification for the ACH but a statement about a specific portion of the new law. We can't go back and give those people their lives back however, or restore the previous balance of power in the ME. We can go back and make changes to the new health care laws.
 
It was not a lie.

If you like it?


how can that be a lie.

LIKE is not something you can KNOW as rational.


He said that as if people were rational.


Some idiots like to be beaten.


he was talking about unquantifiable things folks ...... its NOT a lie
 

Forum List

Back
Top