Case 1 - George W. Bush

@afghanistan and china... let me inform you both that you have both royally wasted ur time. let me remind you delegates once again that the topic at hand is IRAQ, and his WAR CRIMES IN IRAQ, NOT guantanamo or afghanistan invasion. try again later, better luck next time!

@sudan: dear delegate of sudan, even if the UN made a search, does that not mean that iraq could still have been hiding weapons somewhere? maybe like in a place or more like hole where their dictator saddam hussein was found hiding... and delegate of iran... AT LEAST MY PRESIDENT DID NOT KILL HIS OWN PEOPLE!.

@china: the delegate of the USA doenst really care either about pakistan, so i will simply not waste my time on reply to something like that...

Delegate of USA, Bush commited much more than crimes in Iraq! How are we suppose to trial him if we ignore half of the crimes he commited! The ICC purpose is justice how do you expect to impose justice in the wolrd at the same time you ignore all the facts!?!

@delegate of China: ohh but how unfortunate the situation is here then! sorry, but this court session will ONLY DISCUSS THE "CRIMES" OR WHATEVER THAT GEORGE BUSH COMMITTED IN IRAQ AND IRAQ ONLY! but really they are not crimes that he committed...

If Bush didn't destroy countries; economy, disrespected their autonomy and killed thousands and thousands of inocents then there is no point on hiding! I mean, if the delegate is so sure Bush is innocent, what is the point of ignoring other relevants events? Thruth is, if its true that Bush commited mass murders around the globe, than what the point on trialing him over mass murders in two countries! Bush should be even trialed for his crime of using federal funs to propagandize the americans, and what he did in his own country - using federal money for personal use! Bush (w/ Uribe) bombed Ecuador in 2008! So are we suppose to just ignore the 28 lives lost, the hundreds of wounded?

Serisouly, if Bush commited no crimes then there is no problem in answering other delegates' question! Unless, he did or the delegate isn't capable of!

china the thing is not that im not able to, its simply that i wont waste my time doing it since here my job is to defend him on the topic of the war of iraq. you guys can all say however much u want, i simply wont answer for it is completly irrelevant to the topic, and it is not my job to.

delegates, there is one thing i would like to clarify about the "torture" that george bush committed... waterboarding, which is the only thing to which he admitted to, was actually to his and the united states eyes legal, since they passed a law before it was done saying that the definition of torture did NOT include waterboarding as it does not injure you.

Also delegate, try to stop with the first-person and second-person stuff.

delegate, i just said it was NOT torture, so no it wasnt torture period. the united states passed a law defining what torture was, and waterboarding was clearly not considered torture. and delegate i can use the first person here, this is the ICC, i just cannot say "i" as if i were george bush myself.

It was still, clearly, cruel because the American government was simulating drowning. Couldn't the government have noticed how awful it was? even if not considered torture?

Dear Delegations....

Quote :

The US and ICC has made in the past bias and non-fact based accusations, and are now accusing the most prestigious president Sudan ever had for war crimes, and once again, with no evidence.

This is irrelevant to the case of Omar Al- Bashir, they are completely unrelated. Delegate, The prosecutor may respond to that in the other Case....
And as for this:

Quote :

Shocks were already
applied, and beatings too, but this was, in a way, out of the ordinary, considering that the USA is the "righteous
country, that wants world peace."

The delegation of UK does not approve of waterboarding, but as for shocks or beatings- if they indeed occur- would have most likely been committed without consent awareness of the President. these things, which are illegal according to United States law, would have only occured illegally, and therefoer do not represent the United States of America. These soldiers who broke the law should not represent an entire army. But let the Delegation of UK be clear, that it does not approve of torture.
Sincerely,
The delegation of the United Kingdom

delegate of germany... of course that it is horrible, but the fact was that for the americans, it was legal. and just to let you know, people at war, under constant fear and ENOURMOUS threat, act differently than they would in normal life. and sometimes simply asking someone nicely for information, will not reslut in anything.... its not like terrorist are gonna give out valuable information if you tell them ull give them a cookie... in times of war, things get nasty, and drastic measures have to be taken, but what George Bush had agreed to, was legal within his coutry's laws.

delegate, in every war someone profits. In the run for presidency Geroge W bush receibed a massive support by the weapons industry and oil companies specially Harliburton. It so happens that these two industries are the ones that profit the most in a war. In the first 3 minutes of the war in Iraq these companies profited 17 million dollars only with the Tomahawk Missiles. That was only 3 minutes, imagine the total sum after these everlasting combats? It so happens that the company responsible for the oil in Iraq is the same that supported President Bush, Harliburton, and it so happens that there was no selection process to decide in which company should go to Iraq, the Harliburton was simply nominated by the government.

dear delegate of china... im sorry but i did not understand at all what your point was... all i can say is that if your blaming george bush for having done this to profit, i must inform you on the amout of money that the USA spent for the war: about 900 BILLION $$. does the delegate still believe that the USA profited from this war?