SALMUN

Salvador Model United Nations
 
HomeHome  CalendarCalendar  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlist  UsergroupsUsergroups  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 
 

 Case 1 - George W. Bush

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
AuthorMessage
ICC U.S.A_Etienne
GodLike
GodLike


Posts : 56
Join date : 2010-09-16
Age : 75
Location : Salvador, Bahia

PostSubject: Case 1 - George W. Bush   Sat Sep 18, 2010 2:26 pm

True, George Bush can be guiltly of some things... Things such as having been elected twice in a row president of the WORLDS MOST POWERFUL NATION (which all of you wish your country was as good strong and beautiful as the USA is) and having defended and protected its country after having two of the worlds tallest buildings be taken down in one of the worlds most powerful cities which happens to be New York, having an airplane crash into the Pentagon, and having another one headed right for the white house, where he would have been killed if it did reach its destination. he is guilty of having donated $15 billion to help with AIDS (just to let you know sudan, you have the highest infection rate in the Middle East and North Africa- there were 400,000 infected as of 2005, so lets not even talk about how it is now...) with $48 billion reauthorization that adds significant funding for tuberculosis and malaria, in first term, the US more than doubled development assistance to Africa and helped secure $34 billion in debt relief for 19 African countries, and for the tsunami of the indian ocean, in total, Americans donated $700 million, which was matched by $950 million more from the federal government. Sixteen thousand US military personnel, dozens of US ships, and more than 100 aircraft were dedicated to tsunami recovery, at a cost the State Department estimates at $5 million a day... do i need to continue? cuz wed have for quite a while here...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
ICC U.S.A_Etienne
GodLike
GodLike


Posts : 56
Join date : 2010-09-16
Age : 75
Location : Salvador, Bahia

PostSubject: Re: Case 1 - George W. Bush   Sat Sep 18, 2010 5:17 pm

some other things that George Bush can be guilty for... is having said some stupid phrases ex.
1. 'The vast majority of our imports come from outside the country."

2. "If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."

3. "Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child."

4. "No senior citizen should ever have to choose between prescription drugs and medicine."

5. "I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and

democracy - but that could change."

6. "One word sums up probably the responsibility of any Governor, and that one word is 'to be prepared.'"

7. "Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things."

8. "I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future."

9. 'The future will be better tomorrow."

10. "We're going to have the best educated American people in the world."

11. "One of the great things about books is sometimes there are some

fantastic pictures." (during an education photo-op)

12. "Illegitimacy is something we should talk about in terms of not having

it."

13. "We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur."

14. "It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities

in our air and water that are doing it."

15. "I stand by all the misstatements that I've made."...(George W.Bush to Sam Donaldson)

(have a good laugh)

Back to top Go down
View user profile
ICC U.S.A_Etienne
GodLike
GodLike


Posts : 56
Join date : 2010-09-16
Age : 75
Location : Salvador, Bahia

PostSubject: Sudan you might want to think this over twice before saying anything about Bush...   Sun Sep 19, 2010 1:47 pm

Reply to Sudanese delegate's quote:
"Now changing the corse of my post, i would like to mention that Al-Bashir is innocent from the point of view of the African Union and that Sudan never sined to the ICC treaty, so therfore he cannot be hold in its jurisdiction. But Bush....."

For the fact that the United States, like Sudan, have not ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Bush shall not be held under ICC jurisdiction. So Sudan should be aware of this fact and support the non-indictment of George Bush, since it is simply an intervention of United States' national sovereignty. The words that the delegate of Sudan put forth shows a very contradictory position and shows lack of compromise over/about the court. Is it Bush, or Al-Bashir that has a two warrants for arrest? Is it Bush or Al-Bashir that has been accused of two counts of war crimes, five counts of crimes against humanity and three counts of genocide? And still, the delegation of Sudan implies that Bush is not innocent? Just something to think about.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
ICC Iran_Alana
Level 2
Level 2


Posts : 15
Join date : 2010-09-14

PostSubject: Re: Case 1 - George W. Bush   Sun Sep 19, 2010 10:31 pm

After reading this post, the delegate of Iran has to admit that is impressed how the war in Iraq wasn’t mentioned AT ALL by the delegate of United States of America, but why? The delegate of USA can be trying to point out the good things that his ex President George Bush did so we forget what happened in Iraq. Sorry delegate, but it is impossible! Mothers cry every single day with the lost of their children, children cry without the company of there parents and nights of sleep are lost because of the lack of information there is about who is in the war, these people are the ones that remember us what happen in Iraq.
Excuses, this is the only thing George Bush did and he actually was good in creating them, however time passes and the reality appears. The first excuse that Bush “We know Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction and chemical weapons”. Where are these bombs? Never found. Never used. The United States repeated several times that the world should never allow Iraq to get one nuclear weapon because they might used them, the USA have SIX THOUSAND AND WAS THE ONLY COUNTRY IN HISTORY THAT USED THEM! President Bush also had the courage to say that it would prosecute Iraqi leaders for War Crimes. Which War Crimes? Why? Bush comes up with a plan of invading Iraq for oil saying that it is to find Weapons of Mass Destruction and when the Iraqi leaders and people try to protect there selves from the “world’s most powerful nation” they accuse them of war crimes. Bush started the war and the Iraqi leaders should be punished, why? There is no sense, no logical response for that! The war against Iraq also was to make the world population safe from Al-Qaeda; however Al-Qaeda was created as a RESULT of the Americans invasions in 1991. Bush’s administration instead with the fact that War in Iraq had “nothing to do with oil”, but why was the FIRST territory confiscated by the US was the southern oil fields? A coincidence or plan? Obviously it was part of a plan, IT IS ALL A PLAN! A plan that tried to manipulates each and every single us, however it won’t because we will discover all the truth! It is completely ridiculous, how Bush thinks the world is stupid and he is the owner of the truth, by he is not and the Iranian delegate will prove he is COMPLETELY guilty!
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sudan_Bruno
Level 1
Level 1


Posts : 10
Join date : 2010-08-23

PostSubject: Re: Case 1 - George W. Bush   Mon Sep 20, 2010 2:13 pm

Delegate, at least my country and my continent is happy with my president. At least my president was Not named the worst president of all times. My president has more than 50% of aproval of the sudanese people its self. Bush was named the worst president by Forbes megazine, wich is an american source. Now Bashir is being criticized by the western powers.

Al-Bashir`s position is very different from Bush`s position. Al-Bashir is being prosecuted with circunstantial evidence, when what Bush did is clear to the eyes of all.

Besides Sudan has no influence over world politics when USA manipulates every other nation with its imperialistic ideals!!

Eh Noix!


Last edited by Sudan_Bruno on Tue Sep 21, 2010 11:03 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
ICC Iran_Alana
Level 2
Level 2


Posts : 15
Join date : 2010-09-14

PostSubject: Re: Case 1 - George W. Bush   Mon Sep 20, 2010 6:49 pm

Delegates, a new topic was created so that the case of Omar Al-Bashir is discussed, please start debating in that issue in THAT topic, it will make life easier for all of us..
Back to top Go down
View user profile
China_Rafael
HOT!
HOT!


Posts : 46
Join date : 2010-09-16
Age : 22
Location : Salvador, Bahia

PostSubject: Re: Case 1 - George W. Bush   Mon Sep 20, 2010 10:01 pm

usa_etienne wrote:
some other things that George Bush can be guilty for... is having said some stupid phrases ex.
1. 'The vast majority of our imports come from outside the country."

2. "If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."

3. "Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child."

4. "No senior citizen should ever have to choose between prescription drugs and medicine."

5. "I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and

democracy - but that could change."

6. "One word sums up probably the responsibility of any Governor, and that one word is 'to be prepared.'"

7. "Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things."

8. "I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future."

9. 'The future will be better tomorrow."

10. "We're going to have the best educated American people in the world."

11. "One of the great things about books is sometimes there are some

fantastic pictures." (during an education photo-op)

12. "Illegitimacy is something we should talk about in terms of not having

it."

13. "We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur."

14. "It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities

in our air and water that are doing it."

15. "I stand by all the misstatements that I've made."...(George W.Bush to Sam Donaldson)

(have a good laugh)


Dear delegate,

I am happy that you can find time to laugh in such situations, but the delegate of China believes Bush
is guilty of many other things, not just these "hilarious" displays of high IQ. With terrorist attacks such as 9/11, Bush found
a reason to send thousands of soldiers (from his OWN country) to slaughter innocent people in Middle Eastern
countries in the hope to find terrorists, and just a few of these innocent people were actually terrorists. He did
not only bring the death of Middle Eastern's, but also of his own troops.

The delegate of China would also like to point out the China - Taiwan relationship which the Bush government
tried to interfere in since the year of 2000. Here is a quote about it, coming from Bush's party:

"Our policy is based on the principle that there must be no use of force by China against Taiwan. We deny the right
of Beijing to impose its rule on the free Taiwanese people. All issues regarding Taiwan's future must be resolved
peacefully and must be agreeable to the people of Taiwan. If China violates these principles and attacks Taiwan,
then the United States will respond appropriately in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act. America will help Taiwan defend itself."


Well delegate, the United States stated that they wanted to take part of this "conflict" due to the fact that Taiwan was a
"helpless little island" in other words, but is the delegate aware that Bush thought it was a major military position which
could be used to the United States of America's favor? Delegate, China didn't use Taiwan for any harm, they instead
expanded the country, bringing money, tourism and human rights enforcement to them. Yes, Bush did good things, but
behind that guise of good-will, was a greedy man.

To reinforce my position, here is a quote from the spokesman of the State Council's Taiwan Affairs Office:

"We will show our utmost willingness and try our best to win peaceful unification prospects, but we shall never
tolerate 'Taiwan Independence' or any attempt to make Taiwan secede from China"


Taiwan is happy with their current situation and grateful for China, as you can see delegate. Bush was wrong about this,
so why do you think Bush was right in other things, such as occupying Middle Eastern territory? Use your common sense
delegate, and you can see George W. Bush isn't quite as "innocent" as people might assume.

With heart,
The delegate of China.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
ICCUK_amanda
Yeah!
Yeah!


Posts : 22
Join date : 2010-09-16

PostSubject: Re: Case 1 - George W. Bush   Fri Sep 24, 2010 9:05 am

the country of UK will have to agree that perhaps Bush's somewhat incompetant speach slip ups do nothing to support the defedants position, during Bush's presidency, difficult choices had to be made, and here i would like to quote The United Kingdom's new prime miniter David Cameron when he says , "You've got to do what you think is right even if it's unpopular, that's the only thing you can do".
i would also like to point out that in 2002, a survey was conducted in which 'indicate most Americans give reasonably high marks to the president and Congress for their handling of the debate over Iraq. Most Americans (56%) approve of the president’s handling of the "situation with Iraq." About a third of Americans say the president is "moving too quickly" on Iraq, but half (51%) say he is "giving careful thought to the issue." ' as you can see from this survey, not only did Bush need to think quickly on an action that his own country was growing restless, but the prime minister at the time said "It was better to deal with this threat, to remove him from office and I do genuinely believe the world is a safer place as a result."
Back to top Go down
View user profile
ICC U.S.A_Etienne
GodLike
GodLike


Posts : 56
Join date : 2010-09-16
Age : 75
Location : Salvador, Bahia

PostSubject: Re: Case 1 - George W. Bush   Sun Sep 26, 2010 6:45 pm

first of all i would like to state the iran might want to shut up about the nuclear weapon things since its own country right now is on its way to making nukes, and it might just have the same fate as iraq did once it starts menacing other countries such as israel...
i would also like the clarify to all of you people who talk about the american soldier loses as if it were G.B's fault or responsibility, (the delegate of Iran, very emotional speech about moms crying and stuff... (almost made me cry, really), and china) well guess what? sorry to break it down for you guys, but george bush will not be accused of killing his innocent soldiers because it is them themselves that signed up to the army, and to serve their country. nobody forced them to join the army, or am i wrong? it is not george bush that obliged them to sign in, but rather americans which for most soldier did not want to get a real job or whatever and so they sign up thinking oh well ill just chill out in the army since theres no war, and ill get food shelter and money! well tough luck, war broke out and they were called and some of them died... all i can say is too bad for them far having entered the army. if they didnt they wouldnt have died. so please dont bring up american troops dying again cause GB has nothing is not the one who made them die, it was their own choice.

and plan, what plan? where is the proof of that so called "plan"? where is the oil the you guys say was the porpuse of the invasion? i dont see the us with more oil than before.
and so you guys consider a person walking around shooting soldiers innocent people? ok now i see then... or more like i dont! of course there are always civilian casulties, that happens in every single war! but im not sure if you guys are aware, but the army was not shooting down women, kids (at least not the ones who were not carrying ak 47's and shooting at the army) and innocent people. i just dont see you guys can consider armed terrorists shooting at the army "innocent people".

and china, i really dont see where ur trying to get to with those two quotes... i do not see the US having taken taiwan as a military base so you might as well delete what u just wrote... even more the greedy part since the us obviously did not do anything that could be seen as the us trying to get bigger or richer or put a military base in taiwan. and the second quote is litteraly useless... look at what it says! "We will show our utmost willingness and try our best to win peaceful unification prospects, but we shall never
tolerate 'Taiwan Independence' or any attempt to make Taiwan secede from China"
it clearly says that they want unification so obviously their not gonna want its independence! so yeah i dont really see what position your reinforcing with that...

and wow i seriously cant believe you just wrote that sudan... all im gonna say is obviously sudanese people (the ones that are left) are gonna be happy with him, since he killed all the people that didnt like him, and just to let you know, i would like proof of this, taking the fact that to get him elected, the election was not even clean. they cheated to elect him! i dont see why they wouldnt cheat again and say that the remainder of the people (the ones he hasnt killed) are happy with him...

please people think twice on what you accuse bush of... really!

with an even bigger heart,
the delegate of the United States of America.

"A person who never made a mistake never tried anything new."
albert einstein
Back to top Go down
View user profile
ICC Iran_Alana
Level 2
Level 2


Posts : 15
Join date : 2010-09-14

PostSubject: Re: Case 1 - George W. Bush   Sun Sep 26, 2010 7:59 pm

The delegate of Iran needed to reread what the delegate of United States of America wrote so it could believe it was reality not a misunderstanding.
How can the delegate of United States of America discredit Iran's stance on nuclear arms when it both aids and allows Israel to pursue a clandestine nuclear weapons program? The delegate of Iran thought that it couldn’t get worst, but it did!
Then the delegate of USA told the delegate of Iran “SHUT UP”! Shut up? Has the delegate no notion of freedom of speech? Equality of rights under UN jurisdiction? Maybe not since the US solely managed to disregard the Security Council's decision when invading Afghanistan and Iraq…
Then the delegate continues, it mentioned what the Iranian delegate said in it’s previous post (“Mothers cry every single day with the lost of their children, children cry without the company of there parents and nights of sleep are lost because of the lack of information there is about who is in the war, these people are the ones that remember us what happen in Iraq.”) and said it was an EMOTINAL SPEECH. Delegate, it isn’t an emotional speech it is reality! These people wish it was an emotional speech, these people wish it was just a nightmare… While the American soldiers weren't particularly shooting down innocent women and children, they were, in fact, doing something called (you might want to take a note on that): aerial bombings!
The Iranian delegate don't know how it works in the USA, evidently, but the soldiers who fight for Iran actually believe in a cause and a purpose... it is evident that someone defending Bush who ran away from serving his country during the war in Vietnam, would not give value to the military... but just pointing out that, in real life, if an American political representative ever said anything even remotely similar to what u said, he would be simply banished for life. These soldiers are there because they are simply proud of being an American citizen, proud of being member of that nation (even though there is no actually reasons of being proud of…), however they believe that the people they voted to be in power are the ones that will do the right decisions. They truly considered that invading Iraq was a wish decision, however time passed and the only result were lives that were lost and the American citizen changed there opinions about it..
For the sake of the debate, please keep your opinion accurate to that of the United States of America
Please delegate, explain how WAR AGAINST TERRORIST destroy terror is? It is just a “synonym” for terror I self, just some pretty words that create an illusion that it is for a good cause but it’s not. The Iranian delegate knows how Bush administration was good in mixing up and using long and intelligent words just to pretend it was for what the population wanted but actually only looking for the interest the admistration and especially BUSH! “
With the Einstein quote you do admit that the US has made mistakes, ok... glad we got that out of the way….
Back to top Go down
View user profile
China_Rafael
HOT!
HOT!


Posts : 46
Join date : 2010-09-16
Age : 22
Location : Salvador, Bahia

PostSubject: Re: Case 1 - George W. Bush   Mon Sep 27, 2010 8:37 pm

usa_etienne wrote:
first of all i would like to state the iran might want to shut up about the nuclear weapon things since its own country right now is on its way to making nukes, and it might just have the same fate as iraq did once it starts menacing other countries such as israel...
i would also like the clarify to all of you people who talk about the american soldier loses as if it were G.B's fault or responsibility, (the delegate of Iran, very emotional speech about moms crying and stuff... (almost made me cry, really), and china) well guess what? sorry to break it down for you guys, but george bush will not be accused of killing his innocent soldiers because it is them themselves that signed up to the army, and to serve their country. nobody forced them to join the army, or am i wrong? it is not george bush that obliged them to sign in, but rather americans which for most soldier did not want to get a real job or whatever and so they sign up thinking oh well ill just chill out in the army since theres no war, and ill get food shelter and money! well tough luck, war broke out and they were called and some of them died... all i can say is too bad for them far having entered the army. if they didnt they wouldnt have died. so please dont bring up american troops dying again cause GB has nothing is not the one who made them die, it was their own choice.

and plan, what plan? where is the proof of that so called "plan"? where is the oil the you guys say was the porpuse of the invasion? i dont see the us with more oil than before.
and so you guys consider a person walking around shooting soldiers innocent people? ok now i see then... or more like i dont! of course there are always civilian casulties, that happens in every single war! but im not sure if you guys are aware, but the army was not shooting down women, kids (at least not the ones who were not carrying ak 47's and shooting at the army) and innocent people. i just dont see you guys can consider armed terrorists shooting at the army "innocent people".

and china, i really dont see where ur trying to get to with those two quotes... i do not see the US having taken taiwan as a military base so you might as well delete what u just wrote... even more the greedy part since the us obviously did not do anything that could be seen as the us trying to get bigger or richer or put a military base in taiwan. and the second quote is litteraly useless... look at what it says! "We will show our utmost willingness and try our best to win peaceful unification prospects, but we shall never
tolerate 'Taiwan Independence' or any attempt to make Taiwan secede from China"
it clearly says that they want unification so obviously their not gonna want its independence! so yeah i dont really see what position your reinforcing with that...

and wow i seriously cant believe you just wrote that sudan... all im gonna say is obviously sudanese people (the ones that are left) are gonna be happy with him, since he killed all the people that didnt like him, and just to let you know, i would like proof of this, taking the fact that to get him elected, the election was not even clean. they cheated to elect him! i dont see why they wouldnt cheat again and say that the remainder of the people (the ones he hasnt killed) are happy with him...

please people think twice on what you accuse bush of... really!

with an even bigger heart,
the delegate of the United States of America.

"A person who never made a mistake never tried anything new."
albert einstein

Dear delegate,

The second quote isn't useless, my dear delegate. It clearly displays that the U.S, then trying to achieve Taiwan independence,
would probably just make matters worse for that country, making them ruled by a poor and unstable government.

By the way delegate, here is the so called "OIL that never existed" the delegate of the United States was talking about:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2004/05/17/oil

Looks like it isn't actually unexistant, isn't it? Also delegate, Iraq's so called "terrorists" are known as freedom fighers
for a reason. They are manifesting their will for freedom against the U.S., since the United States of America is leeching
their resources and putting the blame for every terrorist act in innocent civilians. With each terrorist act, thousands of
civilians in Iraq are tortured in the United States in search for these so called terrorists. Bush is responsible for thousands of deaths,
and the delegate of the United States is aware of it.

With heart,
The Delegate of China.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
ICC U.S.A_Etienne
GodLike
GodLike


Posts : 56
Join date : 2010-09-16
Age : 75
Location : Salvador, Bahia

PostSubject: Re: Case 1 - George W. Bush   Mon Sep 27, 2010 11:22 pm

iran, (you might take a note on what im about to teach you here) i cant believe im actually gonna have to teach you about freedom of speech and emotional speeches... but apparently its really badly needed. now as for the freedom of speech... do you have any idea, iran, of how badly u contradicted yourself? well let me tell you right now. freedom of speech means that everyone is free to say whatever they want. i can say whatever i want, and you can say whatever you want. so yes, i didnt indeed tell you that you might want to shut up about that. so yes, i do have a notion of freedom of speech, unlike you do iran... or at least did, because i hope you learned now what freedom of speech is...
and now moving onto the emotional speeches... alright so let me start with what you said about it being the reality. reality in this case would have been stating the fact that families lost relatives. then when you add that mothers were crying and stuff, it becomes an emotional speech taken the fact that you brought emotions into telling the facts (for example crying. isnt crying something emotional?) nobody needed to know that moms are crying and ppl arent sleeping at night because they dont know what was going on down there, to get the point that there have been some loses in american families. i hope u learned now about what emotional speeches are, and what freedom of speech is about too...
and yes i am fully aware of those aerial bombings, and let me remind you of how u were whining about mothers crying and stuff about having lost their kids, well let me tell you, its just so that this doesnt happen more that they did those aerial bombings. its not the americans fault that some areas were full with terrorists not wanting to cooperate with the army, and the army is not trying to get its soldiers killed, other way around, it wants them to live, thats why they conducted aerial bombings. its quite funny actually how u guys can be support some people, and then the other right after when you see that supporting the others failed...
btw what do you inted to say when you say "banished for life"...? that just kinda shows you have no idea what ur talking about so u wanted to throw in a smart word...
and sorry to break it down for you, but if you want me to be able to reply to what you say, it might need to be understandable first...
"explain how WAR AGAINST TERRORIST destroy terror is? It is just a “synonym” for terror I self, just some pretty words that create an illusion that it is for a good cause but it’s not."
all of this is not exactly what i would call understandable... please make an effort in at least making sense with the wrong accusations you try to throw on bush.
btw... im not sure about you but i would much rather be pround of the beautiful strong and big country the united states of america is rather then a country with just sand rocks and scorpions...
euh big words? the only person right here that has been trying to use bigger words was you, iran, with your banished for life, which actually ended up failing pretty badly...
and hey look im sorry to have gotten ur hopes all high and stuff but that quote was a mere response filled with sarcasm towards the quote that the delegate of china put. i put the first quote by einstein that i saw... sort of what china did i guess...
and just to let you know, my position is very accurate, probably more than urs is...
and china, i would apreciate if you didnt have to everytime copy down the whole passage before writting your quote just to eat up space, since we all clearly know that u are talking about the US and what ive said, and no what iran said... so please for the following times just respond to it without copying all of this down again, thank you.
and just a little quesiton, but where is the evidence of that article? oh and btw heres what i found in your article:"
In theory, these vast sums were to be spent in an open, transparent manner solely for the benefit of the Iraqi people.
"
so yeah once again im not sure what ur trying to prove with that article, and quite frankly i would much rather trust a man like George Bush that was elected twice president of the united states of america, than by some radom guy whose name is Andrew Cockburn...
and please reread the quote u put up then, since it clearly stated that it did NOT want independance but PEACEFUL UNIFICATION PROSPECTS.
and euhmmmmmmm "With each terrorist act, thousands of
civilians in Iraq are tortured in the United States in search for these so called terrorists." WOW... can you please do me the favor of reading that over and telling me whats not too right in this sentence? id apreciate it...

once again, with and even bigger heart,
the delegat of the USA.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
China_Rafael
HOT!
HOT!


Posts : 46
Join date : 2010-09-16
Age : 22
Location : Salvador, Bahia

PostSubject: Re: Case 1 - George W. Bush   Mon Sep 27, 2010 11:53 pm

usa_etienne wrote:
iran, (you might take a note on what im about to teach you here) i cant believe im actually gonna have to teach you about freedom of speech and emotional speeches... but apparently its really badly needed. now as for the freedom of speech... do you have any idea, iran, of how badly u contradicted yourself? well let me tell you right now. freedom of speech means that everyone is free to say whatever they want. i can say whatever i want, and you can say whatever you want. so yes, i didnt indeed tell you that you might want to shut up about that. so yes, i do have a notion of freedom of speech, unlike you do iran... or at least did, because i hope you learned now what freedom of speech is...
and now moving onto the emotional speeches... alright so let me start with what you said about it being the reality. reality in this case would have been stating the fact that families lost relatives. then when you add that mothers were crying and stuff, it becomes an emotional speech taken the fact that you brought emotions into telling the facts (for example crying. isnt crying something emotional?) nobody needed to know that moms are crying and ppl arent sleeping at night because they dont know what was going on down there, to get the point that there have been some loses in american families. i hope u learned now about what emotional speeches are, and what freedom of speech is about too...
and yes i am fully aware of those aerial bombings, and let me remind you of how u were whining about mothers crying and stuff about having lost their kids, well let me tell you, its just so that this doesnt happen more that they did those aerial bombings. its not the americans fault that some areas were full with terrorists not wanting to cooperate with the army, and the army is not trying to get its soldiers killed, other way around, it wants them to live, thats why they conducted aerial bombings. its quite funny actually how u guys can be support some people, and then the other right after when you see that supporting the others failed...
btw what do you inted to say when you say "banished for life"...? that just kinda shows you have no idea what ur talking about so u wanted to throw in a smart word...
and sorry to break it down for you, but if you want me to be able to reply to what you say, it might need to be understandable first...
"explain how WAR AGAINST TERRORIST destroy terror is? It is just a “synonym” for terror I self, just some pretty words that create an illusion that it is for a good cause but it’s not."
all of this is not exactly what i would call understandable... please make an effort in at least making sense with the wrong accusations you try to throw on bush.
btw... im not sure about you but i would much rather be pround of the beautiful strong and big country the united states of america is rather then a country with just sand rocks and scorpions...
euh big words? the only person right here that has been trying to use bigger words was you, iran, with your banished for life, which actually ended up failing pretty badly...
and hey look im sorry to have gotten ur hopes all high and stuff but that quote was a mere response filled with sarcasm towards the quote that the delegate of china put. i put the first quote by einstein that i saw... sort of what china did i guess...

and just to let you know, my position is very accurate, probably more than urs is...
and china, i would apreciate if you didnt have to everytime copy down the whole passage before writting your quote just to eat up space, since we all clearly know that u are talking about the US and what ive said, and no what iran said... so please for the following times just respond to it without copying all of this down again, thank you.
and just a little quesiton, but where is the evidence of that article? oh and btw heres what i found in your article:"
In theory, these vast sums were to be spent in an open, transparent manner solely for the benefit of the Iraqi people.
"
so yeah once again im not sure what ur trying to prove with that article, and quite frankly i would much rather trust a man like George Bush that was elected twice president of the united states of america, than by some radom guy whose name is Andrew Cockburn...
and please reread the quote u put up then, since it clearly stated that it did NOT want independance but PEACEFUL UNIFICATION PROSPECTS.
and euhmmmmmmm "With each terrorist act, thousands of
civilians in Iraq are tortured in the United States in search for these so called terrorists." WOW... can you please do me the favor of reading that over and telling me whats not too right in this sentence? id apreciate it...


once again, with and even bigger heart,
the delegat of the USA.

Dear delegate,

I am sorry if you feel offended for me restating what was posted, but I am not doing this to occupy space, and by the delegate
arguing about that, you are the one trying to occupy space. The quote you posted said by Einstein has a meaning dear delegate, and if you put that in,
then you believe that the USA have indeed made mistakes. Also, dear delegate, since you love to use sarcasm, why didn't
you notice that the IN THEORY was actually filled with sarcasm? Also, dear delegate, the USA indeed wanted
Taiwan to have it's own independence, when sometimes it isn't actually the best for a country. Also dear delegate, that
quote is not what I put, it is something called a forum signature, which is something personal, so why respond towards it
with sarcasm? We are here to discuss our issues, and not talk about other quotes people choose to represent THEMSELVES.
Yes the US army has been torturing innocent civilians in search for the so called "terrorists", in hope that such innocent
civilians would know the whereabouts of a few of those. The USA army violates the human rights of various Iraqi civilians for a
manhunt, which they believe is right. Is it right to punish a family of 25 to find one member of it? Also, the delegate of
China would like to ask the delegate of the United States to refrain from commenting about emotional speech when your
whole post is pretty much an emotional speech.

With heart, (Seems like the Delegate of the USA has a bigger one)
The Delegate of China.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
IraqIcc_Chico
GodLike
GodLike


Posts : 67
Join date : 2010-09-28

PostSubject: United States of America   Tue Sep 28, 2010 5:41 pm

United States why did you let you let your people die in Katrina? Instead of using your armed forces to help you were busy Blasting Iraq to kingdom come... You should Also try to justify Abu Ghraib prison, the actions of your armed forces give you 3 options, (A) admit you have lost control of your troops (B) that you sanctioned torture... (C) all of the above Pick your option
By the way plese refrain from using cluster bombs because a few dont explode and end up exploding little kids because they are highly accurate they always hit the ground. this would make this much more interesting by the way is shooting people the best way o convice them you aint the Great Satan?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
ICCAfghanistan _Liz
Noob
Noob


Posts : 4
Join date : 2010-09-14

PostSubject: Re: Case 1 - George W. Bush   Tue Sep 28, 2010 10:05 pm

Sorry the delegate took long to post a reply in this page, she was too busy trying to sort out unbelievable lies in it. First of all, the delegates are not concerned with the invaluable lives of American soldiers, we don’t care, like you said they do sign up to die, but they are stupid enough to think they are dying for a good cause, they are actually proud to be Americans (don’t ask me, I don’t understand it either). With the excuse of fighting terrorism the American army has implemented terror themselves, isn’t it more than clear that this war against so called “terror” is going nowhere? Sometimes your extremely technological missiles, hit the Red Cross, sometimes relief warehouses, sometimes they kill a hospital, sometimes( or should I say oftenly?) they kill civilians. The smart American bombs are not that smart after all and although they can be pretty advanced they cannot differentiate between an ordinary Afghani and a “terrorist”(freedom fighters is the correct term here).
Quote :
I do genuinely believe the world is a safer place as a result.
WHAT?! Is the delegate serious? These countries have been completely destroyed after the American Invasion, look at Iraq or Afghanistan, just turn on your tv and watch the news, there is not one single day where there has been no bombings,deaths or mere casualties (what the western media likes to call when american soldiers "accidently"kill civilians). What exactly is safer after the invasion? Because the only word that could be implemented to my country situation is total chaos. If the American delegate is so familiar with the concept of freedom of speech and feels obligated to teach others, then please answer one simple question in your next lecture: Does freedom apply to other countries as well or just to the all mighty United States of America?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
IraqIcc_Chico
GodLike
GodLike


Posts : 67
Join date : 2010-09-28

PostSubject: Re: Case 1 - George W. Bush   Wed Sep 29, 2010 10:09 pm

ICCAfghanistan _Liz wrote:
Sorry the delegate took long to post a reply in this page, she was too busy trying to sort out unbelievable lies in it. First of all, the delegates are not concerned with the invaluable lives of American soldiers, we don’t care, like you said they do sign up to die, but they are stupid enough to think they are dying for a good cause, they are actually proud to be Americans (don’t ask me, I don’t understand it either). With the excuse of fighting terrorism the American army has implemented terror themselves, isn’t it more than clear that this war against so called “terror” is going nowhere? Sometimes your extremely technological missiles, hit the Red Cross, sometimes relief warehouses, sometimes they kill a hospital, sometimes( or should I say oftenly?) they kill civilians. The smart American bombs are not that smart after all and although they can be pretty advanced they cannot differentiate between an ordinary Afghani and a “terrorist”(freedom fighters is the correct term here).
Quote :
I do genuinely believe the world is a safer place as a result.
WHAT?! Is the delegate serious? These countries have been completely destroyed after the American Invasion, look at Iraq or Afghanistan, just turn on your tv and watch the news, there is not one single day where there has been no bombings,deaths or mere casualties (what the western media likes to call when american soldiers "accidently"kill civilians). What exactly is safer after the invasion? Because the only word that could be implemented to my country situation is total chaos. If the American delegate is so familiar with the concept of freedom of speech and feels obligated to teach others, then please answer one simple question in your next lecture: Does freedom apply to other countries as well or just to the all mighty United States of America?
Liz I believe an interesting fact is that the campaign money came in large part from guns industries that made big money during his "regime"?
USA Delegate why do you defend a man that lied to his own people? HE LIED TO YOUR OWN CONGRESS, DECLARED A WAR THAT PUT YOU IN MAJOR DEBT, WAS HATED BY HIS OWN PEOPLE, OVERRODE THE SECURITY COUNCIL, MESSED UP AMERICAN DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS AND HIS GOVERMENT UNDER PATRIOT ACT TAPPED HUNDREDS IF NOT THOUSAND OF CIVILIAN COMMUNICATIONS(VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 12 OF THE UN DECLARATION of HUMAN RIGHTS), AND HE PASSED A LAW WITH THIS EXACT CLAUSE Sec. 224. Sunset. UNDER PATRIOT ACT... WHAT DOES IT MEAN? CURFEW?


PS. LIZ I BELIEVE HE ALSO DAMAGED THE FREEDOM OF THE AMERICANS SPECIALLY IF THEY HAVE A BEARD AND WEAR A TURBAN OR HAVE THE NAME OSAMA OR MOHAMED. AFGHANISTAN, PLEASE ASK THEM TO STOP USING YOUR COUNTRY TO LAUNCH SURFACE TO SURFACE PREDATOR MISSILES AT WOMEN AND CHILDREN, THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ WOULD DEEPLY APPRECIATE IT.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
ICCUK_amanda
Yeah!
Yeah!


Posts : 22
Join date : 2010-09-16

PostSubject: Re: Case 1 - George W. Bush   Fri Oct 01, 2010 9:21 am

very briefly, the delegate of UK would protest the use of present tense, dear delegates. haven't you heard the war is over?
The events that took place in iraq were unfortunate calamaties of war, but can't be changed now. Those American's who proudly fought for their country- the country that felt a legitamate threat upon them and took action- did so becuase they believed they were protecting America, or even the world. Whether or not that was true is a matter of opinion, and one cannot be tried based on "opinion".
The delegate of the UK is skeptic that a country went to war with majority support and congress approval becuase of lies. Keep in mind that The United States of America was a broken country after 2001, and did what it had to to avoid future tragedies.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
ICC U.S.A_Etienne
GodLike
GodLike


Posts : 56
Join date : 2010-09-16
Age : 75
Location : Salvador, Bahia

PostSubject: Re: Case 1 - George W. Bush   Fri Oct 01, 2010 5:43 pm

alright guys, due to my fame, and everyone wanting to talk to me, i will be obliged to post a new post to reply to each individual, for it is too hard and annoying to answer to all at the same time. i will start by ralph, followed by chico, then liz, and last but not least amanda.
thank you for understanding,

with an even bigger heart (yes, the delegate of the U.S.A does indeed have a bigger one)
the delegate of the U.S.A - Etienne Pfister.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
ICC U.S.A_Etienne
GodLike
GodLike


Posts : 56
Join date : 2010-09-16
Age : 75
Location : Salvador, Bahia

PostSubject: Re: Case 1 - George W. Bush   Fri Oct 01, 2010 6:10 pm

China_Rafael wrote:
usa_etienne wrote:
iran, (you might take a note on what im about to teach you here) i cant believe im actually gonna have to teach you about freedom of speech and emotional speeches... but apparently its really badly needed. now as for the freedom of speech... do you have any idea, iran, of how badly u contradicted yourself? well let me tell you right now. freedom of speech means that everyone is free to say whatever they want. i can say whatever i want, and you can say whatever you want. so yes, i didnt indeed tell you that you might want to shut up about that. so yes, i do have a notion of freedom of speech, unlike you do iran... or at least did, because i hope you learned now what freedom of speech is...
and now moving onto the emotional speeches... alright so let me start with what you said about it being the reality. reality in this case would have been stating the fact that families lost relatives. then when you add that mothers were crying and stuff, it becomes an emotional speech taken the fact that you brought emotions into telling the facts (for example crying. isnt crying something emotional?) nobody needed to know that moms are crying and ppl arent sleeping at night because they dont know what was going on down there, to get the point that there have been some loses in american families. i hope u learned now about what emotional speeches are, and what freedom of speech is about too...
and yes i am fully aware of those aerial bombings, and let me remind you of how u were whining about mothers crying and stuff about having lost their kids, well let me tell you, its just so that this doesnt happen more that they did those aerial bombings. its not the americans fault that some areas were full with terrorists not wanting to cooperate with the army, and the army is not trying to get its soldiers killed, other way around, it wants them to live, thats why they conducted aerial bombings. its quite funny actually how u guys can be support some people, and then the other right after when you see that supporting the others failed...
btw what do you inted to say when you say "banished for life"...? that just kinda shows you have no idea what ur talking about so u wanted to throw in a smart word...
and sorry to break it down for you, but if you want me to be able to reply to what you say, it might need to be understandable first...
"explain how WAR AGAINST TERRORIST destroy terror is? It is just a “synonym” for terror I self, just some pretty words that create an illusion that it is for a good cause but it’s not."
all of this is not exactly what i would call understandable... please make an effort in at least making sense with the wrong accusations you try to throw on bush.
btw... im not sure about you but i would much rather be pround of the beautiful strong and big country the united states of america is rather then a country with just sand rocks and scorpions...
euh big words? the only person right here that has been trying to use bigger words was you, iran, with your banished for life, which actually ended up failing pretty badly...
and hey look im sorry to have gotten ur hopes all high and stuff but that quote was a mere response filled with sarcasm towards the quote that the delegate of china put. i put the first quote by einstein that i saw... sort of what china did i guess...

and just to let you know, my position is very accurate, probably more than urs is...
and china, i would apreciate if you didnt have to everytime copy down the whole passage before writting your quote just to eat up space, since we all clearly know that u are talking about the US and what ive said, and no what iran said... so please for the following times just respond to it without copying all of this down again, thank you.
and just a little quesiton, but where is the evidence of that article? oh and btw heres what i found in your article:"
In theory, these vast sums were to be spent in an open, transparent manner solely for the benefit of the Iraqi people.
"
so yeah once again im not sure what ur trying to prove with that article, and quite frankly i would much rather trust a man like George Bush that was elected twice president of the united states of america, than by some radom guy whose name is Andrew Cockburn...
and please reread the quote u put up then, since it clearly stated that it did NOT want independance but PEACEFUL UNIFICATION PROSPECTS.
and euhmmmmmmm "With each terrorist act, thousands of
civilians in Iraq are tortured in the United States in search for these so called terrorists." WOW... can you please do me the favor of reading that over and telling me whats not too right in this sentence? id apreciate it...


once again, with and even bigger heart,
the delegat of the USA.

Dear delegate,

I am sorry if you feel offended for me restating what was posted, but I am not doing this to occupy space, and by the delegate
arguing about that, you are the one trying to occupy space. The quote you posted said by Einstein has a meaning dear delegate, and if you put that in,
then you believe that the USA have indeed made mistakes. Also, dear delegate, since you love to use sarcasm, why didn't
you notice that the IN THEORY was actually filled with sarcasm? Also, dear delegate, the USA indeed wanted
Taiwan to have it's own independence, when sometimes it isn't actually the best for a country. Also dear delegate, that
quote is not what I put, it is something called a forum signature, which is something personal, so why respond towards it
with sarcasm? We are here to discuss our issues, and not talk about other quotes people choose to represent THEMSELVES.
Yes the US army has been torturing innocent civilians in search for the so called "terrorists", in hope that such innocent
civilians would know the whereabouts of a few of those. The USA army violates the human rights of various Iraqi civilians for a
manhunt, which they believe is right. Is it right to punish a family of 25 to find one member of it? Also, the delegate of
China would like to ask the delegate of the United States to refrain from commenting about emotional speech when your
whole post is pretty much an emotional speech.

With heart, (Seems like the Delegate of the USA has a bigger one)
The Delegate of China.

oh no dont worry ralph, i was not at all ofended, and i am not doing this to occupy space either, just like you are not trying to either, right? *cough, cough*
and no... sorry to have gotten you all so excited with that quote, but to me it didnt mean anything, i just looked up on google "quotes by einstein" and picked the first one, since that was what ralph had done i presume.
ok is the delegate of china telling me he is dumb? man, u just put up a quote saying that the U.S does not want at all Taiwan to obtain indepence, and u even use that as "good proof" of the usa being greedy, and now u tell me that the usa wanted taiwans independence? wow... euhm why dont you come and talk to me once u get ur ideas straight... ud do us all a big favor.
and is the delegate of china once again trying to tell me hes dumb? you are just trying to make us believe that ur "forum signature" is not you that put it there, and that u did nothing for it to show up there? "Also dear delegate, that
quote is not what I put". hmm must have been some crazy chinese dude bored out of his mind behind a computer somewhere in china i presume, i mean it happens all the time these days...

well if you want to accuse the usa of doing that, lets start accusing the taliban living in those reigions for having killed over 3000 people for no reason, and having destroyed the twin towers, and four airplanes, and part of the pentagon which if you stop to think about it for a minute, the cost of the little "joke" that the taliban played on the us would amount to maybe over a billion dollars. so if you want to argue that we have violated their human rights, ill just tell you right now, that they did first. and well if you have a family of 25 people (thats a pretty big family right there btw) and they are all armed with ak 47's, and shooting people, and most inportantly american soldiers and the usa is trying to find the most dangerous one of them all, i dont see how that is that bad at all, no...

oh so now all of my speech is "emotional"... hmm thats intersting... can you please read what i wrote before on the definition about emtional speeches, and teach urself from it like a big boy, and then come back to try to accuse me of making all my speeches emotional. thank you. and then if you still think im being "emotional", give me an example of such an accusation, where i was not doing it to be sarcastic replying to someone that had done it.

with an even bigger heart (yes, the delegate of the U.S.A does indeed have a bigger one)
the delegate of the U.S.A - Etienne Pfister.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
ICC U.S.A_Etienne
GodLike
GodLike


Posts : 56
Join date : 2010-09-16
Age : 75
Location : Salvador, Bahia

PostSubject: Re: Case 1 - George W. Bush   Sat Oct 02, 2010 12:56 pm

ICCAfghanistan _Liz wrote:
Sorry the delegate took long to post a reply in this page, she was too busy trying to sort out unbelievable lies in it. First of all, the delegates are not concerned with the invaluable lives of American soldiers, we don’t care, like you said they do sign up to die, but they are stupid enough to think they are dying for a good cause, they are actually proud to be Americans (don’t ask me, I don’t understand it either). With the excuse of fighting terrorism the American army has implemented terror themselves, isn’t it more than clear that this war against so called “terror” is going nowhere? Sometimes your extremely technological missiles, hit the Red Cross, sometimes relief warehouses, sometimes they kill a hospital, sometimes( or should I say oftenly?) they kill civilians. The smart American bombs are not that smart after all and although they can be pretty advanced they cannot differentiate between an ordinary Afghani and a “terrorist”(freedom fighters is the correct term here).
Quote :
I do genuinely believe the world is a safer place as a result.
WHAT?! Is the delegate serious? These countries have been completely destroyed after the American Invasion, look at Iraq or Afghanistan, just turn on your tv and watch the news, there is not one single day where there has been no bombings,deaths or mere casualties (what the western media likes to call when american soldiers "accidently"kill civilians). What exactly is safer after the invasion? Because the only word that could be implemented to my country situation is total chaos. If the American delegate is so familiar with the concept of freedom of speech and feels obligated to teach others, then please answer one simple question in your next lecture: Does freedom apply to other countries as well or just to the all mighty United States of America?

oh dont worry, i forgive you liz! well listen up, i never said that i dont care about all of the soldiers that died, i just said that it was not bushes fault that they died, and that he should not be held responsible for their deaths... and actually yes, this war did go somewhere, because at least now we expelled sadam hussain, which was making the country miserable and killing a lot of people himself. as for the missiles, this doesnt hasnt just happened in this war, but in all of the wars in the world... and like you just said about the american soldiers lives, we dont want them to die, we want the least deaths, and so that means not going in places infested with terrorists with ak 47s. and im pretty sure that ur forgetting the fact that the deaths and explosions dont just come from us, but also from some of ur crazy so called "freedom fighters" blowing themselves up in the middle of crouds. american invasion or not, these countries would have been just the way they are now, or even worst actually. and yes the world is a safer place now, because im not sure it was very safe when at any minute some crazy taliban guy could take over an airplane and run it into the first building he sees and killing thousands of ppl. and euhm im sorry but im not too famliar with the expression"killing a hospital"... could you please tell me how someone can kill a hospital? and another thing, where did i ever say that other countries did not have the freedom of speech? i would actually very greatly apreciate (and so would have george bush) that countries spoke with words instead of with airplanes running into buildings and ak 47s...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
ICC U.S.A_Etienne
GodLike
GodLike


Posts : 56
Join date : 2010-09-16
Age : 75
Location : Salvador, Bahia

PostSubject: Re: Case 1 - George W. Bush   Sat Oct 02, 2010 1:24 pm

IraqIcc_Chico wrote:
United States why did you let you let your people die in Katrina? Instead of using your armed forces to help you were busy Blasting Iraq to kingdom come... You should Also try to justify Abu Ghraib prison, the actions of your armed forces give you 3 options, (A) admit you have lost control of your troops (B) that you sanctioned torture... (C) all of the above Pick your option
By the way plese refrain from using cluster bombs because a few dont explode and end up exploding little kids because they are highly accurate they always hit the ground. this would make this much more interesting by the way is shooting people the best way o convice them you aint the Great Satan?

chico... why did i let my people die in katrina? well the answer is simple, im pretty sure that nobody can do anything against Mother Nature. if mother nature decides to whoop your a**, well it does. and you cant do anything about it... and just to let you know chico, if something like that were to have happened to ur country, now THEN there would have been aboslutly nothing of it! well actually yeah, cuz the USA would have probably sent aid...
and well its pretty cool that this all comes down to a multiple choice question! so ill go with (D) none of the above.
"By the way plese refrain from using cluster bombs because a few dont explode and end up exploding little kids because they are highly accurate they always hit the ground. this would make this much more interesting by the way is shooting people the best way o convice them you aint the Great Satan?"
euhhh... what? im sorry but if you cant write, dont even bother trying to... if the cluster bombs dont explode, how do they end up exploding little kids because they always hit the ground? thats a pretty big mystery right there... and for the Great Satan thing... please learn how to spell or write or whatever it is u need to learn.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
IraqIcc_Chico
GodLike
GodLike


Posts : 67
Join date : 2010-09-28

PostSubject: Re: Case 1 - George W. Bush   Sat Oct 02, 2010 4:30 pm

I was Ironic, Cluster bombs always land due to Gravity... Yet they come with an impact fuse that should detonate upon impact. they are inaccurate and are sometimes known as carpet bombs. Even after they strike the ground, many individual sub-munitions do not denotate due to defects in fuses or any other factor and remain as unstable explosive, similar to land mines that can explode at smallest disturbance... To spare a Long Lecture ON why its wrong, its known that USAF used them in Iraq under Bush, and Your coverment also Supplied them to Israel for use in Lebanon to quote the UNODA (UN Office for Disarmament Issues)Occasional Papers No. 17, October 2009 www.un.org/disarmament/HomePage/ODAPublications/OccasionalPapers/PDF/OP17.pdf
Quote :
Cluster munitions or cluster bombs are composed of a container or a canister used to disperse a quantity (from 10 to many hundreds) of smaller explosive devices. Those devices, called submunitions or bomblets, are the active element causing damage, injury and casual- ties through blast, incendiary effects or fragmentation........
Cluster munitions, when failing to explode on impact, remain on the ground, in vegetation or underground, and may detonate upon handling. They can persist for years with the potential to kill or maim, causing psychological trauma, death and life-long injuries. A failure rate of only 1% still represents a considerable amount of unexploded bomblets: 1% of 1,000,000 submunitions delivered is equivalent to 10,000 unexploded submunitions......
The United States Has Used them the most, In Cambodia, Bosnia, Afganistan, and Iraq, The US Goverment Is Responsible for this, and for the aAmerican made bomblets scattered in Civilian areas of Lebanon. Bush Used Them AND HIS GOVERMENT SUPPLIED THE MONEY AND WEAPONS ISRAEL USED IN LEBANON
Back to top Go down
View user profile
IraqIcc_Chico
GodLike
GodLike


Posts : 67
Join date : 2010-09-28

PostSubject: Re: Case 1 - George W. Bush   Sat Oct 02, 2010 8:11 pm

Quote :
Article 28Responsibility of commanders and other superiors

In addition to other grounds of criminal responsibility under this Statute for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court:
(a) A military commander or person effectively acting as a military commander shall be criminally responsible for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court committed by forces under his or her effective command and control, or effective authority and control as the case may be, as a result of his or her failure to exercise control properly over such forces, where:




          (i) That military commander or person either knew or, owing to the circumstances at the time, should have known that the forces were committing or about to commit such crimes; and (ii) That military commander or person failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures within his or her power to prevent or repress their commission or to submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution.



(b) With respect to superior and subordinate relationships not described in paragraph (a), a superior shall be criminally responsible for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court committed by subordinates under his or her effective authority and control, as a result of his or her failure to exercise control properly over such subordinates, where:




          (i) The superior either knew, or consciously disregarded information which clearly indicated, that the subordinates were committing or about to commit such crimes; (ii)The crimes concerned activities that were within the effective responsibility and control of the superior; and (iii) The superior failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures within his or her power to prevent or repress their commission or to submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution.



This means Bush is accountable for all crimes committed in Iraq as he is the Commander in Chief of all American armed forces including Guantanamo,

Now to the Crimes Alana will accuse you of I can but name a few(quoted by article to save space but can be quoted extensively if need arises)These neglect the minor crimes like Weapons restrictions.
Of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 17 July 1998
Article seven, clause 1, E,F,H,I,K
Article eight, clause 1,a,b (xxi)e(i,iv)
Unlawful invasion of a sovereign nation
Of the UDRH
Article 5 and article 9 towards Iraqi citizens, and people of other nationalities who were suspected terrorists Of course let us not forget Article 10 right to a trial.
Alana please feel free to add on any further accusations, as to the exact documents
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/585?OpenDocument Rome statute
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml declaration of human rights
Back to top Go down
View user profile
ICC U.S.A_Etienne
GodLike
GodLike


Posts : 56
Join date : 2010-09-16
Age : 75
Location : Salvador, Bahia

PostSubject: O   Sat Oct 02, 2010 8:49 pm

IraqIcc_Chico wrote:
ICCAfghanistan _Liz wrote:
Sorry the delegate took long to post a reply in this page, she was too busy trying to sort out unbelievable lies in it. First of all, the delegates are not concerned with the invaluable lives of American soldiers, we don’t care, like you said they do sign up to die, but they are stupid enough to think they are dying for a good cause, they are actually proud to be Americans (don’t ask me, I don’t understand it either). With the excuse of fighting terrorism the American army has implemented terror themselves, isn’t it more than clear that this war against so called “terror” is going nowhere? Sometimes your extremely technological missiles, hit the Red Cross, sometimes relief warehouses, sometimes they kill a hospital, sometimes( or should I say oftenly?) they kill civilians. The smart American bombs are not that smart after all and although they can be pretty advanced they cannot differentiate between an ordinary Afghani and a “terrorist”(freedom fighters is the correct term here).
Quote :
I do genuinely believe the world is a safer place as a result.
WHAT?! Is the delegate serious? These countries have been completely destroyed after the American Invasion, look at Iraq or Afghanistan, just turn on your tv and watch the news, there is not one single day where there has been no bombings,deaths or mere casualties (what the western media likes to call when american soldiers "accidently"kill civilians). What exactly is safer after the invasion? Because the only word that could be implemented to my country situation is total chaos. If the American delegate is so familiar with the concept of freedom of speech and feels obligated to teach others, then please answer one simple question in your next lecture: Does freedom apply to other countries as well or just to the all mighty United States of America?
Liz I believe an interesting fact is that the campaign money came in large part from guns industries that made big money during his "regime"?
USA Delegate why do you defend a man that lied to his own people? HE LIED TO YOUR OWN CONGRESS, DECLARED A WAR THAT PUT YOU IN MAJOR DEBT, WAS HATED BY HIS OWN PEOPLE, OVERRODE THE SECURITY COUNCIL, MESSED UP AMERICAN DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS AND HIS GOVERMENT UNDER PATRIOT ACT TAPPED HUNDREDS IF NOT THOUSAND OF CIVILIAN COMMUNICATIONS(VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 12 OF THE UN DECLARATION of HUMAN RIGHTS), AND HE PASSED A LAW WITH THIS EXACT CLAUSE Sec. 224. Sunset. UNDER PATRIOT ACT... WHAT DOES IT MEAN? CURFEW?


PS. LIZ I BELIEVE HE ALSO DAMAGED THE FREEDOM OF THE AMERICANS SPECIALLY IF THEY HAVE A BEARD AND WEAR A TURBAN OR HAVE THE NAME OSAMA OR MOHAMED. AFGHANISTAN, PLEASE ASK THEM TO STOP USING YOUR COUNTRY TO LAUNCH SURFACE TO SURFACE PREDATOR MISSILES AT WOMEN AND CHILDREN, THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ WOULD DEEPLY APPRECIATE IT.

well first thing i thought when i saw this reply was "heyy sweet its like reading a childrens book with all of the big capital colored lettersss Very Happy . so yeah thanks chico for making it easier for me to read and undertsand, i wouldnt have if it werent for that Wink .

and now as to answer you chico, and all of ur other posts that u posted now in vain, all im gonna say is that he did not lie to his own peole. in fact the majority of the coutries in the world first thought and believed as well that there were weapons, along with george bush of course, but the thing that differentiated him was that he had the guts go there and find them. and no, he was not hated by his people at all since the vast majority was for the war, and agains the vast majority REELECTED him for a second presidency. and as for violating this that bla bla bla, im sorry dude, but just to let u know, there was a man called saddam hussein that was basically being a dictator in ur country and was jsut about messing your whole country up, so you should thank us for what we did, even thought after the taliban that was so bored of shooting at scorpions and tarantulas in ur deserts decided to start attacking the american soldiers that were there trying to bring order to everything, so then my soldiers had to respond... and yep sorry but our army is much more powerful than a group of crazy "guys with beards and turbans" as u called them. so yeah as to violating all of those thingys u listed, once again in vain... george bush is the only man that had the cojones to actually do something about what was going on, istead of sittin there and watching things happen just like the UN is doing in darfur for example where there are people being killed and women getting raped at the very border of their refugee camps, and they dont do s*** about it. hes the only guy who decided that enough was enough and that things that are unjust should be taken care of, which they were in iraq with saddam hussein. so yeah i dont see why you would try to condemn a person who was the only one to stand up against injustice in the world.
and btw man, im sure ud agree that to ur list of Mohammed (spelled with two M's yes...) and osama, saddam and hussein could be added right? well SURPRISE!!! Very Happy the name of our PRESIDENT now is barack HUSSEIN obama, so no, those people are not really discrimated...

Back to top Go down
View user profile
IraqIcc_Chico
GodLike
GodLike


Posts : 67
Join date : 2010-09-28

PostSubject: Re: Case 1 - George W. Bush   Sun Oct 03, 2010 6:25 pm

ICC U.S.A_Etienne wrote:
IraqIcc_Chico wrote:
ICCAfghanistan _Liz wrote:
Sorry the delegate took long to post a reply in this page, she was too busy trying to sort out unbelievable lies in it. First of all, the delegates are not concerned with the invaluable lives of American soldiers, we don’t care, like you said they do sign up to die, but they are stupid enough to think they are dying for a good cause, they are actually proud to be Americans (don’t ask me, I don’t understand it either). With the excuse of fighting terrorism the American army has implemented terror themselves, isn’t it more than clear that this war against so called “terror” is going nowhere? Sometimes your extremely technological missiles, hit the Red Cross, sometimes relief warehouses, sometimes they kill a hospital, sometimes( or should I say oftenly?) they kill civilians. The smart American bombs are not that smart after all and although they can be pretty advanced they cannot differentiate between an ordinary Afghani and a “terrorist”(freedom fighters is the correct term here).
Quote :
I do genuinely believe the world is a safer place as a result.
WHAT?! Is the delegate serious? These countries have been completely destroyed after the American Invasion, look at Iraq or Afghanistan, just turn on your tv and watch the news, there is not one single day where there has been no bombings,deaths or mere casualties (what the western media likes to call when american soldiers "accidently"kill civilians). What exactly is safer after the invasion? Because the only word that could be implemented to my country situation is total chaos. If the American delegate is so familiar with the concept of freedom of speech and feels obligated to teach others, then please answer one simple question in your next lecture: Does freedom apply to other countries as well or just to the all mighty United States of America?
Liz I believe an interesting fact is that the campaign money came in large part from guns industries that made big money during his "regime"?
USA Delegate why do you defend a man that lied to his own people? HE LIED TO YOUR OWN CONGRESS, DECLARED A WAR THAT PUT YOU IN MAJOR DEBT, WAS HATED BY HIS OWN PEOPLE, OVERRODE THE SECURITY COUNCIL, MESSED UP AMERICAN DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS AND HIS GOVERMENT UNDER PATRIOT ACT TAPPED HUNDREDS IF NOT THOUSAND OF CIVILIAN COMMUNICATIONS(VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 12 OF THE UN DECLARATION of HUMAN RIGHTS), AND HE PASSED A LAW WITH THIS EXACT CLAUSE Sec. 224. Sunset. UNDER PATRIOT ACT... WHAT DOES IT MEAN? CURFEW?


PS. LIZ I BELIEVE HE ALSO DAMAGED THE FREEDOM OF THE AMERICANS SPECIALLY IF THEY HAVE A BEARD AND WEAR A TURBAN OR HAVE THE NAME OSAMA OR MOHAMED. AFGHANISTAN, PLEASE ASK THEM TO STOP USING YOUR COUNTRY TO LAUNCH SURFACE TO SURFACE PREDATOR MISSILES AT WOMEN AND CHILDREN, THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ WOULD DEEPLY APPRECIATE IT.

well first thing i thought when i saw this reply was "heyy sweet its like reading a childrens book with all of the big capital colored lettersss Very Happy . so yeah thanks chico for making it easier for me to read and undertsand, i wouldnt have if it werent for that Wink .

and now as to answer you chico, and all of ur other posts that u posted now in vain, all im gonna say is that he did not lie to his own peole. in fact the majority of the coutries in the world first thought and believed as well that there were weapons, along with george bush of course, but the thing that differentiated him was that he had the guts go there and find them. and no, he was not hated by his people at all since the vast majority was for the war, and agains the vast majority REELECTED him for a second presidency. and as for violating this that bla bla bla, im sorry dude, but just to let u know, there was a man called saddam hussein that was basically being a dictator in ur country and was jsut about messing your whole country up, so you should thank us for what we did, even thought after the taliban that was so bored of shooting at scorpions and tarantulas in ur deserts decided to start attacking the american soldiers that were there trying to bring order to everything, so then my soldiers had to respond... and yep sorry but our army is much more powerful than a group of crazy "guys with beards and turbans" as u called them. so yeah as to violating all of those thingys u listed, once again in vain... george bush is the only man that had the cojones to actually do something about what was going on, istead of sittin there and watching things happen just like the UN is doing in darfur for example where there are people being killed and women getting raped at the very border of their refugee camps, and they dont do s*** about it. hes the only guy who decided that enough was enough and that things that are unjust should be taken care of, which they were in iraq with saddam hussein. so yeah i dont see why you would try to condemn a person who was the only one to stand up against injustice in the world.
and btw man, im sure ud agree that to ur list of Mohammed (spelled with two M's yes...) and osama, saddam and hussein could be added right? well SURPRISE!!! Very Happy the name of our PRESIDENT now is barack HUSSEIN obama, so no, those people are not really discrimated...

Could the delegate please explain why there were massive civil rights movements against the patriot act saying it violated there privacy? Is the delegate aware that democracy is not a common value and should not be imposed with fraudulent election? Does the delegate WANT me to post the report submitted by the UN Inspectors in Iraq? There ARE reports saying our goverment colaborated and destroyed ALL WMDs does the delgate consider the IAEA and UN inspectors incompetent? the whole word said NO! Only the USA, UK (Blair was discharged from office for it), Australia and Canada invaded. the world said no bush tried to pass a resolution in the UNSC to allow the invasion and failed.
Bush was reelected in the after math of 9/11 promising revenge. revenge we had nothing to do with, as the CIA helped sponsor them. As to the fact of discrimination it is so obvious an article in the Patriot Act was passed to condem it.
The levels of violence and terrorism increased after the American invasion.
Bush had a long grudge with Saddam because of the Gulf War.
The predator missiles are launched from basses in Afghanistan and have cause dozens of deaths to innocent civilians.
and Did the delegate try to justify the massive violation of human rights?
Do the Iraqi people seem grateful you destroyed whatever infrastructure was left after the sanctions? YOUR SOLDIERS kill women and children not insurgents. The Taliban had no hold in Iraq Prior to invasion they were in Afghanistan in the mountains (not desert) perhaps the delegate should back up his information with a kindergarten atlas that shows were different countries. And those opinion the west holds of us is quite offensive. Injustice is to invade a country for oil and sponsor warring warlords, to generate chaos, or favorable dictators to allow US companies to prosper, something your country did for the last 50 years in Chile, Iran, Brasil, and countless other places. By the way the terrorist that are bombing civilians are using F-22 raptors and Reapers, and Predators missiles.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Case 1 - George W. Bush   

Back to top Go down
 
Case 1 - George W. Bush
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 4Go to page : 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 Similar topics
-
» In Case of Collapse of Civilization Break Glass
» Steve the Sheriff 2: The Case of the Missing Thing (HOG/FROG/Pop-up)
» In case you have yet to hear of it, Crysis 3's new multiplayer mode is probably the most BA thing ever.
» 1991 Triad FBI Case File
» African Bush Elephant

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
SALMUN :: Debate :: International Criminal Court-
Jump to: