Author Topic: Persecute or Prosecute? (Read 312 times)

bounder · « **on:** January 23, 2003, 08:09:34 AM »

George Bush speaks:

Quote

from CNN
Bush warned Iraqi military leaders Wednesday not to use weapons of mass destruction against U.S. troops or "innocent lives within Iraq." If they do, he said, "When Iraq is liberated, you will be treated, tried, and persecuted as a war criminal."

Tell me the leader of the free world knows the difference between persecute and prosecute.

If he does, then he seems to think that the best way to deal with Iraqi generals using NBC weapons is to :

"... oppress or harass [them] with ill-treatment"

Of course, if they refuse orders to deploy NBC munitions, I imagine they will be persecuted anyway.

Or he means prosecute, in which case you have to put yourself in the position of an Iraqi miltary leader....

Saddam: "I want you to drop VX shells on allied positions";
General (thinks): "Uh Oh. If I do then I will be tried as a war criminal, and if I don't I will get a bullet in my head";
Saddam: "General, do you hear me?";
General: "Right you are sir, VX shells, allied positions, right away sir"(exeunt stage left, FX:divers alarums);

either way, I can only assume that this statement was intended for the domestic market, where the subtle difference is unlikely to be noticed; since it won't make an iota of difference to the Iraqi brass.

[edit - color code etc. didn;t work at first]

miko2d · « **Reply #1 on:** January 23, 2003, 09:59:13 AM »

The "leader of the free world" has a mild form of dyslexia. That is besides the fact that even trained radio/TV speakers often mispronounce similarly-sounding words.

If US ever attacks Iraq - to which I personally oppose, BTW - the use of chemicals/biologicals will not change the outcome.
All Bush's statement is intended to achieve is to dissuade some officers from causing more american and iraqi casualties in a suicidal stand.

So the scenario would be more like that:

Saddam: "I want you to drop VX shells on allied positions";
General (thinks): "Uh Oh. The situation is already so bad?! Where is my white flag?";

miko

hawk220 · « **Reply #2 on:** January 23, 2003, 12:10:46 PM »

yes, we are embarrased at our fearless leader's ability to speak his mother tounge and form coherent sentences.

Eagler · « **Reply #3 on:** January 23, 2003, 12:26:34 PM »

actions speak louder than words ...........

they'll figure out what he meant after he does it

whgates3 · « **Reply #4 on:** January 23, 2003, 12:35:03 PM »

i wouldn't be too worried if i were them...nobody ever prosecuted whomever ordered the use of the i-can-believe-its-not-depleted uranium artillery shells...BTW anyone know if GWS affected any non US coalition forces from gulf war I?

bounder · « **Reply #5 on:** January 23, 2003, 01:54:14 PM »

There was a long debate in the UK about Gulf War Syndrome which ended with the MOD flatly denying it even existed.

Even if GWS has psychological aetiology, it is still a syndrome, but the MOD refuse to even acknowledge their data is incomplete.

The MOD have a long record of flatly denying things that later turn out to be true.

john9001 · « **Reply #6 on:** January 23, 2003, 02:25:15 PM »

This point has been made before , but i'd like to make it again. The people who are against the "war" say iraq has no WMD so we should not attack.
The same people say if you do attack, iraq will use the WMD that they do not have.

iraq either has WMD or they don't

If iraq has WMD , they have broken the UN cease fire treaty, if iraq has no WMD they can't use them against our troops.

midnight Target · « **Reply #7 on:** January 23, 2003, 03:26:43 PM »

Clinton never once said Nuc-YOU-ler.